Franklin D. Roosevelt

U.S. History: Franklin Roosevelt’s Statement on Signing the Social Security Act (14.08.1935)

Today a hope of many years’ standing is in large part fulfilled. The civilization of the past hundred years, with its startling industrial changes, has tended more and more to make life insecure. Young people have come to wonder what would be their lot when they came to old age. The man with a job has wondered how long the job would last.

This social security measure gives at least some protection to thirty millions of our citizens who will reap direct benefits through unemployment compensation, through old-age pensions and through increased services for the protection of children and the prevention of ill health.

We can never insure one hundred percent of the population against one hundred percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life, but we have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age.

This law, too, represents a cornerstone in a structure which is being built but is by no means complete. It is a structure intended to lessen the force of possible future depressions. It will act as a protection to future Administrations against the necessity of going deeply into debt to furnish relief to the needy. The law will flatten out the peaks and valleys of deflation and of inflation. It is, in short, a law that will take care of human needs and at the same time provide for the United States an economic structure of vastly greater soundness.

I congratulate all of you ladies and gentlemen, all of you in the Congress, in the executive departments and all of you who come from private life, and I thank you for your splendid efforts in behalf of this sound, needed and patriotic legislation.

If the Senate and the House of Representatives in this long and arduous session had done nothing more than pass this Bill, the session would be regarded as historic for all time.

Rediscovery #: 08445 Job A1 10-126 Fed Reg — Rediscovery #: 08445
Job A1 10-126 Fed Reg

U.S. Gov. condems Rwandan President Kagame; Proves the double-standard; It’s okay for the U.S. ally President Museveni and wrong for President Kagame

East-Africa

We live in interesting times. The U.S. Government has condemned the Rwandan Government for giving the opportunity to have a third term for their President Kagame. President Museveni did the same in 2004 and the U.S. Government at that time couldn’t care or give two cents since him where their loyal ally. We didn’t hear anything last year when President Nkurunziza added to his two terms and only we’re late to the party when the news of the election-violence and assassinations came to broad light than the tune changed.

US Magazine Zaire LR

The same nation and government that supported the now deceased Mobutu Sese Seko in Democratic Republic of Congo then called Zaire. He we’re in charge of the country from about 1965 to 1997; when Laurent-Desire Kabila together with President Kagame’s and President Museveni’s armies; brought down the American sponsored and supported dictator. Who they needed through the cold-war to have a presence in the area, and not give that away to Soviet. We’ll they didn’t give him an army worth anything; when his neighbor countries invaded and took him down. That is just a sidebar.

Since the U.S. have supported dictators when they have needed them. The irony now for attacking Paul Kagame for doing his thing to get a third term seems a bit farfetched. We can see that U.S. trying to do something worth a damn in the area, since they have recently visited Kenya and Ethiopia. Well, recently U.S. reacted to Burundi President Pierre Nkurunziza violence against opposition after an election for a third term and also going against the 2000 Arusha Peace Agreement, that we’re accepted by the courts as the first term; we’re accepted as adnominal since he was voted to power by parliament and not directly by the people! Even so, the public demonstrated and still is in turmoil and violence ever since March 2015 and we are in January 2016. The only thing U.S. did we’re to cut them from AGOA and that is zappy and looking meaningless in the big picture. They did not even have the ammunition to say it was wrong from the get-go for President Nkurunziza, surely because he is from a zip-code even the U.S. can’t care about.

Paul Kagame. P3jpg

U.S. Reaction on the 19th December 2015:

“The United States is disappointed that a referendum was called on short notice to amend the Rwandan constitution and introduce exceptions to term limits. While we commend the people of Rwanda for peacefully exercising their civic rights, we regret that the arrangements for the referendum failed to provide sufficient time and opportunity for political debate on the merits of the proposed provisions” (…)”The United States continues to be concerned by long-standing restrictions on peaceful assembly, association, and free expression in Rwanda. We urge the Government of Rwanda to enable the full and unfettered exercise of these fundamental freedoms as the country moves toward local elections in 2016, presidential elections in 2017, and parliamentary elections in 2018″.

This must have touched some nerves… So here is what he said back to them after the new-years.

So, the track record of recent is not beautiful. That President Kagame answers on twitter back we’re he was answering the U.S. Reaction on the 4^th January 2016:

“So,…’diappointing?’ as a people and a leader/choices?? Uhm …it hurts!!! I promise we don’t intend to disappoint…esp ourselves!!”.

The issue is really, why the international bandwagon is reacting to him and not to all the other ones who keeps steady and sitting in power until death. Like the brother in Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea, Zimbabwe and Sudan. Ugandan leader got some comments on the Barrack Obama visit in Africa in 2015, but they didn’t more or say since they need President Museveni sometimes it seems.

KabilaCartoon

The world is not reacting to the change of laws to make it happen in Democratic Republic of Congo where the son of Laurent-Desire Kabila, Joseph Kabila who does what he can to have a third-term as a president in the DRC. He seems he can move in silence and as he please not even the foreign affairs brother from Belgium reacting as he have done so much when it comes to Burundian President Nkurunziza. President Kablia seems like somebody who is not worth stressing about even when the news came out last year and the public reacted with #Telema demonstrations.

While the nuisances’ towards Rwanda and President Kagame seems like a doubled game, because you haven’t given a rats ass before and now you cry foul. I wonder if they will say anything if President Salva Kiir Mayardit stays in power after his second term of 6 years that will stretch to 2017. Since he have been in power of the nation since 2005 and when he continues from 2017 it will already be 12 years and with one more term will get 18 years; and that is a long time!

Salva Kiir Poster

President Kagame has been in power for a long time and people should be allowed to question his actions. Rwandan government and country is sovereign. As the same use of sovereign state Burundi have used against having an AU Peacekeepers in the country because that will take their freedom and justice as a nation because they can handle the turmoil internally. President Nkurunziza says so and the international community doesn’t speak up against that.

U.S. Government might have forgotten that Franklin Delano Roosevelt had three terms he was in power from 1932 to 1945. He would have if he didn’t die of health problems actually could have served a fourth term. Unprecedented in American history, still it proves they can do it to!

And when they need somebody they can support them even when they are undemocratic, but the U.S. doesn’t need President Kagame. They do not fear the turmoil of Burundi even though the Inter-Burundian dialogue that happens in Uganda, issued and led by the President Museveni. Who have no plan to step-down even though he have run the country since 1986. He follows suit of former fellows. President Museveni would if he could; Help out the son of Jomo Kenyatta and get a bigger suit in East Africa. President Musveni might even give him lessons on how to keep power in Kenya to President Uhuru Kenyatta; who is currently working on his campaign and party structure of the new Jubilee Party in the country. Preparing for a second term and campaign to secure that! Nothing is meantioned about the issues of the growing tension, the embezzlement and the corruption in Kenya; That is not an issue for the U.S. Since they need Kenya to fight Al-Shabab as well! Therefore they let all the other issue to the side.

President Museveni is allowed to do as he need and can. The U.S. would never say anything crazy unless he bans the gay community and put fire unto the “Anti-Gay-Bill” again! President Kagame can be taken and punished since he doesn’t have a role to play that U.S. need. President Kabila in DRC trades rare-earth minerals and other commodities cheaply so if he wants to stay; hell; he can stay! President Nkurunziza is only an issue when starts to harass and assassinate people in his own country, if he we’re silent about it, the U.S. government would not care. But President Kagame is the issue. Hope there anybody else who see something wrong with that picture?

Peace.

Power eats our big-men – The reason for why we need Presidential Term limits

There is for some strange reason a big discussion on the matter. Since some countries have them, some don’t. It is not like every constitution should be written the same with the same accords. In my homeland for instance there is no limit on how long the Prime Minister can sit in power, but that that depends if the people of my country get tired of the PM or the party affiliated with the PM. In bigger countries like the US there is a limit of two terms and only once a President who has broken that rule, was during Second World War and that was Franklin D. Roosevelt. Who had three terms and is the only one well known.

I am sure that Greece would have seemed happy with more often change of leadership. So if they hadn’t sunk that deep with loans and debt. Then it wouldn’t matter how long a regime is in power, if it essentially good, but if it’s not. Then it would be healthy with changes, so that the government recharge and fix the issues of old. That is for check and balance, also to stop cogging the machine with nepotism and local graft from local councils and smaller government entities.

Now that Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Rwanda and Burundi is following Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea, Sudan, Zimbabwe and Uganda. They have big-men who have been sitting for ages and continue to break a certain switch of leaders. Burundi has just been through a farce of a election that brought their President Pierre Nkurunziza to his third term. Paul Kagame in Rwanda is thinking the same. Paul Biya the President of Cameroon has ruled since 1982 and is still sitting comfortable. Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo has been the president of Equatorial Guinea has been in charge since 1979. Omar Al-Bashir in President of Sudan has been the chief since 1993. Robert Mugabe is the President of Zimbabawe is the big-men of the country since 1987. Yoweri Kaguta Museveni the President of Uganda has been the head honcho since 1986.

Have in mind Ben Ali in Tunisia, Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and Muammar Gadaffi in Libya. All of them had a hard fall during the Arab Spring. So during a short period of time these long times serving rulers was ousted by the public or militias in their countries. And those people mentioned that has been sitting since 1979 to now should have them in mind. They could be next.

Its reasons like this big-men why countries and constitutions, law and rule of laws should fix the longevity for the leaders of the countries. Even if some countries has benefited from leaders sitting long. There have been many who show other tales. That their starting and dealing with matters. Making sure that the countries are progressing, but the issue with all men, power can eat you and when it’s at your grasp you don’t want to leave it. The power corrupt and make sure your family eats and friends to. An leave the matters and supposed people your supposed to serve. That makes the basic issue of leaders who becomes the proof of states where there is “taxation without representation”. They goes from being heroes and big-men with legacy into Machiavellian and Orwellian monsters that swallows the governments, states and organizations. That evaporates and follows the pinpoints from the leaders, but not actual procedures or democratic values. Transparency does matters, checks and balance of information from the regimes dies down especially if it pokes at the government. Ethics of codes of conduct matters for the ruling party, but for the opposition is otherwise since they will be thrown into shackles and dungeons for standing up against the regimes.

There is a reason why media has to be strong against this leaders and big-men. Why term limits is a good thing? It’s because power corrupt and eat men. When you first get a spoon of the sweets they want the champagne and cocktails in the statehouses. While many of the big-men don’t strengthen the basic institutions and ministries of the countries they are in charge of. Instead they put more money into the security and armies, but not too strong because then they are worried that their general’s would make a coup d’etat, especially since some of them took power by the gun themselves. So they usually promise grand changes and grace periods where the institutions left soiling by former leaders. While they does certain things and necessary by them, if so only what needed and supported through aid or donor money they might do something more with this.

While these leaders also often toiled with multilateral organization that put strains on the economic freedoms and loans that funds the countries. The forced moves of liberate institutions instead of strengthen the powers of the nations. Free market thinking that has weakened the economies then making them stronger. So that they import more then they export. Produce simple raw material or farm products and import finished sophisticated products that give the budgets negatives for the countries and also a reason why the countries end up with loaning more money from the multilateral organization. Because of this the big-men make shady deals with international donor countries and producers that lead to more corruption. Their zealous and loyalist under-leaders get cuts and that happens as long as they follow the party lines. The sellers from abroad couldn’t care less because usually they get overpaid for the product and there wasn’t a fair process of the sale. So if there is a transparent overlook of the sale and ordering of the products to the country it wouldn’t have gotten a green light.

This thing grows and grows until it hit either the moon or the sun. The terms are what people looking at. Then you could have discussed and talked more directly about the countries that don’t have it. There isn’t like universal rules to how the constitutions should be and what countries should have in it. There is other ways around that countries has to follow the international agreements, resolutions, charters and convents they have to follow and make amendments to their existing laws. But that is whole other matter. The term limit question is more about the ethical place and trust in the big-men that is either elected or taken power on their own. And if you have issues with leaders taking power on their own, there is a slim chance of them actually caring about rule of law. Instead even if they say something they will turn against close to date of the final period of terms. Just like Yoweri Museveni did in Uganda, Pierre Nkurunziza did in Burundi, Paul Kagame in Rwanda and Joseph Kabila in Democratic Republic in Congo (DRC). They all did a turn-around in limited time right before the end of the official second term. So they could fix the laws and get an official third term.

We the people and the citizens care about our big-men and nations, about the institutions that are made to be around us and supposed to support us. As we want good leaders that actually lead and make changes, and structures to secure their people. Instead when their reign for so long that their stealing of wealth, lands and positions for loyalist can be vial and hurting the country, instead of reaching and making the place better. This could be less of a viable possibility if there were structures and codes into place that pushed leaders to leave behind a legacy and go off in grace instead of sitting into the man with a scythe coming and taking their souls to eternal rest.

If society fears that leaders will lead into nepotism, graft, corruption and other evils of long term stand still of leaders and philosophy. The journey that the political climate needs is sufficient tools to stand in rainy days and in glorious ones. Also proper training to lead the next generations into a secure place and leave a foundation that can bring something positive for the people and the nations as whole.

And it isn’t pure and true leadership if they aren’t coping with the ability of leaving the power. They know that and we the people know this. When that happens we see the issues translate into situations that nobody really wants to see. Like the failed Coup d’etat in Burundi in 2015 and the violence that has surged since. Then the failings of the ‘Walk to Work’ protest after the 2011 elections in Uganda. That only led to few fallen activists for the cause, but lead to now initial change. Also the reactions in the DRC after lawfully allowing it’s president a third term, this made people react and the #Telema uprising happened as a aftermath. This because the leaders don’t accept their reach and doesn’t step down in time, instead tries to sit until the chair is breaking. And in due time they will fall out of the chair, it’s just about how they will land and which legacy they want to leave behind.

I am Sure Honorable Mister Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe could have been a real gentleman and been in the league of freedom fighters who fought a just cause against oppression of a foreign power. He could have been seen as that if he stepped down in proper time and given security to the country. Instead he has let the economy run loose, people fleeing the country, rigging elections, letting special army and police trained by North Koreans go into villages before elections and spread fear amongst the citizens. If he had stopped before turning into a villain, he could have been seen as hero. Something that would been worthy actually of how he fought with the comrades against a far-away rulers to secure peaceful nationhood to Zimbabwe together with Joshua Nkomo. Today he will not only be remembered only for the Lancaster House Agreement! But for all of the other madness that has happen after.

The same will happen with these other leaders who might have done great things. And they have made a difference. They have made some kind of changes and progress in their countries. Yoweri Kaguta Museveni of Uganda has made progress in Uganda. Even by sitting very-very long in the chair of power. After uncertainties of the 80s he has with the Movement system made the land peaceful and that has made gains in the aspect of food productions. Even with help of neighbors and the U.S. sent LRA on the run to C.A.R. where he is trying to get them again. Though with lingering into power it’s now taking a toll on the budgets, inflation levels, value of the currency and the enormous level of spending to local councils since there is new district every 5 years or so.

I could go on about every leader I have mentioned and what has happen because of their steadiness of power. How that effects and what that has led to in the countries that their leading, still. Similarities are still that the countries don’t earn much on having the same leaders reigning for many terms. Because the countries getting sucked into the system and patrons of the big-man instead of build functioning institutions and ministries to really developing the countries.

And let this be clear, I don’t want the systems of the West unto these countries that is not what I am implying. The simple thing I am pounding on is how it will be healthy for a nation to have leaders and their big-men for too long. I doubt if it is healthy. The same with MPS and Ministers, they all will eat too much and become fat, instead of serving the people. The same happens with the grand big-man; therefore the change of leadership is an essential feature to society and government.

Therefore what I am initially implying is that no matter what kind of society the human soul and body will be eaten by the power. That’s simple reason is that this is a universal issue, the location and countries could be a mayor in my town for the matter or the leader of European Union, the secondly it could be a president in South America or Asia. This is a phenomenon that is everywhere if the big-man has the possibility. Let me take a few more honorable mentions:

Alexander Lukashenko has been the president of Belarus since 1994.
Saparmurat Atayevich Niyazov has been the president of Turkmenistan since 1985.
Nursultan Nazarbayev has been the president of Kazahstan since 1989.
Issas Afweki has been been the president of Eritrea since 1991.
Emomali Rahmon has been the president of Tajikistan since 1992.
Hun Sen has been the president of Cambodia since 1985.

So thanks for reading. Hope it was worth it and that this wasn’t as long as the tenure of certain big-men. Peace.

Third term extravanganza in East Africa – Country for country

In this day and age we have peoples in power who wish to stay there. They stay in power on overtime. They change the constitution and amendments to make sure that they can get re-elected. The irony is that many of this leaders accepted when they came into power the new constitutions and laws. After a while and their terms running out they have to switch the laws for their own purpose. The laws are supposed to be for the best of their countries and not one person or party. Therefore you see reactions in these nations as they see that their leaders continue at any cost. This makes people to react like they did in DRC in January while Joseph Kabila opted for a third term. The coup in Burundi was another type of reaction to their president Pierre Nkurunziza changed the law so he could run for a third term. Also the public reacted to it. It’s also happening in Rwanda where the RPF and their president Paul Kagame will change laws so he can run for a third term. They are following the suit of President Museveni in Uganda. Who came to power with the rifles in 1986 and made a constitution in 1995. And abolished the term limits in 2005. And is soon running again in 2016, in this piece I will describe the position of the countries land by land in the East Africa. This is from Burundi to Uganda.

Burundi:

In the end of April in 2015 the Constitutional Court made an amendment that gave CNDD-FDD party flagbearer Pierre Nkurunziza an possibility to stand as a president for the third term. His first term was he selected by the parliament and not the people in 2005, the second term he was elected through elections in 2010. So this spring the President made moves to secure power again and break with the Arusha Agreement to secure himself more years as president of Burundi. There was supposed to be an election after the new amendment was passed this year. Parts of the military went on a coup d’etat when the President Nkurunziza was in Tanzania on an EAC conference. The Coup was squashed quickly. But the protest has continued. The election has been postponed. There has been refugees going to DRC, Tanzania and Rwanda following the protest against a third term for Pierre Nkurunziza. But the opposition and the protest against the third term has not stopped in the country since the last election. The violence between government army and the protesters are continuing. And the official election for his third term is still to come.

Democratic Republic of Congo:

In Democratic Republic of Congo the son of the late assassinated Laurent-Desire Kabila, Joseph Kabila has been in charge since 2001. His first election was won in 2006. Already in 2011 he got won the election the second time. Now since the spring Joseph Kabila has worked on making sure he could get a third term. There been responses from opposition and NGOs. #Telema protest happened in January when the draft for third term was made. Still been silence from the government since then. But there has been movement again during late summer and July.

Kenya:

In Kenya they got a new constitution in 2010. The constitution specifies that the President have a certain limit of two terms. The last President of Kenya was Mwai Kibaki he led the country from 2002-2007. He won the second election in 2007 that lasted to 2013. In 2013, some issues from the opposition to the winning election of Uhuru Kenyatta the son of the first president of the newly independent Kenya Jomo Kenyatta. So the Supreme Court handled the case and gave Uhuru Kenyatta and his Jubilee Alliance their stamp on the first term for him. There are no current plans of changing the 2010 constitution to abolish or change the levels of terms for presidents in Kenya.

Rwanda:

In Rwanda the RPA came to power after the genocide in 1994. After this the RPA became RPF is Rwandan Patriotic Front from the former Rwandan Patriotic Army. Paul Kagame was the Vice-President until 2000 when the National Assembly and government ministers elected him as president. In 2003 a new constitution came to force. Paul Kagame was relected in that year. Second election was in 2010 where he won in a landslide. Now he is working on tweaking the constitution to fix it so that Paul Kagame and the RPF can in power yet another term after next election.

Tanzania:

Tanzania has a special place after Julius Nyerere was in charge of the country since independence from 1964 to 1985. The Constitution of Tanzania is from 1977. That says that the president can only be in charge for two terms of 5 years each. After Julius Nyerere reign this has been followed. The party that he started is still running the country. First was president after Nyerere was Ali Hassan Mwinyi from 1985 to 1995. After him came Benjamin Mpeka from 1995 to 2005. The recent President is stepping down Jakaya Kikwete after taking his two terms from 2005 to 2015. In the next election the Party of the Revolution (CCM) has choice been on the new president candidate John Magufuli. President Kikwete will not be like his neighbors who try to stay in power and make amendments to the constitution.

Uganda:

Yoweri Kaguta Museveni came to power after a coup d’etat in 1986 to overthrow of Obote II and the interim government of Tito Okello who came with an army of rebels from Tanzania with support of Julius Nyerere. This was the NRA (National Resistance Army) who later became the NRM (National Resistance Movement). After being in power a long time the new constitution came into being 1995. The first presidential election in a one-part state was in 1996. The same was in 2001. Both of these elections President Museveni won landslides in the county. To change so that President Museveni could be voted in again, the Parliament abolished term limits that year and also opened for multiparty elections. In 2006 the first multiparty elections under the new regime happen and Museveni won a landslide in the election. The next election in 2011 was reported to be rigged by the regime and President Museveni won with 68%.. Right now he is preparing for yet another term as president of Uganda. After running the country since 1986 and he has “won” 4 elections and is making ready for his fifth. This election is going to be held in February 2016 and the nation is already gearing up for the primaries as we speak. In both the NRM party and also the opposition, though the Public Order Management Bill is putting restraint on dissidents from the NRM.

(This post was updated on 21.07.2015 – because of some wrong information. Its now corrected). Peace.

5 December 1933 – Today was the end of Prohibition (18th Amendment into the 21th amendment)

Well, today I am back into history. It’s kind of an important day today. The Prohibition era lasted from 1920 until the 21.Amendment of 5. December of 1933.

“At midnight, January 16, 1920, the United States went dry; breweries, distilleries, and saloons were forced to close their doors” (DigitalHistory)

“Between 1905 and 1917, states across the nation were imposing laws that prohibited the manufacture and sale of intoxicating beverages. They did not stop there, however. The temperance societies began to push to change American society and elevate morality through national legislation. In 1917, the House of Representatives wanted to make Prohibition the 18th Amendment to the Constitution. Congress sent the amendment to the states for ratification, where it needed three-fourths approval. The amendment stipulated a time limit of seven years for the states to pass this amendment. In just 13 months enough states said yes to the amendment that would prohibit the manufacture, sale, and transportation of alcoholic liquors”(National Archives).

“It was on January 20, 1920 when the 18th Amendment to the Constitution took effect. This amendment prohibited the production, manufacture, and sale of alcoholic beverages within all the states and territories of the U.S. The 18th amendment was the outcome of the decade-long temperance crusade, which aimed to end the dilemma of alcohol consumption in the country” (TotallyHistory).

“Prohibition has made nothing but trouble” – Al Capone

“Notorious bootlegger Al Capone made $60,000,000…that’s sixty million dollars…per year (untaxed!) while the average industrial worker earned less than $1,000 per year” (Potsdam) .

“Enforcing the law proved almost impossible. Smuggling and bootlegging were widespread. Two New York agents, Izzie Einstein and Mo Smith, relied on disguises while staging their raids–once posing as man and wife. Their efforts were halted, however, after a raid on New York City’s 21 trapped some of the city’s leading citizens. In New York, 7,000 arrests for liquor law violations resulted in 17 convictions (Digital History)”

“Prohibition was difficult to enforce, despite the passage of companion legislation known as the Volstead Act. The increase of the illegal production and sale of liquor (known as “bootlegging”), the proliferation of speakeasies (illegal drinking spots) and the accompanying rise in gang violence and other crimes led to waning support for Prohibition by the end of the 1920s” (History.com).

First day reporting from Seattle Post-Intellgencer reporte this:

“You walked into a bar on lower 3rd Ave. There were nine people in the place. A venerable bartender stood with folded arms, looking at the wallpaper.

“Brandy and soda? Yessir. No, the crowd’s nothing extra tonight. In fact,” he says confidentially, “it’s very slow tonight. Must be the rain” (HistoryLink)