RSS

Tag Archives: Barack Obama

President Obama “No future, no vision concerning Africa! Only Gay rights!

Orthographic map of Africa

Orthographic map of Africa (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

President Obama’s trip to Africa is little more than a public relations stunt to a continent desperate for his help, Lawrence K. Freeman, editor of Executive Intelligence Review magazine, told RT.

RT: What can we expect from Obama’s three-nation tour, do you think? 

Lawrence Freeman: There’s not going to be much accomplished. The purpose of the trip is not to help the African people to develop these African nations. This is a very calculated, glorified public relations tour to three countries and most people in Africa are going to realize, and do realize already, that this country is doing nothing to help their continent. And what they do know is that the overthrow of Colonel Gaddafi, led by Obama and NATO, has been a catastrophe for north and West Africa in supporting various elements that have now allowed the destabilization of many of these countries, especially with the arms and the flow of Tuaregs and terrorists coming out of Libya. So the South African people are not pleased or happy with President Obama and he’s going to offer absolutely nothing except maybe entice private sector companies to make a few investments. But this is really pathetic in terms of what Africa needs. 

RT: To what extent is this more about China’s influence there? 

LF: Well there is this silly notion in the US that somehow China is our competitor in Africa. But in fact what China has done over the last recent period, five to ten years, is invest massively and construct all types of infrastructure projects throughout many African countries totaling tens of billions of dollars per year. So the US had to stop doing that 40 years ago. The US does not build infrastructure. The US does not provide government-backed investment in the kinds of projects that are necessary for the people of Africa. We’ve done nothing, for example, to develop water management in the African Sahel. We’ve done nothing to develop the Arab culture capability of these regions and therefore you have the spread of terrorism, the spread of insurgency because you have these alienated youth who see no future because their economies are dying. In fact Obama’s done less than George Bush and less than Bill Clinton even though he’s called the Son of Africa. So he has a record of failure and in fact he’s been supporting destabilization, such as the overthrow of Gaddafi, which has actually worsened conditions throughout Africa. 

RT: In terms of visits, he had one brief visit to Ghana in 2009 and now this short visit. Why only that, why not more? 

LF: He’s not really concerned. In 2009 he spent less than 24 hours and made one speech in Ghana. Here he’s visiting three countries – Senegal, South Africa, and Tanzania – and avoiding going to other countries such as Nigeria, such as Mali, many other countries that are in the spotlight right now. He doesn’t have anything to offer them, the United States – the transatlantic community of Europe and the United States, the financial system, is collapsing. We see this throughout Europe and the United States, dying economically, politically, and culturally. We have no vision, we have no future. Obama cares nothing about the welfare of the South African people as he cares nothing about the welfare of the people of the United States. In fact he’s supporting a British policy of genocide throughout Africa by allowing destabilization and by allowing hunger and shortages of food and medicine to kill Africans in large numbers, and this is something that could be corrected and changed if we had a policy to do that.

Advertisements
 
Comments Off on President Obama “No future, no vision concerning Africa! Only Gay rights!

Posted by on 06/29/2013 in The Face of Evil

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Pena Nieto government reaching an accommodation with some cartel figures

English: Logo of Agua Prieta.

English: Logo of Agua Prieta. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The rumors of the Pena Nieto government reaching an accommodation with some cartel figures such as Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman Loera have persisted, even as the Mexican government arrests key operatives in Guzman’s network, such as Ines Coronel Barreras, Guzman’s father-in-law, who was arrested May 1 in Agua Prieta, Mexico. Indeed, on April 27, Washington Post reporter Dana Priest published a detailed article outlining how U.S. authorities were fearful that the Mexican government was restructuring its security relationship with the U.S. government so that it could more easily reach an unofficial truce with cartel leaders. Yet four days later, Coronel — a significant cartel figure — was arrested in a joint operation between the Mexicans and Americans.

Clearly, there is some confusion on the U.S. side about the approach the Pena Nieto government is taking, but conversations with both U.S. and Mexican officials reveal that these changes in Mexico‘s approach do not appear to be as drastic as some have feared. There will need to be adjustments on both sides of the border while organizational changes are underway in Mexico, but this does not mean that bilateral U.S.-Mexico cooperation will decline in the long term.

Opportunities and Challenges

Despite the violence that has wracked Mexico over the past decade, the Mexican economy is booming. Arguably, the economy would be doing even better if potential investors were not concerned about cartel violence and street crime — and if such criminal activity did not have such a significant impact on businesses operating in Mexico. 

Because of this, the Pena Nieto administration believes that it is critical to reduce the overall level of violence in the country. Essentially it wants to transform the cartel issue into a law enforcement problem, something handled by the Interior Ministry and the national police, rather than a national security problem handled by the Mexican military and the Center for Research and National Security (Mexico’s national-level intelligence agency). In many ways the Pena Nieto administration wants to follow the model of the government of Colombia, which has never been able to stop trafficking in its territory but was able to defeat the powerful Medellin and Cali cartels and relegate their successor organizations to a law enforcement problem.   

The Mexicans also believe that if they can attenuate cartel violence, they will be able to free up law enforcement forces to tackle common crime instead of focusing nearly all their resources on containing the cartel wars.   

Although the cartels have not yet been taken down to the point of being a law enforcement problem, the Pena Nieto administration wants to continue to signal this shift in approach by moving the focus of its efforts against the cartels to the Interior Ministry. Unlike former Mexican President Felipe Calderon, who was seen leading the charge against the cartels during his administration, Pena Nieto wants to maintain some distance from the struggle against the cartels (at least publicly). Pena Nieto seeks to portray the cartels as a secondary issue that does not demand his personal leadership and attention. He can then publicly focus his efforts on issues he deems critically important to Mexico’s future, like education reform, banking reform, energy reform and fostering the Mexican economy. This is the most significant difference between the Calderon and Pena Nieto administrations.

Of course it is one thing to say that the cartels have become a secondary issue, and it is quite another to make it happen. The Mexican government still faces some real challenges in reducing the threat posed by the cartels. However, it is becoming clear that the Pena Nieto administration seeks to implement a holistic approach in an attempt to address the problems at the root of the violence that in some ways is quite reminiscent of counterinsurgency policy. The Mexicans view these underlying economic, cultural and sociological problems as issues that cannot be solved with force alone.

Mexican officials in the current government say that the approach the Calderon administration took to fighting the cartels was wrong in that it sought to solve the problem of cartel violence by simply killing or arresting cartel figures. They claim that Calderon’s approach did nothing to treat the underlying causes of the violence and that the cartels were able to recruit gunmen faster than the government could kill or capture them. (In some ways this is parallel to the U.S. government’s approach in Yemen, where increases in missile strikes from unmanned aerial vehicles have increased, rather than reduced, the number of jihadists there.) In Mexico, when the cartels experienced trouble in recruiting enough gunmen, they were able to readily import them from Central America.    

However — and this is very significant — this holistic approach does not mean that the Pena Nieto administration wants to totally abandon kinetic operations against the cartels. An important pillar of any counterinsurgency campaign is providing security for the population. But rather than provoke random firefights with cartel gunmen by sending military patrols into cartel hot spots, the Pena Nieto team wants to be more targeted and intentional in its application of force. It seeks to take out the networks that hire and supply the gunmen, not just the gunmen themselves, and this will require all the tools in its counternarcotics portfolio — not only force, but also things like intelligence, financial action (to target cartel finances), public health, institution building and anti-corruption efforts. 

The theory is that by providing security, stability and economic opportunity the government can undercut the cartels’ ability to recruit youth who currently see little other options in life but to join the cartels. 

To truly succeed, especially in the most lawless areas, the Mexican government is going to have to begin to build institutions — and public trust in those institutions — from the ground up. The officials we have talked to hold Juarez up as an example they hope to follow in other locations, though they say they learned a lot of lessons in Juarez that will allow them to streamline their efforts elsewhere. Obviously, before they can begin building, they recognize that they will have to seize, consolidate and hold territory, and this is the role they envision for the newly created gendarmerie, or paramilitary police.

The gendarmerie is important to this rebuilding effort because the military is incapable of serving in an investigative law enforcement role. They are deployed to pursue active shooters and target members of the cartels, but much of the crime affecting Mexico’s citizens and companies falls outside the military’s purview. The military also has a tendency to be heavy-handed, and reports of human rights abuses are quite common. Transforming from a national security to a law enforcement approach requires the formation of an effective police force that is able to conduct community policing while pursuing car thieves, extortionists, kidnappers and street gangs in addition to cartel gunmen.

Certainly the U.S. government was very involved in the Calderon administration’s kinetic approach to the cartel problem, as shown by the very heavy collaboration between the two governments. The collaboration was so heavy, in fact, that some incoming Pena Nieto administration figures were shocked by how integrated the Americans had become. The U.S. officials who told Dana Priest they were uncomfortable with the new Mexican government’s approach to cartel violence were undoubtedly among those deeply involved in this process — perhaps so deeply involved that they could not recognize that in the big picture, their approach was failing to reduce the violence in Mexico. Indeed, from the Mexican perspective, the U.S. efforts have been focused on reducing the flow of narcotics into the United States regardless of the impact of those efforts on Mexico’s security environment.

However, as seen by the May 1 arrest of Coronel, which a Mexican official described as a classic joint operation involving the U.S Drug Enforcement Administration and Mexican Federal Police, the Mexican authorities do intend to continue to work very closely with their American counterparts. But that cooperation must occur within the new framework established for the anti-cartel efforts. That means that plans for cooperation must be presented through the Mexican Interior Ministry so that the efforts can be centrally coordinated. Much of the current peer-to-peer cooperation can continue, but within that structure.

Consolidation and Coordination

As in the United States, the law enforcement and intelligence agencies in Mexico have terrible problems with coordination and information sharing. The current administration is attempting to correct this by centralizing the anti-cartel efforts at the federal level and by creating coordination centers to oversee operations in the various regions. These regional centers will collect information at the state and regional level and send it up to the national center. However, one huge factor inhibiting information sharing in Mexico — and between the Americans and Mexicans — is the longstanding problem of corruption in the Mexican government. In the past, drug czars, senior police officials and very senior politicians have been accused of being on cartel payrolls. This makes trust critical, and lack of trust has caused some Mexican and most American agencies to restrict the sharing of intelligence to only select, trusted contacts. Centralizing coordination will interfere with this selective information flow in the short term, and it is going to take time for this new coordination effort to earn the trust of both Mexican and American agencies. There remains fear that consolidation will also centralize corruption and make it easier for the cartels to gather intelligence.

Another attempt at command control and coordination is in the Pena Nieto administration’s current efforts to implement police consolidation at the state level. While corruption has reached into all levels of the Mexican government, it is unquestionably the most pervasive at the municipal level, and in past government operations entire municipal police departments have been fired for corruption. The idea is that if all police were brought under a unified state command, called “Mando Unico” in Spanish, the police would be better screened, trained and paid and therefore the force would be more professional.

This concept of police consolidation at the state level is not a new idea; indeed, Calderon sought to do so under his administration, but it appears that Pena Nieto might have the political capital to make this happen, along with some other changes that Calderon wanted to implement but could not quite pull off. To date, Pena Nieto has had a great deal of success in garnering political support for his proposals, but the establishment of Mando Unico in each of Mexico’s 31 states may perhaps be the toughest political struggle he has faced yet. If realized, Mando Unico will be an important step — but only one step — in the long process of institution building for the police at the state level. 

Aside from the political struggles, the Mexican government still faces very real challenges on the streets as it attempts to quell violence, reassert control over lawless areas and gain the trust of the public. The holistic plan laid out by the Pena Nieto administration sounds good on paper, but it will still require a great deal of leadership by Pena Nieto and his team to bring Mexico through the challenges it faces. They will obviously need to cooperate with the United States to succeed, but it has become clear that this cooperation will need to be on Mexico’s terms and in accordance with the administration’s new, holistic approach. 

 
1 Comment

Posted by on 05/16/2013 in Crime!, Mexican Drug Cartels

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Obama’s Crazy Budget, has he gone Mad?

President Barack Obama and Warren Buffett in t...

President Barack Obama and Warren Buffett in the Oval Office, (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

President Obama’s budget proposal includes new tax increases that hit everything from deductions for top earners to packs of cigarettes.

I think Buffett is the source and Obama doesn’t understand how to prepare a balance budget!

Though the president’s newly released plan claims to include $580 billion in new revenue over the next decade, when all taxes and fees are counted the real number is slightly higher than $1 trillion.

Republicans already have said they will not countenance new tax increases, after they already agreed to raise rates on top earners as part of the fiscal crisis deal. But both sides are sure to engage in an exhaustive debate in the weeks and months ahead, particularly as a looming debt-ceiling deadline forces Congress to try to reach a deal.

Here are a few of the notable tax increases in Obama’s 2014 budget blueprint that are likely to prove controversial in that debate:

  • The biggest item by far is a plan to reduce the value of itemized deductions for top earners, so that they can only reduce their tax liability to 28 percent of income. This would affect deductions for charity, mortgage interest and other expenses — as well as other select preferences for the top 3 percent of families. The change is projected to bring in $529.3 billion over 10 years.
  • The plan would implement the so-called “Buffett Rule,” the tax change named after Warren Buffett that Obama has long sought. The change would require that “wealthy millionaires” pay at least 30 percent of their income — after charity — in taxes. The White House estimates this would bring in $53.4 billion.
  • Though the president’s proposal to curb the growth of Social Security was touted as a budget “cut,” the change would also bring in more revenue. The proposal would change the inflation formula, which would in turn curb the growth of benefits. In doing so, that same formula would adjust tax brackets and raise about $100 billion over 10 years.
  • Buried deep in the budget is a proposal to raise the federal cigarette tax by 94 cents a pack. The hike is projected to raise $78 billion, to pay for an early childhood education program. The federal tax per pack would go from $1.01 to $1.95. “In addition to financing important investments in early learning, the proposed tobacco tax increase would have substantial public health benefits, particularly for young Americans. Researchers have found that raising taxes on cigarettes significantly,” the budget document said.
  • The budget includes a slew of other tax changes and fees too numerous to mention, but they include: a “financial crisis responsibility fee” on financial firms that is projected to raise $59.3 billion; an increase in the aviation passenger security fee projected to raise $18 billion; and a limit on the total accrual of certain retirement benefits projected to raise $9.3 billion.

Though Obama is pushing Republicans further than they want to go on taxes, he claimed Wednesday that he’s meeting them “more than halfway” — considering separate spending cuts and changes to entitlements.

“If you’re serious about deficit reduction, then there’s no excuse to keep these loopholes open,” he said.

But Republicans argued Wednesday that Obama should not hold those entitlement changes “hostage” to calls for tax increases.

House Republican Leader Eric Cantor urged Obama to drop the call for tax increases and work together with Republicans on entitlements.

Republicans also complained that, despite $1.8 trillion in claimed deficit reduction, the budget would still not balance under the president’s plan.

 
Comments Off on Obama’s Crazy Budget, has he gone Mad?

Posted by on 04/11/2013 in The Face of Evil

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Why Barack Obama Returns 5% of his salary!? Is it guilt?

If I were taking Million dollar vacations at  the cost of the American People, what is 5% of 400K$! “peanuts!”

Returns 5% of salary when he takes million dollar vacations!

Returns 5% of salary when he takes million dollar vacations!

WASHINGTON. – U.S. President Barack Obama plans to return 5 percent of his salary, in a gesture of solidarity with the government employees who must take a leave without pay as a result of deep spending cuts that came into effect in March .

The self-imposed cuts would be effective from March 1 , when they began spending cuts, and would last until the end of December , an official said Wednesday.

Obama earns $ 400,000 a year. The source stressed that the president made ​​the decision to reduce his salary by 5 percent, or $ 20,000, a similar level of cuts in government agencies that are not defense.

Discretionary spending across the board contracted as a result of the reductions. To maintain its core functions, many agencies are making workers take leave or leave without pay.

Obama’s gesture comes at a time when the main Defense Department official said return portion of your salary to pay a similar amount to lose their civilian employees.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel return the equivalent of 14 working days of their pay, around $ 10.750, his spokesman said Tuesday.

 
Comments Off on Why Barack Obama Returns 5% of his salary!? Is it guilt?

Posted by on 04/04/2013 in Politics, The Face of Evil

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

King Obama born in Kantadhiang Village Kenya, Not hawaii!

U.S. Supreme Court accepts an Obama Birther Case after President Obama’s Kenya African birth certificate comes forward

Breaking News : U.S. Supreme Court:
On Wednesday, March 6, 2013 Chief Justice John Roberts of the Supreme Court scheduled a birther case brought on by Orly Taitz which calls into question Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility to be president of the United States. Below is the actual birth record from the Kenyan Government. Obama spent over 9 million in tax dollars to keep this hush hush. Well Now we sit by for the verdict. Thanks to CNN for this wonderful news

 
Comments Off on King Obama born in Kantadhiang Village Kenya, Not hawaii!

Posted by on 03/08/2013 in Politics, The Face of Evil

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Mexico is not all about violence

blank map of mexico

blank map of mexico (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

REPOST

Misconceptions about Mexico

By Ravi Agrawal, CNN

Editor’s note: Ravi Agrawal is senior producer of Fareed Zakaria GPS. The views expressed are his own. This was originally published in September 2012 and re-posted as Mexico’s President-elect Enrique Pena Nieto meets with President Obama on Tuesday.

Here’s some trivia. Which of these countries has the highest average income: India, China, Brazil or Mexico? If you guessed Brazil, you’d be wrong. And if you guessed India or China, you’d be way off: even if you combine the incomes of the average Indian and Chinese you wouldn’t reach the $15,000 annual purchasing power of the average Mexican.

These numbers don’t fit with many people’s perception of America’s southern neighbor. Mexico, you see, has a PR problem. A quick Google search for news from Mexico throws up a set of results that usually includes the words violence, drugs, cartels, and migrants (or the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico). But it’s not just the international media that seems to have it in for Mexico’s reputation. Mexicans themselves seem woebegone. A recent Pew survey found that only a third of Mexicans think they have a good national economic situation. Compare that with half of Indians, 65 percent of Brazilians, and 83 percent of Chinese. Or let’s go back to average citizens: 52 percent of Mexicans think they have a good personal economic situation, but for Indians, Chinese, and Brazilians, those numbers rise to 64 percent, 69 percent, and 75 percent respectively – and that’s despite the fact that in purchasing power terms, Mexicans actually earn more per capita than citizens of all three of those countries. And, unlike the others, Mexico’s growth rate is actually rising.

Indeed, Mexico’s economy has a number of strengths. It is the 14th largest in the world. If you take into account purchasing power, it is the 11th largest economy – larger than Canada, Turkey, and Indonesia. It is projected to grow 4 percent this year, and even faster in the coming decade, a rate that the financial services firm Nomura says will lead to Mexico overtaking Brazil as Latin America’s biggest economy within 10 years, despite the fact that Brazil’s economy is currently twice as large.

Still, there is a weakness in Mexico’s growth, as I saw for myself when I was there last month: the money hasn’t been trickling down. According to the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, Mexico has the highest rate of poverty among the group’s 34 member nations. If you consider inequality, the OECD ranks it the second most unequal, with only Chile more unequal.

So although the headline numbers might surprise, Mexico presents something of a mixed bag. Yet this hasn’t deterred investors taking a growing interest in this Latin-but-North American country. In a special report on investing in Mexico, the Financial Times went as far as to call its macroeconomy “virtually bulletproof.” Move over BRICs – Brazil, Russia, India, China – it’s time for the MISTs – Mexico, Indonesia, South Korea, Turkey.

Part of Mexico’s appeal to investors is tied into what I think may be the country’s key weakness: inequality. You see, at the lowest-end, labor remains cheap. The Economist points out that in 2003, Mexican pay was three times China’s rates; now it is only 20 percent higher. So Mexican manufacturing is poised for a boom. And while in the past few years Mexico banked on its proximity to the U.S. (lower transport costs) and trade deals like NAFTA to compete with China, it will now be able to manufacture and price products at an advantage.

The big question, of course, is whether the export dollars will trickle down. But making this happen will require significant market reforms. In his recent book “Breakout Nations: In Pursuit of the Next Economic Miracles,” Morgan Stanley’s Ruchir Sharma points out how the top 10 Mexican families account for more than a third of the country’s stock market value – an almost unheard of number. “Private cartels produce about 40 percent of the goods that Mexicans consume and charge prices that are 30 percent higher than international averages,” he writes. “Phones, services, soft drinks, and many foodstuffs cost more in Mexico than in the United States.”

One thing is clear – Mexico is not the war-torn wasteland it is often made out to be. Its people have a glorious history, and a hopeful future. This isn’t to say that Mexico is destined to be the next investment hotspot – that’s far too simplistic a way of looking at this. Instead, the numbers suggest the truth is somewhere in between. Mexico has enormous capacity to surprise on the economic stage. But to really shine, it needs to work on developing a vibrant – and bigger – middle class.

 
Comments Off on Mexico is not all about violence

Posted by on 01/16/2013 in What you see!

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

It’s time to stop this and preserve the 22nd Amendment!

Amendment XXII in the National Archives

Amendment XXII in the National Archives (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

United States congressman has introduced a bill that would repeal the 22nd Amendment, which currently limits the president to serving only two terms as commander-in-chief.

Should the bill become a law, it could allow President Barack Obama to run for reelection yet again in 2016.

The bill, H.J. Res. 15, offers “an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.”

New York Democratic Rep. Jose Serrano reintroduced the measure on January 4, after it did not make it to a floor vote in January 2011, the Daily Caller reports. Serrano has attempted to repeal the amendment for decades and proposed similar bills in 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, and 2007.

Rep. Serrano’s initiatives are not dependent on any particular party, since he has tried to get the measure passed under the presidencies of both Democrats and Republicans. But if the bill makes it to the floor for a vote this year, President Obama, a Democrat, might have a chance at a third term in the White House, which would make him the first president to possibly seek a third term since Franklin Roosevelt.

Even though a repeal has not made it far in Congress, there have been several attempts at bringing it to the floor, which have garnered support from past presidents and prominent legislators. Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) repeatedly proposed repealing the 22nd Amendment while both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were in office, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell tried to repeal it in 1995. In 1989, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) introduced a similar resolution.

Former President Ronald Reagan told Barbara Walters in a 1986 interview that the 22nd Amendment “was a mistake,” while former President Bill Clinton has always believed in the option for a president to seek reelection at a later time – even if he has already served twice.

“Shouldn’t a president be able to take two terms, take time off and run again?” Clinton said in an MSNBC interview in November. “I’ve always thought that should be the rule. I think as a practical matter, you couldn’t apply this to anyone who has already served, but going forward, I personally believe that should be the rule.”

Repealing the 22nd Amendment has been supported by both Democrats and Republicans, but has never garnered enough votes to go into effect.

Congress passed the 22nd Amendment on March 21, 1947. It was ratified by 41 states and rejected by only two. It limits each president to two terms, but did not apply to the sitting president, former President Harry Truman, who withdrew as a candidate for re-election in 1952.

 
Comments Off on It’s time to stop this and preserve the 22nd Amendment!

Posted by on 01/08/2013 in The Face of Evil

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

 
Mobile biz

The place to purchase Mobile Applications etc.,

Matt on Not-WordPress

Stuff and things.

bizatjango

BizJango & Jazz Music go together!

Essa On Everything

***Warning: Posts on this site may be factually incorrect, delusional, mean spirited...or all of the above

%d bloggers like this: