My Beauty Best Teacher

Last week on Frank Beckman's show on WJR 760AM, Frank asked Michigan Congressman Thaddeus McCotter (R-11) if he thought that Obama was engaging in Cloward-Piven Strategy. This question surprised and intrigued me. I wrote about the Cloward-Piven Strategy before (see post Cloward-Piven Strategy), but for those of you who are sadly not frequent readers of my blog, I'll explain it to you now.

The strategy is called the Cloward-Piven Strategy after a pair of radical socialist professors from the 60's who came up with it. The idea is to purposefully create a series of crisis, each one of which will then be blamed on capitalism, de-regulation, low taxes, free markets, etc. After the crisis is at its peak and conservative ideals have been successfully blamed, you then advance a solution for the crisis- a solution to put in place a more socialist, state-run, liberal society. This solution will not make society better, but will instead create more crisis, which you then in turn blame on conservative ideas, and advance more solutions that are liberal. Eventually, the state will take over every aspect of our lives and run our society as a radical socialist utopia.

When I first suggested that the national Democrats were engaging in this policy back in 2008, I was drawing on my long experience watching Democrats in Michigan, particularly Detroit. In our state, Democrats put in place their liberal ideas, they backfire, and we get more liberal ideas, which backfire, leading to more liberal ideas, and eventually, you get Detroit (dominated by liberal Democrats for over 40 years) and to a lesser degree Michigan (dominated by liberal Democrats for almost 8 years). I figured that the series of crisis which followed the Democrats regaining control of Congress in 2006 were not due to bad ideas, incompetence, or just plain stupidity, but due to an organized and concentrated plot to create crisis so that that you could then advance liberal solutions.

For example, this current healthcare bill is not just an idiotic attempt to destroy our nation out of a foolish and misguided attempt to make things better, but a grand conspiracy to actually create a crisis in the healthcare system by putting in place laws and regulations that will lead to higher costs and lower coverage and benefits, and the response then will be an even bigger and stronger healthcare bill (which will then create an even worse situation, like we see in Canada, which will then lead to calls for more government, etc, until government controls everything).

In other words, the Democrats are purposefully overloading the system in an attempt to collapse it- adding more regulations and laws and taxes to our capitalist free-market system so that people will then think that the capitalist free-market system is failing, where in reality it is the very liberal policies that are creating the crisis.

In his interview, Frank Beckman suggested that the Democrats were engaging in this policy. Congressman McCotter disagreed.

McCotter thinks that it isn't an intelligent conspiracy of not letting any crisis go to waste to put in place more government, but rather just plain out liberal elitism and incompetence. He thinks that it is instead simply a selfish desire to create permanent dependent constituencies that will then vote Democrat, who will then distribute benefits to them. It isn't 1984, but rather more like the People's Republic of Haven (from the Honorverse). He makes a good argument, as most liberals that I have come across are really not evil manipulative people, but rather idiots and fools who lack an understanding of people, history, economics, and policy.

It does bear watching though if the pattern laid out in the Cloward-Piven Strategy holds true- if we get another crisis followed by more government control which leads to another crisis and more government control, etc. Keep your eyes on it- we have one more year of Democrats running the show in Congress, and they are sure to create more crisis in our society, either through an orchestrated strategy or incompetence, and keep your eyes out for the resulting 'the market failed' rhetoric and the 'more government is the solution' rhetoric that will follow.

Powerline blog has a great post up today- Don't Blame Us, We're Incompetent!

We devoted almost all of our radio show today to the Obama administration's recent foreign policy stumbles--in particular, Hillary Clinton's European apology tour and President Obama's mysteriously insulting treatment of Prime Minister Gordon Brown. We speculated about whether Obama's treatment of Brown was calculated disrespect, or whether the administration simply doesn't know how to host the Prime Minister of our most important ally on a state visit to Washington.

The White House, evidently stung by negative reaction in Great Britain, is now telling the British that the insult to Brown was inadvertent, the problem being that President Obama is "overwhelmed" by his job: Sources close to the White House say Mr Obama and his staff have been "overwhelmed" by the economic meltdown and have voiced concerns that the new president is not getting enough rest.

British officials, meanwhile, admit that the White House and US State Department staff were utterly bemused by complaints that the Prime Minister should have been granted full-blown press conference and a formal dinner, as has been customary. They concede that Obama aides seemed unfamiliar with the expectations that surround a major visit by a British prime minister.

But Washington figures with access to Mr Obama's inner circle explained the slight by saying that those high up in the administration have had little time to deal with international matters, let alone the diplomatic niceties of the special elationship.

Allies of Mr Obama say his weary appearance in the Oval Office with Mr Brown illustrates the strain he is now under, and the president's surprise at the sheer volume of business that crosses his desk. A well-connected Washington figure, who is close to members of Mr Obama's inner circle, expressed concern that Mr Obama had failed so far to "even fake an interest in foreign policy".

Where to begin? Obama, after two years of expressing smug contempt for the Bush administration, is "surprised at the sheer volume" of work the President has to do. And he's too tired to deal competently with one of the most important foreign officials he will meet during his term in office. So: maybe he should cut down on the late-night White House partying? And why in the world does the White House--let alone the State Department!--not have someone who is "[familiar] with the expectations that surround a major visit by a British prime minister?" If true, this is rank incompetence.

To some extent, the Brown fiasco might be attributed to Obama's failure to "even fake an interest in foreign policy." (Just think, by the way, how much work he will have to do when he realizes that as President, he has to deal with both domestic and foreign policy!) But I'm not sure that's the whole explanation.

The Telegraph's story contains this suggestion that Obama's slight of the British Prime Minister may have been intentional, at least in part: The real views of many in Obama administration were laid bare by a State Department official involved in planning the Brown visit, who reacted with fury when questioned by The Sunday Telegraph about why the event was so low-key. The official dismissed any notion of the special relationship, saying: "There's nothing special about Britain. You're just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn't expect special treatment."

So: was the Brown fiasco intentional, or was it the result of Obama administration incompetence? Or a combination of the two? Most likely, I think, the latter.

There are a lot of things going on in my household right now, and we've been up late at night too- my wife suggests that because of her lack of sleep, she should be forgiven for any major policy blunders or international incidents she causes. I told her that excuse won't fly in this house, even if it flies in the White House.

A word of advice to President Obama- take some more vacations, exercise a bit more, and delegate authority better- you might make less mistakes then. To be fair though- you'll be called lazy and incompetent by liberal Democrats like you if you do that.

Over the last few posts I've been critical of Obama, not because of who he is, but because of the incompetence of his administration. Here is just one more small example of this incompetence, from the Journal of the American Enterprise Institute:

How to evaluate the results of last week’s China-U.S. summit in Washington? Improbably, the key for the entire event may lie in what is usually the least memorable portion of these carefully choreographed occasions: the cultural program at the concluding state banquet.

During the dinner’s musical interlude and following a duet with American jazz musician Herbie Hancock, Chinese pianist Lang Lang treated the assembled dignitaries to a solo of what he described as “a Chinese song: ‘My Motherland.’” (You can watch this on YouTube.)

The Chinese delegation was clearly delighted: Chinese President and Communist Party chief Hu Jintao, stone-faced for many of his other photo ops in Washington, beamed with pleasure upon hearing the melody and embraced Lang Lang at the song’s conclusion (see it on YouTube too). President Obama, for his part, amiably praised Lang Lang for his performance and described the event as "an extraordinary evening."

But what, exactly, is this “gorgeous” and “beautiful” (Hu’s words) tune that so entranced China’s visiting leadership?

“My Motherland” is not a “Chinese song” in any ordinary meaning of the term. Instead, it is a Mao-era propaganda classic: the theme from "Triangle Hill" (Shangganling), a film in which heroic Chinese forces fight, kill, and eventually beat Americans in pitched battle during the Korean War.

“My Motherland” epitomizes the “Resist America, Aid [North] Korea” campaign that Beijing embraced during and after the Korean War. It celebrates Sino-American enmity.

“My Motherland” is still famous in China; indeed, it is well-known to practically every Chinese adult to this very day. Unfortunately, this political anthem and its significance were evidently unknown to the many members of the administration’s China team—the secretary and deputy secretary of State, the assistant secretary of State for East Asia and the Pacific, and the National Security Council’s top two Asia experts—who were on hand at the state dinner and heard this serenade. Clueless about the nature of the insult, they did not know to warn the president that he would embarrass himself and his country by not only sitting through the song, but by congratulating Lang Lang for it afterward.

Although Americans are often tone-deaf to cadences of symbolism in international relations, the Chinese are not. And for Chinese audiences, the symbolism of performing “My Motherland” to a host of uncomprehending barbarians in the White House itself hardly required explanation. This was a triumph of sorts for a newly assertive, and more nakedly anti-American, strain in Chinese foreign policy. The episode has reportedly already gone viral over the Chinese Internet, where the buzz on this crude and deliberate snub is overwhelmingly and enthusiastically positive. Hu can thus return home confident his visit to America will widely be regarded as a success domestically— for reasons his American counterparts do not yet seem to comprehend...

...If American policy makers are to avoid unpleasant surprises in their dealings with China in the years ahead, they must pay far more attention to official Chinese pronouncements, commentary, and doctrine. All too often, American security specialists—and even China watchers—are inclined to disregard official Chinese speechifying as so much boring palaver. The problem is that in a controlled society, official words matter. Sometimes, even songs do.

Although I don't blame Obama for not knowing that the song he was so approving of was an anti-US song, I do blame Obama for surrounding himself with people who didn't know it and weren't able to let him know that he was being insulted. America is being played as a fool too much by this administration, and it might be because we have a fool in the White House.

Being President of the United States means being competent in international relations and being a good commander in chief. We have Congress to take care of our domestic issues- to pass laws, to push for legislation, to come up with rules and regulations on how we are governed- but Congress has few powers and abilities to act on the international stage, and so our Founders gave those powers to the President. One of the President's most important roles in our system is Commander-in-Chief of our military, and to assist him in this he appoints a very powerful advisor known as the Secretary of Defense.

The Secretary of Defense position has historically been considered one of the most powerful advisor positions in our government, and has been held by such illustrious people as George Marshall, Robert McNamara, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and when the position was called Secretary of War, was held by Henry Knox, James Monroe, John C. Calhoun, Lewis Cass, Jefferson Davis, Edwin Stanton, William Taft, and Henry Stimson. These are the names of future Presidents and the winners of major wars- this position has historically been a position that major talent is appointed to.

The election of President Barack Obama (Democrat) in 2008 changed all of this. First, Obama kept on Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense, and for all the good qualities of Mr. Gates, he is and always was simply a placeholder until someone better could be appointed. When Rumsfeld left, Bush needed to replace him, and felt that he needed a moderate and uncontroversial nominee in order to get confirmed by a hostile Democratic Congress that believed in the certainty of our losing the War on Terror (one of the many things in which Democrats have thought was truth and been proven wrong).

Following is an analysis of the candidates who are being considered to replace Gates as Secretary of Defense provided by RealClearPolitics. When you read this, try to pick up on the screaming incompetence that the Obama administration exhibits during this process:

Last August, rumors said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel, Defense Undersecretary for Policy Michelle Flournoy, former Deputy Defense Secretary John Hamre and Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed were among the possible nominees. To that list, sources add Virginia Sen. Jim Webb and Defense Undersecretary for Acquisition Ashton Carter.

Hillary Clinton would have nothing to gain, and much to lose, in taking the Pentagon job. At State, she has more freedom to claim headlines and grow her credentials than she would fighting the Pentagon budget battles. She won't do it. (my comment: best option won't take job because recognizes how sucky Obama is as President and is already scheming to replace him)

Chuck Hagel has been campaigning for the job for as long as most can remember. But Hagel is too much of a headline-seeker. Obama would have to worry as much about him in that job as, well, as he has to worry about what Joe Biden will say next about Afghanistan.(my comment: option two is a moron and can't be part of cabinet because Obama already has to many moron's in his cabinet)

Michelle Flournoy is a more likely choice, a notch ahead of John Hamre. Flournoy served as president of the leftish Center for a New American Security before taking her current post and after she served in various mid-level Pentagon policy posts. And because we've never had a female Defense Secretary, she'd be another Obama "first."(my comment: option 3 is being considered for an important position like this merely to make a political point and use external characteristics of people to score political points, and also headed a group that's projections have been wrong about pretty much everything)

Hamre, a defense intellectual, has for ten years been the president of the Center for Strategic and International Study, a nonpartisan think tank. Hamre is well respected on the Hill and could be the bureaucratic type Obama would want to lead the Pentagon for the next two years (my comment: option 4 doesn't sound too bad- this means Obama will only nominate him if his other unqualified and bad choices are rejected)

Jack Reed, a former Army Ranger, Harvard lawyer and liberal Democrat, would be a credible choice for Pentagon boss. But Reed's term doesn't expire until 2014 and there is no reason for him to end his senate term early. Reed's political ambitions would likely prevent him accepting the nomination (my comment: option 5 isn't real option- he won't leave his position)

Jim Webb, a decorated Vietnam Marine veteran, may have a tough race in 2012. Virginia went for Obama in 2008 but since elected a conservative governor and threw out a few liberal Democrats in 2010. But Webb is an odd guy, short-tempered and notoriously hard to deal with. Webb would be a bad fit in the Obama cabinet which is dominated by lawyers and academics (my comment: option 6 isn't a real option either)

Not the least likely - but certainly the least-known -- is Ashton Carter. Carter is a Ph.D. physicist who has taught at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and served in several lower defense posts, is the sort of intellectual Obama is attracted to. His current job, as acquisition chief, makes him knowledgeable of budget issues and his policy experience in assorted national security areas makes him a credible candidate (my comment: this sort of logic is the sort of logic that characterizes Obama's incompetent administration- low level intellectual whose degree is in an unrelated field will follow in the footsteps of the greats- that's the new normal of Obama for you)

So will it be Flournoy, Hamre or Carter? Or a surprise nominee from Obama's inner circle? Whomever it is will have the hardest job in Washington for the next two years.

Whomever it is, with Obama picking the person, we can be sure that it will be a poor pick who will demonstrate little competence and leadership in this important position, and America will be less safe because Obama is in office still making decisions like this.

Over the last two weeks in Libya, important events were occurring. There was an important revolt against a ruling power, a revolt that was inspired by events in nearby nations and that was driven by forces including a desire for more liberty, a desire for better protection of property from takings by the government, and a desire for more protections of life. Of course there are other forces swirling around too in Libya- the whole life, liberty, and property line also needs to have added to it tribal, religious, and other overtones- but the idea is that there is an important revolution occurring in Libya today.

Opposing the revolutionaries are those who like the status quo in Libya, those who are part of the tyrannical government system, those whose livelihoods are based on the looting of their fellow citizens, those who feel that elites and overlords and government agents should control what people do in their lives, and those who abuse human lives with cruel and unjust judicial systems. These people have important skin in the game too- if the tables are turned on them, they die and their way of life dies, and so they are going to fight tooth and nail and to the last bloody body to keep their unearned gains.

And then there is probably the most important group in Libya, that of the middle. Everyone always remembers the American revolutionaries and the British and Loyalist forces, but few ever think about the great percentage of people who sat out the opening rounds of the American Revolution and watched events before deciding which way to commit. There is a large number of people in Libya who are on the sidelines, watching- although they might agree with the revolutionaries, if the revolution is successful, they may not gain personally and they may have less wealth or power, or although they might agree with the established power, but they may live in an area where the revolution is doing well or may think that long term the revolution will be successful. There are a great number of people in Libya sitting on the sidelines- generals, political leaders, business leaders, and teachers- who are trying to figure out which way this whole thing is going to break so that they can be on the winning side.

The United States had the opportunity two weeks ago to put pressure on all three to achieve some sort of an outcome, and because of the incompetence of its primary political figure in charge of international events, the President, it has failed to do so and only now, several weeks later, is it finally making weak policy decisions on this important event.

This is an important event, you see- Libya is a significant oil producer, Libya has over 6 million people in it, Libya is in a strategic area of the world, and Libya has been a thorn in the side of the United States for years as an active supporter of worldwide terrorism. It is a nation that could be better- it could be a more reliable producer of cheaper oil for us, it could be a nation that has fewer human rights abuses and more political freedom and happiness for its own people, it is a nation that could serve as important source of stability and support in the region, or it could be simply removed from being a thorn in our side and stop supporting worldwide terrorism.

It isn't guaranteed, of course, that these positive events can and will happen- one must always weigh the possible positives of the future with the current situation- but as Libya was a 'bad' nation who wasn't our ally, it can't get much worse (this contrasts to my position on Egypt which was that it was a 'not totally bad nation who was our ally and could get worse').

When this revolution started up several weeks ago, there was every possibility for the United States to put pressure on all three factions working in Libya. Now, of course that pressure needed to be subtle and applied in the right manner by the right people, but I think my case has been laid out strongly that some action should have been taken in some way as soon as possible in this revolution in Libya.

All three factions- the revolutionaries, those in power, and the significant middle in between- could all have been acted on. The revolutionaries could have been provided with support- moral, international, actual arms and weapons, etc. Those in power could have been pressured through sanctions, embargoes, stern words, seizure of assets, or threats of more by moving military assets into the area, and this may have moderated its response and taken off of the table such actions as bombing civilians or hiring foreign mercenaries. And the moderates and those who hadn't decided which faction to support would have observed these reactions and made the call that the winning side and stronger horse to bet on in this revolution was the revolutionaries, thus swelling their ranks and leading them to quicker and less bloody victory.

But Democratic President Barack Obama did not act quickly, surely, or strongly. Other nations did- the British seized assets, the Chinese moved warships into the region, the French acted diplomatically- but not the world's greatest superpower and the one with the most capacity to act in a positive manner. Instead, Obama did nothing, he dithered, he went to basketball games and concerts, and he did not exercise the leadership that was so critical during this timer period.

His failures resulted in a longer, more drawn out, less sure conflict, one in which the moderates saw the President of the United States doing nothing and so decided to support the established powers, one in which the revolutionaries saw their morale drop due to lack of support, one in which the established powers in Libya believed that is was okay to use deadly force and hire international mercenaries to keep control.

The fact that Obama is acting now to issue weak international language condemning Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi does not improve my regard for him or his actions; it instead makes me regard him worse. If Obama was going to oppose Qaddafi, he should have opposed him- if Obama was going to support Qaddafi, he should have supported him- but instead it appears that the leader of the free world and commander-in-chief of the greatest military force ever was a confused, unprincipled, weak, inept, and incompetent moderate who is simply waiting on the sidelines trying to look good in the end rather than being a strong, principled, competent leader who takes action, even if that action is a strong no-action.

President Barack Obama must be removed from office sooner rather than later because he is not a good leader and is incompetent and his failures are leading to a world that is less free, less secure, and more dangerous to the living. He may be a fine father and a good person and a great community organizer, but it was and continues to be a mistake to have him as President of the United States.

UPDATE: Something about this subject must inspire deeper thoughts about the President and what sort of person should occupy that office, because Richard Fernandez over at Belmont Club has also penned a great editorial on this very subject titled The Root of All Evil- check it out!

The Washington Post article by Bill Turque, titled "Staff No Shows Decried as Rhee Aide Testifies" on October 20th has generated numerous emails sent to me by DC educators during this past week. Many of my teacher/provider colleagues were outraged about Richard Nyankori's comments in which he indicated that we do not attend mandatory meetings and are 'willfully indifferent.' My position is "it's a lie for lack of a better word" still stands. Unfortunately, Chancellor Michelle Rhee's comments in this article are devoid of the facts and suggest a draconian approach to dealing with the multi-faceted problems in special education versus utilizing many of the recommendations of such long term studies as the Appleseed Study. This article should have been more aptly titled "Rhee Swings The Axe- Part Two." Here are several poignant emails which I have received lately that are worth sharing on this hot topic.

Email # 1

Candi
"Thank you for your bravery and commitment to the teachers, counselors and staff who on a daily basis try to help the students in special education or in need of special education. They didn't even begin to touch on bilingual special education in the recent Post article . No one has really ever exposed what the psychologists, social workers, special ed. coordinators, et. al have to go through to help our children. The chancellor's office is irresponsible in making comments such as these. Thanks for all you do! Anonymous DC Teacher

Email # 2 (Copied to me)

Dr. Nyankori:
"I was utterly appalled at the inflammatory comments that you have made towards the providers that have serviced DCPS. Collectively we have generated millions for this school system and many of us have defended this school system in court with excellence. I am seething with utter contempt at the day-to-day disrespect to those who have dedicated their professional careers to a system that has seen the changing of the administrative guard many times over. How dare you sir! How dare you blame the providers when the main problem with meetings being conducted are: a) parents who have transient living conditions, b) parents who have disconnected phone numbers, c) parental neglect issues, d) lawyers that cancel meetings ( certified letters that are returned to the school countless times), f) your contracted employees for example; the Columbus Group has called the DCPS staff to use our equipment to their incompetence, g) reports that have not been turned in by your contractors that your administration gave millions too. These are just some of the reasons that these meetings are not conducted.

I have been in this system since the 90's and I have seen many educators and providers go to parents homes who are just out right oppositional and defiant. We have gone to these parents homes to complete IEP's the day before Christmas. Many of our parents live less then a block away from the school. These are physically healthy functional adults that can only find the time to come to school when they want the staff to fill out forms for SSI . Now do not get me wrong, we have parents who have excellent parenting skills but those parents are not the problem. It is the parents that your administration refuses to hold accountable. You want everyone in the school to be responsible for these children except the one that God gave these babies to. Tell me, when you are dropping the hammer on the provider, the special education teachers, the principals at the special education schools and the behavioral staff, where are the parents in this equation ? These children sir are not being rehabilitated. Their minds, souls and spirits were damaged in the home not in the school system. Whether you realize it our not, you are placing the rearing of these children on the educational staff. That is why you are not getting the results you want. This decision making in a bottle with people who will tell you what you want to hear because they are more concerned about their car note is the reason why you have the problems that you have.

If you want change then do not be afraid to listen to those who are in the trenches. Many of us are more highly qualified then the people that you have put in place to develop these special education programs. Do you know how humiliating it is to work with people who get a six figure salary and talk to you like a dog on the job site and then come to you when their proverbial buttock is in a sling and need your expertise because they are too arrogant to listen to wisdom. This is why many things are happening now in the system because there is change with no experience or wisdom compounded by the flagrant disrespect from those that we are suppose to be lead by.

I love these children Dr. Nyankori. Do you hear me? I love these children. I have used my own money to finance my therapeutic center for four years prior to your commencement. Come to the providers and talk to us, not about us or at us. Your office has been extremely adversarial to the providers. Now if you have someone who needs to be held accountable and you have documentation to prove that then you do your job but, to flagrantly accuse us in a judicial setting in what appears to be a convenient scapegoat is in poor taste. Now when we as providers are in meetings with attorneys, your comments have opened the door for more critical analysis and disrespect for the very people that you need to provide services for the children you were hired to serve. " Anonymous DC Provider. Posted by The Washington Teacher.

Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) is a good Representative to the United States Congress and is a good advocate for libertarian views on public policy positions- but he should in no way be considered for the office of the President of the United States of America. This means that he should not be encouraged or supported in any effort to do so through support in straw polls, campaign donations, or nice comments online, and that he should not fan any sort of flames for a Paul Presidency by running. He should drop out of the race for the Presidential nomination of the Republican Party and not even hint or flirt about running for President again.

Ron Paul has no executive experience, and our next President of the United States should have executive experience. This does not mean that Paul doesn't have good ideas- he does have a lot of good ideas- but the proper place for a guy with lots of good ideas in our political system is in our legislative branch, not our executive branch. The President of the United States is essentially a clerk in our system, organizing and leading all the various agencies and departments and satisfying other important roles like chief of state and commander-in-chief. Even in his ability as commander-in-chief though the President is not really a man of ideas and new policies- he is the chief executive officer in charge of our military, providing direction and guidance and leadership but not really driving policies. The main job of the office is simply to oversee the whole process as something like a CEO of our government- and Ron Paul has never done this in any governmental unit, not as Director or Secretary of any agency, not as Governor, and hasn't even had any sort of leadership roles within his party that might prepare him to these tasks. He is simply unqualified to be an executive- much as our President today was, and we see the results of it now.

The President of the United States is expected to be a great communicator, decision maker, leader, and manager; all roles that Ron Paul may be good at, but are not the main reasons why his supporters like him. He can communicate- but is not renowned as a speaker or communicator, and this is something that a President must be able to do very well. President Reagan was a great communicator- President Obama, especially in the absence of his teleprompter and prepared speeches, is not (although he is a great speaker of prepared speeches), and that's why he makes a bad President and why Ron Paul would to.

The President of the United States must be a manager, presiding over the nation's day-to-day, month-to-month, and year-to-year operations. He has to be able to oversee the vast operations of the massive government bureaucracy so that there is no corruption and misuse of funds and missions; and yet he has to be detached enough from the process to be able to see the big picture and provide clear direction and leadership to the operations of the state. Even Ron Paul supporters would be hard pressed to argue that their guy would be great at this aspect of the job- the day-to-day management of the vast enterprise of USA Inc- and yet this is a major aspect of the job of President.

Ron Paul, drop out of the race. Your supporters need to begin to look elsewhere for the next person that will lead our nation, a person who has the skills and competence and demonstrated executive experience to run the vast operations that is America. Your supporters need to begin to evaluate whether the other candidates for the job have the right skills, vision, dedication, and background to successful be a clerk, a CEO, and a manager for our nation, and thereby fill the void that is in the executive branch right now. No longer can (or should) our nation accept incompetence and inexperience masquerading as passion and ideology in the White House- no, we demand a real grown-up in this august office, one who can move the machinery of state and slowly fade back into the background while people with ideas pass laws out of the legislative branch that direct our executive and tell him which way to move the levers of the state.

Ron Paul, be a legislator, and a great one at that; but drop out of the race to be the chief executive of our nation, because it is not the right office for you, and your supporters are needed in helping choose the right person for this job.

To see other posts regarding my thoughts on Ron Paul, check out Ron Paul is Not the Future of the GOP or Abandon the Libertarian Party and 'Tea Party' and other Third Parties- Vote GOP You Fools.

UPDATE: It is amusing to get emails from so-called 'conservatives' and 'libertarians' who want Ron Paul to rule our nation as a king and use his position as executive to jam down his legislative policy on the serfs of our nation. Read Hamilton and Madison and go back and look at the Presidencies of Washington and Jefferson and Madison- they were merely clerks in our system, good managers, and good executives. So you better examine your motives for wanting Ron Paul to be President before you start emailing me- some of you are no better than Obama supporters in that you want a king to rule over us, the only difference is that the king you want is from Texas and talks a good game about libertarian and conservative values.

UPDATE II: My argument is based in part on my reading and understanding of professor Richard Neustadt's book Presidential Power, in which he examined the decision-making process at the highest levels of government. He argued that the President is actually rather weak in the U.S. government, being unable to effect significant change without the approval of the Congress, and that in practice the President must rely on a combination of personal persuasion, professional reputation "inside the Beltway", and public prestige to get things done. These very skills are ones that Paul seems to be lacking in, and thus he would make a poor President. Oh, I know he promises hope and change and speaks a good game, but we've already got a Democratic version of that in the White House, and we can see how badly it is working out, so why would we want a Libertarian or GOP version of hope-and-change-and-rhetoric?


UPDATE III: Please be sure to read my more updated post on this topic called Elect a 'Clerk' For President in 2012 and Restore Founding Father's Vision of Executive Branch? where I argue that our Founding Fathers and modern-day libertarians and Tea Partiers should be supporting a clerk, a manager, and a CEO for America Inc, and not a right-wing version of hope-and-change (like Ron Paul). Be sure to read it here!

President Barack Obama raised $86 million last quarter in fundraising- and over 40% of that was from bundlers. Twenty-seven big-donor bundlers each collected more than $500,000 in contributions- the list of these donors demonstrates that Obama finds most of his support with celebrities and the well-connected. Another 200 people scooped up tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars each in contributions for the president, collectively amounting to at least $35 million, and these ranks are filled with lawyers and lobbyists.

You see, the Democrat Party has increasingly become a divided party- super rich politically connected elites who have already made their wealth, and those who they want to control. It is a party of elites who deliver goods to others and others who receive goods from elites- the modern day Democratic Party has become exactly the sort of thing that our nation rebelled against.

This probably explains why the 'Tea-Party' movement has exploded and is marked by symbols and discussions of our founding- the direction that the Democratic Party has lurched under Obama and Pelosi and the other liberal Democrats is a direction that goes directly against the traditional nature of our nation and attacks everything that our nation was born into.

The modern-day Democratic Party seeks to rule over us as lords and nobility- for our own good, we are told. But they are not lords and nobility- those don't exist in America- and so they need to take this following advice from Billy Hollis in his post Eat my peas? Screw you, Obama – I’m not a child for you to raise:

• We need to be responsible for our own retirement. We don’t need to be treated like children who don’t understand the value of money, can’t see the future, and don’t have the self-discipline to save.
• We need to be responsible for our own healthcare. We don’t need to be treated like children who must be told what to eat, when to exercise, and what treatment they are to get when they are sick, without any thought to how to pay for it.
• We need to be responsible for our own businesses. The vast majority of business owners are adult enough to know what safety precautions to take, and what accounting standards to use. The small minority that doesn't understand safety should have their butts sued off and lose their businesses when they are negligent. The tiny minority that commits accounting fraud should be put in prison.
• We need to be responsible for our property. That starts with allowing us to keep our own money, and spend it as we like. It also implies some stability that is not currently in evidence, so that we don’t lose huge sums in real estate and stock investments because of governmental incompetence and cronyism with the executives of large companies.
• We need to be more responsible for our own safety. Sure, there’s always a need for law enforcement, but it can’t be the first resort for personal safety. Any law enforcement that could do that would be indistinguishable from a police state. Therefore, we need the right to buy, possess, and use the weapons that provide that safety.
• We need to be responsible for raising our own children. We need to have more influence over their education, and we particularly need to stop wasting our time reversing the indoctrination they suffer at the hands of the educational bureaucracy.
• We need to be responsible for treating other people appropriately. If we are stupid or obnoxious in our treatment of others, we need to suffer social consequences, not legal ones.

Foreign Policy outlines the methods of electoral theft and potential remedies:

From Abuja to Islamabad, autocratic regimes have become adept at manipulating “free and fair elections” to stay in power. Here’s how they do it

• Control the process

• Manipulate the media

• Keep out the observers

• Misreport results

• Foster incompetence and chaos

• Resort to the crude stuff

—and here is how to stop them...(continue reading)

The roll-call of incompetence continues, Okey Ndibe in 234Next on Nigeria's legislators:

A week ago, two reporters at this newspaper, Idris Akinbajo and Elor Nkereuwem, wrote an investigative report that unmasked Nigeria’s current crop of senators for the mediocrities they are. The report, simply captioned “The Senate’s scorecard,” revealed that the Senate had passed only 15 bills in more than two years. This paltry output represents what the reporters aptly described as “a miserable five percent” of the 284 Bills that came before the legislative body. I don’t care what your line of work is: any employee who completes a mere five percent of his or her assigned tasks is a failure. Such an employee would be an eminent candidate for rustication. Not, however, if you happen to be a Nigerian senator. In the perverted logic of the Senate, five percent performance is a mark of distinction!

More here.
The need for a Nigerian Mzalendo becomes all the more urgent.

The Democrats made a lot of corrupt insider deals in order to get the 60 votes needed to shut off debate on the issue of 1/6 of our economy and jam through without a single vote from the other major party in our nation a bill that will in the end increase the cost of healthcare with dozens of new taxes and government agencies and lower the number of people covered by private healthcare by bankrupting insurance companies and jobs-providers. And Michigan, as usual with our our inept representation in the Senate, got nothing.

Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson traded his vote on this issue for an estimated $45 million in federal Medicaid funds funneled to his state, enough to completely cover his state's costs of complying with an expansion of the program mandated by the bill. This money was taken from residents all around the country and is now being sent to Nebraska simply because that Senator held out the longest and was able to game the system for increased kick-backs and bribes. But he wasn't the only one.

The Senators in Vermont (1 Democrat and 1 Socialist) and Massachusetts (2 Democrats) also won additional Medicaid funds in exchange for promising to vote for the bill. Senators in North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming and Montana also managed to find ways to make insider deals and game the corrupt system of passing legislation under Democratic leadership, scamming additional Medicare funds for their states, and also the good Senators from Hawaii (2 Democrats) exchanged their votes for additional taxpayer money funneled to their state.

Read the story here.

Michigan received no additional money and was not able to scavenge a piece of the dying carcass of the United States taxpayers because Michigan's two Senators, Carl Levin and Debbie Stabmenow, are so extremely liberal, so partisan, and so far to the left that their determined ambitions to expand the size of government blinded them to the opportunity that existed with the passage of this 'healthcare bill' to funnel kick backs and bribes to the residents of our good state.

This is not to say that I endorse this process or applaud the actions of Senators who, in what I feel is a violation of the Constitution, took bribes in exchange for their votes. I'm just saying that Michigan Senators continue their record on turning the residents of Michigan into a donor state that transfers wealth from our citizens to the citizens of other states purely because of their representation is better at the political game than ours. If our Senators did this out of principle or because they rejected bribes, that would be one thing, but the real reason that our state didn't get any corrupt kick backs is pure incompetence.

As this year ends, we are witnessing some pretty shocking behavior by the Democrats. If you know anyone who is a voter, they need to vote Republican for every single race next election. Republicans aren't perfect, but at least when they were in charge they never engaged in this irresponsible one-sided orgy of spending funded by corrupt bribes and kickbacks.

If you want, you can call Senators Levin and Stabmenow, but it won't have much of an effect- they don't care a bit what you think about this issue, otherwise they'd be listening to the opinion polls that show over 60% of the people reject what they are trying to do. Your Michigan Senators don't care about you, don't care what you think, and would sooner kick you in the face than talk to you about healthcare debate. Senator Stabmenow doesn't owe you anything anyways- she has long been bought off by special interest groups from California- and has spent her time in office figuring out ways to funnel money to her campaign coffers, not to Michigan residents.

UPDATE I: Michelle Malkin has two complete lists of all of the bribes that were used to pass this healthcare bill- as you can see from list one and list two of the bribe lists, there were a lot of deals that were made using your taxpayer money.

It turns out, Michigan Senator Carl Levin was able to get a little kickback in return for trading his vote. The 'Healthcare Bill" includes a new $7 billion tax on nonprofit insurance companies, but for some unexplained reason, Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Michigan will be exempt from this tax. Levin received a lot of funding from BCBS last election, as did Democrats in general, and so in exchange for money for their re-election campaigns they fought hard to make sure that while every other company is taxed, they are exempt.

So it looks like Levin was able to win a concession for a major company in Michigan, although I still feel he sold his vote for very little. Stabmenow remains in my mind an utter failure in every possible way as a Senator.

Incidentally, this just highlights yet another reason why I oppose this bill so vigorously. Raising taxes on nonprofit insurance companies will not 'cut into the profits of those evil healthcare robber barons.' They are nonprofit. They will pay for that tax by raising prices on the customers- ie, they will raise the cost of healthcare coverage on those who are currently paying it. That is what this Demcare bill does- it will raise the cost of healthcare coverage on those who do pay for it in order to provide enhanced healthcare to those who do not pay for it.

UPDATE II: Not surprisingly, the deal that Nebraska cut in exchange for its vote is almost certain to be unconstitutional, and attorney generals all over the nation are looking into suing the federal government if this unconstitutional bill becomes law.

Via memeorandum I came across this story- In the Arena: Libyan opposition has less than 1,000 fighters:

During "In the Arena," Jon Lee Anderson, staff writer for The New Yorker reporting from Benghazi, Libya, tells Eliot Spitzer that the number of opposition fighters on the front lines are fewer than anyone would think and that they are poorly armed and badly trained. Anderson says, "Effective number of fighting men, well under 1,000. Actual soldiers, who are now in the fight, possibly in the very low hundreds on the opposition side."

If Obama is correct and the situation in Libya is a humanitarian crisis which demands that the United States act, then the United States needed to act while it was still possible to act, or else resign itself to the humanitarian crisis which would result. But Obama did not act while it was still possible to act, and the reason for the delay was his own incompetence and ignorance, for which he, and he alone, is to blame.

Obama is ignorant that it takes real people to fight wars and real hardware to engage in a revolution- and his delay in acting meant that Qaddafi was able to kill many fighters and retake many weapons- Obama has no experience in the military and has shown little familiarity with military subjects and is ignorant that battles are fought with people and hardware and are not simply chess pieces to move around a board. Obama is incompetent in that he does not recognize his own ignorance on this issue and instead of acting on advice from those smarter than him he instead worried about his NCAA bracket or jetted down to Brazil or hosted fancy dinners and events with celebrities.

Early on in the conflict (February 27) I wrote this:

(Obama's) failures resulted in a longer, more drawn out, less sure conflict, one in which the moderates saw the President of the United States doing nothing and so decided to support the established powers, one in which the revolutionaries saw their morale drop due to lack of support, one in which the established powers in Libya believed that is was okay to use deadly force and hire international mercenaries to keep control.

Several weeks later I had become disgusted with Obama's handling of the crisis in Libya and wrote this:

...I have no problem blaming Obama for the ensuing humanitarian crisis that is going to unfold in Libya. It was okay to wait a bit, because the US shouldn't just jump willy-nilly into every conflict, but the minute the rebels stalled, the math was pretty simple- either jump in now in support and knock Muammar Qaddafi out while building goodwill with the rebels who would then march to power and restore order, or stay out of it and watch Qaddafi retake his nation and punish the rebels and build goodwill with him and his son...

...But President Paintywaist instead anguished about the decision and tried to hide and ran around yelling 'present' on the issue while issuing empty rhetoric and throwing pixie dust at the situation. I don't care how hard he tries to re-write history on this one- he sat around, watched the rebels get pushed back, watched them lose their best fighters and leaders and most dedicated freedom fighters, watched Qaddafi take back cities and kill and rape everyone who was against him in those areas, watched both Qaddafi and the rebels get weaker, and then when the French and British said 'screw you, we're doing something' he fled to Brazil and let Hillary make the call....

Let me be clear- President Obama waited too long to commit the United States to this conflict, and his waiting let Qaddafi forces kill too many revolutionary fighters and recapture too many revolutionary resources, and now the outcome of the situation in Libya is more uncertain. His address this week did little to explain why this critical and increasingly important delay happened, in spite of his efforts to retell the story, and he should be held to blame for the now greater cost that it will take to avert a humanitarian crisis in Libya.

Genocides piss me off and I hate it when people die when they shouldn't, and the blame for this situation should be put squarely and fully on Democratic President Barack Obama.

UPDATE: This does not cause me to become less angry- according to the Jawa Report, there are now less opposition fighters left in Libya than there are members of the 501st Legion, a group of Star Wars fans who dress up like stormtroopers and other characters from the movies, prompting him to ask the important question "Are There More Actual Stormtroopers Than Libyan Rebel Fighters?"

UPDATE II: RedState's Caleb Howe has produced an awesome graphic comparing Obama's war in Libya with Bush's war in Iraq. Check it out, via Doug Ross.

There is something very important happening in Tunisia. On January 14, a spontaneous popular uprising ousted President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali from power and ended his decades of autocratic rule. For the first time, many in this nation have the freedom to speak and the freedom to demand justice for those who have been unjustly killed by Ali's regime. Although the ending to this story is uncertain- exactly how far does this revolution go and what kind of retribution will fall on Ali's party- the story is very much one that is hopeful and to be celebrated by those people who love and support freedom, liberty, and protection of property.

But it isn't being celebrated by many in America. President Barack Obama (Democrat) issued a weak statement praising “the courage and dignity of the Tunisian people”, and then turned around and made a phone call in support of Egypt's autocratic dictator Hosni Mubarak. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton (Democrat) commented that the US was not “taking sides” in Tunisia, reinforcing that it is the policy of the (Democratic) administration not to support good in its battle with evil around the world.

It shouldn't come as a surprise though that Obama's (Democratic) administration is not being supportive or even very happy about the overthrow of an autocratic Middle-East dictator. Ali was 'our guy' a neo-liberal who ran a semi-modern nation and seemed to support us in our wars against extremism in the Middle-East, a description that also fits Mubarak and Egypt. Still, although he was 'our guy', his overthrow might lead to a 'better guy', and so the administration should have been able to react quickly and move decisively to support and praise the freedom movement in Tunisia.

But yet, Obama's (Democratic) administration isn't moving fast and quick and reacting to modern-day events in ways that would support the flowering of democracy and freedom and bring more life, liberty, and protection of property to more people of the world. Why?

Obama is stuck in the past- the past of his Harvard college years, the past of his term papers, the past of his Jerimiah Wright church, the past of his own rhetoric- and this uprising in Tunes, much like the uprising last year in Iran, wasn't expected or even smelled by his advisers and they lack the skill and intelligence and competence to change their policies on the fly. So they sit there, letting world events swirl around them, reacting to uprisings in ways that betray their lack of abilities and vision, and for that reason, voters should severely punish Obama and Democrats in Congress who supported him and his stuck-in-the-past policies.

The Middle-East has been opened to a revolution of freedom and liberty by the successful policies of Republicans and Bush, and Obama's administration has had these successes unfold and fall into his lap, where he has done nothing noteworthy to earn the Peace Prize that was awarded to him before his administration took its first steps. We demand more and better from our Presidents and his advisers- not lukewarm statements and bored non-interest, but real action and real policy and real support.

One wonders why Obama and his Democrats in Congress have been so reluctant to speak out against corrupt regimes that build their power by demonizing their enemies, speaking harshly against them, personally attacking them, criminalizing their political activities, transferring citizens wealth to favored constituents, confiscating the wealth of unfavored individuals, having no oversight to its actions, and in other ways acting as a corrupt and autocratic tyrannical regime that attacks the life, liberty, and property rights of its citizens. Perhaps Obama doesn't express his support for revolutions in Tunisia though because he and his cronies identify more with the autocrats and dictators who run them.

UPDATE: So it is now several days later, and Egypt and Yeman have both also broke out in revolutions, demanding an end to autocractic government and more democracy. Obama's response? No clue. As usual, Obama is reacting to events on the international stage rather than driving events, and doing so in a slow manner, demonstrating once again that he is imcompetent- he and his advisors don't know what they are talking about, don't know how to react to situations, don't do their homework, and don't understand what is going on- and that explains why we hear nothing about how the greatest nation in the world reacts to these revolutions around the world.

The Colonialism-Imperialism Paradigm Is Kaput
George B. N. Ayittey, Ph.D.
June 26, 2005.

Africas paradox is galling: immense mineral wealth yet inexorably mired in steaming squalor, misery, deprivation, and chaos. A few countries have sprinted ahead but Africas overall economic performance remains abysmal, lagging behind those of other regions in the Third World. The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) has warned that at the prevailing rates black Africa would take another 150 years to reach some of the development targets agreed by UN members for 2015. (Financial Times, July 9, 2003; p.1). Who ruined Africa?

The causes of Africas lack of development have always evoked heated emotional debates. On one hand are those who portray Africa as a victim of powerful external forces and conspiracies a group that may be described as externalists.On the other are those who believe that the causes of Africa's crisis lie mostly within African in the nature of government (governance) or how Africa runs its own affairs. This group may be described as the internalists.

The Externalists

The externalists believe that Africa's woes are due to external factors such as the lingering effects of Western colonialism and imperialism, the pernicious effects of the slave trade, racist conspiracy plots, exploitation by avaricious multinational corporations, an unjust international economic system, inadequate flows of foreign aid, the neo-liberal policies of the World Bank, IMF, and deteriorating terms of trade. Disciples of the externalist creed include most African leaders, scholars, and intellectual radicals. For decades, the externalist position held sway, attributing the causes of almost every African problem to such external factors.

In his book, The Africans, African scholar and historian Professor Ali Mazrui, examining Africas crises, attributed most of Africas woes to Western colonialism and imperialism. "The West harmed Africa's indigenous technological development in a number of ways" (164). Africa's collapsing infrastructure (roads, railways, and utilities) is due to the "shallowness of Western institutions," "the lopsided nature of colonial acculturation" and "the moral contradictions of Western political tutelage" (202). In fact, "the political decay is partly a consequence of colonial institutions without cultural roots in Africa" (199). Therefore, self congratulatory western assertions of contributing to Africa's modernization are shallow: "The West has contributed far
less to Africa than Africa has contributed to the industrial civilization of the West" (164). Decay in law enforcement and mismanagement of funds can be traced to Western colonialism too. "The
pervasive atmosphere in much of the land is one of rust and dust, stagnation and decay, especially within those institutions which were originally bequeathed by the West signal the slow death of an alien civilization" (204) and Africa's rebellion "against westernization
masquerading as modernity" (211). Western institutions are doomed "to grind to a standstill in Africa" or decay. "Where Islam is already established, the decay of western civilization is good for Islam since it helps to neutralize a major threat" (19).

Many African leaders also subscribed to and espoused similar views ascribing the causes of Africa's crises to external factors. In fact, since independence in the sixties, almost every African malaise was alleged to have been caused by the operation or conspiracy of extrinsic agents. This externalist doctrine totally absolved the leadership of any responsibility for the mess in Africa. The leadership was above reproach and could never be faulted. President Mobutu even blamed
corruption on European colonialism. Asked who introduced corruption into Zaire, he retorted: "European businessmen were the ones who said, 'I sell you this thing for $1,000, but $200 will be for your (Swiss bank) account'" (New African, July, 1988, 25).

In his address to the third Congress of the Democratic Union of Malian People recently, President Moussa Traore observed that, The world economy is passing through a period characterized by monetary disorder and slow trade exchanges. The worsening crisis is affecting all countries, particularly developing countries. Due to the difficult situation, which is compounded by the serious drought, socio economic life has been affected by serious imbalances
that have jeopardized our country's development growth. Debt servicing, characterized mainly by state to state debts are a heavy burden on the state budget. The drop in the price of cotton which accounts for much of the country's foreign earnings, has led to a great reduction in export
earnings" (West Africa, 16 May 1988, 876).

President Danial arap Moi accused the IMF and other development partners of denying Kenya development funds, thus triggering mass poverty (The Washington Times, June 3, 1999; p.A12). According to the Chairman of Ghanas ruling NDC, Issifu Ali, whatever economic crisis the nation was going through had been caused by external factors. He said the NDC has since 1982 adopted pragmatic policies for the progress of Ghana, adding that the macro-economic environment of 1999 has been undermined by global economic developments" (The Independent, Nov 18, 1999; p.3). Said the Zimbabwe Independent (April 27, 1999), Mugabe
rejects the criticism of those who blame the government for the economic crisis. It is, he says, the fault of greedy Western powers, the IMF, the Asian financial crisis and the drought (p. 25).

Naturally, African leaders would deny any responsibility and blame everybody else except themselves for the mess in Africa. The New Economic Partnership for African Development (NEPAD) echoes this orthodoxy when it claims that Africas impoverishment has been accentuated by the legacy of colonialism and other historical legacies, such as the Cold War and the unjust international economic system. Colonialism subverted the "traditional structures, institutions and values," creating an economy "subservient to the economic and political
needs of the imperial powers" (para 21). Colonialism, according to NEPAD, retarded the development of an entrepreneurial and middle class with managerial capability. At independence, Africa inherited a "weak capitalist class," which explains the "weak accumulation process, weak states and dysfunctional economies." (para 22). More recent reasons for Africa's dire condition include "its continued marginalization from globalization process." (para 2). NEPAD seeks $64 billion in investments from the West.

Frankly, this colonialism-imperialism card has been so overplayed that it has lost its relevance and credence. Even Africas children dont buy it. Chernoh Bah, president of the Children's Forum asserted that Africa's socio economic problems are a direct repercussion of incompetent and corrupt political leaders who usurped political office via the gun. "Some blame colonialism for Africa' plight while others blame the continent's harsh climatic conditions. I think the reason is the kind of political systems we have had over the past decades, he said. (Standard Times [Freetown], April 2, 2003; web posted). At the United Nations Children's Summit held in May 2002 in New York, youngsters from Africa ripped into their leaders for failing to improve
their education and health. "You get loans that will be paid in 20 to 30 years and we have nothing to pay them with, because when you get the money, you embezzle it, you eat it, said 12-year-old Joseph Tamale from Uganda (BBC News, May 10, 2002).

The Internalists

Internalists are the new and angry generation of Africans, who are fed up with African leaders who refuse to take responsibility for their own failures and, instead use colonialism and other external factors as convenient alibis to conceal their own incompetence and mismanagement.
Internalists believe that, while external factors have played a role, internal factors have been far more significant in causing Africas crisis. This school of thought maintains that while it is true Western colonialism and imperialism did harm Africa and continues to do so, Africa's condition has been made immeasurably worse by such internal factors as misguided leadership, misgovernance, systemic corruption, capital flight, economic mismanagement, declining investment, collapsed infrastructure, decayed institutions, senseless civil wars, political
tyranny, flagrant violations of human rights, and military vandalism. In fact, one can identify a whole lot of them but these will suffice. U.N. Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, himself an African, lashed out at African leaders at the Organization of African Unity (OAU) Summit in Lome in July 2000. He pointedly told them that they are to blame for most of the continent's problems. Instead of being exploited for the benefit of the people, Africas mineral resources have been so
mismanaged and plundered that they are now the source of our misery (Daily Graphic, July 12, 2000; p.5). Earlier in the year at a press conference in London in April, 2000, Kofi Annan, lambasted African leaders who he says have subverted democracy and lined their pockets
with public funds, although he stopped short of naming names (The African-American Observer, April 25 May 1, 2000; p.10). During a brief stop-over in Accra, he disclosed in a Joy FM radio station interview that "Africa is the region giving him the biggest headache as the
Security Council spends 60 to 70% of its time on Africa. He admitted sadly that the conflicts on the continent embarrasses and pains him as an African" (The Guide, July 18-24, 2000; p.8).

Ordinary people are speaking out too. Said Akobeng Eric, a Ghanaian, in a letter to the Free Press (29 March - 11 April 1996): "A big obstacle to economic growth in Africa is the tendency to put all blame, failures and shortcomings on outside forces. Progress might have been achieved if we had always tried first to remove the mote in our own eyes" (2). Angry
at deteriorating economic conditions in Ghana, thousands of Ghanaians marched through the streets of the capital city, Accra, the economic crisis is due to external forces and therefore, beyond his control, then he should step aside and allow a competent person who can
manage the crisis to take over," Atta Frimpong demanded (The Ghanaian Chronicle, Nov 29, 1999; p.1). Appiah Dankwah, another protestor blamed the NDC government for mismanaging the resources of the nation.

By the 1990s, African governments had completely lost touch with their people; in fact, they were at war with their people. Citing "the credibility gap between the people and the leadership built up through years of mismanagement," Mr. Mohammed Boudiaf, the head of Algeria's
High Executive Council (HEC), lamented: "A large segment of the population has, I am afraid, lost confidence in the capacity of the leadership to provide jobs, housing, health care and its ability to combat corruption" (Financial Times, June 17, 1992; p. 4). Indeed, said Simon Agbo, a farmer in Ogbadibo, south of Makurdi, Benue state capital in Nigeria: "I heard we have a new government. It makes no difference to me. Here we have no light ( electricity), we have no water. There is no road. We have no school. The government does nothing for us (The
Washington Times, Oct 21, 1999; p.A19).

Rafael Marques, a journalist, jailed and convicted of defamation for a 1999 article in which he characterized President Jose Eduardo dos Santos of Angola as a dictator, wrote: "The government has created a stateless state here in Angola. Each citizen is responsible for his own health and welfare while the government is accountable to no one. The MPLA and
UNITA are like two gangs and the people of Angola are innocent bystanders caught in the middle of a drive-by shooting" (The Washington Post, Sept 18, 2000; p.A1).

As a result of the failure to provide the basic necessities of life, the state and those in power have increasingly alienated themselves from those they rule and from whom they claim to derive their legitimacy. The growing gap between the leaders and the people has made the leaders increasingly insecure, sensitive, repressive and less responsive to the wishes of society. The mass of the people in turn regard the state and its organs with fear, suspicion and cynicism because as far as they are concerned, they are no longer legitimate or relevant in their lives. The government does nothing for them. Insecure African despots spend inordinate amounts on the military and security forces, subverting other state institutions squelch dissent, prop them up in power, and serve their parochial interests. The masses on the other hand, sensing their
inability to meaningfully influence the policies of the state and the behaviors of those in positions of power, develop apathy and withdraw from participation in the political process for safety reasons.

Government, as an institution that cares about its people and attends to their needs, has ceased to exist in many African countries. What exists is a vampire state, where the government has been hijacked by a phalanx of unrepentant bandits and crooks, who use the machinery of the
state to enrich themselves, their cronies and tribesmen, while excluding everyone else (the politics of exclusion). The richest persons in Africa are heads of state and ministers. Quite often, the chief bandit is the head of state himself.

At an African civic groups meeting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, Nigeria's President, Olusegun Obasanjo, claimed that corrupt African leaders have stolen at least $140 billion (95 billion) from their people in the decades since independence (The London Independent, June 14, 2002. Web
posted at www.independent.co.uk). In August 2004, an African Union report claimed that Africa loses an estimated $148 billion annually to corrupt practices, a figure which represents 25 percent of the continent's Gross Domestic Product (GDP). But these are gross underestimates. According to one UN estimate, $200 billion or 90 percent of the sub-Saharan part of the continent's gross domestic product was shipped to foreign banks in 1991 alone (The New York Times, Feb 4, 1996; p.4). Nigeria's past rulers stole or misused 220 billion ($396 billion) -- that is as much as all the western aid given to Africa in almost four decades. The looting of Africa's most populous country amounted to a sum equivalent to 300 years of British aid for the
continent (The London Telegraph, June 25, 2005; web posted). If this sum had been divided equally among Nigerias 120 million people, its income per capita would be at least $3,000, instead of the miserable $265, which is about the same as it was when it gained its independence in 1960. Between 1970 and 2004, more than $400 billion in oil money
flowed into Nigerian governments coffers. What happened to the oil money?

Eventually the vampire state metastasizes into what Africans call a coconut republic and implodes when politically-excluded groups rise up in rebellion: Somalia (1993), Rwanda (1994), Burundi (1995), Zaire (1996), Sierra Leone (1998), Liberia (1999), Ivory Coast (2000), and
Togo (2005). Only reform intellectual, economic, political and institutional will save Africa but the leadership is not interested. Period.

Ask these leaders to develop their countries and they will develop their pockets. Ask them to seek foreign investment and they will seek a foreign country to invest their booty. Ask them to cut bloated state bureaucracies or government spending and they will set up a Ministry of
Less Government Spending. Ask them to establish better systems of governance and they will set up a Ministry of Good Governance (Tanzania). Ask them to curb corruption and they will set up an Anti-Corruption Commission with no teeth and then sack the Commissioner if he gets too close to the fat cats (Kenya). Ask them to establish democracy and they will empanel a coterie of fawning sycophants to write the electoral rules, hold fraudulent elections with opposition leaders either disqualified or in jail, and return themselves to power (Ivory Coast, Rwanda). Ask them to reduce state hegemony in the economy and place more reliance on the private sector and they will create a Ministry of Private Enterprise (Ghana). Ask them to privatize inefficient state-owned enterprises and they will sell them off at fire-sale prices to their cronies. In 1992, in accordance with World Bank loan conditionalities, the Government of Uganda began a
privatization effort to sell-off 142 of its state-owned enterprises. However, in 1998, the process was halted twice by Ugandas own parliament because, according to the chair of a parliamentary select committee, Tom Omongole, it had been derailed by corruption, implicating three senior ministers who had "political responsibility" (The East African, June 14, 1999). The sale of these 142 enterprises was initially projected to generate 900 billion Ugandan shillings or $500
million. However, by the autumn of 1999 the revenue balance was only 3.7 billion Ushs.

Now, their recalcitrance has transmogrified into extortion. Ask them to move a foot and they will demand foreign aid in order to do so. In 2003, some 30,000 ghost names were discovered on the payroll of the Ministry of Education, costing the government $1.2 million a month in salaries heisted by living workers. When Ghana demanded foreign aid to purge these ghost names, Japan ponied up $5 million.

The reform process has stalled through vexatious chicanery, strong-arm tactics, deception, and vaunted acrobatics. Only 16 out of the 54 African countries are democratic and fewer than 8 African countries can be described as economic success stories. Intellectual freedom remains
in the Stalinist era: only 8 African countries have a free and independent media. But without genuine reform, more African countries will implode -- Chad, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea, Togo and Zimbabwe are already teetering on the brink

The slave trade, Western colonialism, imperialism and external factors have nothing to do with the naked plunder and wrong choices made by bad African leaders. The World Bank has nothing to do with monumental leadership failure in Africa. The IMF, which most African leaders relish
vilifying, has nothing to do with petrol (gasoline) shortages in Nigeria. Nor do Western agricultural subsidies have anything to do with why African governments cant supply reliable electricity and safe drinking water to their people. The slave trade has nothing to do with
Nigeria turning itself into the scam capital of the world.

The Flaws in the Externalist Position

The issue of Western culpability or complicity in causing Africas woes evokes such intense emotionalism that it often clouds rational analysis of our problems in Africa. Let us strip the issue of its emotionalism and examine it rationally.

Historical Wrongs Committed by the West

The Slave Trade/Colonialism

Everyone agrees that the slave trade was at once a brutally inhumane treatment that can ever be meted out to a people. The horrors of capture, the trans-shipment, the loss of millions of able-bodied men, the atrocities that were committed by European slave traders, etc. are all documented. We all agree to the humiliating experience of colonial subjugation. The discrimination against African natives, the exploitation of Africa's mineral wealth and artifacts, etc. -- we also agree on that.

Remedies

We may seek compensation (reparations) for the harm that slavery did to us. We may seek the return of the stolen booty. Ethiopia has just received its ancient obelisk, stolen by the Italian colonialists. But even here, African leaders have debauched the issue.

Back in August 1999, representatives of African governments met in Accra and issued a declaration: "Africa is demanding $777 trillion from Western Europe and the Americas in reparation for enslaving Africans while colonizing the continent" (Pan African News Agency, August 18, 1999). It added that the money would be demanded from ''all those nations of Western Europe and the Americas and institutions, who participated and benefited from the slave trade and colonialism''. Dr. Hamet Maulana and Debra Kofie, co-chairpersons of the commission, urged that worldwide monitoring and networking systems be instituted to ensure
that reparation and repatriation will be achieved by 2004. Problem is, U.S. GNP is only $12 trillion and amount asked- $777 trillion- exceeds the combined sum of the GNPs of the entire Western world! According to the British governments Office of National Statistics, The United
Kingdom -- that is England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland -- is officially valued at $8.8 trillion, a sum that includes all of its property and buildings, machinery, roads, bridges, planes, trains and automobiles. It also includes all the money deposited in its banks and other financial institutions. Plus everything on the shelves at Harrods (The New York Times, Jan 1, 2004; p.A4). So how do African leaders hope to collect $777 trillion?

We may argue all we want about the size of reparations but these historical wrongs cannot repeat, cannot -- be used to justify the cruel atrocities and grotesque misdeeds African leaders commit against their own people. Winning independence for their respective countries gives no African leader -- none of them -- the license to do what they want with their people and countries.

European slave traders or colonialists did not tell President Mugabe to raze down shanty-towns, destroying the propertied of hundreds of thousands of Zimbabweans and rendering more than 1.5 million HOMELESS. American imperialists did not tell President Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia
to order his security forces to open fire on student demonstrators, killing more than 40 of them on June 15, 2005. British racists did not tell President Isaiah Afwerki of Eritrea to shut down all the private newspapers in Eritrea and jail all their editors and journalists.

These leaders must be held ACCOUNTABLE for their actions. Historical wrongs by the West do not factor in here because they are a separate issue and CANNOT be used to excuse wrongful actions taken by African leaders TODAY.

Colonial Legacies

It is also agreed that the colonial legacies bequeathed to Africa were pitiful. What the Portuguese left behind in Guinea-Bissau, after 200 years of colonial rule, was a small brewery for their local servicemen. There was no social development; industry was not encouraged. African colonies were to serve as sources of raw material and cheap labor for the industrial machines of Metropolitan Europe. The colonial economies were based on export mono-culture: the export of one or two cash crops.

Colonial education was geared toward training male clerks for the colonial administration. The Belgians and Portuguese never encouraged university education as that would teach African natives of their political rights. When Tanzania gained its independence in 1964, it had only 4 university graduates.

Infrastructure was Spartan. Few roads and railways were built. Even where built in West Africa, they exhibited a dendritic pattern: Straight from the coast to the hinterland to evacuate some mineral or cash crop.

All this is true but heres the problem: After independence, we, African elites, did not maintain, let alone keep the little infrastructure we inherited from the colonialists. In fact, we destroyed them! Infrastructure crumbled in the post colonial period. The few universities we got in Ghana and Nigeria decayed. In Uganda, Makerere University used to be called the Harvard of Africa in the 1950s. By 1980, it was a shambles. In Zaire, the Belgian colonialists put down only 2,000 miles of paved road appalling for that huge country the size of Texas. By 1990, only 200 miles were usable. So who do you blame: the Belgian colonialists for not laying down enough roads OR Mobutu for failing to maintain the little that Zaire got? Later, we learned that Mobutu allowed the roads and infrastructure to crumble in Zaire because it made it difficult for the opposition to organize against him!
(contd)