The Wasteland of Democratic Politics


A Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen Ford

The Democratic Leadership Council, Bill Clinton and Al Gore’s 1980s scheme to diminish the growing influence of Black voters, has reached its ultimate success with Barack Obama, the second DLC president. To put it another way, “Obamaism is simply Clintonism with a darker face.” Three years of President Obama have left the Democratic Party with nothing to say worthy of hearing, in this election year. “Ron Paul’s foreign policy and civil liberties stance, as a Republican, is noteworthy only because of the contrasting light it shines on the vast desert that Democratic Party politics has become under the grip of militarists and Wall Street.”


The Wasteland of Democratic Politics

A Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen Ford

We know that we are in an electoral political wasteland when the only major party discussion of U.S. empire and endless warfare takes place in the Republican presidential primary.”

There is no drama in the Democratic Party, this election year. The Democratic domain is a dead zone that has had all the oxygen sucked out of it by Obamaism. Of course, Obamaism is simply Clintonism with a darker face. Bill Clinton was the first Democratic Leadership Council President. Al Gore would have been the second, if George Bush had not stolen the 2000 election through massive disenfranchisement of Black voters in the Sunshine State. Gore did not see fit to contest the election based on the theft of hundreds of thousands of Black Florida votes. Instead, he hitched his fortunes to hanging chads and a Republican-dominated U.S. Supreme Court.

There was a certain consistency in Al Gore’s decision not make an issue of the racism at the root of his loss. In the 1980s, Gore and Clinton formed the Democratic Leadership Council in order to dilute the influence of the growing numbers of Black southern voters. With southern whites steadily fleeing to the Republican Party, Gore and Clinton founded the DLC as a moneybag for corporate contributions to keep pro-business whites in Party leadership positions in the South, on the theory that he who controls the purse strings, controls the Party. It worked so well, the DLC quickly spread from its southern base to become the Party's national corporate wing, dedicated to suppressing the influence of Blacks and labor. The DLC used its money power to nurture the careers of Black corporate Democrats like Barack Obama, whose name first showed up on the DLC membership list in the summer of 2003. With overwhelming corporate support – especially from Wall Street – Obama went on to become Bill Clinton’s successor as the second Democratic Leadership Council president, just in time to save the banks from the 2008 meltdown. It should have come as no surprise that the second DLC president would not lift a finger to save Blacks from economic catastrophe. And so, three years later, the only good economic news for African Americans occurs in their own color-coded imaginations.

Obama became Bill Clinton’s successor as the second Democratic Leadership Council president.”

We know that we are in an electoral political wasteland when the only major party discussion of U.S. empire and endless warfare takes place in the Republican presidential primary. On foreign policy, Ron Paul calls for closing hundreds of U.S. bases abroad, opposes U.S. empire-building and the fraudulent war on terror. Paul opposes preventive detention and the drug war, and he has led the charge against the Federal Reserve which, under President Obama, has become the umbilical cord that binds the imperial American state to the imperial bankers Wall Street.

Of course, Ron Paul is no friend of Black people, or working people of any race. He is a racist, who has always worked closely with white supremacists who wish for a return to the apartheid America of the founding white fathers. Ron Paul’s foreign policy and civil liberties stance, as a Republican, is noteworthy only because of the contrasting light it shines on the vast desert that Democratic Party politics has become under the grip of militarists and Wall Street.

The Republicans are ugly, nasty and evil. President Obama is the most attractive and articulate servant of Wall Street and war – and, therefore, an even more effective evil. There is only one alternative, and that is mass political action in opposition to the rule of the rich. Without a people's movement, the people inevitably lose.

For Black Agenda Radio, I’m Glen Ford. On the web, go to

BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at [email protected].



On Ron Paul

My question for you Glenn, which I beleive you already answered in teh negative is this" Can we sacrifice the issueds of Ron paul and race and on labor in order to eviscerate teh military industrial complex and the Fed. Is it even remotely possible that teh sacrifice of our particular issues could be worth it in the long run? I mean, could we deal with a little more racism for a lot more economic security and just a lot more global security in terms of Obama and Romney going for the clean sweep of  Syria Iran lebanon Afghanistan and Pakistan. I mean, that IS the agenda isnt it? It seems to me, not being an expert, that black people need a chance. Pauls for changing the drug laws, adn thats why most of us end up in jail. We need a breather and a chance. Obama is killing us! tell me if I'm wrong. Are we sitting this election out, who are we voting for?

Ron Paul

If he is against foreign wars; if he is against indefinite detention of U.S citizens, he cannot be an enemy of black people.  I think the racial paradigm of judging our political benefactors is becoming anachronistic.  Black people don't know their interest.  Most of them are still hoping for another four years for Obama.  They still don't get it.  Ron Paul might have association with white supremacist groups but he is also known to have cared for black people as a medical doctor.  What needs to be understood is there is a 'gentleman's' agreement between the republican and democratic parties to make us pedestrians.  When you have Newt Gingrich say he will not vote for Ron Paul if Ron Paul becomes the nominee, know Ron may be the best friend black folks have amongst the lot.  When it comes to racism, how has Obama fared for black folks?


"Ron Paul might have association with white supremacist groups but he is also known to have cared for black people as a medical doctor..." this link here:

Because your comment (and contempted's as well) is just more "Lesser Evil" populism.  The fact that Paul's new public packaging on a few issues looks more palatable than Obama's is not encouraging at all.  In either case, the fact that Paul now claims amnesia (after defending its contents back in 1995) over who wrote the "Coming Race War" articles in his own newsletter only points to the same lack of accountability found in Corporations and Political Administrations since the Country's "founding."

Supporting Ron Paul because "Obama is worse" is no different from supporting Obama because "Republicans are worse."  You cannot and should not ever put aside the repugnance of a person's views simply because they hold a position that sounds similar to one or two of yours.

Glen Ford states it plainly:  Ron Paul is no friend of Black People (Any "Libertarian" who values Property Rights and/or "Free Markets" over Human Rights is the same way).  Just because Barack Obama has proven to be a more effective war-monger doesn't mean that I have to stomach Ron Paul's repugnant opinions of (and ideas about) People of Color simply because he isn't as big a warmonger as Obama is.

I've Scanned Those Xerox Shots on Your Above Link....

My impression of those Xerox copies of alleged Ron Paul new-letters based on my knowledge of layout, printing & editing:  First of all for me as a Black man the most disturbing things in these alleged letters is their slanderous statements concerning Black People in general & ACORN & MLK in particular [less so about Rev Al- & I'm not very concerned at all about those alleged 'conspiracy theories' in these letters that many claim proves Paul is nutty - in fact I think he {if he's actually the author} is more or less correct about some of those things- IE: a scheme to roll-back civil-liberties & roll-out the police state, & the Bohemian Grove].

What I've noticed about the structure of these letters are that only one pg IE: pg5 has a clear picture of a young Ron Paul on it    Dated April 1978 & entitled 'Dr Ron Paul's Freedom Report' w this note-worthy motto: 'The Absence of Force & Tolerance of Others is Key for Peace & Prosperity' [Note that pg1 is actually a PHOTO of Paul w Ronnie Reagan- BUT- IMO it's NOT actually part of the original news-letter- But is likely included here to link Paul w Reagan.]. The article on pg5 & 6 deals w the agreement between Jimmy Carter & the late leader of Panama gen Torrijos concerning the Panama Canal. I basically disagree w the article's assessment of Torrijos, among other things- but IMO that's not the Point- IMO- The actual Reason why pg5 is included here is because it's the only pg w a clear photo of Paul on the news-letter w his signature [on pg 7] & thus IMO is probably authentic- [note there are only 2 other cover pgs {pgs 45 & 47} w what might be Paul's photo - but they are NOT clearly identifiable even though they are more recent - dated in 1993 & 94]. Also likely authentic is the undated apparently hand-written letter [by Paul] encouraging subscription to Paul's news-letter [the last pg53]. Also note-worthy is that there is some variance in both the lay-out & quality of these Xerox copies of the alleged news-letters IE: some look a bit more professionally done than others. Also note-worthy is that most of these pgs are NOT dated, -&- Though the photo w Paul & Reagan is the first pg in this series- most likely it's out of time sequence, because this photo was likely taken either after Reagan locked-up the Repug Nomination for Pres in summer 1980 or after he took office in 1981- yet the pg5 new-letter cover is dated April 1978 [goes back to my conclusion that this photo was likely NOT originally part of the new-letter].

On MLK: The most serious slanders against MLK in these Xerox copies of the alleged Paul news-letters is the spurious charge of pedophilia & a homo-sexual relationship between MLK & Ralph Abernathy. BUT- It's note-worthy that the news-letter says that its source is a 1991 book ['Breaking Barriers'] written by ex-Head of the US Info Agency under LBJ- Carl Rowan [IE: the Black-face of US overseas Propaganda]. Apparently Ole GAY Edgar himself may have found a willing Uncle Tom stooge to eventually publish this crap [is anyone here familiar w Rowan's book & can confirm this is actually in it- Also note-worthy about the date 1991 is that in 1992-3 a white guy from Alabama- Bruce Perry- wrote a book slandering Malcolm as having been a homo-sexual prostitute!]! But back to Paul's alleged news-letters- This subject of the X-Rated MLK came up in conjunction w the article stating that Paul voted against the MLK Holiday Law & even criticizes Ronnie Reagan for signing it. BUT- apparently Paul [unlike say Grinch-witch & McCain] actually voted FOR THE MLK HOLIDAY! This raises questions about the authenticity of either Paul or of these Xerox copies of alleged Paul news-letters! 

Thus IMO- the jury is still out concerning the authenticity of these Xerox copies of alleged Paul news-letters- but in any event IMO: Paul is about as racist as say: Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Billary, LBJ & FDR- in other words about as racist as most white main-stream Dems!

My Opinions on the Ron Paul Issue...

First is Ron Paul racist?- IHMO: Paul is about as racist as Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Billary, LBJ & FDR - in other words about as racist as most white main-stream Democrats.

Plus there's bigotry & then there's Institutionalized RACISM. All US Wars - including the Revolutionary War & War of 1812 [& probably WW1 too - Note Glen Ford's interview this week w Black Historian Dr Gerald Horne] has had RACISM At Its Core or at-least a Strong RACIST Component! Thus US' Wars legitimizes & encourages Xeno-phobic Racism in the guise of so-called Patriotism! So while some may critique Ron Paul's motives for expressing concerns about the Civil Rights Act vis-a-vis his ideas on personal liberties [& many so-called 'feminists' call him anti-woman because he's not pro-abortion] - We must take in account that his staunch position against [as Glen Ford has correctly noted here] US Racist Wars & Xenophonic Imperialism! And these wars ALWAYS RAPE, Violate & Abuse {mainly non-white} Women & Children on A MASSIVE SCALE!!! Thus many so-called 'liberal' critics [this obviously does NOT include Glen Ford & BAR] have a myopic [US & Euro-centric] view of the World which is likely a bit self-centered at best, Or Just Cynically Poly-Trickal At-Worst!- Hell now even Newt Grinch-Witch has the NERVE - the Shameless GALL to imply that Paul is a Racist! Now that's truly a case of 'the cast-iron skillet calling the kettle black!!!' Could this all be because Paul has a real chance to win in Iowa & NH, and the so-called 'Liberal' Obama-bot talking heads [again BAR is definitely NOT included] are concerned that in a head to head against Paul - Paul might pull off an up-set??- If I just had to choose between either O-Bomb-em or Paul - I'd either pick Paul or Refuse to Choose. And let me be clear- I'd greatly prefer say Sis Cynthia McKinney - because as a Black Man I don't really believe in white 'saviors' &/or 'champions' {IE: Great White Hopes} for Black People- BUT Obama Damn Sure Don't Qualify! But Bro Glen Ford is Right- We're in a HELL Of A Predicament when we're forced to debate the choice between a white TX Repug vis-a-vis a Corp-Dim / Wall St Bankster controlled {White}HOUSE-NEGRO!!! 

NOTE: A week or so ago Ron Paul goes on Jay Leno's Show & jokes that Bachmann hates Muslims & Santorum hates both gays & Muslims...- So all of of sudden out of the 'Blue' a [thus far] unconfirmed news letter supporting Paul's run for congessman 20-30yrs ago just pops up suggesting that Paul is an anti-Black / anti-gay bigot - That & the fact that Paul could win Iowa & NH- Can NOT Be a Coincidence!

Tarpley Explains Well Details & Implications of Paul's Econ Plan

Most folks who critique Ron Paul's economic ideas bring up the questionable claim that he's an Ayn Randian, w some even falsely claiming that Paul named his son after Ms Rand [Not True- he named him Randall]. Yet few of them mention that ex-FED Chairman Alan Greenspan WAS ACTUALLY a personal Friend & Confidant of Ayn Rand's [IMO: Novelist Author {IE: FICTION Writer} Ayn Rand's influence is Over-Hyped- except for perhaps Alan Greenspan]. Yet the one thing that most folks know about Paul's economic ideas is his call to 'End the FED'!

But Tarpley explains that Paul's economic ideas come from the Austrian School of Econ [which economic analyst / critic Peter Schiff also espouses]. So Tarpley, avoids this Paul is a Randian BS [How many Black folks even heard of Ayn Rand before all of this hype about Paul - I surely had NOT!] -BUT- Insteads breaks down the details Paul's actual current Econ policy paper- fully explaining & critiquing their implications. Now thats something I can respect. I was under no illusions about the gist of Paul's economic ideas vis-a-vis working class / working poor - social & environmental progs, etc... But Tarpley does a good job of filling in some blanks without resulting to spurious accusations! 

Pretty close to perfect, G.Ford. And Bloomberg wants a parade

for soldiers returning from Iraq, with ticker tape, down Broadway. 

Afterthought:  If that parade comes, the vets who are wheelchair users, those who are not yet using their artificial legs and can't manuever the subway stairs....couldn't get a taxi cab to get to the parade because, as the last line of the pro-Bloomberg slanted story about the federal judge who ruled Friday, Dec. 23, 2011 that NYC Mayor Bloomberg and the taxi commission discriminated against disabled people by not having wheelchair accessible taxi cabs in the LAST LINE of the story in the Wall Street Journal (one of the few places that even mentined it), "only 200plus of the 13,000 taxi cabs in the fleet in NYC are now wheelchair accessible".  "Too expensive" to make cabs wheelchair accessible, says the mayor. Go tell that to the vets, mr. mayor.  Sorry, said the judge, make a plan.  (I hope the plan goes faster for change than the getting Black and Latino firefighters ordered by a judge.) No medallions to be sold until.... We'll see how it rolls out. PS A(nother) small check is in the mail to BAR.

Ron speaks against U.S imperialism

That is not being the lesser of two evils to me.  That is being principled and relevant to the cankerworm that is relegating the U.S to fascism.  When a country spends more than half of its annual budget on armaments, nothing can convince me of the malice of one who speaks to that abberration.  Racism? Please? Most black people these days spew xenophobia without flinching.  Some of us would like to point out the speck in others eyes while most of us suffer from the same ailment as those we accuse?  Where was the outrage from the so called black community in America, when Obama's supported arab terror gangs were racially murdering black people in Libya?  That the MSMs are ganged up against Ron Paul says a lot about his candidacy.  I don't agree with him on everything but he seems to articulate more than anyone has done in a very long time on the albatross that is sinking america --- imperialist overreach.  Ron Paul is not better because Obama is worse.  He is better because he speaks some unpalatable truths.  Tell us, what is the difference between Obama and Romney or Gingrich?  Isn't the interests of Israel paramount to all of them?  How often do you hear them say what is needed for the American people?

ron paul's indisputable racism AND warmongering


Also, "anti-war" ron paul voted IN FAVOR OF starting war against Afghanistan (Congressional Record, Sept. 14, 2001, pgs. H5638 to H5683 )


"Paul is for the further militarisation of the borders and coastlines. We’ve seen what this means in practice. It means an increase in the number of deaths of working class Mexicans and Latin Americans who, forced from their homelands by U.S. economic and military policies, try to travel to the United States to support their family by working in difficult jobs for little to no pay. It means more things like drone aircrafts on the border, stronger and more dangerous fences, in short: more dangerous death traps in the way of people who will undoubtedly continue to try to cross the U.S. border with Mexico. It also means worsening attacks on Muslim immigrants living in the United States, a constituency that since 2001 has faced a steady increase in violence, imprisonment, torture, hate crimes, and discrimination throughout the country. Paul supports further repression against already oppressed groups like these."


Ron Paul's xenophobic "anti-war" ad




"anti-war" "Socialists"

Also, "anti-war" ron paul voted IN FAVOR OF starting war against Afghanistan (Congressional Record, Sept. 14, 2001, pgs. H5638 to H5683 

That's true but so did Cynthia McKinney who ran on the Green Party ticket and who Glen Ford supported in 2008.  Paul was against the War on Iraq and the War on Libya that the "socialist" ISO supported by engaging in the demonization campaign against Qaddafi and the Libyan Jamahiriya.

Before ISO operatives make accusation they better take a good look at their own record.

Only 1 Congress Person Just After 9-11 Voted Against Afghan War

Her Name- Barbara Lee!!! This implies that Sis Cynthia McKinney, Maxime Waters, John Conyers, Jesse Jackson Jr, Dennis Kucinich, etc- along w Ron Paul voted for Bush's Afghan War Resolution. IMO most people don't regard these CBC & progressive Dems as war-mongers- So why single out Paul?! But to put things in proper context- This was immediately after 9-11 & during those Anthrax Attacks- including against members of congress! In Fact MOST were initially [& still are] fooled by the Ole 9-11 Okee Doke! To her credit Sis Cynthia McKinney began to openly question [& still does] the Bushites' 'Official 9-11 Conspiracy Theory' [IE: 'My question is what did Bush know about 9-11 & when did he know it??!!] & paid a political price for doing so!  

ron paul is NOT against the "war on drugs."

ron paul is NOT against the "war on drugs" because he supports increased border militarization. "...supporting increased border militarisation is a position exactly concordant with the policies of the war on drugs. To support the further militarisation of the United States’ borders is to support policies which materially support the drug war..."

You are confused.

The militarization of the border is not about the "War on Drugs". It is about immigration policy.  Paul has long spoken out about the War On Drugs and its effects on the minority communities and the rise of the Political Industrial Complex.  

Also the Internation Socalist Organization where SUPPORTERS of the War on Libya and engaged in the Zionist demonization campaign against Qaddafi and the labeled the racists, murderous Libyan thugs as "rebels".  Ron Paul spoke out AGAINST the war on Libya while so-called "socialists" threw their support for the overthrow of an African nation.

ron paul's imperialism

since ron paul is owned by the oil companies & voted IN FAVOR of starting the u.s.'s war for oil (& control of a natural gas pipeline) against Afghanistan, he is also an imperialist.

Pseudo-Left Zionist "War for Zionism"

And the ISO is dominated by Zionists who implant themselves on the Left in order to conceal and divert attention from Jewish controll of the American political economy.  They even elevate a professed Zionist as the intellectual leader of the Left -- Noam Chomsky who tried to discredit Mershiemer and Walt. 

Once again we see Zionist operatives trying to blame the oil companies for the Zionist war in the Middle East when we know that PNAC and Oded Yinon had designs for Zionist expansion in the Middle East and North Africa since the early 1980's.

The ISO also engaged in the Zionist demonization campaign against Libya because Libya assisted the Palestianian and where decidedly anti-Zionism and pro-Black and pro-Africa.

The fear of Ron Paul is cynical because these so-called Leftist desire is to USE Black people for their own agenda of Zionist (racist) expansion.

Pseudo-Left Zionist "War for Zionism"

And the ISO is dominated by Zionists who implant themselves on the Left in order to conceal and divert attention from Jewish controll of the American political economy.  They even elevate a professed Zionist as the intellectual leader of the Left -- Noam Chomsky who tried to discredit Mershiemer and Walt. 

Once again we see Zionist operatives trying to blame the oil companies for the Zionist war in the Middle East when we know that PNAC and Oded Yinon had designs for Zionist expansion in the Middle East and North Africa since the early 1980's.

The ISO also engaged in the Zionist demonization campaign against Libya because Libya assisted the Palestianian and where decidedly anti-Zionism and pro-Black and pro-Africa.

The fear of Ron Paul is cynical because these so-called Leftist desire is to USE Black people for their own agenda of Zionist (racist) expansion.

Who gives a damn about what Huffingtonpost writes

If Ron Paul is all this that Huffingtonpost says, how come every MSM attack dogs is after him? What is it about him that disturbs them?  Don't tell it is  racism because Newt, Romney (we all know about the Mormons, don't we?), Perry, Bachmann and our black-face of white superiority, Obama are all not about the white man burden?

Tossing out the Racist Granade

Glen Ford throwing out the "racist" label seem selective.  He certainly didn't use it against his cohorts on the Left that supported the racist, murderous, Zionist-controlled thugs that were labed by the pseudo-Left as "rebels" that destoryed Libya.

Amy Goodman, Noam Chomsky, the Internation Socialist Organization (ISO), World Socialist Web Site (WSWS), World Socialist Movement (WSM) and other members of the Jewish Left all engaged in a blatently ugly propaganda campaign against the Libyan Jamahiriya.  Not once did Ford label these folks "war criminal" or "racist".

His partner Bruce Dixon scrolled a WEAK-ASS rebuttal against Democracy Now! UNDERLING not against Amy Goodman who has reveal her utter affinity to racist Zionism.  

If there is going to be a revitalization of the Black Left, they must be bold enough to come clean and challenge Jewish Zionism unless it like the politician they complain about are on the Zionist payroll.  Around the world, Zionism is seen as RACIST and it is time for the Black Left CLEAN HOUSE of the American Left by outing these Left-wing racist (Zionists) rather than ally with them.  

You can't build solidary with your enemies -- the psuedo-Left Zionist.

IMO Your Attack on Glen Ford & BAR & WSWS RE Libya is Improper

Here at BAR [particularly Glen Ford]- Plus the web-site, &, RT, Info-Wars [IE: Alex Jones], Pepe Escobar @ Asia Times, Pambazuka News, & to a significantly lesser extent- The Real News- are the main places I had to go to get a whole different take [IE: the real deal] on what was happening in Libya [w the exception of The Real News this is also true for what happening in Syria- an attempted Libyan Redux]! Main-stream media outlets were nothing but propaganda outlets hyping the FUK-US NATO assault on Libya while demonizing Khadaffi - But To MY Surprise Al-Jazeera [Don't quite fit into the Zionist Conspiracy meme], & Amy G @ DN! also were essentially in agreement w [if not actually hyping] FUK-US NATO's assault on Libya [NOTE: I've had several posts on Libya calling out Amy G & DN in particular- here @ BAR!- My last one was on Glen Ford's Wed, 12/21/2011 Commentary on 'NATO's Blantant Disregard for Libyan Civilian Casualties']!!!

Plus Bruce Dixon's piece criticizing DN!'s spin on Libya [also posted @ GlobalResearch] along w & also a piece @ CounterPunch [along w InfoWars] are the only places where so-called 'leftist' alternative news sites even dared to critique Amy G / DN! , or CIA asset Juan Cole, or Rachel Maddow, etc [also note that Jared Bell here @ BAR criticized the way Amy G's DN! handled Troy Davis' execution]. Just go to Common Dreams, where Amy G regularly posts articles, & just try critiqing her or Chomsky & see how other commenters there try to shout you down in her defense! Hell even CIA asset & top so-called 'leftist' cheer-leader for FUK-US NATO's assault on Libya [& frequent DN! guest] Juan Cole recently posted an article on Common-Dreams! And go there & count how many hit pieces on Ron Paul [w a few exceptions] that they've done in the past few months! And BAR linked to a Sis Cynthia McKinney's Libya Fact finding tour engagement where 2 co-speakers called out Amy G / DN! specifically & in no uncertain terms on the Libyan Issue!

Critique hits home and tell the truth!

First of all what you label as an "attack" is a CRITIQUE of the duplicity of Glen Ford, BAR, and the Black Left for its failure to critique the pseudo-Left (aka. Zionist/racists implanted on the Left) and for Ford's reckless and selective use of the "racist" label.

Secondly, your interjection of other people such as Alex Jones, Pepe Escobar, and The Real News is deliberately designed to "muddy the waters" as they are NOT subjects of my critique.  If you read my postings you'd see that I specifically called out the International Socialist Organization (ISO), but since you mentioned World Socialist Web Site (WSWS) I'll include them in this response.

The WSWS including the ISO, WSM, and Democracy Now! ALL labeled Qaddafi a "Dictator" when in fact Qaddafi relinquished power back in 1979.  Perhaps you should read the following editorial by WSWS of 10 March 2011 Down with Gaddafi!

Here's a quote from the article ...

The World Socialist Web Site supports the struggle of the Libyan masses to overthrow the regime of Muammar Gaddafi, a right-wing bourgeois dictatorship that has long collaborated with the imperialist powers, and replace it with a democratic and genuinely popular government

Perhaps you should also read the ISO's stance on Libya and their attack on the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL) a group that did not engage in the propaganda war against Libya.

Quoting from the ISO article ...

[PSL and World Workers Party]These two organizations, part of the same group until 2004, have long accepted the Libyan dictatorship's claim to be progressive and anti-imperialist in spite of the corruption of the country's tiny elite around Qaddafi and the savagery of the regime's police-state repression and violence--now on sickening display for all the world to see.

BAR took an extremely WEAK stance against the Left-wing outfits that joined in the Zionist demonization campaigned against Qaddafi.  The ISO, in particular, is the largest "Socialist" organization in the U.S. and Democracy Now! is the foremost "progressive" news outlet in the nation.  Yet both of these "allies" took positions that were decidedly AGAINST the genuine Black agenda, as they repeatedly disparaged Qaddafi’s true nature of progressive advancements for the black people of Libya.

In BAR's ONLY critique of such HIGH PROFILE Left wing media personalities (prominent Leftists: Amy Goodman and Noam Chomsky) Bruce Dixon's critique was targeted against the "brown" UNDERLINGS Anjali Kamat and Sharif Abdel-Kodous.  Goodman was let off the hook and even praised by Dixon.  Dixon omitted the fact that Goodman used her show to smear the sovereign Libyan Army as a band of "rapists" while ignoring the killings of Black Libyans (who were falsely labeled as "mercenaries") by traitorous thugs who Goodman called "rebels".

No critique from BAR of the Zionist oracle Noam Chomsky, who took a position AGAINST the "Black Agenda".

Missing from BAR was any BACKSTORY of Zionism and its plans for Libya's destruction since 1981 and the role that The Left plays in deflecting attention away from Zionism’s dominance of the U.S. political economy.

What you seem to be confused about in your misreading of my response, is that Glen Ford and BAR  never labeled any of these Leftist supporters of the destruction of Libya – as RACISTS!   The ISO, Democracy Now, and others engaged in a heinous propaganda campaign for the benefit of Zionist hegemony against an African nation!

Rather than provide readers with a balanced and nuanced analysis of Ron Paul’s policy positions that are supportive of blacks (high incarceration rates from drug laws, ending wars being fought by the young and poor, etc..), Ford recklessly tosses out an incendiary label that Dr. Paul is a racist.  However BAR apparently withholds such incendiary descriptions from the RACISTS within the ranks of The Left.  Racists like Amy Goodman, Noam Chomsky, Medea Benjamin, and the plethora of hidden Zionists who actually control and dominate The Left.

Let Me Make My Position Clear to You

First Of All- I mentioned Alex Jones, Pepe Escobar, the Real News, Global Research, etc - NOT TO Muddy the Waters, but rather to illustrate where I [Me, Myself & I - though IMO this is true for many others as well] had to go besides HERE @ BAR [& to a lesser extent] to cut thru the matrix of anti-Khadaffi Propagand & LIES regarding FUK-US NATO's assault on Libya. 

2nd- I've got a track record here at BAR & on Common Dreams of having a fair & balanced critique of Ron Paul. I don't know if Paul is a bigot / racist or not. I don't personally know him nor have I met him - Have You?... [I don't know nor met Obama either, even though He's from my home town]. But it would be no surprise to me if Paul did have some bigoted views- but IMO no more so than most white main-stream Dims. However- I for one am not prepared to blantantly attack Bro Glen Ford & BAR in defense of white TX GOPer Ron Paul!

3rd: Is your beef w [I didn't say a thing about ISO & WSM because I'm not familiar w them] is that they called Khadaffi a dictator? Well Technically he, like Fidel Castro, was a dictator. The problem is that the US main-stream media deliberately conflates, misuses & abuse the terms dictator & tyrant IE: the corp MSNM News always calls Hugo Chavez a dictator- NOT!- Chavez has been constituationally elected Pres 3Xs - thus by definition he can NOT be a dictator -&- They called Khadaffi & Castro tyrannical dictators [I had this discussion w an African blogger who in fact knew that a leader can be a dictator without being a ruthless Tyrant but chose to label Khadaffi as such anyway!]. IMO: Khaddafi & Castro could 'technically' be called dictators, yet that does NOT mean they were corrupt ruthless Tyrants! IMO: Guys like those staunch US allies- the late Shah of Iran & Mobutu, etc were in fact corrupt ruthless Tyrants [IMO also ex-CIA asset Saddam Hussein]! Thus I didn't get upset that called Khadaffi a dictator- their critique of FUK-US NATO's assault on Libya was far more pertainent. If you are going to judge WSWS on that score - go back & see what the Real News' [or even Pepe Escobar] called Khaddafi [the Real New's Paul Jay once said 'I don't much like the guy- BUT It seems everyone is ganging up him']. PLUS- Al-Jazeera & the [AL] Arab League [save Syria & Algeria] sold Khadaffi out BIG TIME! [& Now the AL & Turkey is selling out Assad & Syria - Also Note that Nigeria & even S. Africa voted for UN Res 1973]! Thus the Vicious Assault on Libya can't easily be classfied as merely a US/NATO/Zionist Conspiracy - Many/Most Arab Leaders Were IN On IT BIG TIME! IMO: 'Zionists' {Jews} were /are NOT part of that Racist Lynch Mob [IE: the NTC] that unleashed / are unleashing HELL on Black Libyans & African immigrants- they were/are so-called Al-Qeada / King Idris Affiliated Racist Arab Extremists!  And may have initially bought into the hype that this was actually a grass-roots non-violent uprising against Khadaffi [initially even I did to some degree]- But after it became clear that it was actually an armed rebellion in combo w a FUK-US NATO assault, IMO: their later reports reflected that reality! - While DN! & Al-Jazeera never waivered from the main-stream script! [NOTE: I have my own critiques for many white so-called Socialists / Communists based on my own observations regarding their anti- Black Nationalism / Pan Africanism critiques & positions- but that's another discussion.] And I'll go back to The Real News- though Paul Jay's reports on Libya were generally more fair & balanced than DN!'s & Al-Jazeera's, he often had an Arab so-called 'Mid-East' expert on who called Khadaffi a ruthless tyrant & said that he supported the armed rebellion against Khadaffi- his main criticism was the US' & NATO's active involvement - especially beyond the so-called phony 'R2P' No-Fly-Zone. 

4th: Are you implying that Amy G. & Chomsky readily fall into the AIPAC / Likudnik camp on the Israel / Palestine issue? IF so, then I disagree. My main criticisms [suspicions actually] of Amy G & Chomsky are- How Amy G / DN! mis-reported using proganda & dis-info, FUK-US NATO's assault on Libya in combo that AL-CIAeada / King Idris Affilated Rebel-Rousing Racist Lynch Mob [aka: the NTC]- who she mis-classified as Democratic freedom fighters & intially mis-classified them as non-violent protestors, plus the whole Khadaffi's Viagra Rapes & African Mercs BS while denying that the NTC Rebels were carrying out Racist Lynchings & attacks against Blacks in Libya! [I've got some other issues w Amy G but Libya was the proverbial Last Straw!]... - My main critique [even suspicion] of Chomsky is not so much on Libya though I disagree w much of his take on it [NOTE: Although he called Khadaffi a ruthless dictator, he apparently disagreed w the FUK-US NATO assault- especially when it went beyond the so-called 'R2P' 'No-Fly-Zone'...]. Rather My questions regarding Chomsky began w his disingenous take on 9-11 in combo w his [& some other so-called 'liberal-leftist' talking heads: IE: Alex Cockburn, Ted Rall, Matt Taibbi, & Wikileaks poster-boy Julian Assange, etc] dissing & ridiculing [if not out-right slandering] the entire 9-11 Truth movement [which began w so-called 'leftist' talking-heads Chomsky & Cockburn- by their disingenuously insulting dismissals regarding JFK's assassination]. But I not prepared get into that any further right now.       

Your Position is FLAWED!


In rebuttal 


1.  The "progressive" alternative media that includes Democracy Now! and the aforementioned socialist organizations ALL engaged in the demonization campaign targeting Qaddafi and the soverign Libyan Army.  Goodman mandaciously used the rape shrouded under the guise of "feminism".  As I previously stated Glen Ford NEVER labeled these "left-wing" outfits that decidely positioned themselves against the Black agenda as RACIST.


2. However- I for one am not prepared to blantantly attack Bro Glen Ford & BAR in defense of white TX GOPer Ron Paul!


And I for one will not defend Glen Ford's duplicity for not calling out RACIST ZIONISTS on the Left.  Black politics and the Black agenda is being retarded by Left-wing Jewish Zionists. Yet Glen Ford never EXPOSES and never labels these bands of Left-wingers as racists.  And for your information I met Ron Paul when I resided in Texas 20 years ago.  However I could not support Paul's free market ideology.  Now in 2011 having greater awareness and understanding of Jewish Zionism and its debilitating effects on the Left and Black politics, Paul clearly articulates an agenda that confronts Zioinsm which is the most vile form of racism in existance today.  That is an aspect that you seemingly gloss over.


3. It is obvious you DID NOT READ the article on the WSWS site calling for the OVERTHROW of Qaddafi and supporting the racist, murderous, traitorous thugs they labeled "rebels".  In addition what is most revealing is your alignment with the Zionist propaganda against Qaddafi labeling him a "dictator".  The TRUTH is that Qaddafi WAS NOT AND NEVER WAS A DICTATOR.  As already presented here, Qaddafi RELINQUISHED POWER in 1979.  He even reiterated that fact in his BBC interview (go look it up!).  The power was in the People's Assembly and Libya's Prime Minister.  Qaddafi was a FIGUREHEAD and recognized by the Libyan people as the leader of the Libyan Revolution.  Qaddafi also provided the intellectual basis for their direct democracy.  You lose all credibility by aping the propaganda of the Zionist Left in order to formulate a weak rejoinder.


4.  I'm not implying that Amy G and Chomsky falls into "AIPAC/Lukudnik" camp.  I'm telling you that they are members of the Zionist tribe!  Chomsky has professed his Zionism (racism).  If you need help in researching Chomsky's Zionism here's a link where you can get started on your research ...  I recomend watching the video on that site where he is acknowledges his support for Zionist entity on Israeli TV.


I also recommend reading articles by Jeffrey Blankfort who was first to expose Chomsky's Zionism as well as James Petras' "The Power of Israel in the United States".  Chomsky, a noted linguist, and "intellectual" leader of the Left spent decades culivating a narrative that CONCEALS the Zionist agenda under the guise of "U.S. Imperialism".  The most obvious role Chomsky played in defending Zionism was his defense of AIPAC when it was outed by Mershimer and Walt in their expose of the Israel Lobby as being the leading cause for the War on Iraq.  Goodman, a Zionist herself, who earns $1,000,000.00/yr from Democracy Now! is primarily funded by Zionist controlled and dominated foundations.  Zionists are planted on the Left in order to control the opposition including and especially the Black Left. There is a hell of a lot more evidence that I can offer but you need to do your research because the extent of your ignorance and indoctrination is quite obvious in your rebuttal.

I Disagree w Your Attacks on BAR So Now You Result to Insults?

I can guarantee you that I am NOT, as you put it, 'indoctrinated' - Some how you seem to have missed that I said that after DN!'s duplicity in hyping FUK-US NATO's assault on Libya & demonizing Khadaffi at this point I hardly watch DN! any more! And you obviously disregard my statements about Chomsky, Cockburn, Taibbi, Rall's, etc [because there are many more] acting in effect as 'left' 'gate-keepers' on the 9-11 Truth issue. And you apparently disregard what I've said about issues I have w many white so-called Socialists / Communists who often take an anti-Black Nationalist / anti-Pan Africanist position.   

Nor am I ignorant of some of themes of which you speak IE: The issue of western main-stream 'feminism' vis-a-vis the Black family in general & Black Women in particular- IE:  Main-stream Feminist Icon Ms Gloria Steinem's suspect comments relative to the Obama vs Billary in the 2008 Dim primary race, or Steinem's  role as chief editor for 'Ms Magazine' to push 'The Color Purple' [pushed Black lesbianism by depicting nearly all Black Men as abusive thugs]' & “Black Macho and the Myth of the Superwoman” [attacked Black Nationalism by equating it w so-called Black 'Macho-istic Patriarchy'], let alone info regarding Ms Steinem's Alleged CIA Connections. Or the NeoCONS & their PNAC manifesto [PNACers dominated Bush Jr's Cabinet] & their links to the AIPAC / Likudnik camp. And- I could go much further but I won't at this point.    

SO You blast Bro Glen Ford & BAR for not calling out 'Zionists' [your code word for Jewish] pseudo-leftists, but you yourself haven't yet called out the Arab League's [AL] duplicity w FUK-US NATO when they sold Khadaffi out- even though he was a fellow AL member [& now they're selling-out fellow AL member- Assad in Syria]! Nor have you said anything about Al-Jazeera's MAJOR Role in hyping this attrocity- but then Al-Jazeera is owned / controlled by Qatar's royal family- & Qatar houses a large US Naval base in the Persian gulf! 

With all due respect- WE are simply going to have to disagree on the 'technical' definition of Dictator as opposed to Tyrant. But I do take issue w WSWS characterizing Khaddafi as a ' "Right-Wing Bourgeois" dictator who has long collaborated with the imperialist powers'- but too often white so-called socialists / communists use this kind of language to describe those, who like Khadaffi, champion the idea on Pan Africanism [I've already spoken on that above]. But in any event you can check my previous posts [IE: My record] Here @ BAR or @ Common Dreams- which should dispell the FALSE idea that I'm an ignorant Khadaffi Hater who's been indoctrinated by demonizing anti-Khadaffi mis-info, propaganda & rhetoric!

PS: You were a bit disengenuous in your edited excerpt that you posed from the web site  @ [ ], such that it seemed to suggest that WSWS supported FUK-US NATO's assault on Libya. So Here's a more complete excerpt: "Down with Gaddafi! BUT NO to US-NATO Intervention! - The World Socialist Web Site supports the struggle of the Libyan masses to overthrow the regime of Muammar Gaddafi, a right-wing bourgeois dictatorship that has long collaborated with the imperialist powers, and replace it with a democratic and genuinely popular government. But we entirely reject the claim that the overthrow of Gaddafi either should be achieved or can only be achieved through the intervention of the United States and NATO. - The instrument for the liberation of the Libyan people is the Libyan working class in alliance with the masses throughout North Africa and the Middle East. - It is a long-established principle of the socialist movement to oppose imperialist interventions. The experiences of the past decade in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the entire antecedent history of the twentieth century, have underscored the correctness of this principle. - The overthrow of Gaddafi by a US-NATO intervention rather than by the working class... would only mean ... the installation of a colonialist regime. - This is, in fact, the major motive behind the plans to directly intervene militarily against Gaddafi, not sympathy for the Libyan people. - Far from working to reduce the death toll, the imperialist powers have incited civil war... - Their aggressive stance on Libya is dictated by economic interests and geopolitical strategic considerations that have nothing what-so-ever to do with the human rights of the Libyan people..."

Wow!  Truly fantastic and

Wow!  Truly fantastic and thoughtful comments for another fantastic Mr. Ford post!

On Paul, anyone over 25 who is still a libertarian is sadly misguided, and it's a damn shame he is one, and if he is a rascist, because he's certainly right on all the other issues, but he's got that hellish "R" after his name.

He did serve in the US military, making him a minority among both branches of the bankster party (r-cons and dems).

Obama of Wall Street or Romney of Wall Street ---- same people, just a pseudo choice....

I will give any 'racists' a pass for this

I quote Ron Paul:


"“If some other country thought they had to go to war with them [Iran], that is their business,” he said, adding there is no proof and reliable evidence of the existence of a military aspect to Iran's nuclear program."

End the Drug War. No cuts to Social Security

Paul ending the Drug War, the FED, and cuts to military spending would certainly free up a lot of money for domestic needs.  Paul is aware that SS added no dollars to the deficit and it paid for by the workers.  This is why there are no cuts to SS in his budget that cuts $1 Trillion dollars.

Since Glen Ford labels the Republicans the "White Man's Party" why shouldn't we supported Paul.  He better than all the Republican and the Democrats combined on issue that will make profound changes. Not like the "hope and change" that Obama sold the people.

And when it comes to racism, "Black" Obama is right up there with his White predecessors.  

Ron Paul says Social Security is a ponzi scheme...

He wants to bankrupt Social Security by fooling young naïve workers into supporting legislation that would allow them to opt out of paying into S.S.

Obama also wants to bankrupt S.S. by cutting the taxes that funds S.S.

Both Obama and Ron Paul want the Paul Ryan plan of privatization (abolition) of Social Security. Its just that Ron Paul makes no bones about it, while Obama moves by stealth.

Ron Paul proposes auditing and abolishing the FED while rewarding the bankers & speculators -who own the FED- by cutting there taxes and further deregulating their markets!

Ron Paul has a campaign ad about him performing free medical procedures on a few Blacks, that's fine, but he doesn't talk about his genocidal plan of cutting/abolishing Medicare/Medicaid/S-CHIP ... ALL guberment Jobs, unemployment assistance, education opportunity, food assistance, Housing assistance, unions, minimum wages etc. etc...


"After a failed US Senate bid in the mid-1980s, Paul briefly returned to the practice of medicine. In his private practice, he refused to accept Medicare or Medicaid payments from patients, claiming they were paying with “stolen money.”

The reason why Ron Paul spares the Pentagon the same brutal austerity he subjects the rest of Americans to, is something I can't definitively put my finger on. But I do know from listening to his lackey Alex Jones that some of his followers believe that the military might stage a coup on the "big guberment," or stand down and refuse to take orders.

Alex also bemoans the possibility of the military not getting their benefits, while he disregards the potential abolition of other essential guberment programs that Americans need.

Alex has some very good information, but the more and more I follow him, the more I AGREE WITH GLEN FORD. There is some White nationalist or Neo-confederate stuff going on beneath the surface.


"Moreover, Paul has repeatedly made his opposition to civil rights legislation clear. As recently as 2004, he marked the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964—which outlawed the system of apartheid-like racial segregation in Southern schools and public places during the Jim Crow period—by denouncing the measure from the floor of Congress for infringing on the “rights of private property owners,” including the “customer service practices of every business in the country.”

"Paul’s criticisms of the Iraq War and the Bush administration are entirely tactical and stem from his ultra-nationalist and isolationist outlook, not any principled opposition to American imperialism.

"This is demonstrated by reviewing his record. During the debate on the floor of the House of Representatives in October 2002 Paul, a former Air Force officer and senior member of the House Foreign Relations Committee, rose to speak against the resolution authorizing Bush to launch war against Iraq.

"His chief criticism was that ceding Congress’ power to declare war to the president ran the danger of giving ultimate authority over US foreign interventions to the United Nations, whose resolutions Bush had cited to prepare war against Iraq.

"Rather than UN resolutions, Paul said, “I happen to like it more when the president speaks about unilateralism and national security interests” to declare war. When the US “depends on the UN for our instructions,” he insisted, “we end up in no-win wars.” The first President Bush “didn’t go all the way” in the first Gulf War, Paul complained, because G.H.W. Bush said “the UN did not give him permission to.” When you go “through the backdoor” with UN-declared wars, Paul said, “wars last longer and you do not have a completion, like we had in Korea and Vietnam.”

"A month after the US invasion of Iraq, Paul took the floor of Congress to promote his “American Sovereignty Restoration Act” to end US participation in the United Nations. He said Bush deserved some credit for “ultimately upholding the principle that American national security is not a matter of international consensus, and that we don’t need UN authorization to act.”

"Paul voted to authorize the war against Afghanistan. His criticisms of the Iraq War are conditional and tactical, chiefly centering on the complaint that it is undermining “national defense” by overstretching US military forces and its high cost is creating ever-greater economic dependence on foreign powers and potential enemies like “Communist China.”

And another thing.....

If we were to go by "Deadbeat's" logic, isn't Ron Paul a Zionist shill too (But of the right-wing anarchist variety) ?

These are all of his Austrian/Chicago school buddy's and influences:

Israel Kirzner, Murray Rothbard, Ayn Rand (Alisa Rosenbaum), Alan Greenspan, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, Peter Schiff, Barry Goldwater, and the Koch brothers...


"He was one of only a handful of Republican congressmen to endorse Ronald Reagan for president against Ford in 1976, and he used his seat on the House Banking Committee to advocate complete banking deregulation and the abolishing of the Federal Reserve Board. The favor was returned, as Paul was able to gain the backing of the ultra-rich, such as multi-billionaire Charles Koch, CEO of Koch Industries, the largest privately held company in the United States, and Steve Forbes, who would later be instrumental in financing Paul’s reelection campaigns in the 1990s."

We learn from Minister Louis Farrakhan that there were right-wing Jews and white Christians who backed cessation, slavery and apartied in America, and I find the support for Heinrich Brüning (Ron Paul) no different than what went on in the bad old days.

After Heinrich Brüning's (Ron Paul's) creative destruction of America, the question is: Will White/Jewish New Deal America join White/Jewish Dixie-crat America in the acceptance of a new Nazi regime or military Junta or dictatorship of the Banks?

WSWS often gets too ideological

I read them quite a lot but I am often taken aback by some of their analyses.  They described the NATO/CIA sponsored coup in Libya as a popular uprising against the Gaddafi regime.  In all their critique of the Gaddafi regime, they never gave credit to Gaddafi for giving Libya one of the highest human development indices in the developing world.  They attempted to explain this away in terms of Libya's huge oil wealth while ignoring other countries with huge oil wealth but have relatively low human development indices -- Nigeria, Saudia Arabia, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Angola and even Russia and Brazil.  WSWS is harping that the current protest in Russia is 'popular'.  Same with Syria.  I think they are strait-jacketed by their ideological roots in troskyism. Hardly do they find rationale for such conflagrations in zionism.  What is so bad that Ron will do that has not been done in its worse by Obama or Bush?  Are some of us belittling the role of imperialism and its perpetual state of war to the malaises of the American state? James Madison's words ring a truth often swept under the rug:

“If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.” -James Madison 

“Of all the enemies of public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other.” -James Madison 

It sure would be nice

It sure would be nice for the men commenting here to remember that they are not the majority.  Women are the majority and Ron Paul will do major damage to women.

It amazes me that this is not even mentioned, much less protested.

What about women in the Middle East & Africa ????

The   "damage"  you would   feel   from  President  Paul would   feel  like   love  careresses compared  to  the   bombs   that are  currently  being   dropped on  women  in  Iraq,  Afgan, Pakistan, Libya,  with  the  approval  of  President  Obama.

......Ron Paul for President?????????

 You Tube:  Ron Paul's Racist Quotes uploaded by Uploaded by TheYoungTurks on Jan 9, 2008


Ron Paul's Shocking Statements On CNN (Pt.1of2)1-10-08


"Candidate's comments on blacks questioned" by Catalina Camia, Washington Bureau of The Dallas Morning News, The Dallas Morning News, May 22, 1996 


"Ron Paul's racist link", Los Angeles Times, Editorial Section, December 21, 2011

"……..In 1992, Ron Paul, now a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, published a newsletter called the "Ron Paul Political Report." That year, the report published a special edition on "racial terrorism," a favorite theme. It included an observation about the Los Angeles riots, which erupted after a Ventura County jury acquitted four police officers charged with beating Rodney G. King.

"Order was only restored in L.A.," the publication opined, "when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."

"Ron Paul defenders: A video rebuttal from Jim Newton"  by Jim Newton, Los Angeles Times, December 22, 2011

Obama also called black men 'boys'.

I wonder if imperialist wars on black and brown peoples have no racialist underpinnings.  The alleged racist mantra of Paul will not fly. Some of us can  through the trick. Oh, lest I forget.  Are they going to hold Romney to test on his 'Mormon' beliefs?

Your Point on Romney's Mormonism is Very Pertinent

Up Until 1980 it was Official Mormon Doctrine that Blacks Could NOT be Mormon Church officials [besides the fact that a lot of Mormon Doctrine is just plain WACKED- & I'm NOT specifically referring to polygamy]. It's my understanding that Mormon doctrine also until recently taught, like most of {slave-oriented} Euro-Christianity once did, that Blacks were inherently inferior due FALSE / Phony interpretations of the so-called- 'Curse of Ham' [falsely claims Noah's son KHam was Cursed Black- There is in fact was NO such curse - but the Biblical KHam was indeed BORN Black as the Biblical Fore-Father of KHem & Cush {aka: Egypt & Ethiopia] & 'Mark of Cain' [again Falsely claims that Cain's sign of being cursed was Black skin]! Thus Mormonism until at-least as recently as at-least 1980 was an Openly RACIST Ideology!

President Obama & CBC, the Democratic Party are Hypocrites too!

President Barack Obama is But One of Multiple Sellouts!

MiikiMike - 12/29/2011 - 11:20

Source: Ceyseau(dot)net and inept leaders

I'm against President Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, 33rd Congressional District Congresswoman Karen Bass, 2nd District LA County Supervisor Mark Ridley Thomas, and/or other black people in policy making positions, be it past or the present, because he or she do not use his or her influence to uphold the U.S. Constitution or any respective State Constitution to protect the lawful rights of U.S. born descendants of slavery.

“There are cases where an individual has been wrongfully treated by his government and about the only way, unless the individual resorts to court, and even in some cases the courts are not able to give proper relief, the only area or avenue open to the individual is through his representative. When you find a bona fide error has been made, I suggest that you make a maximum effort to remedy it. This I feel is a vital and important function of those of us in the House of Representatives”.

Authors: Donald G. Tacheron and Morris Udall, from the book entitled, “The Job of the Congressman”, pages 65 and 66.

(The above excerpt “The Job of the Congressman” holds true for any elected office holder, and/or U.S. Citizen.)

The value of an elected official, without respect to political party affiliation, criminal or civil defense lawyer is gauged by the competency of any of these influential individuals to use the Constitution, the rule of law, tort practice to represent a client, especially a client egregiously violated by the atrocities of government.

This would be especially the case for any influential individual of the same ethnic identity of the individuals served, because it is not in the best interest of any other ethnic group to be the first to step up to the plate in behalf of the specific ethnic group (Black in this instance) egregiously violated by government who seeks redress in compensation, restitution from the government for the harm done, etc.

Inept Leaders Cause Blacks to be Used as Fodder for the System!

Source: Ceyseau(dot)net and inept leaders

I'm against President Barack Obama and/or other black people in policy making positions because he or she do not use his or her influence to uphold the U.S. Constitution or any respective State Constitution to protect the lawful rights of U.S. born descendants of slavery.

"Insisting on honesty as the only policy, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that public employees can be punished for lying, even when they merely deny an accusation that later turns out to be true”.“ ….Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. 'An employee who is asked about possible wrongdoing has only two responses:

"Tell the truth or say nothing”. (LA Times, January 22, 1998)

The value of an elected official, criminal or civil defense lawyer is gauged by the competency of a lawyer to use the Constitution, the rule of law, tort practice to represent a client, especially a client egregiously violated by the atrocities of government.

14th Amendment, USC, Section 1: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Article 1, Section 7, of the California Constitution states: " A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws...." and Article 1, Section 26 states: " The provisions of the constitution are mandatory and prohibitory, unless by express words they are declared to be otherwise".

Surely there is at least one black elected official, black lawyer around who is ethical, competent, not sleazy or spineless and who lives by the principles to which this nation stands, and is not afraid to take on government, in behalf of a any law abiding U.S. born descendant of slavery egregiously violated by government.






Не спрашивая какого-либо внушительного

Она в состоянии та кже ударить концевую онтологию, соответственную нашей суперспособности во сприятия и построения, какая поддается так же интерсубъективным обсуждению и проверке, как и онтология любой второй системы. Не спрашивая какого-либо внушительного приоритета для феменалистической системы, можно изречь, что такая система предостаточно обоснов ывается тем, что она пускает упорядоченное и складное описание собственного объекта в терминах воспринимаемых индивидов ( подобным типом, это очередная демонстрация имманентной связи конструктивизма и когерентизма ). Контраргумент: действительно попытка возвести науку только в терминах слога вещей сталкивается по крайней границе с подобными же проблемами, что и попытка возвести ее на слоге чувств. Наиб олее величественное противоречие против номинализма состоит в том, что мишеням всегдашнего изыскания науки окей предназначается физикалистская система.