It Seems Obama Has Broken Nearly Every Campaign Promise He Made

      I wonder if Obama supporters feel stupid now. They elected him on the premises that he would end America's disastrous wars, fix the economy, end racial and class divisions and inequalities, close Guantanamo Bay, etc, etc. And guess what.
     HE HASN'T DONE ANY OF THAT.
     If I was a Obama supporter I'd be mad as hell, (wait a minute, I'm not an Obama supporter and I'm still mad as hell!). He's a freaking liar. He says whatever sounds nice at the moment, and then later, just does whatever will benefit him and his 1% supporters the most. I mean, how much of a freaking dick do you have to be to do that?!
     Let's just go through the list of things he'd said he would do once he became president, and hasn't:

     1. End the war in Iraq.
     He just launched us into another war in Iraq against ISIS not a week ago! One of his pillars of his election campaign was that he would end the war in Iraq. Well now we're bombing people and sending in hundreds of soldiers on the ground. And don't give me that "Oh ISIS would commit a genocide, we have to stop them in Iraq otherwise they'll attack us here!" Do you guys have amnesia or something? Don't you remember the justifications for the Iraq War in 2003?! It was the same fucking bullshit! You guys act like since this is a "humanitarian" mission, suddenly we "have" to do it, and all past promises about NOT fighting in Iraq are looked over because of the "selflessness" of our character and the "direness" of the situation.  You people are so easily fooled by the government and the mainstream media.
     Wake-up call. America cannot be the world's police. Look at where it's gotten us today. We're riddled in debt and we're the laughing stock of the world. Millions and millions of people downright despise us because of our disastrous foreign policy that wrecks the lives of literally hundreds of millions of people around the world. We cannot save every single group of people that are about to die. We do not have the money or manpower to do so. We're trillions and trillions of dollars in debt, and yet we're spending billions more for jet fighters and bombs. So, yes, I feel sorry for the Yazdis, and we should give them and the Kurds weapons, but airstrikes and boots on the ground is a violation of Obama's promise to end the war in Iraq. It's not a different war, it's just a continuation of the same war we blundered into in 2003. Our actions caused this fucking mess in the first place, and now we're back at it. It's like Hercules continuing to cut off the Hydra's heads. When one is cut, two takes it's place. And yet we're still hacking away, thinking the same policy that failed before will magically work now.    

     2. Eliminate all oil and gas tax loopholes.
     During the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama promised to eliminate "special tax breaks for oil and gas companies, including repealing special expensing rules, foreign tax credit benefits, and manufacturing deductions for oil and gas firms."
      None of these things were included in the major tax bill that avoided the "fiscal cliff” in January 2013, and when we asked the American Petroleum Institute whether they had been enacted earlier, he said that none have been changed under Obama. (The spokesman also took issue with Obama"s characterization of these as "special tax breaks,” saying that some of the tax provisions Obama cited, such as foreign tax credit benefits, affect many businesses, not just the oil and gas sector.)
     Well OF COURSE Obama didn't do that. That would hurt the 1% that finances and supports his insane rule. He said that back in 2008 to sound all "anti big business" and "for the people." And now, WHAT A SURPRISE, once he's in power, he doesn't do what he said he would. He lets these loopholes exist so the 1% can get away with paying close to nothing in taxes, while the common folk, (hint that's ME and YOU!) are stuck paying a sizable chunk of our meager paycheck in taxes, leaving us close to nothing to live on.

     3. Allow imported prescription drugs.
     During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama promised to "allow Americans to buy their medicines from other developed countries if the drugs are safe and prices are lower outside the U.S." But such a provision was not included in the final health care law that passed both chambers of Congress and was signed by the president.
     The motivation for the promise came from an existing trend of Americans crossing the Canadian border to buy cheaper prescription drugs. Yet for the most part, it remains illegal for Americans to buy prescription drugs there -- for "safety reasons," the Food and Drug Administration says.
     But in the wake of negotiations with the prescription drug industry -- one of the first big health industry players to support the White House's health care reform effort -- Obama's drug importation promise faded into the background. Now, with passage, it's officially off the table.
     Instead, the drug industry will pay billions of dollars annually in new fees beginning in 2012, and brand-name drugmakers will provide a 50 percent discount on prescriptions filled through the Medicare Part D coverage gap beginning in 2011. 
     OF COURSE he wouldn't keep his promise, that would miss out in an opportunity to tax billions and billions of more dollars for him to waste! Who cares if Americans can't get the medicine they need, he's got the ones he needs!

  

     4. Require employers to provide employees seven paid sick days per year.

     President Barack Obama began his term with significant union support due to the many promises that he made about expanding workers' rights and benefits. Among these promises was Obama's commitment to require employers to provide their workers with seven paid sick days annually. No such requirement currently exists on a national level.
      To accomplish this goal the administration has expressed support for the Healthy Families Act. The bill mandates that employers grant their employees one hour of leave for each 30 hours worked. Workers can use this leave if they are ill, to care for a dependent, or recover if they are a victim of domestic violence. The requirement applies to all businesses with over 15 employees.
      Rep. Rose DeLauro, D-Conn., and the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., introduced versions of the bill in 2005 and 2009. On both occasions the bill stalled in committee and expired after the new session of Congress began.
      DeLauro reintroduced the Healthy Families Act in May 2011. Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, did the same in the Senate. History seems to be repeating itself, however, as both bills are awaiting action in committee.  

     Who cares if the working people, a.k.a. the people who actually create wealth in this country, have any time to rest? Obama can take a break anytime he wants. Congress works 1/3 of the fucking year. Democrats shell out unemployment benefits to their stooges, oh, I mean, "voters," for years. You know who pays for your lazy ass neighbor to sit on his ass and watch T.V. all day? That's right, I do. You do, unless you're that lazy neighbor. 

    5. Grant habeas corpus rights to "enemy combatants." 

    When Barack Obama ran for president in 2008, he told voters he strongly supported efforts to restore habeas corpus rights to people the U.S. government had deemed enemy combatants.
      Habeas corpus is the legal right, embedded in the U.S. Constitution, which allows any prisoner held by the American government to challenge his or her imprisonment. A president may suspend that right only "when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it,” according to the Constitution.
       Protecting habeas rights was a priority for Obama early in his career as a U.S. senator. Project Vote Smart, a website that collects public statements by politicians, shows 21 instances where he mentioned it in press releases, stump speeches, media interviews and presidential debates.
      "This is an extraordinarily difficult war we are prosecuting against terrorists. There are going to be situations in which we cast too wide a net and capture the wrong person,” Obama said in speech on the Senate floor in 2006. "By giving suspects a chance -- even one chance -- to challenge the terms of their detention in court, to have a judge confirm that the Government has detained the right person for the right suspicions, we could solve this problem without harming our efforts in the war on terror one bit.”
      At the time of Obama's comments, roughly 400 terrorism suspects were locked up in the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base prison in southern Cuba, down from nearly 700 in 2003. President George W. Bush's administration had held those prisoners indefinitely without charging them or trying them beginning in 2002 -- in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United States. Prisoners did have access military tribunals, but the tribunals did not allow detainees to see, hear and contest all evidence being used against them.
      Supreme Court rulings in 2004, 2006 and 2008 confirmed that prisoners at Guantánamo did have habeas rights and the military tribunals were not sufficient substitutes. The U.S. government transferred more than 500 prisoners before Obama took office (166 remained in November 2012). Under the Obama administration, however, the force of those rulings have weakened.
      "President Obama is steadily returning Guantanamo to the secretive and hopeless internment camp that he vilified as a candidate,” wrote Azmy Baher, legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, in an August op-ed in The Washington Post.

     Who cares about the rights of people, who, legally, have not been charged with anything, nor have been convicted of any crime? Obama don't have time for that, he's too busy blowing up weddings in Pakistan or protecting dictators in the West Bank or Iraq. 

    6. Raise the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour. 

     Who cares about the working poor, the people who slave out in the sun or over a hot stove hours on end just to put food on the table for their family?! Obama and his supporters got all what they want, screw everyone else! Minimum wage has to keep up with inflation, otherwise, people cannot live off it. In these hard economic times, there are plenty of adults and people who need to be the #1 breadwinner in the house that can ONLY find minimum wage jobs. In a strong economy, only teenage kids work minimum wage jobs, but in a recession, that is no longer the case.   

     7. Close Guantanamo Bay. 

      Obama loves breaking peoples' human rights. I swear he does it so often and to hundreds and hundreds of millions of people that he must get off to it. He's obsessed with it. And what better way to break peoples' human rights by:

• Kidnapping them all over the world.
• Not charging them with anything in over a decade.
• Not giving them access to a lawyer or a diplomatic representative from their country, or visits from their family. 
• Giving them no trial. 
• Torturing them. 

    I mean, that's his fucking wet dream!!

    Yes, I insulted the president. Why? Because he's a despicable, vile person. If you commit murder, torture, and oppression, then yes, anyone has the right to insult you and call you out on your crimes. We can insult Saddam. We can insult Bin Laden. Why the fuck can't we insult Obama? Just because he's the president? Just give him a free pass on all of his crimes just because of his title? Nope, I don't care who the fuck you are, if you commit a crime, I'll get in your God damn face and say "You have committed this crime." That's no better than giving a policeman a free pass to beat the shit out of an innocent bystander, "Oh he's a policeman so we won't say anything." It's an abuse of power! Call him out on it! What kind of world do we live in that we allow a man to murder, torture, and oppress hundreds of millions of people, don't say anything about it, but then AS SOON as one person insults him, OH, that's suddenly barbaric and unacceptable?!?!  

     

   

Every person has the right to life and self-defense

     It's really sad that I have to write this post in the 21st century. You think that mankind would evolve and figure out that just because a person belongs to a certain ethnic group/ religious group, that doesn't mean that they, automatically and without question, deserve to die. But no, that would be asking WAY too much for humanity.
     The logic is really quite simple. If a person doesn't have the right to self-defense, then that invites anyone to just go up and kill them, and they can't fight back at all. They just have to sit there and take it, and die in the process. Even the Nazis had the right to self-defense. If the American soldiers are attacking them, I'm not going to cry and call the Nazis terrorists when they start fighting back, (they're terrorists for other reasons). Because fighting back is a natural and logical response, it is psychologically engraved in animals and in us as well. Just because a person is your enemy, does not mean they are not human, and therefore, should not enjoy human rights.  
     These are the reasons why every person, regardless of race or religion, (or any other group identity for that matter), have the right to life.
     1. A person is not responsible for the actions done by other people of his/her same religion or ethnicity. Every day, dozens of white people murder innocents in America and Europe, steal from people, kill people in car crashes, commit vandalism, rape people, etc, etc. Just pick up any local newspaper and you'll see examples. Now, imagine how absurd it would be if all the minorities in America and Europe demanded that all white people apologize every single time a white person did any of those things. That's right, you'd be thinking "Hey, I didn't do this crime xyz, why should I apologize for it?"
      You can substitute white people for any other ethnicity and the scenario would be the same. People dehumanize groups they hate, thinking they are all one monotonous group. But of course, they never apply the same logic to the groups they are apart of. A person is only responsible for the actions done by himself/herself, AND THAT'S FUCKING IT. In the Central African Republic, for example, when a group of radical Christians kill Muslim civilians on purpose, it is not "getting back at them" if Muslims go and kill random Christians in a retaliatory attack. Why? Because those aren't the Christians who killed the civilians. DUH!! All the Muslims have done is the exact same thing back to the Christians. They've both committed terrorism now.
     2. If a human being has committed no crime, then they shouldn't be put to death. Again, common sense, which is never common these days. Simply existing is not a crime.
     3. Thinking that because some members of xyz commit a crime, therefore, all members of xyz should die is a double standard, because people never think that about their own race. See this example to illustrate it:
      Racist Jew: A Muslim killed a Jewish civilian today, so all Muslims should die!
      Me (showing the fallacy): A Jew killed a Muslim civilian today, so all Jews should die!
      Racist Jew: What?! You can't take the crimes of one person and apply it to all Jews! I didn't do anything wrong! I shouldn't die!
      See what I mean? They never apply the same logic to the groups they hate and their own group. If they did, then they would think that literally everyone on the Earth should die, because all religions and races have had their share of people who have murdered innocent people throughout history.
      4. All religions and races are equal. Again, so sad that I have still have to write this. For every Asian terrorists I can find a South American terrorist to match, and vice versa. Substitute for any other religion or ethnic group and the statement is still the same. Besides, I'm sure there are more terrorists in one religion than another, for example, more Muslims than Jews, because there are 1.5 billion Muslims and only 15 million Jews. So even if percentage wise they're same, numerically, there will be more Muslim terrorists than Jewish terrorist. Does that mean Islam supports terrorism and Judaism doesn't? Of course not. Since when it is a rule than if your religion has more terrorists than my religion, then that means your religion supports terrorism and mine doesn't?
      Let's just say, for argument's sake, there are 40 million Islamic terrorists, and 34 million Christian terrorists in the world. What moral high ground can Christians have on Muslims? "Ha, you have 40 million terrorists and I only have 34 million! So that means you support terrorism and I don't!" Yeah, it makes no sense.
      5. Self-defense is logical. If you're a Palestinian, just walking through Gaza, minding your own business, and then, your house gets bombed by Israeli warplanes when there are no missiles or militants nearby, killing your family. What is your natural, logical reaction? You go join the group that is fighting Israel. Does that make you a terrorist? No, but unfortunately the only group fighting Israel is a terrorist organization, so technically, yes, you are now in a terrorist organization, and Israel has the right to kill you. But you haven't launched any rockets at civilians. You want to fight Israeli soldiers that killed your family.
     See how real life is more complicated than children stories of "good guys vs evil guys"?

     6. People have the right to self-defense in the best way that they can. If America is attacked, they attack with jet fighters, artillery, marines, etc. If you are attacked in your home by criminals, you attack with a gun. Is your actions automatically terrorism because you aren't a official state military using big expensive equipment? Of course not. But some people act like that's how it is. For example, they think the Free Syrian Army is a terrorist organization because it uses guerrilla warfare, with AK-47's and car bombs, against the Assad dictatorship. But they don't think Assad is, even though he is using jet fighters and artillery against civilians. Why don't they think Assad is a terrorist? Because he is a government, using machines to fight, so therefore, he couldn't possibly be a terrorist. 
      You store your gun in your home, because, that's the legal and rational thing to do, because it is on your property. But if you were a Palestinian in Gaza, Israel would drone strike your house, saying that you're using human shields because you're hiding arms in a civilian building. See how easy it is to twist things to make a normal action look like a terrorist action?  If your best weapon are homemade rockets, then that's what you have to use. If Hamas had jet fighters and cruise ships and artillery, believe me, they'd much rather use those then homemade rockets than cannot be aimed very well. But saying that all methods of warfare except expensive state of the art warfare that only rich countries can afford is "terrorism" is taking away the poor men of the world's fight to self-defense. You'd be condemning millions of people to death just because they can't afford laser guided missiles that your government can conveniently afford.
      In conclusion, this is a quick summary of my post, using again, an example:

• Israel has the right to fight against Palestinian militants, because they are both combatants who are at war with one another. 
• Israel DOES NOT have the right to kill Palestinian civilians, just because they are living in Gaza, or are Arab, or are Muslim etc. There is no excuse. Terrorism is terrorism, no what who the perpetrator.
• Palestine has the right to fight against Israeli military forces, because they are both combatants who are war with one another.    
• Palestine DOES NOT have the right to kill Israeli civilians, just because they are living in Israel, or are Jewish, etc. There is no excuse. Terrorism is terrorism, no what who the perpetrator.

The Disconnect between Stated Goals and Actions Done

(The following is a paper I wrote for grad school, and I thought was an appropriate entry for this blog. Yeah, it's gonna be a lot different than my usual posts, I get it :D Of course, the pictures are added for this entry only, I didn't put them in the paper.)
 
           A never ending and ever changing part of U.S. foreign policy is which countries the U.S. give military/economic/political aid to. These gifts and transactions of goods and services are done either based on a set of principles and norms that supposedly the U.S. and the foreign country share, or, they are done to further the United States’ interests abroad. Some of these principles and norms include democracy, defense of human rights, wanting their citizens to be prosperous, and respect for international law. What is disturbing is, in many cases, the U.S. gives this aid to a foreign country that is openly hostile to these principles and norms. Policy makers in the U.S. government say that’s not the case, yet by all standards, a rational analysis of the country, records of breaking international law in relation to these principles, and reports done by human rights organizations, the foreign country does not share the principles and values that the U.S. claims to hold. Other times, the United States’ stated interest runs contrary to the values it says that it proclaims. That leads to an observation that the stated interest really is not going to establish or strengthen democracy in the foreign country. This review will demonstrate the positive results of giving military/economic/political aid to a country that does want to uphold democratic values, without bending the rules due to race, religion, or radical self-interest groups. 

             

          The first article is titled “Democratization of the State: A Global Perspective and South African Case Study” by Richard Harris. It talks about how to establish a democracy that is free to all in a country that was previously authoritarian. This is relevant because most of the United States’ military aid goes to countries that were/are authoritarian and that the United States’ supposedly wants them to become more democratic. The author says in simple terms that the way to establish democracy in a country is to establish democratic norms; to show the people in that country that these norms are the best way to do certain processes. Do not force them to do these norms, because that will just push them away from doing them, even from something that may benefit them. Show them, by example and logical/rational reasoning that these norms are what it takes to protect human rights, reduce corruption, etc.

            An important term that the author introduces in this article is “low-intensity democracy,” a term that describes a government that uses formal democratic institutions as a cover for continued authoritarian rule and/or foreign domination. This relates to a point made earlier that U.S. officials claim the countries they are giving military aid to are democratic, or at least trying to be democratic. The fact is, most of them aren’t. They’re simply low-intensity democracies. U.S. officials point to the formal democratic institutions as the basis of their claim that these countries are democratic, but upon further inspection, it is evident that these governments are corrupt, authoritarian, and extremely violent towards civilians for political gain, (terrorism).

            The second journal reviewed is titled “Compound Democracy and the Control of Corruption: A Cross-Country Investigation” by Alok K. Bohara, Neil J. Mitchell, and Carl F. Mittendorff. The journal talks about the effect democracy has on corruption. The study focused on four countries: India, Nigeria, Sweden, and Japan. It included various aspects of the countries and their governments such as GDP per capita, amount of government intervention in the marketplace, and amount of trade the country does with other countries. An important point from the journal is that the larger a government gets, the more opportunities for corruption there are. This supports the claim that less government is better for the people. Therefore, according to the article, if the American government wants to decrease corruption around the world, its policies must focus on reducing the size of government. American military support, economic support, and political support should revolve around this principle.

            Another important point is that the greater amount of government intervention in the marketplace also increases the opportunities for corruption. This point supports the same claim as stated in the paragraph above. Also, democracy helps countries win wars. The reasons for this is because the political culture of a democracy is better suited for warfare, the public’s consent is more powerful in a democracy vs an autocratic state, and the leader is accountable to the voters. The logical conclusion from this point would be that if the United States truly wants to help protect other populations’ human rights, it’s policies must support democracy around the globe because when a country can win a war, it can defend itself from aggressive wars and potential foreign occupation. Both of these types of conflicts trample on a multitude of human rights.

            The most important point this journal had was that corruption in a country’s government prevents other countries from coming to help that particular country. Any economic aid that comes to a corrupt government just gets taken by the corrupt officials, and hardly any, if any, actual aid comes to the poor population of that country. Military aid would just give more might to the army to oppress and kill their citizens for trying to exercise their basic human rights. So if the United States wants to help a country that is corrupt, it cannot give aid to the government to do so. It must identify opposition parties that are not corrupt, or other NGOs/human rights organizations/moderate secular rebels, (whatever the case may be in that particular country), and pinpoint which ones are in line with true American values, the ones this country was based on. That way, the American people would know that their hard-earned taxpayer money would be going towards an organization that was not in conflict with American values. 

             The links and commonality of these two articles is that they are two steps to understanding democracy. The first article talks about how to establish it, and the second article talks about what its effects will be once it is established. Stating how they are common also illustrates how they are different: they represent two different time periods on the road to democracy i.e. one has to happen before the other.

            The third article continues on this linear concept of democracy establishment/implementation, even though it is entirely possible to go backwards in this process. The article is titled “Implications of Globalization in the Teaching of Public Administration in Africa: The Case of Nigeria” by Robert Dibie. Its title is a clear statement on what it is about. Countries have to develop their own way of education that fits their specific needs. Simply borrowing a system from a rich Western country will not work. The author says “It became apparent in the nation that it is wrong to undermine all that is indigenous in favor of all that is western.’  

            The article answers the question “Why does Nigeria have a lack of qualified teachers and inadequate resources to have a decent public administration program to better itself?” The three answers are because of low salaries, inadequate infrastructure, and lack of security. If the U.S. goal is to help Nigeria have a decent public administration program, its policies have to solve these three problems. If it’s policies help contribute to these problems, then it cannot claim that it wants Nigeria to have the program.

            What this third article has in common with the previous two articles is that is illustrates how U.S. policy can (has) deviated from its stated goal, and has created situations that it publically says that it is against. It points to a necessary revaluation of U.S. foreign policy related specifically to the main topic of this review: U.S. military/economic/political aid and support, because by the results of the studies done in these three articles, the U.S. policies are not achieving their stated goals. It provides a starting point from which U.S. policy makers can create new policies. The articles do not say specifically what these U.S. policies are, but that is outside the scope of this review. However, a short amount of time invested in research, having the background that these articles provide, would result in finding these U.S. policies without a problem. 

            The fourth article is titled “Governance in a Globalizing World” by Jamil Jreisat. It talks about the very same issues as the third article: Governance and how globalization affects it. It specifically focuses on what are the consequences of a global power “going rouge,” so to speak. Such actions that would fall under this category would be changing the international commerce rules to benefit itself at the expense of weaker, poorer countries, making up false pretexts as an excuse for a war of aggression, and trampling on peoples’ (whether its own citizens or others), basic human rights. The article states that a constitution is the basis for democracy and protecting citizens’ human rights. No democracy does not have a constitution, whether written or un-written, although it points out that there are some authoritarian governments that do have a constitution. In other words, a democracy has to have a constitution, but just because it has one doesn’t mean it is a democracy.   

            Globalization brings many benefits to a country, including more trading opportunities, closer economic ties that can foster closer political ties, and the sharing of best practices, lessons learned, etc, in all areas of public administration. However, globalization can be severely reversed if a strong, world power country goes rogue, doing some of the actions listed in the previous paragraph. Globalization cannot happen if a powerful country has an “empire-building approach with imperial authority to put down challenges rather than to persuade and to negotiate agreements.” This means that if a world power such as the United States wants to foster more globalization between itself and other countries, it must refrain from committing actions that would severely reverse globalization. If the U.S. continuingly commits actions, on purpose, that guarantee the reversal of globalization, then one must question if the U.S. truly wants to foster more globalization or not.

            Both the third and fourth articles talk about the latest step in the establishment of democracy, but the fourth article talks about the concept in wide, non-tangible descriptions that are not specific to one country or region, while the third article focuses just on South Africa as its example. Together, they provide a solid basis for understanding how globalization affects democracy. One without the other would not be as effective in explaining this concept. If just the third article was presented, a reader might be left wondering how the lessons learned in South Africa could apply to any other country experiencing the same problem. If only the fourth article was presented, the reader could possibly be confused as to how these abstract, non-tangible practices would actually look on the ground in a country.

            The fifth and final article is titled “Introduction: Benefit of U.S. Educational Assistance

in the Eastern European Transformation” by James McCollum and Niles Schoening. The basic premise of this journal is that the more education a country has, the more democratic it becomes. There are very few highly educated socialists and fascists. Communism, in of itself, has inherent deficiencies. The authors suggest that the U.S. should only offer educational assistance to organizations/countries that believe in democracy. Communists, or other people that believe in tyranny, would only use that education to further control and subjugate people. Therefore, offering educational assistance to them would not further the U.S. goal of spreading democracy. The last point the journal makes is that any educational program that the U.S. sends to a foreign country has to be sensitive to the local culture; it is not a one size fits all. This is the same point that the 3^rd article, the one about globalization in Nigeria, mentioned, when it said that simply using a Western educational model in a non-Western country will not work.   

            The significance of this last article in relation to the other articles goes back to the concept of democratization as a process that was talked about when linking the other articles together. To recap, the first article talks about how to establish democracy. The second article talks about the situation right after establishment: what effects democracy will have and how it will reduce corruption. The third one talks about what effects globalization will have on this young democracy, (which globalization is inevitable at this point in history, unless one is a state like North Korea). The fourth article talks about how to govern with globalization happening all around one’s country. This is very similar to the third article’s main point. And finally, the fifth article talks about the role of education, that could happen before, after, or in-between any of these points. That observation points to the value of education: it can light the spark to create democracy, it can help a fledgling democracy once it is established, and it can help a democracy combat the ill side effects of globalization at any point of the country’s level of globalization.

            In conclusion, these journals do not directly spout policy recommendations to the United States government in relation to its efforts to spread democracy throughout the world, as that is not the journals’ goal. Their goal is simply to state the facts in way that would help ignite U.S. policymakers to think in a rational, logical, and non-biased manner: “If I want to achieve goals XYZ, how would I do that?” Such policies that would come out of such a brainstorm or discussion would be: Not to give military aid/training to fascist regimes or governments that support terrorism, identifying and helping organizations that are democratic within a despotic or tyrannical country, and not breaking these policies due to the lobbying of radical self-interest groups or racial or religious bias. The government must have principles and stick to them no matter what in order to make sure their democratization efforts are effective overseas. These journals, when read together, also show what are the consequences when there is a disconnect between a country’s stated goals and actions committed in order to achieve that goal. It is outside of the scope of this journal review to directly command “The United States must do XYZ.” Instead, it focuses on a specific aspect of the U.S. foreign policy. It provides the basis for the conversation of “If the United States says that it wants to achieve XYZ, yet commits actions that will certainly not achieve XYZ, these are the consequences that will follow.” 

Works Cited

            Alok K. Bohara, Neil J. Mitchell, and Carl F. Mittendorff, (2004). Compound Democracy and the Control of Corruption: A Cross-Country Investigation. The Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 32, No. 4, 2004.

            Robert Dibie Ph.D. (2004) Implications of Globalization in the Teaching of Public Administration in Africa: The Case of Nigeria, International Journal of Public Administration, 27:3-4, 151-169.

            Richard L. Harris (2004) Democratization of the State: A Global Perspective and South African Case Study, International Journal of Public Administration, 27:13-14, 1061-1100.

            Jamil Jreisat (2004) Governance in a Globalizing World, International Journal of Public Administration, 27:13-14, 1003-1029.

            James K. McCollum & Niles C. Schoening (2004) Introduction: Benefit of U.S. Educational Assistance in the Eastern European Transformation, International Journal of Public Administration, 27:11-12, 821-827.

People admire Obama for WHAT?!

     The mindless drones that are Obama worshipers continue to adore him, even as he fucks them over again and again. This is evident in the poll that shows that Barack Obama is the most admired man in the world for the 6th year in a row. 

  http://www.gallup.com/poll/166646/obama-clinton-continue-reign-admired-man-woman.aspx

      The insanity of this is mind boggling. These people conveniently ignore and do not mention the numerous horrible, atrocious, and sickening actions that Obama does year after year, and turn all of those actions into good, helpful, noble actions. They defy logic. They clash against rationale. When I mention these awful crimes that Obama does, his lovers simply cannot respond. They have no response when challenged on their beliefs. The set of morals and values one must have to admire Obama is completely nauseating.

      Let's go through a list of all the crimes, horrible actions, and acts of terrorism Barack Obama has done while in office, shall we???

      1. Enacted policies that benefit the 1% and the Wall Street cronies.
      Obama acts like he's a friend to the poor, a protector to the most vulnerable of our society, when in reality, he couldn't give a flaming fuck about us. He's a servant to the 1% of our country, those fat greedy fucks whose sole mission in life is to gobble as much wealth as they can, and damn anyone who gets in their way. This article says it all:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/11/24/obamas_policies_have_helped_wall_st_fat_cats_120768.html

      The stock market has had it's best year in several years, despite the fact that the economy is still in ruins, thanks to “quantitative easing” (money creation) by the Federal Reserve Board. This has helped Wall Street while destroying the middle class, because near zero interest rates undermine savings. Despite ample evidence of fraud, Obama has protected all Wall Street executives. Not a single one has been prosecuted for fraud or completely destroying the economy in 2008. He's also given fat cats a break such as in this example he "signed a stimulus bill that spent $165 on bonuses for AIG executives." 
     During George Bush's presidency, the top 1% percent earned 65% of the national income. Now, they earn 95% of it. Wall Street investment banks also get from federal loan guarantees what amounts to an $83 billion subsidy. And guess where the money from that subsidy comes from? Yeah, the sweat of us hard working Americans. President Obama has “redistributed” more tax dollars to crony capitalists than to the poor. From the $787 billion “stimulus” that didn’t stimulate, to subsidies for “green” companies that produced more corruption than energy, to Obamacare, every “investment” he has made has produced a windfall for the politically connected but hasn’t helped ordinary Americans.
     The evidence is overwhelming, and this is just from one article. There are literally dozens and dozens of other examples out there that all point to the same conclusion: Obama hates poor people, and loves the mega-rich. He says he's all about "reducing income inequality," yet he enacts policies that increase income inequality. 

     2. Enacted policies that directly hurt poor people.
     Remember that whole story about Mitt Romney paying less in taxes that his secretary? Well, guess who was the president during that time that approved that tax plan? Oh right, it was Obama. Obama makes the poor people pay more and more in taxes every year, while, percentage wise, he makes the rich pay less and less. I can just look at my paycheck from year to year and see the negative impacts the fat greedy politician has cost me. (I'm not going to tell you how much I make, rest assured, it's close to nothing).  In the first half of 2012, I paid 4.3% in all taxes combined. In the last half, I paid 9.1%. That's almost doubling my taxes in 6 months. Now, I pay a whopping 20.6% in all taxes. That's 1/5 of everything I make. That may not seem like a lot, to you people who make a lot more money than me. But when you don't make a lot of money, each percentage increase is felt more because poorer people need every dollar they make.
     Not only has Obama raised taxes directly on the vast majority of Americans, he's added more indirect taxes and taxes on things people buy. Obamacare alone put 21 new taxes on the American people. He gloats about it on it's own fucking website:

 http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-taxes.php

     3. Enacted fascist policies, such as the NDAA, the renewal of the Patriot Act, and the continuation of Guantanamo Bay.
     Liberals who cried and cried when George Bush, (I hate him just as much as Obama), enacted the Patriot Act were strangely silent when Obama signed the NDAA into law, which gives the government the right to kill you without having to give any reason at all. It also allows the government to indefinitely detain you, no trial, without charging you with anything, and without giving you access to a lawyer. Mussolini and Franco would be jumping with joy if they were in charge of a government with that legal power. The government can now basically do whatever it wants to the American people, and justify it as "fighting terrorism."
     Obama is perfectly clear: He hates the American people. He has declared war on the American people. He could not care less if you died right fucking now.

     4. Obama has increased the debt more during his first 3 years than George Bush did in his entire 8 years.
       Obama loves spending over peoples' money just as much as he hates them. His spending is completely and utterly out of control. We are trillions and trillions of dollars in debt. The deficit is skyrocketing. He  spends more in government handouts, spends more on the military industrial complex, spends more in foreign aid to dictators and terrorists, spends more in bloated government bureaucracies, more More MORE! It's never enough for him, he just has to out-do himself every year. Inflation is rising so much faster than people's wages, it's constantly decreasing peoples' spending power, making them poorer and poorer. He's just running this country into the fucking ground.

 http://www.cbsnews.com/news/national-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/

      5. Has killed hundreds of unarmed innocent civilians through his terroristic drone program, while trying to cover up how many civilians the program has killed. 
       God, does this make my blood boil. I can't stand it. I cannot stand my tax dollars being used to kill unarmed civilians WHO AREN'T FUCKING BOTHERING ANYONE. It's the very definition of terrorism. He is deliberately killing civilians in these countries so these governments will politically do whatever he tells them. It is no different than Al-Qaeda slamming planes into buildings to try and make the US do what it wants. In fact, Obama is worse than Osama Bin Laden could ever hope of being, because the US is a trillion times stronger than a dozen men in a cave. Thus, their capacity to do damage is a trillion times bigger than Al-Qaeda's. The US oppresses and kills more people than Al-Qaeda ever will.
     People try and skirt around this issue. They conveniently don't mention it when they are flattering Obama. Well, just because you don't talk about it, doesn't mean it isn't happening!!!! According to the definition of terrorism, Obama is a terrorist. It is not un-American to say so, in fact, it's in line with our American morals and values to tell the truth, to not judge Obama differently because of his nationality or position. Now matter what race, religion, occupation, or nationality a person is, we have a duty to say that if that person is killing unarmed people on purpose, that person is a terrorist!
      Look at just this one website, with all its examples, all its evidence, all its data on the terroristic drone program. It's completely overwhelming, it leaves no doubt at all. The Obama lovers simply have no response for this: "What? Obama kills innocent people? But....but...liberals like him love everyone!"

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/drones/

      The whole purpose of the program is to kill innocents, so people in Yemen, Pakistan, etc, will get mad at the US. Rightly so, they have every right to take up arms against the US to protect themselves. It is logical and rational, not driven by religious hate, as the neo-cons would have you believe. So when these people attack the US, the neo-cons can stand up and cry "Oh see how they hate us! They won't stop attacking us! We have to spend more on our military empire, more drone strikes, more intervention, more killing, more death, more misery, more suffering, and most of all: MORE AMERICAN TERRORISM! 

     6. Gives money and weapons to dictators, terrorists, and oligarchies, so they can kill even more unarmed people.
     Obama's endless blood-thirst isn't satisfied with the amount of the civilians the US kills directly, oh no, that wouldn't be nearly enough. So he gives billions and billions of dollars every year, our hard earned tax dollars, and gives them to governments, saying "Oh, I know you guys kill civilians on purpose, and oppress your people, and suck their wealth dry, and have a completely incompetent government full of crooks and cronies.....so here's 2 billion dollars to buy more weapons and tanks and missiles and jet fighters with. Have a nice day!"
      Just look at the top ten recipients of US foreign aid in 2012:

 

     
     Is that the type of governments you want running around with weapons bought with your money?! Selling weapons to terrorists is in of itself, an act of terrorism. The majority of these countries have terroristic governments. By definition, the US government is committing an act of terrorism by giving these governments money. Just Google these countries' human rights records and list of war crimes. You can go to HumanRightsWatch.org or AmnestyInternational.org or any of the hundreds of sites you will get in a Google search with any of these countries' human rights record. You could spend days reading all of them. It's sickening. We are financing the suffering of literally millions and millions of people. Why don't more people care? Just because they aren't Americans doesn't make them any less a people than we are. You and I could've just as easily been born in one of these countries as we could've in America.

     7. Supports the fascist NSA and their Orwellian policies and practices.
     Do I even need to say more? Every month or so we get a new revelation about how the NSA tramples all the fuck over our 4th amendment rights. It never stops. Just when you think it couldn't get worse...it does. Again and again. The NSA is the most fascist un-American institution out there. It's all about total and utter control of the American people. It doesn't do what it does to protect you, it doesn't give a flaming fuck about you or me. It just wants one thing: control.
     Here's just a few things the NSA does to you and me on a daily basis:

• Steals your emails, (over 75% of all Internet traffic). 
• Steals your phone calls, (Over 50% of the entire amount of cell phone calls made in the world. Reported by the Washington Post on December 5th , 2013). 
• Infects computers with viruses and malware to get information.
• Infects companies' computers and networks with viruses and malware in retaliation when the company doesn't hand the NSA the information it wants. 
• Bribed companies with millions of dollars to get information.
• Steals your Internet history. 
• Can track your movement via your phone. 
• Spies on foreign citizens, governments, journalists, and other news media. 
• Broke it's own rules about surveillance 2,776 times. (They must be fucking retarded, or they simply don't care. Or probably both. What other company or business would still be running if they broke the rules 2,776 times?!) 
• They intercept computers mid-shipment and install spyware on them. 
• Snoops in on online video games (Oh yeah, gotta catch all those terrorists that play World of Warcraft online all the time huehuehue).
• NSA leaders routinely lie about what they do/what they do not do, and lie about statistics about these programs. 
• Secret courts "authorize" the NSA to do these programs, and the government tries to keep these courts secret so the public won't know what the NSA is authorized to do. 
• Shares American's private information with Israel, (reported by the Guardian on September 11th, 2013).   

And guess what? Even the fucking god-damn piece of shit White House says all of these programs has not prevented a single terrorist attack! (White House panel, reported by NBC news on December 20th, 2013). So for all this bullshit, the program does not even attain the stated goal whatsoever.    
 
     Conclusion

      People love Obama for this sick shit. They think he's the greatest thing to happen since Clinton. They think he honestly cares about the American people, but it's just those nasty Republicans who limit how much good he can do! How the hell can you admire a thief, a terrorist, a thug, a crook, a fascist, a rich elitist scumbag?!   
      Oh, I know the NSA looks at this website. I post provocative, anti-government posts all the time. I know they're all over this. They're probably gonna charge me with some bullshit charge like "online terrorism," even though I've never endorsed violence against civilians, and I has always spoken out against terrorist acts, no matter who the perpetrator is. Even if it's the President himself! Fine, let them spy on me, let them harass me, I don't care. I know I'm doing the right thing by speaking out against terrorism and criminals. If doing that gets me in trouble, then I'll wear it like a badge of honor.
      The stupidity of the American people is the #1 source of suffering for people in the entire world.
     And for you personally Mr. Obama:

FUCK YOU!

       

     

More evidence that the US has a terrorist government

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch recently released a publication that, in essence, shows that the US government is killing a lot more civilians in countries like Pakistan and Yemen that they freely admit.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/security-and-human-rights/drones/will-i-be-next
video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o5GOvAarMc
http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/10/21/us-reassess-targeted-killings-yemen

The numbers speak for themselves:

• In Yemen, Human Rights Watch investigated six selected airstrikes since 2009 and concluded that at least 57 of the 82 people killed were civilians, including a pregnant woman.
• Amnesty International said it found strong evidence that more than 30 civilians were killed in four of the attacks in Pakistan. 
• The groups’ findings coincide with a report released Friday by a U.N. human rights investigator, who estimated that 2,200 people have been killed in drone strikes over the past decade in Pakistan. Of those casualties, at least 400 were civilians and 200 others were “probable noncombatants,” according to the U.N. official, Ben Emmerson. He said the statistics were provided by Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry.
• Amnesty International highlighted a July 6, 2012, drone attack in the village of Zowi Sidgi, near the city of Miran Shah, in which it said 18 civilians — including a 14-year-old boy — were killed. 
• In December 2009, a US cruise missile strike on a Bedouin camp in the southern village of al-Majalah killed 14 alleged AQAP fighters and 41 civilians, two-thirds of them women and children. The attack involved cluster munitions – inherently indiscriminate weapons that pose unacceptable dangers to civilians.

The ages of the victims speak for themselves:

• By the end (of 2 particular drone strikes in Pakistan), 18 people were dead, including at 14-year-old boy, and 22 others were wounded, including an 8-year-old girl.
• It recounts another strike, in October 2012, in which a 68-year-old woman, Mamana Bibi, was blown apart by a drone as she picked vegetables in front of her grandchildren, several of whom were injured in the attack. 

Shakira, a Pakistani girl that was 1 year old when a US drone strike hit her and disfigured her. Was she a terrorist? Was she a future producer of terrorists???

The refusal of responsibility, the lack of transparency, and the arrogance of our government acting like a complete God damn dick speaks for itself:

•  With rare exceptions, the US government only acknowledges its role in targeted killings in general terms, refusing to take responsibility for individual strikes or provide casualty figures, including civilian deaths. The Yemeni authorities have been almost as silent. Both governments declined comment on the six strikes that Human Rights Watch investigated.   
• The six strikes also did not meet US policy guidelines for targeted killings that Obama disclosed in May 2013, Human Rights Watch said. 
•  The U.S. government almost never publicly acknowledges its role in individual drone strikes, and its legal justifications for targeting specific people are shrouded in secrecy. 
•  But in virtually all cases, the groups said, it was impossible to know whether the targets had met Obama’s threshold of posing an imminent threat to the United States, because U.S. officials have kept that information a secret.

The aftermath of a Pakistani wedding, bombed by an American drone. If this happened at your wedding, wouldn't you be PISSED OFF?!

What is the definition of terrorism? That's right, killing unarmed civilians. That's what the US is doing, and has been doing for centuries. It's time to get people out of their comfort zones. People feel uncomfortable talking about the crimes that their country's soldiers do, or admitting that they aren't 100% perfect little angels. Fuck your uncomfortableness. People are dying by the thousands because of the American peoples' lazy inaction. The American people could easily solve 90% of the nation's problems by simply voting third party, but no, they still vote for Republicans and Democrats, while both parties are working tirelessly day and night to ruin us.

Look at the facts, look at the stats, look at history, look at peoples' stories. The US HAS A TERRORIST GOVERNMENT. Our American values compel us to get rid of this fucking government as fast as possible, any way we can. Our government is an insult to it's people. It kills innocents on purpose to rile up the friends and families of those killed, so they can justify their one-sided war to get more power and resources.  People have the right to be mad at America. People have the right to fight against America, because America has killed their innocents. If someone killed your wife/husband/son/daughter, wouldn't you think it would be justified if you fought back and killed the murderer?

Afghani children, killed by an American airstrike. Why do we sit in silence when our soldiers kill innocents, yet we constantly demand that citizens of other countries condemn their terrorists? Do not ask someone to do something that you are unwilling to do yourself.

Simply saying basic sentences about the US government will make it easier and more comfortable for you to talk about these concepts. Stating "People have the right to take up arms against America" starts the conversation. We need to have these painful conversations. Yes, it's uncomfortable to talk about these concepts, but the government has pushed this on itself.  Only then can we work towards purging the terrorists out of our government.

Oh, America isn't the only one to blame for this. Drone strikes require the approval of the country it's happening in, otherwise, they would attack our drones with their Air Force or ground to air defenses. But they don't. They let America kill their citizens. The Pakistani and Yemeni are corrupt, self-centered oligarchies that do not care about the well-being of their citizens. They oppress them, denying them the most basic of human rights. Those governments need to be overthrown just as much as America's government needs to be. Without "foreign aid," aka, bribery, from the US, (paid by us, the taxpayers), these governments would not last a month. They're simply puppet governments that allow the US to do what it wants in their country.