The Crisis in the Middle East

Now, new facts are coming about the murderer of the innocent Americans. Now, we have a complex look at the whole situation. What we have here is the radical Salafi/Wahhabi militants vs. more progressive voices. People have the right to protest an offensive video in the Muslim world, but unjustified violence and murder are actions that are always evil. The West unfortunately financially aided these Salafi radicals for years. For example, even as early as the 1950's, the CIA aided the Salafis (in the Muslim Brotherhood) to go into Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is a nation that's a brutal dictatorship and theocracy presently. The reason that the Salafis came into Saudi Arabia, because the then nationalist leader Nasser of Egypt suppressed the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood (after they attempted to assassinate Nasser). It's a historical fact that the Nazis supported the Muslim Brotherhood as a means to use them as a weapon to attack the British in Egypt (plus throughout the Middle East). The radicalism of the Wahhabis influenced the mentality of Osama bin Laden. Today, the leader of Egypt is the Muslim Brotherhood member Morsi. The Arab Spring caused a battle between more progressive Muslims and the fringe. Today, individuals are protesting all over the Middle East over the controversial anti-Islamic film. The big lesson about the crisis in the Middle East is that 2 wrongs don't make a right. Western imperialism is wrong and it is also wrong for Americans to be murdered for illegitimate reasons as well. Both are wrong and both are immoral. Still, the evil act of killing diplomats doesn't escape the NATO war crimes in Libya. The leaders of Libya now are extremists, puppets, and NATO-aided terrorists. The extremists are even destroying Sufi shrines. Now, the administration is carrying Tomahawk cruise missiles to the Libyan coast. The President is sending Marines into the region in order for them to protect diplomatic centers. The death of Christopher Stevens should give us all the more inspiration to promote more peace, oppose imperialism, and adamantly disagree with any war with Iran. Now, America, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and others are funding the rebel forces in Syria via weapons, funding, and logistical support. Human Rights Watch has issued reports condemning Syria’s rebel fighters for conducting a systematic campaign of kidnapping, torture, and atrocities carried out against security forces, government supporters, and civilian victims. We should continue to promote legitimate national law and international law too. Also, in spite of the protests in the world, we still ought to adhere to tolerance and religious freedom. All people should have the same dignity and respect as anyone else irrespective or their religious faith or creed. I don't believe that the President of the United States sympathized with the terrorists who murdered innocent human beings. The truth is that the White House made an early statement before the attacks on the consultant and the embassy building took place inside of the Middle East. One piece of good news is that a Wisconsin judge declared Governor Walker's anti-union law to be unconstitutional. Walker plans to appeal the decision. Nevertheless, I do believe that it's important to promote labor rights and collective bargaining protections for all workers in the world. Our battle for liberation is for the working class and the poor too. These issues of economic exploitation and oppression don't just exist in Dixie; they exist worldwide.

Regardless of the new times, we still haven't seen radical economic growth in America. We have constitutional rights violations all of the time. Even income levels among some minority communities have dropped since 2009. Also, both parties have bailed out banks and immunized them from prosecution when they steal folks' homes. At least 16 trillion dollars have been sent from the Federal Reserve into domestic and international banking institutions. All of these problems didn't originate from the current administration, but the White House could of done more to handle the situation. The new global economy has more low level wages for the workers of the world. The stock market has grown, but real median household income in America had declined for the fourth straight year. It is in its lowest level since 1995. There is income dispersion where income is transferred from the middle and low income earners to the super rich. This income dispersion occurred before the 1929 stock market crash and the Great Depression. Americans are as well off as they were in 1967-68. Most Americans cannot pay for fighting multi-trillion dollar wars for 11 years, bailout trillions of dollars in uncovered casino bets by Wall Street, have their middle class jobs sent abroad by corporations, and still expect to have higher personal incomes. People from all sides can agree that we can be idealistic and hopeful for the future. Yet, we have to be realistic too. Many of us don't want money to pay for immoral wars, money to bailout out Wall Street bankers, and have no policy of massive forgiveness of student loans. There are international economic news as well. The federal court in Germany ruled something. It required the EU to require German citizens to provide 190 billion dollars to pay off the private Banks who lent too much money to Greece. In exchange for paying off the banks for Greece, the Greek people are to be driven into poverty and hopelessness. Greek pensions are cut, taxes are raised, employment is cut, social services are curtailed, and prices of utilities are raised. Therefore, the Greek people suffered extreme austerity in order for the private European banks to not lose money on their bad loans. The issue of the merging of the state and banks is that a conflict of interest can come about in the union (which can reward Wall Street in an economic excessive fashion at the expense of the working class). It isn't just the Republicans who were involved in this economically reactionary agenda. Bill Clinton's administration promoted Wall Street's interests heavily with the financial deregulation law of the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act. Many jobs today are at poverty level wages. Even Clinton's welfare reform act forced people to take on low wage jobs or face starvation. This law dismantled much of the social safety net especially after the 2008 economic crisis. Still, the Republicans are wrong for their hatred of affirmative action and other progressive policies that has enriched the masses of the people.



One of the ways to find solutions is to find the source or origin of our issues. It's a historical fact that in the ancient days of Africa and even in parts of the 20th century, we promoted a communal family structure beyond just nuclear families (even though, there isn't anything wrong with nuclear families at all). The Willie Lynch letter is probably a hoax, but our oppressors use lies and hoaxes in trying to oppress us. Now, there is nothing wrong with the existence of single parent households per se if the child grows up to be strong, upright, and a decent member of the human race. Yet, even in sometimes, decades ago, there was a cultural situation of more cultural cohesiveness in the American black community. There were nuclear families and even extended families in a communal setting (where grandparents and other relatives were work together in close proximity with each other to develop black community). Today, we have a new scenario. Our divorce rate is higher than it was in 1970 and other issues plague our community. According to scholars and researchers, the oppressors use of the ghettos (as Dr. Martin Luther King knew the plight of the ghetto and wanted to end slums, so the poor can grow their true destinies), poverty, the war on Drugs, and socioeconomic problems caused much of the problems in the Black family. When the urban ghettos rose up in the twentieth century, black people were experiencing migration and urbanization. Some nationalists blame integration for issues in some black families. One thing is clear though. Jim Crow segregation is evil and is not right at all. Folks were lynched, beaten, killed, and abused during Jim Crow. So, I am happy that Jim Crow segregation is dead once and for it. We are better off than experiencing that form of oppression. So, the truth is that in many areas of our life, it is better after Jim Crow, but the problem is that the corporate form of integration broke down much of the economic power base of black Americans. Some black people feel the need to go off and work for Corporate America without doing something about the poor brothers or poor sisters living in the streets. Many in Black America work for the majority white businesses and take their money into white banks. Just because you can now get close to talk with a white man in a restaurant, doesn't mean that you're going to get the same resources and opportunities as that white man. Discrimination should end, but we shouldn't lose our economic resources as an excuse to integrate into a society that doesn't respect us as equals. Economic inequality increasing is fruit of a corrupt, neo-colonial, monopoly capitalist system and it ought to be fought against. The cultural cohesiveness (or unity) of some black people have been harmed in recent decades and some misguided blacks use integration as an excuse to either deny their heritage or deny the reality to fight against white supremacy. We should defeat white supremacy via all legitimate means possible. Dr. Claud Anderson is completely right that black people should created their own massive economic infrastructure of their own (as preached by so many people like Marcus Garvey). Far too often, politicians are forced to catered to the interest of every ethnic group and background (and they name these backgrounds by name) and in many instances, black folks' interests are ignored. We aren't children anymore and we can't be color blinded to reality. There is nothing wrong with freedom and living in where you want to, but if you don't have the resources to help out your own people, then you have a problem here. So, we as black people should continue to fight for a stronger economic base, more cultural cohesiveness, and more Black Power.






There is the White House appealing a court ruling that stroke down the indefinite detention section of the NDAA law. There is the historic court ruling that struck down the indefinite detention provision of the National Defense Authorization Act. The Obama administration is appealing the ruling even when they claim to be against the measure previously. The New York federal judge Katherine Forrest issued a ruling which blocked provisions of the NDAA that its critics believe could allow American citizens to be kidnapped and help indefinitely without charge. The suit was brought up by New York Times columnist Chris Hedges. Hedges said that the law was unconstitutional because it could see journalists abducted and detained for merely speaking their minds. In “permanently” halting the enforcement of the law, Forrest noted how the plaintiffs presented “evidence that First Amendment rights have already been harmed and will be harmed by the prospect of (the law) being enforced. The public has a strong and undoubted interest in the clear preservation of First and Fifth Amendment rights.” The Obama administration still appealed the ruling. Business Insider David Seaman said that he doesn't agree with the appeal. Tangerine Bolen is the plaintiff in the lawsuit against the NDAA's indefinite detention provisions and Tangerine is the coordinator of StopNDAA.org. “For a man who doesn’t want the ability to order the military to abduct and detain citizens – without charge or trial – it is quite odd that his administration is appealing yet again,” he adds. The President issued a signing statement that promised to not use the indefinite detention provisions against U.S. citizens, but his administration specifically pushed for those provisions to be applied to U.S. citizens in the first place. NDAA's co-sponsor Senator Levin said that during a speech on the floor in December that the White House demanded the removal of language that would have protected Americans from being subject to indefinite detention. “The language which precluded the application of Section 1031 to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved…and the administration asked us to remove the language which says that U.S. citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section,” said Levin, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee. “It was the administration that asked us to remove the very language which we had in the bill which passed the committee…we removed it at the request of the administration,” said Levin, emphasizing, “It was the administration which asked us to remove the very language the absence of which is now objected to.” Now, potentially U.S. American citizens are targeted for assassination without legal process whatsoever and one American was murdered overseas by U.S. forces without due process at all.

Once again, Alex Jones sold out by interviewing a neo-con extremist named Dinesh D'Souza. This proves that he isn't outside of the Left/Right paradigm, but he's in it. He has more in common to the Tea Party Republicans than it is assumed. Alex Jones hates the President so much that he wants to interview a Republican puppet like Dinesh. I researched heavily about this man Dinesh D'Souza recently. I know a lot about him. His Obama 2016 film is about disinformation period. I knew I would expose Dinesh soon. He has been in the media a lot recently. He's another Michelle Malkin. He claims to be above culturally and intelligently other minorities, but even he submits under a system of white supremacy. Dinesh loves the corporate media and white American supremacy has made him rich. Dinesh ignores the oppression that black people suffer daily and that is why he made a book years in trying to deny the massive racism perpetrated against black people. The Indian born D'Souza comes from a nation that experienced imperialism by criminals. That nation has a history of discriminating against people with a darker skin complexion via the immoral, illogical caste system. Still, D'Souza loves to promote reactionary propaganda and imperialism overseas. His book called "The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11." tries to blame the cultural left for causing 9/11. This is extremely ignorant garbage, but Alex Jones allowed this man to spew his vile propaganda on his show. The truth is that the American left or any legitimate political ideology has nothing to do with 9/11. 9/11 was caused by a bunch of extremists and murderers. These murderers have been exploited by the military industrial complex as a means for this complex to promote immoral wars of aggression (plus further corporate plunder of certain countries' resources). He supported the Bush administration. The Mormon Glen Beck loves Dinesh D'Souza. Even Daniel Larison of the American Conservative called Dinesh's claims about Obama as ridiculous. Now, Dinesh's 2016 film said that the President wants some anti-colonial revenge as a motivation for his political policies. He used the racist opinion that Obama embraces some tribal anti-colonial mentality. Frankly, what is wrong with anti-colonialism? The answer is nothing. The reason is that anti-colonialism is the opposition of imperialist raiders or criminals plundering the wealth and resources of the Third World primarily. The anti-colonial doctrine teaches that the actions of imperialism by Western reactionary forces was unwarranted and wrong period. That isn't controversial nor hateful. It's a fact. Today, reactionaries like Dinesh D'Souza (whose ancestors were the victims of colonialism and imperialism ironically enough) supports Manifest destiny, free markets, the superiority of Western culture, and American exceptionalism. Manifest Destiny in America revolved around the theft, genocide, and murder of indigenous peoples spanning long centuries (under the exploitation of the name of the Most High God). Even early American anti-colonialists rebelled against British colonialism. Barack Obama isn't the radical as neo-con token puppets like Dinesh describe him as. The reason is that the President rejected the public option in the new health care law, he agrees with some strip mining, he agrees with some nuclear power development, and he executed attacks against nations globally via military drone attacks. White imperialistic thinkers like Gingrich ignore that tribal thinking is complex and that tribal peoples aren't directly influencing the President's decision making at all. There is no evidence that Barack Obama's worldview is "Kenyan anti-colonialism." In fact, the American Empire has increased under President Barack Obama. As human beings, we have the right to disagree with U.S. imperialist policies. Dinesh even hates people like Tim Wise who admits that white supremacy is a serious problem in the world that must be addressed. Dinesh's racism isn't limited to the President. In his 1995 book entitled, "The End of Racism," he said that enslaved blacked were just treated like property and that segregation was meant to protect blacks (this is a lie since Jim Crow segregation was meant to oppress and even kill black people period). He made the racist view that black people suffer form a civilizational deficit or that black people aren't civilized in Western society naturally. Now, Dinesh D'Souza is trying to get people to vote for Romney when both candidates are puppets of the same Left/Right Paradigm. Another important question is why does Dinesh D'Souza seem to advocate colonialism when colonialism murdered millions of human beings worldwide (including some of his own ethnic group)? Even Gutfeld claims that all policies from the Democrats want to infantilize an entire race and make them addicted to programs. Only 1.2 percent of the adult black population receive cash welfare. Gutfeld's views represent nonsense, because many programs like the GI Bill, FHA loans, and Social Security aren't handouts, but they enrich American society daily. To assume that black people are so weak to be infantilized by a political party is foolishness because back people survived the Middle Passage (or the Maafa), enslavement, debt peonage, Jim Crow, lynching, etc. without an infantilized mentality at all (when certain Europeans experienced a greater safety net than black people).

By Timothy