The End of the American Century?

[sonnyt111]

If it's true that Michael Brown assaulted officer Darren Wilson, then perhaps Michael Brown was a bully who took advantage of his size to intimidate people. The medical report on the extent of officer Wilson's injuries will be crucial in determining whether or not he was justified in using lethal force against Michael Brown.

 

http://www.foxnews.c...wn-says-source/

 

Darren Wilson, the Ferguson, Mo., police officer whose fatal shooting of Michael Brown touched off more than a week of demonstrations, suffered severe facial injuries including a bone fracture near one eye and was nearly beaten unconscious by Brown moments before firing his gun, a source close to the department's top brass told FoxNews.com.

 

"The Assistant (Police) Chief took him to the hospital, his face all swollen on one side," said the insider. "He was beaten very severely."

 

ADVERTISEMENT

 

According to the well-placed source, Wilson was coming off another case in the neighborhood on Aug. 9 when he ordered Michael Brown and his friend Dorain Johnson to stop walking in the middle of the road because they were obstructing traffic. However, the confrontation quickly escalated into physical violence, the source said.

 

"They ignored him and the officer started to get out of the car to tell them to move," the source said. "They shoved him right back in, that's when Michael Brown leans in and starts beating Officer Wilson in the head and the face."

 

The precise extent of Wilson's injuries are unclear. The source told FoxNews.com on Wednesday that the officer had sustained a fractured eye socket in the incident, and repeated that assertion early Friday morning, in response to a conflicting report on the severity of the injuries.

 

The source claims that there is "solid proof" that there was a struggle between Brown and Wilson for the policeman's firearm, resulting in the gun going off – although it still remains unclear at this stage who pulled the trigger. Brown started to walk away according to the account, prompting Wilson to draw his gun and order him to freeze. Brown, the source said, raised his hands in the air, and turned around saying, "What, you're going to shoot me?"

 

At that point, the source told FoxNews.com, the 6-foot-4, 292-pound Brown charged Wilson, prompting the officer to fire at least six shots at him, including the fatal bullet that penetrated the top of Brown's skull, according to an independent autopsy conducted at the request of Brown's family.

 

Wilson was left dazed by the initial confrontation, the source said. He is now "traumatized, scared for his life and his family, injured and terrified" that a grand jury, which began hearing evidence on Wednesday, will "make some kind of example out of him," the source said.

 

The source also said the dashboard and body cameras, which might have recorded crucial evidence, had been ordered by Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson, but had only recently arrived and had not yet been deployed.

 

A spokesman for the St. Louis County Police Department, citing the ongoing investigation, declined late Wednesday to say whether Wilson required medical treatment following the altercation.

 

Edward Magee, spokesman for St. Louis County Prosecutor Robert McCullough, said the office will not disclose the nature of the evidence it will reveal to a grand jury.

 

"We'll present every piece of evidence we have, witness statements, et cetera, to the grand jury, and we do not release any evidence or talk about evidence on the case."

 

Nabil Khattar, CEO of 7Star Industries – which specializes in firearms training for law enforcement and special operations personnel – confirmed that police are typically instructed to use deadly force if in imminent danger of being killed or suffering great bodily injury.

 

"You may engage a threat with enough force that is reasonably necessary to defend against that danger," he said.

 

Wilson is a six-year veteran of the Ferguson police force department, and has no prior disciplinary infringements.

 

Massive protests have since taken over the St. Louis community, prompting Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon last Thursday to place Highway Patrol Capt. Ron Johnson at the helm of security operations in an effort to calm ongoing tensions. The federal government is also investigating the death, and Attorney General Eric Holder has taken the lead – calling "the selective release of sensitive information" in the case "troubling."

 

On Friday, Ferguson police released surveillance video showing Brown stealing cigars from a convenience store just before his death. Jackson came under intense criticism for disclosing the tape and a related police report as he also insisted that the alleged robbery and the encounter with Wilson were unrelated matters. Brown's family, through their attorney, suggested the tape's release was a strategic form of "character assassination."

 

However, FoxNews.com's source insisted that there was absolutely no spin agenda behind the tape's release and that there were a number of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) media requests filed by media outlets seeking it. Tom Jackson is said to have waited on publicly releasing it, and did not want it shown until Brown's grieving mother first had the chance to see it.

 

"He defied the FOIAs as long as he could," noted the insider. "A powerful, ugly spin has completely ruined public discourse on this whole situation."

[Bugatti Veyron]

 

Present day Americans may have a "politically correct" mindset. It doesn't mean, however, that bigotry and discrimination are things of the past.

 

http://edition.cnn.c...lice/index.html

 

 

This doesn't happen to white people

By Kimberly NorwoodAugust 25, 2014 -- Updated 1330 GMT (2130 HKT)

 

 

Editor's note: Kimberly Norwood is a law professor at the Washington University School of Law and editor and co-contributor of "Color Matters: Skin Tone Bias and the Myth of a Post Racial America." The opinions in this commentary are solely those of the writer.

 

(CNN) -- I am a 54-year-old black woman -- a mother, lawyer and law professor. I teach at the Washington University in St. Louis Law School and live 12 miles away from Ferguson, Missouri.

 

The median household income in my suburb is $85,000 per year. In Ferguson, it is $36,000. In my suburb, 3.5% of the people are black. In Ferguson, almost 70% are black. These are stark contrasts. Yet I share things in common with black people in Ferguson and, indeed, throughout the United States.

 

When I shop, I'm often either ignored as a waste of time or scrutinized as a potential shoplifter. In June, my daughter and I walked into the china and crystal department at a Macy's department store. I was about to speak to the salesperson directly in front of me. She walked right past me to welcome the white woman behind us.

 

My daughter looked at me and said: "Really? Did she just ignore us?" My daughter is a young teenager at the crossroads of "skin color doesn't matter" and "oh yes, it does." She is in transition. I felt hurt, anger and embarrassment.

 

But this kind of encounter happens routinely.

 

Driving, I tend to have a bit of a lead foot -- hitting 45 in a 35 mph zone. The few times I have been stopped in my suburb, the first question I'm asked is whether I live "around here." Not one of my white friends has been asked that question when they were pulled over by a police officer.

 

Last summer, my teenage daughter was shopping with four white friends at a mall in an affluent St. Louis suburb. As they left the store, two mall security guards approached my daughter. They told her the store had called them and reported her as a shoplifter, and asked her to come with them. After a search, they found she had nothing. So far in her young life, mall security guards have stopped her on suspicion of shoplifting three times. Each time she was innocent.

 

I also have three sons. My two oldest are 22. They are 6-foot-5 and 6-foot-4 and each weighs more than 220 pounds. One recently graduated from college; the other will graduate in 2015. The youngest is 13. All three like to wear jeans and the latest sneakers. They love hoodies. They like looking cool. These three young men have never been arrested or even been in a fight at school.

 

Every time my sons leave the house, I worry about their safety. One of my sons loves to go out at night to clubs. I worry about potential unrest at the clubs -- yes, black-on-black crime is a problem, and despite what many people think, black people complain about it all the time in their communities and churches and in newspapers and on radio stations.

 

I also worry about his drive home and his being stopped by police.

 

The data in Ferguson are an example of the larger picture in the St. Louis County area. Police stop, search and arrest black people at a disproportionate rate, even though they are less likely to possess contraband than white people.

 

This son of mine who likes to go out at night is big and tall and he has brown skin. He graduated from college in May but cannot find employment. He is an intelligent, clean-cut young man.

 

But the negative stereotypes automatically assigned to his skin color follow him everywhere, even in job interviews, like extra weight. It reminds me of the airline employee who asks before you can check your suitcase: Did a stranger ask you to carry something or pack your bag? In my son's case, the answer is yes. He is carrying extra weight, unfairly, and without his knowledge or consent, packed in his luggage.

 

A few years ago my husband and I went on a cruise. My older boys were teenagers at the time and were taking summer enrichment classes at a school about a mile from our home. They planned to walk to school in the morning. At the top of a long list of things to do before we left for our trip was "e-mail chief of police."

 

I explained to the chief that my husband and I were going on a cruise, I was a member of the community and that my two sons would be walking to school. I attached pictures of the boys, explaining that only a couple of black families lived in the neighborhood. My sons did not normally walk in the neighborhood, so they would draw attention.

 

I offered to bring my sons to the police department so officers could meet them. The police chief and I met and all went well.

 

But I've asked myself: How many parents of white sons have thought to add to their to-do-before-leaving-town list, "Write letter to local police department, introducing sons and attaching photos, so police do not become suspicious and harass them"?

 

Even though my older boys are men, I still worry about them. I worry about my 13-year-old. This worry is a stressful, and sadly normal, part of my daily existence. My youngest will be 6 feet tall in the coming weeks. He has brown skin.

 

These young black men have arrows pointed and ready to shoot at them daily -- black-on-black crime, police encounters, societal bias and mistrust. Shortly after the Michael Brown shooting, I met with a group of my 13-year-old's black male friends to explain to them what happened in Ferguson, and what to do and how to respond if they are ever stopped by the police. My words reminded me of stories and fears my grandfather used to share with me about his encounters with police during the Jim Crow era.

 

These are just a few of the many ways in which people in America are treated differently based on the color of their skin. This has been going on for a long time. I hope the events in Ferguson will encourage people to see the stark differences in the experiences of black people -- not just black people who struggle economically but also black people like me -- and white people as they go about their routine, daily lives.

 

 

 

 

 

[oscartamaguchiblackface]

This is just plain STUPID!!!

 

 

Police Officer Will Not Be Charged For Killing Napster Exec While Texting And Driving — Because It's Apparently OK For Police To Do That

http://media.zenfs.com/284/2011/06/08/biz-insider-65x27_102440.gif By Jim Edwards 21 hours ago

 

Los Angeles County sheriff's deputy Andrew Wood will not be charged for fatally running over former Napster COO Milton Olin Jr. in his patrol car while the officer was typing a message into his computer.

 

We first saw the news on Valleywag, but there is good coverage in the Daily News and LAist.

 

The instance exposes the different way that law enforcement officials are treated versus civilians in cases where a person is killed because of texting while driving.

 

It's illegal to text and drive in California; the state has a specific law against it. Civilians caught doing it can expect to face charges. But a report from the Los Angeles District Attorney's office shows that the rules may be applied differently to cops.

 

The incident involving Olin and Wood happened in December 2013 in Calabasas, California. Olin, a key figure at the peer-to-peer music-sharing company that pioneered the online music download industry, was cycling in the bicycle lane when he was killed instantly by Wood's patrol car.

 

Wood drifted into the bicycle lane while typing a reply to a colleague who wanted to know whether any other officers were required to attend a fire reported at a high school he had just left. He was trying to tell the other officer that no further backup was needed.

 

 

The Los Angeles District Attorney's report into the incident says that even though it is illegal to text and drive, Wood was not negligent because police officers are expected to respond quickly to messages from colleagues:

 

LA County District Attorney's Office

 

Wood had also been texting his wife from his personal phone minutes before the crash, but those texts were not thought to have contributed to Wood's inattention while driving, the DA's office said.

 

In a statement taken at the scene, Wood claimed that Olin had veered into his lane. The DA reported that the opposite was true.

 

Deputy who killed ex-Napster COO will not be charged b/c he was answering work email http://t.co/cbtnJdtzxU pic.twitter.com/ikk50MQmmD

 

— daniel (@cyclingreporter) August 28, 2014

 

 

Many of Los Angeles' cyclists are furious at the lack of charges, according to the LAist. "To say biking advocates are unhappy with the DA's decision to not press charges is an understatement."

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/police-officer-not-charged-killing-095951755.html

 

 

 

 

[Ryuji_tanaka]

 

Forget “Peak Oil” and “Peak Credit” … Are We On the Downslope of “Peak Intelligence”?

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-08-27/forget-%E2%80%9Cpeak-oil%E2%80%9D-and-%E2%80%9Cpeak-credit%E2%80%9D-%E2%80%A6-are-we-downslope-%E2%80%9Cpeak-intelligence%E2%80%9D

America dumbs down

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/america-dumbs-down/

[maddromeo]

Since George W. Bush sneaked in the Patriot Act thus creating the Dept. of Homeland Security America became a Police State ala Martial Law! I myself have personal experience to this... random pullovers by Police on motorist who "fit" the stereotypes of a nuisance to society! Spying on their own citizens and foreign countries increased! Police Brutality has always been in America before the Patriot Act! Watts & LA riots and during the Civil Rights Movements in the 60's-70's. America already reached its peak and cant sustain its international endeavors, like every empire it ultimately has its own end! I wouldn't be surprised if some key states secede from USA, Texas has been vocal about this since 2008. US Government already preparing itself for a civil war thus arming the Police with surplus Military equipment like we've seen in Ferguson. Militias, Veterans and some Civil societies defending their 2nd amendment which is the right to bear arms to protect themselves from a tyrant federal government! Only time can tell & lets hope for a peace full transition...

[Bugatti Veyron]

Since George W. Bush sneaked in the Patriot Act thus creating the Dept. of Homeland Security America became a Police State ala Martial Law! I myself have personal experience to this... random pullovers by Police on motorist who "fit" the stereotypes of a nuisance to society! Spying on their own citizens and foreign countries increased! Police Brutality has always been in America before the Patriot Act! Watts & LA riots and during the Civil Rights Movements in the 60's-70's. America already reached its peak and cant sustain its international endeavors, like every empire it ultimately has its own end! I wouldn't be surprised if some key states secede from USA, Texas has been vocal about this since 2008. US Government already preparing itself for a civil war thus arming the Police with surplus Military equipment like we've seen in Ferguson. Militias, Veterans and some Civil societies defending their 2nd amendment which is the right to bear arms to protect themselves from a tyrant federal government! Only time can tell & lets hope for a peace full transition...

Should there be terrorist attacks by ISIS on the US, expect such a scenario to be fulfilled.

[maxiev]

Here are some of the new weapons America is using against hostile forces.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-players-abc-news/technologies-once-available-only-in-movies-are-now-a-reality-for-the-us-navy-225652354.html

[sonnyt111]

China Just Overtook The US As The World's Largest Economy

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/china-just-overtook-us-worlds-090801574.html

 

 

 

 

 

[Bugatti Veyron]

https://autos.yahoo.com/news/how-cops-take-millions-from-motorists-not-charged-with-crimes-215603712.html

 

How cops take millions from motorists not charged with crimes

By Nick Sibilla October 7, 2014 5:56 PM

 

John Yoder and Brad Cates, who headed the Asset Forfeiture Office at the U.S. Department of Justice from 1983 to 1989, slammed civil forfeiture as a “complete corruption” and “fundamentally at odds with our judicial system and notions of fairness,” in an op-ed for The Washington Post. Thanks to civil forfeiture laws, police and prosecutors don’t need to charge someone with a crime to seize and keep their property. Yoder and Cates “were heavily involved in the creation of the asset forfeiture initiative at the Justice Department,” they write, but after seeing civil forfeiture become a “gross perversion of the status of government amid a free citizenry,” the two now believe it should be “abolished.”

 

Their criticisms come on the heels of an extensive, three-part investigation by The Washington Post into highway interdiction. Since 9/11, without warrants and despite a lack of criminal charges, law enforcement nationwide has taken in $2.5 billion from 61,998 cash seizures under equitable sharing. This federal civil forfeiture program lets local and state law enforcement literally make a federal case out of a seizure, if they collaborate with a federal agency. Not only can they then bypass state forfeiture laws, they can pocket up to 80 percent of the proceeds. So of that $2.5 billion seized through equitable sharing, local and state authorities kept $1.7 billion for their own uses.

 

In order to seize cash, police typically pulled drivers over for minor traffic infractions. During the stop, police would look for “indicators” of suspicious, criminal activity. Tinted windows, air fresheners, trash in the car, “a profusion of energy drinks,” “a driver who is too talkative or too quiet” and signs of nervousness have all been considered indicators. For one Florida sheriff, “cars obeying the speed limit were suspect—their desire to avoid being stopped made them stand out.”

 

On the grounds that a driver is sufficiently suspicious, police then have the authority to search the car with a drug dog. If the dog alerts (and there are significant concerns about their accuracy), police then have probable cause to seize property owned by the driver. After police seized cash, the government usually wins: The Washington Post found that out of nearly 62,000 cash seizures since 9/11, in only 4,455 cases—seven percent—did the government agree to return at least a portion of the money taken.

 

Vincent Costello was one of them. Driving down to fix up a home in Florida with his girlfriend, the two were pulled over in May 2010 by Deputy Mason Ashby for a cracked windshield. During the stop, Ashby claimed he smelled marijuana and searched the van. No drugs were found. But the deputy did find over $30,000 in cash. Ashby contacted another deputy, a member of a regional DEA task force. Despite the pesky fact that they didn’t find any drugs, police seized all of Costello’s cash.

 

After he hired an attorney, the government offered to settle his case. But Costello would only get half of his money back. With his legal fees topping $9,000, Costello kept just $7,000—less than a quarter of what was originally seized. “Why would [they] give anything back if they thought you were guilty?” he told The Washington Post.

 

Since equitable sharing is a federal program, it can be very difficult to prevent law enforcement from participating, even in states that have strong protections for property owners. In Utah, voters, by a margin of 2:1, overwhelmingly backed an initiative that overhauled the state’s civil forfeiture laws and sharply curtailed involvement in equitable sharing in 2000. Under these short-lived reforms, just $3,357 was transferred to Utah in fiscal year 2002 through equitable sharing. One year later, that number was $0.

 

Undaunted, law enforcement lobbied heavily and convinced state lawmakers to pass a bill in 2004, weakening the initiative. It had been the first time since the 1960s that the Utah legislature had overturned a citizen ballot initiative. With the reforms gutted, Utah law enforcement could continue to police for profit. Over the past two years, Utah law enforcement has received over $2.8 million from equitable sharing.

 

The lure of equitable sharing is even more pronounced in North Carolina, the only state without civil forfeiture. Law enforcement there can only take property after a person has been convicted of a crime and gain nothing after a property has been forfeited. Yet by partnering with federal agencies, police in North Carolina are doing an end-run around state law. They’ve done so with gusto, seizing over $130 million under equitable sharing, the fifth most of any state. Of that, North Carolina law enforcement kept $96.9 million.

 

While the Post investigation focused on highway interdiction, civil forfeiture is by no means limited to drivers. The Institute for Justice has represented a motel owner in Massachusetts, a California landlord, grocery store owners in Michigan, and just launched a major class-action lawsuit on behalf of homeowners in Philadelphia.

 

Across the country, 298 departments and 210 task forces, ranging from tiny Estelline, Tex. to Philadelphia, have seized the equivalent of at least 20 percent of their budgets. Police departments have become “dependent, if not addicted to that revenue stream,” noted Norm Stamper, former Seattle Chief of Police and now an advisory board member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. “It’s when that revenue becomes a line item in next year’s budget that you’re dealing with I think a corrupt practice,” he added.

 

The notion that civil forfeiture can be a perverse incentive is further bolstered by a new IJ report, “Bad Apples or Bad Laws?” Using experimental economics, researchers at Chapman University created a video game that split participants into two groups: red for sheriffs, blue for citizens. When rules were in place that mimicked civil forfeiture, sheriffs took more property.

 

These takings also fostered ill will between the two groups, with blue participants making comments like “he has too much power,” “red has no incentive to help us” and “some reds just wanna see the world burn.” Likewise, civil forfeiture is overwhelmingly unpopular.

 

Prospects for reform are starting to brighten. Earlier this year, Minnesota enacted a landmark law that requires a criminal conviction or its equivalent before the government can forfeit property. In Congress, Sen. Rand Paul has proposed the Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration (FAIR) Act, which would largely end equitable sharing. Similarly, in the House, Rep. Tim Walberg has sponsored a bill that, in his words, would require the U.S. Attorney General “to certify that equitable-sharing agreements are not entered into simply to get around state laws that would prohibit a forfeiture.”

 

Police are sworn to protect the public, not to profiteer. “The police belong to the people,” remarked Stamper. “Not the other way around.”

[sonnyt111]

https://www.yahoo.com/parenting/7-things-i-can-do-that-my-black-son-cant-99408985077.html

 

 

7 Things I Can Do That My Black Son Can’t

Calvin Hennick October 27, 2014

 

The writer with his son. Photo courtesy of Calvin Hennick.

 

In the days after the Michael Brown shooting, I wrote an essay titled “I Hope My Son Stays White,” detailing my fears about what might happen to my biracial three-year-old son if he grows up to have dark skin. The upshot: America, to its shame, is still a place where black males are feared, and I don’t want that fear to turn itself on my son in a way that leads to his arrest or death.

 

I published the piece on Ebony.com, and the reactions from black readers ranged from “sad but true” to allegations that I myself was engaging in the very racism and colorism that I was decrying. But buried among these was a comment from a white reader who accused me of “sucking up to black folk” and then went on to list the supposed advantages of being black in America. (Apparently, according to this reader, my son will have an unearned fast track to a career as an air traffic controller. Um, okay?)

 

I can’t help but think that, if the essay had been published in an outlet with a larger white readership, many more commenters would have chimed in to deny the continued existence of racism. In my experience, white people (and straight people, and male people, and Christian people — all groups of which I’m a member) tend to dismiss the notion that we’re privileged. It’s an uncomfortable thing to acknowledge that you’re the recipient of unfair benefits, especially when those benefits are often nearly invisible to those who receive them.

 

But when you’re a parent, those privileges stop being invisible. It’s the reason why male congressmen with daughters are more likely to support women’s issues. It’s the reason why Ohio Sen. Rob Portman suddenly declared his support for same-sex marriage after his son came out as gay. And it’s the reason why, everywhere I look, I see hassles that my son will have to face that I don’t. Here’s a partial list of things I can take for granted, but which will likely be problematic for my son:

 

1. I Can Walk Through a Store Without Being Followed

 

To take one high-profile instance, Macy’s and the city of New York recently settled with actor Robert Brown, who was handcuffed, humiliated, and accused of committing credit card fraud after buying an expensive watch at the store.

 

I never have to worry about this happening to me.

 

2. I Can Succeed Without It Being Attributed to My Race

 

When my wife, who is black, received her acceptance letter from Boston College, a peer told her she must have gotten in due to affirmative action, effectively ruining the experience of receiving the letter.

 

When I succeed, people assume I’ve earned it.

 

3. I Learned About My Ancestors’ History in School

 

I can tell you all about Louis XIV, Socrates, and the Magna Carta, but I always wondered when we would finally learn about African history (beyond Pharaohs and pyramids). The subject never came up.

 

4. I Can Lose My Temper in Traffic

 

Once, an acquaintance who got into a confrontation while driving told me how scared she was of the other driver, describing him as a “big black guy.” When I get heated, no one attributes it to my race.

 

5. I Can Loiter in Wealthy Neighborhoods

 

No one has ever called the cops on me to report a “suspicious person.” My wife can’t say the same.

 

6. I Can Complain About Racism

 

When I point out that black people are incarcerated at alarming rates, or largely forced to send their children to underperforming schools, or face systemic discrimination when searching for jobs and housing, no one accuses me of “playing the race card.”

 

7. I Can Count on Being Met on My Own Terms

 

If I’m being treated poorly, I don’t stop and think about whether it’s due to my race. But unless we somehow make a giant leap forward, my son will always have to wonder.

 

Recently, I became a father for the second time. My daughter, only three months old, will grow up to face many of the same challenges as my son, on top of the extra ones that come with being a woman: the struggle for equal pay, the catcalling, the constant threat of sexual assault.

 

I don’t want to give my children a complex about all of this, but I can’t wish these problems away, either. I can’t eliminate all the unfair hurdles that exist in the world. I can only do my best to raise kids who are able to jump over them.

 

 

 

[sonnyt111]

At least our BIR doesn't do this.

 

http://theweek.com/article/index/270692/speedreads-irs-seizes-womans-entire-savings-because-she-deposits-less-than-10000-at-a-time

 

https://screen.yahoo.com/law-lets-irs-seize-citizens-095939155.html

 

 

 

[maxiev]

It seems to me that the majority of the American public don't like Obama after the Republicans took control of both house of Congress.

Perhaps the next US President will also come from the Republican party. Even Democrats don't want to be associated with Obama.

[sonnyt111]

http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/the-five-worst-presidents-all-time-9671

 

 

5 Worst U.S. Presidents of All Time

http://nationalinterest.org/files/styles/main_image_on_posts/public/main_images/12241962786_641dba51a3_b_0.jpg?itok=AnckMgwn

Robert W. Merry November 5, 2014

 

 

 

 

In the spring of 2006, midway through George W. Bush’s second presidential term, Princeton historian Sean Wilentz published a piece in Rolling Stone that posed a provocative question: Was Bush the worst president ever? He said the best-case scenario for Bush was "colossal historical disgrace’’ and added: "Many historians are now wondering whether Bush, in fact, will be remembered as the very worst president in all of American history."

 

The Wilentz assessment was probably a bit premature. It is difficult to judge any president’s historical standing while he still sits in the Oval Office, when political passions of the day are swirling around him with such intensity. And yet the Founding Fathers, in creating our system of government, invited all of us to assess our elected leaders on an ongoing basis, and so interim judgments are fair game, however harsh or favorable.

 

Which raises a question for today: How will Barack Obama be viewed in history? Will he be among the greats? Or will he fall into the category of faltering failures?

 

Before we delve into that question, perhaps some discussion would be in order on what in fact constitutes presidential failure and how we arrive at historical assessments of it. First, consider the difference between failure of omission and failure of commission. The first is when a president fails to deal with a crisis thrust upon him by events beyond his control. James Buchanan, Abraham Lincoln’s predecessor, comes to mind. He didn’t create the slavery crisis that threatened to engulf the nation. Yet he proved incapable of dealing with it in any effective way. In part this was because he was a man who lacked character and hence couldn’t get beyond his own narrow political interests as the country he was charged with leading slipped ever deeper into crisis. And in part this was simply because he lacked the tools to grapple effectively with such a massive threat to the nation.

 

But, whatever the underlying contributors to his failure, there is no denying that his was a failed presidency. It was a failure of omission.

 

A failure of commission is when a president actually generates the crisis through his own wrong-headed actions. That could describe Woodrow Wilson in his second term, from 1917 to 1921. He not only manipulated neutrality policies to get the United States into World War I but he then used the war as an excuse to transform American society in ways that proved highly deleterious. He nationalized the telegraph, telephone and railroad industries, along with the distribution of coal. The government undertook the direct construction of merchant ships and bought and sold farm goods. A military draft was instituted. Individual and corporate income tax rates surged. Dissent was suppressed by the notorious Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer, who vigorously prosecuted opposition voices under severe new laws.

 

One result from many of these policies was that the economy flipped out of control. Inflation surged into double-digit territory. Gross Domestic Product plummeted nearly 6.5 percent in two years. Racial and labor riots spread across the land. The American people responded with a harsh electoral judgment, rejecting Wilson’s Democratic Party at the next election and giving Warren G. Harding, hardly a distinguished personage, fully 60.3 percent of the popular vote. In addition, Republicans picked up sixty-three House seats and eleven in the Senate. The country has seen few political repudiations of such magnitude.

 

That’s failure of commission. Although historians have given Wilson a far higher ranking in academic polls than he would seem to deserve, it’s difficult to argue with the collective electorate when it delivers such a harsh judgment. If we assume that our system works, then the electoral assessment must be credited with at least some degree of seriousness.

 

Getting back to George W. Bush, his foreign policy would almost have to be considered a failure, and it was a failure of commission. He wasn’t responsible for the 9/11 attack in any meaningful way, of course, but his response—sending the U.S. military into the lands of Islam with the mission of remaking Islamic societies in the image of Western democracy—was delusional and doomed. One need only read today’s headlines, with forces aligned with Al Qaeda taking over significant swaths of territory within Iraq, to see Bush’s failure in stark relief.

 

In addition, Bush’s wars sapped resources and threw the nation’s budget into deficit. The president made no effort to inject fiscal austerity into governmental operations, eschewing his primary weapon of budgetary discipline, the veto pen. The national debt shot up, and economic growth began a steady decline, culminating in negative growth in the 2008 campaign year. The devastating financial crisis erupted on his watch.

 

It’s difficult to avoid the conclusion that Bush belongs in the category of the country’s five worst presidents, along with such perennial bottom-dwellers, in the academic polls, as Buchanan, Franklin Pierce and Millard Fillmore. Harding also occupies that territory in these polls, but it’s difficult to credit such an assessment, given that he quickly dealt successfully with all the problems bequeathed to him by Wilson and presided over robust economic growth and relative societal stability.

 

Thus do we come to one man’s assessment (mine) of the five worst presidents of our heritage (in ascending order): Buchanan, Pierce, Wilson, G. W. Bush and Fillmore.

 

Is it conceivable that Obama could descend to such a reputational depth? It depends, in large measure, on the outcome of the effort to salvage and bolster the president’s profoundly troubled Affordable Care Act. There’s no doubt that, in domestic policy, the Obama presidency will be defined by that single issue. And, if it destabilizes the nation’s health-care system and the overall economy to the extent that some are predicting, the president’s historical reputation will be severely affected. And this failure, if it emerges, will be viewed as one of commission, not of omission.

 

On the other hand, if the Obamacare system is righted and the country ultimately manages to transition smoothly into a new health-care era, the president’s historical reputation will be salvaged. As it appears now, absent some powerful new development in American politics (which never can be ruled out), Obama’s historical standing will rise or fall with Obamacare.

 

But one thing we know: Neither the judgment of history nor the judgment of the electorate will be rendered with any degree of sentiment or sympathy. As Lincoln said, "Fellow citizens, we cannot escape history. We…will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance, or insignificance, can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation."

 

 

[Bugatti Veyron]

Is America the greatest country ?

 

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=485015298234731

 

 

 

[Ryuji_tanaka]

 

It Will Take 6.25 BILLION “Man Years” To Pay Off Federal Government Liabilities: “A Mathematical Impossibility”

 

http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/it-will-take-6-25-billion-man-years-to-pay-off-federal-government-liabilities-a-mathematical-impossibility_10312014

 

 

What Does Societal Collapse and Martial Law Look Like?

 

http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/what-does-societal-collapse-and-martial-law-look-like_11042014

 

 

Could Collapse At Anytime: “When It Ends, All Hell Is Going To Break Loose”

 

http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/could-collapse-at-anytime-when-it-ends-all-hell-is-going-to-break-loose_11032014

 

 

Economist: Financial Collapse Will Cause Civil Unrest to Erupt In America By 2016

 

http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/economist-financial-collapse-will-cause-civil-unrest-to-erupt-in-america-by-2016_11072014

 

 

National Economic Suicide: The U.S. Trade Deficit With China Just Hit A New Record High

 

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/national-economic-suicide-the-u-s-trade-deficit-with-china-sets-a-new-record-high