Member since: 2001
Number of posts: 12,487
Number of posts: 12,487
Progressives--Don’t Waste Your Money on the Group #BlackLivesMatters. They Are Actually Hurting Minority Progress
What is it about Bernie Sanders that threatens the leadership of BLM more than the other Democratic and Republican candidates? The answer is actually frightening.
The leaders of BLM like the status quo, unless the single focus of future equality is centered on black women; and even more so black, lesbian, women. They like racial tension over a quest for universal growth for all persons struggling, because it gives them power and a voice. This obviously is not what the vast majority of those supporting BLM believe, but it is what the leadership believes. It’s for this reason that the leadership is not standing up against members who claim to speak on their behalf and who prevent Bernie Sanders from speaking at rallies.
The present Democratic and Republican leadership will continue to promote racial divide by keeping all minorities impoverished and weak, and especially black women. Bernie wants to raise the plight of all minorities and those struggling, at the expense of the upper 1%. He is not solely focused on black women. He wants a society where people truly have opportunity; and where race, religion, sexual orientation, and other differences don’t matter. If Bernie were to succeed in this highly ambitious goal, then the leadership of BLM would not have their present power. They would lose their current identity in the movement, and the three founders are terrified of this. In fact, many times when others outside of black women have tried to help their cause and grow the message, they have become infuriated and attacked.
As the founders of BLM make clear, the movement (from their perspective) is all about black women. Anyone such as Bernie Sanders who wants to raise the plight of all struggling Americans offends them. They want the sole focus to be on them. They don’t want a peaceful movement that follows the lead of Martin Luther King, Jr. Instead, they want a militant movement that follows the lead of the Black Panther Party.
This is why Bernie frightens the leadership of BLM so much, because he is creating a huge movement of destroying the present system, which racist system gives the leaders of BLM their voice. These same leaders rather keep the status quo. If we at Ring of Fire are wrong, then we ask them to stand up and take a very strong stance against what is occuring at these rallies, and to state what their true goals are, and how we can assist them to help struggling black Americans.
In Case You Doubted #BlackLivesMatter Leadership Wants Progressives and Bernie Destroyed, Read This
As we detailed in our story earlier today, the leadership of this organization wishes to resist the type of change that Bernie and Progressives are striving to bring about for all those struggling in America, including African Americans. They don’t appreciate others who are fighting for their cause and are following in the footsteps of Martin Luther King, Jr. to make change. They want change, if any, to occur solely through the following of the Black Panthers.
Ask yourself why they are only showing up at Progressive events, and not at Hillary or GOP events? Who are the “other Black organizers and non-Black allies and accomplices” they refer to in their press release as helping them shut down Bernie’s event? Why would they be attacking Bernie when he was the one who joined the March on Washington, which featured the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I have a dream” speech, in 1963? He is one of only two sitting senators who can say that. Also, he is one of the only elected white officeholders who endorsed Jesse Jackson for President.
It’s pathetic that this organization, which is being supported in the grassroots by so many well intentioned people, is being hijacked by a few militant leaders who solely wish to protect their turf. Until such time as the silent majority of blacks and others stand up to these leaders, they are going to win and set peace and acceptance of minorities back decades. This is what they hope. This is what they demand. It’s the same as fanatic Muslims preventing the voice of the vast majority of true peaceful Muslims being heard. It’s the same as warmongers creating fear to make sure that peace, such as with Iran, will never occur. It’s the same as fanatic liberals supporting unworthy and hate filled people such as the leaders of #blacklivesmatters when they are not deserving of support.
We at ROF will not sit by silently and appease people we believe are wrong, even when they are part of a group that we so strongly support and want to rise up from their plight. We are going to speak the truth, and we are going to yell. Please remember we are angry at the imbalance of power and wealth in this country, and the fact that way too many are living in poverty, and without proper food, shelter and health care, when we are the richest country in the world. We are going to speak out against injustice, even when the injustice it being perpetrated by those we wish to defend.
We have been doing this since our inception, and we never are going to change.
Thank you Ring of Fire for this information.
Posted by Larkspur | Sun Aug 9, 2015, 06:07 PM (73 replies)
Hi, it's me, Larkspur, a white liberal woman, who supports the the main argument of black lives matter -- police brutality is heavy handed and unnecessarily fatal on African Americans and it needs to be corrected.
How does BLM attacking those, both politicians, and regular white people like me, help their cause? You are a political science professor, so explain to me how attacking Bernie Sanders, who supports the core message of BLM, helps their cause, other than creating an atmosphere of anger and potential violence that seeks to hurt Sanders ability to draw large crowds. I see BLM as being coopted by one or more of Hillary's supporters, who are looking forward to lucrative jobs in a Clinton Admin. and see Sanders ability to draw large crowds to his events as a threat to their future fortunes. BLM is doing Hillary's dirty work. They don't seem to mind losing the support of white liberal women like me.
So MHP, where does one draw the line between black civil rights activists and just plain bullies? The BLM women in Seattle were literally using their bodies to threaten and intimidate Bernie Sanders and the event staff. How is that not a form of assault or threat of violence on the person of Bernie Sanders? In the 1960's, MLK and his followers chose the path of Gandhi's non-violence. I read that at the 50th anniversary of the March on Selma, BLM tried to disrupt President Obama but they were quickly and forcibly removed while the audience shouted back at them "Are you registered to vote?" Can us white people say the same thing to BLM bullies?
Oh, and can black people be racist too? Especially, when they call a white Jewish man/women and all white liberals white supremacists? As, I'm sure you are aware, Rev. Jesse Jackson was rebuked when he was caught calling Jews Hymies, so is antisemitism still rampant in the black community? Is that why BLM is really attacking Bernie Sanders?
Posted by Larkspur | Sat Aug 8, 2015, 10:01 PM (20 replies)
One of the more refreshing things about politics in recent days is President Obama's "what the hell" attitude. Someone I know in DC called it YOLO (You're only lameduck once.) Unfortunately, he's not just saying "what the hell" and pushing progressive policies he prefers. He's also doing it with neo-liberal policies. yesterday at Nike he pretty much told liberals not "what the hell" but "go to hell." It was the ugliest, most condescending speech he's ever given.
Senator Sherrod Brown wasn't amused:
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) issued the following statement following President Obama's remarks on trade at a Nike facility in Oregon:
Digby is right that OBama's speech in Oregon as with most of his attacks on Progressives opposing this terrible trade deal is at best condescending. Warren and Brown are not name calling. Obama is behaving like a flim-flam man.
Posted by Larkspur | Sun May 10, 2015, 02:57 AM (8 replies)
From Kerry to Selena Gomez & Rihanna, Israel’s Claims of Precision, Compassion Are Dissed
Snow's store is the second one on Juan Cole's article.
I like the fact that Snow points out that Israel's use of military action in the past has not resolved the problem with Gaza.
Wish our news anchors could do likewise. Chris Hayes, who also interviewed Mark Regev, the Israeli Prime Minister's propaganda spokesperson, came the closet and I admit Hayes is doing his best with the time constraints he has.
Posted by Larkspur | Mon Jul 21, 2014, 11:42 AM (38 replies)
American Jews are expected by the Israeli government and by its American lobbying arms, such as AIPAC, to unequivocally support Israel against its very real enemies, but also against any criticism whether from abroad or within the American Jewish community. The prevailing mode is “Israel can do no wrong,” and AIPAC demands American Jews march in lockstep. But Israeli policies of the moment can and do betray values held by a large swath of American Jewry, including their independence of mind and the right to dissent, whether as Americans or as Jews.
This sure sounds like the attitude of some DU'rs.
Now comes a “bipartisan” group of U.S. senators determined to join Israel in isolation. They are motivated by little else than electoral fears and campaign contributions. They have offered legislation imposing new, more severe sanctions on Iran at a most inopportune time, and a pledge of American diplomatic and military support if the Israelis attack Iran. Talk about blank checks. Israeli lobby groups such as AIPAC actively support the measure, meaning so does the Israeli government. It seemed inconceivable that anything could surpass Netanyahu’s audacity and obtuseness. Maybe Congress dysfunctional is better than it is functional.
One of my senators, Sen. Blumenthal, is on this so called “bipartisan” group of U.S. senators and it pisses me off that he would put American lives at risk by blindly supporting Netanyahu's self-serving opposition to talks with Iran. The whole purpose of the existing sanctions was to get Iran to the talking table and now that Iran is arriving, these puppets of Israel's neo-con wing seek to derail the talks. War is peace to Israel's neo-con wing and they don't care how many Americans suffer for their lust for war.
Thankfully, there is some push back against this totalitarian mindset that "Israel can do no wrong".
Beyond the international flap, American Jews ought to be concerned about how controversial Israeli positions and statements are causing significant cleavages within our own Jewish community. An undeservedly little-known website, MuzzleWatch, which is devoted to tracking the stifling of open debate about American-Israeli foreign policy, is most instructive.
MuzzleWatch reported an incident at Harvard in November, when the university’s Hillel student organization barred Avraham Burg, the former speaker of the Israeli Knesset, from giving a speech in its building. The governing body, not the students, complained that the talk was co-sponsored by the Harvard College Palestine Solidarity Committee, as well as several Jewish pro-peace groups. (Burg instead spoke at a dorm.) A Harvard student appropriately responded that this was “an attack on free speech in its most naked form.” “I’m not sure what they were afraid of—people with all kinds of political views had a very constructive conversation with Mr. Burg,” she added. Are we to believe that nearly 8 million Israeli Jews think alike?
Israel's neo-con wing will do everything they can to stop their true motives and a more humane view of Palestinians from reaching the American public. But they are on a losing side. A growing push back to their totalitarian mindset is on the rise here. Israel can't fool the Europeans any more and it won't be long before the American public sees a more balance view of the I/P issue and the Middle East overall.
Posted by Larkspur | Thu Jan 2, 2014, 03:07 PM (1 replies)
from Joan McCarter, Daily Kos
Senate Democrats united in raising debt ceiling
Sen. Dick Durbin, (D-IL), second-in-command in Senate leadership, says that Senate Democrats are united in passing a clean debt ceiling hike this week.
Remarkable things happen when Democrats are united. Like making it easier for six Republicans who aren't complete nihilists (or completely full of shit like Sen. John Cornyn) to stop the nonsense and raise the debt ceiling.
And a bonus -- we don't have to listen to Sanctimonious Joe moan on about the need for bipartisanship and watching him work hard to stab Democrats in the front and back. Hell, even Faux News hasn't drag him in from oblivion to chastise Democrats for behaving like Democrats.
Now we need to keep working on getting more Progressive Dems elected to help put in practice FDR's 2nd Bill of Rights.
Posted by Larkspur | Tue Oct 8, 2013, 12:07 PM (9 replies)
Obama claimed he could not prosecute them because their crimes were committed in the past.
Snowden's crime was committed in the past, so Obama should just leave him and all whistle blowers alone.
Posted by Larkspur | Mon Jun 24, 2013, 10:04 AM (8 replies)
So much for Obama's 3 dimensional chess strategy...
President Obama's budget puts House Democrats in bind
Democrats have used a clear and potent attack against Republicans in recent elections: Don’t vote for them because they’ll cut your Social Security and Medicare.
But using that playbook next year, as Democrats had planned, just got a lot more complicated.
President Barack Obama blurred the lines this month when he embraced entitlement cuts of his own as part of his budget plan. And Democrats now fear their leader’s tack to the center could blunt one of their sharpest weapons in the battle for the House of Representatives next year.
The concern is that Republicans will have a ready retort — your own president proposed entitlement cuts — and force Democrats on the defensive. The issue is critical to senior voters, who turn out in disproportionately large numbers in midterm elections.
“I think it does make it more difficult for Democrats in the next election,” said Democratic Rep. Rick Nolan, who occupies a swing district in Minnesota. “I would think that Republicans will say this cycle that if you want your Medicare and Social Security cut, that’s what Obama wants to do. … And I imagine that’s what Republicans will campaign on.”
I fear his legacy will be tied to his quest for the Grand Bargain, the elusive holy grail for centrist politicians, and further blur the lines between Repubs and Democrats in the eyes of low info voters.
If House Democratic members want to be very sure to end up on the right side of the Big 3 in 2014, they should all sign the Grayson-Takano letter as the first step to rallying the Democratic base for the upcoming midterm election.
Posted by Larkspur | Wed May 1, 2013, 10:20 AM (7 replies)
An Irish Win And A Wake Of Sorts http://www.courant.com/sports/uconn-women/hc-jacobs-column-0313-20130312,0,4040163.column by Jeff Jacobs
UConn's final possession may have been the worst in a big moment in the history of the program. Skylar Diggins stole the ball. Notre Dame stole UConn's heart. Again. Again. Again.
Yet it wasn't until the Notre Dame women gathered in a chorus line following their dramatic Big East tournament triumph and began dancing the jig to their band's playing of "Rakes of Mallow," that the thought crossed my mind.
This really was an Irish wake, or at least the basketball equivalent of it.
On a day when Notre Dame officially announced it was leaving for the ACC in July, on a night when the Big East brought down its curtain both on the women's tournament and the tournament run at the XL Center, the Huskies died one more excruciating basketball death at the hands of the Irish.
These are the headlines.
if anybody walks away from the past few years saying anyone other Skylar Diggins is the greatest opponent in UConn history, well, they're faking it. They're relying on the argument of pure greatness of a Candace Parker or a Holdsclaw or a Griner. Nobody has dug down deeper when it matters most against UConn than Diggins.
One thing before we get into the last play, maybe the worst play in UConn women's history when it mattered. One thing before we bemoan how UConn had a lead at the end of the Final Four game in Denver and lost in overtime. One thing before we bemoan how the Huskies had a lead at Gampel Pavilion at the end in January and lost by one, and had a lead in South Bend at the end last week and lost in triple overtime. And this is the thing.
As much as been said about her terrific leadership, clutch offensive play and sometimes wayward shot, Diggins is a tremendous defender. "A lot of players can't guard the dribble," Notre Dame coach Muffet McGraw said. "She is able to pick up players in the backcourt and force turnovers. But her defense is excellent because she has so much pride. She does not want you to score on her."
What was Kelly Faris thinking last night with 18.4 secs left? Her bad pass to Stewart was luckily saved by the freshman. It was a 1 handed catch like you see in the NFL. Then after Faris gets the ball again she drives towards the baseline and Achonwa cut it off. Instead of turning around, Faris makes an awkward pass to KML, who was heavily guarded by Jewel Lloyd and which caused her to be off balance after catching the pass. The KML made a bad pass that was easily intercepted by Diggins. You could see the domino effect of a bad play in real time during that period. Faris acted as if she thought there was 8 secs instead of 18.4 secs left in the game. Why didn't they try to pass the ball around the perimeter for a better shot? There was plenty of time for that. Worse, even if they missed the shot, they were guaranteed an overtime?
My other comment on the game last night --where was Bria Hartley? She seems to fade in tough game situations and her play this year is a disappointment for UCONN. She needs to score the 3's when the other team shuts down KML. Though I have to congrat ND for doing a great defensive job on KML. She killed them in the first half last week and ND was determined not to let her repeat that scoring blitz.
Overall, last night's game was another thriller and another growing spurt for women's basketball. ND is my alma mater and she will always be first in my heart, but as one who witnessed Title IX come in when I was in 7th grade, I respect UCONN and how Geno proved that women can play high caliber basketball that was interestingt to watch. UCONN is now where Tenn was when UCONN was an up-and-coming basketball power. Defeating UCONN is now proof that a team/program is a national contender.
I remember when ND first joined the Big East and I would see how the ND Women's team at first was psyched out before the game against UCONN started. UCONN dominated the Irish til 2001 when Ruth Riley & Co. defeated them first at ND and then in the Final Four. Even after that UCONN regained their dominance until Diggins became a sophomore and her tough minded attitude helped her teammates learn to psych out UCONN and defeat the Huskies.
Because I like the UCONN Huskies and can never root against my alma mater, my approach to their matchup is "you have to earn the win". Notre Dame finally figured out how to do that against the Huskies. Congrats to the Irish for a great season and one that was not expect by much of the women's basketball world.
Posted by Larkspur | Wed Mar 13, 2013, 11:08 AM (6 replies)
I watched Krugman's debate with Joe Scarborough on Monday night's Charlie Rose show and my first impression was that Scarborough's job was to do his best to smear and discredit Krugman and his support of more stimulus spending as opposed to deficit reduction.
Now on Huff Post, I read Jeffrey Sachs op ed, Professor Krugman and Crude Keynesianism
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/professor-krugman-and-cru_b_2845773.html ,which continues the crude attacks on Krugman.
Krugman is a prominent opponent of Peter Peterson's group, "Fix the Debt", which wants to shovel Social Security money into Wall Street so they can rob the elderly and disabled. They seem to be attacking Krugman because he has a lot of credibility with liberals and progressives who are doing a good job fighting them and winning the PR battle so far.
What do you think?
Posted by Larkspur | Sat Mar 9, 2013, 09:32 PM (5 replies)