Sunday, November 16, 2014










No matter who wins Congress, Obama loses


Voters go to the polls today, and by nightfall the final judgment of President Obama will have been rendered. And that judgment will likely not be pretty.

In a fascinating piece by Dave Boyer of the Moonie-owned, right-wing Washington Times this morning, the dreary litany of broken promises and frustrated hopes of the Obama administration are delineated. Boyer cites everything from Obama's failure to close the Guantanamo gulag, to his putting off of “immigration reform” until after today's election, to the disastrous health-care roll out, to his Justice Department's refusal to go after the Wall Street banksters and financiers for bankrupting the economy, to his renewed imperial wars and confused response to the put-up Ebola “crisis” – all, and more, explain why today is not a particularly good day for the president. 

Obama's continued low approval ratings, says Boyer, are explained by these failures. His now-routine heckling by the assembled masses indicates a disdain and tuning-out of his repeated platitudes and bromides as to what really ails America and what he has done over the last six-year period (or will do in his last two) about them. It's painfully clear now that most people are simply not listening to (or believing) this man anymore. 

Indeed, he has become not simply irrelevant to anything people care about.  Obama is not just the lamest of lame ducks; he is perceived by many as actually inimical to their concerns. 

Interestingly, Boyer says the only reason Obama's numbers are not even lower is because of his rock-hard support among his most faithful base members – black people. Boyer shrugs that support off and implies that it is solely based on black folks' identification with Obama as yet another beleaguered brother who's been hamstrung by the “white power structure.” The problem with that, of course, is that Obama represents and promotes at every turn that white power structure – and to the detriment of black people. Yes, most black people see clearly that Obama's Republican and right-wing opposition and obstructionism are based in a never-say-die racial animus. And many black people do continue to rally to his side simply to spite that obvious, historical, tired and time-worn pattern. 

However, black people are probably more disappointed and frustrated with Obama's performance than any other electoral block. Their continued support of him is therefore a function of that history more than anything he has done (or not done) to alleviate their always desperate social, economic and political positioning at the bottom of every single indicator. 

Many black people are finally beginning to realize, for example, that in the unlikely event that the Democrats took control of both houses of Congress, Obama would not do anything of particular importance for them. On the contrary, he would immediately revert – once again – to his original “bipartisan,” "Grand Bargain"-seeking stance, which he demonstrated during his first two years in office when he, in fact, had both houses (more or less, Blue Dog Democrats notwithstanding). 

Republican control of both houses or even just one will give us more of the same old, same old obstructionism we've witnessed over the last four years. Nothing will continue to be done to aid the masses of people who are practically begging for help. 

So, has Obama's been a "failed" presidency?  As far as most progressives (of whatever color) are concerned, yes!  But, as much as we would like to believe otherwise, Obama was not elected to and never really vowed to pick up the progressive gauntlet.

None of this, however, signals Obama as a weak leader – as Republicans, conservatives, right-wingers and tea partiers would have it. No. The man is doing precisely what he was selected to do: Maintain the status quo. 

Finally, as far as black people are concerned, Obama will be remembered not for any transformational policies or programs, no visionary ideas or ideals, no positive impact on our lives and life chances.

He will simply -- and only --  be consigned to the history books as just another black first.

Saturday, October 4, 2014






Ebola and white response

As the Ebola virus has now been confirmed in at least one – and possibly two – people within the US, let's take a closer look at how this disease has been responded to in the global North and West versus its origination point – West Africa. 

Over the last six months, Ebola has killed over 3,000 people and stricken thousands more, primarily in Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea. Although this virus first appeared along the Ebola River in Uganda in 1976, all reputable medical professionals agree that it is spread only through contact with bodily fluids of not simply an infected but a symptomatic person. It cannot spread through the air or by simply touching objects. The symptoms are pronounced and obvious. Fever, fatigue and flu-like indicators are the three chief indicators of possible Ebola infection, and may take take up to three weeks before appearing. Thereafter, severe hemorrhaging from all body orifices begins. Indeed, it is the massive blood loss which actually kills from fifty to ninety percent of Ebola-infected individuals.

Until within the last few weeks, the response to Ebola in West Africa by the West and global North had been one of indifference – indifference to black life and suffering. President Obama has sent troops – not doctors – to the area to assist in the building of or shoring up of medical facilities. 

From the moment of this virus' first appearance in West Africa, clear and consistent efforts to preserve white life, and indifference to black life by the West/North have been glaring, stark, obvious and blatant. 

Indeed, it was only when two American white missionaries contracted the disease that most white folks in North America even became aware of the extent of the outbreak. That awareness was prompted because the missionaries were given an experimental drug and flown out of Liberia and back to the US. A third white American was flown to Nebraska for treatment. Latest reports indicate that yet a fourth white American – an NBC newsman – has been spirited out of Liberia and back to the US where he is reportedly doing well. 

All the while, African doctors and aid workers were regularly dying from the disease. In mid-September, when the fourth African doctor, Dr. Olivet Buck, chief of the Lumley Health Center in Freetown, Sierra Leone, died of the disease, it was revealed that the World Health Organization had specifically refused to send her to Germany for treatment. Amazingly, however, and at the very same time, two Dutch doctors stricken with Ebola were flown home. 

The first African doctor to die of the virus, Dr. Sheik Umar Khan, the chief Sierra Leonean physician treating Ebola, was also denied the chance to receive the experimental drug by Doctors Without Borders. This is the same drug given to the two white missionaries, and which apparently saved their lives.

As to the US government's response (under its “first black president”), it initially announced that a $22-million, 25-bed Ebola hospital would be built, but only for foreign (read: white) healthcare workers and patients. Fortunately, outrage forced the the US to include African health workers. The point had been made, however: The purpose of the white aid workers and their governments was not to find a cure or even treat the increasing numbers of Africans coming down with Ebola. Their principal purpose was to contain and prevent the spread of this disease outside the continent of Africa. 

What we are witnessing is an age-old story when it comes to black life and, indeed, this planet's second largest continent – Africa. Black life has historically been disparaged, demeaned and deemed disposable by the global North and West. 

The image being fostered and nourished in the North/West is that this is a specifically “black” disease endemic to Africa, and which is if not caused by, it is at least exacerbated by “uncivilized” and black cultural practices. In fact, one white media maven, Fox News' Andrea Tantaros, has said it out loud: Black peoples' use of “witch doctors” has impeded the fight against this disease.

This picture of Africans and Africa as a disease-ridden people and place began when the first European colonizers – as far back as the 1400s – mysteriously died in droves almost as soon as they got off their ships in most African ports. Europeans soon learned not to venture into the African interior for fear of certain death – usually from the bite of the tste-tste fly and malaria-carrying mosquitoes. 

For white folks, therefore, Africa was, not only Jack London's “Dark Continent,” but a hopelessly diseased continent as well.  This characterization of black people and their homeland (despite its untold wealth in both human and natural resources) has persisted right into the present century and informs white response to the current epidemiological crisis spreading throughout West Africa. 

We are also being subjected to the age-old myth of the “brave” and “heroic” white saviors who risk their lives for African people. This construction harkens back to Rudyard Kipling's “white man's burden” view of the continent and feeds into what has lately been labeled as the “white savior industrial complex.”
Within this meme of black dependency upon white benevolence, however, no mention is ever made of the many past and continuing evils perpetrated by white explorers discoverers, conquerors, colonizers and neo-colonizers across the whole continent of Africa. 

As Teju Cole points out in describing the white savior industrial complex, “It supports brutal policies…[where] the banality of evil transmutes into the banality of sentimentality.” 

And, in a recent interview, Dr. Joia Mukherjee, of Partners in Health, pointed directly to the white racism behind the West’s Ebola response by saying, “I think it’s easy for the world — the powerful world, who are largely non-African, non-people of color — to ignore the suffering of poor, black people.” 

But even as we watch the in many cases hysterical response of growing numbers of white people to this epidemic, we must understand that this response runs deeper than merely than a conscious indifference to black suffering. 

Writing in the BlackAgendaReport.com, Drs. Hudson and Pierre of the Department of African American Studies at the UCLA, assert that “[This] is about white supremacy’s desire for Black death and Black suffering. It is about coming to terms with the fact that there is something systematic – and sinister – about Black killing globally. It is about the reality that in a universal context of anti-Blackness, Black lives don’t matter – anywhere.” 

Here's a list of other European (and white American) responses to date:
  • Brussels. An African man with a nosebleed was reportedly rushed from a shopping mall in July. The store he was in was thoroughly sterilized before he tested negative for the virus.

  • The United Kingdom, the body of a woman from the Gambia who died after getting sick following a flight from the Gambia to London, was sequestered until she was tested for Ebola. This despite the fact that she had no symptoms or known contact with anyone with the virus. 

  • Italy, some schools have sent out warnings to all students of African origin that they must now submit additional health certificates prior to starting school. No such requests were made of white children, a significant number of whom, had been to Africa on summer vacations.

  • In Voecklabruck, Austria two asymptomatic Nigerian men who had just traveled from Nigeria last month, were suspected of carrying Ebola. They isolated before being released after testing negative for the virus.

  • A black woman from Africa collapsed at a business meeting in Berlin recently. German police dispatched more than 60 police officers and firefighters to lock down the building, isolating some 600 people who worked there. The woman, who lives in Berlin and who was rumored to have just returned from Africa a week earlier, along with two others who had come to her aid when she collapsed, were rushed to an isolation ward at Berlin’s Charité Hospital. No one was allowed in or out of the building as armed police stood guard. In the end, she only had a stomach virus. She had not set foot in any of the West African nations affected by the Ebola outbreak. She had, in fact, been in Kenya, a distance of over 3,200 miles from Liberia, “ground zero” of the epidemic. No, it was her African-ness, her blackness, which sparked the frenzy.

  • And then there was Air France's head of the airline’s union Patrick Henry-Haye. He wrote a petition to his employers begging them to stop all airline travel to West African countries affected by the Ebola virus outbreak. That petition set off a frenzy among air travelers. More than 700 Air France crew members, including pilots, have signed the petition. “They say we are trained to spot Ebola,” he told Le Figaro. “That’s false. We’re not trained to do anything other than put on rubber gloves and surgical masks and lock suspected patients in the lavatories. That’s not enough.”

  • As things stand now, Air France is the only major European airline still flying directly to the Ebola-affected West African cities of Conakry, Guinea, and Freetown, Sierra Leone. Thus, these continuing flights have amped up concern that the epidemic will land in Europe through Air France's hub in Paris. (For its part, American carrier Delta suspended flights to Monrovia back on August 31.)

  • And in the US, with significant help from mainly right-wing media, Liberians in Texas (and Africans nationwide) are reporting increased surveillance and harassment by both authorities and “ordinary” white citizens.
Still, only one person is known to have died in all of Europe from Ebola. That was Father Miguel Pajares, a 75-year-old Catholic priest who had been ministering to Ebola-stricken Liberians in the capital Monrovia. He, like his fellow white helpers, was evacuated to Madrid on August 7 and died August 12, despite being given the experimental drug Zmapp.

Thus, Europeans' fears of Ebola spreading among them has intensified exponentially. However, rational health officials are attempting to head-off an out-and-out panic: “We need to be prudent without being paranoid,” Italy’s health minister, Beatrice Lorenzin, last month. Her statement followed an Internet rumor that there were three cases of Ebola on the Sicilian island of Lampedusa, where many refugees and illegal migrants arrive from North Africa. “It is not fair to assume all black people are potential Ebola carriers. That is blatant racism,” she said. 

References

http://time.com/3452341/dallas-ebola-texas-ground-zero/

http://www.usatoday.com/news/

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/01/health/airline-passenger-with-ebola-is-under-treatment-in-dallas.html?_r=0

http://www.wfaa.com/story/news/health/2014/09/29/dallas-presbyterian-hospital-ebola-patient-isolation/16460629/

http://www.blackagendareport.com/

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/20/ebola-fueled-racism-is-on-the-rise-in-europe.html
http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-09-15/american-doctor-says-racism-blame-slow-response-ebola-outbreak

http://www.humanosphere.org/human-rights/2014/08/newsweeks-racist-misinformed-ebola-cover-story/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/08/25/othering-ebola-and-the-history-and-politics-of-pointing-at-immigrants-as-potential-disease-vectors/

http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article3565

http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article3565

Tuesday, September 30, 2014

Ferguson Officer Wilson a no-show in separate drug case claiming excessive force

Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson, the selfsame Officer Wilson who unceremoniously shot down and killed unarmed 18-year-old Michael Brown this year, did not show up for  a scheduled court appearance in a separate incident this week.

It was an illegal drug case in which Wilson was the arresting officer last February. 
In fact, all half-dozen of Wilson's cases wherein he is the arresting or investigating officer have been placed on hold – except for the drug case against one Christopher Brooks (pictured above courtesy of USA Today). 

This particular case seems to have slipped through the legal cracks. Indeed, a grand jury (separate from the Michael Brown grand jury) has been tasked to review the case against Christoper Brooks. 

As per USA Today, a judge approved a request by prosecutors Monday to refer Brooks' case to a St. Louis County grand jury. However, Ed Magee, a spokesman for Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch (the same prosecutor “prosecuting” the case against Wilson in the Brown matter) later said that the Brooks case (as well as all cases involving Wilson) is "on hold" until the Brown matter is resolved. 

Interestingly, Magee called this grand jury referral and delay of pending cases involving Wilson “standard procedure."  That is,  when police officers are not immediately available to testify in court, they are given an automatic, no-questions-asked, benefit of doubt because...well...just because.  

This is particularly interesting because when defendants are “not available” or fail to show up in court -- for whatever reason -- their cases are never deferred, delayed or put “on hold.” Warrants for their arrest on sight are immediately issued; and when found, they are placed firmly behind bars – and without bail until a judge deigns to grant them a hearing.  That indeed is what would have happened to Christoper Brooks had he not been in court for his preliminary hearing, doncha know.  

As for the instant case, Christopher Brooks' attorney Nick Zotos alleges that award-winning Officer Wilson "roughed up" his client when Brooks refused to hand over the keys to a locked car parked in his grandmother's driveway. After the “roughing up” of Brooks and the forcible taking of his keys, Wilson and his fellow officers say that they found drug paraphernalia and several ounces of marijuana in the vehicle.

Zotos wants the charges against his client dismissed for two reasons: 1) The arresting officer did not show up in court for the preliminary hearing which is where the charges are made and the judge determines their validity; and 2): "Wilson is compromised as a witness," said Zotos. 

That's putting it mildly. It may the understatement of the year. 

Apparently, it was the judge who moved the case to the grand jury, a motion opposed the by McCulloch's office. And, it is not clear whether Brooks made the allegation against Wilson before or after Brown was killed.

As has been widely reported, Officer Wilson was given a police award last year. But, did you know that that award was proffered for his actions in this very case – the one wherein he now refuses to appear in court?

James P. Towey is general counsel for the Missouri Fraternal Order of Police and a former general counsel for the St. Louis Police Officers Association. As such, he may be considered an apologist...er advocate...for all police and especially for Wilson during this “difficult” period. Towey allows, for example, that Wilson may be willing to publicly discuss this, the Brown, and any other case in the future.

Obviously, however, if Wilson is ever charged, let alone convicted, of any wrongdoing in any of his pending cases, I'm betting that he will remain closed-mouth. And, of course, Towey would not reveal the whereabouts of Wilson, who has remained in hiding since his shooting to death of Michael Brown last August 9. 

As to Wilson's award, Zotos was not impressed: 

"We give trophies every day for just showing up," he said after the brief hearing in St. Louis Circuit Court. "If you play on the team, you get a trophy."

As indicated, the judge in the Brooks case, together with the county prosecutor's acquiescence, agreed to move the Brooks drug matter to the grand jury. 

The real question is why. Why must this award-winning cop now suddenly be shielded from public scrutiny? Think about it. There are now two grand juries sitting in judgment of this one Ferguson police officer. The secrecy of grand jury proceedings means that Wilson will not have to testify in “open” court; that his testimony will never have to be revealed; that the case against him will never have to be made public. 

Obviously and clearly, the fix is in for Officer Darren Wilson. He is in an undisclosed location, still getting paid, still empowered with badge and gun and authority. Both of these grand juries, will come back – whenever they decide to come back – with verdicts of “no bill” – no wrongdoing in either case against Officer Darren Wilson. 

References
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/darren-wilson-ferguson-police-officer-no-show-for-court-testimony-1.2782152
http://gawker.com/darren-wilson-no-show-threatens-to-derail-year-old-drug-1640793206
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/30/cases-involving-ferguson-police-officer-on-hold/16466333/?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=usatoday-newstopstories
http://blacklikemoi.com/2014/09/darren-wilson-show-court-hes-accused-manhandling-suspect/

Monday, September 29, 2014

GOP rep. tells army generals to resign en masse in protest of Obama's foreign policy

Category

GOP rep. tells army generals to resign en masse in protest of Obama's foreign policy


A sitting member of congress, a Republican, has taken his dislike and disagreement with all things Obama to an entirely different, and very likely treasonous, level. 

According to the Colorado Independent newspaper, US Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.) told a secret meeting of Army generals that it is their duty to resign en masse in order to not just protest but to derail President Obama's military moves in the Middle East. His remarks came just as US-led air strikes continued Friday near the Syrian border with Iraq. 

Lamborn, who is running for reelection against a retired Air Force General, told a group of voters of his prior meeting with the generals – and he allowed that he was not the only Republican congress-creature who advocated mass resignations by Army generals:

“A lot of us," he said last Tuesday, "are talking to the generals behind the scenes, saying, ‘Hey, if you disagree with the policy that the White House has given you, let’s have a resignation.’”  (Emphasis added).  

And, to make a mass walk-out by Army leaders attractive, he assured the generals that if and when they resigned – as a unified group – they would be seen by real Americans as true American heroes, and  “go out in a blaze of glory.” 

Even more interesting (and frightening) is that Lamborn is a member of the House Armed Services Committee. Throughout his eight years in Congress, Lamborn has remained pretty much a “back bencher,” never attracting any real attention to himself beyond one doomed legislative proposal: the championing a House-approved measure to defund National Public Radio.

The Independent suggests that this congressman could not possibly be serious about urging mass defections among the army's general staff. It seems to think that this may just be a publicity stunt geared to energize his flagging reelection campaign. 

I, however, believe he is serious, and reflects the views of not just a number of fellow GOP congressmen and women, but their far right constituencies as well. Indeed, as a member of the House Armed Services Committee, there is little doubt that he regularly meets “behind the scenes” in “executive” or classified sessions, with military generals. In these meetings, it is quite possible, if not probable, that he and other Republicans suggest and explore all manner of ways and means to undermine Obama – including resignations to disrupt Obama-led foreign policy during a war. 

In past administrations, when a member of Congress disagreed with a president’s foreign policy, he or she usually made passionate speeches against the policy and/or introduced or supported legislation limiting or defunding the particular policy with which they disagreed.  Not so with this current group of Obama-haters.  The "normal" and "usual" ways of expressing disagreement with this president have long ago gone by the boards -- if civil discourse and disagreement by conservatives and Republicans were ever in place at all vis-a-vis President Obama.

Private meetings with generals in the midst of a war and calling upon them to “go out in a blaze of glory,” is patently, obviously treasonous and this congressman and/or the generals who heed his advice should so be charged. 

As stated, Lamborn is up for re-election against retired Air Force Gen. Irv Halter (D). Halter agrees that Lamborn is way "out of bounds" with this call for mass defection.  He told the Independent that, “Our elected officials should not be encouraging our military leaders to resign when they have a disagreement over policy. Congressman Lamborn’s statement shows his immaturity and lack of understanding of the American armed forces. Someone who serves on the House Armed Services Committee should know better.”

Commentary

This move by Rep. Lamborn demonstrates once again the depth of the outright hatred of President Obama by so-called conservatives generally, the right wing, and most Republicans particularly. 

It seems that these people would rather see the entire country fail rather than allow any “success” whatsoever by Obama's administration. The call for army generals to resign in protest is only therefore one step removed from calling upon rank and file soldiers to desert their posts. 

Yet, this is what Lamborn's “call to arms” really means.
A follow-up step would logically be for these selfsame generals and deserting soldiers to turn their weapons on the White House itself. 

Amazing. 

A video of Lamborn's remarks may be viewed here.

References

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/gop-rep-urges-us-generals-behind-the-scenes-resign
http://www.krdo.com/news/lambron-under-fire-for-controversial-comments-on-obamas-military-policies/28290324
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/doug-lamborn/

Friday, September 26, 2014

Another white cop shoots unarmed black man -- this time for following orders (Video)



Category

Another white cop shoots unarmed black man -- this time for following orders (Video)


On Wednesday, South Carolina state trooper Sean Groubert, 31, was arrested and charged with assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature after his dashboard camera surfaced and showed the unnecessary, unwarranted, and presumably illegal attack.

The video clearly shows Groubert firing at Levar Jones, a black motorist, at point-blank range as Jones reached into his vehicle to retrieve his driver's license – at Groubert's request.
After the shooting stops, Groubert is heard telling Jones that he “stopped” him because of a seat belt violation.

The dirty details: 

Jones pulls his white SUV into a Shell gas station/convenience store. His vehicle was completely stopped. He removed his seat belt and exited the vehicle.
Groubert pulls up on him and asks, “Can I see your license please?”

Jones then turns back toward the still open door to get his license from the vehicle. 

Groubert in a panic and rage immediately begins screaming, “Get out of the car! Get out of the car!” and begins shooting at the unarmed Jones. Jones had just left his job. He turns and faces this policeman, throws his hands high into the air with his right hand holding onto his wallet.

But the officer continues to fire upon him even while his hands are up. 

Amazingly – and thankfully – of the total of four shots only one hit Jones in the hip, and his injury is not life-threatening.

Commentary

A recent study has shown that a black man is killed by white police officers, “security” agents, or white vigilante types every 28 hours. 

For those many, many white people – “conservative,” liberal, libertarian, or of any other political persuasion – who insist that “Driving While Black” (DWB) springs from black folks' mass paranoia, or a trigger-happy penchant to play the so-called “race card,” this story with its undeniable video should convince even the most ardent white supremacists that DWB is a real and present danger each and every time a black person turns the ignition in his or her vehicle. 

This time, however, because of (and only because of) the video evidence, it appears that at least a modicum of “justice” may will out. This cop is actually facing criminal charges for his actions and, indeed, has already been fired.

According to The State, former officer Groubert could get 20 years in prison upon conviction. 

Look carefully at this footage. Listen carefully as well. Jones repeatedly asks this cop why he shot him. Finally, Groubert says he stopped him for not wearing his seat belt.
The video shows that Groubert actually passed Jones, backed up, and then approached him. 

After being shot, the cop orders Jones to the ground, hands behind his back. Jones is still trying to figure out why this is happening. “Why did you shoot me?” he asks. “Sir, I was just doing what you asked....getting my license.” 

The cop finally says he shot Jones because he reached head first into his car after what he just knew was a gun. He is heard saying as much just before he fires at Jones who has his back turned to the officer.

Jones, befuddled and injured, says, “I'm sorry.”
The cop never once apologizes for shooting him.
Every 28 hours.

This shocking (and graphic) video may be seen here.

References

http://www.brothersonsports.com/shocking-video-of-south-carolina-cop-shooting-black-man-for-following-instructions/#prettyPhoto
http://abcnews.go.com/US/dashcam-captures-south-carolina-trooper-shooting-unarmed-man/story?id=25749239
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/09/25/sc-trooper-faces-felony-assault-charge-after-shooting-unarmed-man-during/
http://www.wltx.com/story/news/local/2014/09/24/video-released-released-of-trooper-involved-shooting/16187305/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/24/ex-trooper-who-shot-unarmed-man-faces-charges/16178961/
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/1-black-man-killed-every-28-hours-police-or-vigilantes-america-perpetually-war-its

23-year-old Hillary's letter to Chicago 'radical' Saul Alinsky reveals search for truth





Current Events

 

23-year-old Hillary's letter to Chicago 'radical' Saul Alinsky reveals search for truth


As Hillary Clinton gears up for another expected run for the White House, a previously unpublished 1971 letter between the erstwhile Secretary of State, US Senator, First Lady and the late leftist and Chicago-based “community organizer” Saul Alinsky has been published. 

The Washington Free Beacon posted a 1971 letter from the then 23-year-old law school graduate revealing her still-forming ideological bent and shedding considerable light, with 20-20 hindsight, on Hillary's future intellectual development.
“Dear Saul,” the letter begins. “When is that new book [Rules for Radicals] coming out—or has it come and I somehow missed the fulfillment of Revelation?”

“Rules” was (and still is among many former, current and upcoming “radicals") considered the bible for those who are determined to effect radical change in this nation-state.
The future New York senator continued:

“I have just had my one-thousandth conversation about Reveille [for Radicals – Alinsky's prior tome] and need some new material to throw at people.” 

Alinsky’s widely read 1946 practical and theoretical guidebook on the ways and means of effective (results-oriented) community organizing became a staple among and required reading for those in the 1960s who protested America's war against Vietnam, demanded civil and human rights, Black Power and women's rights. (The Gay Liberation Movement was in its infancy at the time). 

Future First Lady Clinton's '71 letter to Alinsky acknowledged and thanked him for his work in bringing anti-war and human rights movements to the "mainstream" of American political discourse -- and for his profound effects in helping  focus her personal world view:

“If I never thanked you for the encouraging words of last spring in the midst of the Yale-Cambodia madness, I do so now,” wrote Clinton. At the time, she had just played the role of “moderator” during a Yale University student election as to whether that campus should join other campuses which were calling for a nationwide anti-Vietnam War student strike. She had just graduated and moved to California.

“I am living in Berkeley and working in Oakland for the summer and would love to see you,” Clinton wrote. “Let me know if there is any chance of our getting together.”
As to her law school experience, Clinton told Alinsky that she had “survived law school, slightly bruised, with my belief in and zest for organizing intact.”

“The more I’ve seen of places like Yale Law School and the people who haunt them," Clinton wrote, "the more convinced I am that we have the serious business and joy of much work ahead, — if the commitment to a free and open society is ever going to mean more than eloquence and frustration."
The former Republican and “Goldwater Girl” had first met Alinsky as a student at Wellesley in1969.

Alinsky's “Reveille” encouraged community organizers to "fan the latent hostilities" of poor whites, blacks and browns of the ghettoized cities while "search[ing] out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them." 

The book Clinton was so eagarly anticipating urged organizers to "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it," Alinsky wrote.

In an indication that she is not and never has been the total and unrepentant "radical" which today's right loves to aver, she presciently added this little gem to her l971 letter to Alinsky: "Hopefully we can have a good argument sometime in the future."

Alinsky's secretary, Georgia Harper, responded to Clinton's letter telling her that the boss was away on a six-week trip to Southeast Asia, but that she had taken the liberty to read Clinton's letter anyway.

“Since I know his feelings about you I took the liberty of opening your letter because I didn’t want something urgent to wait for two weeks,” Harper wrote in the July 13, 1971, response. “And I’m glad I did.”

“Mr. Alinsky will be in San Francisco, staying at the Hilton Inn at the airport on Monday and Tuesday, July 26 and 27,” Harper added. “I know he would like to have you call him so that if there is a chance in his schedule maybe you can get together.”

Interestingly, according to Clinton's 2004 memoir, "Living History," Alinsky had offered her a job after she finished at Wellesley, but she turned him down in favor of an Ivy League legal education.

“He offered me the chance to work with him when I graduated from college, and he was disappointed that I decided instead to go to law school,” she wrote. “[He] said I would be wasting my time, but my decision was an expression of my belief that the system could be changed from within.”

Saul Alinsky

Yes. For the right wing, conservatives, the Tea Party, et al., Saul Alinsky had a real and present influence in the intellectual development of both Hillary Clinton (and Barack Obama). Both Clinton and Obama studied and to a greater or lesser extent followed his methods of political organization of the poor and marginal. 

Thanks to the right wing's takeover of most media outlets (save the Internet!), Saul Alinsky has come down to us as a shadowy, radical ”Chicago-style” political bogeyman rather than as the actual political philosopher and grass roots activist whose deep-seated beliefs and practical application thereof helped to fuel the often real radicalism of the 1960s. His true meaning and significance in shaping American politics has therefore been virtually completely obscured by a correspondent right wing radicalism which has assigned Alinsky, his motives, and his progidies to an undifferentiated "left wing" world filled to overflowing only with those who "hate" all things “American.” 

This process of delegitimizing Alinsky had begun within his lifetime, and 23-year-old future presidential candidate Hillary Clinton recognized both Alinsky's significance and the right's efforts to discredit him even then. “You are being rediscovered again as the New Left–type politicos are finally beginning to think seriously about the hard work and mechanics of organizing,” she wrote. 

“Hopefully we can have a good argument sometime in the future.”  I repeat and emphasize these words of young Hillary Clinton because they capture the mutual respect she and Alinsky shared while simultaneously acknowledging that there were significant areas of disagreement between the two.
Thus, these words indicate that Hillary Clinton was no “right” or “left” wing ideologue – at least not at the time this letter was written in 1971. 

On the contrary, like most young people during those turbulent times and at that highly impressionable age, she was deeply involved in an active search for the truth. 

References

http://news.yahoo.com/hillary-clinton-saul-alinsky-letters-155526953.html
http://freebeacon.com/politics/the-hillary-letters/
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/09/22/hillary-letters-clinton-saul-alinsky-correspondence-revealed/
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/09/saul-alinsky-secretly-controls-hillary-too.html

Monday, September 22, 2014

Black Missouri politicos form 'Fannie Lou Hamer Coalition,' challenge Democratic Party

Category

Black Missouri politicos form 'Fannie Lou Hamer Coalition,' challenge Democratic Party


A significant number of black Democrats in Missouri are vowing to withhold support in the upcoming elections from any candidate – Democrat, Republican or Independent – whom they deem as “disrespectful” of the black community.

According to the AP, the just organized Fannie Lou Hamer Coalition, headquartered in St. Louis, will monitor political candidates' positions on education, jobs and racial profiling. At this writing, however, the Coalition, has not pointed to any specific candidates, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Still, St. Louis County Chairwoman Hazel Erby, the Coalition's leader, has indicated that it is adopting a “wait and see” attitude as to the candidacies of Democrat Steve Stenger and his Republican opponent state Rep. Rick Stream. Stenger and Stream are locked in a battle for the St. Louis County executive's post.

It was last week when many speakers at a St. Louis County Council meeting loudly excoriated Stenger and demanded that he disavow and denounce his well-publicized support for County Prosecutor Robert McCulloch, who, in turn, has politically supported Stenger.

The issue, of course, is that McCulloch's police officer father was killed by a black suspect. McCulloch is now responsible for the possible prosecution of Ferguson cop Darren Wilson who killed unarmed teenager Michael Brown on August 9. 

Also, during McCulloch's 25 consecutive years as county prosecutor, he has not once successfully prosecuted any police officer for the use of excessive force, police brutality, or police misconduct of any kind whatsoever. 

Stenger has left no wiggle room in the matter, though. He dismisses the uproar and disapproval of Ferguson's heretofore non-voting black population as of little consequence to him politically because his appeal is directed to the larger, white, rural, and pristine suburban enclaves – the vast majority of St. Louis County. 

Thus, Stenger's response to the black people of Ferguson? 

"The answer is, 'no,' I'm not going to denounce Bob McCulloch," Stenger said, according to the Post. "He has been our elected prosecutor for 25 years, and by state law he has been charged with doing a complete, thorough and unbiased job. And I truly believe he will do that."

Thus, the Fannie Lou Hamer Coalition, and most black people throughout this nation-state, rather reasonably suspect that McCulloch's personal and professional history preclude and disqualify him from handling Wilson's prosecution. Indeed, his obvious and personal biases and prejudices will unduly influence his decisions in the investigation Michael Brown's death at the hands of police officer Darren Wilson. 

As for the Republican in the county executive race, Stream has said that he supports not only the naming of a special prosecutor to handle the investigation in order to "remove all doubt about having a fair and independent investigation,” but he has also called for the appointment of special prosecutors for future police shootings. 

Erby has issued a statement thusly: "We are all serving notice that we are not going to support candidates just because they have an insignia of a donkey behind their name."

Stenger, currently a fellow county council member, has pooh-poohed Erby's and the Coalition's efforts, saying that he does not expect them to impact his relationship with her or the council.

"I value her opinion and concerns a great deal," he said. "Directly and indirectly she has expressed her concerns for her community and our community. I hope this is the first step toward a meaningful dialogue."

Fannie Lou Hamer

Beginning life as a Mississippi sharecropper, Fannie Lou Hammer (1917 – 1977) became a towering and iconic voting, civil and human rights leader. 

Like Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, and so many, many nameless others before her, by the time of Hamer's death at 59, she had captured this nation-state's imagination and focused its attention on the plight of downtrodden blacks nationwide with a determined and unstoppable will rivaled only by her contemporary Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. himself. 

Fannie Lou Hamer was a driving force during the Mississippi Freedom Summer of 1964. 

As a child and adult, Hamer suffered all and more of the then usual indignities reserved for black people at that time. Among many other atrocities, including beatings and over-work, by the age of 13, she was picking 200 to 300 pounds of cotton per day. She received only the bare minimum of “education.” And, like 99 percent of black Mississippians, she endured the absolute denial of any voice whatever in the political affairs of her country, state or city. As a black woman, she was, in fact, the victim of forced sterilization by the white powers that be in Mississippi under the theory that if something was not done, blacks might someday actually outnumber whites and could and surely would reverse the racial table on them. 

And so, in the early '60s when the Civil Rights Movement came to Mississippi in the form of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, Hamer jumped at the chance to get involved. Registration of Mississippi's 400,000 unregistered black people was SNCC's primary focus. Later she served as Vice-Chair of the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party. She became the face and voice of Mississippi's disenfranchised blacks when the MFDP challenged the Democratic Party at its National Convention in Atlantic City, New Jersey

It was her down-home, plain-spoken manner and unquestionable belief in the absolute righteousness of her peoples' plight and cause which rocketed her to national fame and effectiveness as a civil and human rights activist.
Space does not allow for a more complete exposition of Fannie Lou Hamer's impact on the civil rights movement. I invite you (especially young people) to look her up.

Suffice it to say, though, that the black politicians of Missouri could not have chosen a more appropriate namesake for their movement to revamp Missouri's antiquated white political power structure, and force it -- kicking and screaming, of course – into the 21st century. 

References
 
http://www.mynextfone.co.uk/breaking-news/st-louis-mo-ap-some-black-democrats-say-they-h30335.html

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/09/17/ferguson-protesters-demand-justice-council-meeting

http://breakingbrown.com/2014/09/black-st-louis-politicians-reject-disrespectful-democratic-party-form-fannie-lou-hamer-party/

http://www.stlamerican.com/news/local_news/article_5509968c-3e8c-11e4-b8fa-d3c00efcf341.html

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/09/17/1330422/-What-Type-of-Racists-are-They-62-of-White-St-Louis-Residents-Support-the-Killing-of-Michael-Brown