Saturday News

The British Parliament voted down Syria action as U.S. presses ahead with strike plans possibly in the future. This was a setback for the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government of Prime Minister David Cameron and the Obama administration. The Britain MPs voted down a government attempt to secure agreement in principle for military intervention in Syria. Cameron is deeply wounded politically now. His future as Conservative Party leader is uncertain. The White House and its European allies want a drive to strike against Syria. Now, we see that their justifications have been discredited. Much of their justifications for a military strike against Syria have been hatched by the CIA, MI5, the Mossad, and other intelligence agencies. The chemical attack in Ghouta was tragic and evil. We see that it could be most likely carried out by the U.S. backed insurgents as a casus belli or the opportunity to activate a plan for regime change in Syria. This can be used to isolate Iran and secure U.S. hegemony over the oil resources in the Middle East. On Thursday, the White House indicated that it planned to push ahead with a bombing campaign regardless. The New York Times reported, that: “administration officials made clear that the eroding support would not deter Mr. Obama in deciding to go ahead with a strike… all indications suggest that a strike could occur soon after United Nations investigators charged with scrutinizing the Aug. 21 attack leave the country. They are scheduled to depart Damascus on Saturday.” National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said, “President Obama’s decision-making will be guided by what is in the best interests of the United States. He believes that there are core interests at stake for the United States and that countries that violate international norms regarding chemical weapons need to be held accountable.” It is warmongering rhetoric to me. Now, the U.S. military has moved a fifth destroyer to the Mediterranean Sea. They have cruise missiles that would be used in any attack on Syria.  The United States could go to strike Syria in defiance of the vote in the British Parliament, overwhelming popular opposition in Britain, the United States, and throughout the world. Military strikes can lead into a regional and even global conflict. Iran has already threatened to respond by attacking Israel. Russia has also sent its own warships to the Mediterranean Sea. The Cameron government has been forced to back down from its plan to make yesterday's recalled vote in parliament an explicit sanctioning of military action. The opposition Labour Party had decided to refuse to back a military assault before the United Nations Security Council had heard back from chemical weapon inspectors in Syria (and has been allowed to vote on their findings). Some Conservatives have rebelled against a military strike too. Cameron recalled parliament yesterday, as the UN Security Council met to vote on a UK resolution “authorising all necessary measures to protect civilians” in Syria, with the intention of placing maximum pressure on Russia and China—or at least contrasting a positive vote for intervention by parliament with their having blocked any UN action. In the event, neither Britain’s UN Security Council resolution nor the parliamentary vote went in Cameron’s favor. There has been no conclusive evidence to substantiate British and U.S. government claims that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was responsible for a poison gas attack in Ghouta. Cameron was floundered by saying that Assad was totally guilty for the chemical attack in Damascus and in the next breath saying that “there is no 100 percent certainty about who is responsible.” Ultimately, the government lost by 285 votes to 272. An amendment moved by Labour placing a number of conditions to be met before any military intervention was defeated, 332 votes to 220, but in the end it was a Conservative revolt that defeated the government. Cameron had to concede that the British people mostly doesn't want the UK to execute military action against Syria. Labour wants an UN investigation before any action comes. Many government officials have criticized Labour leaders for not taking a fascist stand of immediately striking Syria. Opinion polls show estimates ranging from just six to 11 percent in support of missile strikes on Syria. With the toxic political legacy of Iraq hanging over them like the sword of Damocles, both Labour and the Conservative rebels were unable to sign off on military action on the basis of yet another transparent concoction of lies. A military strike in Syria can expand a regional war. Dissident Conservatives do not want to alienate Russia and China. Some British MPs believe that such a strike will strengthen al-Qaeda. The British Joint Intelligence Committee and the legal advice of Attorney General Dominic Grieve have used similar lies that tried to justify the Iraq War. So, we know that unwarranted war mongering is evil. We should fight for peace and real reconciliation in Syria without unjustified strikes at all. We need a political solution at the end of the day.



Ted Nugent is a reactionary extremist. He has said racist and sexist words for years. He is an ally of Alex Jones. Enough Said. Now, he recently said that the old lie that the Great Society was more responsible for the destruction to Black America than slavery and the KKK. He is a liar since slavery murdered and ruined the lives of millions of black human beings. He is still a board member of the National Rifle Association. The NRA Board membership are filled with reactionaries and other bigots. He is a disgrace to say the least. He said those sick words in the midst of the 50th Anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech. Reactionaries always attack the federal programs that were initiated via President Lyndon Johnson. Johnson declared a war on poverty. This plan wanted to reduce poverty and reduce the poor among the elderly as well. Nugent lied and said that the largely money spent on the Great Society was largely waste. The Great Society initiative included Medicare, Medicaid, and other anti-poverty programs. These programs included significant and lasting reductions in poverty. As Washington Post reporter Dylan Matthews noted, "...the best evidence indicates that the War on Poverty made a real and lasting difference." We know the large decrease in the poverty rate in the 1960's and part of it was achieved after the War on Poverty was announced in 1964 including federal housing spending. In 1964, the poverty rate was 19 percent. Ten years later, it was 11.2 percent, and it has not gone above 15.2 percent any year since then. Furthermore, Medicare was responsible for raising the insurance coverage rate of the elderly from 56 percent in 1963 to 97 percent by 1970. This doesn't mean that both parties are perfect, but it does mean that the social safety net has helped millions of Americans for decades. Nugent continues the lie that the Democratic Party is a modern slave master to low income Americans. He made the racist slander that the liberal Democratic politicians trained the citizens of Detroit to cheat and refuse to be productive. This racist ignores the fact that deindustrialization contributed to the harm done to Detroit not black humanity collectively. Black human beings are dynamic socially and intellectually. We do not need to be trained to do anything. We can act on our own period. Nugent lies about the poor when most of the poor are not parasites, degenerates, or criminals. Most of them work hard. Being poor is never largely a choice. Being poor is a reality for numerous complex reasons. Also, many human beings receive food stamps as a means to survive not as a means to game the system. Still, even the 1960's did not address all wealth disparities, racial disparities, or criminal justice system disparities as well. We do know that most black human beings have benefited from many social programs. Even at their height, programs like AFDC/TANF never reached no more than perhaps 8 percent of black Americans at any given time (now it’s about 4 percent). Even food stamps — for which some near-poor families are also eligible, in addition to the officially poor — were never being received by more than 1 in 4 blacks at a given time (now it’s about 18 percent). Many black Americans temporarily receive social programs and these programs never inculcate some cultural dysfunction or damage to all black human beings. Likewise, most TANF recipients do not receive public housing or Section 8 housing voucher benefits. And only 17 percent of persons receiving some form of housing assistance (either public housing or Section 8 vouchers) also receive cash benefits from TANF. Even if you have housing benefits, it is not free at all, which refutes the lie that the government gives free stuff to citizens. Nothing is given for free on many occasions. Also, many welfare spending programs in places like Scandinavian countries have a very high standard of living, low poverty, strong education, and a high level of GDP. So, welfare spending never contributes to some dysfunctional culture of poverty collectively. In the States, many social programs have been radically cut from AFDC to food stamps. The deal is that austerity, deindustralization, and attacks on the black community by the system of white supremacy has harmed many black lives. Yet most Medicaid recipients are not black, and most dollars spent in the program are not spent on black people. Likewise, most black people are not on Medicaid. So to blame Medicaid for welfare dependence is obscene. Many of the Great Society programs were working until budgets were cut and the economy started to shift from manufacturing. The data is clear: in the years between 1965 and 1973, poverty rates plummeted, and especially in urban areas, by about 38 percent. Now, I’m not suggesting that the Great Society programs were the only force there — the economy was strong too — but they played a part, to be sure. By the mid 1970's, most of the innovative Great Society programs were cut or eliminated (with only cash assistance around). In U.S., in the 1950s and ‘60s, when the tax rate was much higher than it is now (both on individuals and companies), had far higher rates of investment than any country in the so-called “third world,” despite costs. Today, neoliberal actions, massive austerity, and other wicked forms of globalization have increased the economic inequality in the world. By the late 1970's, even Jimmy Carter used deregulation, refusal to pass law reform, and had a cut in the gains tax for businesses. This set the table for Reaganomics. The Bowles-Simpson is highly reactionary and not socialist despite what the reactionary say. Washington based, hugely funded foundations and special interests readily dominate the mainstream two party system in the United States of America.




We see that South Korean President Park cracked down on a left leaning party over alleged "rebellion conspiracy." The state intelligence agency arrested three officials of a minor progressive party on rare charges of conspiracy to stage a rebellion according to prosecutors. The arrests came just hours after the National Intelligence or NIS agents raided the homes and offices of Rep. Lee Seok-ki of the Unified Progressive Party (UPP) and nine key party members. The NIS put the three UPP officials including the Party's vice chairman Hong Soon-seok under an emergency arrest as prosecutors have said. “(The UPP officials) are charged with conspiracy to commit a rebellion and violating the National Security Law,” said Choi Tae-won, a senior prosecutor of the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office. The criminal law bans any activity that “prepares, conspires, propagandizes or instigates a rebellion against the state.” Yet, the NIS did not seek an arrest warrant for Rep. Lee according to prosecutors. Lee's detention requires parliamentary consent as lawmakers in South Korea are immune from arrest while the National Assembly is in session. The agency is expected to seek arrest warrants for the three on Thursday to further detain for questioning they added. In South Korea, investigative agencies have to seek a detention warrant within 48 hours to detain a suspect or they must immediately release the suspect. "The NIS has long prepared an internal investigation into the case,” Choi said, declining to further comment on the detailed charges as the investigation is ongoing. The UPP members allegedly had a plan to blow up infrastructure in the country including communication networks, a district court official said (it quoted court issued warrants for the three officials). “They are facing multiple charges, such as plotting to blow up national infrastructure, forming an organization that threatens national security, praising North Korea and conspiracy to stage a rebellion,” the Suwon District Court official said. Both the prosecution office and the NIS declined to comment on the charges. The last instance of a person indicted for violating the law dates back to the 1980's. “We have not seen any case recently in which the investigative agency indicted someone on charges of conspiracy to commit a rebellion,” a legal expert said. “It is likely that (the NIS) has secured concrete evidence that can prove the charges,” the expert added. The UPP criticized the INS move. They said that the spy agency is abusing its political power instead of apologizing for allegedly meddling in last year's Presidential election.  “As the truth behind the rigged election has emerged, (the presidential office) Cheong Wa Dae, faced with an unprecedented crisis, and the NIS, on the verge of collapse, are carrying out an anti-communist campaign of the Yushin era in the 21st century,” Lee Jung-hee, the chief of the UPP, said in a press conference in front of Rep. Lee’s office. The Yushin era refers to the period in the 1970s when President Park Geun-hye’s late father and former President Park Chung-hee ruled the country with an iron fist. Ruling Saenuri Party spokesman Rep. Yoo Il-ho called for a strict investigation into the allegations, saying they cause “fear beyond shock.” Rep. Bae Jae-jeuing is a spokeswoman of the main opposition Democratic Party, meanwhile voiced concern over the raid, saying it will be watched closely. Senior Presidential press secretary Lee Jung-hyun told reporters he learned of the raid on the new. “If true, (the allegations are) truly astonishing,” he said. “I haven’t yet heard of the president’s reaction but given the seriousness of the issue, she is likely to have been briefed on it.”

 

Now, we know that economic inequality is the policy of the establishment. The debt ceiling and other debates are important in our history. We have trillions of dollars sent to Wall Street. There are cuts to programs, which benefit working human beings. Many Republicans reject any discussion of tax increases on the super-rich. Some Democrats love austerity and love war mongering, so both parties have members who are in unison. Wall Street and others have crashed the economy. The government bailed out the bankers to the tune of trillions of dollars and austerity will be enforced on working people. The corporate elite are allied with the government and many in the government have advanced economic inequality and a neoliberal economic agenda. That means that policies are executed to be benefited on behalf of the rich and capital. The richest 0.01 percent of the population lives in a world that is increasingly disconnected from the rest of the population (from the merely wealthy on down to the poorest). When including public and private benefits in calculations, the after-tax income of the richest 1 percent of the population increased 256 percent between 1979 and 2006. According to Hacker and Pierson skills and education levels in the United States aren’t significantly different from those in other advanced capitalist countries. The U.S. economy is actually less exposed to the global economy than are many European economies. Yet U.S. income inequality is far more severe than that in Europe or Japan. So after dispatching the “usual suspects,” they end up at their quarry: U.S. government policy. They find that the U.S. government has shifted more reactionary in its economic policies since 1968. The New Deal coalition was broken up during the 1968 election. This was when the Republican Richard Nixon was brought to power as President. Nixon grew domestic spending (yet, he violated human rights against the heroic Black Panthers and did other evil political actions) and deregulation came under Carter including Reagan. Hacker and Pierson said that in the late 1970's and the 1980's, Big Business used politics as a means to fight unions and seek more power in Washington (via PACs, lobbies, and campaign contributions).  This reactionary turn in American politics is exemplified in the health care debate. During the 2009 health care battle in Congress, the main liberal lobbies in Washington formed Health Care for America Now (HCAN) to lobby for the Obama health care proposal. HCAN wanted a corporate friendly plan and they eliminated voice for genuine universal, single payer health care to exist to its left. The result is a corporate friendly healthcare law. Only in mass struggle, confronting the system, and forming independence from the status quo can we see real, revolutionary political changes in America indeed.

 

 

I find it interesting  that Cornell West seeks heavily not to uplift black humanity a lot. Recently, he said that Al Sharpton (who is an establishment Democrat and a reformist) is the bonafide House Negro of the Obama plantation. To a lot of Brothers and Sisters, those are words are used to question a human being's blackness and they are very personal. He or Cornell West seeks to degrade black folks (that ally with the administration) in the most vile, racist terms as a means to express dissent with the administration. A lot of what he says about war, civil liberties, Wall Street criminality, and other matters are accurate and truthful. I think that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. would be in the front lines decrying militarism, economic exploitation, and imperialism, but he would also realize that our oppression in the system of white supremacy existed long before Barack Obama was elected as well. Accountability should come to our elected leaders, but regardless of who is in office, we still have the deal with the same system of oppression & exploitation. Also, I think that Kirsten does a great service in outlining these issues of war & other political issues, so we can be comprehensive in our outlook of reality. Not to mention that now we live in a new era of our history. I think now, we need more strategies, more plans, and more inspiration as a means to fight oppression. The constant use of the plantation reference makes a mockery of the suffering of our people. Remember, Dr. John Henrik Clarke debated him and Dr. Clarke never had to use ad hominem attacks to dissent with West. He just used his experience, wisdom, and facts. I find that many folks like West have an apprehension towards many pan-Afrikan Black power movement advocates. I love human rights, workers rights, and civil liberties like the next man, but at the end of the day, we are all fighting for pan African black liberation. Now, we have the right to disagree with the White House on many issues, but we can't just critique or march. We should be the leaders and advocate mentorships, community development, health improvement, fights against unjust laws and other solutions to build up Black Humanity.  I think the Sister Trojan Pam calls them (or folks like Simmons, and others) showcase black human beings. They are funded by the establishment as a means to misdirect the black collective into loving the system instead of confronting the system as a means to create radical, revolutionary changes. The folks that some have mentioned as showcase black human beings never call for revolutionary changes, Black Power, Black Unity, or pan Africanism, just reform. They are reformists who seek to make black human beings to love the 2 party system or seek token concessions (when any concession given by the enemy benefits the enemy not the collective masses of black people. A concession given by the enemy can be taken away). Many of our concessions have been eliminated in the past decades. Some of them being self-hating is icing on the cake, because self-hating blacks have no allegiance to black men or black women collectively (as evident in Russell Simmons' slander of Harriet Tubman, Don Lemon's allying with an adulterous racist, etc.). That is why the media and Hollywood loves self-haters all the time. They or the self-haters have allegiance to the system. That is why a confident, Self-aware, and conscious Black Man and a confident, Self-aware, and conscious Black Woman feels spiritually, morally, and socially greater than a self-hater (when self-hatred is always correlated with immorality, social insecurities, inferiority complexes, anti-blackness, and evil deception). Yet, Cornel West's demagogic rhetoric is what I disagree with. Strategy is important here. I can outline disagreement with some of African descent (like the President Barack Obama) without adolescent rhetoric that mocks the suffering of our ancestors, who experienced slavery.

 

 

By Timothy