Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts

Monday, March 21, 2016

Canada to share information about Canadians traveling overland to the US.

A development of the recent meeting of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and U.S. President Barack Obama is that Canada will share with the US information on Canadians traveling overland to the states. The U.S. will reciprocate.

Thomas Walkom, writing in the Toronto Star, notes that in the U.S., national security is a key issue and Canada is considered suspect. He points out that Obama's first homeland security chief, Janet Napolitano, insisted that the 9/11 attackers came through Canada, even though evidence seems to contradict this. The announcement of the agreement was made not by Trudeau but by Obama.
The Canada Border Service already provides Americans with data on third-country citizens and Canadians who are permanent residents who travel overland to the U.S. However, the information consists of only basic data such as name, date of birth, and point of entry. Walkom remarks that federal privacy commissioners have pointed out that information sharing can be dangerous.
In 2011, the then privacy commissioner, Jennifer Stoddart pointed to the Maher Arar case, "in which Canada’s sharing of faulty information with the U.S. led to the arrest, rendition and torture of an innocent Canadian citizen. She also cited the cases of three other Muslim Canadians who had been subject to torture abroad in part because of Canada’s too-casual approach to sharing information." The results of the Arar inquiry can be found here. A more readable summary can be found here. Arar received compensation of $10 million from the Canadian government, no doubt to avoid a possible court battle. While the inquiry found that Arar was not a terrorist, he is still on the no-fly list in the U.S. He was deported or rather rendered to Syria because the U.S. claimed he was part of an Al Qaeda cell. Canadian RCMP intelligence authorities had provided the U.S. with raw unvetted intelligence data on Arar to the US. The U.S. refused to cooperate with the Arar inquiry. To his credit, the right-wing Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day still said he believed Arar to be innocent even after U.S. authorities showed him classified information supposed to show his guilt.
The new system was to have been already in place last July but has run into delays. It is part of the Beyond the Border program. Walkom describes it as an attempt to build a kind of wall around North America. The current federal privacy commissioner, Daniel Therrien refused to comment on the program until he knows exactly what the Trudeau government is proposing.
Canada and the U.S. have rather conflicting aims in the program. Canada's main aim is to have faster border crossings to help facilitate Canada-U.S. trade and tourism while the U.S. wants to ensure that its borders are secure.
The plan envisions joint law enforcement teams along the border. However, practical problems immediately arose. Who has jurisdiction if a U.S. agent shoots and kills a suspect but on the Canadian side of the border? As Walkom sees it the two sides have conflicting views of the border:Ottawa wants what it calls a thin border to allow easy passage of people and goods back and forth. As evidenced by last week’s announcement, it is willing to sacrifice some of the privacy of its citizenry in return for this.
Washington, however, wants a thick border that would make it harder for terrorists to enter the U.S.
So while it is happy to receive information from Ottawa and even give back some in return, it is not willing to substantially relax its guard.
Walkom worries that the result will be a still difficult border to cross while there will be an increased likelihood more Canadians will end up on a US security list. However, pre-clearance processes should make crossing quicker for many.
Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale claims the border security changes Trudeau and Obama agreed to are designed to make crossing the border "smoother." He said that the new rules would impact preclearance procedures, information sharing. and no-flly lists in both countries:"The most important thing is an expansion in pre-clearance, This is the ability to clear American customs and immigration procedures before you leave Canada, so that once you arrive in the United States … there's no further checking of passports and so forth."There is already preclearance at a number of Canadian airports including at Calgary, Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver. Trudeau and Obma agreed to add more members to the list. The government is also examining pre-clearance for train routes.
Canadian Civil Liberties Directory Executive Director, Sukanya Pilly, claimed the increased sharing of information could have negative impacts:"When you collect a huge amount of information about an individual, it can result in profiling." However, Goodale claimed that the government had been careful about privacy issues and the information was non-intrusive. Goodale also said that the two countries will share information on their respective no-fly lists: "(Canadian and American no-fly lists) are not up until this point shared with each other," he said. "This arrangement will make it possible for that to happen." Under the new agreement, Canada will also work with the U.S. to develop a better way of "getting people off the list if they ought not to be there," Goodale said. "We need an effective redress system," he said.
The border tracking system was originally promised back in 2001 as part of the perimeter security pact. There is to be a working group set up within 60 days to work out errors of identity on the no-fly lists of the two countries.


Saturday, January 10, 2015

Alberta Premier Prentice praises Nebraska court decision on Keystone XL

The premier of Alberta said that the Nebraska Supreme Court ruling which vacated a district court judgment that a law determining how the route would be determined was unconstitutional, helped move the approval process forward.

The premier, Jim Prentice, said that the political process of approving the project is still far from over: “I think it remains to be seen how this plays out in the United States. From my perspective, the project should be approved. It will create jobs, it’s an environmentally defensible project, it’s supported by the American people. I think my role as the premier of Alberta is to be in Washington to ensure that the facts are clear, to speak to the environmental record of Alberta as a jurisdiction." Prentice intends to go to Washington in February to lobby in favor of approval for the project.
 During the period when the Nebraska Supreme Court was considering the lawsuit case brought by Nebraska landowners the US State Department review of the pipeline project had been paused. The review will now continue. When the review is finished and a recommendation made to Obama, he will make the final decision as to whether the pipeline will be built. In the new Congress, Republicans control both the House and the Senate. The Republicans have already passed legislation through the House that approves construction of Keystone XL. Obama threatens to veto any bill passed that favors the project. Keystone XL is part of a larger project that will deliver oil from the Alberta Tar Sands and other areas as far as refineries on the Gulf Coast in Texas.
 The CEO of Trans-Canada, the company building the project, Russ Girling, expressed pleasure at the Nebraska decision: "It removes what we believe is the stated reason for the delay in the presidential approval process. Now, hopefully that process can pick up where it left off. We would hope that we can get on with an approval in a very short timeframe." While some have said that lower oil prices make the project less attractive or even needed, Girling took the opposite position claiming that the low prices made it more necessary to find a more efficient and cheaper alternative to rail transportation as the pipeline would be. More pressure will be put on Obama to ensure the review is completed quickly and a decision made. Republican House Speaker, John Boehner, said it was time to start building: "President Obama is now out of excuses for blocking the Keystone pipeline and the thousands of American jobs it would create." 
While Prentice and Trans-Canada executives praised the Nebraska ruling, Randy Thompson who was lead plaintiff in the case in the lower court expressed disappointment at the ruling. The ruling was close with four of seven judges agreeing with the lower court that the law in question was unconstitutional. A super-majority majority was needed to support the lower court ruling. Thompson said: "This has been tremendously upsetting for landowners in this process and the fact that political leaders have just tried to kick our butts along with TransCanada has been tremendously disappointing. It's time for the president to put an end to this damn thing, let us get back to our lives, get back to raising food for America." 
 Some political observers think that Obama might be open to a deal on the Keystone including Ryan Lizza writing in the New Yorker. He speculates that the Republicans who control both houses might be willing to trade something that Obama wants in return for his not vetoing approval of Keystone. Obama could request a carbon tax or a large infrastructure project, or alternative measures to help the environment or advance alternative energy production. Lizza claims: From the White House’s perspective, the Keystone XL pipeline should be an ideal policy to give away in a trade: it’s a major issue that Republicans care a great deal about but one that Obama seems to view as a sideshow. A Senate bill to approve the Keystone XL passed a key Senate committee, on Thursday. The Energy and Natural Resources Committee approved the bill by a vote of 13 to 9.


Monday, September 24, 2012

Homer Simpson will vote for Mitt Romney


Airing soon will be an episode of the Simpsons in which Homer decides that he will cast his vote for Mitt Romney. The episode will air the Sunday after next, October 7 as reported by the CBC. Apparently Homer must be voting in advance polls!
Even though Mitt Romney is charged with accusing 47% of Americans with being lazy, government-dependent oafs he is able to win over cartoon character Homer Simpson even though he describes himself on the appended video clip as a:
"40-year-old white guy who didn't go to college and gets all his news from monitors at gas stations."
Homer is a bit puzzled why he has to vote when he thinks that it is the job of the Supreme Court to decide on leaders but he goes ahead anyway. He has no voter ID but when he describes himself the election authority lets him vote since he is white and uneducated.
Homer decides against voting for Obama since his wife already keeps telling him to eat healthy and no doubt that is one too many bugging him about that. The clincher is that Obama promised death panels but Homer's ornery grandpa is still kicking.
Homer thinks Obamacare is OK and since Romney invented that he eventually decides to vote for Romney. As soon as he votes for Romney he gets to see Romney's tax returns. The returns show that the government paid Romney money for 5 years. Then as befits a Romney voter Homer is outsourced to China where he claims that at least he has a steady job making American flags. You can see the rest of the story on the clip.
Some of the many comments are interesting. One reader quips:
"Is Homer the fictious character, or is Mitt. How can one be sure?"
Another obviously biased Obama supporter predicts:
Homer Simpson has a better chance of winning this election than Romney.
Perhaps this will start a campaign to write-in Homer Simpson for president. I gather cartoon characters often get write-in votes in U.S. elections. At this site, the top write-in candidate is Frosty the Snowman, a seasonal candidate.


Wednesday, April 25, 2012

How much revenue will new Ontario tax on rich raise?



In order to pass their budget in the province of Ontario the minority Liberal government made a deal to impose a 2 per cent surtax on those earning more than 500,000 a year in return for support from the New Democratic Party. The Liberals say the increased revenues will go to reduce the 15 billion dollar provincial deficit. However, there is considerable debate about how much the new tax will actually generate.

Kevin Milligan an economics prof. at the U. of B.C. said: "We're still going to raise revenue from this new tax. But it just might not be as much as the Liberals or NDP hope," This is hardly surprising since politicians are apt to be too optimistic when calculating such revenues. However, the rich are also well endowed with tax avoidance experts.

Not only may the rich find loopholes to negate the increase but they may be able to move income out of Ontario and thus frustrate the intended effect of the new tax. Even so some increase in revenue is better than none and perhaps we should count in the increased payments for tax experts who may then spend more!

Other jurisdictions such as the U.S. are attempting to introduce more taxes on the rich. In the U.S. Obama is plumping for the Buffet rule that would see a 30 per cent tax on the very rich. So far the Republicans have managed to frustrate attempts to pass such a tax.

However, Obama's proposal is timid compared to that of Francois Hollande the front runner in the race for the French presidency. He has suggests there be a 75 per cent tax on millionaires. '

The UK government had a top tax rate of 50 per cent but lowered it claiming that it did not increase revenue. Perhaps the revenue refers to donations to the political campaigns of the ruling parties as well as to the government. The rate has gone down to 45 per cent. For much more see this CBC article.

Sunday, April 15, 2012

Harper and Obama support each other at Summit of Americas




Canada and the U.S. stand alone on the issue of excluding Cuba from the Summit of the Americas and the two united also against decriminalizing drugs. The host country and a U.S. ally Colombia spoke out against excluding Cuba. President Juan Santos said that holding another meeting while excluding Cuba would be unacceptable.

Canada and its faithful ally Canada were the only two countries not to lobby for including Cuba. Interesting that a die hard conservative Stephen Harper and liberal Barack Obama see eye to eye on the matter. At one time Canada developed relations with Cuba in spite of U.S. objections. Even now we do not have travel or trade restrictions as does the U.S. Sherrit Gordon mines has extensive investments in Cuba.

Santos said: "The isolation, the embargo, the indifference, the looking the other way don't work," . "It's an anachronism that keeps us anchored in a Cold War era that was overcome decades ago." No doubt the U.S. position has to do with internal politics and expatriate Cuban voters.Canada's position is probably a function of Harper's wanting to curry favor with the U.S.

President Santos also wanted to have a debate on decriminalizing drugs. Stephen Harper said that he would not entertain any policy changes that would decriminalize drugs. In Canada Harper has consistently opposed even harm reduction strategies such as safe injection sites. Obama also claimed that legalization was not the answer. This liberal president again follows the same policies as our reactionary Canadian prime minister.

Harper waas mainly trying to sell Canada as a good source of natural resources for Latin America's growing economies. He stressed the fact that he has streamlined environmental regulations to make it easier and quicker for projects to be approved.

Of course Harper spins his "reforms" positively:"We cannot allow valid concerns about environmental protection to be used as an excuse to trap worthwhile projects in reviews without end," He also noted that Canadian banks were among the strongest in the world.

Meanwhile Latin American leaders have founded their own group that excludes Canada and the U.S. The group is called the Community of Latin American and Caribbean states. No doubt this will be a competitor to the Summit of the Americas In fact a number of nations have said that they will not even come to the next meeting of the Summit of the Americas if Cuba is still excluded. For more see this article.

Monday, March 1, 2010

Obama owes Harper a case of beer!

I wonder if Obama will autograph the labels? If he does Harper could auction them on eBay and help pay the debt for the Vancouver games! This is from politico.


Obama, Harper make friendly wager
By: Amie Parnes
February 28, 2010 03:36 PM EST

It seems that White House press secretary Robert Gibbs isn't the only one wagering these days.

President Barack Obama has a friendly bet over the U.S.-Canada men's hockey game, too.

If the U.S. wins the hockey match, Prime Minister Stephen Harper will purchase a case of Yuengling for Obama, said White House assistant press secretary Nick Shapiro.

If Canada wins the game, Obama will purchase a case of Molson Canadian for Harper, Shapiro said.

Meanwhile in Vancouver, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano met with Harper Sunday morning before motorcading to the men's hockey game together, an aide said. Napolitano is decked out in Team USA gear.


© 2010 Capitol News Company, LLC

Friday, September 5, 2008

Layton Borrows from Obama's playbook

Layton should avoid Obama like the plague. Obama's rhetoric is fraudulent for the most part. His foreign policy is aggressive U.S. imperialism or "hegemonic" to use the more common politically correct terminology nowadays. Has Layton not listened to what Obama has to say on Afghanistan? While Layton wants Canadians out, Obama will put in many more Americans.
Layton should realise too that Bush is far down in the polls while Harper is enjoying a lead over the Liberals. Many Canadians need to be convinced to vote against Harper and are not interested in change the way Americans are. Many Canadians seem so engrossed in watching the bread and circuses in the U.S. that they are not paying much attention to what Harper has been doing.
Layton is probably right to concentrate on attacking Harper. I wonder if there will be much movement towards strategic voting to try to block a Harper majority? Of course we must wait and see what happens in the polls. Hopefully Conservative support will erode significantly. However, even if the present levels remain a majority is not likely.

Layton borrows from Obama's election playbook
By: Jessica McDiarmid
Updated: September 5 at 07:12 AM CDT

TORONTO -- The federal New Democratic Party signalled Thursday that it will borrow from Barack Obama's playbook in its efforts to oust Prime Minister Stephen Harper from power.
The party has never been in a better position to fight a federal election and is boasting the best slate of candidates it's had in a long time, said leader Jack Layton as he rallied supporters in Toronto just days before an election call anticipated for Sunday morning.
For the first time in history, the party has a full budget to wage battle against the Conservatives -- about $18.3 million, the maximum amount allowed by Elections Canada -- Layton said.
NDP strategists said the focus of their campaign will be solely on replacing Harper, as opposed to other elections when multiple opponents were targeted. During his 24-minute speech on Thursday, Layton completely avoided mentioning Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion.
Echoing some of Obama's speeches, Layton said his party's campaign will centre on "hope" and "change."
"It's really a vision of hope, it's a vision about change," said Layton. "It's a vision that says we can actually make a different choice than we've been making in the past."
Layton said he listened closely to Obama's speeches and there are many parallels between the situations of the two countries. He claimed the Democrats' environmental policy is "identical" to the NDP's.
"I think we're picking up on some of the energy we're seeing in the United States as well, and I think that could be kind of exciting," said Layton.
Layton met with the chief architect of Obama's successful bid for the Democratic nomination in the United States and the NDP's strategy runs parallel to -- rather than imitating -- Obama's, said campaign spokesman Brad Lavigne.
"Because of the American election, a lot of people are tuning in, they're getting excited about the potential winds of change, and what we want to do is we kind of want to piggyback on that, those winds of change," Lavigne said.
Layton also used his speech to list off a host of issues that he would address if he controlled the government, including public transit, doctor and nurse shortages, the environment and the listeriosis outbreak.
Sources have told The Canadian Press that Harper will officially launch the federal election campaign Sunday with a visit to the Governor General at 9 a.m. ET.
The election is expected to be held on Oct. 14.
--

Thursday, February 28, 2008

American voters to have say on NAFTA

It certainly is a great idea to open NAFTA. Open it and throw it in the garbage. NAFTA is not a free trade agreement so much as an agreement that Canada will supply oil and natural resources on sweetheart terms to the U.S. and an agreement that we must share those resources with the U.S. It also challenges our ability to have an independent economic policy that might go counter to corporate interests. The dispute mechanism almost always shafts us with the softwood lumber conflict. No doubt the Americans haven't a clue about all this. The forces that want further integration of the North American market are not about to jettison NAFTA. This is pure rhetoric. Seems to me that at one time the Liberals were going to renegotiate NAFTA! This is from the National Post.

Thursday, February 28, 2008
American voters to have say on NAFTA
Job Losses Mount
Janet Whitman, National Post, With Files From News Services Published: Thursday, February 28, 2008
NEW YORK - Blaming free trade for an exodus of good jobs, about a dozen activists gathered outside Hillary Clinton's senate office here on Tuesday before some were carted off by police.
Similar feelings about free trade are running high across the United States amid a growing belief among many Americans that trade with other countries is hurting the economy.
The sentiment has made free trade -- in particular the nearly 15-year-old North American Free Trade Agreement between the United States, Canada and Mexico -- a front-burner issue for U.S. presidential candidates such as Ms. Clinton.
The New York Senator and rival presidential contender Barack Obama ratcheted up their anti-NAFTA rhetoric during a televised debate on Tuesday night in Cleveland, which has been hit hard by the loss of manufacturing jobs. Each candidate pledged to pull out of the trade agreement unless changes are made to the deal.
Economists interviewed yesterday said they don't believe the Democratic candidates are simply pandering to voters, including blue-collar workers in the Midwest where manufacturing job losses have taken a big toll.
Instead, with the increasing cries against it here, NAFTA will probably end up back on the bargaining table if either Democratic candidate is elected president, economists predicted.
"If you ask who won or lost across North America, it is obvious that NAFTA encouraged and accelerated the redistribution of wealth upward in all three countries," said Jeff Faux, founder of the Economic Policy Institute, a labour-oriented think-tank in Washington, D.C. "How much so is open to debate. But I think most people--even those who think it was a good idea -- acknowledge that NAFTA was oversold."
Beyond agreeing they would like to see tougher labour and environmental safeguards, Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama have been vague on details about what changes they would seek.
Besides rejigging NAFTA, the two presidential hopefuls have called for a time out in the negotiation of new free trade pacts. Neither candidate is believed to be interested in encircling the country with protectionist walls.
Once in office, they could take the action to "opt out" of NAFTA within six months if Canada and Mexico refuse to strengthen labour and environmental provisions and change an aspect of the agreement that favours corporate interests too much.
The candidates' apparent focus on labour and environmental standards suggests Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama are mainly concerned about Mexico.
But opening NAFTA up to renegotiation could end up putting any issue on the table.
In Ottawa yesterday, federal Trade Minister David Emerson hinted at that possibility, saying Canada could seek its own list of concessions -- including on the topic of oil.
As part of NAFTA, Canada is forbidden from rationing oil exports to the United States in the event of a supply disruption or global shortage, unless the same cutbacks are forced on Canadians.
"Knowledgeable observers would have to take note of the fact that we are the largest supplier of energy to the U.S. and NAFTA has been the foundation for integrating the North American energy market," Mr. Emerson told reporters.
"When people get below the rhetoric and pick away at the details, they are going to find it's not such a slam-dunk proposition."
Federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty suggested in comments to reporters yesterday morning that Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama may not be completely up to speed on the trade agreement.
"NAFTA is of tremendous benefits to Americans, and perhaps the nominees have not had the opportunity to familiarize themselves with the benefits to Americans and the American economy," Mr. Flaherty said in Toronto.
"There's a tendency to say it favours Mexico, or it favours Canada, rather than to recognize the mutual benefits that come out of free trade."
Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama, once strong supporters of free trade, have changed their views on NAFTA in recent years.
Ms. Clinton, who helped her husband, Bill Clinton, lobby for the ratification of NAFTA while he was president, said she became a critic when she ran for the U.S. Senate in 2000.
Mr. Obama acknowledged that during his Senate campaign in 2004, he had said that NAFTA brought huge benefits to his state of Illinois.
As they started campaigning for president, their rhetoric about NAFTA has become increasingly harsh.
Mr. Obama now says, "I don't think NAFTA has been good for Americans, and I never have."
Ms. Clinton says, "You know, I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning. I didn't have a public position on it because I was part of the [Clinton] administration."
Copyright © 2007 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks

Thursday, February 21, 2008

Obama on Military expansion and on Israel.

This is from Obama's website. Typical of the bi-partisan support for U.S. hegemony that has its underpinning a military that is many times the size of the nearest rival Obama does not question military spending. In fact he wants to expand the military. So much for any change in US foreign policy! He may mouth a different rhetoric but he wants a bigger stick.If you read through the paragraphs on Israel there is not one single criticism of Israel or any single sentence about any rights the Palestinians might have. The donations will be just pouring in.

Expand the Military: We have learned from Iraq that our military needs more men and women in uniform to reduce the strain on our active force. Obama will increase the size of ground forces, adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines.New Capabilities: Obama will give our troops new equipment, armor, training, and skills like language training. He will also strengthen our civilian capacity, so that our civilian agencies have the critical skills and equipment they need to integrate their efforts with our military.

On Israel
Ensure a Strong U.S.-Israel Partnership: Barack Obama strongly supports the U.S.-Israel relationship, believes that our first and incontrovertible commitment in the Middle East must be to the security of Israel, America's strongest ally in the Middle East. Obama supports this closeness, stating that that the United States would never distance itself from Israel.Support Israel's Right to Self Defense: During the July 2006 Lebanon war, Barack Obama stood up strongly for Israel's right to defend itself from Hezbollah raids and rocket attacks, cosponsoring a Senate resolution against Iran and Syria's involvement in the war, and insisting that Israel should not be pressured into a ceasefire that did not deal with the threat of Hezbollah missiles. He believes strongly in Israel's right to protect its citizens.Support Foreign Assistance to Israel: Barack Obama has consistently supported foreign assistance to Israel. He defends and supports the annual foreign aid package that involves both military and economic assistance to Israel and has advocated increased foreign aid budgets to ensure that these funding priorities are met. He has called for continuing U.S. cooperation with Israel in the development of missile defense systems.

Thursday, January 10, 2008

Obama's policies: Smile of the Day

"Barack Obama is in favour of hope, unity and change. If only his
rivals would agree to campaign on a ticket of despair, discord and
stagnation, the electorate would have a real choice."
--Gideon Rachman, Financial Times, January 7 2008

Monday, January 7, 2008

Black Agenda Report on Obama

Put in different terms the development of a black middle class within capitalist America has fragmented blacks in such a way that it is quite difficult to build a mass black movement that would be any basic challenge to corporate capitalism. The ruling capitalist class has successfully integrated the black middle class into the system. This analysis is in its own way quite idealist since the so-called corporate media is part of the superstructure. Certainly it can help form consciousness but it is the very success of many blacks being integrated into the system that make an Oprah Obama media event possible. The concentration of the black movement on blackness as against class has the result as the article notes that many black folks yearn to see a Supreme (HNIC) Head Negro in Charge even though that negro represents the ruling class quite well.This is from the BAR website.



2007: The Year of Black `Media Leaders' - Especially Obama

by BAR executive editor Glen Ford

"African Americans' most urgent duty is to methodically rebuild a
Movement that is independent of corporate media."

2008 Obama Turn Right Cartoon

In the late Sixties, Black America seemed on its way to reaching
critical velocity in its arc to self-determination and some degree of
security. But in the intervening 40 years, the trajectory of true
Black progress has become erratic and uneven, for lack of the force
that fueled the initial takeoff: a People's Movement. Energies
dissipated as self-concerned grouplets among African Americans sought
their own orbits - usually circling hungrily in the gravitational pull
of corporate America. These greedy little satellites, imagining
themselves much bigger and more powerful than they really are, bask
vicariously in the glow of real power, which is ever more concentrated
in a dwindling fraction of the overwhelmingly white super-rich
population.

Believing they have broken "free" of the Historical Black Political
Consensus on social justice, societal transformation, and peace,
opportunistic Black sub-classes - never representing mass Black
opinion, but only their own petty aspirations - have in the past
decade been "empowered" by corporate America to exert profoundly
destructive centrifugal forces on the larger Black polity. What is
left of collective African American political cohesion is rapidly
shattering under the combined pressures of Black corporate satellites
and the bottomless Black Hole that the Corporate Order has become.

"What is left of collective African American political cohesion is
rapidly shattering under the centrifugal pressures of Black corporate
satellites."

The great historical irony for Black America is that this deluded
descent into the depths of dependency on corporate mechanisms - marked
most dramatically and horrifically by acquiescence to the racists'
claim that race is little or no factor in American life - occurs at
precisely the epoch when U.S.-led corporate structures are in terminal
crisis at home and around the globe. This is the "burning house" that
both Malcolm X and Dr. Martin Luther King foretold.

The year 2007, like those before it, yielded ever increasing evidence
that Black America must reverse the course that has been charted by
its own misleadership classes, and instead struggle mightily to defend
itself, and any allies that can be found, against the implosions that
are wracking the global and domestic Corporate Order - a wave of
terminal crises that cannot be overcome and will, domestically, impact
most painfully on African Americans, the Permanent Other in
U.S. society.

Obamamania

Barack Obama's corporate-made and -financed presidential campaign is
the product of three distinct factors, all mitigating against Black
self-determination and political cohesion: 1) corporate decisions,
made a decade ago, to provide media and financial support to pliant
Black Democrats that can be trusted to carry Wall Street's water; 2) a
widespread desire among whites to prove through the safe and simple
act of voting that they are not personally racist, and/or to dismiss
Black claims of pervasive racism in society, once and for all; 3) a
huge reservoir of Jim Crow era, atavistic Black thinking that refuses
to evaluate Black candidates' actual political stances, but instead
revels in the prospect of Black faces in high places. A President
Obama would, of course, be the zenith of such narrow, non-substantive,
objectively self-defeating visions.

"Many, if not most, Black folks yearn to see a Supreme HNIC before
they die."

In 2007, the Obama "package" amply satisfied all three
"constituencies." Corporations found him a loyal ally on Capitol Hill
and on the speaking circuit, rewarding him handsomely for his fealty;
millions of whites came to believe Obama could solve the "race
problem" by his mere presence, at no cost to their own notions of skin
privilege; and infinitely manipulable Black dreams of the ultimate
Head-Negro-in-Charge. Many, if not most, Black folks yearn to see a
Supreme HNIC before they die, and will not question how he got there
or whom he really serves.

Paul Street has written often in these pages and elsewhere of Obama's
political charade: his impudent posing as the "Joshua" to succeed
Dr. King's "Moses Generation," while supporting none of the
fundamental social transformations sought by King; his fawning praise
of the same U.S. "free enterprise" system that King thought was
incompatible with racial justice and peace; Obama's ridiculous and
statistically baseless declaration that Blacks have already come "90
percent of the way to equality," inferring that his election would
provide the final ten percent; the senator's initial insistence, later
modified, that the Katrina catastrophe and the Jena outrage had
nothing to do with race; his remarkable pledge to the Foreign
Relations Council to increase U.S. troops strength by 100,000 soldiers
and Marines, all the while maintaining the farce of being a "peace"
candidate. The list goes on, and will doubtless lengthen as the
campaign continues.

However, we at Black Agenda Report are most concerned with the
paralyzing stupor that Obamamania has induced in the Black
polity. Even committed Black progressive activists have jumped on the
candidate's bandwagon-to-nowhere. My saddest, and yet most telling,
experience with Obama-coma came late last year, when I was bracketed
with New York City Councilman Charles Barron on Ron Daniels' weekly
WBAI Radio political discussion show. Barron is one of my favorite
politicians, a former Black Panther who is also a grassroots community
activist and implacable foe of racism and entrenched power. Barron
announced that he and the local activist group with which he is
affiliated were endorsing Barack Obama for president.

"Even committed Black progressive activists have jumped on the
candidate's bandwagon-to-nowhere."

In what turned into a debate between us, I confronted the councilman
with all the facts outlined above, and more. He, like every other
Black Obama supporter, could offer no coherent response, except to
pillory Hillary Clinton, Obama's political twin. Indeed, the
interview/debate experience was audibly painful for Barron, who knows
full well that Obama stands on the opposite side of the political line
- when he decides to stand anywhere, at all. Finally, Barron could
only offer that he "wants to give the brother a shot." That was
it. The phrase, which he later repeated, was like an exhalation of
used up air, an abdication of the imperative to Speak Truth to Power
if the representative of Power is Black and seems to be an unstoppable
phenomenon.

Barron's resigned response proved the truth of Louisville University
Prof. Rick L. Jones's evaluation, that we are witnessing the "failure
of the Black political imagination." Obamamania is accelerating that
debilitating process - even among the best, brightest and most
committed of African American politicians.

Obama is, of course, a media and money phenomenon - both corporate
derivatives. In that sense, his rise is only different in degree from
the proliferation of "media leaders" that have taken the place of real
organizers in Black America - and of former organizers who have held
on to name recognition by becoming media leaders, running from camera
to camera in between their radio shows. Nothing lasting,
organizationally, can possibly emerge from their performances.

Obama's hook-up with Oprah Winfrey was perfectly logical. Both are
famous, unthreatening media celebrities with huge white
followings. They compliment each other, and achieve the same effect of
mesmerizing fame-struck Blacks and soothing the fears of whites -
placebos for both sorely afflicted groups.

Media have displaced previous Black leadership-creation mechanisms:
that is, leadership forged in struggle. Now, "leaders" are presented
with theme music in radio studios and TV sound stages, chosen by
executives on the basis of corporate notions of marketability. It is a
"virtual" - not genuine - Black leadership, that only plays the role
through broadcasting.

>From an historical perspective, it is as if James Brown and Aretha
Franklin were the preeminent Black political leaders of the
Sixties. Both made great cultural contributions, and Mr. Brown dabbled
in politics, to various effect, but no conscious person of that era
would have considered either of these entertainers to be leaders -
because real leaders, heading real, often feuding sections of a mass
movement, existed. Brown and Franklin were background music for an
actual People's Movement, like a score to a movie. But today, there is
no movie - no Movement - just a score that makes no sense.

"Obama's rise is only different in degree from the proliferation of
`media leaders' that have taken the place of real organizers in
Black America."

In 2008 and beyond, African Americans' most urgent duty is to
methodically rebuild a Movement that is independent of corporate media
- one that forces media, especially Black-oriented radio, to respond
to IT, rather than taking its cues from on-air performers. There is no
substitute for people in motion, the only force that can compel the
reinstatement of local news on "Black" radio - which will in turn
nourish the Movement, as in years past, by empowering grassroots
forces through coverage of their activities. (See BAR, January 10,
2007, "Bring Back Black Radio News - The People's Network.")

The same forces that shut down the Black Freedom Movement to pursue
their own private interests, 40 years ago, have metastasized into
corporate servants of the rich. With the gradual extinction of Black
journalism, African Americans have grown to believe that Celebrity =
Power - a fatal equation that strips Black America of independent
agency, of political autonomy, and makes them putty in the hands of
media corporations and their Wall Street masters.

This is the underlying, broader meaning and threat of Obamamania (or
Obama-ism). In the final analysis, it's not about how HE got there,
it's about why there are so few mechanisms to make Obama, the
Congressional Black Caucus, and any corporate-bought Black
personality, an instant "leader" - never to be held accountable to
Black people at-large.

Colliding Crises

We are not being African American-centric in emphasizing
steadily-eroding domestic Black political realities. Blacks remain, in
the mass, the most consistently progressive and geographically
concentrated group in the United States. Any semblance of a
progressive "movement" is inconceivable if Black political coherence
is shattered - or smothered - by corporate forces in blackface. This
would result in a permanently ineffectual domestic response to the
deepening and general crisis of the Capitalist Order, globally and at
home.

2008 Africans Oil Flares

The year 2007 showed that George Bush's attempt to alter the global
relationship of forces and resources by military means, centered in
the Middle East, has failed beyond redemption. U.S. spies and
generals found it necessary to mutiny to prevent an insane attack on
Iran - a crime that would certainly plunge the planet into instant
economic and political anarchy. But the imperialists in both parties
persist in finding softer spots for corporate-military domination. The
Ethiopian invasion of Somalia was a joint exercise with Washington,
and threatens to destabilize all of the Horn of Africa. The
U.S. cynically deploys the humanitarian crisis in Darfur as a tool for
Euro-American military intervention, and demands basing rights in the
Gulf of Guinea to control West Africa's oil spigots. The crisis in
Latin America largely revolves around color lines - many colors, but
always "white" on top, and the region's subterranean "Black Gold" and
other minerals the prize, below.

"Any semblance of a progressive `movement' is inconceivable if
Black political coherence is shattered - or smothered - by corporate
forces in blackface."

Given the prevailing racism in white American society - a racism that
craves revenge for U.S. defeats at the hands of darker peoples even as
it expresses opposition to particular, lost wars - and the ever
southward thrust of U.S. aggression, Black America is the historically
logical center for opposition to U.S. marauding, especially in
Africa. Dr. King declared in 1967, in the heat of the Vietnam War,
that Black America's destiny was to "save the soul of America" from
the "triple evils" of "racism, materialism and militarism" - a huge
historical fact that Barack "Joshua" Obama conveniently fails to
process.

In today's world, that historical legacy is to move to the forefront
of saving the planet - and Black America - from the death throes of a
Corporate Order in a state of desperation. The U.S. sub-prime lending
crisis, which uncovered the shallow roots of the Black middle class,
also pulled back the veil from global capitalism's ulcerated
face. Five-hundred TRILLION dollars in "derivatives" - derived from
what, no one really knows - were counted as "assets" of global
financial institutions. Now, few of these institutions want to trade
in each other's "paper" instruments, whose bogus face value is more
than ten times that of the entire planet's yearly output of goods and
services. Implosion is inevitable, with consequences too vast to
imagine.

African Americans are already disproportionately reeling from the
precursor trembles of the global "liquidity" crisis to come, and
best-suited to comprehend the predatory nature of corporate
institutions and their inevitable resort to war to recoup "their"
losses. But re-consolidation of that deep historical understanding
requires real leadership and means of mass communication. The Black
misleadership class must be purged, but first, folks must recognize
who needs purging. The paralytic effect of Obamamania threatens to
finally strangle Black activism - and organizable Black consciousness,
itself - on the eve of domestic and global catastrophe.

To paraphrase the idiotic Black "media leaders" P-Ditty and 50 Cent:
"Organize to take back the means of communications, or die."


___________________________________

Sunday, January 6, 2008

Obama the Interventionist

Since quite a few people seem to be posting about the US primaries and particularly Barack Obama I thought I would post this. It should dampen any Canadian liberals illusions about Obama as regards foreign policy. He has the same hegemonist agenda as Bush. His candidacy has nothing to do with change only the illusion of change. There are more posts on Obama at my other blog:
http://kenthink7.blogspot.com


Washington Post - April 29, 2007

Obama the Interventionist
By Robert Kagan

America must "lead the world in battling immediate evils and
promoting the ultimate good." With those words, Barack Obama put an
end to the idea that the alleged overexuberant idealism and America-
centric hubris of the past six years is about to give way to a new
realism, a more limited and modest view of American interests,
capabilities and responsibilities.

Obama's speech at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs last week was
pure John Kennedy, without a trace of John Mearsheimer. It had a
deliberate New Frontier feel, including some Kennedy-era references
("we were Berliners") and even the Cold War-era notion that the
United States is the "leader of the free world." No one speaks of the
"free world" these days, and Obama's insistence that we not "cede our
claim of leadership in world affairs" will sound like an
anachronistic conceit to many Europeans, who even in the 1990s
complained about the bullying "hyperpower." In Moscow and Beijing it
will confirm suspicions about America's inherent hegemonism. But
Obama believes the world yearns to follow us, if only we restore our
worthiness to lead. Personally, I like it.

All right, you're thinking, but at least he wants us to lead by
example, not by meddling everywhere and trying to transform the world
in America's image. When he said, "We have heard much over the last
six years about how America's larger purpose in the world is to
promote the spread of freedom," you probably expected him to distance
himself from this allegedly discredited idealism.

Instead, he said, "I agree." His critique is not that we've meddled
too much but that we haven't meddled enough. There is more to
building democracy than "deposing a dictator and setting up a ballot
box." We must build societies with "a strong legislature, an
independent judiciary, the rule of law, a vibrant civil society, a
free press, and an honest police force." We must build up "the
capacity of the world's weakest states" and provide them "what they
need to reduce poverty, build healthy and educated communities,
develop markets, . . . generate wealth . . . fight terrorism . . .
halt the proliferation of deadly weapons" and fight disease. Obama
proposes to double annual expenditures on these efforts, to $50
billion, by 2012.

It's not just international do-goodism. To Obama, everything and
everyone everywhere is of strategic concern to the United States. "We
cannot hope to shape a world where opportunity outweighs danger
unless we ensure that every child, everywhere, is taught to build and
not to destroy." The "security of the American people is inextricably
linked to the security of all people." Realists, call your doctors.

Okay, you say, but at least Obama is proposing all this Peace Corps-
like activity as a substitute for military power. Surely he intends
to cut or at least cap a defense budget soaring over $500 billion a
year. Surely he understands there is no military answer to terrorism.

Actually, Obama wants to increase defense spending. He wants to add
65,000 troops to the Army and recruit 27,000 more Marines. Why? To
fight terrorism.

He wants the American military to "stay on the offense, from Djibouti
to Kandahar," and he believes that "the ability to put boots on the
ground will be critical in eliminating the shadowy terrorist networks
we now face." He wants to ensure that we continue to have "the
strongest, best-equipped military in the world."

Obama never once says that military force should be used only as a
last resort. Rather, he insists that "no president should ever
hesitate to use force --unilaterally if necessary," not only "to
protect ourselves . . . when we are attacked," but also to protect
"our vital interests" when they are "imminently threatened." That's
known as preemptive military action. It won't reassure those around
the world who worry about letting an American president decide what a
"vital interest" is and when it is "imminently threatened."

Nor will they be comforted to hear that "when we use force in
situations other than self-defense, we should make every effort to
garner the clear support and participation of others." Make every
effort?

Conspicuously absent from Obama's discussion of the use of force are
four words: United Nations Security Council.

Obama talks about "rogue nations," "hostile dictators," "muscular
alliances" and maintaining "a strong nuclear deterrent." He talks
about how we need to "seize" the "American moment." We must "begin
the world anew." This is realism? This is a left-liberal foreign
policy?

Ask Noam Chomsky the next time you see him.

Of course, it's just a speech. At the Democrats' debate on Thursday,
when asked how he would respond to another terrorist attack on the
United States, Obama at first did not say a word about military
action. So maybe his speech only reflects what he and his advisers
think Americans want to hear. But that is revealing, too. When it
comes to America's role in the world, apparently they don't think
there's much of an argument.

Robert Kagan, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace and transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall
Fund, writes a monthly column for The Post. His latest book is
"Dangerous Nation," a history of American foreign policy. He has been
advising John McCain's presidential campaign on an informal and
unpaid basis.