Promises, promises

To pass healthcare corporatism through the Congress and secure his presidency, Obama made a number of promises. Obama promised some House members a path to citizenship in immigration reform. Arizona promptly disproved Obama’s promises however, by passing a punitive law against migrants.

Now Obama says that immigration reform goes on the backburner. (1)

“By Wednesday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi offered little hope that the issue was still alive on Capitol Hill.

‘If there is going to be any movement in this regard, it will require presidential leadership, as well as an appetite, is that the word? … as well as a willingness to move forward in the Congress,” she said.

House Republican leader John Boehner was more blunt. ‘There is not a chance that immigration is going to move through the Congress,’ he said Tuesday.

Rep. Luis Gutierrez, the Democrats’ leading advocate for immigration reform, has said he voted for health care reform on the understanding that Obama and congressional Democrats would move a major immigration bill.

Even though he would like to see Latinos turn out to vote for Democrats in 2010, Gutierrez said ‘many will probably decide to stay home.’ However, he added, a strict, new immigration law in Arizona may change that dynamic. The law requires law enforcement officers to question anyone they suspect is in the country illegally.

‘On one hand you are not going to vote because you don’t believe people you voted for are doing a good enough job,’ Gutierrez said. ‘Then you say, ‘I got to vote, because the enemy is so mean and vindictive, I got to get out there.'”(1)

What is involved is the ages-old question of having a path to go somewhere. Obama made promises concerning a path he did not have as comments by Gutierrez prove.

The question is how naive people are. It would be easy for Arizona to connive with the Democratic Party to boost Democratic Party turnout. The question is whether Latinos are going to reward the Democrats for Arizona’s action.

The people must decide whether the two parties are working together or not. MIM asks the Latino people to see that the Democrats and Republicans worked together to squelch the Palestinian negotiations for a state in 2007 and 2008. The two parties made a deal among themselves to protect each other against the Palestinians, Iranians and Koreans in terms of diplomacy. With his most recent statements on nuclear policy against Iranian and Korean “outliers,” Obama continued Bush’s “axis of evil” policy.

Obama made other promises to the progressives in the House. In general, anything can be covered up with enough promises among racist Democrats.

When Arne Duncan made some criticisms he received support for a bill on education.

When Obama needed the Nobel Prize he simply signed a law against hate crimes against LGBT. Probably any Democrat president would have signed it.

In the Justice Department, Obama has followed Avakian’s advice of exchanging dirt so that Holder is comfortable with Obama: they both have dirt on each other, and in this case, in both instances it concerns MIM.

In other words, the lynching of MIM’s leaders evinces no real concern for civil rights. The various players just use it to buy from Obama what they want.

This is as MIM said of U.$. politics, especially the Obama milieu in the left-wing of parasitism. That’s why we have to talk about the international proletariat when it comes to the revolution, because Obama cannot afford to buy off the whole international proletariat without giving up capitalism. We cannot base any revolution on a majority within the United $tates. The logic here is intra-bourgeois deal-making to unite for racism, imperialism and exploitation. By making deals to back a lynching, the rulers further reward lynching, instead of exposing it and taking it out of play as a card. People who use my lynching in the coded manner that it has been used so far reward lynching. People who use lynching in politics should have the courage to disown it.



%d bloggers like this: