Earlier this year, the Attorney General of the United States delivered an extraordinary public address with the following message: if you are a US citizen, the President of the United States can issue an order to have you killed without review or approval from any other branch of government.
No other president has ever asserted such authority. The Obama administration has already used this authority. On September 30, Anwar Al-Awlaki, a member of Al Qaeda, born in America, was targeted and killed by American drone airplane strike in Yemen.
Neither holder nor the White House justified the killing as ending an “imminent threat” to the United States “where capture is not feasible”. The killing did not follow “the law of war principles” and no evidence was submitted to a judge for judicial review or congressional approval under “due process” as required under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.
Despite the gravity of the issue and departure from the Constitution and past precedents - the nation has been virtually silent on the issues involved - except for John E Sununu, a retired US Republican senator from New Hampshire and that faithful defender of the Constitution, the American Civil Liberties Union.
Both are performing heroic acts by alerting the nation to the increasing erosion of constitutional values and ideals that have systematically chiseled away at basic American freedoms for the last ten years.
Where are the political leaders, Democratic or Republican, fighting to protect the fabled American Constitution with the intensity and commitment expended on military adventure in distant corners of the globe? Thank you Senator Sununu for your non-partisan defense of a basic American value.
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Friday, February 24, 2012
Nuclear/Danger
Somewhere in the catacombs of the Pentagon, a staff of military planners is working on a scheme to perpetuate the military primacy of the United States. The richest country on earth, the leader in military technology, with 900 military bases in 140 countries, has no military rival. The competition has faded, or been defeated in battle, or lacks the resources to compete.
The military supremacy of United States is unprecedented. The unexpended energy encompasses the entire globe seeking more worlds to conquer and militarize. Popular support is overwhelming and the money is available for virtually any weapon or adventure. American Exceptionalism, once based on the religion of the Pilgrim Fathers, is now assigned to American military forces.
We do not always win our small wars against “the barbarians” but we crush the serious competititors for world-wide hegemony making them allies or vassals. Our force of nuclear weapons is the largest (with Russia), certainly the most accurate and reliable. While nine nations have nukes, we are the only nation that has used them in battle and on human beings. All nations factor Hiroshima and Nagasaki in their attitudes about us.
For more than a decade, the United States has been negotiating with North Korea and Iran to persuade or bribe them to eliminate their programs to make nuclear weapons. With all our military power, with all of our financial assets, with all of our allies, we have not been able to persuade by blandishment or threat. Are we trying hard enough? Do their nukes somehow fit into our strategy to minimize potential competition from the only nations capable of challenging the United States?
The US is building an advanced system of missile defense in Poland and the Czech Republic to counter Iran’s possible nuclear weapons. The Russians say that the system is operative against their missiles and would give the US an important advantage in a crisis or a war. Basing them so close to the Russian border, would save flight time and perhaps furnish the capacity to strike first.
The US has positioned nukes in South Korea close to the Chinese border and always has nuclear-armed ships in the South China Sea. That deployment gives the US an advantage in a nuclear war where a first strike is an overwhelming advantage.
US policy in North Korea and Iran have failed in their stated objectives to prevent nuclear deployment. But these failures leave American bases on the actual borders of China and Russia that could threaten their security. Does this situation remind the world community of the 1963 Cuban missile crisis when Soviet missiles were placed 20 miles from the US but were forced out under threat of nuclear war ?
The military supremacy of United States is unprecedented. The unexpended energy encompasses the entire globe seeking more worlds to conquer and militarize. Popular support is overwhelming and the money is available for virtually any weapon or adventure. American Exceptionalism, once based on the religion of the Pilgrim Fathers, is now assigned to American military forces.
We do not always win our small wars against “the barbarians” but we crush the serious competititors for world-wide hegemony making them allies or vassals. Our force of nuclear weapons is the largest (with Russia), certainly the most accurate and reliable. While nine nations have nukes, we are the only nation that has used them in battle and on human beings. All nations factor Hiroshima and Nagasaki in their attitudes about us.
For more than a decade, the United States has been negotiating with North Korea and Iran to persuade or bribe them to eliminate their programs to make nuclear weapons. With all our military power, with all of our financial assets, with all of our allies, we have not been able to persuade by blandishment or threat. Are we trying hard enough? Do their nukes somehow fit into our strategy to minimize potential competition from the only nations capable of challenging the United States?
The US is building an advanced system of missile defense in Poland and the Czech Republic to counter Iran’s possible nuclear weapons. The Russians say that the system is operative against their missiles and would give the US an important advantage in a crisis or a war. Basing them so close to the Russian border, would save flight time and perhaps furnish the capacity to strike first.
The US has positioned nukes in South Korea close to the Chinese border and always has nuclear-armed ships in the South China Sea. That deployment gives the US an advantage in a nuclear war where a first strike is an overwhelming advantage.
US policy in North Korea and Iran have failed in their stated objectives to prevent nuclear deployment. But these failures leave American bases on the actual borders of China and Russia that could threaten their security. Does this situation remind the world community of the 1963 Cuban missile crisis when Soviet missiles were placed 20 miles from the US but were forced out under threat of nuclear war ?
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Pay Your Fair Share of Taxes
by Jerome Grossman & Daniel J Grossman
Fair Share Taxation means that those who benefit the most from the generation of wealth at home and abroad should pay their fair share of the costs and sharing the benefits accruing from the profits of the unparalleled American Empire
The vast gap in income and taxes between the haves and have-nots is no longer a rallying cry to incite anti-capitalist advocates. It has become a mainstream issue debated openly, often with both sides calling for equality.
Absolute inequality or the elimination of inequality will never be a feature of our economy as long as rewards are based on the undoubted significant differences in skills and attitudes that justify differences in rewards. Our capitalist economy assigns special benefits to entrepreneurs and aggressive business behavior often without adequate regulation by the government.
The practical way of balancing the different rewards is to make sure that the basic principle ensures that everyone gets a fair share of our national production, sufficient to cover the basic necessities of food, clothing, shelter, education and health. This fair share principle should be considered a national right of citizenship apart from inequality or aggressive behavior. It would foster better citizenship and a more placid society. The wealthier would pay higher taxes, not for biblical morality or the search for equality but because they use national and local facilities much more than the average citizen. A significant portion of the cost of our government results from the maintenance of the tools of the wealthy, as well as protection of their assets and opportunities: highways to ship their goods, airports for executive travel, ocean shipping routes, ports for unloading the goods, and protection for their facilities, communications systems, contracts, home and real estate.
Furthermore, our government and our entrepreneurs are entangled in the affairs of virtually every oil-producing country. We have committed our military to assure an even flow of commodities for business and trading. We maintain 900 military bases in 140 countries and enhancing the clout of the thousands of US corporations doing business in those nations
Fair Share Taxation means that those who benefit the most from the generation of wealth at home and abroad should pay their fair share of the costs and sharing the benefits accruing from the profits of the unparalleled American Empire
The vast gap in income and taxes between the haves and have-nots is no longer a rallying cry to incite anti-capitalist advocates. It has become a mainstream issue debated openly, often with both sides calling for equality.
Absolute inequality or the elimination of inequality will never be a feature of our economy as long as rewards are based on the undoubted significant differences in skills and attitudes that justify differences in rewards. Our capitalist economy assigns special benefits to entrepreneurs and aggressive business behavior often without adequate regulation by the government.
The practical way of balancing the different rewards is to make sure that the basic principle ensures that everyone gets a fair share of our national production, sufficient to cover the basic necessities of food, clothing, shelter, education and health. This fair share principle should be considered a national right of citizenship apart from inequality or aggressive behavior. It would foster better citizenship and a more placid society. The wealthier would pay higher taxes, not for biblical morality or the search for equality but because they use national and local facilities much more than the average citizen. A significant portion of the cost of our government results from the maintenance of the tools of the wealthy, as well as protection of their assets and opportunities: highways to ship their goods, airports for executive travel, ocean shipping routes, ports for unloading the goods, and protection for their facilities, communications systems, contracts, home and real estate.
Furthermore, our government and our entrepreneurs are entangled in the affairs of virtually every oil-producing country. We have committed our military to assure an even flow of commodities for business and trading. We maintain 900 military bases in 140 countries and enhancing the clout of the thousands of US corporations doing business in those nations
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
The GOP Gets a Jump Start
The Republican presidential candidate debates were combative and entertaining, attracting large crowds on site and millions of viewers on television. This was hardly due to the brilliance and ideas of the candidates who were unimpressive in word and deed.
Is this crop of candidates the best that the Republican Party can present to the nation to lead the world's prime superpower? Should we entrust our country to a retired pizza maker, or a barely literate governor of Texas, or a defeated senator from Pennsylvania. Those aspirants do not remind us of historic GOP leaders, Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, as well as the other capable candidates nominated but defeated. Has George W. Bush set a new trend of mediocrity?
There is an alternative pool of very capable Republican leaders now running the nation's biggest institutions; Wall Street managers, business executives, university presidents, bankers, Senators, the 1% who actually run the nation. One would hope that the talented leaders of the US capitalist system would be asked or drafted to rescue the US capitalist government with whom they deal daily.
The debates gave the Republicans a temporary monopoly on communication with the electorate. It was their opportunity to present their agendas to the nation without contradiction – and they went first, opening the competition. Of course, no liberal values were offered by the GOP candidates. They had the opportunity to advocate their basic programs without fear of contradiction: smaller government, drastic debt reduction, cuts in governmental social services, large military budgets, worldwide military bases, lower taxes, less regulation of business, etc.
As the first to present programs, to set the tone and agenda of the conflict, the challenger has large advantages in the national debate. The defender must make special efforts at their own expense, just to get their arguments before the public without dramatic and entertaining debates. The Presidents Bully Pulpit is not likely to be as effective in the battle for public attention.
Going first does not always win arguments. But Obama and the Democrats will need to find a way to entertain, to amuse the electorate just to get them to pay attention. It is hard enough to get them to vote, harder to get their attention and response to the big issues. The Republicans have captured public attention at least temporarily. Now the Democrats need to play catch up to reorganize, reactivate and inspire the coalition that gave them the White House.
Is this crop of candidates the best that the Republican Party can present to the nation to lead the world's prime superpower? Should we entrust our country to a retired pizza maker, or a barely literate governor of Texas, or a defeated senator from Pennsylvania. Those aspirants do not remind us of historic GOP leaders, Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, as well as the other capable candidates nominated but defeated. Has George W. Bush set a new trend of mediocrity?
There is an alternative pool of very capable Republican leaders now running the nation's biggest institutions; Wall Street managers, business executives, university presidents, bankers, Senators, the 1% who actually run the nation. One would hope that the talented leaders of the US capitalist system would be asked or drafted to rescue the US capitalist government with whom they deal daily.
The debates gave the Republicans a temporary monopoly on communication with the electorate. It was their opportunity to present their agendas to the nation without contradiction – and they went first, opening the competition. Of course, no liberal values were offered by the GOP candidates. They had the opportunity to advocate their basic programs without fear of contradiction: smaller government, drastic debt reduction, cuts in governmental social services, large military budgets, worldwide military bases, lower taxes, less regulation of business, etc.
As the first to present programs, to set the tone and agenda of the conflict, the challenger has large advantages in the national debate. The defender must make special efforts at their own expense, just to get their arguments before the public without dramatic and entertaining debates. The Presidents Bully Pulpit is not likely to be as effective in the battle for public attention.
Going first does not always win arguments. But Obama and the Democrats will need to find a way to entertain, to amuse the electorate just to get them to pay attention. It is hard enough to get them to vote, harder to get their attention and response to the big issues. The Republicans have captured public attention at least temporarily. Now the Democrats need to play catch up to reorganize, reactivate and inspire the coalition that gave them the White House.
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Gingrich Will Re-elect Barack Obama – In a Landslide
Barack Obama is the luckiest candidate for president in the history of the United States. Struggling with unemployment and desperate business conditions, saddled with the costs of two wars he did not start, Obama appeared politically helpless as the constituencies that elected him in 2008 drifted away from him disappointed with his policies.
Zany Newt has reversed the political equation as Obama’s key supporters are terrified at the prospect of a wild Gingrich presidency. That possibility is reuniting the Obama coalition and has deferred complaints about his performance in office.
• Organized labor was disaffected about administration failures to support revision of organizing rules.
• Civil libertarians were stunned when Obama withdrew his threat of veto a Pentagon – funding bill that allows detention of American citizens without time limit, without charges and without trial.
• Advocates for the poor are unhappy about the failure to adopt adequate measures to rescue the housing mortgage crisis.
• No plan has been devised to put the trillions of dollars held by large banks into stimulation of the U.S. economy.
• Expensive and deadly military activity by U.S. forces continues around the world with bases in 140 counties and US troops moving into additional theatres in Australia and Uganda.
As the Obama coalition faltered, along came a most unlikely rescuer – Newt Gingrich, barely a survivor, left among the politically dead in the sleepy political summer – now the bad boy of the Republican presidential candidates. Showing once again his political dexterity with argument and repartee, brimming with confidence despite his past failures, Gingrich has captured the imagination of the far-right conservatives, of the haters, of the pseudo warriors who threaten the use of nuclear weapons and are committed to American Exceptionalism as a synonym for world hegemony. In the current campaign, Gingrich has solidified his political support among the GOP. A quick-witted excellent campaigner, he always makes his points as a debater and effective responder to accusations. A tough fighter, he always has an answer often based on distorted information and fueled by self adulation.
The Obama coalition is coming together again under the pressure and danger of the Gingrich threat. Complaints about Obama policies must wait until after the election and take second place to repelling the challenge. The voting turnout for Obama must be huge. The financial contributions must set new records. Gingrich’s candidacy has created a political emergency that must be repulsed for the safety of the nation, even the planet.
And if, like Mitt Romney, you have an extra $10,000.00, bet it on Obama. His winning coalition has organized once again and he will sweep to re-election, courtesy of Newt Gingrich.
Zany Newt has reversed the political equation as Obama’s key supporters are terrified at the prospect of a wild Gingrich presidency. That possibility is reuniting the Obama coalition and has deferred complaints about his performance in office.
• Organized labor was disaffected about administration failures to support revision of organizing rules.
• Civil libertarians were stunned when Obama withdrew his threat of veto a Pentagon – funding bill that allows detention of American citizens without time limit, without charges and without trial.
• Advocates for the poor are unhappy about the failure to adopt adequate measures to rescue the housing mortgage crisis.
• No plan has been devised to put the trillions of dollars held by large banks into stimulation of the U.S. economy.
• Expensive and deadly military activity by U.S. forces continues around the world with bases in 140 counties and US troops moving into additional theatres in Australia and Uganda.
As the Obama coalition faltered, along came a most unlikely rescuer – Newt Gingrich, barely a survivor, left among the politically dead in the sleepy political summer – now the bad boy of the Republican presidential candidates. Showing once again his political dexterity with argument and repartee, brimming with confidence despite his past failures, Gingrich has captured the imagination of the far-right conservatives, of the haters, of the pseudo warriors who threaten the use of nuclear weapons and are committed to American Exceptionalism as a synonym for world hegemony. In the current campaign, Gingrich has solidified his political support among the GOP. A quick-witted excellent campaigner, he always makes his points as a debater and effective responder to accusations. A tough fighter, he always has an answer often based on distorted information and fueled by self adulation.
The Obama coalition is coming together again under the pressure and danger of the Gingrich threat. Complaints about Obama policies must wait until after the election and take second place to repelling the challenge. The voting turnout for Obama must be huge. The financial contributions must set new records. Gingrich’s candidacy has created a political emergency that must be repulsed for the safety of the nation, even the planet.
And if, like Mitt Romney, you have an extra $10,000.00, bet it on Obama. His winning coalition has organized once again and he will sweep to re-election, courtesy of Newt Gingrich.
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Attention to The 99% Must Be Paid
The unifying desire of the world movement known as “Occupy Wall Street “is absolutely clear. They want attention paid to them and their imprecise groping for a more equitable society. With extraordinary simplicity and without an explicit agenda, the 99% have placed their bodies on line before the world as symbols of the overpowering requirement to modify the dictatorship of the financial overlords.
Remarkably, this revolutionary movement originated in the poorest and least democratic societies on earth. One thousand years ago, the Crusaders tried to impose a different view of God and Man on the societies of Islam, but today’s challenge to the dictatorial financial overlords originated in the poverty-ridden squares of Cairo and Tunis. This latest revolt has found a ready market in the streets of the West.
The Western revolt is intentionally peaceful although it threatens the financial base of the 1%. Will the challengers develop ideas and programs without seeking the power to implement them? Will the style and strategy be consistent with its multi-ethnic and multi-religious origins and orientation? Consideration of alternate forms of economic and social orientation is a necessity for promotion of new approaches without the usual fratricidal conflict. Above all: attention must be paid to the breadth of the public protest sweeping the world.
The Occupiers, in Cairo, in New York or wherever have demonstrated remarkable self control. They have brought the protesters together while avoiding the fatal noose of infighting. At the moment the movement’s energy is primarily directed at keeping the forces of fusion alive, to focus on what unifies – that our system of capitalism is out of control and that our political system has broken down. Promoting more financial equality and overcoming the dictatorship of current overlords might include these considerations as part of the new agenda for the serious change demanded in the name of the 99% occupiers.
• Should some bankers be prosecuted for violations of current law?
• Should some bankers be sued to return unjustified unearned bonuses?
• Should there be limitations on outrageous bailout and corporate salaries?
• Should the federal government nationalize the banking businesses, operating as a public utility on a limited profit basis?
• Should government policy promote employment and industrial development as the primary aim of our business system as an alternative to private profit?
• Should new products and production systems be promoted with government risk while preserving the profits for new product development?
The Occupation movement has given us a method to experiment with new forms of economic organization geared to greater efficiency and a fairer division of the gains. It is no accident that this opportunity came at the heart of a world-wide depression. We must use it to improve our economy and make the rewards fairer. But first – attention must be paid. Public frustration at inequality and inefficiency has increased public anger to dangerous levels.
Remarkably, this revolutionary movement originated in the poorest and least democratic societies on earth. One thousand years ago, the Crusaders tried to impose a different view of God and Man on the societies of Islam, but today’s challenge to the dictatorial financial overlords originated in the poverty-ridden squares of Cairo and Tunis. This latest revolt has found a ready market in the streets of the West.
The Western revolt is intentionally peaceful although it threatens the financial base of the 1%. Will the challengers develop ideas and programs without seeking the power to implement them? Will the style and strategy be consistent with its multi-ethnic and multi-religious origins and orientation? Consideration of alternate forms of economic and social orientation is a necessity for promotion of new approaches without the usual fratricidal conflict. Above all: attention must be paid to the breadth of the public protest sweeping the world.
The Occupiers, in Cairo, in New York or wherever have demonstrated remarkable self control. They have brought the protesters together while avoiding the fatal noose of infighting. At the moment the movement’s energy is primarily directed at keeping the forces of fusion alive, to focus on what unifies – that our system of capitalism is out of control and that our political system has broken down. Promoting more financial equality and overcoming the dictatorship of current overlords might include these considerations as part of the new agenda for the serious change demanded in the name of the 99% occupiers.
• Should some bankers be prosecuted for violations of current law?
• Should some bankers be sued to return unjustified unearned bonuses?
• Should there be limitations on outrageous bailout and corporate salaries?
• Should the federal government nationalize the banking businesses, operating as a public utility on a limited profit basis?
• Should government policy promote employment and industrial development as the primary aim of our business system as an alternative to private profit?
• Should new products and production systems be promoted with government risk while preserving the profits for new product development?
The Occupation movement has given us a method to experiment with new forms of economic organization geared to greater efficiency and a fairer division of the gains. It is no accident that this opportunity came at the heart of a world-wide depression. We must use it to improve our economy and make the rewards fairer. But first – attention must be paid. Public frustration at inequality and inefficiency has increased public anger to dangerous levels.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
The Money’s Still Out There
The amount of money parked in U.S. banks and financial institutions has risen to a two year high as banks hold back from lending to each other and from financing growth industries. Fears of contagion from Europe have now infected America inhibiting the development of new ideas and products.
Can America find its entrepreneurial spirit once again? Probably not, now that those business executives have found their way to the bailout window of the Federal Reserve Bank. Profits may be divided among the bosses but losses are likely to be socialized by government subsidy.
Equity investors are running scared, holding their breath during the stock market rallies. Any serious expansion of the labor force will require guarantees that will hold investors and companies free and clear of financial loss while they manage the wave of hiring.
Utilizing their experience and trained personnel, the dominant companies in each industry will be positioned to identify talented workers and management and break thru products while getting the political credit for employing the jobless on Uncle Sam’s credit card. And one of the rewards is likely to be a share in ownership of the subsidized company.
This is one jobs bill that will not hit a wall of opposition in the US Congress. It will satisfy the popular demand for a jobs employment bill. It will subsidize industry without government imposed management, it will take the political wind out of the Occupy Wall Street movement, it will have averted a Washington Spring demanding national reorganization toward economic justice and social equality.
And the money will still be out there, in the vault of the banks, while the US Treasury picks up the costs.
Can America find its entrepreneurial spirit once again? Probably not, now that those business executives have found their way to the bailout window of the Federal Reserve Bank. Profits may be divided among the bosses but losses are likely to be socialized by government subsidy.
Equity investors are running scared, holding their breath during the stock market rallies. Any serious expansion of the labor force will require guarantees that will hold investors and companies free and clear of financial loss while they manage the wave of hiring.
Utilizing their experience and trained personnel, the dominant companies in each industry will be positioned to identify talented workers and management and break thru products while getting the political credit for employing the jobless on Uncle Sam’s credit card. And one of the rewards is likely to be a share in ownership of the subsidized company.
This is one jobs bill that will not hit a wall of opposition in the US Congress. It will satisfy the popular demand for a jobs employment bill. It will subsidize industry without government imposed management, it will take the political wind out of the Occupy Wall Street movement, it will have averted a Washington Spring demanding national reorganization toward economic justice and social equality.
And the money will still be out there, in the vault of the banks, while the US Treasury picks up the costs.
Friday, August 19, 2011
Living Outside the American Dream
The Tea Party doesn't have a national headquarters or unofficial governing body. Nor is there a reliable count of its members, because there is no formal way for adherents to sign up. It is a collection of unrelated local groups: six people gathered in the living room to talk and complain over whiskey and soda.
Indiana has 72 such affiliates, many named after Johnny Appleseed. Name variations often include the phrase “small government”. The local groups buy Tea Party golf balls, Tea Party cigars and children's coloring books.
Loosely bound for serious political combat, this unimpressive group has 60 members in the US House of Representatives where they exercise their leverage in the Republican Party to change the focus of the nation from the crisis of widespread unemployment to cutting taxes and balancing the federal budget
Only a few months ago, the consensus in Washington, in the media, in the Democratic Party and in the White House located the American crisis and in the vast and growing need to create jobs for the millions of Americans living outside the American dream. This humanitarian goal has been replaced by the bankers’ issues: balancing the federal yearly budget and reducing the long-term federal deficit. A serious jobs program would put funds in the hands of the poorest. The current national dialogue does not include a serious jobs program to increase production and put funds in the hands of the unemployed. An effective program for deficit reduction would cut the military budget, increase taxes on the wealthiest and limit US military adventures around the world
The Tea Party agenda fits the ideology of the Reagan Republican Party supporting military intervention abroad and opposing social intervention for the unemployed at home. The masses of American workers are disappointed in the motivation of the Democrats that moves them to switch priorities from Social Security to deficit reductions, from a massive jobs program similar to the Roosevelt New Deal to a banker support program
What happened to Obama? In this moral and economic crisis, the media cry out in virtual unison, expecting the president to rescue his constituency as headlines scream, “As corporate profits rise, workers income declines.” As unemployment staggers the nation and social programs are cut, there is no FDR in this administration, so stop looking for one.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Voting Blocs May Decide the 2012 Presidential Election
The political face of America is changing as immigrant groups, legal and illegal, build our population to at least 310 million - and rising.
As the presidential election of 2012 approaches, the prime question will be turnout, that is, which voting bloc will respond to which candidate.
Will the giant demographic trends already in place benefit President Barack Obama and his Democrats sufficiently to overcome the negative effects of joblessness and unresolved wars in remote lands?
The basic constituencies of the Democratic Party are minorities, working women, educated voters in urban areas, and younger voters. They are growing at a faster rate than other blocs.
Republicans achieve their largest voting potential among the white and upper income voters where Obama’s support has been weakening. These Republican blocs have been shrinking as a share of the overall electorate.
However, Democratic turnout dropped in the 2010 congressional election as the higher percentage of white voters and senior citizens overcame the Democrats demographic advantage.
Working-class white voters will be the key to the 2012 presidential election. US unemployment numbers will be the crucial figures - not the frantic and ineffective attempts to rebuild foreign societies thousands of miles from American homes.
As the presidential election of 2012 approaches, the prime question will be turnout, that is, which voting bloc will respond to which candidate.
Will the giant demographic trends already in place benefit President Barack Obama and his Democrats sufficiently to overcome the negative effects of joblessness and unresolved wars in remote lands?
The basic constituencies of the Democratic Party are minorities, working women, educated voters in urban areas, and younger voters. They are growing at a faster rate than other blocs.
Republicans achieve their largest voting potential among the white and upper income voters where Obama’s support has been weakening. These Republican blocs have been shrinking as a share of the overall electorate.
However, Democratic turnout dropped in the 2010 congressional election as the higher percentage of white voters and senior citizens overcame the Democrats demographic advantage.
Working-class white voters will be the key to the 2012 presidential election. US unemployment numbers will be the crucial figures - not the frantic and ineffective attempts to rebuild foreign societies thousands of miles from American homes.
Saturday, June 11, 2011
The Wars on Libya
The current attack on Libya by the United States is not the first. According to the authoritative Library of Congress, the attack is the second such war; the first was fought intermittently between 1800 - 1815 against the so-called Barbary States of North Africa led by Tripoli.
The war was never declared by the US House of Representatives as required by the U.S. Constitution. The Library of Congress study analyzed the 250 wars fought by the US and reported that Congress declared war in only five of them: the war of 1812, the 1848 war against Mexico, the 1898 war against Spain, the 1917 World War I, the 1941 World War II.
The Barbary States regular source of income was piracy. The young US paid cash tribute as did European nations to buy immunity for their ships and cargoes. When the Pasha of Tripoli raised the price for American immunity, US refused payment, negotiations failed, US set up a blockade. President Thomas Jefferson persuaded Congress to authorize the building of warships that saw intermittent action until the US blockade was lifted, the US considered resuming payments, a US ship and prisoners were captured and ransomed.
In the final settlement, Tripoli renounced all rights to halt or to levy tribute on US ships. It was not a brilliant triumph and did not end piracy until US Admiral Stephen Decatur scored a significant naval victory over the pirates.
In recent decades, Libya’s pirate/dictator Moammar Qaddafi has engaged in domestic and foreign terrorist actions earning the enmity of the US and other victims. A few years ago, a settlement was reached that satisfied the US and other affected nations: acknowledgment and payment was made by Libya for the destruction of a plane and passengers over Scotland, the responsible criminals were remanded for punishment, and Libya surrendered materials and plans for the manufacture of nuclear weapons they had imported.
Some Libyan tribes have revolted against the harsh Qaddafi regime. NATO and US military forces are helping them, mostly by bombing government installations. US participation has mainly been firing powerful, Tomahawk missiles from US ships in the Mediterranean Sea – an act of war but without authorization from Congress. Congressional resolutions demanding that the president adhere to the U.S. Constitution have failed by close margins despite receiving votes from both Democrats and Republicans.
The attacks on Libya continue. Libya’s prime oil export has been diminished, affecting the world price. Libya's assets frozen in US banks amount to $29 billion. American actions against Libya were acts of war by all international standards and are parallel to US military actions now in effect against Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, where we are currently fighting wars authorized by Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama in violation of our constitution.
Qaddafi and his regime can fairly be described as modern pirates who ought to be resisted militarily - but by methods that conform to our prized national document and heritage, the United States Constitution. Presidential wars are illegal in the United States and unwise everywhere else. Making war, wasting the lives of our youth, and spending the enormous cost are too important to be left to the responsibility of one person and his advisers.
While NATO and US intervention in the Libyan civil war is carried out in the name of human rights, it is not clear which intervening nation will benefit from the overthrow of the Qaddafi regime. And big money is at stake - from the oil funds frozen in the US and future revenues from Libya's oil wells in a world of diminishing supplies. The armed conflict in Libya has taken more than 1.3 million barrels a day off the world market, helping to support the current high price of oil.
The war was never declared by the US House of Representatives as required by the U.S. Constitution. The Library of Congress study analyzed the 250 wars fought by the US and reported that Congress declared war in only five of them: the war of 1812, the 1848 war against Mexico, the 1898 war against Spain, the 1917 World War I, the 1941 World War II.
The Barbary States regular source of income was piracy. The young US paid cash tribute as did European nations to buy immunity for their ships and cargoes. When the Pasha of Tripoli raised the price for American immunity, US refused payment, negotiations failed, US set up a blockade. President Thomas Jefferson persuaded Congress to authorize the building of warships that saw intermittent action until the US blockade was lifted, the US considered resuming payments, a US ship and prisoners were captured and ransomed.
In the final settlement, Tripoli renounced all rights to halt or to levy tribute on US ships. It was not a brilliant triumph and did not end piracy until US Admiral Stephen Decatur scored a significant naval victory over the pirates.
In recent decades, Libya’s pirate/dictator Moammar Qaddafi has engaged in domestic and foreign terrorist actions earning the enmity of the US and other victims. A few years ago, a settlement was reached that satisfied the US and other affected nations: acknowledgment and payment was made by Libya for the destruction of a plane and passengers over Scotland, the responsible criminals were remanded for punishment, and Libya surrendered materials and plans for the manufacture of nuclear weapons they had imported.
Some Libyan tribes have revolted against the harsh Qaddafi regime. NATO and US military forces are helping them, mostly by bombing government installations. US participation has mainly been firing powerful, Tomahawk missiles from US ships in the Mediterranean Sea – an act of war but without authorization from Congress. Congressional resolutions demanding that the president adhere to the U.S. Constitution have failed by close margins despite receiving votes from both Democrats and Republicans.
The attacks on Libya continue. Libya’s prime oil export has been diminished, affecting the world price. Libya's assets frozen in US banks amount to $29 billion. American actions against Libya were acts of war by all international standards and are parallel to US military actions now in effect against Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, where we are currently fighting wars authorized by Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama in violation of our constitution.
Qaddafi and his regime can fairly be described as modern pirates who ought to be resisted militarily - but by methods that conform to our prized national document and heritage, the United States Constitution. Presidential wars are illegal in the United States and unwise everywhere else. Making war, wasting the lives of our youth, and spending the enormous cost are too important to be left to the responsibility of one person and his advisers.
While NATO and US intervention in the Libyan civil war is carried out in the name of human rights, it is not clear which intervening nation will benefit from the overthrow of the Qaddafi regime. And big money is at stake - from the oil funds frozen in the US and future revenues from Libya's oil wells in a world of diminishing supplies. The armed conflict in Libya has taken more than 1.3 million barrels a day off the world market, helping to support the current high price of oil.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
