Raw Dawg Buffalo Radio  

Strange to me but it seems since his Inauguration, there has been little mention of Iraq, outside of the occasional statements made by Secretary Gates or the anticipated troop withdrawals Obama ran his campaign on. No more images even on the great cathode ray tube. When Bush was in office, seems that is all we read, heard and saw.

This says a few thing to me. First our media may be liberal in perspective and doesn’t desire to remind folks that yep, we are still involved in a brutal occupation In Iraq – even under the current administration. Second, that the media is not designed nor does it have a preference for informing the public via news. Last, it reinforces why I have to read newspapers from around the world, other than US papers, conservative or Liberal to get some objective information. I first noticed this when the day before his historic inauguration, no papers nor news stations showed or talked about Israel massive bombings of innocent folks, mostly kids in the Gaza strip (pics here).

If you didn’t know, April was the deadliest month in seven months with respct to US fatalities in Iraq. In fact the civilian death toll has also been steadily increasing . On April 29, 2009 in a news conference President Barack Obama was asked if recent violence in Iraq would affect his timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops. Strange thing was that same day three car bombs killed at least 51 people in markets in Baghdad. Although Obama answered by saying that we have not “ seen the kinds of huge spikes that you were seeing for a time” and that “the political system is holding and functioning in Iraq." True the number of deaths is not as great as it was in 2007 and 2008 the same time period, but the Iraq's government says that 435 civilians were killed in April, which means the count is likely to be greater than that reported. This by my math represents almost an 40% increase since March.

This is very disturbing because it as if since the number of deaths is lower from the past year that it makes it acceptable, putting in the context of the current President. Even stranger is that during his campaign his mantra was that “the war should have never been fought . But turned around on February 27, while addressing US troops at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina he said the US military “have fought against tyranny and disorder."

After just over 100 days in office, the current Administration is considering reversing course by leaving U.S. troops in Iraq, which makes me think , like all politicians, saying what the folks want to hear is all that count for following up on such actions are not as important as getting elected. But I understand that politics is a big old game. The real deal is that we seem not to be even able to trust our media to give us the real deal. And things may be getting just ready to hit the fan the way the Taliban is putting down and with these new images that the President has said he will not release to the public. Again I had to go to a foreign sources to see 16 of the 44 pics. But in the big picture the war, and folks dying in Iraq, political lies and the like are not as important as American Idol results, Mike Vick getting out of jail, Rihanna and Drake hooking up or Nas and his woman. So make no never mind about me. I guess no news is good news.

For the record, I actually wrote this the same day I wrote the previous post. And as well many of you know that I frequent the subject’s of Asia (the middle east and Israel) and assorted topics. While running for President, Obama indicated that he would continue to be supportive of Israel in the same manner of prior administrations. Strange this is that the current agreement on the table via the Annapolis accord suggest a two state solution. However, from a historical perspective this implies that he would not attempt to force a two state solution on the Zionist government nor will he be willing to negotiate with presupposed terrorist.

But this aint gonna really work since Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu stated Israel's viewpoint in a satellite broadcast to attendees of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's (AIPAC, America's pro-Israeli lobby) annual conference. When Obama addressed the same group before his election, in Chicago last March, Mr. Obama spoke of "a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel: our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy” and that the US “must preserve our total commitment to our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense programs.

From the way I see it, this is contra to a two state solution for such support would only help Israel maintain its military edge over all those in the Gaza area. For the Idea of a two states solution is endorsed by most of the world. Although Prime Minister Netanyahu doesn’t speak of such and only says that he does not desire to govern the Palestinians. Not to mention in order to do such, it would require for Israel to stop expanding settlements in the West bank/ Gaza regions. But this won’t happen because the number of Jewish settlers on the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) is almost 300,000.

In Memphis we got an old saying, scared say ya scared. Its ontological disposition describes actions in the form of being hesitant often always evince uncertainty. The prime Minister don’ and likely won’t talk about ending settlements or a two state solution. This means that He and Obama got to bump heads. And remember, former president George W Bush also wanted two states and the folks we give all them tanks and planes to said ok – but didn’t. So did Secretary of state Condoleeza Rice – but the didn’t. Obama is going to have to have King Kong size testicles if he plans to push this because as they prepare to meet – new settlements are going up now. He needs to tell them what they are "illegal outposts" set up without formal government permission.

So my advice to you Mr. President is not to fall for the okie doke, for we know they will talk all day about Iran, and nuclear weapons, but won’t mention the settlements and a Palestinian state. Truth is to do such would mean that more than 200,000 settlers would have to be removed. Question is does Obama or is Obama willing to carry a big stick and talk loudly? I have my opinion you tell me yours.

I wanted to write this a few days ago, particularly after I read the comments regarding how the administration plans to deal with the automobile industry. Now many of you know my approach to economics as well as my position of this crisis. First I think that there needs to be a restructuring of our financial system, that we can’t keep on giving folks money to waste, that we need to produce something the rest of the world will purchase and that we should let the free markets deal with this – let businesses fail.


Now if you have not read his remarks, I suggest you do so with the quickness. From what I have discerned, after several readings is frightening. It seems that what his auto task force is undertaking is in direct conflict with the constitution of the United States, specifically the Taking Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Now I know that many of us dumb Americans aint read and don’t know the constitution, and likely couldn’t tell the difference between the fifth or sixth amendment if asked. The Fifth Amendment provides that private property shall not be taken without just compensation and includes a provision known as the Takings Clause, which states that "private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation." This only applies to actions by the federal government. The Takings Clause imposes two requirements on government in order to exercise this power. The first being that the property to be acquired must be "for public use," and second, that the government must pay "just compensation" to the owner of the property that is seized.


It sounds to me that the government is getting in the automobile industry. I mean the programs of the government have never worked better than those in a free market. This is something that I would expect from a communist country like China or a socialist country like France – but not here. First, there is the issue with Chrysler, in which we are about to PAY a foreign company $6 billion plus (not an American company) Fiat “ to transfer its cutting-edge technology to Chrysler and, after working closely with my team, has committed to building new fuel-efficient cars and engines here in America.” In addition, there is the statement “the United States government will stand behind your warrantee". And check this, like an investment bank, the Federal government announced it will now begin to practice automobile financing via the “the Treasury Department's Consumer and Business Lending Initiative”...and “auto finance companies to increase the flow of credit to both consumers and dealers.”

Then there is the statement that my tax money (recovery act funds) will be used “to purchase government cars” and go out as “other federal fleet purchases as well.” How can the government get new cars with my money when I can’t afford to do such? Why not save our money so we don’t have to borrow anymore from Asia. This is not tightening ones belt buckle. Add to that that the IRS, as if it doesn’t have enough stuff to do regulating our tax dollars will become the governments automobile marketing firm. In his own words the President stated: “Third, the IRS is today launching a campaign to alert consumers of a new tax benefit for auto purchases made between Feb 16 and the end of this year -- if you buy a car anytime this year, you may be able to deduct the cost of any sales and excise taxes. This provision could save families hundreds of dollars and lead to as many as 100,000 new car sales". The current Secretary of the Treasury can’t even get Deputy’s in house to support his efforts, but we can create another wasted job at the federal level for a Director of Recovery for Auto Communities and Workers.


I do not know about you, but this is a very slippery slope. First no one in the administration is brave enough to tell us how many more bailout they are going to provide to big business or how much money they will continue to give and borrow abroad. Not to mention it will only be a matter of time before a couple of the corporations getting bailout loot will fail anyway.The sad thing is that I always her “now let me say this clearly” and “we have to do this”. We do not have to do jack. What happened to bankruptcy, at least that way nobody will have to loose their jobs while undergoing restructuring. I believe that business owners should either work their way out of their economic problems or fail for that equals a free market to me. But then again what do I know, it sounds live General motors’ don’t exist no more and has now become Government Motors.