Why This Black Man Is Watching the Debates, and Voting Green

by BAR managing editor Bruce A. Dixon


I'll be watching the debates. Not on CNN or ABC, but online at Occupy the Debates or at Democracy Now or Free Speech TV, where the third party candidates and others have a chance to answer questions and comment in real time.

Why This Black Man Is Watching the Debates, and Voting Green

by BAR managing editor Bruce A. Dixon

I can't say I'm not mad at anybody. If being ripped off and lied to, and having murders committed in your name around the world don't make you mad, there's something wrong with you, and whatever is wrong with me, it's not that. I'll be watching tonight's presidential debates, but like most people, I already know what I'll do on November 6.

I won't vote Republican, because among other things, the GOP is the permanent party of white supremacy. Republicans are also the permanent party of Wall Street, the party of Big Agriculture, the party of Big Insurance, Big Oil, Big Real Estate, Big Pharma, of more nukes Republicans are the party of privatizers, jailers, charter schools and military contractors. Republicans started the 40 years war on drugs, and of course they remain the party of Empire and Permanent War. Republicans hate brown people and threaten to jail and deport as many as they possibly can.

Democrats on the other hand, are the permanent party of Wall Street. Democrats are the party of Big Agriculture, Big Insurance, Big Oil, Big Real Estate, Big Pharma and more nukes, more jails and continuing the 40 years war on drugs. Democrats are the party of more privatizations --- Corey Booker is trying to privatize the water in Newark New Jersey for instance.

Democrats are the party of military contractors and charter schools as well. When Obama Secretary of Education Arne Duncan ran the school system in Chicago he gave several high schools and even a middle school to the US military to run as their own charter schools. Obama's Race To The Top program bludgeons school districts around the country into closing public schools, firing teachers and replacing them with charters, and is lauded by Democrat big city mayors in places like Los Angeles, Chicago, and Philadelphia.

Unlike Republicans, Democrats often say they like brown people, and they get the lion's share of the Latino vote. But President Obama's words don't match his actions. Obama has deported more brown people in 3 years than the last three Republicans put together.

On the good side, this Democratic president, and many other Democrats even support gay marriage and the right to access birth control and abortions. And although Democratic congressional leaders, when they controlled the House during and after Katrina, refused to hold hearings on the disaster because they were afraid of looking too pro-black, Democrats are emphatically NOT the party of white supremacy. In fact all the black elected officials elected with majorities of actual black votes are Democrats.

So there are differences. But down here on the ground where people actually live, those differences don't amount to much. Both are war parties, parties of the rich, parties that want to privatize roads, water, public schools (that's what charters are about --- privatization!) parties that will continue the war on drugs and policies that feed our American prison state.

I grew up believing my vote meant something, that it was my voice. The people I called my teachers taught me to raise my voice against unjust wars and economic oppression, the same way I'd raise it against racism. Exchanging a few white faces in city halls, legislatures and the White House for black and brown ones isn't really such a big deal.

What passes for black political power nowadays isn't such a big deal to me because poverty rates are as high now as when a bygone Democratic president declared a war on poverty --- a project that failed because he spent all the money in a colonial war that killed millions in Vietnam, and climbing still higher. Prolonging the careers of black Democrats like Atlanta's Kasim Reed, Newark's Corey Booker, Philly's Mike Nutter or even of congressmen John Lewis and Jim Clyburn as they front for gentrifiers, charter schools, and power companies that build new nukes in the middle of poor black towns being poisoned by old ones is just not anything I want to do with my voice.

I can see why all the big preachers want black folks to vote Democratic. Most of them are part of, or aspiring parts of the black political class, the black misleadership class themselves. Many depend on so-called “faith based” funding to keep their ministries alive. The black church has been captured, and is a kind of “state religion” of the black political class, divorced from the lives of the class of black people who provide over 40% of the nation's prisoners.

I'm an old guy now, past sixty but not yet senior enough for Medicare, and I've been in the movement a long time. Younger people sometimes ask me what to do. After telling them not to respect their elders all that much --- we didn't respect them that much 45 years ago either --- the main thing I tell them is that movement leaders and participants back in the day had visions and horizons longer than the next election cycle or the one after that. They were prepared to fight whether they had allies in city hall, the legislature or the courts or not. Unlike today's NAACP and NAN, they developed agendas without the guidance of corporate funders and their recommended professionals.

We've proved we can elect as many Democrats as we want, all the way up the food chain without changing much here at the bottom. I know this well. I gave more than 20 years of my own life to electing better Democrats, helping Democrats run better campaigns, and registering more Democrat voters. I met Barack Obama 20 years ago on one of those gigs in Project VOTE Illinois, where he was state director and I was one of three field organizers who signed up 130,000 new voters and flogged them out to the polls that year. We elected Harold Washington, and a lot of state legislators and a few Congressional reps. The Democratic party will still let you work for it, but once in office, big money calls the shots. It's time to leave that house and build a new one.

It's an uncomfortable truth: the present US political system is largely people-proof and democracy-proof. The time and treasure we've sunk into supporting Democrats the last seventy years is gone. It's a horse we raised and watered and fed that somebody else has ridden off and it won't be back.

I still believe my voice and my vote mean something. Kwame Toure used to say the thing to do is find an organization you're in substantial agreement with and join it, or if it does not exist, start one and recruit your neighbors.

So I've joined the Georgia Green Party, and I'm recruiting those of my neighbors who still believes that unemployment and mass incarceration have to be addressed, that illegal wars and deportations must be stopped, that Wall Street must be reined in, and that gentrification and privatization have to be stopped. Most voters who call themselves Democrats, in fact millions of those voting for President Obama believe exactly these things already, but are substantially disinformed about what their elected officials actually DO.

I was at a demonstration in support of Chicago teachers Saturday, and some participants seemed to assume that the president was on their side, that maybe they could enlist figures like Rev. Al Sharpton to aid their struggle to mobilize people against the inroads of school privatizaters. It fell to me to tell them the bad news --- that Sharpton took a half million dollar bribe years ago to jump on the charter school bandwagon, that he toured the country with Newt Gingrich and Arne Duncan beating the bushes for high stakes testing and charters, and the administration is actually the enemy on this one.

Eventually they and many like them, if they want a party that stands up for what they believe, will have to become Greens. It's my job to make sure that happens.

So I'll watch the debates, sure. The crooks who run them won't let Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate on the same stage with the corporate candidates. So I'll watch Democracy Now's coverage, in which Jill Stein and another candidate in real time answer the same questions as they do. My colleague Glen Ford will be a guest at Occupy The Debates in Baltimore as well.

So yes, I'll watch. And I'll vote. But not for a Republican and not for a Democrat, not again. I'll vote like my voice means something. I won't be coerced into voting for a 100% evil Democrat just because the Republicans are 120% evil. I'm voting Green this year, and helping build a Green Party, right here in Georgia where I live.

Bruce A. Dixon is managing editor at Black Agenda Report, a state committee member of the GA Green Party, and a partner in a technology firm. He lives and works in Marietta GA, and can be reached at bruce.dixon(at)blackagendareport.com, or via this state's contact page.


I'll read Occupy the Debates tomorrow:took survey

Thanks, Mr. Dixon.  I have Occupy the Debates on my list of websites saved and will read the website tomorrow.  I've been looking forward to the website since BAR listed it some days ago.  There's a topic that needs a blog entry: why the last hope argument of the Dems that the next President will probably have to nominate one or two justices to the U.S. Supreme Court and so we "must" vote for Obama is phoney. 

That's what he's doing.

He's destroying progressivism from the inside far more effectively, with far less resistance, than any overt self-proclaimed conservative ever could.

Big Boys Don't Cry

Bruce, I agree with your assessment, but let me make a confession of sorts.

I watched the debates and based on what I saw and heard Romney won, convincingly?  Mmmm... wouldn't say that but he more than held his ground, Obama wavered and waffled.

But more important than the "final score" was the reasons why.  Romney was not only crisper, sharper, more decisive than Obama, the reason "why" is because he believes in what he is saying whereas Obama has triangulated and obfuscated his positions to the point where he CANNOT BE convincing nor decisive. 

I've said to friends and compansions repeatedly that when you have two moderate Republicans competing, one Black and one White, the White guy will/should ALWAYS win and that's what happened tonight.

Obama is not a progressive/liberal and therefore could not distinguish himself from Romney.  Obama is tepid on progressive issues, doesn't believe in them, and it showed.  I think the "winning" line for Romney is when he accurately called out Obama on cutting medicare/medicaid.  Obama couldn't say shit and it caught him off guard.  As BAR has written consistently the Democrats have outflanked the Rethugs by adopting their values and positions.  Obama tried to distinguish himself but he cannot.

I predicted Obama would win convincingly but he didn't, I accept the fact that I was wrong, Big Boys don't cry, hopefully Obama isn't, because I ain't.  What the "debates" showed was that there is not a dimes worth of difference in Dimocraps and Rethugs.  So much for the Dimocraps tired-ass strategy of moving to the center, that short obviously doesn't work, Obama was tepid, lethargic and uninspiring, but Obama still wins though closer than I predicted.  Talk about a cat giving life to a party that should have been vanquished 4 years ago.  Pathetic.

Thank you Uncle Mittens

I sent Mitt a thank you note and a $1 donation this morning (just kidding).  But I do want to thank him for his brilliant strategy of outting Obama as a Republican.  If he continues this strategy the race will tighten even more.  I predicated a debate win for Obama because I thought Mitt was an empty suit, seems I fingered the wrong empty suit. 

It was both laughable, enlightening and pathetic to see Uncle Mittens push Obama into a right wing corner.  Uncle Mittens has no problem telling Jim and us "47 per centers" where he's cutting "waste and fat" but Obama can't.  So Obama was left with bromides, anectdotes and triangulation.  He couldn't speak with conviction because it would have required him speaking TRUTHFULLY about his "economic plan" and dispiriting an already dispirited base even more.

Mitt didn't hide his machete at all whereas Obama had to hide his switchblade.  I thought one of the most telling moments of the "debate" was when Uncle Mittens cornered Obama about the $6 trillion in cuts stemming from the implementation of ObamaCare, that left Obama punch-drunk and dazed, the position he was in all night because he has to lie and triangulate and Mitt doesn't.

I want to thank Uncle Mittens for doing something that BAR has tried for years.  No offense to BAR whom I love, its just that Mitt had the national platform to do it, and it was likely pure serendipity.    Uncle Mittens forced Obama out of the closet as a Rethug-Lite or not so Lite, depending upon your critical thinking skills.  I have no illusions that the Obama Apologists will dismiss the REALITIES and argue that Mitt was simply the aggressor, point taken.  But that's Obama's problem too.  He's weak as water, as I said 4 years ago and I'm saying it now.  It should be clear to anyone who has a critical thinking capacity why the Rethugs rejuvenated themselves post-Obama's win in 08; no offense to you genadarmes of political correctness but dude is a pussy (not Pussy Riot) pussy galore.  LOL

He should have used the switchblade on the Rethugs back in 08, gutted the m****f***rs in broad daylight.  Now he's trembling in a corner llike a lil bitch and he's about to use it on us 47 percenters.

Was Uncle Mittens short on details??  F***kn "A" but so was Obama.  Mitt embraced Simpson-Boles openly, Obama embraces it too, but "shhhhhhhh....." don't tell anybody.  LOL

NO to the Greens as well.


Jill Stein says she supports "…the release of all political prisoners and journalists from Israeli and Palestinian prisons.…"

http://www.ifamericansknew.org says there are NO political prisoners being held by Palestinians.

Jill Stein is just another US Zionist politician. She certainly is no Cynthia McKinney. Cynthia this year is supporting Roseanne Barr and Cindy Sheehan.


Great post.  You've got Jill Stein dead to right.  She is a Zionist and BARshould be ashemed for endorcing a Jewish supremacist.

You've clearly never read the Greens' platform.

I posted some relevant pieces of it above. You should check it out before you accuse either B.A.R. or the Greens of being pawns of the Zionists. Frankly it's you who should be ashamed for jumping to conclusions on something you obviously know nothing about.

I was a naive Green before I knew better

I   read   the   Green  Party  Platform  in   1996,  2000 &  2004;  I  just visited   gpus.org   & skimmed   thru   the  2012   platform. Its   nothing but   words  on a piece  of  paper.  I  judge   people and   political  parties  by   their  DEEDS. 

The  GP   has   a   long history  of  being   too  close   to  the  democratic   party.  Nearly   all of   prominent  Greens   at    the  national  level,    &   their  pseudo   Left supporters  are    professional  activists;  and   they are  dependent on  democratic   party  leaning donors    to   fund   their  careers.  They  have  to  stay   in  the   good   graces   of   George  Soros,   Ford   Foundation,  etc.,  for   their   livelihood.  David  Cobb ,  2004  GP  Presidential    candidate,  now    works  for  a   think  tank dependent  on   demcratic   party leaning  donors. They   will  never   seriously     try   to  challenge   the    status  quo.

I  suggest   you  do some  critical   research  of   the   Green  Party,  its   leaders  at   the   national  level and   prominent    supporters    from   the   pseudo  Left;  and   their   relationship  with   the   democratic   party.

Many  years  ago,  I  was  also  a very   naive GP  supporter,  until  I  knew   better.

All of what you say

may be true however the point I was responding to is that under no circumstances could the Green Party be considered to be a pawn of Zionist interests as a couple of the other commenters were trying to make it out to be. Personally I think that the real solution will have to come from outside of the existing political framework anyway. We won't be able to vote our way to a decent country as the whole set-up is built the way it is to prevent any kind of meaningful change from occurring. It is going to take a mass movement and determined, ballsy action like what happened in Egypt to get us there. Organized civil disobedience to shut the economy down and keep it shut down until the elite calls out the military to shoot us, then when the military refuses to follow orders and the elite realizes that there's nobody left to defend it they flee with as much wealth as they can carry and leave us to rebuild the country without them and without capitalism.

Some problems in life are so huge and intractable and otherwise insoluble that nothing short of genuine radical solutions will correct them. The average person's total lack of political representation within the U.S. certainly fits in that category. Which is why I personally will not vote in American elections but I can't blame someone else for voting for the Green Party because as it stands it sure seems to be the best of what we can choose between. Not nearly radical enough but compared to the Dems and Repubs they at least appear to be pointed in the correct direction.

BAR endorces Zionism

How ironic that BAR is giving its support to the Jewish Zionist standard bearer of the Green Party, Jill Stein, now that the Zionists have now fully co-opted the party.  In 2004, when anti-war and anti-Zionist candidate Ralph Nader was 2MM votes shy of garnering the 5% needed to make the Greens a viable party, pseudo-Left Zionists like Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn endorced pro-War John Kerry.  Members of BAR back then endorced Zio-lover Howard Dean.  While Medea Benjamin worked the inside sabatoging the Green Party from within.

Now that the Zionists have taken over the Green Party after destroying Libya, "Black" Agenda Report endorse the Zionist candidate.

Ms. McKinney endorces Rosanne Barr who recently and openly criticized Jewish Power.  Ms. Barr, who is also Jewish, spoke the kind of truth that goes beyond what BAR can tolerate.  That in and of itself is quite revealing.

Have you ever read their platform?

Now I won't claim that the Green Party is the solution for everything. Personally I don't think they go nearly far enough. But they go way beyond what's acceptable discourse in either of the two interchangeable corporate-owned parties. Have you checked out their position on the Israeli-Palestinian situation? Here's some direct quotes from it:

"We reaffirm the right and feasibility of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes in Israel. We acknowledge the significant challenges of equity and restitution this policy would encounter and call on the U.S. government to make resolution of these challenges a central goal of our diplomacy in the region.d. We reject U.S. unbalanced financial and military support of Israel while Israel occupies Palestinian lands and maintains an apartheid-like system in both the Occupied Palestinian Territories and in Israel toward its non-Jewish citizens. Therefore, we call on the U.S. President and Congress to suspend all military and foreign aid, including loans and grants, to Israel until Israel withdraws from the Occupied Territories, dismantles the separation wall in the Occupied West Bank including East Jerusalem, ends its siege of Gaza and its apartheid-like system both within the Occupied Palestinian Territories and in Israel toward its non-Jewish citizens.

We also reject U.S. political support for Israel and demand that the U.S. government end its veto of Security Council resolutions pertaining to Israel. We urge our government to join with the U.N. to secure Israel’s complete withdrawal to the 1967 boundaries and its compliance with international law.

We call on the foreign and military affairs committees of the U.S. House and Senate to conduct full hearings on the status of human rights and war crimes in Palestine-Israel, especially violations committed during Israel’s 2008-2009 invasion of Gaza ("Operation Cast Lead") as documented in the 2009 "UN Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict" ("The Goldstone Report") authorized by the UN Commission on Human Rights.

We recognize that despite decades of continuous diplomatic attempts by the international community, it has failed to bring about Israel’s compliance with international law or respect for basic Palestinian human rights; and that, despite abundant condemnation of Israel’s policies by the UN, International Court of Justice, and all relevant international conventions, the international community of nations has failed to stop Israeli violations of Palestinian human rights in Israel and the OPT, while Israeli crimes continue with impunity. We recall that ending institutionalized racism (apartheid) in South Africa demanded an unusual, cooperative action by the entire international community in the form of a boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) campaign against apartheid South Africa, and that BDS can become the most effective nonviolent means for achieving justice and genuine peace between Palestinians and Israelis, and for the region, through concerted international pressure as applied to apartheid South Africa; and that Palestinian resistance to ongoing dispossession has mainly been nonviolent, including its most basic form – remaining in their homes, on their land; and that while Palestinian armed resistance is legitimate under international law when directed at non-civilian targets, we believe that only nonviolent resistance will maintain the humanity of Palestinian society, elicit the greatest solidarity from others, and maximize the chance for future reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians. However, we also recognize that our appeal to Palestinians to continue to resist nonviolently in the face of ongoing existential threats from Israel is hypocritical unless accompanied by substantial acts of international support. We recall that in 2005, Palestinian Civil Society appealed to the international community to support a BDS campaign against Israel;and that in response the Green Party of the US endorsed this BDS campaign in 2005. Therefore, we support the implementation of boycott and divestment initiatives against Israel similar to those applied to South Africa in the apartheid era, which includes pressuring our government to impose embargoes and sanctions against Israel; and we support maintaining these nonviolent punitive measures until Israel meets its obligation to recognize the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self-determination and fully complies with the precepts of international law by:
Ending its occupation and colonization of all Palestinian lands and dismantling the Wall in the West Bank;
Recognizing the fundamental rights of Palestinian citizens of to full equality;
and Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194."

Now, does any of that sound like the rantings of Zionists? Any of it at all?? What Zionist would endorse the Palestinians' inalienable right of return to their homes from which they have been evicted at gunpoint in the ethnic cleansing of 1948? It would mean the demographic end of the Zionist apartheid state and the Zionists know it. Would any Zionist support Congress suspending all aid and loans to Israel? Would any Zionist use the term apartheid to describe Israel's barbaric treatment of Palestinians? Would any Zionist support the boycott-divestment-sanctions campaign? Hell no, they call anyone who supports the B.D.S. campaign an "anti-Semite", a term which has nowadays lost practically all meaning due to repeated misuse by the Zionist lobby to tar anyone critical of their shitty little apartheid state.

Now as I said, the Green Party clearly does not go far enough in its policies. For example it is in favor of a living wage and a worker's right to unionize whereas I can see plainly that the real solution is not going to involve capitalism at all, that we will have to shitcan capitalism and replace it with direct worker ownership of the productive assets or else we're just trying to make sharks into vegetarians or child molesters into trustworthy day-care center operators. But you have to admit, any candidate expressing views like those expressed above would get run out of the Democratic Party on a rail and probably placed under surveillance. The Green Party isn't perfect, and yes, the entire American electoral system as it exists is a sick joke, a worthless farce and a caricature of a democracy but I certainly would not consider Jill Stein and the Greens to be "Zionist sympathizers" or whatever. You're barking up the wrong tree. 

Brutal Truth: calling Zinn a Zionist and word clues

Calling Howard Zinn a "Zionist" and word clues, such as "Jewish Power" switched phrase in place of Zionism suggests to me, along with a recurring pattern of listing Jewish names in this context as often as possible (1), makes me wonder about root cause.  I go back to pointing out James Carroll's Constantine's Sword, as possible source for the answer to why some people hate Jews.   "Jew hate" as I like to call it, is a different thing than antiZionism.  It has its roots in history of religion: Christianity and Jews. James Carroll was a priest, and is a well known peace activist, as well as author and he was a friend of both Howard Zinn and his wife, Roslyn Zinn (whose obit he wrote in the "Boston Globe"). I knew Howard Zinn, so I am sure of what I say.  (1)I was going to make a joke a week ago, but held it. I was going to say that the only person I knew who kept lists of Jews in public life as carefully was my Bubbie.  The interchangable use of Jews with Zionism or Israel is a big clue to the comment(s) being about Jews not Zionism.

I'm pretty sure you're right.

Seems like someone who is predisposed to have an irrational bias against Jewish people as opposed to having a legitimate dislike of Zionism. I personally have nothing whatsoever against Jewish people, Jewish culture etc. I doubt the commenter I responded to bothered to read the Green Party's platform and simply made up his mind, if one wants to use so grandiose a term as a "mind" for his insect-like nexus of nerve endings, based solely on Jill Stein's surname.

Brutal Truth: "insect mind" comparison is unnec.

Your arguments are strong on their own.  Personal insults of others commenting make me uncomfortable -evem when it's creative- seems like another kind of name calling.* * Thanks for the reply.  I read all your comments.  * * Creative naming of politicians and public figures is a different thing ...I collect names for Mayor Bloomberg, for example. 

Thank you

Thank you Brutal Truth and Sanda for saying what I wanted to say, and for saying it so well.

Good grief--trashing Norman Solomon, Medea Benjamin, Noam Chomsky, and Howard Zinn!  Did the two stooges forget Spinoza, Leonard Cohen, and Lani Guinier? 

Sorry Sanda.

Didn't mean to make you uncomfortable. The point I was trying to convey by wording it in such a manner is that it takes a pretty small mind to assume based on someone's surname if they're with you or against you. Should have worded it better, my apologies.

You are

most welcome Sanda.

Green Party--a subsidiary of the democratic Party

I'm  was  GP  member  &  financial  contributor  until   2004. I   finally   realized   the    party  was  controlled  by stealth  democratic  party  operatives: Norm  Solomon,  Medea  Benjamin, Ted  Glick,  etc.

In   2004, GP Presidential   nominee,  David   Cobb, ran  a   "safe   states" campaign; in  other  words,  he   would  not   campaign  in  states  in   which   the   Bush/Kerry    race   was   close.  Cobb's   GP  Vice  Presidential  nominee  Pat   LaMarche  said   she  might  not   vote   for   herself,  if  the  race   was   close  in  her   home  state.

In   2008,  by  far the   most   prominent elected   GP   offical in  the  country,  San  Francisco    Board   Supervisor Ross  Mirkarami,  endorsed   Obama  for   President.  He    later   switched   parties   and  is  now   a   democrat.

I  would  never   ever  consider  voting for  another  Green  Party   candidate . The   Green  Party  is  a  subsidiary  of  the   corporate   owned    Democratic   Party   and   should not  be   taken  seriously.

Few things perfect in the Universe


Pray tell, where does perfection exist in a universe of imperfect people? 

I thought the only things that were perfect were the Cosmos and me.  And I obviously got excluded from the equation when I fumbled the “debate” prediction.  I picked the wrong empty suit.  That makes me human and fallible despite my confidence and arrogance.  And I suppose that translates into the reality that Alicia Keyes won’t leave her husband and elope with me??  Because that would be “perfect” too.  Reality is painful, isn’t it?

A few things boys and girls.

  1.  Liking Ralph Nader or not is irrelevant, but don’t dismiss the millions he spent getting a 3rd party on the ballot.  Perfect democracy?, puhleez.  The duopoly in the US is farcical were it not so painful.  Even in so-called 3rd world countries multiple parties exist and garner some votes.  Hell, Iran is more politically pluralistic than here.  Democracy here is a friggen joke.
  2. So when you get your third party on the states and federal ballot, come talk to me.  I won’t even hold you to getting a Presidential “debate” invite, just do the damn thing.  In the meantime, I’m waiting, for your party and Alicia to leave her hubby.
  3. At least the Green Party offers real “hope and change” versus the crock of shit most of you bought from Obama.  Greater opportunities for change and transformation there than elsewhere.  It is what it is boys and girls.
  4. When you get your iteration of a 3rd party on the ballot come talk to me.  In the meantime I’ll be waiting on yall and Alicia to come to her senses.
  5. Moral of the story is, work with what you got, the confines are what they are, more room for your voice in the Greens than elsewhere.  More seats at the table, more of your ideas and grievances will be heard, more “hope and change.” 

p.s.  Alicia, I love you Baby though you are an Obama groupie.

Don't be too hard on yourself.

I was thinking pretty much the same thing as you were thinking about the debate. Hell, I would bet even most Republicans whether they would admit it or not were likewise expecting Obama to rip their goofball candidate a new one.

Excellent post

Great post.

I did not know that you were a former Democrat, so you certainly know the field.  The reference to the horse fed watered and gone forever is perfect.

I am a registered Green, I like the party and their platform - the only one that includes feminism.  If I'm going to vote I will only do it for someone I respect.

I'm in CA right now (visitinig) and I turned on KPFA this morning and got a show from KPFK where the guests were suggesting putting more soul into the election (that Obama has 'had' to distance himself from his roots).  All I could think of is that this show also airs the Black Agenda Minute, but it would be so much better to have the Black Agenda Hour instead.  Hard to believe that Americans will kiss the hand the slaps you.

@Dosamuno and others

Don't get me started on that ideological purity bullshit.  

I can accept reality, wish others could.  I learned that long  ago when Janet Jackson rebuked me for a midget in need of dental work.  I won’t even detail my angst over Nia Long and Sanaa Latham. 

To all you ideological purists, you ain’t in goddamn freshmen polici-sci no more.  There has been no more vocal critic of Israel than BAR.  It is what it is boys and girls.  Get in where you fit in.

Ron Paul would have been more impactful if hurt feelings and political correctness didn’t mute the merits of his message.  Think if Paul had debated Obama vs. Mittens.  The juxtaposition would have been priceless.  A scrawny, White guy with a tinny voice advocating against military spending and adventurism, advocating against Wall St. bailouts and Quantitative Easing thievery.   Did you hear either of the corporate candidates say that? 

We aint’ financially broke we are morally broke and were it not for Paul’s singular vision no audit of the Federal Reserve would have taken place.  An audit which showed that the “Black” president so many protect and adore, DON’T GIVE A FLYING F**K  about yall dumb Black asses (dumb White asses too).  Transferred more wealth to Wall St. than Bush or Mittens could imagine in their wet dreams.

I am not a Paul advocate let’s be clear, but I’m an advocate of something different than Pepsi and Diet Pepsi.  I could give a shit if Paul had Nathan Bedford Forrest on his computer screen saver or in his dining room photo gallery, because some of yall having Obama in yours alongside MLK and Kennedy don’t mean shit either.

We’re “broke” because these bastards have transferred our wealth to those who created the crisis and on shitty wars we can’t win.  We can’t defeat the Taliban, yet we want to take on Iran, talk about some sick delusional bastards are we.  The Arab Spring is nothing more than the Pentagon’s Plan to Foment War to justify military welfare.  Create worldwide instability so the humanitarian interventionists can charge in like the Lone Ranger and Tonto.  These are not democratic struggles, we are funding  terrorists just like Bush funded them in Lebanon to staunch Hizbollah, that shit worked well too, didn’t it? 

Get off you high horses, racists, Zionists, sexists, militant Blacks, paternalistic Whites will be a part of any party that exists.  There is no mechanism for obtaining party purity.  But they won’t dominate the Green Party like they dominate the Dimocraps and Rethugs.  And the Green Party will experience its own growing pains and won’t look the same in Seattle as it will in Marietta, but it’s core principles will be clearer and truer than the shit choices facing us now.

Wake up.  I had couple co-workers talk to me seeking solace about the debates.  I explained that Obama was (1) weak and (2) Republican-Lite and (3) that it’s easier to galvanize against a known evil than a smooth, talking devil, and (4) shit’s gonna come tumbling down, it’s a matter of death by a thousand cuts or decapitation.  Always believed a quick death was more merciful myself.  (And as Assist. Dir. I was trying to keep down EAP costs also).

Even Ol Bobby Herbert got riled up, wrote a piece titled:  “For Obama, No more Excuses.”  Say it loud Bobby.  Here’s the money graf:

 Black Americans have been disproportionately clobbered by the Great Recession and its aftermath, losing both income and wealth at staggering rates. Much of the black community is enduring a full-blown economic depression. But Obama and his advisers have been unwilling to address this catastrophe openly and forcefully out of fear that the president would be perceived as too black by prejudiced white voters, thus losing their support.


Ummmm…. Ya think?   Interesting.  Bobby would himself been considered “too Black” had he wrote same while at the NY Times.  Amazing what liberation will do.







Tarpley doesn't support the green party

I think it's do to the Green party's support for deindustrialization and opposition to realistic development and modernization. But Tarpley has supported Cheri Honkala in the past:


World Crisis Radio:

October 6, 2012 Broadcast



1. The U.S. Elections: Romney the liar vs Obama the wimp (who is also a liar)
2. Third Party Candidates
3. United Front Against Austerity (UFAA)
4. Foreign Policy
5. New Book: "Just Too Weird" Bishop Romney and the Mormon Takeover of America: Polygamy, Theocracy and Subversion

Romney's ability to lie and flip-flop derives from 182 years of Mormon history- get his profile in depth, read this:


G. Greenwald makes the same point I made, but more eloquently


The US presidential debates' illusion of political choice

The issue is not what separates Romney and Obama, but how much they agree. This hidden consensus has to be exposed 

One way to solve this problem would be to allow credible third-party candidates into the presidential debates and to give them more media coverage. Doing so would highlight just how similar Democrats and Republicans have become, and what little choice American voters actually have on many of the most consequential policies. That is exactly why the two major parties work so feverishly to ensure the exclusion of those candidates: it is precisely the deceitful perception of real choice that they are most eager to maintain 

Green Party Compromised?

July 17-18, 2012 — Jill Stein, the Green Party, and Israeli influence peddling

By Wayne Madsen?


Israel was never happy that the Green Party nominated former Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney as its presidential candidate in 2008.

Irking Israel even more was the participation of McKinney in the June 2009 Gaza aid flotilla from Cyprus. The Israeli Navy boarded McKinney’s boat in international waters and held her in an Israeli prison in Ashdod for several days without any intervention by consular officials from the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv.

McKinney was segregated from other Gaza aid flotilla prisoners and unceremoniously put in an prison cell with five Ethiopian economic refugees in a demonstration of Israel’s racist apartheid policies against Africans and African-Americans.

The Green Party continued to irk Israel when, after Israel’s boarding of the Turkish vessel, the Mavi Marmara in 2010, the Green Party issued the following statement:

“The Green Party of the United States has supported the Freedom Flotillas to Gaza, including the May 2010 fleet of humanitarian aid ships that were attacked by Israel in international waters near Cyprus which left 9 human rights activists dead and at least 50 wounded.”

The Green Party’s support for Palestine has now officially ended after the party has nominated Jill Stein, who is Jewish, as its 2012 presidential candidate. Green Party sources have told WMR that Stein is a committed Zionist who supports Israel but who offers enough criticisms of Israeli policies to make her acceptable to the Green Party’s rank-and-file.

Stein’s policies hold the Palestinians as equally responsible with Israel for the failure of peace talks.

Her last policy statement on the Middle East peace process, released on May 15, states:

“On taking office, I will put all parties on notice – including the Israeli government, the Palestinian Authority, and the Hamas administration in Gaza – that future U.S. support will depend on respect for human rights and compliance with international law. All three administrations will also be held responsible for preventing attacks by non-state actors on civilians or military personnel of any nationality. The parties will be given 60 days to each demonstrate unilateral material progress towards these ends.”

Stein’s equivalency stance on the Middle East was summed up last October when she stated “in Israel/Palestine, we need to start holding all parties accountable.”

The statement could have easily come from the mouth of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

I certainly don't like Jill Stein's equivalency stance but...

I certainly don't like Jill Stein's equivalency stance but I would hardly say that the Green Party has been compromised by Zionists nor that Jill Stein is a "committed Zionist who supports Israel" if one even reads the rest of the press release that the above excerpt was taken from. The introduction for the statement from her own blog states that she "hailed yesterday's agreement regarding solitary confinement, family visitation rights, and more by Israeli prison authorities as a significant victory for non-violent resistance and human rights. The agreement was the result of a hunger strike by over 1600 Palestinian prisoners that lasted in some cases as long as 77 days. Dr. Stein said that this victory represented a positive step, but that the United States remains complicit in the ongoing systematic violation of human rights by the Israeli government in particular." [emphasis mine]

Stein's sentences in her press release right before the excerpt cited on Wayne Madsen Report clearly state that: "United States policy regarding Israel and Palestine must be revised to make international law, peace and human rights for all people, no matter their religion or nationality, the central priorities. While the U.S. government sometimes voices support for this principle in name, in practice U.S policy towards Palestine and Israel has violated this principle more often than not. In particular, the United States has encouraged the worst tendencies of the Israeli government as it pursues policies of occupation, apartheid, assassination, illegal settlements, blockades, building of nuclear bombs, indefinite detention, collective punishment, and defiance of international law. Instead of allying with the courageous proponents of peace within Israel and Palestine, our government has rewarded consistent abusers of human rights. There is no peace or justice or democracy at the end of such a path. We must reset U.S. policy regarding Israel and Palestine, as part of a broader revision of U.S. policy towards the Middle East." [emphasis mine]

And directly after the Madsen excerpt she goes on to say "Material progress will be understood to include but not be limited to an end to the discriminatory apartheid policies within the state of Israel, the removal of the Separation Wall, a ban on assassination, movement toward denuclearization, the release of all political prisoners and journalists from Israeli and Palestinian prisons, disarmament of non-state militias, and recognition of the right of self-determination for both Israelis and Palestinians."

All of those criticisms seem to point in one direction, against Israel, not against the Palestinians. Yes in broad, vague terms she does steer into equivalency which I don't approve of as it's obvious which side is at fault (and I am unaware of any Israelis being held in Palestinian prisons; maybe she's thinking of the one or two Israeli soldiers held by Hezbollah and confusing them with Hamas, not sure.) But when she cites specifics they're specifically criticisms of Israeli barbarism. Judging by the Green Party platform categorically calling out Israel for its atrocities and supporting the B.D.S. campaign, supporting unequivocally the Palestinian right of return etc. and judging by Jill Stein's own press release that Madsen's selectively-edited excerpt was culled from I would say yes she and the Greens don't go nearly far enough on this issue (nor on many other issues e.g. their tendency towards reformism regarding capitalism rather than explicitly advocating the replacement of this abominable economic model with something designed around the average non-wealthy person) but no I would find it hard to believe that Jill Stein is making the Green Party into an instrument of pro-Israel Zionist policy. A watered-down reformist half-measures party that is still more enlightened than the Democrats and Republicans? Yes. I haven't voted in an American election since 2000 when the guy "lost" who got 500,000+ more actual votes across the country than the jackass who "won" and I'm not going to break that habit now. I wholeheartedly reject the notion of trying to change this horrid country by using the electoral framework the wealthy elite has set up to prevent change and lull us into thinking we have some kind of a say in what governs us. Nevertheless I can't blame or criticize someone for seeing the Green Party as at least a breath of fresh air by comparison to the two interchangeable undisguised Wall Street parties.


Russell Tribunal on Palestine

Jill Stein has declared support for the Russell Tribunal on Palestine, of which Cynthia McKinney is a member.


Why would Stein being Jewish mean that the Green Party no longer supports Palestine?

Former Green Party Vice Presidential Candidate Winona LaDuke had a Russian Jewish mother.

Stein and the Green Party support the right of return for Palestinian refugees and the use of boycotts and divestment to put pressure on Israel.

Winona LaDuke said in interview that mom's parents

I heard an interview with Winona LaDuke on WBAI (Note:I support www.takebackwbai.org) when she was running for Vice President.  She told of her grandparents, her mom's mother and father, Jewish, lived in Co-op City in the Bronx.  She spoke of her parents, grandparents, own marriage and life of activism.

There is no viable "green" jobs program or "green" new deal

What we need is a New Deal - minus the "Green."

Your jobs will be destroyed and your standard of living will go down if the Greens take power. Your gas/electric bills and taxes will go through the roof while you're left with no viable replacement for your lost job's and energy consumption. The transition to a "green" economy will hurt Blacks disproportionately (of course). Romney is having a field day bashing Obama on his taxpayer supported "Green" intiatives like Solyndra.

Let's see what the Greens are doing in other countries:

Here's why stealth democrats like David Swanson, and Kevin Zeese just loves the Greens:

"Australian government passes carbon tax through parliament"

The minority Labor government of Prime Minister Julia Gillard yesterday passed its carbon tax legislation through the lower house of parliament. With the support of the Greens’ Adam Bandt and two Independent parliamentarians, Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor, the government won by 74 votes to 72 against the opposition Liberal-National coalition. The “Clean Energy Future” package is expected to be soon endorsed by the Senate, where Labor and the Greens have a clear majority, with the tax taking effect in mid-2012.

Gillard hailed the passage of the measures, describing them as a “major economic reform.” She declared: “This parliament today has grabbed the future with both hands. That future will be one about clean energy jobs, it will be about a better environment, it will be about cutting taxes and increasing pensions and it will be about making sure our country is not left behind as the world moves to a clean energy future.”

The government’s pitch is bogus from beginning to end. The carbon tax is a highly regressive measure that will exacerbate cost of living pressures confronting working and poor people. Gillard boasts about “cutting taxes and increasing pensions” as supposed compensation for the impact of the tax, but there is nothing in place to offset the inevitable sharp rises in electricity and fuel bills when the tax is replaced by an emissions trading scheme (ETS) in 2015, and there is no limit to how high the “carbon price” can be ratcheted up by the market.

The Labor government’s claims that almost everyone will be better off with the carbon tax—and that abundant “clean energy jobs” will be generated—fly in the face of reality.

The government is spearheading a sustained assault on jobs, working conditions and wages, utilising Australia’s strong currency and high interest rates to work with big business to orchestrate a sweeping restructuring of the manufacturing, retail, education and other non-mining sectors of the economy.

Nor will the carbon tax do anything to lower greenhouse gas emissions or make a contribution toward a global solution to the climate change crisis. In reality, the tax has nothing to do with the environment. Instead, it is aimed at benefiting Australian business and finance capital. The banks and financial institutions are set to reap enormous profits from international trade and speculation in carbon credits. Moreover, developing alternative energy sources to coal is regarded as a necessary step to ensure the long-term competitiveness of Australian capitalism.

Climate Change Minister Greg Combet yesterday emphasised the opportunities in the “$140 billion [carbon] market in the European Union.” Combet said Australia’s scheme would be integrated into the international carbon market, which he predicted would expand in the future. “Just take California alone,” he told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s “7.30” program, “8th largest economy in the world, larger than the Australian economy. They start auctioning permits, bringing in a carbon price and an emissions trading scheme next year, and other countries are doing the same.”

The banks were among the most enthusiastic supporters of parliament’s approval of the carbon tax. Citibank Australia CEO Stephen Roberts told the Australian Financial Review: “We have a significant commodities trading business just starting in Australia. It’s a whole new opportunity. There is whole new arena of intermediation to take place—that’s an opportunity.”


"The Labor-Greens carbon tax hoax"

Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s carbon tax finally came into effect on July 1. The Labor government and its de facto coalition partner, the Greens, marked the occasion by again boasting of the measure’s environmental and social credentials.

Greens’ leader Christine Milne declared that the carbon tax “means more jobs and innovation, cleaner air and a safer climate [and] a healthier, smarter, fairer society.”

Gillard added that after “months of the doomsayers predicting chaos and preaching despair ... the simple facts can become clear”—including the supposed “fact” that “our carbon price will cut carbon pollution.”

This is all a contemptible hoax. What has been billed as a major “progressive”

environmental and social reform is in fact a regressive pro-business measure that does nothing to address the climate change crisis.
The entire official “debate” surrounding the carbon tax takes on a more and more unreal character. Certain “inconvenient truths” are passed over in silence in the media—above all the fact that contrary to Gillard’s claims, carbon emissions in Australia are set to increase under the new tax regime.

According to the government’s own figures, national emissions will rise from 582 million tonnes to 621 million tonnes by 2020. A nominal 5 percent reduction in emissions will be registered via the purchase of dubious carbon credits on the global market that supposedly represent emissions-reducing schemes in other countries.

The carbon tax, which is set to transition to an emissions trading scheme (ETS) in 2015, has never been an environmental policy.

Instead, the Labor government advanced the scheme as part of its wider economic restructuring agenda aimed at enhancing the international competitiveness of Australian capitalism.

Gillard unveiled the carbon tax in the aftermath of the 2010 election, following the public intervention of BHP Billiton chief Marius Kloppers. The mining executive noted that only five countries—Bosnia Herzegovina, North Korea, Estonia, Mongolia and Poland—had a more emissions-intensive energy supply than Australia. He insisted that the economy would confront a “competitive disadvantage” if left dependent on coal. The Labor government warned about the possible imposition by the European Union and other economies of “green tariffs” on Australian exports unless measures were taken to promote non-fossil fuel based energy sources.

At the same time, Gillard has promoted the opportunities that would open up for Australia’s banks and financial institutions when the carbon tax transitions to an ETS in three years. Emissions trading schemes were first promoted in the US in the 1980s as a “free market” alternative to imposing regulatory restrictions on the operations of corporate polluters. The transformation of carbon into a new commodity, through the European ETS and related international mechanisms developed under the Kyoto Protocol, has generated a highly lucrative new field of operations for financial speculators.

The Labor government has sought to ensure that every section of business is protected. The coal mining giants are to get $1.3 billion in additional subsidies and the steel producers $300 million. Owners of Australia’s coal-fired power stations are set to rake in an estimated $5.5 billion up until 2016-17.

Other energy intensive and trade-exposed industries will enjoy sweeping exemptions from the carbon tax.

Every aspect of the so-called “debate” on the carbon tax is driven by rival business interests. The Greens advance the interests of renewable energy corporations and sections of finance capital that are investing in carbon trading operations. The opposition Liberal-National coalition under Tony Abbott represents other layers of the corporate elite, including less competitive manufacturing exporters, the mining industry and other fossil fuel connected operations. Abbott’s populist posturing against the carbon tax is utterly bogus. The opposition leader is attempting to exploit the legitimate concerns of ordinary people that the carbon tax will lower their living standards, while at the same preparing to implement a savage pro-market agenda that undermines the wages and working conditions of the working class if elected into office.

The government claims to be compensating the majority of the population, including low income earners, through tax cuts and welfare payment increases. However, the shift to the ETS will involve the removal of all restrictions on how far the carbon price can rise, and therefore how high household utility and fuel bills will go. Continual hikes in living costs will exacerbate social inequality and worsen the living standards of the working class.



If you're referring to my comment and interpreting that as me saying the GP is a zionist organization, I suggest you reread my post. I said, and firmly believe, Jill Stein is a zionist. That does not make the GP zionist, just naive.

I did read your post.

And you can "firmly believe" whatever you want. Your opinion isn't going to make Jill Stein a Zionist. I have yet to see any evidence that would lead me to believe she is a Zionist, inordinately pro-Israel or anti-Palestinian. Believe it or not, not everyone of the Jewish faith is a Zionist. Many hasidic Jews for that matter, which are about as Jewish as one can get (the ones with the black hats and sidelocks), are decidedly anti-Israel and regularly protest against it as an illegitimate entity that has no business being there. So the fact that someone is of one faith or another proves exactly nothing about their politics. 

Again I say you're barking up the wrong tree.

Brutal Truth: Some Chassidic groups are not Zionists

and some are.  The groups came to Brooklyn mostly after WWII, from Poland, I think.   There are Orthodox Jews who are not Chassidim, such as my Bubbie was, in Boro Park in the 1940s. In 1944-45, when I was a small child, she was in grief over the killings by Nazis and collected clothing and small donations of money from working class neighbors for orphan survivors who went to Israel from Europe.  I know one child of Chassidim, child of a survivor who started a second family (first being killed in camps) in Brooklyn as a refugee.  I can't list which Chassidic groups are not Zionist, but it's online under the category on wikipedia.  I prefer the spelling with a C, to keep the Ch sound which is lost with an H, Hassidim.  I was oblivious until Phyllis Bennis and Noam Chomsky spoke on WBAI about Palestine and Israel and Israel's policies in the early 1990s.   Israel was not on my radar until I became ill and had time for radio and thinking.  I had been confronted for being a Jew, in 1967, in NOLA's CORE office by a visiting Black Civil Rights activist (who I won't name) and I didn't understand why he was mad at me*; I hadn't opened my mouth.  I was working in the adjacent office for LCDC, a civil rights law office.  *But, when I remembered my childhood, after reading in Constantine's Sword when the book came out in recent decades, I had a clue.  Briefly: when I was 7, one of my two best friends, Marie, switched from public school to parochial school.  One day, she was coming home from school, lived opposite my apartment building on other side of the small street and yelled, "Simi, the nuns said today that you killed Christ.".  My mother, home at the time, in the kitchen facing the street on first floor answered when I yelled, "Ma, did we kill Christ?"  She answered, still at the stove, "No".  Marie and family did not change any and I continued to hang out in their two family home, very close to the elderly grandparents from Naples, although we could not speak each others' language and the kids.

Yeah, I didn't think that all of them

were anti-Zionist. Some certainly are though, I've seen them protesting. I was unaware that it could be spelled with a C and with two Ss and was kinda spelling it phoenetically and from memory. You said "I prefer the spelling with a C to keep the Ch sound". Is it a distinct Ch sound as in the beginning of the word "charity" or very subtle?

Brutal Truth: Ch sound is almost like clearing throat

It's not like ch in charity.  The ch sound I'm using is very common in Yiddish and perhaps also German.  Ah, Brecht, the writer's name has the sound.  (I don't think I can spell Bertholdt.)  I'm having trouble thinking of an English word with the sound.  It's most common in "chutzpah" or "Chanukah". Like clearing throat with possibility of spitting. If I think of anything else, I'll add by edit. My use of double s (ss) is guessing.    As we saw with Kadaffi, spelling words in English from other languages is open to interpretation.  I am ever grateful to Arabic for the pronounciation of Israel in multiple syllables so I can spell it right. 

oh OK Sanda

I've heard that kind of "ch" sound before. Like in "chutzpah", OK. Thanks Sanda.

I just voted. A vote of protest.

My absentee ballot (permanent list Absentee Ballot for Homebound Disabled) just got mailed: "Barbara Lee"* written in on write in line for President.  My newly redistricted Congressmember Nadler got a blank because I was angry at his inappropriate verbal attack on Charles Barron during the Dem primary, which may have been unprecedented in Dem politics in NYC (not sure).  I'm also angry that the redistricting was done so that I was not able to vote in the primary (Rangel district for 42plus years) when my redistricting change doesn't become "official" until Jan, 2013, as I was told by various pol offices, etc.  Redistricting in NYS was messy but  accidental doesn't seem plausible to me.*Congressmember Barbara Lee was the only member of the House to vote against the Patriot Act in the original vote on the bill which became law.

"vote of protest" irony

I  can't   help  but  note   the   irony of a write  in  "vote  of  protest" for  Barbara  Lee,  who  has   endorsed  and  is  campaigning   for   WAR CRIMINAL President  Obama's   re-election.

Barbara  Lee  is a  loyal  member  of   the  legal   crime  syndicate   known   as   the   Democratic & Republican  Parties;  and   she  is    just  as   guilty  as  ALL  other   members  of  the   syndicate.

You have a point, joell but so do I.

 Barbara Lee was the only NO vote against the Patriot Act. That counts for me. Who will you vote for?  Would you say? The problem for pols being in political parties is that they have to support the top. Look what happened to Kucinich when he threatened to vote against Obama's health care bill.

I'm a political orphan looking for a home

I'm  not  voting   for  anyone.  Voting   only   gives  legitimacy   to   the   plutocracy.  There  are   no  good  legal  crime  syndicate   members,  including    Barbara   Lee.