Friday, July 30, 2010
As BP Oil Gushes, Obama's Energy Call Falls Flat By SAM GUSTIN
There's an old saying that if you try to do too many things at once, you won't do any of them well.
Fifty-seven days into the catastrophic BP (BP) Deepwater Horizon oil spill, President Barack Obama tried to reassure increasingly desperate Gulf Coast residents that the U.S. government is doing everything it can to stanch the gushing well and was hard at work cleaning up the toxic mess befouling their shoreline. In his first-ever address from the Oval Office on Tuesday night, Obama also used the opportunity to issue a call for the U.S. to embark on a "national mission" to wean itself off petroleum.
On the first two counts, Obama was less than convincing. He offered qualified promises but no actual program to stop the leak, other than a mysterious reference to "additional equipment and technology." On the third count, the president was roundly criticized -- by liberals for not demanding a massive federal green technology push, and by conservatives for politicizing the catastrophe. And on all counts, Obama was faulted for being too vague about the concrete steps needed to achieve his goals -- from stopping the leak, to cleaning the oil, to transforming America's fossil-fuel-based economy.
Obama used war-tinged rhetoric to describe the black sludge that has been "assaulting our shores and our citizens" since Deepwater Horizon exploded 40 miles off the coast of Louisiana, killing 11 workers and injuring 17 others.
Bipartisan Criticism
Both friends and foes alike found the speech deficient. "Where was the 'How?' in this speech, when the nation was crying out for 'How?'" asked Keith Olberman, MSNBC's liberal pundit. "I don't think he aimed low, I don't think he aimed at all." Colleague Rachel Maddow lamented that the speech was not a "clarion call" for energy reform.
Appearing on Fox News immediately after the speech, former vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin told host Bill O'Reilly that "We haven't had the assurance by the president that [stopping the oil leak] has been his top priority. Instead, what his top priority is, Bill, is cap and tax. It is using this crisis, not letting it go to waste, but to use this crisis to increase the cost of energy."
After weeks of failed attempts to halt the toxic gusher, Obama sought to offer Gulf Coast residents a measure of hope, saying the U.S government has "directed BP to mobilize additional equipment and technology. And in the coming weeks and days, these efforts should capture up to 90% of the oil leaking out of the well." But his qualified language -- "should capture up to" -- left what was meant as a note of reassurance sounding hollow.
A Dry and Detached Recitation
In his speech, Obama tried to accomplish a difficult political high-wire act: maintaining the focus on the spill while making a larger point about U.S. fossil fuel consumption, all without appearing to take advantage of the disaster for political gain. But after a dry, almost detached recitation of the number of National Guardsmen deployed and maritime vessels marshaled -- followed by equally dry talk of dreaded blue-ribbon panels and his Nobel Prize-winning experts, Obama only seemed to become engaged when he directly linked the crisis to energy reform.
"The tragedy unfolding on our coast is the most painful and powerful reminder yet that the time to embrace a clean-energy future is now," Obama said. "Now is the moment for this generation to embark on a national mission to unleash America's innovation and seize control of our own destiny."
Using language lifted almost entirely from his rhetoric during last year's epic political struggle over health care, Obama said he was "happy to look at other ideas and approaches from either party, as long as they seriously tackle our addiction to fossil fuels. . . . But the one approach I will not accept is inaction. The one answer I will not settle for is the idea that this challenge is somehow too big and too difficult to meet."
"You know," he continued, "the same thing was said about our ability to produce enough planes and tanks in World War II. The same thing was said about our ability to harness the science and technology to land a man safely on the surface of the moon." But those on the left looking for details of a full-scale Manhattan Project-style mission to transform our economy away from petroleum must have been disappointed.
Separating the Issues Would Be Better
In trying to have it both ways -- making the energy reform pitch, but not so strongly as to be accused of politicization -- Obama simultaneously managed to appear political and yet failed to make a strong political argument. The president would have been much better off focusing on the spill and cleanup, and leaving the energy push for another speech -- like, say, after he has done the necessary heavy lifting to dislodge his energy bill from the legislative purgatory that is the U.S. Senate.
Obama used the oil spill to push his energy reform agenda, but didn't have the courage to demand immediate action.
Fifty-seven days into the catastrophic BP (BP) Deepwater Horizon oil spill, President Barack Obama tried to reassure increasingly desperate Gulf Coast residents that the U.S. government is doing everything it can to stanch the gushing well and was hard at work cleaning up the toxic mess befouling their shoreline. In his first-ever address from the Oval Office on Tuesday night, Obama also used the opportunity to issue a call for the U.S. to embark on a "national mission" to wean itself off petroleum.
On the first two counts, Obama was less than convincing. He offered qualified promises but no actual program to stop the leak, other than a mysterious reference to "additional equipment and technology." On the third count, the president was roundly criticized -- by liberals for not demanding a massive federal green technology push, and by conservatives for politicizing the catastrophe. And on all counts, Obama was faulted for being too vague about the concrete steps needed to achieve his goals -- from stopping the leak, to cleaning the oil, to transforming America's fossil-fuel-based economy.
Obama used war-tinged rhetoric to describe the black sludge that has been "assaulting our shores and our citizens" since Deepwater Horizon exploded 40 miles off the coast of Louisiana, killing 11 workers and injuring 17 others.
Bipartisan Criticism
Both friends and foes alike found the speech deficient. "Where was the 'How?' in this speech, when the nation was crying out for 'How?'" asked Keith Olberman, MSNBC's liberal pundit. "I don't think he aimed low, I don't think he aimed at all." Colleague Rachel Maddow lamented that the speech was not a "clarion call" for energy reform.
Appearing on Fox News immediately after the speech, former vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin told host Bill O'Reilly that "We haven't had the assurance by the president that [stopping the oil leak] has been his top priority. Instead, what his top priority is, Bill, is cap and tax. It is using this crisis, not letting it go to waste, but to use this crisis to increase the cost of energy."
After weeks of failed attempts to halt the toxic gusher, Obama sought to offer Gulf Coast residents a measure of hope, saying the U.S government has "directed BP to mobilize additional equipment and technology. And in the coming weeks and days, these efforts should capture up to 90% of the oil leaking out of the well." But his qualified language -- "should capture up to" -- left what was meant as a note of reassurance sounding hollow.
A Dry and Detached Recitation
In his speech, Obama tried to accomplish a difficult political high-wire act: maintaining the focus on the spill while making a larger point about U.S. fossil fuel consumption, all without appearing to take advantage of the disaster for political gain. But after a dry, almost detached recitation of the number of National Guardsmen deployed and maritime vessels marshaled -- followed by equally dry talk of dreaded blue-ribbon panels and his Nobel Prize-winning experts, Obama only seemed to become engaged when he directly linked the crisis to energy reform.
"The tragedy unfolding on our coast is the most painful and powerful reminder yet that the time to embrace a clean-energy future is now," Obama said. "Now is the moment for this generation to embark on a national mission to unleash America's innovation and seize control of our own destiny."
Using language lifted almost entirely from his rhetoric during last year's epic political struggle over health care, Obama said he was "happy to look at other ideas and approaches from either party, as long as they seriously tackle our addiction to fossil fuels. . . . But the one approach I will not accept is inaction. The one answer I will not settle for is the idea that this challenge is somehow too big and too difficult to meet."
"You know," he continued, "the same thing was said about our ability to produce enough planes and tanks in World War II. The same thing was said about our ability to harness the science and technology to land a man safely on the surface of the moon." But those on the left looking for details of a full-scale Manhattan Project-style mission to transform our economy away from petroleum must have been disappointed.
Separating the Issues Would Be Better
In trying to have it both ways -- making the energy reform pitch, but not so strongly as to be accused of politicization -- Obama simultaneously managed to appear political and yet failed to make a strong political argument. The president would have been much better off focusing on the spill and cleanup, and leaving the energy push for another speech -- like, say, after he has done the necessary heavy lifting to dislodge his energy bill from the legislative purgatory that is the U.S. Senate.
Obama used the oil spill to push his energy reform agenda, but didn't have the courage to demand immediate action.
Labels: crooked politics, government, gulf oil spill, president obama
Three Big Lies About The Economy By Brett Arends
The counter-revolution is underway.
The G-20 calls for members to slash their budget deficits. The U.S. Senate ices further aid for the unemployed. The head of the Business Roundtable slams President Obama for undermining American capitalism. Wall Street succeeds in watering down reform.
Depending on your politics, you'll love this or hate it.
But there's just one problem.
We're still living in a fantasyland. Most people have no idea what's really going on in the economy. They're living on spin, myths and downright lies. And if we don't know the facts, how can we make intelligent decisions?
Economists worry that jobs, consumer confidence readings won't support hope for economic recovery, Barrons.com's Bob O'Brien reports.
Here are the three biggest economic myths -- the things everything thinks they know about the economy that just ain't so.
Myth 1: Unemployment is below 10%
What nonsense that is. The official jobless rate, at 9.7%, is a fiction and should be treated as such. It doesn't even count lots of unemployed people. The so-called "underemployment" or U-6 rate is an improvement: For example it counts discouraged job seekers, and those forced to work part-time because they can't get a full-time job.
That rate right now is 16.6%, just below its recent high and twice the level it was a few years ago
And even that may not tell the full story. Many people have simply dropped out of the labor force statistics.
Consider, for example, the situation among men of prime working age. An analysis of data at the U.S. Labor Department shows that there are 79 million men in America between the ages of 25 and 65. And nearly 18 million of them, or 22%, are out of work completely. (The rate in the 1950s was less than 10%.) And that doesn't even count those who are working part-time because they can't get full-time work. Add those to the mix and about one in four men of prime working age lacks a full-time job.
Dean Baker, economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C., says the numbers may be even worse than that. His research suggests a growing number of men, especially in deprived, urban and minority neighborhoods, have vanished from the statistical rolls altogether.
Myth 2: The markets are panicking about the deficit
To hear the G-20 tell it, the U.S. and other top countries had better slash those budget deficits before the world comes to an end.
And maybe the markets should be panicking about the deficits.
But they're not. It's that simple.
If they were, the interest rate on government bonds would be skyrocketing. That's what happens with risky debt: Lenders demand higher and higher interest payments to compensate them for the dangers.
But the rates on U.S. bonds have been plummeting recently. The yield on the 30-year Treasury bond down to just 4%. By historic standards that's chickenfeed. Panicked? The bond markets are practically snoring.
They aren't seeing inflation either. On the contrary, they're saying it will average just 2.3% a year over the next three decades. That's the gap between the interest rates on inflation-protected Treasury bonds and the rates on the regular bonds. By any modern standard the forecast is low. Instead of worrying about inflation, some are starting to worry about something even more dangerous: deflation, or falling prices.
If that takes hold, cutting spending and raising taxes would be a bad move.
It's certainly possible the lenders buying these bonds are being foolish. And it's worth noting that the Treasury market is also subject to political distortions, because foreign are among the heavy buyers of bonds. So it's worth treating its apparent verdicts with some caution. Nonetheless, the burden of proof, as usual, is on those who argue the market is wrong.
Myth 3: The U.S. is sliding into "socialism"
For a system allegedly being strangled in its bed, U.S. capitalism seems to be in astonishingly robust shape.
Numbers published by the Federal Reserve a few weeks ago show that corporate profit margins have just hit record levels. Indeed. Andrew Smithers, the well-regarded financial consultant and author of "Wall Street Revalued," calculates from the Fed's latest Flow of Funds report that corporate profit margins rocketed to 36% in the first quarter. Since records began in 1947 they have never been this high. The highest they got under Ronald Reagan was 30%.
The picture is also similar when you exclude financials.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average /quotes/comstock/10w!i:dji/delayed (DJIA 9,686, -46.05, -0.47%) is above 10,000. Small company stocks have rallied astonishingly since early last year: The Russell 2000 index is back to levels seen not long before Lehman imploded. Meanwhile Cap Gemini's latest Wealth Report notes that the North American rich saw an 18% jump in their wealth last year.
Meanwhile, federal spending, about 25% of the economy this year, is expected to fall to about 23% by 2013. In 1983, under Ronald Reagan, it hit 23.5%. In the early 1990s it was around 22%. Some socialism.
These days, three-fifths of the entire budget goes on just three things: Insurance for our old age (through Social Security and Medicare), defense, and debt interest.
Conservatives don't want to cut the $700 billion-plus we spend on defense. We can't cut debt interest payments. And while Social Security and Medicare certainly need reform, the main "problems" are simply rising life expectancy and health care demands. If we didn't provide for the insurance through our taxes we'd have to do it individually.
What about the rest of the budget? It's jumped from around 7% of GDP a few years ago to about 10% now. Out of control? It's been in the 6% to 9% range for decades. It's forecast to fall to about 8% again in a few years.
So much for a revolution. But here comes the counter-revolution just the same.
The G-20 calls for members to slash their budget deficits. The U.S. Senate ices further aid for the unemployed. The head of the Business Roundtable slams President Obama for undermining American capitalism. Wall Street succeeds in watering down reform.
Depending on your politics, you'll love this or hate it.
But there's just one problem.
We're still living in a fantasyland. Most people have no idea what's really going on in the economy. They're living on spin, myths and downright lies. And if we don't know the facts, how can we make intelligent decisions?
Economists worry that jobs, consumer confidence readings won't support hope for economic recovery, Barrons.com's Bob O'Brien reports.
Here are the three biggest economic myths -- the things everything thinks they know about the economy that just ain't so.
Myth 1: Unemployment is below 10%
What nonsense that is. The official jobless rate, at 9.7%, is a fiction and should be treated as such. It doesn't even count lots of unemployed people. The so-called "underemployment" or U-6 rate is an improvement: For example it counts discouraged job seekers, and those forced to work part-time because they can't get a full-time job.
That rate right now is 16.6%, just below its recent high and twice the level it was a few years ago
And even that may not tell the full story. Many people have simply dropped out of the labor force statistics.
Consider, for example, the situation among men of prime working age. An analysis of data at the U.S. Labor Department shows that there are 79 million men in America between the ages of 25 and 65. And nearly 18 million of them, or 22%, are out of work completely. (The rate in the 1950s was less than 10%.) And that doesn't even count those who are working part-time because they can't get full-time work. Add those to the mix and about one in four men of prime working age lacks a full-time job.
Dean Baker, economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C., says the numbers may be even worse than that. His research suggests a growing number of men, especially in deprived, urban and minority neighborhoods, have vanished from the statistical rolls altogether.
Myth 2: The markets are panicking about the deficit
To hear the G-20 tell it, the U.S. and other top countries had better slash those budget deficits before the world comes to an end.
And maybe the markets should be panicking about the deficits.
But they're not. It's that simple.
If they were, the interest rate on government bonds would be skyrocketing. That's what happens with risky debt: Lenders demand higher and higher interest payments to compensate them for the dangers.
But the rates on U.S. bonds have been plummeting recently. The yield on the 30-year Treasury bond down to just 4%. By historic standards that's chickenfeed. Panicked? The bond markets are practically snoring.
They aren't seeing inflation either. On the contrary, they're saying it will average just 2.3% a year over the next three decades. That's the gap between the interest rates on inflation-protected Treasury bonds and the rates on the regular bonds. By any modern standard the forecast is low. Instead of worrying about inflation, some are starting to worry about something even more dangerous: deflation, or falling prices.
If that takes hold, cutting spending and raising taxes would be a bad move.
It's certainly possible the lenders buying these bonds are being foolish. And it's worth noting that the Treasury market is also subject to political distortions, because foreign are among the heavy buyers of bonds. So it's worth treating its apparent verdicts with some caution. Nonetheless, the burden of proof, as usual, is on those who argue the market is wrong.
Myth 3: The U.S. is sliding into "socialism"
For a system allegedly being strangled in its bed, U.S. capitalism seems to be in astonishingly robust shape.
Numbers published by the Federal Reserve a few weeks ago show that corporate profit margins have just hit record levels. Indeed. Andrew Smithers, the well-regarded financial consultant and author of "Wall Street Revalued," calculates from the Fed's latest Flow of Funds report that corporate profit margins rocketed to 36% in the first quarter. Since records began in 1947 they have never been this high. The highest they got under Ronald Reagan was 30%.
The picture is also similar when you exclude financials.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average /quotes/comstock/10w!i:dji/delayed (DJIA 9,686, -46.05, -0.47%) is above 10,000. Small company stocks have rallied astonishingly since early last year: The Russell 2000 index is back to levels seen not long before Lehman imploded. Meanwhile Cap Gemini's latest Wealth Report notes that the North American rich saw an 18% jump in their wealth last year.
Meanwhile, federal spending, about 25% of the economy this year, is expected to fall to about 23% by 2013. In 1983, under Ronald Reagan, it hit 23.5%. In the early 1990s it was around 22%. Some socialism.
These days, three-fifths of the entire budget goes on just three things: Insurance for our old age (through Social Security and Medicare), defense, and debt interest.
Conservatives don't want to cut the $700 billion-plus we spend on defense. We can't cut debt interest payments. And while Social Security and Medicare certainly need reform, the main "problems" are simply rising life expectancy and health care demands. If we didn't provide for the insurance through our taxes we'd have to do it individually.
What about the rest of the budget? It's jumped from around 7% of GDP a few years ago to about 10% now. Out of control? It's been in the 6% to 9% range for decades. It's forecast to fall to about 8% again in a few years.
So much for a revolution. But here comes the counter-revolution just the same.
Labels: economy, government, myths about the economy, politics
Barak Obama At West Point
Barrack Obama spoke to the graduating class at West Point and he made the comment, “As our leaders go into battle.” I don’t know if you’re aware of this or not, but today’s leaders don’t go into battle. Today’s leaders have never even seen a battle field. Today’s leaders sit in an air conditioned, plush hotel room and make commands. They don’t know who is doing what on the battle field. It’s been that way for some time. They all sit in hotel rooms and make the moves and the soldiers are on the field getting their asses blown to kingdom come and the “leaders” take all the credit when they win a battle. As pathetic as it seems this is the way it’s done in “today’s army.” Leaders don’t lead; they can’t lead if they’re behind the soldiers instead of in front of them. Apparently, they have forgotten what the word ‘lead’ means. It means to be out in front. How can you expect the soldiers to do a great job when their so called leaders are a bunch of scared candy asses who won’t even go onto the battlefield? We need leaders like General Patton. He wasn’t afraid to go onto the battlefield. He wasn’t afraid to be shot at. He led his men. He’s not one of my favorite people, but at least he wasn’t a chicken like the ‘leaders’ we have today. And Patton’s men respected him for it. Today’s West Point leaders aren’t really leaders, they’re followers. The soldiers on the battlefield are the leaders and they deserve, I’m sorry, they have earned the right to be called leaders. Quit giving the West Point brass all the credit. They have done nothing to earn it. Sipping on wine in an air conditioned hotel room is not my idea of a leader. All we’re producing at West Point is a bunch of pussies as far as I can tell.
Labels: Barak Obama, crooked politics, current administration, government
Al Sharpton
Civil rights activist the Rev. Al Sharpton gave a rousing eulogy for a 7-year-old girl killed in a police raid in Detroit recently, challenging the hundreds of mourners to take responsibility and help stop a spiral of violence that has swept the city.
Sharpton lobbed some criticism at Detroit police, whose explanation of how Aiyana Stanley-Jones died from a gunshot has been contradicted by the girl's family. But he mostly offered a broad cultural message to a city where at least three children and an officer have been killed in recent weeks.
"I'd rather tell you to start looking at the man in the mirror. We've all done something that contributed to this," he said referring to Aiyana's death. (That much is true. We have ALL done something including you Sharpton.)
"Do they throw these flash grenades in everybody's neighborhood? Would you have gone in Bloomfield Hills and did what you did?" Sharpton said, referring to a wealthy Detroit suburb. "Have you ever heard of putting on a light and calling people to come out?" (No, they wouldn’t do this in Bloomfield Hills, because they don’t have this kind of violence there, and if they did, the people of that neighborhood have enough sense to react in a civilized way rather than shooting at the police. And, by the way, black people live in Bloomfield Hills also.)
A few days earlier, Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox, a Republican running for governor, criticized Sharpton's visit, saying he was disgusted and accusing the New Yorker of a "drive-by at the scene of a tragedy."
"I'm disgusted when I look at a 7-year-old baby in a casket," Sharpton said during his eulogy. "And rather turn to each other, we name-call and go ego-tripping and try to jump in front of a camera rather than stand up and say, 'Enough is enough.'"
The girl’s family should be disgusted at Sharpton for using this funeral as a platform for his pathetic publicity.
Sharpton gets in front of the camera every chance he gets, like this funeral, and starts trouble. I can’t believe that Sharpton would stoop so low as to use this little girl’s funeral as another chance for him to get in front of the camera and get publicity. And I’m sure he knows nothing about the facts of the shooting. All he knows is, a little black girl is dead and a white cop shot her. (I am assuming it was a white cop. Neither I nor Al Sharpton knows for sure. Like I said, all Sharpton wants is publicity. To hell with the facts.If it was a black cop he wouldn't be making his pathetic speech.)
Like the time he and Jesse Jackson came to Durham, NC ready to crucify a group of rich white kids from Duke who had been wrongly accused of raping a black girl in a bathroom. He didn’t care about the facts; he didn’t care about the truth. All he and Jesse Jackson wanted was to see the white men hanged for raping a black girl. Turns out she was lying. IT NEVER HAPPENED. Yet, black people in Durham and everywhere else don’t care. They still believe the rich white kids did it even though it was proven they didn’t be her admitting she was lying? Where was Sharpton and Jackson when that was unveiled, nowhere. It was mud in their face and they disappeared quicker than a coin in a magician’s handkerchief.
Sharpton, I’m sure, knows nothing about how this awful crime unfolded in Detroit either. All he cares about is getting publicity, that’s it, nothing more. He doesn’t care about the facts. I’m sure if it was a black cop who fired the bullet he wouldn’t have gone there.
All Al Sharpton wants is publicity. And using the funeral of a 7-years old girl to get publicity is stooping to an all-time low.
Al Sharpton saying that “All we do is we name-call and ego-trip and try to jump in front of a camera rather than stand up and say, 'Enough is enough.'" is like the pot calling the kettle black. And no, I didn’t mean that in a racist way, in case you’re wondering.
I’m truly sick of this ignorant moron.
Sharpton lobbed some criticism at Detroit police, whose explanation of how Aiyana Stanley-Jones died from a gunshot has been contradicted by the girl's family. But he mostly offered a broad cultural message to a city where at least three children and an officer have been killed in recent weeks.
"I'd rather tell you to start looking at the man in the mirror. We've all done something that contributed to this," he said referring to Aiyana's death. (That much is true. We have ALL done something including you Sharpton.)
"Do they throw these flash grenades in everybody's neighborhood? Would you have gone in Bloomfield Hills and did what you did?" Sharpton said, referring to a wealthy Detroit suburb. "Have you ever heard of putting on a light and calling people to come out?" (No, they wouldn’t do this in Bloomfield Hills, because they don’t have this kind of violence there, and if they did, the people of that neighborhood have enough sense to react in a civilized way rather than shooting at the police. And, by the way, black people live in Bloomfield Hills also.)
A few days earlier, Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox, a Republican running for governor, criticized Sharpton's visit, saying he was disgusted and accusing the New Yorker of a "drive-by at the scene of a tragedy."
"I'm disgusted when I look at a 7-year-old baby in a casket," Sharpton said during his eulogy. "And rather turn to each other, we name-call and go ego-tripping and try to jump in front of a camera rather than stand up and say, 'Enough is enough.'"
The girl’s family should be disgusted at Sharpton for using this funeral as a platform for his pathetic publicity.
Sharpton gets in front of the camera every chance he gets, like this funeral, and starts trouble. I can’t believe that Sharpton would stoop so low as to use this little girl’s funeral as another chance for him to get in front of the camera and get publicity. And I’m sure he knows nothing about the facts of the shooting. All he knows is, a little black girl is dead and a white cop shot her. (I am assuming it was a white cop. Neither I nor Al Sharpton knows for sure. Like I said, all Sharpton wants is publicity. To hell with the facts.If it was a black cop he wouldn't be making his pathetic speech.)
Like the time he and Jesse Jackson came to Durham, NC ready to crucify a group of rich white kids from Duke who had been wrongly accused of raping a black girl in a bathroom. He didn’t care about the facts; he didn’t care about the truth. All he and Jesse Jackson wanted was to see the white men hanged for raping a black girl. Turns out she was lying. IT NEVER HAPPENED. Yet, black people in Durham and everywhere else don’t care. They still believe the rich white kids did it even though it was proven they didn’t be her admitting she was lying? Where was Sharpton and Jackson when that was unveiled, nowhere. It was mud in their face and they disappeared quicker than a coin in a magician’s handkerchief.
Sharpton, I’m sure, knows nothing about how this awful crime unfolded in Detroit either. All he cares about is getting publicity, that’s it, nothing more. He doesn’t care about the facts. I’m sure if it was a black cop who fired the bullet he wouldn’t have gone there.
All Al Sharpton wants is publicity. And using the funeral of a 7-years old girl to get publicity is stooping to an all-time low.
Al Sharpton saying that “All we do is we name-call and ego-trip and try to jump in front of a camera rather than stand up and say, 'Enough is enough.'" is like the pot calling the kettle black. And no, I didn’t mean that in a racist way, in case you’re wondering.
I’m truly sick of this ignorant moron.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Jessee Jackson & Slave Mentality
I was wondering when Jessee Jackson was going to come out from under the racist rock he was hiding under.
Jesse Jackson criticized Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert on Sunday, saying Gilbert sees LeBron James as a "runaway slave" and that the owner's comments after the free-agent forward decided to join the Miami Heat put the player in danger.
Leave it up to a moron like Jackson to use the word “slave” referring to a white coach putting down a black basketball player. I guess the coach would put down a white basketball player too if there were any in the NBA.
Jackson will do anything he can to start a controversy in his favor. I’m surprised that half-wit Al Sharpton hasn’t jumped on the slave bandwagon.
Yes, I’m sure that LeBron James is in grave danger for going to Miami. What grave danger is he in Jackson? What grave danger are all those millions of dollars he getting for going to Miami putting him in?
It’s the 21st Century, you moron, we don’t have slavery anymore and you can stop using the word now.
And while you’re at it, why don’t you tell that racist, idiot leader of the New Black Panther Party to stop using the word “cracker”? Oh, wait, that’s a black person calling a white person a name. That doesn’t count, does it?
You can call us anything you like. But if we say anything about you it’s slave mentality.
I’m really getting sick of hearing it. Why don’t you just shut up? After all, it’s better to remain silent and appear intelligent than to speak and remove all doubt.
Jesse Jackson criticized Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert on Sunday, saying Gilbert sees LeBron James as a "runaway slave" and that the owner's comments after the free-agent forward decided to join the Miami Heat put the player in danger.
Leave it up to a moron like Jackson to use the word “slave” referring to a white coach putting down a black basketball player. I guess the coach would put down a white basketball player too if there were any in the NBA.
Jackson will do anything he can to start a controversy in his favor. I’m surprised that half-wit Al Sharpton hasn’t jumped on the slave bandwagon.
Yes, I’m sure that LeBron James is in grave danger for going to Miami. What grave danger is he in Jackson? What grave danger are all those millions of dollars he getting for going to Miami putting him in?
It’s the 21st Century, you moron, we don’t have slavery anymore and you can stop using the word now.
And while you’re at it, why don’t you tell that racist, idiot leader of the New Black Panther Party to stop using the word “cracker”? Oh, wait, that’s a black person calling a white person a name. That doesn’t count, does it?
You can call us anything you like. But if we say anything about you it’s slave mentality.
I’m really getting sick of hearing it. Why don’t you just shut up? After all, it’s better to remain silent and appear intelligent than to speak and remove all doubt.
Labels: basketball, current news, Jessee Jackson, racisim, sports
New Black Panther Leader Defends Group in Voter Intimidation Case
The New Black Panther Party, in an interview Friday with Fox News, defended his group amid an uproar over a voter intimidation case dropped by the Obama administration, a move that an ex- Justice Department official alleges was for racial reasons.
Malik Zulu Shabazz distanced himself from the actions of Minister King Samir Shabazz, seen in an amateur video from November 2008 brandished a billy club at a Philadelphia polling station, an incident that led to charges of coercion, threats and intimidation. The Black Panther chairman told Fox News' Megyn Kelly that the actions caught on video "were outside of organizational policy."
"We still do not condone the carrying of nightsticks at polling places and we have been consistent on that since Day One," he said. "Any individual member that violates organizational policy cannot be attributed to the organization any more than any individual member of the Catholic Church, one of their acts can be charged to the Vatican."
Malik Shabazz's comments come after J. Christian Adams, who quit the Justice Department last month over the handling of the case against the Black Panthers and its members, accused his former superiors of instructing attorneys in the civil rights division to ignore cases that involve black defendants and white victims.
Adams' allegations have led the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to plan a new round of subpoenas and call for a separate federal probe.
But Shabazz alleged that the story is being "overhyped and overblown" as "part of a right-wing Republican conspiracy to demonize President Obama, his administration, to demonize the New Black Panther Party and blacks in order to drum up white dissatisfied support for the midterm elections."
Asked whether he agreed with the sentiments of Samir Shabazz, seen in other video footage calling white people "crackers" and urging blacks to kill them and their babies, the chairman said "no." But he acknowledged he may have called whites "crackers" himself.
As chairman, Malik Shabazz was one of three Black Panthers charged in a civil complaint with violating the Voter Rights Act in the November 2008 incident, and Samir Shabazz specifically was accused of brandishing what prosecutors called a deadly weapon.
The Obama administration won a default judgment in federal court in April 2009 when the Black Panthers didn't appear in court to fight the charges. But the administration moved to dismiss the charges in May 2009. Justice attorneys said a criminal complaint against Samir Shabazz, which resulted in the injunction, proceeded successfully.
The injunction states that Samir Shabazz cannot appear at a polling station in Philadelphia until after 2012.
Malik Shabazz said that it was "right" for the Justice Department to drop the charges against the organization and the party's leadership.
He also said Samir Shabazz was suspended for his actions before he was reinstated as a Black Panther member.
When asked whether Samir Shabazz is a racist, Malik Shabazz said, "I can't speak for him on that. I would say the New Black Panther Party is not a hate group or a racist organization."
That’s mighty black of you, Shabazz, saying the New Black Panther Party isn’t a racist group. I guess calling white people “crackers” and to “kill white babies” isn’t racist. That just goes to show how stupid you are.
If the Obama administration has done anything it has shown us who the racists in America really are.
Go here for the video:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/09/new-black-panther-leader-defends-group-voter-intimidation-case/
Malik Zulu Shabazz distanced himself from the actions of Minister King Samir Shabazz, seen in an amateur video from November 2008 brandished a billy club at a Philadelphia polling station, an incident that led to charges of coercion, threats and intimidation. The Black Panther chairman told Fox News' Megyn Kelly that the actions caught on video "were outside of organizational policy."
"We still do not condone the carrying of nightsticks at polling places and we have been consistent on that since Day One," he said. "Any individual member that violates organizational policy cannot be attributed to the organization any more than any individual member of the Catholic Church, one of their acts can be charged to the Vatican."
Malik Shabazz's comments come after J. Christian Adams, who quit the Justice Department last month over the handling of the case against the Black Panthers and its members, accused his former superiors of instructing attorneys in the civil rights division to ignore cases that involve black defendants and white victims.
Adams' allegations have led the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to plan a new round of subpoenas and call for a separate federal probe.
But Shabazz alleged that the story is being "overhyped and overblown" as "part of a right-wing Republican conspiracy to demonize President Obama, his administration, to demonize the New Black Panther Party and blacks in order to drum up white dissatisfied support for the midterm elections."
Asked whether he agreed with the sentiments of Samir Shabazz, seen in other video footage calling white people "crackers" and urging blacks to kill them and their babies, the chairman said "no." But he acknowledged he may have called whites "crackers" himself.
As chairman, Malik Shabazz was one of three Black Panthers charged in a civil complaint with violating the Voter Rights Act in the November 2008 incident, and Samir Shabazz specifically was accused of brandishing what prosecutors called a deadly weapon.
The Obama administration won a default judgment in federal court in April 2009 when the Black Panthers didn't appear in court to fight the charges. But the administration moved to dismiss the charges in May 2009. Justice attorneys said a criminal complaint against Samir Shabazz, which resulted in the injunction, proceeded successfully.
The injunction states that Samir Shabazz cannot appear at a polling station in Philadelphia until after 2012.
Malik Shabazz said that it was "right" for the Justice Department to drop the charges against the organization and the party's leadership.
He also said Samir Shabazz was suspended for his actions before he was reinstated as a Black Panther member.
When asked whether Samir Shabazz is a racist, Malik Shabazz said, "I can't speak for him on that. I would say the New Black Panther Party is not a hate group or a racist organization."
That’s mighty black of you, Shabazz, saying the New Black Panther Party isn’t a racist group. I guess calling white people “crackers” and to “kill white babies” isn’t racist. That just goes to show how stupid you are.
If the Obama administration has done anything it has shown us who the racists in America really are.
Go here for the video:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/09/new-black-panther-leader-defends-group-voter-intimidation-case/
Labels: Barack Obama, black panther party, crooked politics, racisim, voting
