I woke up that morning and, as always, I flipped the channels briefly before settling down on the Today Show on NBC. Matt Lauer was interviewing Maria Bartiromo of the CNBC, who is at present on Fox Business Channel. As the interview progresses, you could glen immediately whose side she was in the fast-approaching 2012 US Presidential election - President Obama was wrong in everything Governor Mitt Romney is right in everything and he is coasting unstoppably to a landslide victory.
After about five hours of typing, I took a break to fix a meal for my son who was at home for the long break. I came back again at about 3 p.m. and typed until about 8 p.m., taking a few minutes breaks intermittently. For the first time, I was not able to watch Jeopardy and Wheel of Fortune with my little son. I began editing at 9 p.m. and went to bed at about 12.30 a.m. I woke up at 4 a.m., for another two hours review. At exactly 6 a.m., I uploaded the essay to my Blog and on my Facebook account.
At that moment, it was one long essay, without any section break or heading. I fixed breakfast for my son, watched the morning news, and went to bed at about 9 a.m. At about noon, my son came to my room and began to hit me, saying, Daddy wake up, he is saying what you wrote. I ran to the TV - I saw the President over and over again, with his long sleeves rolled up, repeating ad nauseam the opening paragraph of the essay at a campaign rally: "Taking a stand for President Barack Obama's re-election is a stand for what is right, just, and equitable because he wants the very best for every American family judging by what he has done so far and attempted to do. I stand for the President because it is the right thing to do. Above all, a stand for President Barack Obama is a stand for the truth, audacity, creativity, and innovations..." And on and on and on for the whole day. I was excited. And I sat down to reminisce on all the journeys through the classes and pages of newspapers and magazines, both local and foreign. They made this possible. And I prayed for a fruitful outcome.
Nevertheless, it was the last question that infuriated me to no end. And it was the question that motivated the essay under review. Matt Asked her, "What is he going to do now?" She replied, "There is nothing he can do; Wall Street will not release its money until a new President is sworn in." Hearing that, I jumped up from my sofa, asking rhetorically and to no one in particular. "Whose money?" "A new President?" "That will not happen." "Whose money is it anyway?" "How did they (Wall Street) come by that money?" "Obama bailed your ass out and now you're hoarding the money saved in the process?" "You want to stifle the economy, making him vulnerable, to kick him out of the office?" "It will not happen." And I sat down, staring at my TV and seeing nothing. And suddenly, I had an epiphany. They've already written him off - defeated. And she is not alone.
A few days earlier, Mr. Cory Booker, the Mayor of Newark came on TV to lecture the Obama campaign in a condescending tone on how not to campaign. It was more like a standing order not to inject Wall Street into their campaign. He added that they should totally abstain from making adverse comments about the guys holding sway at the American investment capital. In the same week, Mr. Ed Rendell, the former Governor of Pennsylvania stated on MSNBC that the Obama campaign team should not talk about Bain Capital or Wall Street. A few days earlier, the enfant terrible himself, Mr. David Carville (Democratic Strategist) with another gentleman co-wrote and published a memo, lecturing the Obama campaign team about the dos and don'ts of Presidential campaign and why they must totally abstain from bringing in Wall Street and Bain Capital into the campaign.
After a moment of sober reflection, I said to myself, if he doesn't talk about Bain Capital, if he doesn't indict Wall Street, how is he going to defeat a candidate whose campaign strength lies solely on his Wall Street exploits and his managerial wizardry? Just a cursory review of each of the comments by the influential Democrats, it was apt to conclude that a common thread ran through their opinions: "Obama is finished, and when it is all over, we want Americans to know that we did intervene to save him with our advice." That was my interpretation. And I said to myself, no, it won't happen. The first black guy elected as President in the number one democracy in the World is not going to be disgraced out of office or serve only one term as Mitch McConnell boasted he would ensure happened. IT WILL NOT HAPPEN. Period. I said to myself repeatedly. And I went to my laptop to vent my spleen on the unknown - typing away and directing my rebuttal to no one in particular. But my goal was clear: what would I be saying if I were counselling President Obama on the campaign strategy.
Knowing that the President had seen the essay, I went back to it for further editing and filtering. It was actually a few days later that I succeeded in breaking it down into different sections with appropriate headings.
On the third day, the folks at MSNBC got wind of the essay and they ran with it nonstop until the election day. In between, my phones rang non-stop. And my son became my Secretary, with the standing instruction that Alex is not at home. When you heard the term: "They defined Mitt Romney," it began here.
When President Obama and his team continued to soar in their campaign and opinion polls of likely voters, Chris Matthew of MSNBC never stopped to ask his guests if Ed Rendell and Cory Booker made a mistake in their televised instructions to the Obama Campaign team to refrain from injecting Wall Street and Bain Capital into the campaign. Almost all the commentators at MSNBC at the time knew about the author of the essay. And I remember one morning, a lady (her name withheld) said since Alex's essay the campaign has gained immense momentum.
It didn't take Republicans time to know about the unknown author behind the talking points, that defined their candidate. Later in the campaign, I found out that each time I posted a comment on my Facebook or Blog, they would flip it immediately to the advantage of their candidate. Upon that realization, I decided to take a break from posting or writing any comments about the election. After all, it works exactly as I wanted. Therefore, it is time to stay back, relax, and watch events unfold. However, a few days later, something interesting and unbelievable happened, which made me realize how relevant I had become in the campaign.
On that very morning, a discussion was going on on a friend's Facebook Timeline about the American Presidential Campaign and the absence of religious factors in the debate. I joined the discussion and stated that, but for the fact that Governor Mitt Romney is a strong member of the Mormon Faith, Ralph Reed of the Christian Coalition would have turned the campaign into a religious show since all these days and smearing President Obama ignominiously. To my utter disbelief, what took place immediately was the most daring exercise in foolhardiness I have seen.
That afternoon they flew Ralph Reed from his base in Atlanta to Washington DC for a joint press conference with Mr. Ryan, Mr. Romney's presidential running mate. At the Press Conference, Mr Ralph Reed labelled President Obama anti-Christ, amongst other disparaging epithets. It was disgusting and unbecoming of a religious figure of national repute. It is another way of saying, Smart Alec, bring it on, we are watching you and we can say whatever we want to say about religion and about your candidate. I watched the news without saying anything really; not many people knew the reason for the press briefing.
The talking point was put to the test by President Barack Obama on three occasions with unbelievable outcomes. The first time was immediately after its publication. The campaign ran with it and gained unprecedented grounds at the pool and placed the campaign on a comfortable lead.
The second test was during the first debate between President Obama and his challenger, former Governor Mitt Romney. Throughout the debate, the incumbent totally and unequivocally abstained from mentioning Bain Capital, Wall Street, or anything about his challenger’s financial expertise that made him and his investors better off than his poor employees. In the end, the young and agile President Obama looked like a caged and remotely subdued participant. It was uninspiring and blatantly unlike Obama.
The first phone call I got after the debate came from my ex-wife’s junior sister in Europe. She asked repeatedly, “Uncle Alex, wetin happened to your friend, did they force him into the debate?” “He looks like say he no wan to be President again.” She was angry and I kept assuring her that it wasn’t over yet. The most painful cut after the debate came from Fox News Commentator, late Charles Krauthammer, in a condescending and ecstatic mode, he said, America doesn’t need a wimp for President. So, whose interest was the President serving by his laid-back debate approach. Is he trying to prove that my talking points did not play any role in his gain at the opinion polls? I couldn’t fathom any reasonable explanation approach. It was a nationwide disappointing performance.
When the second debate came up, the President did not require any reminding that whatever opinion was behind his gamble in the first debate was ill-founded. And he deployed the talking points in the magnitude and style that catapulted his campaign to an unprecedented level following its initial publication. The second debate reenergizes his campaign and his lead at all the polls and puts an end to any doubt the President or his campaign team might have entertained about the usefulness of my talking points in the campaign.
If the role I played at the 2012 US Presidential election was an invention, I would have become a multi-millionaire by now.
Below, is the essay that changes the dynamics of the 2012 US Presidential campaign and election. And it is my greatest work so far. It was not planned. But in the end, it served a purpose beyond my wildest imagination.
"Obama: Citizen United, Invisible Resistance, and the Hacking of American Democracy" of June 08, 2012.
Standing up for President Barack Obama!
Taking a stand for President Barack Obama's re-election is a stand for what is right, just, and equitable because he wants the very best for every American family judging by what he has done so far and attempted to do. I stand for the President because it is the right thing to do. Above all, a stand for President Barack Obama is a stand for the truth, audacity, creativity, and innovation. Republicans want him to fail, not necessarily on account of what he is doing wrong, but because of resentment rooted in hatred and unwillingness to embrace the likelihood of American history recording the first of his kind as "Great President". Now that the political system is overwhelmed with corporate money, Americans should brace for surprises, lies, and misinformation from Karl Rove and his plethora of Super PACs.
KARL ROVE AND SUPER PACs
The Crusade to buy President Obama out of Power with Super PACs and Corporate money made possible by the decision of the US Supreme Court in the Citizen United case is analogous to the politics of money in Nigeria that has eaten deep into the fabric of our political culture and made popular democracy a travesty. There is no difference between the reactionary elements within the Republican Party in the United States and the reactionary elements that dominate the political culture in Nigeria – trust deficit, greed, lies, bigotry, homophobia, hatred, hypocrisy, and misinformation; tell me more. They profess family values and moral purity, yet they see the less-privileged in society as another category of the human species, deserving nothing and worthy of nothing. They wear patriotism on their shoulders but exploit political power and governments as other investment tools on behalf of a selected few at the expense of the generality of the governed.If I may ask, what the heck is the connection between Campaign Finance (political speech) and First Amendment Rights? Where is the nexus between the right to talk and express oneself as defined by the US Constitution under the First Amendment and the right to fund an election with an undisclosed amount of money, without disclosing your identity or the amount of money contributed as the US Supreme Court ruled in the Citizen United? http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html?pagewanted=all.
Mr. Karl Rove and his PAC American Crossroads and other Super PACs are raising millions of dollars from unknown sources every day and every night in preparation for war against change and civilization. When President Obama, on January 27, 2010, during his State of the Union Address, seemingly took exception to the decision of the Supreme Court in the Citizen United Case (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8v-rJb8G15I), some people considered the President's remarks condescending. Now we know better. Governor Mitt Romney decimated Newt Gingrich politically in Iowa and Florida during the just-concluded Republican primaries, thanks to PACs money. They've only just begun. And the whole world is watching! Watching what they would do against President Barack Obama with the Millions they are stockpiling presently.
In the words of Vice President Al Gore, "Our democracy has been hijacked." See "View Point with Governor Elliot Spitzer" on Current TV, http://current.com/shows/viewpoint/videos/al-gore-takes-on-scott-walker-romneys-health-care-record-voter-suppression-and-citizens-united/
President Obama did more for this country in three years than what Karl Rove and his administration did in eight years. President Obama revived a comatose economy and stabilized a dysfunctional financial industry, despite the filibuster ammunitions ceaselessly and shamelessly deployed by Republican members of Congress to frustrate his administration. In addition, thanks to the patriotic and unpretentious support of his Security team, President Obama decimates terrorism and terrorist cells all around the World, without risking the precious lives of our men and women in uniform. A development that's in sharp contrast with the enormous wastage and mass casualties incidents that characterized Karl Rove's incubated administration.
Power is not only about winning an election, as Mr. Karl Rove is reputed to. It is more about purposeful governance - empowerment. It is about raising the standard of living of the middle class and supporting the less privileged, which Karl Rove and his hawkish bedfellows do not know how to do. It calls for synergy realignment for growth, making capital available to the entrepreneurs and creating opportunities for businesses and the economically dislocated/disadvantaged Americans.
Power is not only about winning an election, as Mr. Karl Rove is reputed to. It is more about purposeful governance - empowerment. It is about raising the standard of living of the middle class and supporting the less privileged, which Karl Rove and his hawkish bedfellows do not know how to do. It calls for synergy realignment for growth, making capital available to the entrepreneurs and creating opportunities for businesses and the economically dislocated/disadvantaged Americans.
Mr. Karl Rove and his numerous Super PACs failed Americans abysmally when they were there for eight years. They squandered the surplus left behind by President Bill Clinton (a Democrat) and watched helplessly as Wall Street degenerated into a mob scene where inside trading and indiscriminate betting on taxpayers' money turned out to be the hallmarks.
Now, they are fighting to reinstate the inglorious past; hoping to buy out President Obama from power through corporate money and campaign finance loopholes by any means possible. That's what the election is about on the part of Republicans - resentment of change and sending President Obama back to Chicago as some of them boasted. It won't happen. Because Americans know better.
GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY, AUTO BAILOUT, AND BAIN CAPITAL
Governor Mitt Romney wants American voters to elect him President because he has a better grasp of Economics and Management than President Obama. That argument is anchored on his exploit at Bain Capital and as Governor of Massachusetts. Surprisingly, American pundits and TV anchors do not want the President and Democrats to talk about Bain Capital. Bain Capital is Governor Romney's bargaining chip. You cannot discuss Governor Romney's management credentials, without integrating a discussion of his years at Bain Capital as well as the pains and sufferings unleashed by Bain Capital on the management and employees of their affiliates.9
There is no denying the fact that Bain Capital is a very successful firm using "returns on investment" indices. They achieved that liquidity status through over-leveraged capitalism - borrow large, acquired companies, fire existing workers, cash out big and laugh their way to the banks, while the companies are left embroiled in massive debts, contending with bankruptcy as the last option.
That of course, is what most venture capital and private equity firms do: making money for themselves and their investors/shareholders. Which is cool. But that is not the same as governance or being the Governor of a State or President of a country. That explains the magnitude of the uninspiring performance that Governor Mitt Romney recorded as Governor of Massachusetts. Because he couldn't replicate Bain Capital's model in his management of the affairs of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
I want to reiterate, that I do not nurse any grudge against Bain Capital or their business model. However, suffice it to say that managing a venture capital or private equity firm is not in any shape or form analogous to managing the affairs of a state - governance is about the people, rich or poor. Governor Romney's performance in Massachusetts lends credence to that assertion. Therefore, applying that standard, he lacks what it takes to be a successful President and cannot perform at the level of President Obama, despite GOP intransigence.
President Obama did not aspire to the Oval Office/White House to enrich himself and his management staff. Governance is about the people, all the people, and not for a privileged few or shareholders. President Obama is on the side of the people. That includes the rich and the famous, the multinationals, the small businesses, as well as millionaires who do not have any economic need for a tax break. The programs and policies that he introduced and pursued since the beginning of his Presidency support that claim. And that, my friends, is the difference between being the President of a country and being the CEO of a venture capital or private equity firm.
There is no denying the fact that Bain Capital is a very successful firm using "returns on investment" indices. They achieved that liquidity status through over-leveraged capitalism - borrow large, acquired companies, fire existing workers, cash out big and laugh their way to the banks, while the companies are left embroiled in massive debts, contending with bankruptcy as the last option.
That of course, is what most venture capital and private equity firms do: making money for themselves and their investors/shareholders. Which is cool. But that is not the same as governance or being the Governor of a State or President of a country. That explains the magnitude of the uninspiring performance that Governor Mitt Romney recorded as Governor of Massachusetts. Because he couldn't replicate Bain Capital's model in his management of the affairs of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
I want to reiterate, that I do not nurse any grudge against Bain Capital or their business model. However, suffice it to say that managing a venture capital or private equity firm is not in any shape or form analogous to managing the affairs of a state - governance is about the people, rich or poor. Governor Romney's performance in Massachusetts lends credence to that assertion. Therefore, applying that standard, he lacks what it takes to be a successful President and cannot perform at the level of President Obama, despite GOP intransigence.
President Obama did not aspire to the Oval Office/White House to enrich himself and his management staff. Governance is about the people, all the people, and not for a privileged few or shareholders. President Obama is on the side of the people. That includes the rich and the famous, the multinationals, the small businesses, as well as millionaires who do not have any economic need for a tax break. The programs and policies that he introduced and pursued since the beginning of his Presidency support that claim. And that, my friends, is the difference between being the President of a country and being the CEO of a venture capital or private equity firm.
A few days ago, Mr. Romney inadvertently revealed his true intent when he tried to make a pejorative remark about the recent statement credited to President Obama 'that the private sector is doing fine'. Governor Romney declared: "Is he really out of touch? He wants to hire more government workers, he wants to hire more Teachers, more Policemen, and more firefighters..." In a quick rebuttal, when has it become sacrilegious or an aberration to hire Teachers, Fire Fighters, and Policemen! Are they not eligible for the American Dream?
Truth is, most Republicans never hide their disdain for Teachers and their plan to eliminate the Department of Education. For Mr. Romney, a Presidential candidate for that matter, to have a problem with hiring more Teachers, Fire Fighters, and Policemen is blatantly absurd. It shows how unconnected Governor Mitt Romney is with American realities.
By the way, the few Democrats who have expressed some reservations about the position of the President on Bain Capital and Wall Street are missing something. With due respect, I beg to disagree with them. It's all about interest; Obama's Campaign should know that. The fact that an argument is good for some guys - career-wise, business network, budding or future political career - doesn't mean it is good for the President's campaign. In addition, Governor Mitt Romney's claim to managerial superiority over his political opponents is his activities at Bain Capital and stewardship in Massachusetts as the Executive Governor. That's it. So why won't Democrats and President Obama's campaign team talk about Bain Capital?
Yes, we must talk about Bain Capital and Massachusetts. We must talk about 'Let Detroit Go Bankrupt' because it is vintage Mitt Romney. And it is his resume. See Governor Mitt Romney's op-ed article published in the New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?_r=1.
Left for Mr. Romney, Detroit would have been history by now.
Today, General Motors is back to business and it is once again on top of the Auto industry. In addition, there is a boom in the ancillary sectors all around Ohio, thousands of jobs saved, thousands of jobs created, and unquantifiable smiles in many American homes: thanks to President Obama's initiative and foresight. Mr. Romney cannot undo that. Republican and Karl Rove's Super PACs cannot rewrite credible history.
Yes, we must talk about Bain Capital and General Motors. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts was once a victim of the "I am a job creator" campaign and slogan; American voters shouldn't fall for that bait.
Given the emergence of bonanza madness on Wall Street once again, President Obama has proved that it is possible to regulate Wall Street and position it to make a profit, without undermining the interest and protection of the middle class and the less privileged in society. But Wall Street is not taking the regulation lightly, despite the huge bonuses they are enjoying presently. That is what this election is about: Standing for the truth.
For Wall Street and Big Business to cast Obama's Administration as unfriendly is a mockery of objective judgment. We must set the record straight as plainly as we could.
Left for Mr. Romney, Detroit would have been history by now.
Today, General Motors is back to business and it is once again on top of the Auto industry. In addition, there is a boom in the ancillary sectors all around Ohio, thousands of jobs saved, thousands of jobs created, and unquantifiable smiles in many American homes: thanks to President Obama's initiative and foresight. Mr. Romney cannot undo that. Republican and Karl Rove's Super PACs cannot rewrite credible history.
Yes, we must talk about Bain Capital and General Motors. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts was once a victim of the "I am a job creator" campaign and slogan; American voters shouldn't fall for that bait.
Given the emergence of bonanza madness on Wall Street once again, President Obama has proved that it is possible to regulate Wall Street and position it to make a profit, without undermining the interest and protection of the middle class and the less privileged in society. But Wall Street is not taking the regulation lightly, despite the huge bonuses they are enjoying presently. That is what this election is about: Standing for the truth.
For Wall Street and Big Business to cast Obama's Administration as unfriendly is a mockery of objective judgment. We must set the record straight as plainly as we could.
PRESIDENT OBAMA, WALL STREET, AND BIG BUSINESS
President Barack Obama did more for Business and Wall Street than any President before him. He bailed out AIG, Bank of America, General Motors, Chrysler and much more. Yet, American pundits will never stop deafening our ears with 'President Obama not being friendly with Business and Wall Street'. Which business? And which Wall Street? What we are witnessing is a blatant mischaracterisation of the President and his true intent and outright misrepresentation of facts. It is analogous to giving a dog a bad name to hang it.
President Barack Obama did more for Business and Wall Street than any President before him. He bailed out AIG, Bank of America, General Motors, Chrysler and much more. Yet, American pundits will never stop deafening our ears with 'President Obama not being friendly with Business and Wall Street'. Which business? And which Wall Street? What we are witnessing is a blatant mischaracterisation of the President and his true intent and outright misrepresentation of facts. It is analogous to giving a dog a bad name to hang it.
Establishing regulatory mechanisms in the financial sector to eliminate inside trading and reckless betting with taxpayers’ money that almost paralysed Wall Street on the eve of President Obama's inauguration is consistent with good governance and real leadership. We do not want a repeat of the uncontrollable state of affairs in the financial industry created by the disappearance of oversight that unavoidably culminated in the Wall Street meltdown a few years back.
This baloney about President Obama's animosity towards business, capitalism, and Wall Street, especially in the news media has racist undertones. It has no support in fact or reality. We do not want another Lehman Brothers fiasco. Wall Street has to be regulated, for the good of Wall Street, for the good of American Business, and for the good of the American people. Period.
Furthermore, President Obama and his administration created a favourable investment culture/climate and engineered numerous incentives that made it possible for Wall Street and the private sector to rake in much more profits unlike a few years back. What they did in return was provocative disbelief. Instead of spending, reinvesting, and hiring new workers as expected, they sat on their wealth and profits to stultify job growth, frustrate the President's economic expansion drive, and imperil his presidential campaign.
The profit that Businesses are sitting on was accumulated under President Obama's administration and the bailout that he selflessly pumped into the Auto industry and into the financial sector. How then could pundits and politically biased TV anchors find grace in justifying the refusal of Businesses and Wall Street to reinvest their profits and escalate hiring on the pretext that President Obama is hostile to business?
The much-hyped hostility or not-so-friendly relationship between President Obama and Business is unsubstantiated. How could you reasonably state that the President is hostile to Business when he is the one who made it possible for Business and Wall Street to be back to a profits-making position and bonus bonanza madness?
The President's ideas on reviving Wall Street, the auto industry, Manufacturing, the development of Green Energy, Technological innovations, and infrastructural renewal are well-thought-out and well-embracing. Yet, Republicans, Christian Right, and Tea Party want to pigeonhole the President in an attempt to reinforce their "out of touch" and "want to redistribute wealth" vibes.
Let the pundits or the tea party members name one policy or one program introduced by this administration that tends to favour some groups at the expense of others. From Health Care Reform to Student Loans, Mortgage Refinancing, Auto Bail-out, and Small Business Loans - they favour everyone across the board and equally, too.
In addition, President Obama did allow Bush Tax cuts for Millionaires and the rich to continue, even when the facts on the ground do not support continuation. Without any Economic explanation, on Christmas Eve of 2010, Republican members of Congress shamelessly conditioned the extension of unemployment benefits for the poor and displaced workers to the continuation of Bush Tax cuts for the rich. As we all know, the tax cuts did not create jobs as intended since their inception. President Bill Clinton balanced the national budget, without Tax cuts for Millionaires. What then is the justification or economic explanation for continuing with the tax holiday for those who do not really need it, given the fact that it did not create new jobs or catalyze economic expansion? It is politics. And it is class warfare. And it is Republican at its best.
When has it become an aberration or crime to the police and regulate market manipulation and financial recklessness? President Obama, as any President, has every right to put in place an appropriate regulatory framework to ensure sanity, transparency, and accountability in the financial sector. That is the difference between President Obama and Governor Mitt Romney who want a repeat of the past - a past that created the recklessness that doomed the housing market and almost paralysed Wall Street. Taxpayers do not want a repeat of the infamous past that Governor Mitt Romney is romanticizing.
SENATOR MITCH McCONNELL AND ONE-TERM PRESIDENT
Since the arrival of President Obama in the White House, the goal of Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate Leader is to make President Obama a one-term President. He declared on the floor of the House and on other occasions that his goal was to make President Obama a one-term President. For the first time in the history of America, a supposedly honourable member of Congress, TV Anchors, and Talk Radio personalities declared, time and time again, that their desire is for President Obama to fail. Please see the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8a_msdw9VQ&feature=related.
Oftentimes, to the chagrin of most liberal Democrats, the President veered from his liberal position and moved to the right of centre on most issues - yes, right of centre - anticipating that Republicans would reciprocate to engender common ground for collaboration and purposeful governance. What did they do in return? They moved further to the right; and with ignominy, filibustered a significant percentage of new appointments and economic initiatives introduced by the President.
The same people who never stop celebrating President Reagan's virtues are unwilling to embrace Reagan's policies introduced by President Obama who, unfortunately, is not one like them. If President Obama is a Socialist as the GOP wants the World to believe, invariably, President Reagan and most Republicans who espouse his ideas and policies are Socialists. Because there is no significant political or ideological difference between Reaganomics and Obama ideology. It has never been about the policy or the program. It's all about the name and the man. Let's call a spade a spade.
The President and his Security team made substantial progress at home and abroad rooting out enemies of civilization and dismantling terrorism and terrorist networks all around the globe because Republican members of Congress do not participate in the attack process or preparation. The deployment or approval for the deployment of Navy Seal and Drone attacks on 'flighty enemies' is exclusively a decision for the President and his Security team to make. If the takedown of Osama Bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki were subject to Congressional vote or debate, both men would still be walking free today. The attacks were successful because Republican members of Congress did not participate and did not have the opportunity to filibuster rapid-response attacks. The President and his Economic team are not making the intended progress in reviving the economy because of Republicans involved in the process. They gave filibuster a new meaning to stagnate the economy and kill job growth.
Now, they are fishing for scandal in the name of "classified documents". This is a White House that humbled Osama Bin Laden, after months of planning and strategizing, without a hint of it coming into the public domain. The same man that Karl Rove and his hawkish bedfellows couldn't trace for years is now a dead man. If Osama Bin Laden had been captured or killed under a Republican White House, that would have signalled the demise of Democrats for a run for the White House for many years to come.
Now, they don't want Democrats to talk about Security. They want to blemish the White House over an immaterial issue (fast and furious) to cloud President Obama's success stories and accomplishments in the war against terrorism! They will fail. Americans are smarter and they know better. The Attorney General deserves better treatment from Republican members of Congress.
CONCLUSION
America is not a dictatorship - there are rules and there are regulations. There is a Separation of Powers as well as Checks and Balances. President Obama can only do what the law permits. Republicans, the Tea Party, the Christian Right and the numerous talk heads on Radio and TV would rather the economic collapse than work with the President to save it.
They know he is patriotic and has the requisite vision and intellectual wherewithal to revive the economy and make America great again. But the deep-seated resentment that they harbour against the President makes collaboration a Herculean task. They are befuddled by his virtues, stultified by his stoicism, and peevish by his innovative ideas and decision-making skills. They would rather Americans starve to death than subscribe to a collaborative productive engagement with a President who is a person of color. It is a sheer display of resentment and hatred rooted in racism and fear of history recording President Obama as one of the few 'Great Presidents' in the history of America.
American electorates are not in exile, they are living witness to Republican intransigence and vicious attacks on the poor and the middle class, while they vehemently promote and protect tax loopholes for those who do not need them.
In spite of everything, Americans are wiser and they can read the handwriting on the wall. Today, the news is about hiring, construction of new plants, and revitalization of old ones. It is no longer stories of the closure of companies and retrenchment of workers that used to be the major headline news prior to the arrival of President Barack Obama at the Oval Office.
We are making progress and we are moving forward. President Obama will be vindicated and he will triumph over the Mitch McConnells of American politics.
God is on the side of the meek and the peacemakers. And God is on the side of President Barack Obama because he wants the very best for every American family. That is why I am standing for him. And that is why I am asking that you stand with me to stand for him.
God Bless America.
Since the arrival of President Obama in the White House, the goal of Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate Leader is to make President Obama a one-term President. He declared on the floor of the House and on other occasions that his goal was to make President Obama a one-term President. For the first time in the history of America, a supposedly honourable member of Congress, TV Anchors, and Talk Radio personalities declared, time and time again, that their desire is for President Obama to fail. Please see the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8a_msdw9VQ&feature=related.
Oftentimes, to the chagrin of most liberal Democrats, the President veered from his liberal position and moved to the right of centre on most issues - yes, right of centre - anticipating that Republicans would reciprocate to engender common ground for collaboration and purposeful governance. What did they do in return? They moved further to the right; and with ignominy, filibustered a significant percentage of new appointments and economic initiatives introduced by the President.
The same people who never stop celebrating President Reagan's virtues are unwilling to embrace Reagan's policies introduced by President Obama who, unfortunately, is not one like them. If President Obama is a Socialist as the GOP wants the World to believe, invariably, President Reagan and most Republicans who espouse his ideas and policies are Socialists. Because there is no significant political or ideological difference between Reaganomics and Obama ideology. It has never been about the policy or the program. It's all about the name and the man. Let's call a spade a spade.
The President and his Security team made substantial progress at home and abroad rooting out enemies of civilization and dismantling terrorism and terrorist networks all around the globe because Republican members of Congress do not participate in the attack process or preparation. The deployment or approval for the deployment of Navy Seal and Drone attacks on 'flighty enemies' is exclusively a decision for the President and his Security team to make. If the takedown of Osama Bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki were subject to Congressional vote or debate, both men would still be walking free today. The attacks were successful because Republican members of Congress did not participate and did not have the opportunity to filibuster rapid-response attacks. The President and his Economic team are not making the intended progress in reviving the economy because of Republicans involved in the process. They gave filibuster a new meaning to stagnate the economy and kill job growth.
Now, they are fishing for scandal in the name of "classified documents". This is a White House that humbled Osama Bin Laden, after months of planning and strategizing, without a hint of it coming into the public domain. The same man that Karl Rove and his hawkish bedfellows couldn't trace for years is now a dead man. If Osama Bin Laden had been captured or killed under a Republican White House, that would have signalled the demise of Democrats for a run for the White House for many years to come.
Now, they don't want Democrats to talk about Security. They want to blemish the White House over an immaterial issue (fast and furious) to cloud President Obama's success stories and accomplishments in the war against terrorism! They will fail. Americans are smarter and they know better. The Attorney General deserves better treatment from Republican members of Congress.
CONCLUSION
America is not a dictatorship - there are rules and there are regulations. There is a Separation of Powers as well as Checks and Balances. President Obama can only do what the law permits. Republicans, the Tea Party, the Christian Right and the numerous talk heads on Radio and TV would rather the economic collapse than work with the President to save it.
They know he is patriotic and has the requisite vision and intellectual wherewithal to revive the economy and make America great again. But the deep-seated resentment that they harbour against the President makes collaboration a Herculean task. They are befuddled by his virtues, stultified by his stoicism, and peevish by his innovative ideas and decision-making skills. They would rather Americans starve to death than subscribe to a collaborative productive engagement with a President who is a person of color. It is a sheer display of resentment and hatred rooted in racism and fear of history recording President Obama as one of the few 'Great Presidents' in the history of America.
American electorates are not in exile, they are living witness to Republican intransigence and vicious attacks on the poor and the middle class, while they vehemently promote and protect tax loopholes for those who do not need them.
In spite of everything, Americans are wiser and they can read the handwriting on the wall. Today, the news is about hiring, construction of new plants, and revitalization of old ones. It is no longer stories of the closure of companies and retrenchment of workers that used to be the major headline news prior to the arrival of President Barack Obama at the Oval Office.
We are making progress and we are moving forward. President Obama will be vindicated and he will triumph over the Mitch McConnells of American politics.
God is on the side of the meek and the peacemakers. And God is on the side of President Barack Obama because he wants the very best for every American family. That is why I am standing for him. And that is why I am asking that you stand with me to stand for him.
God Bless America.
Disclosure: the term "Invisible Resistance" was used recently by Professor Mike Eric Dyson on his appearance on "The ED Show": MSNBC.
THE END
In hindsight, my two essays in support of American Combat boots on the ground in Syria were unbelievably insightful and prophetic - a body of work that I can't believe today that I put together. A gentleman I have not seen for more than forty years sent me a note from London, England, stating after reading one of the essays, "You make writing appear so easy."
And I thank the Guardian Newspaper and all their powerful writers for making me who I am today. It is not my law degree, not the MCSE, not Denver, and not Harvard. My Mother and the Guardian Newspaper did it. Just one example will suffice.
There was complete silence in the large lecture Hall. It was unexpected because I hardly ask or answer questions in class. The lecturer came towards me and asked, what is your name. I replied, Alex Aidaghese. He said, Mr. Aidaghese, next time you have anything to say in my class, whether as a question or comment, you must raise up your hand. Then, I would recognize you and you will then go ahead to ask your question or make your comment. Hearing that, I said, I am so sorry, Sir. It was never my intention to be disrespectful; the comment just came out unscripted.
He replied, your apology is accepted. Then he added, your comment earns you an extra five points ahead of the final exam. And I said, thank you very much, Sir.
Exactly three days later, something else happened, and that is why I am posting the class discussion. I was around the Law Faculty and I bumped into Mr. K, one of the most brilliant guys in my class who is now a Senior Advocate of Nigeria and a Minister of State in the current government. When he sighted me, he called out, Alex, come, come, come. As we shook hands, he asked, "That comment wey you made that day for class, which textbook you for reading am?" I did not expect that. I thought he was going to say something about my suit and ties as he is always fond of them. I told him that I did not read it in any textbook. Hearing that, he asked, "Where you for read am then?" My response took him on aware. "I read the Guardian newspaper." His next question was, "Which edition of the Guardian published it, and do you still have the copy?" (Most of my classmates were aware that I buy the Guardian newspaper every day). To his question, I said, "The Guardian newspaper did not publish the comment."
Now, back to the UN. A year after that discussion in my Constitutional Law class in Nigeria, Boutros-Boutros Gali of Egypt emerged as the Secretary-General of the UN. The moment he settled down, Washington did not waste time, bombarding him with demands for financial reforms of the UN. He wanted to be stubborn, but America did not hesitate to tie its continuous funding of the UN to the readiness of Mr. Gali to implement the necessary reforms as America demanded. It was not a healthy relationship between Gali and Washington. As further punishment, Washington declined to endorse him for a second term in office as the Secretary-General of the UN.
And it came to pass exactly as I declared about a year earlier in my Constitutional Law class in Nigeria. I did not get that information from any textbook and no author would have foreseen that eventuality. Reading the Guardian newspapers made it possible for me to see what others couldn't see. And that Guardian Newspaper's grooming remains with me till this very moment. That was why I was able to get engaged with the Obama administration behind the scenes when no one was watching or could fathom such a possibility. If you are here, reading this penultimate paragraph, take the time to read all my 2012 and 2013 opinions on the US domestic and foreign policies.
THE END
When I started this blog, I did not anticipate that I would be in the position to have a say in global politics or even an influential part. Throughout his eight years in office, the only issue President Obama and I did not agree on was the question of "American Combat Boots on the Ground in Syria." My position was yes. His position was no. In light of what happened next, especially on Russians coming through the back door to occupy the vacuum, I have no doubt in my mind that I won. At the time the President allowed skeletal staff that he dubbed training forces to go into Syria, it was almost too late.
In hindsight, my two essays in support of American Combat boots on the ground in Syria were unbelievably insightful and prophetic - a body of work that I can't believe today that I put together. A gentleman I have not seen for more than forty years sent me a note from London, England, stating after reading one of the essays, "You make writing appear so easy."
And I thank the Guardian Newspaper and all their powerful writers for making me who I am today. It is not my law degree, not the MCSE, not Denver, and not Harvard. My Mother and the Guardian Newspaper did it. Just one example will suffice.
It was at a Constitutional Law class in my 200L at Bendel State University. And the topic was on the United Nations and Reforms. The professor was seemingly anti-America, in every respect imaginable. He was one of those popular lecturers classified as "radicals" on campus because of their imperialism-bashing rhetoric. During the lecture, he argued forcefully that the General Assembly can utilize its numerical strength to override whatever resolution America uses its Veto power to impose on the UN. As he was rounding up his sentence, I started speaking from my seat.
I said, Sir, with all due respect, much as your thought-provoking comment deserves applause, I am afraid to say that America will not fold its hands and do nothing to challenge the General Assembly. So, given the fact that America is contributing more than 75% of the present UN funding, it will leverage that financial strength to override whatever decision the General Assembly has taken or is about to take to undermine American demands. And I stop.
There was complete silence in the large lecture Hall. It was unexpected because I hardly ask or answer questions in class. The lecturer came towards me and asked, what is your name. I replied, Alex Aidaghese. He said, Mr. Aidaghese, next time you have anything to say in my class, whether as a question or comment, you must raise up your hand. Then, I would recognize you and you will then go ahead to ask your question or make your comment. Hearing that, I said, I am so sorry, Sir. It was never my intention to be disrespectful; the comment just came out unscripted.
He replied, your apology is accepted. Then he added, your comment earns you an extra five points ahead of the final exam. And I said, thank you very much, Sir.
Exactly three days later, something else happened, and that is why I am posting the class discussion. I was around the Law Faculty and I bumped into Mr. K, one of the most brilliant guys in my class who is now a Senior Advocate of Nigeria and a Minister of State in the current government. When he sighted me, he called out, Alex, come, come, come. As we shook hands, he asked, "That comment wey you made that day for class, which textbook you for reading am?" I did not expect that. I thought he was going to say something about my suit and ties as he is always fond of them. I told him that I did not read it in any textbook. Hearing that, he asked, "Where you for read am then?" My response took him on aware. "I read the Guardian newspaper." His next question was, "Which edition of the Guardian published it, and do you still have the copy?" (Most of my classmates were aware that I buy the Guardian newspaper every day). To his question, I said, "The Guardian newspaper did not publish the comment."
Hearing that, he looked at me in disbelief, shouting, "Alex, you just mentioned the Guardian newspaper a few seconds ago, and now you are saying that you don't have the copy and the Guardian did not publish it, which one am I going to believe?" With a steady voice, I said, yes, I did not read it in the Guardian Newspaper, but the fact that I read the Guardian newspaper every day, places me in a position where I am conversant with developing global issues and how they may play out at the end and impact how you and I live here. He looked at me and said, "Alex, I dey fear you o, seriously, I dey fear you."
Now, back to the UN. A year after that discussion in my Constitutional Law class in Nigeria, Boutros-Boutros Gali of Egypt emerged as the Secretary-General of the UN. The moment he settled down, Washington did not waste time, bombarding him with demands for financial reforms of the UN. He wanted to be stubborn, but America did not hesitate to tie its continuous funding of the UN to the readiness of Mr. Gali to implement the necessary reforms as America demanded. It was not a healthy relationship between Gali and Washington. As further punishment, Washington declined to endorse him for a second term in office as the Secretary-General of the UN.
And it came to pass exactly as I declared about a year earlier in my Constitutional Law class in Nigeria. I did not get that information from any textbook and no author would have foreseen that eventuality. Reading the Guardian newspapers made it possible for me to see what others couldn't see. And that Guardian Newspaper's grooming remains with me till this very moment. That was why I was able to get engaged with the Obama administration behind the scenes when no one was watching or could fathom such a possibility. If you are here, reading this penultimate paragraph, take the time to read all my 2012 and 2013 opinions on the US domestic and foreign policies.
Finally, "OBAMA: Citizen United, Invisible Resistance, and the Hacking of American Democracy" of June 08, 2012, remains my greatest effort so far. I played with the best and the brightest in political commentary in the number one democracy in the world, not only was my opinion adopted, but on the final lap, it turned out to be a landslide. Today, I feel blessed and happy, convinced that the sacrifices I made and deprivations I suffered in my search for wisdom via the pages of the Guardian Newspaper every day in its first ten years in circulation were not in vain. That they turned out to be intellectually fruitful and spiritually rewarding is an understatement.
No comments:
Post a Comment
The Lord is my Shepherd; I shall not want.