|
americanre
Back Where We Were In 1968 - Subscribe
|
|
I'm not a supporter of Barack Obama. But if, as it now appears, the people select him to be the next president, then he would be a choice I could abide - provided he is saying what he really means. This has been my problem with Obama since the 2004 Democratic Convention. His keynote address was a very stirring performance, causing my prior blogger incarnation to rave about him being a future president. Unfortunately, his votes to confirm Condi Rice as Secretary of State despite her blatant incompetence and some of his other pro-Bush botes has cost him my support - and me my enthusiasm for him and his ambition. But that doesn't mean it's the end of the world for Obama. Not yet anyway. But there is a growing concern that, for Obama, that time is drawing nearer with each speech and with each primary victory. David Sirota is patting Barack Obama on the back for taking a more populist stance in his campaign:
Being berated is the least of the problems Obama may be facing if the American people choose him to be the next president (all disclaimers regarding a pre-electoral Cheney-Bush putsch not withstanding). Several people are seeing a more dire fate awaiting him. Nobel Prize winning author Doris Lessing thinks Barack Obama would be assassinated if he became US president, as does world champion boxer Bernard Hopkins, who said:
It may be that there is more to this than a mere racial issue. Columnist Earl McRae of The Ottawa Sun is 'Shocked at the level of hatred' aimed at a man even staunch Republican and two-time Bush administration official Colin Powell supports:
As McRae points out, many public figures have been assassinated. One thing that most of these victims had in common was a lean toward empowering the people, something that an entrenched power elite would seek to derail before any real damage could be done to them and their perquisites. Such was the case with Martin Luther King. His final public address, "I've Been to the Mountaintop", given the evening of April 3, 1968, had to have been the reason the trigger was pulled. The very powerful words of that speech called upon black Americans to realize their power, not just in a philosophical way, but in concrete terms. King called upon blacks band togehter and boycott certain national products and businesses in favor of local black-owned businesses. As he recalled a previous assassination attempt, and related the experience he had flying from Atlanta to Memphis, and told his audience that he knew of the dire threats being made against him there, he had to have known that the positions he espoused would cause "the power" to be applied to him personally. How else can one explain his closing remarks:
It would lend credence to the following assertion published on April 6, 2002 in which the Rev. Ronald Denton Wilson claimed his father, Henry Clay Wilson assassinated Martin Luther King Jr. "It wasn't a racist thing; [Henry] thought Martin Luther King was connected with communism, and he wanted to get him out of the way." Considering that anti-communism was the "official" philosophy of the age, one can see that being applied to every threat facing the "established order", including a strike by black trash collectors against their white employers for better wages. While communism has since been replaced by Islamicism as the boogie man used to frighten the mentally deformed, the method of dealing with perceived threats to the "established order" remains unchanged today, as Canadian Earl McRae notes:
Delusions are the hardest thing for reality to break through, and these most of all. It doesn't matter that Rogers and Wayne have both ridden into that final sunset, nor that Mom's apple pie might contain deathly chemicals, or that Jesus would be ashamed of their actions against their fellow man. The delusions tell them that they are correct, and that is all they need to know. |
|
americanre
Burning Down The Houses Of The Unholy Feb 21st, 2008 7:44:20 pm - Subscribe
|
|
It's an interesting news day in Gotham City this morning, as the major New York dailies are shelling all the camps of the remaining viable presidential candidates. The New York Times goes into detail as to why the Lincoln Savings debacle makes viable the current scandal over John McCain's relationship with lobbyist Vicki Iseman even if there was no sexual aspect to it. Considering how a story about Cindy McCain's drug use coverup was breaking just before this latest tale of misbehavior came out, one has to wonder if this alleged affair isn't just a salacious smoke screen intended to bury a real scandal - the use of political connections to not only squelch a felony drug investigation of Mrs. McCain, but to assassinate the character of the DEA informant who forced her to go public with her abuse problems. Wikipedia has a concise summary with links of the situation here. Meanwhile Maureen Dowd excoriates Hillary not only for using Obama's speeches as an uncited source for her latest campaign slogans, but also for digging up ammunition for the Republican campaign to use against Obama should she falter in her effort to bend the DNC delegate rules in her favor. As MoDo puts it, "we’re only moments away from Hillary asking Obama: 'Can’t you control your spouse?' " referring to Michelle Obama's recent ill-considered commentary about national pride. This appears certainly to play into the jingoist entrenchment of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Speaking of the VRWC, it appears to have switched sides regarding Hillary. Instead of following MoDo's lead and going after Hillary, both NYT columnist and VRWC card-carrying member David Brooks and The New York Observer ride hard to Hillary's defense. Brooks seems not to have noticed that Obama has won the last eleven Democratic primary events against Hillary, presenting instead the tired broadside that Obama is too young and inexperienced to handle a "seventy-something" Congressional Chair delegation which he implies that la Clinton would have wrapped around her little finger. But, hey, David! Whatever works to keep the weaker of the Democratic candidates - the only one McCain can beat - in the race, right? Who cares if your facts aren't necessarily correct (which they rarely are)? With that in mind, the low-brow The New York Observer is attempting to aid and abet the attempted theft of the Democratic nomination by spreading the meme that Obama's successes are due to the Cult-of-Obama. At least The Observer is willing to present a counter-view from Joe Trippi, Howard Dean’s 2004 presidential campaign manager and former senior adviser to John Edwards’ presidential campaign, who noted that the cult slander is a last ditch attempt to rescue a "last of its kind" campaign, and would result in the loss of millions of Obama votes in the general election, promoting a McCain electoral victory. That is the point of the exercise to rescue Hillary. McCain - despite all of the rancor he engenders in the so-called conservatives - is seen by the corporatists to be the only one they can trust with power. After Lincoln Savings, he isn't about to rattle his cage lest sensitive information about his real involvement were to emerge. Therefore, Hillary has to be Lame John's opponent. All of this electoral hoopla is well and fine, but the real devil that requires his due is escaping notice. Bernard Weiner, Co-Editor, The Crisis Papers, asserts that it would be "Better to go into 2009 without wearing our usual rose-colored glasses" because "Obama and Clinton are centrist Democrats who are beholden to many of the same corporatist forces that pull the strings in Washington and have done so for decades." This can be seen in the desperate attempt by the White House to rescue the Protect America Act. Blogger Mike Kuykendall opines that this effort wasn't intended to protect the nation as Bush bloviated, but was instead intended to protect big American corporations from being found liable for damages in lawsuits. Bush's Supreme's are performing judicial activism in defense of manufacturers of lethal products against those they have harmed, so the strategy isn't limited to the false national defense sector. Kuykendall continues, pleading: "Can we all get past the fear-driven politics and try to use a little reason in our national discourse?" Abandon fear-driven power mongering??? You ask much, Mike! I used to work with former Nazi German citizens. It wasn't hard to bring out the fascist programming in them, especially when they were caught up in an action before they could think. It's amazing how quickly they can still snap out that stiff right arm when they think others are doing so! It's no different with Bush supporters today. There is NO thought going on between their ears, and they are proud of it. Attempting to reach such people using logic is a waste of effort. After decades of striving gain total control of the American people, do you really think that the corporofascists who back Bush would surrender those hard-won advantages just because they make sense for the survival of the nation? You have a higher opinion of our fellow citizens than I do! The effort you propose, however, does have value if it is directed at those who are allegedly on our side. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are two specific examples of whom I write. While they aren't lily pure of corporofascist taint, they are at least closer to the ideal than the Republicans are - yet they vote as if they are still in the majority. Despite this obvious bias, there is no good reason why the electorate cannot reclaim them for the benefit of the nation. Paul Craig Roberts, who was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during President Reagan's first term and later Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal, is willing to cut Reid, Pelosi & Associates more slack than I am. "For one reason or another, they have let the Orwellian-named Protect America Act expire. Perhaps the Democrats have finally caught on that they cannot function as a political party as long as they continue to permit Bush to spy on them." Male Bovine Excrement, says I. I see this move by Reid, Pelosi & Associates as merely another limp campaign strategy to gain a tenuous political advantage rather than a reasoned defense of the Constitution against the corporofascist excesses of CheneyBush. Without a serious turnover in the makeup of the Congress, the Republicans will continue to run things from the minority side of the aisle. Going along to get along doesn't qualify as change, nor as qualification for higher office. But what of our current national situation? Is there hope? I don't know. I don't see anyone out there that I would trust with the kind of power Bush has assumed without opposition or consequence. He's established a precedent which is going to require someone of much higher integrity than anyone public today has to reverse it. It is my firm opinion that we have reached the end of the line for the two-party duopoly if the health of the nation is to be restored. We have reached the condition against which George Washington attempted to warn against. Americans need to abandon party politics and return to an active role in the governance of this nation, but with a new season of Dancing With The Stars about to begin, there is little hope of that. Far too easy to let the corporate news decide. Check out my other web pages at American Realistan and Blogcritics. |
|
americanre
There Will Be Mud Feb 25th, 2008 2:50:12 am - Subscribe
|
|
The Elecion of 2008 was already one for the history books with the first female and former first Lady candidate, the first partly non-while candidate, and the oldest corrupt candidate. Now, thanks to the entry of Ralph Nader into the contest, it's been transmogrified into a four-ring circus. One has to wonder about why Nader is attempting to run again. Sure, he takes his positions seriously, but the focus is essentially personal. As he announced his candidacy on Meet The Press this morning, I didn't hear a single thing he wants to do FOR this nation. Every point he raised this morning was in opposition to the two major parties and their common corporate economic support system (not that I have a specific problem with exposing that fact). What Nader should be doing IMHO is to act as an impartial senior statesman, taking on and possibly refuting the wilder claims of all the candidates. He could act in this manner - and not disrupt the already delicate balances between a semi-civilized election and mass chaos - only if he had no partisan axe to grind for himself. His effectiveness in taking up this quest is seriously weakened due to his wanting to be a part of the mess and not a part of the clean-up crew. Think of how much better people could be informed if Nader was discussing the news instead of making it. Think of the possibilities if Nader were to discuss the numerous fallacies of Hillary's, including claiming that Bush I was responsible for NAFTA and not her husband; of holding Obama's feet to the fire over his plans for the nation so that he stays on track and not get distracted into joining Hillary's food fight; of presenting detailed information concerning the golden chains embodying McCain's slavish connections to the media owners. If Nader were to act in such a manner, without benefit to himself, he would be acting as the crusader he likes to believe he is. But that isn't going to happen. Not now. Instead, we will travel back to yesteryear, rehashing the Nader effect on the 2000 and 2004 elections, and whether 2008 will now follow a similar path. We will have to endure his attempts to get the attention of the other candidates - and the media - regarding his take on the issues facing this nation. Nader has some interesting takes on today's issues (Read the transcript!), but he has yet to offer anything resembling a contrete proposal on how he proposes to achieve these lofty goals (he's not alone - it's a common candidate failing!). The position statements offered on Nader's website are seriously sparse, considering that he's starting late and has a long way to go to match the output of the other surviving candidates. Ralph, you took us twice already. I doubt we are going to flock to you in the numbers you've become accustomed to seeing. Too many of us think we need change, but we aren't willing to accept another pig in a poke. If we were, Hillary would have put Obama to bed already. You (and Obama, since I'm on the topic) need to be more expressive about what you intend to do about all these pressing national problems. Merely laying down platitudes (as Obama tends to do) or pointing out yet again what the problems are doesn't solve anything. Obama appears to many voters to be coming closest to this desired behavior, even though he hasn't yet convinced me that he deserves the job. He certainly has no one who can push him like you could - IF you weren't in the middle of the muddle. Rethink this, Ralph. Drop out now before you damage what chances the nation has to recover from Bush. |