New Zimbabwean law says blacks must own 51 per cent of all firms

New Zimbabwean law says blacks must own 51 per cent of all firms

Harare - White business executives in Zimbabwe will be forced to ensure that blacks have a 51-per-cent controlling interest in their companies within the next five years, according to a draconian new law published Tuesday.

The so-called 'Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment' regulations say that by mid-April, all businesses have to submit a form detailing the racial composition of their current shareholding to the government.

Based on the declaration, the government would assess how much of the company's shareholding had to be 'ceded' to 'indigenous Zimbabweans.'

Any business missing the deadline faces a maximum penalty of five years in jail, according to the regulations. A yet-to-be-named 'minister of indigenisation' would keep a list of candidates to whom shares could be ceded.

White businesses that appoint black employees as a 'front' to avoid being taken over would face going to jail to five years, the law said.

'It's going to put a stop to any possibility of new investment,' said economic commentator John Robertson. 'For existing businesses it will bring a complete stop to replacement investment. It's very grim.'

The law came within a week of Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai saying at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland that 'confidence has returned' to Zimbabwe following a decade of economic collapse. 'This is the time to look at the country in a more positive light,' he said.

Last year President Robert Mugabe declared that there would be 'no nationalisation' of business in Zimbabwe.

The law includes a let-out clause that allows for a lesser black shareholding 'in order to achieve other socially or economically desirable objectives.'

The regulations take effect on March 1 and companies have 45 days in which to complete and submit to the government a form that gives the names, nationality and identity details of their shareholders, and whether they are 'indigenous' or 'non-indigenous' Zimbabweans.

Economists say that Zimbabwe's racial profile has fundamentally changed since independence from white British rule nearly 30 years ago, when the economy was heavily dominated by whites.

Since then, the white population has fallen from 200,000 to about 30,000. Most major businesses are now run by black Zimbabweans.

Multinational mining companies, like South Africa's Impala Platinum and Rio Tinto, are seen as most at risk by the new law. Hundreds of small white family businesses, like butcheries, restaurants and garages, are also threatened, executives said.

At Davos last week, Rio Tinto diamonds and minerals chief executive Harry Kenyon-Slaney, said that 'the only threat to our operations are indigenisation programmes.'

Some political analysts say that the law is a political strategy of Mugabe's to try and bolster his support by distributing patronage to voters, in the way he allowed party loyalists seize white-owned land over the past decade.

The government passed an indigenisation act in 2008, but held off on passing the regulations that would formally put it into effect, leading many to mistakenly believe the law had been shelved.

One Year On - Why Obama Has Failed Africa by Kwame Osei

Why is the US, EU and Britain interested in Zimbabwe?
Zimbabwe is endowed with Uranium, Platinum, Chrome, Gold, Diamonds, Methane Gas, Coal, asbestos, copper, nickel, iron ore, tobacco, and cotton. US imperialism sees Tsvangarai's MDC as the weapon to stop the people of Zimbabwe's advance on these valuable resources.
Morgan and the MDC are tools for American/Western robbery in Zimbabwe and this is why the US and UK are hell bent on the destruction of the unity government (America and the west never wanted the unity government in the first place) of Zimbabwe and the real agenda of the US under the Bush administration and now Obama is regime change with Mugabe completely out of the frame. They will not succeed in their nefarious plans...
Click on title above for full article

Somali pirates: the unlikely heroes of Kenya's fishermen

Somali pirates: the unlikely heroes of Kenya's fishermen

MOMBASA, Kenya (AFP) – Somalia's fearsome pirates don't have many friends among the Indian Ocean's seafaring community. But Kenya's fleet of modest Swahili fishermen think the region's most-wanted are a godsend.
The sight of two fishing boats emerging from the horizon and bobbing towards the shore stirs a real commotion in Aziz Suleiman's ramshackle observation spot in the Kenyan port of Mombasa.
The fishermen in his iron-roofed shelter indented in the coral cliff say they have been harvesting bumper catches lately, 200 kilogrammes (440 pounds) larger than their average hauls.
And they are grateful to the pirates of Somalia, whose mere mention strikes horror in the hearts of just about any other seafarer in the region.
"This is a good season," said Aziz Suleiman, who co-owns the little wooden shack where he and his partners auction off the fish. "It is also because the pirates are blocking foreign fishing boats."

(Full article, click on title above...)

Africa: Africom - Latest U.S. Bid to Recolonise Continent (BARACK OBAMA)

Africa: Africom - Latest U.S. Bid to Recolonise Continent


Tichaona Nhamoyebonde

7 January 2010

Harare — AFRICAN revolutionaries now have to sleep with one eye open because the United States of America is not stopping at anything in its bid to establish Africom, a highly-equipped US army that will be permanently resident in Africa to oversee the country's imperialist interests.

Towards the end of last year, the US government intensified its efforts to bring a permanent army to settle in Africa, dubbed the African Command (Africom) as a latest tool for the subtle recolonisation of Africa.

Just before end of last year, General William E. Garret, Commander US Army for Africa, met with defence attaches from all African embassies in Washington to lure them into selling the idea of an American army based in Africa to their governments.

Latest reports from the White House this January indicate that 75 percent of the army's establishment work has been done through a military unit based in Stuttgart, Germany, and that what is left is to get an African country to host the army and get things moving.

Liberia and Morocco have offered to host Africom while Sadc has closed out any possibility of any of its member states hosting the US army.

Other individual countries have remained quiet.

Liberia has longstanding ties with the US due to its slave history while errant Morocco, which is not a member of the African Union and does not hold elections, might want the US army to assist it to suppress any future democratic uprising.

Sadc's refusal is a small victory for the people of Africa in their struggle for total independence but the rest of the regional blocs in Africa are yet to come up with a common position. This is worrying.

The US itself wanted a more strategic country than Morocco and Liberia since the army will be the epicentre of influencing, articulating and safeguarding US foreign and economic policies.

The other danger is that Africom will open up Africa as a battleground between America and anti-US terrorist groups.

Africom is a smokescreen behind which America wants to hide its means to secure Africa's oil and other natural resources, nothing more.

African leaders must not forget that military might has been used by America and Europe again and again as the only effective way of accomplishing their agenda in ensuring that governments in each country are run by people who toe their line.

By virtue of its being resident in Africa, Africom will ensure that America has its tentacles easily reaching every African country and influencing every event to the American advantage.

By hosting the army, Africa will have sub-contracted its military independence to America and will have accepted the process that starts its recolonisation through an army that can subdue any attempts by Africa to show its own military prowess.

The major question is: Who will remove Africom once it is established? By what means?

By its origin Africom will be technically and financially superior to any African country's army and will dictate the pace for regime change in any country at will and also give depth, direction and impetus to the US natural resource exploitation scheme.

There is no doubt that as soon as the army gets operational in Africa, all the gains of independence will be reversed.

If the current leadership in Africa succumbs to the whims of the US and accept the operation of this army in Africa, they will go down in the annals of history as that generation of politicians who accepted the evil to prevail.

Even William Shakespeare would turn and twist in his grave and say: "I told you guys that it takes good men to do nothing for evil to prevail."

We must not forget that Africans, who are still smarting from colonialism-induced humiliation, subjugation, brutality and inferiority complex, do not need to be taken back to another form of colonialism, albeit subtle.

Africom has been controversial on the continent ever since former US president George W. Bush first announced it in February 2007.

African leaders must not forget that under the Barack Obama administration, US policy towards Africa and the rest of the developing world has not changed an inch. It remains militaristic and materialistic.

Officials in both the Bush and Obama administrations argue that the major objective of Africom is to professionalise security forces in key countries across Africa.

However, both administrations do not attempt to address the impact of the setting up of Africom on minority parties, governments and strong leaders considered errant or whether the US will not use Africom to promote friendly dictators.

Training and weapons programmes and arms transfers from Ukraine to Equatorial Guinea, Chad, Ethiopia and the transitional government in Somalia, clearly indicate the use of military might to maintain influence in governments in Africa, remains a priority of US foreign policy.

Ukraine's current leadership was put into power by the US under the Orange Revolution and is being given a free role to supply weaponry in African conflicts.

African leaders must show solidarity and block every move by America to set up its bases in the motherland unless they want to see a new round of colonisation.

Kwame Nkrumah, Robert Mugabe, Sam Nujoma, Nelson Mandela, Julius Nyerere, Hastings Kamuzu Banda, Kenneth Kaunda, Augustino Neto and Samora Machel, among others, will have fought liberation wars for nothing, if Africom is allowed a base in Africa.

Thousands of Africans who died in colonial prisons and in war fronts during the liberation struggles, will have shed their blood for nothing if Africa is recolonised.

Why should the current crop of African leaders accept systematic recolonisation when they have learnt a lot from colonialism, apartheid and racism? Why should the current crop of African leaders fail to stand measure for measure against the US administration and tell it straight in the face that Africa does not need a foreign army since the AU is working out its own army.

African leaders do not need prophets from Mars to know that US's fascination with oil, the war on terrorism and the military will now be centred on Africa, after that escapade in Iraq.

Tichaona Nhamoyebonde is a political scientist based in Cape Town, South Africa.

Who is in Obama's Shadow?

“America’s Secret Afghan Prisons”: Investigation Unearths New US Torture Site, Abuse Allegations in Afghanistan

Click on title for full interview

A new investigation by journalist Anand Gopal reveals harrowing details about US secret prisons in Afghanistan, under both the Bush and Obama administrations. Gopal interviewed Afghans who were detained and abused at several disclosed and undisclosed sites at US and Afghan military bases across the country. He also reveals the existence of another secret prison on Bagram Air Base that even the Red Cross does not have access to. It is dubbed the Black Jail and is reportedly run by US Special Forces.

Also:
Backtracking on Earlier Findings, Justice Dept. Said to Clear Bush Admin Attorneys of Authorizing Torture
Click on Link Below
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/2/2/torture

Articles on Haitian Earthquake, World Response, Oil (Yes Oil!) and US Military Occupation Posted by Mukasa Afrika Ma'at

The Fateful Geological Prize Called Haiti
by F. William Engdahl

President becomes UN Special Envoy to earthquake-stricken Haiti.
A born-again neo-conservative US business wheeler-dealer preacher claims Haitians are condemned for making a literal ‘pact with the Devil.’
Venezuelan, Nicaraguan, Bolivian, French and Swiss rescue organizations accuse the US military of refusing landing rights to planes bearing necessary medicines and urgently needed potable water to the millions of Haitians stricken, injured and homeless.
Behind the smoke, rubble and unending drama of human tragedy in the hapless Caribbean country, a drama is in full play for control of what geophysicists believe may be one of the world’s richest zones for hydrocarbons-oil and gas outside the Middle East, possibly orders of magnitude greater than that of nearby Venezuela…
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17287


Haiti: Congo joins Senegal in rare poor-help-poor diplomacy
The DRC has offered $2.5m in emergency aid to Haiti, to help the devastated country cope with last week’s earthquake…
This Kind gesture from one poor country to another followed the example set by Senegal’s President Abdoulaye Wade on Sunday when he offered free land to Haitians who wish to return to Africa…
http://en.afrik.com/article16800.html  


Haiti: We are Sending Doctors, not Soldiers
by Fidel Castro
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17235


The Lesson of Hait
by Fidel Castro
In the field of healthcare and other areas, Cuba – despite being a poor and blockaded country – has been cooperating with the Haitian people for many years. Around 400 doctors and healthcare experts are offering their services free of charge to the Haitian people. Our doctors are working every day in 227 of the country’s 337 communes. On the other hand, at least 400 young Haitians have trained as doctors in our homeland. They will now work with the reinforcement brigade which traveled there yesterday to save lives in this critical situation…
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16995


Haitian Official Recognizes Cuban Response to Quake
Port-au-Prince, Haiti, Jan 29 (acn) “The response of the international community was very important to us, but of all, Cuba was the first country to help us,” Haitian government advisor Jean Rénald Clerisme told the media.
http://www.cubanews.ain.cu/2010/0129reconoceHaiti.htm

Haiti: Obama's Katrina
Many post-quake deaths could have been prevented.
Four years ago the initial medical response to Hurricane Katrina was ill equipped, understaffed, poorly coordinated and delayed. Criticism of the paltry federal efforts was immediate and fierce.
Unfortunately, the response to the latest international disaster in Haiti has been no better, compounding the catastrophe…
The U.S. response to the earthquake should be considered an embarrassment. Our operation received virtually no support from any branch of the U.S. government, including the State Department…
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703808904575025091656446622.html?mod=googlenews_wsj  


U.S. Boosts Troops in Haiti as Clinton Defends Military’s Role
Jan. 26 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. ramped up its presence in Haiti to more than 15,400 soldiers, sailors and airmen as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton assailed criticism of the military’s role in the relief efforts…
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-01-26/u-s-boosts-troops-in-haiti-as-clinton-defends-military-s-role.html


Troops Fire on Starving Crowds in Haiti
Troops under United Nations command have opened fire on crowds of hungry Haitians seeking food, an ominous sign of impending confrontation between the people of the earthquake-wracked country and the armed forces dispatched there under the auspices of the imperialist powers…
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17265

Afrikan Martial Arts/Combat Training with Mukasa Afrika Ma'at

Ma’at-Sumu Basic Afrikan Martial Arts/Combat Training


Hotep Afrikan People:

I am proud to inform you that Khepera Charter School will be offering a professional Afrikan Martial Arts class. Ma’at-Sumu will offer Youth Martial Arts Training for children and teens, Female Self-Defense Training, and Advanced Training. Training in Ma’at-Sumu will focus on discipline, respect, and learning Afrikan history and culture. Training in Ma’at-Sumu will emphasize healthy eating. Basic Training for children and adults will begin with the Five Basic Levels. Cardio and Fitness is Level One. The requirements of this level must be met before any technique training. Students will be allowed to purchase equipment from a designated martial arts or sporting store after completion of certain criteria. In general, training will enhance fitness, flexibility, and combat skills. Weight loss, better health, and alertness are all benefits of training.

If those interested meet the prerequisites, Ma’at-Sumu training will be held on Wednesdays from 4pm to 6pm and Saturdays from 10pm to 2pm. Times are subject to change. There is no cost for Ma’at-Sumu Training at Khepera Charter School. Students must train in gym uniforms or all black sweats. Adults will train in all black sweats. Parents, however, will be responsible for purchasing training equipment. Further details will be given as needed.

If you are interested in Ma’at-Sumu training, return the form below asap to Baba Mukasa Afrika, Dean of Students. I can be reached for any questions at (215) 843-1700 ext. 15.

Africa: Obama - defending the "interests of empire"

(This image is not produced by the writer of the article below, but is significant to the message.)

But in reality, the visit was about promoting the US interests in a region rich in crude oil and minerals. Obama has not abandoned his predecessor's idea of installing the headquarters of the Africa Command (AFRICOM) in Africa. It is the pursuit of that strategy that led Obama to Ghana in the hope that this country may accept to host AFRICOM, given its 'stability' and proximity to the Gulf of Guinea.
Some US analysts have come to the conclusion that the Obama administration is even trying to enhance Bush's policies toward Africa: 'While Africans condemned U.S. military policy in Africa under the Bush administration, the Obama administration has not only mirrored Bush's approach, but has in fact enhanced it. President George W. Bush established Africa as a foreign policy priority in 2003, when he announced that 25% of oil imported to the United States should come from Africa. Like the Cold War, the Global War on Terror establishes a rationale for bolstering U.S. military presence and support in Africa. Yet official pronouncement of U.S. policy is routinely presented as if neither of these two developments occurred.'
While official statements tend to present the Obama administration's policies toward Africa as only aiming at bolstering economic development and preventing conflicts, they are contradicted by actual policies. In the eyes of the same analyst, the agenda outlined by the US government for public consumption is different from the real agenda. He noted that the fiscal year 2010 budget 'doubles the size of AFRICOM's funds' and there has been the 'doubling of financial support for counterterrorism projects throughout the continent - including increased funds for weapons, military training and education at a time when US foreign aid money is stagnating.'

In light of the above, it is fair to say that with regard to Africa, there is nothing new, there is no bold vision for a different type of relationship in the 21st century as some had expected. Apparently, his 'African blood' made no difference!

Of course, only those who are naïve may think that Obama's 'African blood' would lead him to have a special agenda for Africa. This is why some of his most enthusiastic supporters on the continent, who were expecting massive flows of 'aid', are disappointed with his policies.

Click on title above for full article

Obama Sends 20,000 Soldiers Instead of 12,000 Nurses to Haiti

AMY GOODMAN: The Obama administration?

MICHAEL MOORE: Yeah, the Obama. What did I say? The—
AMY GOODMAN: Bush administration.
MICHAEL MOORE: Yeah, yeah. We already put pressure on them. They’re no longer with us. But that wasn’t just Freudian. That’s really—that is my state of mind. That is how I’m, you know, feeling, because I won’t accept the sugarcoated difference between the Obama administration and the Bush administration. And you can say, on the surface, just how great things are in terms of compared to the last eight years, but the substance, when it comes to, you know, the rubber meeting the road, I can’t tell you how profoundly disappointed I am at this point.
And this situation with the National Nurses Union, they went out to their membership. Who would be willing to go to Haiti right now? Over 11,000, almost 12,000 nurses—12,000 nurses—around this country have signed up, who are willing to go right now to Haiti. I don’t know if I heard it on your show last week or someplace else. You know, essentially one nurse could provide help for dozens of people. So just imagine if we could get 12,000 nurses there, with the necessary supplies, how many people could have been helped. I mean, this offer was made days and days ago.
AMY GOODMAN: To whom?
MICHAEL MOORE: To the Obama administration from the executive director of the National Nurses Union. She contacted the administration. She got put off. She had no response. Then they sent her to some low-level person that had no authority to do anything.
And then, finally, she’s contacting me. And she says, “Do you know any way to get a hold of President Obama?” And I’m going, “Well, this is pretty pathetic if you’re having to call me. I mean, you are the largest nurses union. You are, I believe, one of the vice presidents of the AFL-CIO, of the main board of the AFL-CIO, and you can’t get a call in to the White House to get 12,000 nurses down there? I don’t know what I can do for you. I mean, I’ll put my call in, too.”
But as we sit here today, not a whole heck of a lot has happened. And it’s distressing. It’s just one example, I think, of so many things, and you covered a lot of it last week when you were there, that just have fallen through here.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, let’s stay on the issue of healthcare, but in this country. As all this was going down in Haiti, the Massachusetts election took place, replacing the late Senator Ted Kennedy, and it was the Republican who won, Scott Brown. This has profound implications for healthcare. But you’ve been critical about the direction President Obama has been pushing on healthcare. Talk about this year and healthcare and what you see needs to be done.
MICHAEL MOORE: Well, I wrote a—actually, I did—I sent a note off to the White House the night of the Massachusetts election, and I said to President Obama, “I’m sure you’re not surprised. What did you think was going to happen after a year of completely going back on everything you promised in terms of real universal healthcare, a year of you not getting us out of Afghanistan but escalating the war to a degree that is shocking? What did you expect to happen after a year of, instead of coming in to tie these banks and these institutions down and make them pay for what the damage they’ve done to the average American, instead giving them more help, more of a bailout? It’s like, what did you think was going to happen in Massachusetts, that your base was just going to wake up on Tuesday morning and go, ‘Oh, I can’t wait to go to the polls and vote for somebody to back everything that’s been going on”? I think a lot of people woke up and said, “I could care less at this point. I’m so upset. And I’m not going to—I’m not going to go vote.” Of course, the other side, you know, they’re always up. They’re up at like 5:00 in the morning trying to figure out how to screw the human race. So I’m not surprised they got to the polls.
But I think that it was a good—a good trailer, a good coming attraction for this November. And Obama, a year ago, man, he just had it right in his hands. He could have—he really could have chosen a different path. The country was demanding it. There was such excitement that we were going to turn away, radically away, from where we’d been in these last eight years and create the country that we all want it to be. Vast majority of people voted for him. And that he thought that the way to go in was to go in trying to be like the other side, this is the continual and historic failure of the Democratic Party in our lifetime, that they think the only way they’re going to survive is to be more—is to be Republican lite. And every time that happens, it goes kaboom.
For the Full article click on title

A Lesson Unlearned a Year Later: Why Blacks Missed the Mark on the Presidency of Obama by Mukasa Afrika Ma'at

A Lesson Unlearned a Year Later:
Why Blacks Missed the Mark on the Presidency of Obama

Why did Blacks miscalculate the presidency of Barack Obama? Why did we uncritically, wholesale, all in one support his candidacy to the White House? Americans spoke of a “post-racial” society, the end of racism, and a new beginning. Blacks had no more excuses about racism and oppression because a Black man was in the White House. Those of us who were so into Blackness were finally proven wrong. We should be trying to find our identity as Americans “who happen to be Black,” not as Afrikans who happen to be in America due to the historic and horrific tragedy of slavery. Yes, many of us, the great majority of us thought that Obama had arrived and so we as a people had arrived. He was our new leader, the only leader that mattered. He was supposed to be the Messiah, a Prophet, the Anointed One Himself! People actually believed that crap, and many still do. You couldn’t even have a sensible conversation with the Obama-ites and still can’t. You couldn’t say anything critical of him during the campaign, and people still cover their ears and hummm. It was like talking bad about a saint or even a god. Why did we go so gullibly along with the campaign hype, speeches, and slogans about hope and change. There are many reasons we were doped by the media’s corporate campaign of Obama. I’d like to focus on two of those reasons here - our lack of a conscious identity and our lack of principles of interest.

Let’s examine the events. It was after Obama’s keynote speech to the Democratic National Convention in 2004 that he was groomed and catapulted to the 2009 White House victory. The first part of the speech addresses Obama’s multi-racial background, in fact his gratefulness in being of mixed heritage. He is not “proud” to be Black and does not consider himself Black. We seem to forget that Obama considers himself “multiracial,” as he categorized himself in the 2000 US census. The question of multiracial identity, or more accurately half-blackness as I put it, is little to do with biological makeup as many Blacks are mixed like all of the other races on the planet. The question of half-blackness has more to do with political and ideological stance, especially in the case of Barack Obama, Henry Louis Gates, Michael Eric Dyson, and others. You don’t have to be half-black to promote half-blackness politics. You can see my article entitled - “The Age of Obama-ism: Serving the Interest of White Supremacy and Imperialism while Reshaping Afrika and Afrikan Identity” posted at

http://afrikan-resistance.blogspot.com/2009/07/age-of-obama-ism-serving-interest-of.html

That was a needed digression. As I was noting, At the DNC in 2004, Obama praised his half-blacknesses. He also praised America as the only country where his success could have happened. We’ve heard it over and over since:

I stand here today, grateful for the diversity of my heritage, aware that my parents' dreams live on in my precious daughters. I stand here knowing that my story is part of the larger American story, that I owe a debt to all of those who came before me, and that, in no other country on earth, is my story even possible.

http://www.barackobama.com/2004/07/27/keynote_address_at_the_2004_de.php

John Kerry lost his run for the White House against George Bush, many believing that the election was stolen. Kerry’s star had fallen, and Obama’s was rising. The Democratic party needed a new face, someone who could eclipse the Republicans and eclipse Bush. The multi-national corporation noticed the American image and the dollar on the world stage was drastically on the decline. China was and still is in a growing economic boom. The euro was becoming more and more powerful than the American dollar. The Islamic world was becoming more bold and hostile to American foreign policy and military agression overseas. Obama, the mixed race, mixed religious orientated, mixed politics candidate for the presidency, who was supposed to bring the country together, he was the anecdote for all of the mess.

Or at least, Obama could provide a cover for American agression and murder overseas. Obama could provide a cover for the financial elite on Wall Street, the bankers, and the corporation to nakedly rip off the public while the silver tongued president would have them think they were being helped. Obama could provide a cover to the new generation of political students while advancing the same old politics as usual. Obama could provide a cover to Blacks, have us thinking we are being helped all the way from the White House while we were being doped and robbed. The cover has held somewhat so far, but the days might very well be numbered.

The Democrats figured that with the changing demographics of America, the dissapointments with the Republican party and Bush in particular, and with a successful corporate campaign, Obama could edge out a victory. Once in office, he of course would have to payoff his campaign supporters – no not the individual supporters but the big money supporters, the fat cats on Wall Street, the pigs in the corporations, those war hawks with strangleholds on foreign countries, those who truly run government. Obama would have to payoff Wall Street, the bankers, the military industrial complex, and the transnational globalist elite. To the tune of trillions, he has been doing just that with one spending bill after another, one “bailout” after another, one reform after another. If medical reform passes the way Obama and his supporters wish, he will have enriched the already super-elite by billions of dollars and forced millions of Americans to buy into medical insurance with fewer choices. This is not socialism as the conservative Republicans say, this is brutal and oppressive capitalism; this is robbing the poor and giving to the rich. For more insight, see “Obama’s Big Sell Out” by Matt Taibbi on Rolling Stone’s webpage dated December 2, 2009. I’ve posted the article at http://www.mukasa.info/ as well.

In 2007, Obama announced his candidacy for President. He would recieve the support of multi-national corporations on Wall Street and around the world, the medical corporation, bankers, the Bilderberg Group, CFR, and the military industrial compplex. A recent study published in the Chicago Tribune just found that Capitol Hill is a revolving door of corruption for hundreds of campaign staffers, campaign fundraisers/donors, and lobbyists. They change hats, but are essentially the same body which have Congress and the White House in a bag. The study can be found at http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/chi-health-lobbyists_bddec20,0,4862599.story  . What is simply hilarious, sad at once too, is that many thought Obama would end the lobbyist drain on Capitol Hill as he had promised before and after election. Like most of his promises, he did a complete ‘bout face. Lobbyist are in love with Obama’s administration. If health reform goes through as Obama wishes, the relationship will be blissful, but the poor may very well suffer the most.

Probably Obama’s enduring legacy will be his expansion of the military industrial complex, even more so than his rip off of the poor and enriching of Wall Street. Obama is on track to kill more people than George Bush in these illegal wars under his administration. The US has always used secret hit squads overseas. Those operations are not only continuing today but are growing. The US military expenditure out paces all of the countries on the face of the Earth combined. The US is the biggest arms dealer in the world. Obama was elected as an anti-war preident. He’s turned out to be a bigger war president than Bush, a bigger war criminal than Bush. He has started or is escalating operations in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Yemen, Somalia, and other countries. The military is not leaving Iraq. Africom will militarize Afrika while the West siphones off resources in competition with the Arab world and China. Neo-colonialism will resurge in Afrika unless this current generation of puppet political figures are replaced in elections with Pan-Afrikan nationalists who are concerned with the people first. The US is supposed to be in recession, but billions of dollars go to military expenditure used in illegal wars that absolutely does not make the world safer. And who knows the status of the secret prisons filled with illegal kidnappings, renditions. All of this is occuring and most have yet to catch up with Obama’s politics. No way could Bush have pulled this off.

It’s difficult to say if Obama ever thought he had to placate to the Black vote. After the polls came out, I’m sure he knew he didn’t looking at nearly 100% support. Blacks overwhelming gave their support to Obama in spite of him being against reparations. The justifiable right to reparations should be a matter of principled stance for every Black person running for any office and any politican who wants our vote. Our ancestors had the worse crimes against humanity commited against them and we are still suffering from those crimes today. If Obama or any politician is aginst reparations, it is no way they should have our vote or support. He didn’t need to say anything of significance on behalf of people of Afrikan descent. He didn’t need to promise any policy changes with regards to racism. None of that mattered. We were simply estatic to have a Black face in the White House. We figured that some great good would come simply because of his presence. How much more wrong could we have been? How much more could we have miscalculated the American machine? How much more could we have miscalculated the politics of “half-Blackness” on the part of Obama. How much longer will we ignore it.

Our leadership should accept a lot of the blame. Many of our “leaders” in the Afrikan-Centered movement fell wholesale and bowed at the feet of Obama. Our Black radical religious figures did the same. The Black Caucus and Black political figures around the country all got in single-file line and chanted slogans of “hope and change”. Only a very few stood out. With the media championing Obama as the Savior, the Black masses put on blinders and cried tears of joy and overcoming upon inauguration with everyone else.
A conscious identity and principles of interests could have allowed us to seize the moment and exact some real hope and change. What if one month polls showed the Black vote shift entirely from Obama to another candidate simply because he would not support reparations or Afrikan-Centered education? What if he dilly-dallied around the issue of rising unemployment for Blacks in one of his speeches and his polling support dropped by 10% overnight among us? What if we simply gave overwhelming support to Cynthia McKinney on the basis of her stance against Africom? Of course, she would still lose, but a great statement would have been made. Blacks can determine the outcome of national, state, and local elections. Instead, we vote for lesser evils. We have the voting power to influence both parties and bring a third party into prominence. Conservatives are now developing a party within a party to push their agenda. Any politician who will not serve the needs of our people should not get our vote – first Black mayor of whatever city, first Black governor of whatever state, or first Black president included. We should have voted on principle and conscious identity. We should not support any politician who does not work in the interest of our people; and yes the problem is that we have not produced a leadership that recognizes principled interest. If we had developed principled ideas and interests and used these to measure the quality of a candidate, Obama may very well not be president. I have no problems with announcing to you all, Obama is not in the same lineage as Marcus Garvey, Adam Clayton Powell Jr., Malcolm X, Ella Baker, Fannie Lou Hamer, or even Martin Luther King. I will make this prediction now, Obama and the names Henry Gates Jr. and Clarence Thomas will go hand in hand in the future. That is with the hope that we develop a greater sense of identity consciousness and principled interest, unlike what we have today. As of now, a year later, the lesson remains unlearned.