Days Black People Not Re-Enslaved By Trump

Wednesday, December 31, 2008

Amy Garvey Day

A fine specimen of black womanhood.

Previous Postings:

In an era where persons such as Bill Cosby are excoriated for "harsh" critiques of black behavior. We would find a less comedic form of the same criticisms from Amy, who held black men to what some would call impossibly high standards of behavior and thought.

[He] is always out of a job because he is too lazy to go out and make a job for himself; he prefers to hang around the white man's factory doors begging for a job, and oftimes gets what he deserves -a kick.

...ill bred children are a menace to any country because they develop into individuals who take on vices that often wreck their homes and endanger the safety of their communities

Garveyite women were of the opinion as said by Ula Yvette Taylor's The Veiled Garvey That if black men did not step up they ought to "be prepared to be put down and led by those who were better equipped."

December 2007: Amy Jaques Garvey

But even more profound to me, as far as I had not known, was how the refinement of Pan-Africanism, indeed much of what I have called "Neo-Garveyism" is or was in fact already formulated by Amy Jacques Garvey herself. Indeed I would have to say that it is particularly chauvinistic to say that Garvey's Ghost is merely that of Marcus but indeed is the collective ideas of Garvey and his wife.

May 22, 2006: Amy Jaques Garvey

Saturday, December 27, 2008


Self-Determination. Since Cynthia McKinney lost her seat, I've been thinking on this topic. The last election really put this particular principle into sharp focus for me and a lot of other people. Here are some links to past blog entries that are related to this particular subject.

December 2004 Amilacar Cabral

November 2005: We Remember Kwame Toure (Special attention to the discussion of Black Power)

June 2008: The Triumph of COINTELPRO

I strongly suggest a reading in chronological order.

Tuesday, December 23, 2008

"All The Prettiest Kids are Light Skinned Anyway"

Singer Ne-Yo. Go to minute 6:45 and listen from there.


Yeah... Consider that a record sale lost.

From Playahata

How Jewish Is Hollywood?



LA Times

Right then. So the next time someone calls you an anti-semite for making the above observation you can tell them to kiss your...

Tuesday, December 16, 2008

Ohio State: Black kids need white kids to succeed in College

A detailed study of students at a large, predominantly-white university revealed that while living with a white roommate may be more challenging than living with someone of the same race, many Black students appear to benefit from the experience.

For African American students, this could translate into as much as 0.30-point increase in their GPA in their first quarter of college.

White students, on the other hand, were affected more by the academic ability of their roommate than by their race.

After my blood pressure goes back to normal and I read the paper in its entirety I'll post again.

Monday, December 15, 2008

Re: Then You Neva Was

On Nov. 25th I posted a response to an opinion piece by Mr. Muhammad Youngai which can be found here:

His original piece can be found here:

Mr. Youngai took issue with my response and sent this reply and contacted me. I told him my standing policy that anyone that has an issue with something I wrote may submit a reply which would be posted to the blog unedited. His comments are in green, my commentary in in black.

Brother Sondjata

I’ll respond to your criticisms but some of them are really not at all legit.

First you mentioned Pan-Africanism. I never mentioned it. So why would you assume I’m not down with it? And why would you apply the insulting appellation of “confused”?

Secondly, I never said that there was an ideological conflict between working for a better America and being a Nationalist. You seem to contradict your own critique of my position where I implied that I’m now more willing to work for progressive causes not necessarily connected with Nationalism.

In the second paragraph of your AJC ed you wrote:

As a black nationalist, I have considered myself an American only as a technicality or an accident of birth. I’ve never hoisted the red, white and blue, only the red, black and green

The Red Black and Green given to Africans by Marcus Garvey, is a (if not thesymbol of Pan-Africanism. When you wrote that you saw yourself as an American by accident of birth (a statement I suppose was influenced by Malcolm X) you made the implicit argument that you put the commonality of blackness, or shall I say Africaness, before your citizenship status. That is a Pan-Africanist ideology. We should note that there are those who define "black" as "African-American" and therefore limit their idea of Nationalism to African-Americans to the exclusion of other African descended people. It is also implied by your quoted statement that you are knowledgeable of and an adherent to the ideaologies of Pan-Africanism and specifically of Garveyism for whome the RBG is attributable to. This is key, since my later arguement regarding the election of Obama is dependent upon that particular knowledge base. Hence the "confused" statement.

In regards to your willingness to work with "progressive" causes not connected with Nationalism: I say that clearly then you have a limited understanding of what Nationalism is. What "progressive" agenda is not nationalist in nature? Education? Environment? Criminal Justice? Gender issues? Please do tell. By my reading your statement continues in the ceding of "Nationalist" issues to other groups who then claim ownership of those issues. As a result accusations of "narrow nationalism" are directed at declared nationalist as they are continually marginalized. Thus your statement is yet another example of how your statements, both in the AJC and in your reply here, serve to undermine the Black Nationalist community in America.

Thirdly, ignoring your juvenile reference to a “crack pipe” I never delineated a “plan” for independent Black communities within the United States. But if you’ve studied your history or ever heard of Malcolm X, I’m sure you heard him describe Black Nationalism as controlling the communities where we live, which is the same as gaining some measure of autonomy. And you must not be aware that there are some semi-autonomous communities in America today. Some Jewish groups have their own courts and special laws which apply only to them. So called American Indians are theoretically independent (Nations) and similarly have their own courts and laws, tax exemptions, etc. We have just never fought for our own special courts, laws and rights specific to our historically unique situation. Even the Kurds in Iraq and other groups around the world have gained a certain degree of autonomy. Additionally, I don’t need Garvey to endorse any ideas that I may have. Much of life is a progression and we’re supposed to build on the work that brothers like Garvey did. This may involve having some independent thinking! Brother Garvey didn’t think of everything which is where we come in.

No you did not delineate a "plan" for independent Black communities. Of course that is usually the problem. While I have no issue with Malcolm X's definition of Black Nationalism, or Toure's either your examples of so called "semi-autonomy" in America are not nationalism. Let's examine the groups you've mentioned.

The Jewish groups (and I'll add Muslim groups here) "autonomous" courts are religion based and therefore as you point out only applicable to those within' the group. Furthermore; even those groups defer to the national court systems. In fact the NY Times recently ran an article on the Sharia courts in America. Clearly anyone interested in governance would see the problem when that group runs afoul an outsider. Those courts actually have little power other than that given by those who use them. Certainly anyone can refuse to participate by those "court" rulings and there would be no real recourse. However, let one of those communities ignore a subpoena from a national court and see what happens. They do not represent any real sovereignty and therefore aren't really dealing with power.

American Indians are an entirely different case from your Jews and Muslims. American Indians, when located on a federally recognized reservation are in fact on sovereign territory no different than England and Canada. As Mayor Bloomberg found out recently, Those nations have the right to (and not to) collect taxes and enter into treaties with the US (or any other country I suppose). There is not a single black community in the US that can make a claim of sovereignty as Native Americans can. Nor will black people be able to do so, but if your thinking of seccession, by all means let me know how it turns out.

The Iraqi (and Turkish) Kurds are again a bad example. Like the Native American they have claims to land that spans thousands of years. Their land was taken from them by colonial entities. The current Kurdish "success" is largely a function of the illegal war in Iraq and the fall of Saddam. In any case the situation of the Kurds is more applicable to that of Africa than it is for America so it is really irrelevant for this conversation.

Refocusing on Black folk in America though we can look at certain communities such as the Assante immigrant community who still defer to enstooled elders. There is the Oyotunji village in Georgia as another example of "semi-autonomy." But even there you're not talking about sovereignty.

In reference to your position on a "Garvey" endorsement you are quite correct in that statement. However, it helps a great deal, if one is to call oneself a nationalist who hoists the Red Black and Green to at least be aware of what that man had to say on the subject. I myself have issues with Garvey and have stated them here often.

Most African Americans that I have seen or talked to no matter what their political persuasion have said that they didn’t think they’d ever see a Black President. And aside from your ridiculously insulting comment about (my) not knowing Obama’s heritage, he is still a Brother. Most of us have a white side of the family either in the immediate or remote past. Are you trying to suggest that only “pure” Blacks can be considered Black? Are you subscribing to Tiger Woods assertion that he is not “Black”, that mixed is some sort of new category of Negro? Well, try that in a race riot? I’ve been in 3 of them!

Well that most African-Americans you have seen said they'd never see a black president doesn't mean it wouldn't happen. And yes it is quite relevant that Obama is biracial. As we have seen in the history of America white folk have always and continue to feel more comfortable with biracial (light skinned) African-Americans (and there is research supporting this). I think it also helped greatly that he had a disconnect from "early arrival" African-Americans.

I am on the record as rejecting the one drop rule. I've posted much on the subject of genetics and race and perhaps you'll want to review that material. And no Tiger Woods isn't black by a genetic point of view though by American social standards he is.

When I mentioned my anger, what does “fault” have to do with it? What a puerile comment! I have a right be angry at years of nonsense, wasted lives and resources. As for your idea that serious black nationalists stopped the extreme anger…another simpleminded comment. I’m not concerned with what other people feel. Am I supposed to feel like you? No, I have my own emotions. But in my opinion, anyone who’s not angry, Black, White, Asian or otherwise is a fool. Plus, I stand by my assertion that most Black folks are extremely angry. Most of it is suppressed or turned inward which why we kill each other and engage in other self-destructive behavior.

In your AJC editorial you wrote:
Like many black folk, I have spent most of my life extremely angry about the oppressive treatment and double standard that has always existed in American society

To which I responded:

Well man that was your fault, no? all serious nationalists stopped with the extreme anger and had moved on from that stage of development a while back.

My points on this subject were
1) Living with extreme anger is bad for your health.
2) People who are angry tend not to think very clearly. It has been shown that angry people actually have less blood flow to the brain than those who are not.
3) As indicated in my response to your article, in the stages of development of black folk, specifically when it comes to those who are awakened to the issue of race, anger is a typical waypoint.

Having said that, upon revisiting that line of yours I see that it too helps with the propaganda, which Obama used to much effect, of showing "Nationalist" as angry black men (mostly) who just want to lash out at white people. Thus you again aided in propagandizing against black folk in a mainstream paper. Thanks dude!

Despite yet another insult, I stand by my statement that no “ethnic” has ever been president with the exceptions mentioned. You think Serbs or Polish or Italian (descendants) have ever been president? You need to check it.

Well sir your statement in the AJC editorial said:

No ethnic name had ever been uttered as president of the United States in its history. The closest had been Kennedy, Eisenhower and Van Buren, which are Irish Catholic, German and Dutch, respectively.

You made a declarative statement "No ethnic name has ever been uttered as president." I pointed out that ethnic whites exist, be they a national group such as Germans, Dutch, English, Scots, Irish, etc, or a subset of other groups. Clearly by your own statement, there have, in fact been ethnic names "uttered as president of the Unites States." Therefore your example and statement are false. You may have meant that there hasn't been a president of direct non-northwestern European descent and you'd probably be correct. But that is not what you wrote. perhaps you'll want to send a revised piece to the AJC on that.

But the main thing you need to check is the silly and arrogant attitude that if one does not agree with you, you have the liberty to fling insults and give juvenile analysis under the name of Garvey. If you were a wise brother you would not infer or imply something that wasn’t inferred or implied in the article. A scientific approach to thinking dictates that one acquire enough information before forming judgment.

Well given the notes above, I'll leave it to the reader to determine whether I'm "silly." I'm not of the opinion that I must be agreed with. I merely ask that the arguments put forth be factual and make sense. Furthermore I expect, from a so-called Nationalist, that one is more careful with providing mainstream newspapers propaganda pieces that work against black folk. The purpose of the AJC in publishing your piece was to attack the nationalist movement as being narrow, in need of ideological refinement and of being irrelevant. Knowing this, there are a number of ways that you could have approached the election of Obama within the framework of Black Nationalism, without invoking angry black men and narrow nationalism. Since you put yourself out there in public you must take some measure of responsibility of the material published with your name.

Lastly, the salient point of my article for people of African descent is that whether you like it or not, the Obama election changes the dynamic of our relationship to America. Someone who gave a mature critique of my article suggested that the system is using Obama to prove it’s not racist and to change its image. This is a valid critique, but without delving into the merits or de-merits of that idea, I would say that even the superficial cosmetic aspect of his election will produce profound changes in the way most countries and peoples think of and by extension, treat America. Those of us who are not flexible enough to adapt to change will either be destroyed or become irrelevant.

Well sir, since you've not followed the blog here, I'll have you know that the argument regarding the usage of Obama to change it's image, has been raised here a long time ago (among other topics). In reference to your last sentence I'll again refer you back to Garvey who said:

"Negroes" everywhere ought to take whatever opportunities that avail themselves to them wherever they may be situated.

Meaning of course we adapt to change. We've had that mantra since the early 1900's. But please don't act like this is somehow some new lesson to be learned. I wrote in my piece that I saw a black president coming in 1992. And I knew how he (and I did say he) would have to get there.

Muhammad Yungai

Thursday, December 11, 2008

Jesus Saves?

Muwavita Mukangusi’s husband was suspected by rebels of being part of a different militia. He was beaten and shot in the head

NY Times

Wednesday, December 03, 2008

Of Burress and Bell

You know it's really "interesting"to see what makes certain people "outraged." So Plaxico Burress took his gun to a nightclub and shot himself in the leg. I suppose the safety was off. Whatever. Did he pose a risk to the patrons? Probably? Did he go there to shoot somebody? Not. Burress was a threat to one person: himself apparently. burress goes to the hospital where a nurse is called in to do a favor and patch up Burress without notifying the police as per the law; going so far as to use a fake name.

As a result Mayor (for life) Bloomberg got on TV and talked about how Burress ought to get the maximum jail time allowed by law and that the nurse be fired. There was no wishy washiness about his statements. You would think that Burress had run up in the club and shot up the place Mmob style and then went on the lam.

This in stark contrast to the execution of Sean Bell and co who were unarmed innocent civilians, by licensed and "trained" so called public servants. Bloomberg says of the emptying of 50 bullets into a car window from point blank range:

It seems excessive.


Says the judge over the case where it is revealed that not a single officer saw a gun and that one of the officers had stopped to reload:

It wasn't criminal.

Says President Elect Obama:

Y'all negroes don't go rioting.

Seriously folks there's a problem here. Shoot a poor nigger on the street and "it might be excessive."

A rich ball playing nigger shoots himself in the leg and it's "maximum sentence."

Badge wielding Negro with a gun on the FDR, in a fit of road rage kills a young man in a Honda for cutting him off. Negro with a badge gets off.

Police officer knocks down a cyclist in Times Square in full view of hundreds of people with cameras and the police report reads that the cyclist assaulted the officer. Where was Mr. Bloomberg's calls for "maximum sentences" and "fines" then?

To anyone who ends up on the Burress Jury I have one word: Nullification.

Monday, December 01, 2008

Obama's small donor base image is a myth, new study reveals

I believe that the people over at Black Agenda Report already covered this before the election


Did anyone in the NYC area watch Like It Is on Sunday? Did you catch the statement that prison officials use the performance of 4th graders in Black and Hispanic communities to estimate the number of new prisons (or prison cells) to build? If anyone has the documentation of this please shoot it to me at the contact link at the right top of the page.

Thursday, November 27, 2008

Same ol Same Ol

This bailout business is simply bizarre. First we seem to be back to the trickle down theory of Reaganomics with the NY Times giving us a nice headline like: U.S. Consumer Loan Aid Will Trickle Only So Far :

So while mortgage rates fell by at least a quarter of a percentage point on Tuesday, the day of the government announcement, and stayed there Wednesday, it could take months for the piece that affects credit card and small-business loans to kick in.

“It’s not going to be like flipping a light switch,” said Joe Belew, president of the Consumer Bankers Association. “You’re not going to see an avalanche of new loans. But the system is under a lot of stress, and anything that can lubricate the markets is a good thing.”

The federal government made two big moves on Tuesday. The first, already known as TALF, for Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility, is a $200 billion program that will lend money to private investors who buy securities backed by student and auto loans, credit card debt and small-business loans guaranteed by the Small Business Administration.

What's this? The government hasn't quite got the message that those "securities" based on debt was part and parcel of the current problem and so they want to encourage more of it? Hasn't there been enough writen about those SIV's to perhaps not encourage that kind of stuff?

The goal of the plan is to fix the mechanism that keeps credit flowing freely from lenders to borrowers. Lenders often package consumer loans into securities and sell them to investors. Then the lenders use the proceeds to issue more loans to consumers. But over the last two months, those investors have stopped buying.

And why did they stop buying? Because the joints were worthless because, as determined, the original lenders did not care about the ability of the borrower to pay these debts because the original lenders no longer had a financial stake in those loans. That was the problem. Why encourage more of this? Why support these inflated assets?

To qualify for the best rates, borrowers will need to have a credit score of at least 720 and a down payment of at least 10 percent and probably closer to 20 percent. Borrowers seeking to refinance will need to have the same amounts in home equity.

So in these inflated times a house that ought to be say $200,000 is upwards of a $6-700,000 and people need to come in with 100,000 down? Really? $50,000? Perhaps they need to work another job for about 3 years and then continue working that job while they pay for that house for probably the rest of their lives, since, unless you're already rich or have really high income in your 20's, you're not saving that kind of money before your mid 30's unless you live at home or you're married and with singleness rates the way they are in the states, good luck on that.

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

The You Neva Was....

And so one Muhammad Yungai a self described "Black Nationalist" who:


note to Muhammad; the Red, Black and Green is the symbol of Pan-Africanist, given to us by Marcus Garvey who was a Pan-Africanist. If you hoisted the RBG and was not down with Pan-Africanism then perhaps you were...confused.

I gave up on the American dream a longtime ago. I have worked and looked forward to autonomy and self-determination in our communities.

Again looking back at the Pan-Africanist Marcus Garvey we note that he said that "Negroes" everywhere ought to take whatever opportunities that avail themselves to them wherever they may be situated. Thus there is no ideological conflict between working for a better America and simultaneously being a Nationalist. Secondly, unless you were on some crack pipe how exactly did you think black communities in the United States would be independent of the States in which they are located or the federal government? Not even Garvey announced such a preposterous plan.

I never imagined that I would live long enough to see an African-American president. I never even believed that I would live to see a black Miss America. But America fooled me! Even as I predicted an Obama nomination and then a presidential win, the reality of what happened on Nov. 4 still has me totally stunned.

Without getting into technicalities, Along with RFK, I noted in 1992 that a black president was possible so long as he (and I said he) would distance himself from the black community and that that community would still vote for him. Yes that was 1992. Summer. While I was at Cornell. In fact I based that on an observation of the Jesse Jackson run and the ratings beating Oprah took when she did her "racism" series. So I have to ask man, were you really paying attention?


Well man that was your fault, no? all serious nationalists stopped with the extreme anger and had moved on from that stage of development a while back. How old are you? Besides there are far larger issues than simple double standards, which by the way are not going anywhere anytime soon.

. We had never been made to feel that we are really Americans and accepted as equals, unless we were willing to renounce much of our history and culture.

Hmmmmm... Perhaps you missed that whole Rev. Wright episode? Perhaps you missed the whole passing off Obama's white lineage to make white folk feel good. Maybe the Muslim woman who was forced off camera, among other things. And of course the incessant I'm not a Muslim (as if it mattered) thing. But hey perhaps we're operating on a whole different definition of culture.


No need to display your ignorance on the AJC website like that. Check it. There are white ethnic groups like there are ethnic groups of all other people. Oh I know what you meant but still that statement is wrong on it's face.

Check it, If you're going to claim to be a "nationalist" and allow yourself to be pranced out by the press, get your stuff together. If you just wanted a piece of the American pie, just say so. No need to dress it up in RBG.

Another $3/4 trillion

So the crooks, not satisfied to pimp the people of $700 billion are back at the trough for another $800 billion, which averages out to $3/4 trillion per request. And once again Obama and congress are urging quick approval lest the pesky people start asking questions like you know what about those people about to lose their homes.

Like NYC councilman Charles Barron put it, no way no how can these people say shit.. Well he didn't say shit, about welfare for poor people or the lack of money for Social Security, when $1.5 trillion can appear out of thin air for banks and car companies.

Will The Real Revolutionaries Please Stand Up?

And so it was the attempted genocide in Rwanda that I read about in the terminal of American Airlines to Jamaica that had me wondering what was going on in Africa among the so called "revolutionaries." Cockroaches this and Cockroaches that. They are outsiders. They are the oppressors. blah de blah blah. I simply could not understand how a people having been colonized and exploited by the British and French could turn on each other in the manner that they did with what had to be the lamest excuses for killing ever. Of course this nonsense was not limited to Rwanda. It was readily observable in other parts of Africa and of one place, Zaire (at the time) was one place that had my attention.

When Laurent Kabila ran Mobutu out of Zaire I was as happy as the Congolese mailroom worker with whom I shared news with. Mobutu was a sellout par excellence. But this is not about Kabila or Mobutu. This is about the new so called freedom fighters in the Eastern Congo and was prompted by a recent article in the NY Times entitled The Spoils Congo’s Riches, Looted by Renegade Troops in which I found the following pretty disturbing:

The chokehold begins far from the mine. At the trailhead, a burly soldier demands 50 cents from each person entering the narrow trail to the mine. A clamoring crowd hands wrinkled bills to the soldier, who opens the wooden gate a crack to let in those with cash.

So an operation that brings in $80 million a year and they can't build a road? Oh well they COULD but there's a reason why it's not.

At the other end of the trail, at the base of the mountain, another crowd forms at the gate into Bisie. Porters exhausted from the two-day trek sprawl on felled trees, waiting for soldiers to inspect their loads and extract another tribute. The price is usually 10 percent of entering merchandise and cash.

The men at the checkpoints describe these payments as taxes. But the people of Bisie do not get much in return. The village is a filthy warren of mud huts. Hundreds of haphazard latrines flood narrow, trash-filled alleyways. Disease courses through the town, carried by water from a river that is used for everything from washing clothes to cleaning ore. Jawbones of slaughtered cows and goats stud the riverbed. When it rains, the river overflows, spreading cholera and dysentery.

In some ways, Bisie is a thriving commercial town. It has makeshift theaters showing bootleg kung fu movies on televisions powered by sputtering generators. Its bars are stocked with Johnnie Walker whiskey and Primus beer, each bottle carried through the jungle. There is no telephone service, but a ham radio system passes messages between the mine and the outside world. It has hotels that double as brothels. There is even a clapboard church.

$80 million a year and porters who had to walk and there's not even a bit of shelter? 10% of the value of whatever they have on their person and not a shelter? $80 million a year and no running water? No sanitation facilities? And this is supposedly a "commercial town"? What kind of joke of a revolution is this?

A bowl of rice and beans costs $3 here, six times the price along the main road. Mud huts rent for $50 a month or more, in part because opportunism is the town ethos.

Ahh free markets at work.

Tin has replaced lead content in the solder used to make many electronic devices. And as the price shot up in recent years, to a high of $25,000 a ton in May, Colonel Matumo and his men staked out a whole ridge of the mine complex as their personal property. Senior commanders of the brigade have built large houses and opened businesses, like hotels and bars, with the proceeds of the mine.

Ahh large houses for the "revolutionaries" and mud huts for the lowly mine worker. Sounds revolutionary to me.

Now back to that dirt path that in any other thinking place would be a road:

When the company started working on a road to link the mine to the main road, local officials blocked the route. When it began working on a campsite for its geologists to begin prospecting, soldiers opened fire on the workers, injuring several, company officials said.

“We have all our documents and permits in order,” said Brian Christophers, the weary managing director of the company. “We have written to the head of the military, the minister of mines and even the president. But there are no rules in Congo, just the rule of the gun.”

Mr. Christophers said that his company was prepared to help pay not just for a road to the mine but also for schools, clinics and a hydroelectric power station. It also promised to invite government agencies to enforce labor standards. But none of them have had the chance.

Indeed, some workers are suspicious of the company’s plans, fearing that a road would put thousands of porters out of work and that mechanized mining would drastically reduce employment here. The militia has tapped this unease to convince some workers and local officials that the company will simply abscond with the minerals and leave the local people empty-handed.

So because the "revolutionaries" are concerned about unemployment (read control over the population) they turned down a reliable power plant roads clinics and school buildings. OK then fine. Kick the company out. Why can't these so called revolutionaries build the schools themselves. Wouldn't that boost employment? What's wrong with a power station? Seriously though, what is so revolutionary about keeping people in poverty? Wouldn't the support of the people come voluntarily from the increased quality of life? And let me guess that the "convincing" involved large men and small boys with firearms and conversations that started with "How's the family?"

In the end these so called revolutionaries are simply free market capitalists with guns. They are small minded and are only out for themselves. It is not the minerals that are the curse of Africa but the small minded men and the gun sellers that are the curse of Africa.

Thursday, November 20, 2008

Do These People Know the US Constitution?

This past year I have been pretty shocked at the number of clearly unconstitutional laws that have been placed on the books. Not to mention the clearly bad judging such as that of the case of Sean Bell's murder by the NYPD. The latest from the NY Times is from said PD in which Raymond Kelly has apparently been tangling with the US. Justice Department. The Times quotes Mr.Allan is what has to be one of the stupidest comment to come from a supposed "law enforcement" official:

In a statement, the Police Department’s deputy commissioner for legal matters, S. Andrew Schaffer, who has advised Mr. Kelly on the matter, said that Mr. Mukasey’s contention that Mr. Kelly had proposed an illegal course of conduct was “preposterous and categorically untrue.”

“We have asserted,” the statement continued, “based on actual cases, that FISA warrants were not sought in a timely manner in part because of a self-imposed standard of probable cause which is higher than that required by Supreme Court precedent.”

What, the NYPD has a problem with high standards of probable cause? Do tell!

While the letters do not specifically identify the target of the eavesdropping requests, Mr. Mukasey said that the Police Department had sought authority in one of them to eavesdrop on “numerous communications facilities” without providing an adequate basis for their requests. Some officials who have been briefed on the cases said the requests, from the police Intelligence Division, were unusually broad, and included telephones in public places, like train or subway stations, rather than phones used by a specific individual.

Apparently Mr. Kelly doesn't realize that just because the phone is in public it does not make it city property. And since a pay phone is actually the property of whatever phone company that has leased the spot that the phone sits on, then yes, you need a warrant. Secondly, that a phone is public doesn't mean that what conversation is had with it is public. It's like your car. If you have something in clear view of an officer, they can stop and ask you about it. However; just because they can se in your vehicle does not grant them the right to search it for things that are not in plain sight.

I suggest Mr. Kelly get his house in order, starting with Sean Bell's killer and then moving on to that officer that assaulted a citizen on a bike in Times Square earlier this year.

Full Text of the message from Ayman al-Zawahri

From the NY Times

While it is amusing to watch white people take offense to the use of the term "house negro," any honest reading of the linked text would see that it is, for the most part an accurate description of the differences between Malcolm X and Barack Obama. Furthermore, his reflection on the defeats of the British and Russians in Afghanistan are also straight from any history textbook. Page two of the linked text is a whole other issue. Of course the academic question would be what would the Malcolm X of February have to say about his namesake being used by Al-Q and how would he have addressed this issue? For example while Malcolm X was a Muslim I cannot see how he would have had much positive to say about the bombing in Kenya.

Saturday, November 15, 2008

Hard Work and Opportunity

And so there is an article in the UK Guardian which is an excerpt from the forthcoming book: Outliers: The Story Of Success. While the entire article is interesting and worthy of a read (I'll probably get the book) if you're the type who is for reparations then some parts of the article will jump out at you:

Ten thousand hours is, of course, an enormous amount of time. It's all but impossible to reach that number, by the time you're a young adult, all by yourself. You have to have parents who are encouraging and supportive. You can't be poor, because if you have to hold down a part-time job on the side to help make ends meet, there won't be enough time left over in the day. In fact, most people can really only reach that number if they get into some kind of special programme - like a hockey all-star squad - or get some kind of extraordinary opportunity that gives them a chance to put in that kind of work.

So then it would be clear that the long term subjugation of the African in America had a direct impact in our ability to put members of our own into this top class. Oh sure we can do that now but that's not the point. Further:

Recently Forbes Magazine compiled a list of the 75 richest people in history. It includes queens and kings and pharaohs from centuries past, as well as contemporary billionaires such as Warren Buffet and Carlos Slim. However, an astonishing 14 on the list are Americans born within nine years of each other in the mid-19th century. In other words, almost 20% of the names come from a single generation - born between 1831 and 1840 in a single country. The list includes industrialists and financiers who are still household names today: John Rockefeller, born in 1839 (the richest of the lot); Andrew Carnegie, 1835; Jay Gould, 1836; and JP Morgan, 1837.

What's going on here is obvious, if you think about it. In the 1860s and 1870s, the American economy went through perhaps the greatest transformation in its history. This was when the railways were built, and when Wall Street emerged. It was when industrial manufacturing started in earnest. It was when all the rules by which the traditional economy functioned were broken and remade. What that list says is that it was absolutely critical, if you were going to take advantage of those opportunities, to be in your 20s when that transformation was happening.

If you were born in the late 1840s, you missed it - you were too young to take advantage of that moment. If you were born in the 1820s, you were too old - your mindset was shaped by the old, pre-civil war ways. But there is a particular, narrow nine-year window that was just perfect. All of the 14 men and women on that list had vision and talent. But they also were given an extraordinary opportunity, in the same way that hockey players born in January, February and March were given an extraordinary opportunity.

If we follow this fellow's logic we would see that the African in America between the years 1831 and 1839 were for the large part chattel slaves. And so according to the author were effectively locked out of this group. Furthermore by the time 1860-1870 came around, we see that the African had just been given legal "emancipation" but still generally lacked the free time that the author shows was necessary to achieve mastery.


If January 1975 was the dawn of the personal computer age, then who would be in the best position to take advantage of it? If you're a few years out of college in 1975, and if you have had any experience with programming at all, you would have already been hired by IBM or one of the other traditional, old-line computer firms of that era. You belonged to the old paradigm. You have just bought a house. You're married. A baby is on the way. You're in no position to give up a good job and pension for some pie-in-the-sky $397 computer kit. So let's also rule out all those born before, say, 1952.

At the same time, though, you don't want to be too young. You can't seize the moment if you're still in high school. So let's also rule out anyone born after, say, 1958. The perfect age to be in 1975, in other words, is young enough to see the coming revolution but not so old as to have missed it. You want to be 20 or 21, born in 1954 or 1955.

1955. If you were black you were effectively shut out of any of these areas. 1975. a mere 6 years out from the legal destruction of segregation and just into the age of Affirmative Action. Black people, by and large still found themselves outside the mainstream.
If anything, this article shows how much damage white supremacy in America was to the African.

Friday, November 14, 2008

Kwame Toure

A post from 2006:

History can never be made by one man and we smash this one quickly. History is only made by the masses of the people this is clear. Even a cursory glance at the fallacious presentation of history by the American capitalist system would demonstrate just this.

Take George Washington as bad as he is. Put him in the middle of Valley Forge by himself surrounded by the British, he could do nothing.

Take Martin Luther King as righteous as he is; put him in the middle of Birmingham by himself speaking out against racism; he would be lynched.

but you take this same King, you take this same Washington; put them in Valley Forge put them in Alabama surround them with thousands of people who have the same ideas they do willing to make those ideas reality and the situation changes drastically.

If you've heard the recording of this speech you'll note that the crowd is highly amused by the commentary on George Washington but is dead silent when Toure discusses King. I didn't pick up on this for a long time. In fact, until this past presidential election cycle I really hadn't paid much attention to it. I will not comment on what it reminds me of though.

Monday, November 10, 2008

Friday, November 07, 2008

I Did Ask The Question

A few days before the election I posted a video asking why both candidates were making promises to Israel. it was by far the most viewed of the set of videos I posted.

Turns out that it was more prophetic than I imagined as we have this report from Counterpunch

In the first major appointment of his administration, President-elect Barack Obama has named as his chief of staff Congressman Rahm Emanuel, an Israeli citizen and Israeli army veteran whose father, according to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, was a member of Menachem Begin's Irgun forces during the Nakba and named his son after "a Lehi combatant who was killed" -- i.e., a member of Yitzhak Shamir's terrorist Stern Gang, responsible for, in addition to other atrocities against Palestinians, the more famous bombing of the King David Hotel and assassination of the UN peace envoy Count Folke Bernadotte.

Of course this isn't entirely surprising as Obama made the claim that he found the story and history of the Jewish people to be the most profound and moving thing. How any so called "African-American" cane even let something like that leave his or her lips is beyond me. But it is clear by this appointment of a foreign national into the cabinet of the highest office in the land who is clearly in the pocket of a foreign government that the hooks are deep into Obama and the Democratic party. Lets see how long it takes the rest of the so called black leadership to bring this up.

Meanwhile tucked away in a sidebar of the NY Times we find "new" information regarding that little conflict in Georgia:


Exactly as reported before and noted by yours truly. Now Obama first came out on the right side of this issue however by the third debate he had joined John McCain in making ridiculous claims against so called Russian aggression. Now had he been President at the time, would he have allowed his staffers to convince him to change up like he did on the campaign trail? Given his recent appointment it seems that would be likely.

Re. Wright Resurfaces...

White folks foam at the mouth (except those who actually bothered to listen) and some black folks call him a crab in a barrel. Both dumb as nails.

See the comments section after the article

Then watch the video here Make sure to watch it right to the end.

Thursday, November 06, 2008

An Open Letter to Cynthia McKinney


I want to thank you for your service. I know that the 5% goal was not reached but I also know that goal was not the entirety of your campaign. You will (continue) to be ignored by most of the press but we know that you were one of the first, if not the first of our representatives to challenge the Bush criminal. A lot of the credit for this current Democratic victory goes to you. We know that so called progressives used your grilling of Rumsfeld as material to incite their supporters. We know that your uncompromising questioning of the Bush administration over who knew what and when and who was profiting cost you your seat in Georgia. We know that you were later vindicated by the 9-11 commission and other reports on the events of 9-11.

A lot of people are going to call you a hater for running against the Democrat and Republican tickets (particularly the Democratic ticket) but remember that the prophet is hated in his (or her) own land. You are one of the truth tellers. Marcus was a truth teller. Delany was a truth teller. Malcolm was a truth teller. Kwame Toure was a truth teller. You mentioned Fred Hampton in a recent interview I watched on YouTube, He was a truth teller. That is why you are marginalized. Though I am sure you know this already.

The point of this letter though is not to state things that you already know. I just wanted to let you know that you are loved and appreciated.

Thank you and keep up the good works.

Sondjata K. Olatunji

How the Republicans Lost this race

There are obvious reasons why the republicans fell out this election. We have the obvious "It's the economy stupid" turn of events as well as the most unpopular president in US history. However; looking at the actual returns by county across the country reveals that the Obama near landslide was not as large as it seems. In many states the Obama camp won because they took urban centers and surrounding suburbs. Examples of this is Nevada, Ohio and Pennsylvania. This leads us to reason number one why Republicans lost: Demographics.

The Republicans have increasingly been pushed out of urban elections by a demographic of white flight. For example in NYC the only place that Republicans showed was in Staten Island. White Republicans have been moving out of urban areas over the past couple of decades. It has been known for the past couple of years that the total white population of the US has been in decline while the population growth of non-whites has relatively exploded. As such the Republicans having turned themselves into essentially the white (Christian) man's party effectively locked themselves out of contention for urban votes and therefore the meat of the electorate in high population states such as those in the northeast and west coast. This is not to say that they cannot compete in those states, but a look at the electoral maps by congressional district shows that they are essentially marginalized to rural areas.

This problem is exacerbated by the effects of de-industrialization and farm automation found in much of the country. As is noted in the world, people follow the jobs and the money. Whole towns are being depopulated in rural America where Republicans usually do well. Often it is the younger generation that leaves and they end up in the corresponding urban areas further eroding the voting power of those rural areas. If they don't liberalize themselves in these urban areas and they find themselves with the available income, they find themselves moving out of those urban areas further eroding the Republican voting bases in those urban areas.

The only places where this kind of activity does not play against Republicans is in places like Alabama. If one looks at the congressional district returns you'll see the "black belt" of the state that pretty much follows the path of Interstate 85. But the rest of the state, with few urban centers went for McCain. This highlights the urban/rural divide.

Another example was in Virgina Beach where it appears the military vote went Republican and example of a concentration of Republicans in an urban area that flipped the "expected" result for an urban area.

There is no future in the Republican party should it continue to be the party of white (Christian) men. Which brings us to their next flaw: Policies. The Palin effect which I believe is responsible for the reported 10% drop in Republican turn out in Ohio was symbolic of the Republicans apparent need to appease the Christian right. As I pointed out in my "if I was a Black Republican" posting (I am not a black Republican) The choice of Palin was a slap in the face of potential minority (and female) voters. I gave Palin the benefit of the doubt when she was chosen. I thought it was wrong to pre-judge her based on her looks (which a lot of people did) or the fact that Alaska is sparsely populated. I usually wait until someone opens their mouth. I waited until the interview. I was simply shocked at how little she knew. Even if there are multiple ways to view the Bush Doctrine, she should at least been able to state one of them without prodding.

I believe that this is partially the fault of the Democrats who have been moving to the right for years. This I believe has lead the Republicans to think in part that they can throw out some of the most extremely insulting candidates and win an election with them. And the insult to women to choose Palin over the clearly more qualified women in the Republican party was even worse. Hey I think that sometimes the left feminists can be downright whiney but no way is Palin an antidote to that. Even the women in her own state disagree with her positions on Abortion, Sex-ed, etc. But Palin is a reflection of the Christian conservative base that insisted on extracting their pound of flesh from McCain in order to, in the end, not show up at the polls.

I won't put the Republicans down for playing the fear card since by the exit polls the Democrats did the same thing but from a different angle. I find the Democratic use of the fear card kind of hypocritical since they have been backing certain Bush policies (as a party) that they have been laying on Bush (FISA, Patriot Act to name a few) and of course they declined to impeach Bush so they could use him as a whipping boy for the election.

But the next thing that cost the Republicans was the downright nasty attitude (and dare I say "racist") of a large portion of their supporters. In the age of Youtube one has to be a total ass to not give candy to kids on Halloween if they or their parents are Obama supporters. I'm sure that that particular action cost them votes.

To deny parking to people with cash money because they are supporters of Obama. That's plain stupid politics man. Hate Obama all you like but to be stupid enough to be caught on an international website denying paying customers for being Obama supporters surely cost the Republicans votes of Republicans who may not be warm to Obama (or any non-republican).

The shouts of "Kill him" during Palin rallys. Any bright political person should have known to immediately shut down those people down and put those kids of people on blast. Do they not recognize how ugly that looks to people who haven't taken the usual bait? Now I've read reports that the "kill him" phrase didn't happen. Perhaps but in either case that it was reported and wasn't strongly condemned early on cost the Republicans votes.

That's about it. Again, these are not the primary reasons for the loss but they contributed.

Wednesday, November 05, 2008

Black McCain Supporters

Who are these 5% of black men and 3% of black women who voted for McCain? What exactly were they thinking? I mean I am clearly a McKinney supporter since I am to the left of Obama and the Democratic party but exactly WHAT was it that these folks actually saw in the McCain-Palin show? Seriously. If any of you black McCain supporters are reading this I want to know exactly by what logic you voted that ticket. Even if you're to the right of Obama, What did McCain do to demonstrate a grasp of how seriously fooked the policies of the Republicans have been? How exactly did you stomach Mc-Wink Palin?

Nebraska Ends Affirmative Action

With a 58% approval Nebraska ballot initiative to end Affirmative Action is approved by voters. Expect this to happen in the ensuing years in other states.

In other news Prop 8 in California, banning gay marriage passes by a slim majority. Same for the Florida where an amendment to ban gay marriage passed by a wide margin (62% to 38%).


Tuesday, November 04, 2008

First Black President

I called it on Super Tuesday.
May not agree on policy but I offer a congratulations to President elect Obama.

Ohio Republicans Don't Show Up!

In what I think is a shocking turn of events, there was a 10% drop in Republican turn out this year. 10%. Either those Diebold machines were hacked for Obama or the Republicans in Ohio are so pissed off about their party and the choice that they were given that they decided to not show up.

I believe there will be heads rolling in the RNC starting tomorrow. Firstly for running a McCain/Palin ticket during an election where the sitting Republican president is the least liked president in American history. A candidate that when the shoe dropped on the finance markets was dumb enough to say "The fundamentals are strong."

My call

Pa went to Obama. Race is done.

CBS and Slate to Call Race Early

NY Times

I agree with them. I called the first Bush 'victory' adter Gore lost his home state. I called Bushes second victory about when three states came ln in a row for Bush. The Electoral map is generally already known and electoral votes decide the presidency. Except for states where it is close, the outcome is not that hard to predict. On this case if McCain takes PA (he should not) then it'll be a harder call but I stand by my prediction made after Super Tuesday: This is Obama's race to lose.

The only spoiler here are the huge uncrease in turnout. This could cost votes on both sides but I think will 'hurt' Obama more. This is a prime example of why election day ought to either be a federal holiday or occur over a weekend. People ought not have to decide between their paycheck and the exercize of the franchise.

Thursday, October 30, 2008



Culturally relevant 2009 Calendar with captivating photos profiling the Mami Wata Vodoun tradition in Togo, West Africa and in America. Includes important dates highlighting significant events in African-American Ancestral history. Marcus Garvey, Malcolm-X, Langston Hughes, Kwanzaa etc.

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

New Membership Orientation for Baltimore UNIA-ACL (Toure-Tubman Division)

The orientation meeting will be held on October 25, 2008, 1:30 PM at the Enoch Pratt Library, 1303 Orleans St.
Phone; 410-396-0970

If you plan on joining have $34 ready for membership dues and joining fees.

Sunday, October 19, 2008

Christians of Southern Nigeria?

I think the Associated Press ought to get some history lessons for their recent article on the emirs of Kano

Nigeria's emirates date back to the early 1800s, when a jihadi leader called Usman Dan Fodio grew disgusted with lax enforcement of Islamic principles across the north and set out with his followers from the city of Sokoto to establish a new order.

After conquering much of the region on horseback, Dan Fodio left behind the emirs. The emirs ruled and also acted as the supreme religious authorities in the regions -- a comparatively rare relationship in Africa, where monotheistic religions were usually imposed from outside.

Well lets see then. Who exactly is Don Fodio? Well this fellow happened to be a Sufi of the Qadiriyya order. That being from someplace outside Africa, namely Iran originating with Adb al-Qadir. That particular order is believed to have reached Africa via Spain and Morrocco (We've covered the religious conflicts in west Africa in other posts on Islam in Africa).

The point being that the AP is flat out wrong in its assertion that Islam was somehow indigenous to this area of Africa. Perhaps someone's wishful thinking on the subject.


In the mid-1800s British colonialists conquered the southern, Christian areas, forever weakening tribal structures there.

Excuse me? the "southern, Christian areas" ? I don't recall ever that any part of Africa apart from Ethiopia that could be described as "Christian" is it's original culture. Most definitely in West Africa and Nigeria in particular If you were not Hausa-Fulani practicing Islam, you were Yoruba or Igbo practicing Ifa or worshiping Chuckwu respectively (or other smaller religions). Southern Nigeria did not become "Christian" until the arrival of the European and even so, many people, regardless of religious "set" claims still see the Babalawo and Iya when they need advice.

Is it too hard to ask the AP to fact check their reports?

Thursday, October 16, 2008

Tap Dancing

Joe "The Plumber":

Wurzelbacher told Couric that he had always wanted to question a presidential candidate "and really corner them and get them to answer a question of -- for once instead of tap-dancing around it. And, unfortunately, I asked the question, but I still got a tap dance . . . almost as good as Sammy Davis Jr."

Hmmmmmmm...I'm going to reserve comment on that one.

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

On Those Debates

My last blog entry on the debates lamented about the waste of time they have been since there really isn't a debate going on. Anyone with a clue would realize that the powers that be have defined who is acceptable and what topics are acceptable and what positions are acceptable. As Carter G. Woodson told us, once you know the circumference of a man's thinking you don't have to worry about him thinking outside that given area. I expect tonight's debate to be no different and apparently David Bollier agrees:

The truth is, no one can really learn much about the candidates or their ideas when the format has such rigid time limits on answers and predictable questions from mainstream news anchors. The moderators are constrained from asking tough follow-up questions, and the audience is forced to sit like zombies in a funeral parlor. Even with the so-called "town hall meeting" format, there is no genuine back-and-forth dialogue between candidates and citizens. Nor are there any direct candidate-to-candidate exchanges. Third-party candidates have been summarily excluded, so there are no disruptive questions that might expose the limited vision of the two major parties. (Ralph Nader was famously excluded from the 2000 presidential debates because his citizen support was deemed too insignificant to make a difference in the election.)

On a related note, on the black hand side, I'm trying to understand (not really but this is a rhetotical exercise) why apparently it is "unfair" for Republicans (or Democrats) to bring up Ayers who did in fact attempt an act of domestic terrorism, and is apparently "fond" of Obama, but it is 'fair" to bring up Farrakhan who has not, ever, attempt any act of violence against anyone or any institution? Yeah, we know the answer to that one.

Wednesday, October 08, 2008

The Wasted "Debate"

So last night we had yet another waste of time that is the presidential "debates". This was such a waste of time for various reasons. Firstly there was no ground covered here that hasn't been covered before. So that made it a yawner.

Secondly, there is very little that separates the two "debators". Both of these men voted to hand over $700 billion to Wall Street types and no doubt both were involved in some way or another with the billion or so in pork that went along with it.

both men decided to again pledge their allegiance to the non-citizens and non-taxpayers of the State of Israel. Something that annoys me to no end.

both men talked junk about an imaginary attack on Israel by Iran. I say imaginary for a few reasons. Firstly, if one believes that the Palestinians and their issues are important to Iran and one knows full well that any nuclear attack on Israel would adversely affect Palestine (and a bunch of other nations) one can only come to the conclusion that a nuclear attack on Israel by Iran is simply not going to happen. In fact to go further than that it is highly unlikely for Iran to attack anyone else in the region either. People will point to the Iran-Iraq war as some kind of proof of Iran's hostile intentions. Dummies. iran and Iraq got into a war because the US had gotten involved with Iranian politics. Yes that was in the 70's when most of the young voters weren't even twinkles in the eyes of their parents and when older voters were being, well, American. Saddam was in the pocket of the US (CIA paid even) and Reagan broke a couple of laws getting arms to Iraq to fight that little proxy war. So history will show that Iran has been hostile to the US because the US has been meddling in its internal affairs.

So we have Obama and McCain talking about how Iran can never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon siting the instability that it would cause the region. Never mind that the number one issue destabilizing the region in the occupation of Palestinian land and real estate. Never mind that the reason that Iran is interested in a nuclear weapon is because of two things:

1) George Bush decided that he would give a speech in which he declared that Iran along with other nations were a part of an axis of evil. He then stated that it would be US policy to attack such nations on the whim of the POTUS. Mr. Bush then went ahead and invaded a sovereign nation which posed absolutely no threat to the US.

2) Israel has nuclear weapons. Israel has in fact made pre-emptive strikes against it's neighbors for "security reasons."

Given these items, why would Iran NOT want to have the nuclear deterrent? If a person who lives in another state from you declares that he can come to your house and break in at any time and then breaks into your neighbors house would you not do all in your power to dissuade that person from making good on their threat?

Lastly, we have the claim that Iran wants top wipe Israel from the map. A claim repeated by both candidates. However it is known, possibly by both candidates, that the actual quote from the president of Iran (lest I mangle the spelling of his name) was that he wanted to see the Zionist regime of Israel wiped off the map. Well I do too. the government of Israel with its racial and religiously bigoted apartheid government needs to go.

So here we have both candidates representing the "mainstream" parties both talking the same lies to the voting public, whom are apparently too dumbstruck by the celebrity face off that the presidential election has become to even question these things. Clearly if there was an entirely different policy towards the middle east like the ones proposed by Dennis Kucinich, Cynthia Mckinney and Ron Paul, we wouldn't be spending money on wars in the middle east. But then again, we wouldn't need to sell arms to parties in the middle east either.

Then we have the candidates smearing of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez. Never mind that Chavez has won his elections in elections that have been deemed more fair than that of the United States. Never mind that he has also lost in his bids to make changes to the Venezuelan constitution. Never mind that no matter what Hugo Chavez has said about Bush, he has never blocked the shipping or sales of oil to the United States. Never mind the fact that the US was involved with the attempted Coup which Condoleeza Rice went on to approve of. Never mind all that. Hugo Chavez is a dictator. Right. But dumb ass American voters are all too willing to excuse the blatant lies to even challenge these men.

Lastly we have the issue of Georgia. Both men talk about Russia and Putin as if he and the country were babies. We need to show him. We need to set him straight. Putin is a grown ass man. Russia is a sovereign nation with interests like any other. Who the hell is the US government or the POTUS to tell Putin or whomever else what they ought to be accepting and what kind of behavior their nations ought to be doing. Never mind the fact that it is known that people of South Ossetia have long been allied with Russia. Never mind the fact that Russian peacekeepers were assaulted by the Georgian army. Never mind the involvement of Israeli intelligence and the US government in the matter.

Obama talked about the sweeping "nationalism" of the Russians. So what? What, like there isn't sweeping nationalism in America? C'mon man, Every nation has sweeping nationalism! Duh!

Overall the debate clearly wasn't a debate. There was a whole lot of old policy positions being rehashed. A whole lot of allegiance to Israel and the like. I guess they did look presidential.

Tuesday, October 07, 2008

Bad Kenya

While I think John Corsi is full of shyt, it's not for the Kenyan government to attempt censorship via deportation. Frankly with the corruption issues in that country including the entirely messed up (to be kid friendly) election, the Kenyan authorities ought to think twice about deporting people who write books one doesn't care for. As I have stated many times, speech that does not immediately endanger an individual or individual (such as shouting fire in a crowded auditorium) must be protected at all time. Furthermore, the arbitrary use of regulations is simply another means for a government to act in an authoritarian manner and such behavior ought not be supported.

Technorati Tags: , ,

Monday, October 06, 2008

On that IRS Provision about Non-Profit Politiking

Stanley Fish:

The story goes that when he was running for re-election to the Senate in 1954, Lyndon Johnson was opposed by a couple of non-profits that urged voters to reject him and his radical communist ideas. (And you thought things were crazy today.) In response, Johnson had new language inserted into the section of the IRS code, which defines a tax exempt entity. His addendum declared that an exempt organization “does not participate in or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.”

If I Were a Black Republican...

I'd be pretty pissed off right about now. Here we have the Democratic party, the party I've been taught to hate just about to put a black man in the oval office and the best my party could do is put Sarah "You betchya" Palin on the VP ticket ahead of black Republicans with far more qualifications.

I mean If I wasn't feeling like a token before, I'd really have to think about a party that would put an intellectual flyweight like Palin as an answer to college professor Obama rather than say JC Watts. How about that Michael Steele? Lt. Governor of a sizeable state, experience being no.2. I'd recommend the good doctor Rice, but she's irreparably damaged by the Bush administration. And if I could look past the negro thing for a moment, How about Bobby Jindal? First Indian VP.

I mean seriously folks, I would be pretty heated to know that this group I've attached myself to has clearly demonstrated that they prefer a marginal, wink happy white female over more qualified and more intelligent black or brown candidates. That says a lot.

Technorati Tags:


While Europeans and Americans throw large sums of money at crooks and banks. Haitians still die from the results of hurricanes.

People in poor countries die of malnutrition and treatable disease.

Bailout Watch

Right so the NY Times reports that the Federal Reserve is going to loan out $900 billion to banks. We have the $700 billion given by congress. 16 trillion bucks not including Fannie, Freddy or AIG. All over the world banks are falling out. Oil prices are falling. Oil is already down around 50 bucks from this year's high.

And these stock people are STILL trying to get the credit market back to where it was. Yo! Where it was was the problem. Too much borrowing against too little assets. Read Paul Craig Roberts:

The greatest mistake was made in 2004, the year that Reagan died. That year the current Secretary of the Treasury, Henry M. Paulson Jr, was head of the investment bank Goldman Sachs. In the spring of 2004, the investment banks, led by Paulson, met with the Securities and Exchange Commission. At this meeting with the New Deal regulatory agency tasked with regulating the US financial system, Paulson convinced the SEC Commissioners to exempt the investment banks from maintaining reserves to cover losses on investments. The exemption granted by the SEC allowed the investment banks to leverage financial instruments beyond any bounds of prudence.

In place of time-proven standards of prudence, computer models engineered by hot shots determined acceptable risk. As one result Bear Stearns, for example, pushed its leverage ratio to 33 to 1. For every one dollar in equity, the investment bank had $33 of debt!

So it is possible..possible that if there are say $100 billion in "assets" at risk, that these banks may be in for 33 times that or $3 trillion is bad debt. I'm pulling the asset number out of thin air, kinda like the fed guy did for the $700 billion. But you can see that this could get very expensive very fast and anyone suggesting that credit ought to return to the "way it was" is nuts.

Congress Must be Atheists?

So Michael Hudson wants to claim that the congress must be atheists for their recent behavior in regards to the bailout:

So the Christian parallel is broken. The moral in the above parable, Jesus explained (Matthew 18:35), was that “So likewise shall my heavenly Father do unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses,” that is, their debts. But Wall Street and Congress must be atheists, because the way that matters are working out today, only the wealthy are being forgiven their debts, not the poor. The big sinners are going free, their victims are being stripped of their assets.

Really. I seem to recall that both presidential candidates, whom have approved of the bailout claiming Jesus Christ as their savior. Hmm. I believe the current president, who also went to bat for this bailout makes the same claim.

In fact the vast majority of those in the US congress and Senate make claim to Christianity, Islam or Judaism. Far as I know, not a single atheist has been elected to national office as a "known" atheist, so how does Micheal get to make such an outrageous smear on atheists?

Tuesday, September 30, 2008

On the Obama Healthcare Ad.

And so not satisfied with slapping around black folk and about facing on FISA, the Obama campaign has dropped all pretense of 'progressive" and gone straight Washington. In case you have not seen it there is an Obama ad that features a two headed arrow. On the left side is the so called "left extreme" of the healthcare debate. In it is says that this "Wrong" proposal is government single payer universal healthcare. It is "wrong" because well it is government single payer universal healthcare and because the government has to pay for it, then the taxpayer foots the bill. You know the taxpayer that would be paying taxes to be covered by said system.

On the right sided of the arrow we have the status quo: Health insurance that covers only people who are working at places that have benefits, who don't have pre-existing conditions. Somehow the Obama people, and presumably Obama himself thinks that the former is as bad as the latter.

Let me make this really clear for the hard of understanding: It is equally wrong to cover everybody's health care as it is to deny coverage to people who can't afford to pay or that an insurance company doesn't deem "worth" covering. Still too hard? Let me give you an example:

You get cancer. Your insurance company refuses to pay for the needed treatment. You can't afford it. You die. Alternative single payer healthcare (you know, the one the Senator has) would have covered you and you'd be alive. Simple. Get it?

Obama's ad claims that the middle ground will make health insurance companies cover more people. So in essence the Obama camp is saying, like the Republicans have been saying: Some of you mofo's are gonna have to die.

Really, that's what it comes down to. The left base of the Democratic party is so wedded to the Democratic party that they don't even mind being insulted. If John McCain so much as farts I get an e-mail from Move on and other assorted "left" organizations. Same thing happens if Sarah Palin so much as opens her mouth. But when this little piece of crap was broadcast not a single message hit my mailbox.

The more things change the more they stay the same.

Technorati Tags:

From The Wilderness

My man, Deskrat usually carries the Wilderness material but I haven't seen him online in a minute so I'm going to post this link up.

What Really Happened Today

In FTW's fourth and last Economic Alert ( -- just 11 days before our offices were burglarized on June 25, 2006 -- I specifically warned that this day (metaphorically speaking) would come. What prompted that alert was an unprecedented move by President George W. Bush to give the National Director of Intelligence, John Negroponte, the authority to exempt "certain" Wall Street firms and banking giants from reporting their financial records to the Securities and Exchange Commission. It was this move which permitted everything that has happened over the last month. That move allowed smaller banks and investors to continue buying pigs (without lipstick) in a poke while average Americans were led to believe that everything was OK. If you don't believe me, go read the Economic Alert for yourself. It's all right there -- everything...

Just a few days ago China ordered its banks to stop lending to U.S. banks.

Monday, September 29, 2008

Just For Today: I Am A Republican

Check the Roll Call. While the Democrats stayed glued to the corporate dick, the Republicans had the backbone to say no to the bailout. And by a huge margin.

Friday, September 26, 2008

Suddenly Ron Paul Doesn't Sound So Crazy

Recall my post from January 6:

Last night during the Republican debate, Ron Paul was mocked. It was as John Edwards later put it, the attack of the "status quo." Make no mistake about it the powers that be MUST make sure that Ron Paul and what he says is ridiculed. The reason this must happen is because if the voting public at large took what he said seriously there would be a HUGE change in voting patterns...

Note how no one even addressed the issue of the rise in oil prices when looked at by Dollar, Euro and gold. I bet that 90% of the audience and the viewing public had NO CLUE that in terms of gold oil prices haven't gone anywhere. It's not that one has to go back to the gold standard but Paul's statement is directly related to the "credit crisis" because much of what has been fueling the credit economy has been made up, unregulated, backed by absolutely nothing fake money. SIV's as they are called. Everyone in finance knows what Paul is talking about. But the average American has NO CLUE.

Can you HEAR him now?

What The Wall Street People Think About You

From Alternet:

Many Wall Street types greeted the protesters with contempt. "Just look at these people," sneered one broker as the march neared the Stock Exchange. Another group held a "Get a Job" sign in an office window, and one man dropped a few dollar bills out of his. They fluttered down short of the marchers, landing in a construction site.

No Bailout!

Thursday, September 25, 2008

Mugabe Calls for End to Sanctions. So Do We


"Once again, I appeal to the world's collective conscience to apply pressure for the immediate removal of these sanctions by Britain, the United States and their allies, which have brought untold suffering to our people,"

While we have our disagreements with Mugabe, Garvey's Ghost is 100% behind this call. Furthermore the recent power sharing agreement signed by all parties effectively nullifies the basis of such sanctions (which GG agrees are wholly illegal as well). Since the parties have made an agreement (even though I still say it is time for Mugabe to step down), then it is not the place of the US, Britain or anyone else to dictate anything (as if it was acceptable before).

Technorati Tags: , ,

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

New McCain Advert

And so the McCain camp puts out a new ad. It's pretty good in its overt message: Obama isn't experienced. His advisers include a former head of Freddie Mac. Freddie Mac collapsed and your tax dollars went to rescue it. On it's face its a straight forward message that makes sense.

But then we get to the racial overtones.

Obama: black.
Freddie Mac Chair: Black
Taxpayer: Old white lady.

That message is really clear. And the set up is clear. So the advert does double duty and in my opinion does both duties pretty well. I'm sure someone will YouTube it.

Monday, September 08, 2008

Uppity What?

So I'm reading the Angry Indian and discover that Republican Rep. Lynn Westmoreland said of the Obamas:


Uppity? Really?

And there are people who think that using the term "uppity" in reference to black people is not "racist." Before we even go there, let us consider that this fellow is from the great state of Georgia. He was born in 1950 meaning this man was at the age of "understanding" when black folk were still being hung up on trees and before voting rights acts were passed, among other things. In other words he is a damn liar to claim that:

"I’ve never heard that term used in a racially derogatory sense. It is important to note that the dictionary definition of ‘uppity’ is ‘affecting an air of inflated self-esteem -- snobbish.’ That’s what we meant by uppity when we used it in the mill village where I grew up."

That is absolute bullshit. I bet he never heard of a Dixiecrat either. What he's saying is he never listened to the radio. Never was around any people who had a dislike for people like Dr. King. Really? Now mind you if he was say 20 I would be willing to believe he had never heard the term in a racially derogatory manner since the phrase (properly: Uppity nigger) is not in common use in most parts of the US today. But someone 50 years old from the South claiming to have no knowledge of the typical souther use of the word in reference to black people? Total BS.

Garvey's Ghost Endorses Cynthia McKinney For President

Truth Sign

It is official. As of today, the Ghost is officially endorsing the candidacy of Cynthia McKinney.

This decision was not made lightly. Originally I had intended to stay neutral in this race for a few reasons. First I have never voted. This is by choice and I have explained by reasoning here and here so I wont bother repeating the reasoning here but those who's head exploded when they read " I have never voted" ought to take a read.

Since I don't vote then what do I do? As with my non-profit, I put my money where my mouth is. As I've explained many times over the state of Israel is not a state of the Union yet receieves billions in dollars of aid. That's your money. They can't vote yet they get looked after. For those of us who clearly understand this system, we understand that money is power. That is in general those who can afford to influence policy will have their needs and wants looked after.

The second piece of the pie is access to media. Of course access to media is heavily influenced by money but even more than that, with the corporate ownership of the airwaves, companies can legally disappear people from the public. And so it comes down to alternative media to get the word out. But even then the vast majority of people are tied to the big corporate outlets and they have powerful gatekeepers. I understand all this and so I choose to spend my efforts to be an influencer. That said, let me get back to my endorsement of Cynthia McKinney.

This endorsement is about policy. Period. This election is historic in that it is the first time in US history that a black person is on the presidential ticket of one of the major parties and at the top of said ticket. It would be easy to fall in line and just be excited a black man is "on the verge" but I cannot. So lets get to the issues:

1) The Iraq War: Obama has said much about being against the war from the beginning. However he has been voting to fund it. Furthermore, day in and day out his position in regards to ending the war gets closer and closer to that of McCain (Or McCain is getting closer to Obama). Neither one advocates an immediate end to the illegal war.

2) War in Georgia: In line with the war in Iraq both Obama and McCain have made ridiculous statements in regard to the situation in Georgia. Statements that fly in the face of facts. How can one on the one hand claim to be against the war in Iraq, which is a sovereign nation that was invaded by the US, but also say that it is wrong for Russia to go into Georgia even though the Russians are :

a) neighbors

b) provoked by military action by Georgia?

No; Obama and McSame are on the same page and that's not change and it's not what I believe in.

3) Israel: I cannot support the Zionist. Period. I will not support anyone who supports the Zionist. Joe Biden has plainly stated that he is a Zionist. McCain is equally in the pocket of our 51st state. End of story.

4) FISA: Obama claimed that he would be opposed to the renewal of FISA. In the end he did a complete about face on that issue. The retroactive immunity for telecoms who broke the law is a clear abandonment of the job of any Senator to uphold the constitution. If Obama cannot be trusted to uphold the constitution then what's the point of voting him into office. Same for McSame.

5) Church State Issues: I am strongly in support of separation of religion and the state. This is especially so for a multi-cultural society. the McCain-Palin ticket has on it a person who thinks creationism ought to be taught in public schools (and we don't have to ask which creationism). Nor does the Republican VP pick think that global warming is due to human activity.

On the democratic side we have seen a willingness in the Obama camp to continue with the so called "faith based" funding. I was opposed to that when Bush proposed it and I'm still against the government funding of religious based organizations. I don't care which party is doing it.

6) Reparations: We already know where the reparations argument goes with the Republicans. However; Obama decided to put down the idea when he could have easily said that if such a bill was passed with support of a majority of representatives he would sign it. Rather Obama playing to white voters wants to say that by doing x,y or z, that blacks will benefit. Reparations is not about some general "benefit." it is redress for a specific grievance by a specific group.

7) Healthcare: Neither party is willing to do universal, single payer health care for all citizens. Both parties are in the pockets of the Health "insurance" industry that makes a profit by denying health care (as was shown in Michael Moore's Sicko) McCain tried to pass off the current health care system as "choice." But tell that to people told they "can't" have a procedure done. Single payer man, not single point of healthcare.

You'll note that with the exception of Reparations, there are no "race specific" items on this list. There are no gender specific items on this list. Therefore the argument about we black radicals only being interested in black folk a the expense of others is pure nonsense.

So why McKinney? I followed her while she was a congresswoman from Georgia. She was the first to publicly question the administration over 9-11. She asked the important questions: who knew what? When?

In respect to the criminal activities of Bush, McKinney has actually proposed impeachment (HR 1106). That shows character and a committment to the constitution not seen by either candidate of the "major" parties.

And on the experience level I'll just note that McKinney was a 6 time congresswoman who was also on committees, even though the Democrats stiffed her (with nary a comment by the black caucus) of her seniority.

So we have to answer the obvious question: Why should you vote for her even though she won't "win"?

People, third parties don't just show up over night. Especially given the stranglehold of money and media. The stated goal for this run is 5% of the vote. This will qualify the Green Party as a 3rd "Major" party. People the two party system, in which both parties are bought off by the same interest parties is broken. The Democrats have been going right and the Republicans have become the party of White Christians. Both parties are responsible for setting the tone where police are given the OK to brutalize peaceful protesters and journalists. How could impeachment be "off the table" if the Democrats had to worry about a third party putting it on the table?

So this endorsement is all about policy and changing the future playing field.

Thursday, September 04, 2008

Rudy Takes Cheap Shot at Obama

I can see the legitimacy of comparing being a community organizer to being a mayor or governor. But to act as if being a community organizer is nothing at all especially when it's done by someone with a law degree from a rather prestigious institution, when that person could have easily gone into one of many Chicago law firms and made huge bucks; that's cheap.

Tuesday, September 02, 2008

A Few Links

First Cuba Helps Africa overthrow the White Supremacists in Africa, but how many knew they've been helping the people of the Sudan?.

Twenty years ago, Bol and Wek were two of 600 children sent to Cuba for an education during the bloody decades of Sudan's north-south conflict.

Many of the children were already members of the southern rebel army when they walked across the south's swamps and vast plains and then crossed the border into Ethiopia. They were then flown or shipped halfway around the world to Cuba's Isla de la Juventud...

They were told their education -- a gift from Fidel Castro -- was to be crucial in the fight against northern marginalization.

And while people are distracted by a pregnant 17 year old, The 4th and 1st amendments to the constitution continue to be trampled upon without any comment from either candidate.

In the months leading up to the Republican National Convention, the FBI-led Minneapolis Joint Terrorist Task Force actively recruited people to infiltrate vegan groups and other leftist organizations and report back about their activities. On May 21, the Minneapolis City Pages ran a recruiting story called "Moles Wanted." Law enforcement sought to preempt lawful protest against the policies of the Bush administration during the convention.

Since Friday, local police and sheriffs, working with the FBI, conducted preemptive searches, seizures and arrests. Glenn Greenwald described the targeting of protestors by "teams of 25-30 officers in riot gear, with semi-automatic weapons drawn, entering homes of those suspected of planning protests, handcuffing and forcing them to lay on the floor, while law enforcement officers searched the homes, seizing computers, journals, and political pamphlets." Journalists were detained at gunpoint and lawyers representing detainees were handcuffed at the scene...

Preventive detention violates the Fourth Amendment, which requires that warrants be supported by probable cause. Protestors were charged with "conspiracy to commit riot," a rarely-used statute that is so vague, it is probably unconstitutional. Nestor said it "basically criminalizes political advocacy."

Technorati Tags: