Technorati Tags: 2008 US Elections
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Anyone see anything wrong with the title of this post. It says Immigration. See that's the problem. The question ought never be about "immigration" it ought to be about "illegal immigration."
Obama and Clinton were asked about the effects of [illegal] immigration on the African-American community. THey did not say "illegal" immigration and nor did they mention "poor." The question ought to have been:
What is the effect of illegal immigration on poor African-Americans. Obama ducked the question by saying, insultingly I may add, that balck folk talking about immigrants are scapegoating. Bullshit. Clinton made a far better statement and acknowledged that businesses exploit illegal immigrants to the detriment of US Citizens and legal residents. So her statements jibes with the facts on the ground which is that the presence of illegal immigrants "entices" businesses to suppress wages. I have discussed this at length and have proof of this issue here
I would ask that Obama desist from insulting the intelligence of African-Americans on this subject in his effort to pander to Hispanics. It's not necessary.
Oh an on drivers licenses: Driving is a privilege and not a right. The reason why licenses for illegal immigrants in NY was rejected by the voter was because New Yorkers, by and large are pissed off at being ticketed, fined and whatnot, made to dig up proof of personhood by the government for the privilege of driving and then be told that folks who have no legal right to even be in the state are to be afforded that same "privilege." Since I agree that people ought not to be made to show papers to prove they are citizens or legal residents to police officers, then I agree that drivers licenses ought not be handed out to illegal immigrants. That way it is assumed one is driving legally, one remains assumed to be in the country legally since one is driving because one has already vetted oneself prior to getting the license.
Technorati Tags: 2008 US Elections
I said that Ron Paul would be a force to pull Republicans to the left if for no other reason than that he would bring the Anti-War message to a crowd that was used to not hearing it and would be able to confront those who were pro war by assailing their logic. He would also be able to lay bare the fake economic message that many of these Republicans pass off to the public. Maybe I credit Paul too much for this but I find Cockburn's statement on the matter to be reflective:
However, the supersensitive antennae of Dickie Morris twitched alertly on Tuesday night on the Fox Channel as he pored over exit polls in Florida and declared that (a) he could detect signs that the Republican Party was lurching to the left because of the economy and (b) that such votes as Edwards was getting in Florida came from people who could not bring themselves to vote for a woman or a black. Maybe that type of voter will switch allegiance to Ron Paul on Super Tuesday.
Trending left you say? Republicans have been used to voting against their self interests for a while now. I stand by my position that Paul's candidacy has exposed it and a significant portion of Republicans are beginning to see that they are being played but can't bring themselves to align with someone they consider "liberal."
In related Paul news we have the following statement, which is old news really:
It's true he should have been more vocal, denouncing those racist newsletters that went out over his letterhead, but one the other hand there's his forthright statement to Wolf Blitzer on CNN on January 10:
I attack two wars that blacks are suffering from. One, the war overseas. In all wars minorities suffer the most. So they join me in this position I have against the war in Iraq. And what about the war on drugs? What other candidate will stand up and say I will pardon all blacks, all whites, everybody who were convicted for non-violent drug acts and drug crimes. And this is where the real discrimination is. if you want to look for discrimination, it's the judicial system. So I am the antiracist because I am the only candidate, Republican or Democrat, who [wants to] protect the minority against these vicious drug laws.
I'm not prepared to hand Ron Paul, Anti-Racist papers, but he's right on track with his position on prisons. Don't expect anyone on the left, still in the game to even approach this level of discourse during the election cycle, even if they are amenable to the idea. Talk about change. After receiving e-mails with a phot of Obama and his wife in NH, and telling me to vote for him because of the cute picture, I don't think too many black folk are really paying attention anyway.
Oh and in passing Giuliani has apparently admitted that Ron Paul won the debates.
And Ron Paul...
... who won all the debates, on that thing where you call in all the time. I used to watch it afterwards at night when I'd go back to my room and Ron Paul would win all the debates.
We told you that already didn't we?
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
As I warned people in my last post, Obama's victory in SC was race based and did not bode well. the Florida count shows a Hillary victory about on par with Obama's performance in SC. If this pattern continues into super Tuesday, Obama is toast. Of significance this time is that the voting process in Fl is closed so we do not know what impact independent voters would have had. You'll note that Obama did well in counties with Black colleges and bordering other southern states with large black populations. My prediction: Obama campaign advertisements will be flush with white faces.
Oh and about Giuliani. This is for Diallo and Louima. This is for Patrick Dorismond. This is for every brother undeservedly harassed by "Giuliani time" police officers. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Technorati Tags: 2008 US Elections
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Found this video on the "assault" site:
And I wrote the following comment:
I disagree. And the video, while interesting only deals with the hand counted ballots which I understand went in favor of Obama. The question that wasn't asked was whether ballots have ever been moved "from the vault" in any other election.
The "piece of paper" question is not as significant as it seems because if anyone is familiar with a crime scene one will know that such things are done regularly and accepted as "sealed" evidence.
When the videographer returns on Jan 323 they state they went with "Butch and Hoppy" They went into a building that was open, but they did not say when the building was opened and by whom. Shall I assume they didn't ask or is it they didn't think it was an important thing to put to tape.
Then the only act of verified ballot tampering was by these individuals who were let into the building by authorized agents.
Nor did the individuals discuss or state whether the "seal" on the room door was broken or appeared tampered with. Nor did the videographers determine whether anyone had entered the locked building between the time they left and the 23. Why not? It's important.
Lastly you will note that the seals on the boxes were very "tight" and sealed from end to end and has the signature of one "p histon".
The tape that these videographers used, once pulled off was not sealed end to end, nor did it have the signature of the authorized signator. Tell you what.. you try to sign my signature and I bet you anyone who knows it will know it's fake.
This video is proof of absolutely nothing and would be DEMOLISHED in court. The reasonable doubt factor is HUGE.
I want to extend this comment because this is important because reckless charges of voter fraud will become a problem when actual voter fraud happens. If the videographers of the above video wanted to prove that the ballots were tampered with, why didn't they stay at the building all night? Why not have friends sit outside of every entrance to the building? Wouldn't that at least prove once and for all whether someone entered the building after hours and tampered with the boxes?
Ars Technica has an interesting analysis of the controversy which has this to say:
Clinton Optical scan 91,717 52.95%
Obama Optical scan 81,495 47.05%
Clinton Hand-counted 20,889 47.05%
Obama Hand-counted 23,509 52.95%
These numbers flew across the Internet, and for those who suspected election fraud, the table above was a smoking gun. Except that it wasn't a smoking gun—it was more like a temporary shape in the clouds that, for a brief moment, looked exactly like a smoking gun.
When I first saw those numbers my initial reaction was that they were fishy; and not fishy in the "Clinton really did steal the election" sense, but in the "something's wrong with the source data here" sense. I wracked my brain for possible fraud-related explanations, but ultimately I just couldn't conceive of an election theft situation that would result in a symmetry like this. I mean, no fraudster would deliberately do something as bizarre as reverse the hand-count and machine-count percentages like that. It made no sense.
After grabbing a copy of O'Dell's spreadsheet and hitting the NH Secretary of State's web site to compare and crunch the numbers myself, I soon discovered that there were two major problems with O'Dell's vote totals and with the remarkable symmetrical percentages that they produced. (Note that I was not alone in these conclusions; there were a few people in one of the forum threads I was monitoring who were asking the same questions.)
First, I spotted a number of districts that the spreadsheet incorrectly listed as "hand-count" districts, but that the NH Secretary of State's web site listed as machine-count districts. As it turns out, fourteen districts were incorrectly identified as hand-counted in O'Dell's source. So moving those fourteen counties from the "hand count" into the "machine count" column made the symmetry disappear. It also made the discrepancy between the hand count and machine count even wider, but more on that later.
The second thing wrong with the table above is that the numbers on which it was based were preliminary, and were still being updated on the Secretary of State web site. The updated vote tallies, which I accessed and compared to O'Dell's spreadsheet, also destroyed the symmetry of the percentages.
But lets go even further than this, Lets assume that the mirror image results were the final results. According to the video above, not only would someone have had to gain entrance to the building without being recorded on the scanner. They would have to have a key to the room, break the seal and replace with an identical seal with the proper signature AND position it exactly like the other one in order to cover any adhesive residue, they would also have to have carried in an exactly correct number of ballots for Obama AND Clinton AND put those in enough boxes to make it look random and do it in enough time to not get caught. You'll note that the original seal shown on the "test box" in the video is clearly intact and unbroken.
So in essence the charge is that the secretary of state or whomever it was that is responsible for the ballots, gave someone access, had the log of entry and any video erased. He also gave this hypothetical person new seals with the proper signatures AND the exact numbers of ballots to add to the various boxes (and if stuffing the ballot resulted in an over count, then the person knew how many to remove from which ever counties. Got that?
I'll wait for someone to post on how and when that happened but I'm not holding my breath.
Technorati Tags: 2008 US Elections
Saturday, January 26, 2008
But Edwards is made kingmaker (or queenmaker) for SC since in much of the state so far, Clinton's loss margin is almost equal to the votes given to Edwards. Should Edwards pass his people to Obama, Obama will take SC in the general election. Why? Look at the numbers between McCain (current front runner) and Obama, Obama has carried more counties than McCain and by wider vote margins.
Interesting Exit Polls from SC:
Obama took 78% of the black vote. Edwards and Clinton split the white vote practically in half with Edwards taking a slight lead. This underscores Edward's King/queenmaking ability. Further study of the black turnout is that there is no so called "generational gap" among Black Obama supporters as he polled at least in the 70 percentiles in all age groups. There IS a generational gap to be seen in whites between ages 18-29 (those more likely to be star struck and adhere to "post-racial" ideologies).
There are two things that stand out from this exit poll to me:
1) There is very little fluxuation between voter choice vs. the issues. It seems to me that most of the voters had their minds made up and if anything the Dr. King events only hardened peoples decisions. Usually you'll see a fluctuation based on issues. If Iraq was an issue then Republicans voted McCain, if Religion was an issue, Repubs voted Huckabee. In the Democratic primary almost across the board, it was Barack. You cannot tell me that this was about 'issues" when it is clear that blacks voted the black candidate across the board and whites voted the white candidates across the board. It is clear that for whites in SC, the decision was between gender, the race issue was mostly settled.
This brings up an interesting issue. What if there was another black candidate to choose from. What if a candidate with Obama's qualifications and money were in the race? In one sense Obama has an advantage over his opponents, the fact that he is the lone black candidate works in his favor when race is "off the table" for whites, or "on the table" for blacks." This brings me to point two.
2) If there is anything that will come out of a Obama presidency it will get African-Americans out of the "first one" cave that they are currently operating in. Just like with NYC's David Dinkins and other cities with black governors and mayors. Once it's been done, when the euphoria wears off, the black electorate of those places matures and gets back to issues and race can no longer be used in the political game with much results. It is similar to Representative Keith Ellison. After him, the issue of running for a congressional seat as a Muslim becomes less of a thing because a successful Ellison term takes the issue off the table.
Oh and lastly it appears that the Obama campaign has seen the light in regards to my suggestion that they drop "si se puede" as their chant. They've reverted to the English translation. Smart move.
Technorati Tags: 2008 US Elections
Thursday, January 24, 2008
It is said that insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results. Again this cycle so called progressives are again seeking the "electable" candidate. This chase puts to a lie the desire for "change" that so many are claiming they are for. Clearly anyone who enters the White House is going to be a change. But so called "progressives" like their Republican counterparts are stuck on "electability " and so the candidates who are clearly not bought and espousing serious policy changes are far and away down the polls. Why?
So called Progressives, especially those white ones that post regularly on Alternet and Kos, are mad at Kucinich over two things. His change of heart over abortion and his "Anyone but Bush" endorsement of John Kerry in the 2004 race. That's all. These high and mighty so called "Progressives" saw fit to make Kucinich "pay" for his "mistake" and now they have their pound of flesh. I hope it was worth it.
If the Libertarian in Republican clothing could out fundraise his opponents, then I'm asking what they hell happened to the supposed "change seekers" out there?
True this election cycle has been like one very long run of American Idol, and I mean that literally because you do realize that those that run the show have the final say regardless to what the "voting" audience says. The media went out of it's way to make a mockery of both Paul and Kucinich yet anyone who was astute saw what was going on. When Kucinich was barred from one of the debates I was thinking that the right thing for the other candidates to do was to bow out of the debate over that. At least it would show their dedication to fairness and democracy, but they didn't so I knew right there who and what they were about. I thought it was even worse for Obama simply because he had kept saying all this stuff about no more "politics as usual." Apparently that doesn't include the politics of media control. But hey what does THAT matter?
But at the end of the day the very people who claimed to be for real "change" simply did not show up money wise or vote wise. It says much about where the country is too. Democrats are on some "anything for the White House" race, and Republicans are trying their best to scare themselves into another Republican administration.
But anyway, after the announcement expect the so called "progressive" sites and blogs to go on about Kuciniche's Ohio problems or how he wasn't a serious candidate or how there was some media conspiracy. But the reality will be there clear as day for anyone to see: Americans don't want change, they simply want to feel good. And as for the Democratic party, consider it terminally infected by corporate interests. I suggest real "progressives" jump ship immediately and form some kind of national party that will have the organization and funds to run their own debates, advertisements, etc. and start grooming candidates with debate skills.
This site is not called Be Nice to Prominent Black People Report.
WORD. Add Garvey's Ghost to that sentiment too. We don't care who the Negro is, How high the Negro is or who the Negro knows. If the Negro takes a dump on Black Folk we will call him or her out. Period. This ain't no game.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
A quick note for those who have been following us. There may be a question as to why after all these years has there been no announcement of a winner or winners. The reason is simple, like most other scholarships available, this one goes unclaimed and un-applied for. The first year I received a phone call from a young lady in Atlanta asking if the scholarship was still available. This was about a week before the May 1 deadline. Had she applied she would have been the only applicant AND assuming she qualified would have won. The next two years I received a call from a person who was at a non-qualifying institution and I received a letter from a scam artist who thought that sending me a thick letter explaining their financial situation and life circumstances would make me hand over my cash. No.
So for those interested, or who know persons who would be interested let me say this: This is a serious offer. I require that one of the two questions be answered because this is not a "your black and poor therefore you get money" Scholarship. This is a reward to those persons who are serious about the issues facing African people and are serious about applying their skills to dealing with those issues. This is for thinkers and doers. No a 2.9 GPA is not enough. No, a 3.0 is not asking too much (that's lower than my graduating GPA by a few points). If you cannot maintain at least a 3.0 GPA then I'm not entirely convinced you're serious about study, discipline and sacrifice, all that are needed to address the issues facing African people.
For those who would like to donate, please do so. If there are not enough donations then all the scholarships will not be awarded (in the case that enough apps come in in all qualifying areas). If you don't want to simply give up 25 bucks then purchase a shirt so you can feel like you got something.
Thanks again, spread the word and put your money where your mouth is.
Monday, January 21, 2008
And I'm not talking about Obama.
Yesterday I was watching one of those "more conservative" black shows on ABC and they said that Obama is running for president of all Americans not just African-Americans. I've heard this many times and it bothers me a great deal. The implication of this statement is that the wishes of Black America or of less importance of any other group and/or black America's issues are somehow not good for the whole country. That is, they are only good for black Americans.
The problem with this analysis is that it is defied by the history of black struggles in America. The public school system was the creation of the black representatives during reconstruction. Indeed they wanted to get education for the newly "emancipated" Africans in America, but that same public school system would educate countless white people. So here we have an example of where the desires of black folk turned out to be beneficial to the entire population.
Another example is the Civil Rights Act itself. Anyone who reads the document will clearly see that it is not directed only at Black people as it includes protections for ethnic groups, gender, etc. Again mostly black folk who took water hoses, dogs, lynchings, etc. got legislation through that now protects a large number of people many of whom lifted nary a finger to gain those protections.
Want more? How about Affirmative Action, Supposedly this executive order was to help blacks, but the data is clear that the group that has benefitted the most from Affirmative Action programs are white women..
These are but a few examples of how "black issues" have been beneficial for the country. So it is high time that the marginalization of black issues as somehow not good enough for everybody, when it has been "black issues" that have been at the forefront of holding the US to it's constitution, stop. When you hear this nonsense, let 'em know.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Do you think of yourself as white? No. I’m half white, half Asian. I think of myself as hybrid. People usually think I’m Latina when they meet me. That’s what made me learn Spanish.
Actually my dear, Caucasians and Asians are pretty closely related genetically. More so than Caucasians and Africans so that statement isn't really accurate on a genetic level though as always the social construct can be twisted to fit whatever.
And so Senator Obama is said to:
Obama said blacks often have been the victims of injustice, but he said they also have perpetrated divisions with gays, Jews and immigrants.
I won't dispute the homosexual issue, but exactly what is this thing on Jews? Seriously. Perhaps he's been spending to much time with Abe Foxman. Don't expect the so called black media (with possible exception of Black Agenda Report) to question that line. Also I think the line on immigrants is out of line, since no black person I've spoken to, including most of the more radical ones are opposed to immigrants. We are all unified in our observation that illegal immigrants are used to suppress wages that the poor and working class compete and we can prove it. We are also well aware of some of the bigoted attitudes that many immigrants come into the US with and we don't apologize for calling it out. Nor should we have to. I do hope that this portion of the speech is not a Obama aping Bill Clinton, "souljah" moment. Not that the general black electorate will care, especially those in DeKalb county.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Ron Paul is beating Giuliani (again) and Fred Thompson (again) and Mike Huckabee (New) and is just behind John McCain.
This is some serious ish here. Ron Paul placing third anywhere is guaranteed to make the rest of the Republican field shit in their pants.
Did I mention I'm happy that Giuliani is doing so poorly?
In other news John Edwards continues his decline as the Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton ticket continues to be pushed down the throats of Democrats. And I'm leaning towards a probable Clinton-Obama ticket.
[Update- 5:06 PM]
Ron Paul has squeaked past John McCain to grab second place by about 40 votes. Even I'm shocked. Remember how after the FOX debates, everyone in the FOX "sample" room voted that Ron Paul lost the debate but how most of the respondents over the phone said that Ron Paul won the debate and the host guy laughed it off? I bet they have just wet their pants. Right now in terms of vote counts, Ron Paul is about as electable as Obama. Ain't that funny?
On Nightline last night they showed some local hoes, well that's what they are, who said they were for Ron Paul, one even said she asked for a donation before beginning "services" and had gotten one john to part with $1,000 bucks. Somebody needs to get these hoes on staff. And like I said, they are actual hoes so there's no insult meant in the use of the word.
[Update 10:02 PM]
Another Happy moment. Giuliani is beaten by Ron Paul in South Carolina. Also we find that:
Further, a plurality said the most important quality they were looking for in a candidate was that he shares their values; they favored Mr. Huckabee over Mr. McCain and Mr. Romney by more than three to one. They cared less about a candidate who says what he believes, which Mr. McCain has made his signature quality.
I very telling comment there. Republicans care less about candidates that say what they feel? So they would rather a candidate that is fake? Pretty sad if you ask me.
Friday, January 18, 2008
by Onyemobi Anyiwo
The spiritual system of Ndi Igbo (the Igbo people) is one of the
oldest on Earth. The roots of Igbo spirituality is the same as the
roots of every other African one; that is, in . Igbo
spirituality predates Islam, Christianity, Judaism and every other
-ism that one can think of. If there are any similarities between the
traditional practices of the Igbo and those of other religions, it is
because they were borrowed from our ancestors, and not the other way
The ancient spirituality of the Ndi Igbo, like most other traditional
African spiritual systems, has been misunderstood and demonized
unjustly. Evangelical churches, with the help of Nollywood movies,
have helped to paint a negative picture of traditional Igbo
spirituality that dates back to the arrival of the Europeans in
Alaigbo (Igboland). It is quite unfortunate that most of the people
who condemn Igbo spirituality do not know much about it, and base
their most of their information from the lies of the very same people
who wanted to destroy it and everything about our culture. While all
the misconceptions about the traditional practices cannot be corrected
in one article, this introduction to Igbo Spirituality will help clear
a few things up.
The basis of Igbo Spirituality is the concept of "Chi." Similar to the
"Ori" of the Yoruba, and the "Ka" of Ancient Egyptians, Chi was the
fundamental force of creation. Everyone and everything has a Chi. Ndi
Igbo, like other Africans, worshiped one Creator, who is known by many
names: Obasi Dielu (The Supreme God), Chi di ebere (God the merciful),
Odenigwe (The Ruler of Heavens), etc. The two most popular names for
Supreme Being used in Alaigbo were Chukwu and Chineke. The dominant
name, Chukwu, which is a combination of the Igbo words "Chi" and
"Ukwu", literally means "The Big Chi", and shows that Igbos believed
that the Supreme Being was omnipresent and all-pervading. Chineke,
which most people translate as "God the Creator" actually has a deeper
meaning. Chi is the masculine aspect of God and Eke is the feminine
aspect. Ndi Igbo knew that it took male and female to create life, so
the Creator of everything would have to encompass both parts.
Because Ndi Igbo believed that everything in it had a chi, they also
gave names to the Chi found in nature (the Alusi). The Alusi of the
sky was known as Igwe. The Alusi of the yams (the most important crop
of Ndi Igbo) was called Ahiajoku. The Alusi of the Sun was called
Anyanwu. The most important of the forces of Nature was Ani, which was
the feminine force that presided over the Earth. The Alusi were not
limited to natural forces; metaphysical and supernatural forces and
principles also had their own names and attributes. Ikenga was the
Alusi of strength and Agwu was the Alusi of wisdom and healing. Each
Alusi had its invididual personality and function, but they all were
still parts of Chukwu.
The Ndiichie (esteemed ancestor spirits) also held a high place in
traditional Igbo society. Elders have always been revered in Igbo
society, and even more so after they passed onto Be Mmuo (the land of
the spirits). The Nddichie would often be consulted to offer advice to
their descendants and appeal to the Alusi on their behalf. Ndi Igbo
have never worshiped their ancestors, only venerated them, which is no
different then what Catholics do to their saints or what every country
does to its national heroes. Respect and honor for the Nddichie was
shown in one way by pouring of libations while chanting incantations.
Ndi Igbo believed in the concept of reincarnation, and felt that the
Nddiichie often reincarnated back on Earth. In fact, all Mmadu (human
beings) were believed to reincarnate seven or eight times, and that
depending on your karma, one either ascends or descends into another
The personal relationship between God and Man in Igbo spirituality is
as close as it can get. Ndi Igbo did not believe that they were
separate from their Creator, and felt that the Chi that resided within
them kept them connected. Igbo felt that their Chi was unique and
personal and served as a guide and protector to them. A person's
destiny was also guided by their Chi. Those with a strong Chi would
have prosperity, good health and good fortune, while those with a weak
Chi would be prone to sickness, poverty and bad luck.
Even though the Igbo are largely Christian now, their traditional
spiritual beliefs still live on. Along with these beliefs, a
fundamental part of Igbo philosophy was "Biri Ka'm Biri" (live and let
live). Ndi Igbo did not believe in fighting wars over religion. In
their view, everybody should be able to worship God as they see fit.
If there is any lesson from Igbo spirituality that we must not forget,
it is this one.
" Damning evidence of this trend surfaced just before Christmas in an obscure Georgia political journal. Vernon Jones, Black two-term elected CEO of the state's second largest county, was being urged by his advisers to run for Congress in the Democratic primary against freshman Congressman Hank Johnson, the man who replaced Rep. Cynthia McKinney in 2006. Vernon Jones' trump card, according to the advisers, was the backing of prominent Black pastors who would urge their people to vote against the incumbent black representative on the sole grounds that he is a Buddhist. Thus cynical Black ministers are poised to encourage and exploit religious bigotry in Black communities for their own economic and political gain. This is how low the Black church, the historic cradle of grassroots leadership since slavery, has sunk."
I have been at the forefront of calling out Christian Black folk's apparent religious bigotry that in my opinion often surpases that of the people from whom black folk got the religion from. But back to Hank. If we look at the linked report we find:
"Jones is supporting Larry Johnson. But strategist Kenneth Walker said he’s got information that Hank Johnson is lobbying for Kathie Gannon and has teamed up in that endeavor with Elaine Boyer, the lone Republican on the DeKalb Commission.
That’s a sign, says Walker, that there’s a new effort to broaden Republican influence in DeKalb County and that Johnson, a Democrat, supports it."
After Cynthia McKinney's defeat I posted my position on the matter
"The second and related groups are the Republican PACs and Republican operatives who also contributed to Hank Johnson, which he admitted to. That black folk in the 4th district, who are mostly registered Democrats would not find that objectionable is interesting and will be discussed later. clearly though those black individuals were more put off by their perception of Mckinney than by the Republican party. It is to me a breech of political etiquette for a rival party to divert funds to a candidate of another party. it's not illegal, but given that I have been saying that the Democratic Party has been infiltrated, I think such actions as these are further evidence to this claim.
...But larger than this is the reports that McKinney supports terrorism. The charge was that members of Muslim organizations like CAIR supported McKinney. Since these organization supported or were sympathetic with the Palestinians or Hamas, then they were terrorist organizations therefore McKinney supports terrorism. In fact Hank Johnson, at a debate said that since McKinney had Arab names on her list of donors, she supported terrorism. Now this clear "racist" remark was not only repeated by numerous Conservative and Jewish press it seemed to have been alright with the black voting block. Hank was not called "looney" for such a remark because in America it is OK to claim that any Arab is a terrorist.
So apparently Hank Johnson is about to be a victim of the very mentality he fostered in order to win the election. He used Republican ops to get into the race and the Democratic machine there, who sat by while McKinney was assaulted by the media (but apparently are willing to go to bat for Hillary Clinton), doesn't want a further erosion of Democratic power. So just so you understand. It's not about truth to power in Dekalb county it's just about power.
"Another prominent Clinton supporter from the civil rights era, Andrew Young, also defended Mrs. Clinton. “Hillary Clinton, first of all, has Bill behind her,” Mr. Young said on a recent Webcast devoted to African-American issues. “And Bill is every bit as black as Barack.”.
I suppose he's also one of those who figured Hillary was disrespecting King Jr. too.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Dr. Edward Rhymes, linked over there, has come out of hiding due to the recent flap between Clinton and Obama. Like the recent posting by Ishmael Reed, I agree with Rhymes on 90% of his post. I think the points of disagreement are worth pointing out. First there is this:
Hillary's allusion to Dr. King's ability to inspire as compared to LBJ's ability to make the Civil Rights Act a reality smacks of racism at its most pernicious level. The old Blacks "sho can talk" but are short on ability stereotype is very evident in this analogy.
I disagree with this statement. Hillary's statement was nothing of the sort, unless one wants to read something into it. As any preacher or Jihadi can tell you, you can read just about anything out of a statement if you want. Hillary's statement was a clear indication of fact. Dr. King for all his work was not in any position to legislate or approve of legislation. He and others would have to convince those who did have such power to do the right thing (even if they didn't want to). Dr. Rhyme's statement will however be put to the test if Obama finds himself in the oval office. but as it stands I think he made up his mind to see a "perniciously racist" statement where there wasn't one, though he does go on to call out LBJ's statement on Dr. King when the latter made his anti-war position public.
On a lesser level I also have a problem with the following:
This is further accented and buttressed by former President Bill Clinton's reference to the 46 year-old, Harvard-educated, elected-U.S. Senator Obama as a "kid" - coming dangerously close in tone and temperament to the familiar racist designation of "boy." If the Clinton campaign wants to draw a distinction between the record and experience of Barack and Hillary, then that is a conversation that can and should take place. However, that's not what I heard or felt in Bill Clinton's words. I heard the arrogance of a man who believes because of Black America's love affair with him (for reasons I don't understand) he has the right to say to Obama: "know your place boy" or "wait your turn boy."
On the one hand, from personal experience I know all about the 'boy' designation thrown out, particularly by "older" white men. However, I'm not entirely convinced in this case that this is the case here. For example, After Hillary won NH, there was talk of Hillary being the comeback kid. Does that denigrate her? Similarly Bill Clinton when he was running was also called the comeback kid. Similarly John McCain, who pre-empted any talk of "comeback kid" with a lighthearted joke about his age precluding any use of the term "kid" to refer to him, was briefly dubbed a comeback kid. Relatively speaking, Obama is a "kid." I'm absolutely sure that Bill wanted used the term "kid" in order to put FUD into the minds of potential voters in relation to experience. That is fair game as far as I'm concerned. Also I would agree that if Bill Clinton was implying that Obama should "wait his turn" that that too is a fair argument in regards to experience. I would agree that it would be an issue if the statement meant "know your place boy" but that, like supposed voter fraud in New Hampshire will be impossible to prove.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
I still say that he is still on the money in terms of the Iraq War, American Imperialism and funny money. It is still my position that it is in the interest of black folk, that such issues are put in front of so-called conservative audiences. No he's not going to win but he is going to put these issues on national (and international) TV each and every time he gets a chance to debate. In doing so he will expose the other candidates for who and what they really are. That is what is important.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
In the 1990s, the ISI supported the militants as a proxy force to contest Indian-controlled Kashmir, the border territory that India and Pakistan both claim, and to gain a controlling influence in neighboring Afghanistan. In the 1980s, the United States supported militants, too, funneling billions of dollars to Islamic fighters battling Soviet forces in Afghanistan through the ISI, vastly increasing the agency’s size and power.
The consequences of this funneling of billions of dollars through the ISI?
the ISI could not rein in the militants it had nurtured for decades as a proxy force to exert pressure on India and Afghanistan. After the agency unleashed hard-line Islamist beliefs, the officials said, it struggled to stop the ideology from spreading.
And these militants are doing what?
the militants have turned on their former handlers, the officials said. Joining with other extremist groups, they have battled Pakistani security forces and helped militants carry out a record number of suicide attacks last year, including some aimed directly at army and intelligence units as well as prominent political figures, possibly even Benazir Bhutto.
I believe a few Republican candidates owe a certain Ron Paul an apology. Since he was the only Republican candidate to bring up US foreign Policy. And I believe it was Giuliani who ran his mouth about how it wasn't US policy, a fact contradicted above (though the informed among us already knew this).
SO in essence the US paid billions of dollars to create a new enemy. Thanks Reagan!
My advice to the Obama campaign: tread very lightly here. There are numerous citizens across the political spectrum who are not going to appreciate this move. There better be some strong strong strong language directed at businesses that exploit immigrant labour. Did I mention strong?
Monday, January 14, 2008
I've been watching the silly ass back and forth between the Obama supporters and the Clinton supporters over the Hillary comment in regards to King, Johnson and "the dream." I'm not a Hillary supporter but I shockingly had to agree with non other than Bob Johnson, when he said that some people think we are stupid enough to not understand the comments in question.
The comment in question is "King's dream became to be realized when Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act." Oddly, when I first heard it I didn't hear it like that, but we know how rumors go. In any event I took the statement at face value, something Ishmael Reed, whom I'm usually in 100% agreement, thinks would be a problem.
The way I saw the statement and how I think it is historically, is that the Civil Rights movement had been putting pressure on the government for ages and it took Johnson (in the establishment) to finally make the government own up, at least legally. And we know what that cost the Democrats don't we. In other words I believe Clinton was saying that someone needs to be in office who will make the right and hard decisions. A person in office who will hear the people and act. Again, I'm not a Hillary supporter so I'm not going to say that she is that person. Nor am I an Obama supporter, so I'm not going to say that he is that person.
Similarly, there is outrage about Billy Clinton, calling the Obama campaign points a fairy tail. The Black Agenda Report and I have a similar position on the matter. I agree with Billy that the Obama camp is getting away with not address policy issues and instead the media are focusing on celebrity status. In fact I think the Democratic primaries are sorely lacking in policy discussion and since barring some last minute show of force by Edwards, the Democratic ticket is all but printed up on placards, there's no point to even listening to, or watching either Hillary or Obama. The Republican field is far more entertaining where there is still an actual candidate involved who is not only "way off the party line" but also has the potential to cost someone the presidency should he remain involved through November 2008.
I will say is that it is sad that both of them, like the rest of America, is still stuck on the "I Have a Dream" King and not the " We do not want to be a part of this system" King. If we're going to be all bothered about the besmirching of the King legacy, perhaps we ought to question the candidates position on the war. King was clearly a pacifist and would not approve. Since the candidates love King so much perhaps they will immediately end all wars the US is involved in. Perhaps both candidates will refuse to sell arms to Israel, Saudi Arabia or anyone else for that matter. Since King was so concerned about the poor, perhaps the candidates will spend their time actually discussing the poor rather than the middle class. Am I the only one who's noticed that everyone talks about the middle class as if there are just rich and middle class folk around?
it is pretty clear that neither candidate is actually committed to the ideas that King had post March on Washington so it's pretty nauseating to watch them go at each other. But hey, this is supposed to be a "new kind of politics." Oh well.
PS: A note to Mr. Reed. No way no how black folks would line up behind Cynthia McKinney. I love the sister and contributed to her campaign, but black folks in Georgia sold her out, the CBC sold her out and I'm willing to part with cash that nationally black folk will sell her out too. They won't even vote for her friend Kucinich (yeah I know; it's Diebold's fault).
Saturday, January 12, 2008
From the NY Times:
“Huckabee is a change for the conservative Christian movement, and a welcome one,” said Jennifer Stec, a 34-year-old homemaker in Lexington, S.C., who built a network of about 400 Huckabee volunteers. She started with her church Sunday school class, she said, and later printed her own Huckabee business cards and passed them out at the supermarket.
Is anyone from the IRS paying attention? It is a violation of the tax exempt rules for an church to be used to rally support for a particular political party or candidate.
Friday, January 11, 2008
The Pentagon said yesterday that the apparent radio threat to bomb U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf last weekend may not have come from the five Iranian Revolutionary Guard speedboats that approached them -- and may not even have been intended against U.S. targets.
To further challenge the U.S. version, Iran yesterday released what it asserted was an abridged video of the same incident, which shows a calm exchange. "Slowly get a little closer . . . can't make out the ship number," says a Revolutionary Guardsman on a small patrol boat, speaking in Farsi. "I hear something being announced from its loudspeakers; what is it saying? I think they're talking to us."
"Which channel?" says a second Iranian. "Coalition warship 73," he says, speaking in English through his radio mike. "This Iranian navy patrol boat. Request side number . . . operating in the area this time."
A U.S. ship radios back: "This is coalition warship 73. I read you loud and clear."
The five-minute video, released by Iranian television yesterday, offers no indication of the tensions that supposedly sparked the encounter between U.S. and Iranian vessels in the Strait of Hormuz -- and no indication of an intention to attack. The Pentagon said it does not dispute anything in the Iranian video.
In Tehran, Revolutionary Guards Brig. Gen. Ali Fadavi charged that the United States was creating a "media fuss," the Fars News Agency reported. He said the Iranian objective was to obtain registration numbers that were unreadable.
And so the Pentagon does not deny the veracity of the Iranian version of events but Fred Thompson is free to make "meet the virgins" comments to applause? And they say Ron Paul is scary.
In other words, while I know there are many things that could go wrong, it doesn't mean those things have gone wrong. Only an examination of the system can determine that.
So, in the wake of Hillary Clinton's victory in NH, people are starting to ask whether or not the infamous Diebold machines have given Hillary the "corporate boost." by shuffling a few votes. Well my first question would be: why?
Seriously. neither Obama nor Clinton are serious threats to the corporate machine. Perhaps said corporate machines would like to see Clinton on the ballot in November than Obama, but in my opinion, Obama's on the ticket regardless unless he starts getting single digit votes for the duration of the primaries and the democratic party does a Jesse Jackson on him come delegate time. So in my opinion, putting the fix in for Hillary at this point in the game not only not makes sense but would increase the likelyhood of being found out.
The second thing is that for some reason, people insist that exit polls are infalible. I don't understand where this idea comes from. But until a pollster can guarantee that the person they are talking to is not lying, then polling will always be subject to error, and with gender and race involved, I expect a whole lot of liars talking to pollsters.
Thirdly I read this over at Counterpunch:
In New Hampshire, 81 per cent of the voting was done in towns and cities that had purchased optical scan machines from the Diebold Election Systems (now called Premiere Election Solutions), a division of Diebold Corp., a company founded by and still linked to wealthy right-wing investors. In those towns, all voting was done on the devices, called Accuvote machines, which read paper ballots completed by voters who use pens or pencils to fill in little ovals next to the candidate of their choice. The ballots are then fed into, read, and tallied by the machines. The other 19 per cent of voting was done in towns that had opted not to use the machine, and to use hand-counted paper ballots instead.The machine tally was Clinton 39.6 per cent, Obama 36.3 per cent - fairly close to the final outcome. But the hand-counted ballot count broke significantly differently: Clinton 34.9 per cent, Obama 38.6 per cent.
What is it about these folk that they do not understand that unless you are comparing samples from the same batch the analysis is false? Simply put, just because hand counts in one county go one way and computer counting goes another in another county we do not have evidence of fraud. What needs to happen is a hand count of votes from the same county and same voting place as the machines. That is the only way to show, beyond reasonable doubt, that there is fraud. Everything else is conjecture and circumstantial. Would you like to be charged with Felony fraud and convicted on circumstantial evidence? No? I didn't think so.
it simply isn't enough to say that so and so can be done to a voting machine. My computer can have a keylogger installed on it. it does not because no one else has access to my system. A program can be slipped into a voting machine but to date no one has been able to prove that one has been installed on one let alone one that is accessible over the internet, has been activated and made to flip votes in a manner to present a specific margin of victory.
I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm talking the odds of a very specific set of steps have all been done within a specific time frame. I'm not talking Hollywood Manchurian Candidate type of stuff either.
So how about this as a solution:
1) The OS and program to be run on voting systems are handed to a neutral third party to be examined. any person who wishes to see the code can do so.
2) the machines are delivered to voting areas with blank HD and the third party installs the OS and programs as vetted.
3) There are no internet connections, phone connections or connections of any kind allowed to the machines other than that needed to input the vote and produce the paper trail.
4) at the end of the voting process the parties involved all have representatives that show up at each polling place with their own laptop approved by their party . The data is transferred to mobile media in front of everyone.
5) 2 computer is chosen at random from the representatives. It is loaded with a fresh copy of the tabulating software and all tabulation is done on those random computers. If the tally is identical on both systems then the results are reported.
This scenario deals with all concerns. No net access to the voting machines. No stealth software since it doesn't come from Diebold but rather a third party with open access to the entire OS freely viewable by the public. No stealth vote flipping at the count stage since the systems used to count are not controlled by Diebold and is verified by all interested parties.
If we look at the Book of Ephesians we will understand what we are reading by reading carefully. I use the KJV. I do not support the use of any of the "international English, Common English, or other translations because first and foremost they, in my opinion distort the KJV text in order to fulfill some particular angle. Secondly the language and syntax of the KJV is contemporary with the translations of other ancient texts so that when we find particular words and phrases we can cross reference those with other ancient texts. This is nearly impossible with the newer "modern" translations. Anyway. Back to Ephesians.
Ephesians is not the words of Jesus and it says so:
1Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:Now understand that with the above, we understand Paul to be speaking to "the saints. " So when we are reading Ephesians 5 it is Paul's opinions and it is directed at the aforementioned "saints". Ephesians 5 states:
1Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children;
2And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.
3But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;
4Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.
5For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
6Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.
7Be not ye therefore partakers with them.
8For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light:
9(For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;)
10Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord.
11And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.
12For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.
13But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.
14Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.
15See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise,
16Redeeming the time, because the days are evil.
17Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is.
18And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;
19Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;
20Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;
21Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
22Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
23For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
24Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
25Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
28So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
29For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
30For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
You'll note that these are general statements given to the collective known as "the saints" it is general instruction on how to live and applies across the board. You will notice that everything up through verse 21 is directed at the saints. Once we hit verse 22, we find that Paul makes a specific reference to wives and specific references to husbands. In other words, the commentary prior to verse 22 are general. and is punctuated with a full stop. End of thought. Verse 22 indicates a brand new line of thought for Paul. It is clear that Paul is telling his "saints" that they owe each other a general, non-specified, type of submission but that wives owe their husbands a degree of submission above and beyond that which is required by the general population of "saints."
[update 12:10 PM]
Some "scholars" attempt to read verses 21 and 22 as an ongoing thought. The grammar used does not indicate that at all. Rather the semicolons used prior to verse 21 clearly show that those thoughts and the final submit ye to one another are connected in the same thought and that verse 22 starts a new, if related thought. What those "scholars" are proposing is that they knew better how to translate the original greek transcript better than the scribe(s) authorized by James. However; we cannot trust that assertion since those scribes are not here to defend their particular translation and why they put the specific punctuation where they did. therefore; it becomes the current scholars words against dead scribes, a wholly unfair proposition. It is better to take a wide view of all of Paul's writing to understand what Paul's position is in regards to women and he does so elsewhere as I note next.
Now for anyone confused about what kind of submission Paul is referring to we need look no further than 1 Timothy 2:12:
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.Paul is writing to his "spiritual son" Timothy and the chapter in the New Testament is, like ephesians, a list of things to do and not to do.
it is clear that Paul feels that men are the head just as Christ his the head of the Church. It is also clear that Paul feels that women are to be under the authority of men, be it a husband or other authority figure. To suggest that these passages state or imply otherwise is wrong or at the least dishonest.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
THAT is how you debate.
I can totally understand why you would want to put the picket line out on chick for making the lynching comment. If it were most any other athlete I would be in total support but I can't see the point of going out on a limb for Mr. Woods. NO doubt that to many of us he's "black." He's a Golf phenomenon and many people are proud of that. I understand. But lets be real here. When Woods went on national TV with Oprah and declared himself "Cablanaisian" I decided to allow him to make his peacable exit from "the race."
Why should I get worked up about someone who clearly does not nor wants to identify with me and mine? Seriously. This isn't the first time one of Tiger Woods' "friends" made derogatory remarks about him. I recall the fried chicken commentary that followed his victory at the Masters. Woods said that was his friend and it was a joke. Fine by him? Fine by me. Since Tiger Woods doesn't have problems with his white "friends" making jokes about lynching, then you know what, I'm not going to be upset either. I'm not picketing for him I'm not going to complain for him either. Clearly he's happy with his white "friends", his white wife and is clearly doing all he can do to make his exit from "blackness." Cool by me. Let him go.
Should he happen to find himself in a situation where a white mob is beating his ass for sitting on the wrong car in the wrong neighborhood, lets not run to his defense then either. I mean, if he's cool with his white "friends" making fried chicken and lynch jokes, a baseball bat to the head ought not be an issue either.
Also, should some 30 years from now, he end up in a situation similar to OJ Simpson, we ought to remember that he was cool with his white friends making lynch jokes about him (and us) and discussing fried chicken and watermellon at his victories. So should some racist cop call him out his name on the side of the road or attempt to frame him up for a murder, we ought to simply let him go about his business.
So thanks for registering your complaint, but I'm not interested in sticking my neck out for someone who clearly has so little respect for his black father as to not be upset at someone joking about kidnapping and lynching.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Of late, anyone reading this blog has seen a lot of Ron Paul press. They would probably think, if they were unfamiliar with the entirety of my writing that I am a Republican or Libertarian. I am neither. However; as a result of conversations both on and offline I want to make it clear why I am hard on Obama and less so on Ron Paul.
I recall when I was in High School. I saw Jesse Jackson shooting a campaign commercial across the street from a bus stop. I saw that ad about 2 days later. I knew OF Jesse Jackson, but at that point in my life I was really clueless about politics, world events, etc. All I knew was going to school, homework, and was too scared to talk to the girl who got on the bus at 109th ave. Yeah I STILL remember her. Mmmmmmmmmm. I digress. The point being I wanted Jesse to win for no other reason that he was black like me. That's it. He was one of us. and even in my relatively naive state, I knew "us" had a hard time. It would be good to see one of "us" as president.
If any of this sounds familiar, it should, it is exactly the sentiments of a great deal of black people who are supporting Obama. In my opinion it is a rather immature position to take especially by grown up people. Later in my life I decided that I would run for president at one point. I told one of my friends at the time, that in order to win, I would have to say and do things that didn't clue people in to my real thoughts in order to win. She, when she sees me run ought to remember that and "not worry."
If any of that sounds familiar it should, because by and large it sums up the Obama campaign. Do and say whatever and as little as you need to in order to win. I'm not mad at Obama for using this strategy after all I thought it up before Bill Clinton even stepped into office (and I'll never get credit for it.... Ha haaaa).
Now I've grown up and become a Neo-Garveyite Pan-Africanist. I am interested in one thing: Policy that furthers the aims of Pan-Africanism. I have come to the understanding that I don't have permanent friends or enemies, I have permanent interests and I do whatever is necessary to achieve those interests. Any candidate or policy that gets me to that interest I will write approvingly of. Notice I said "write." I've already explained that I don't do elections. I do not vote (Here too).
As pointed out in "To Vote or Not Pt 2", The central fraud as discussed in The Matrix Reloaded is that choice is an illusion. Choices here are determined by the power players. This was on full display when Dennis Kucinich was barred from the Democratic debate last Saturday. It was also on display when Ron Paul was denied access to a Republican debate on Sunday. Paul was on Jay Leno last night (which is the only reason I watched since I support the strike) and Leno made the point: I don't have to agree with what comes out of Paul's mouth but in a so called democracy all voices are supposed to be heard and Ron Paul, like it or not has out fundraised his opponents and is running as good a race as Guiliani. There is no excuse for excluding him from the table.
So given that we've been set up for a false choice between candidates who are all beholden to the same lobby's, why should I support any of them?
As a Pan-Africanist I'm interested in the following:
1) End to US, European and Asian imperialism be it political or economic.
2) End of US military support of Israel.
None of the candidates except Kucinich and Paul are on board with that. And I'm not even too sure about Kucinich on the latter portion. Domestically I'm interested in:
1) End of the surveillance state and clear breeches of bill of rights.
2) Complete decoupling of Church and State including an end of tax breaks for religious organizations for anything other than primary worship facilities and capital expenditures to support said facilities. Anything else, daycare, gyms, stores, etc. get taxed like any other business venture.
3) Enforcement of immigration laws. No one wants to admit it but illegal immigration does in fact suppress wages and hurts the black poor. Anyone interested in protecting black people, including the black poor has to recognize this.
Ron Paul joins the Democrats in point number one. Though I'm not sure the Democrats are serious about point one since they failed to impeach Bush for his clear violations of law and they approved of the Patriot Act.
Ron Paul, since he doesn't like giving money to anyone would accomplish item 2
On item 3, it appears that on the one hand Democrats have forgotten who the citizens are and who the government has to look out for first and foremost. ON the other hand the Republicans are too motivated by fear and are still discussing silly ass walls. Only Fred Thompson has the proper approach: Enforce the law. Period. Couldn't agree more.
Now some have pointed out that Ron Paul has bigoted past. No doubt. To that I say: And? Again I take the example of Marcus Garvey. When he saw that members of the UNIA were being lynched, threatened with lynchings and run out of their homes, Garvey sat down with the grand wizard of the KKK. He said then that the Klan was the true face of the white man in America. The Klan was honest. Like Garvey I prefer to know that a person does not necessarily like me and mine, rather than someone who has hidden "issues" or are two faced with me.
Paul doesn't think black people are all that bright, cool, Let him keep talkin' that junk so long as the Troops come home and the surveillance state is dismantled.
I want to close with this: I am not endorsing Ron Paul. The only politician I have endorsed is Cynthia McKinney. I even donated to her campaign because she is not a liar, nor is she in anyone's pocket. I have been consistent in saying that I would enter politics ONLY when a black candidate that meets my high standards on policy. I did so for McKinney and if Obama would take the proper lines, I would gladly do so for him. But I will not support a candidate simply because he or she is black and quite frankly neither should anyone else.
Monday, January 07, 2008
Taken from the comments section of an article on Alternet on the legacy of Bill Clinton
In 2000, I heard much about people voting for Geo. W. Bush because he seemed likeable, unlike Gore. I heard in 2004 that people went with Bush because people wanted him as a neighbor, unlike Kerry. I heard between 2000 and 2008 that people realized they weren’t voting for a drinking buddy, they were voting for a president. Yet, here we are in 2008 and we’re talking about how friendly Obama is and how uptight Clinton is.
The day after the 2004 general election, I read and heard many comments from people lamenting that they ignored the issues. Since I went into debt trying to push issues, I was not pleased with the post-election insights. Yet, here we are in 2008 and issues are nowhere in sight except as the broadest banners hung as a backdrop.
Sunday, January 06, 2008
Part of the problem is that Ron Paul is a very bad debater and he has thus far allowed the other candidates to mock him without response and to allow other candidates to get away with statements Mr. Paul can dispute. When Guiliani again tried to mischaracterize the issue of US foreign policy Paul should have immediately pointed out that the US put Saddam in Power. That the US backed the dictator in Iran. The the continued policy of backing Israel and propping up the Saudi's are all examples of flawed US policy. A good debater could have put Guiliani down easily. Ron Paul needs to remember that he will not win his job is to put the facts on the ground to Republicans as often as possible.
Similarly when Ron Paul discussed how the economy is related to the War and Fred Thompson mocked him by saying that ending the war will immediately fix the economy, Ron Paul should have hit right back. Never ever let your opponent distort your words. All the candidates know that the general public has no clue about financial markets and how money works so they know that they don't have to address the issue brought up by Paul. Remember what happened to Ross Perot. He tried to break down monetary and trade consequences of NAFTA when he ran for office. People didn't get it then but they are feeling it now.
Note how no one even addressed the issue of the rise in oil prices when looked at by Dollar, Euro and gold. I bet that 90% of the audience and the viewing public had NO CLUE that in terms of gold oil prices haven't gone anywhere. It's not that one has to go back to the gold standard but Paul's statement is directly related to the "credit crisis" because much of what has been fueling the credit economy has been made up, unregulated, backed by absolutely nothing fake money. SIV's as they are called. Everyone in finance knows what Paul is talking about. But the average American has NO CLUE.
So far this election season is a giant live example of the general stupidity of the American public.
Friday, January 04, 2008
I myself really am not impressed for a variety of reasons. The same populance that voted for Obama also voted for Huckabee. That signals that in general the folks in Iowa are really looking for "outsiders" who are not too much "outside" If they were really looking for change Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul would have won the evening. But this isn't about them. What I'm reminded here so far is the run for president that Jesse Jackson made back in the 80's. Jackson did surprisingly well for a great deal of the primaries, which unlike this season did not start a year ahead of time. Had Obama been constrained by the timeframe that Jackson had, there is no way he would have made the poll numbers that he did. Don't expect the news media to point that out. Furthermore If we recall the Jackson presidential run of 1988 we will find that he got 1200 delegates. He won 11 primaries, taking over 50% of the votes in the Michigan Caucus. In Iowa Jackson had only gotten 9% of the vote.
So the thing here is that Obama is really following in the steps of Jesse Jackson, something I'm not to sure will be ever mentioned during this campaign. I won't be surprised by any showing by Obama on the trail until it's delegate time. More later...maybe.