Rapper Lupe Fiasco Talks Terrorism

Never even heard of Lupe Fiasco until I saw him recently on TV. Then I read about him on the Grio blog and wondered in amazement at his remarks and lack of political acumen. Power to the people???

Excerpts from the Grio Blog post

In the world of socially conscious hip-hop emcees, you've got your key players: Common, White House favorite and sort of a white-bread-kente-cloth-let's-all-get-along type; Mos Def, an outspoken motor mouth and Real Time with Bill Maher favorite; and then lesser knowns like Dead Prez, a duo who never quite reached critical mass, but maintain dreams of militant social justice.
Rapper Lupe Fiasco threw his hat into the political emcee ring from jump, broadly expressing his anti-establishment views, and rhyming on topics like the trials and travails of single-motherhood, and the delusions of gangsta greatness. He set himself apart from the typical rapper by avoiding vulgar language (including the normative "bitch" and "ho"), and proudly proclaiming his Muslim faith. His unique qualities attracted a firm fanbase, fellow intelligentsia and aspiring world changers who saw Lupe as a beacon of hope in the often shallow and vapid culture of hip-hop.

But can a rapper be too political? Lupe's latest comments may leave some fans thinking he's gone off the deep end. On a recent TV appearance, Lupe called President Obama "the biggest terrorist in the United States of America."

Lupe appeared on CBS' What's Trending to talk about his recent work, and when the conversation turned to his politically charged single "Words I Never Said," Lupe clarified his political beliefs. "My fight against terrorism, to me," Lupe began, "the biggest terrorist is Obama in the United States of America. I'm trying to fight the terrorism that's causing the other forms of terrorism."

But then it got worse. As Lupe continued to spout his disappointments in U.S. foreign policies, the interviewer asked who he'd be voting for in the upcoming 2012 election.
"No, I don't vote," he said. "I don't get involved in politics. It's meaningless."
Huh? Watch the five minute clip to hear the full political rant, but even in live person it doesn't come off much better -- Lupe's beliefs are extreme, borderline offensive, and somewhat illogical. So could calling the president a terrorist run Lupe's career into the ground?

Read more at The Grio Blog

Newsweek Cover-Mitt Romney

I'm wondering about the current Newsweek magazine cover of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.  Is there a hidden message?  Is this a political statement? Does it mirror Newsweek's support or lack of it for Romney's candidacy?  Is this a proper cover for a serious news source addressing a legitimate presidential candidate?

It seems wrong to me.  It's negative.  It ridicules.  It earmarks Romney's religious affiliation and pokes subtle fun at it and him.  Etc., etc. etc.  What do you think about the cover or did you give it any thought at all.

Related articles

• PHOTOS: Newsweek's Eye-Catching Mitt Romney Cover (huffingtonpost.com)
• Newsweek's Offensive Mormon Cover (oliverwillis.com)

Political Sex Scandals-Shame, Shame

Image via Wikipedia

Here a post from Politics of an Ebony Mom Blog on a subject that we are all buzzing about. Thought I'd share it with you and get your thoughts.

John Edwards, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Mark Sanford, John Ensign, David Vitter, Elliot Spitzer, Jim McGreevey, Bill Clinton and Anthony Weiner. What do all of these men have in common. They were powerful men, and they are all politicians who lost it all over some kind of sexual fling. Some had real affairs, one had virtual affairs, one is a “baby daddy” and all of them betrayed their wives and their constituents. They risked it all.

Image via Wikipedia

Did they think they would never get caught. Some managed a comeback, but some are still wondering in the wilderness. Were they simply too egotistical to believe they would ever get caught? Who knows what goes on in their minds, but them. We can only wonder why.

Read the "Related Articles" below for thoughts from other bloggers.

Related articles

• I'm Sorry, A Political Medley (patspapers.com)
• David Vitter, Eliot Spitzer, John Edwards, Jon Ensign, Mark Sanford, Chris Lee, and Now Arnold Schwarzenegger and Anthony Weiner: The Disposition Is Weaker than the Situation (thesituationist.wordpress.com)
• Republican Hypocrisy on Weiner [Dispatches from the Culture Wars] (scienceblogs.com)
• Why Push Weiner Out But Not Vitter? (politicalwire.com)
• The Look of Shame (fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com)
• City Room: That Look, That Weiner-Spitzer-Clinton Look (cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com)

Federal Reserve Governor Nominee Withdraws

Image by Getty Images via @daylife

 Nobel Prize winner Peter Diamond said on Sunday he planned to withdraw as a nominee for Federal Reserve governor, after his nomination was repeatedly opposed by Republicans.  Diamond, an economics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote in an opinion piece published in the New York Times titled "When a Nobel Prize isn't enough."



Diamond's initial nomination fizzled when the Senate adjourned in December without acting on it. When Obama resubmitted the nomination in January to the newly convened Senate, the Republicans held six additional seats. That was expected to make the confirmation process more difficult.

Senate Republicans blocked a floor vote on Diamond's confirmation and have questioned his practical experience and research. The top Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, Richard Shelby, has criticized Diamond, saying he lacks monetary policy experience. Diamond is considered an authority on Social Security, pensions and taxation. He shared the Nobel Prize in economics that was awarded in October, with Diamond saying that his portion of the prize was for his work on unemployment and the labor market.

In the op-ed piece, Diamond took aim at Washington's "partisan polarization" and said that there was "a failure to recognize that the analysis of unemployment is crucial to conducting monetary policy."

I often wonder why anyone would even go through the confirmation process when partisan politics far outweigh the welfare of the country.
Diamond said he would continue as a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and would take advantage of opportunities presented to a Nobel laureate.

"I had hoped to bring some of my own expertise and experience to the Fed. Now I hope someone else can," he said.

Related articles

• Carney blasts Republicans over nominee's withdrawal (whitehouse.blogs.cnn.com)
• Obama nominee: "When a Nobel Prize Isn't Enough" (cbsnews.com)
• Nobel Laureate Peter Diamond to Withdraw Fed Governor Nomination (businessweek.com)
• Diamond not forever - Vilified, Fed nominee calls it off (politico.com)

Weiner Admits to Tweeting Lewd Photo

Image by TalkMediaNews via Flickr

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) acknowledged Monday that he tweeted the lewd picture that has been at the center of a controversy since it surfaced a week ago, and he said the image was of him. "It was something that I did that was just wrong and I regret it," he said. He apologized and said he is not resigning.

New photos have emerged.  ndrew Breitbart's website BigGovernment.com claims that a new woman has come forward with photos, chats, and emails sent to her by the congressman that suggest the two were involved in "an online, consensual relationship involving the mutual exchange of intimate photographs."
On a personal basis, I am deeply disappointed in the Congressman.  I followed his defense of the single payer system during the healthcare debate before the Affordable Health Care act was passed and signed by the President. I came to believe that Rep. Weiner was someone you could believe and trust, someone destined for greater things. Well, here's another politician that let me down and I'm not even in the geographic area he represents.

Related articles

• Rep. Weiner sexting photos about to hit web: report (nydailynews.com)
• New Photos Emerge In Anthony Weiner Twitter Scandal (huffingtonpost.com)

A

Bank Lobby on the Attack

Elizabeth Warren

Elizabeth Warren and the CFPB are up against what she estimates to be a $3 trillion consumer financial services industry, which views the bureau as a potentially grave threat to its prosperity.

 The new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is a key element of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation. The bureau’s mission is mostly about making it easier for consumers to understand the often indecipherable fine print that financial firms throw at them. The CFPB will inherit consumer protection responsibilities from seven agencies and assume powers to police “unfair, deceptive, or abusive” financial services products. It will write new rules and enforce existing ones for banks with assets of $10 billion or more and the tens of thousands of companies in the shadow banking industry—payday lenders, student loan companies, mortgage brokers, debt collectors, pawn shops.

 In part because it’s one of the strongest aspects of Dodd-Frank, the CFPB has become a favorite target of Republican attacks. The CFPB has been called “one of the greatest assaults on economic liberty in my lifetime” (Representative Jeb Hensarling) and “the most powerful agency ever created” (Representative Spencer Bachus). The Wall Street Journal opinion page denounced Interim CFPB Director and Consumer Advocate Elizabeth Warren and the bureau three times in one week in March. And the bureau hasn’t even officially launched!

On May 13 the House Financial Services Committee passed three bills designed to weaken the CFPB, which goes live on July 21. Freshman Representative Sean Duffy, the telegenic former star of The Real World: Boston, denounced the CFPB as a “rogue agency” with an “authoritarian structure” and introduced legislation to give existing banking regulators greater authority to override the bureau’s new rules. Other bills passed by the committee sought to change the structure of the bureau from a single director to a bipartisan commission, making it harder to act quickly and decisively, and prevent the bureau from assuming power until the Senate confirms a director. Forty-four Senate Republicans recently announced they would not approve any nominee for the CFPB unless the GOP proposals were implemented.

Wonder why the Republicans are against Warren and the CFPB? To make a long story short, this is all about money.

In recent months groups opposed to the bureau, such as the American Bankers Association (ABA), the American Financial Services Association (AFSA), the Credit Union National Association (CUNA), the Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA), the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) and the National Association of Federal Credit Unions (NAFCU), have donated thousands to Sean Duffy’s re-election campaign.

The three chief sponsors of the CFPB bills—Duffy, Bachus and Shelley Moore Capito—received a total of $1.4 million from the finance, real estate and insurance sector during the 2010 election. Now they’re returning the favor. The GOP Congressional assault on the CFPB is a clever way for the caucus to appeal to the Tea Party’s antigovernment fervor while attracting prodigious campaign contributions from Wall Street and forcing the Obama administration to play defense on yet another critical piece of legislation.

Related articles

• 89 House Democrats Demand CFPB Appointment for Elizabeth Warren (news.firedoglake.com)
• Rep. Carolyn Maloney: Dear GOP: We Don't Negotiate with Hostage Takers (huffingtonpost.com)
• House Democrats push for Warren recess appointment to consumer agency (dailykos.com)
• Elizabeth Warren vs. House Republicans, round 2 (money.cnn.com)
• Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: Some "Rogue"! (slate.com)

History Buffs Palin and Bachmann Strike Again

Rep. Michelle Bachmann

While visiting Boston's Old North Church, Sarah Palin gave a bizarre explanation about Paul Revere's historic ride.

Addressing an unknown person, Palin remarked:

He who warned the British that they weren't going to be taking away our arms by ringing those bells and, um, making sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that, uh, we were going to be secure and we were going to be free.

A couple of things are wrong with that interpretation, but one central main point seemed to be lost on Palin: Revere wasn't warning the British about anything. Indeed, he was warning the Americans about an impending British attack--as his celebrated historical catchphrase "The British are coming!" made abundantly clear.

Unfortunately, Palin's not alone among high-profile leaders affiliated with the tea-party wing of the conservative movement in misremembering a key development in colonial American history--even as the movement prides itself on serving as the guardian of the American Revolution's founding principle of liberty. Last month, Michele Bachmann--Palin's likeliest rival for the tea party vote should they both elect to run for president in 2012--told a crowd in New Hampshire that they came from the state where the first "shot heard round" helped set off the American Revolution in Lexington and Concord. Lexington and Concord, of course, are in the neighboring state of Massachusetts.

These are two people who's names are being batted about as potential candidates for the Presidency. They both constantly wrapping themselves in the American flag and the U. S. Constitution.  I wonder why they know so little about American history.  What a joke!