Glen Ford: Susan Rice’s Political Legacy-‘Genocide in Africa on Her Watch’

Hard Knock Radio logoOver the past couple of weeks there’s been a lot of controversy surrounding UN Ambassador Susan Rice. She’s been under fire, accused of misleading the American public about the circumstances that led up to the slaughter 4 Americans including Libyan Ambassador Christopher Stevens in Benghazi, Libya on September 11th of this year.

Hard Knock Radio weighed in on this issue with an insightful conversation featuring long time journalist Glen Ford of the Black Agenda Report….He breaks down the political legacy of Rice and whats she’s been about long before most of us were introduced to her via the work she’s done under President Obama..

click the link below to listen to the HKR interview w/ Glen Ford on Susan Rice

Susan Rice

Susan Rice

As you listen to the interview here’s a little bit of background. ..Rice was the point person on Sunday morning talk shows in the days that followed those attacks, where she emphatically explained that attacks was the result of enraged Muslims reacting to an obscure anti-Muslim Youtube movie produced in the US. Below is one of those TV appearances she made that has now become the basis for this recent controversy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxf77xQ_NLU

Since that interview, we have come to know that the official story is it was in fact an act of terror carried out by Al Qaeda operatives. Many have questioned how Rice was so off on her assessment. It’s been determined that the intelligence around the Benghazi attacks being the work of terrorists at the time Rice spoke, was classified information. It was kept classified as to not tip-off the assailants. That realization has not calmed President Obama’s political rivals including Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, who have come out swinging, threatening to block Rice’s anticipated nomination to be the next Secretary of State.

John McCain

John McCain

The crassness of McCain and Graham along with right-wing political pundits has led many to see their harsh criticisms of Rice as racially motivated political sour grapes. This in turn has led to many women’s groups and civil rights organizations circling the wagon determined to back Rice to the hilt. That in turn has led to many overlooking or remaining unaware of Rice’s political legacy.

Long time journalist Glen Ford has been following the career of Susan Rice for over 15 years. He’s well aware of her track record and the roles she played when she worked under Bill Clinton all the way up to now. In our Hard Knock radio interview (HKR) Ford gives a very detailed no holds bar breakdown of Rice and the type of impact she and the policies she’s championed have had on countries like Rwanda, Sudan,  Somalia, Libya and the Congo.

When asked what word comes to mind when he here’s the name Susan Rice, Glen Ford responded ‘Genocide’.  In a recent column penned by Ford titled A Second Wave of Genocide..he notes;

Susan Rice has abetted the Congo genocide for much of her political career. Appointed to President Bill Clinton’s National Security Council in 1993, at age 28, she rose to assistant secretary of state for African affairs in 1997 as Rwanda and Uganda were swarming across the eastern Congo, seizing control of mineral resources amid a sea of blood. She is known to be personally close to Rwanda’s minority Tutsi leadership, including President Paul Kagame, a ruthless soldier trained at the U.S. Army’s Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and mentored by Ugandan strongman (and Reagan administration favorite) Yoweri Museveni, who is believed to have pioneered the use of child soldiers in modern African conflicts.

GlenfordFord also writes:

Rice is widely credited with convincing Obama to launch NATO’s bombing campaign for regime change in Libya. She parroted false media reports that Muammar Gaddafi’s troops were raping Libyan women with the aid of massive gulps of Viagra, refusing to back down even when U.S. military and intelligence officials told NBC news “there is no evidence that Libyan military forces have been given Viagra and engaging in systematic rape against women in rebel areas.” Yet, Rice said not a word about ethnic cleansing and racial pogroms against black Libyans and sub-Saharan African migrant workers, including the well-documented erasure of the black city of Tawergha.

In our interview Ford describes Susan Rice as some one who is more hawkish and ‘thuggish’ then Condoleezza Rice who served under George Bush. He notes its an act of betrayal for Black leadership to back her nomination in lieu of her track record. Ford notes many have reacted to in such a way that perceived racial comments are more important to push back on than the genocide of millions of people in Africa on Rice’s watch. You can peep the interview by clicking the link at the beginning of this article

Newt to Black People: Get off Food stamps Demand a Paycheck

Newt Gingrich

So today many of us woke up to the news of former House Speaker and Presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich boldly stating that he was gonna address Black people at the upcoming NAACP Convention and tell us to Demand a Paycheck and Not Food Stamps...You can read the story of that HERE at the GRIO

We should be demanding that Newt Gingrich give back some of the Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac money he got and own up to any role he may have played in the collapse of this economy..

We should demand that Newt Gingrich get some damn sense..Theres an estimated 100 million folks on Food stamps.. Black folks comprise of 30 million in this nations population.. Do the math Newt.. Why are there 100 Million folks on Food stamps..How about we get some economic justice jumping off…

Black folks aint running around here all on food stamps.. People who are on food stamps are those who are poor and that includes folks of all races. We should all be demanding economic justice and a guarantee for basic needs, food, clothing and shelter.. so there’s no need for food stamps

Lastly Newt needs to stop worrying about Black folks with his fraudulent azz .. If he wants to make demands to Black people, Perhaps we should make demands of him.. We can start by telling him to step his marriage game up and give John McCain back his wife….

Are Newt Gingrich & John McCain married to the same woman?

Is that Callista or Cindy?

is Miltary using Mind Control Tactics on lawmakers? How widespread is this?

Was Al Franken subjected to mind control techniques to get him to support the war in Afghanistan?

This story about the army using mind control techniques on unsuspecting lawmakers including Senators Al Franken and John McCain is serious and should not be swept under the rug. Many of us have no idea how advanced such techniques are and how often and pervasive the practice is within the general population.

Sure we know its illegal, but so were many of the tactics used during the hey day of  FBI director J Edgar Hoover when they unleashed Cointel-pro tactics on Civil Rights leaders like Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, the Black Panthers, Anti-War activists, Puerto Rican and Chicano nationalist to name a few. The end result was putting many of those organizations is disarray and in some cases lietrally driving some of its members ‘crazy’.

We do know Cointel-pro relied heavily on running mind games on organization leaders.. We have to ask, ‘what has our government learned over the past 30 years?’

With so much of our military be outsourced to private mercenary firms who are also used by big corporations i.e Blackwater, one has to ask what sort of tactics are being used via Television? newspapers? and other forms of mass communication. What are corporations unleashing on us to get us to be consumers forever beholden to products they are offering?

Is Fox News a big giant mind control outlet? Don’t act surprised. We do know that its routine for large media outlets to do extensive psychological profiling on targeted demographics within their audience. It’s done to develop the correct sales approach for advertisers. Why would it not be done with political agendas in mind? We call it propaganda?

Read this explosive Rolling Stone story and ask yourself why we’re not talking about this more? Mmmm Maybe such tactics are being used to temper down the discussion.

Why aren’t more people upset? Why are we seeing our news dominated with stories about a royal wedding in England and not the potential damage done with using Psych ops to extend a war in Afghanistan? We have to wonder why the lead story today is actor  Charlie Sheen having his TV show cut short and not the push to do a full scale top to bottom investigation…

I gotta ask myself.. Has President Obama been subjected to these mind control techniques?

Maybe these mind control tactics were used on journalist who visited the war zone which is why we saw progressive folks like Rachel Maddow who on her visit a few months ago was criticized for taking what some described as a softer stance.. Gotta wonder if the whole concept of embedding reporters was done with the goal of using psych op tactics on them.. We need to find out who was escorting reporters? No wonder so many were cheerleading the war..

As you read the Rollingstone article listen to this mix we did a few years ago about Mind control being used on urban audiences.  There was no mention of this on this mornings newscast here in the Bay Area.

-Davey D-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4Yv1ay0CmM

Another Runaway General: Army Deploys Psy-Ops on U.S. Senators

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/another-runaway-general-army-deploys-psy-ops-on-u-s-senators-20110223

The U.S. Army illegally ordered a team of soldiers specializing in “psychological operations” to manipulate visiting American senators into providing more troops and funding for the war, Rolling Stone has learned – and when an officer tried to stop the operation, he was railroaded by military investigators.

The Runaway General: The  Rolling Stone Profile of Stanley McChrystal That Changed History

The orders came from the command of Lt. Gen. William Caldwell, a three-star general in charge of training Afghan troops – the linchpin of U.S. strategy in the war. Over a four-month period last year, a military cell devoted to what is known as “information operations” at Camp Eggers in Kabul was repeatedly pressured to target visiting senators and other VIPs who met with Caldwell. When the unit resisted the order, arguing that it violated U.S. laws prohibiting the use of propaganda against American citizens, it was subjected to a campaign of retaliation.

“My job in psy-ops is to play with people’s heads, to get the enemy to behave the way we want them to behave,” says Lt. Colonel Michael Holmes, the leader of the IO unit, who received an official reprimand after bucking orders. “I’m prohibited from doing that to our own people. When you ask me to try to use these skills on senators and congressman, you’re crossing a line.”

King David’s War: How Gen. Petraeus Is Doubling Down on a Failed Strategy

The list of targeted visitors was long, according to interviews with members of the IO team and internal documents obtained by Rolling Stone. Those singled out in the campaign included senators John McCain, Joe Lieberman, Jack Reed, Al Franken and Carl Levin; Rep. Steve Israel of the House Appropriations Committee; Adm. Mike Mullen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; the Czech ambassador to Afghanistan; the German interior minister, and a host of influential think-tank analysts.

The incident offers an indication of just how desperate the U.S. command in Afghanistan is to spin American civilian leaders into supporting an increasingly unpopular war. According to the Defense Department’s own definition, psy-ops – the use of propaganda and psychological tactics to influence emotions and behaviors – are supposed to be used exclusively on “hostile foreign groups.” Federal law forbids the military from practicing psy-ops on Americans, and each defense authorization bill comes with a “propaganda rider” that also prohibits such manipulation. “Everyone in the psy-ops, intel, and IO community knows you’re not supposed to target Americans,” says a veteran member of another psy-ops team who has run operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. “It’s what you learn on day one.”

continue reading story HERE at Rollingstone Magazine

Fear of a Brown Planet:Leading Republicans want to Eliminate Citizenship for Those Born in the US

DJEZUZDJONEZNEWZNET
INFORMING the HIP-HOP COMMUNITY

Republicans want review of birthright citizenship

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100803/ap_on_go_co/us_republicans_birthright_citizenship

By BEN EVANS, Associated Press Writer Ben Evans, Associated Press Writer – Tue Aug 3, 6:25 pm ET

John McCain

WASHINGTON– Leading Republicans are joining a push to reconsider the constitutional amendment that grants automatic citizenship to people born in the United States.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said Tuesday he supports holding hearings on the 14th Amendment right, although he emphasized that Washington’s immigration focus should remain on border security.

His comments came as other Republicans in recent days have questioned or challenged birthright citizenship, embracing a cause that had largely been confined to the far right.

The senators include Arizona’s John McCain, the party’s 2008 presidential nominee; Arizona’s Jon Kyl, the Republicans’ second-ranking senator; Alabama’s Jeff Sessions, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a leading negotiator on immigration legislation.

“I’m not sure exactly what the drafters of the (14th) amendment had in mind, but I doubt it was that somebody could fly in from Brazil and have a child and fly back home with that child, and that child is forever an American citizen,” Sessions said.

Legal experts say repealing the citizenship right can be done only through constitutional amendment, which would require approval by two-thirds majorities in both chambers of Congress and by three-fourths of the states. Legislation to amend the right, introduced previously in the House, has stalled.

The proposals are sure to appeal to conservative voters as immigration so far is playing a central role in November’s elections. They also could carry risks by alienating Hispanic voters and alarming moderates who could view constitutional challenges as extreme. Hispanics have become the largest minority group in the United States, and many are highly driven by the illegal immigrant debate.

McConnell and McCain seemed to recognize the risk by offering guarded statements Tuesday.

McCain, who faces a challenge from the right in his re-election bid, said he supports reviewing citizenship rights. He emphasized, however, that amending the Constitution is a serious matter.

“I believe that the Constitution is a strong, complete and carefully crafted document that has successfully governed our nation for centuries and any proposal to amend the Constitution should receive extensive and thoughtful consideration,” he said.

At a news conference, McConnell refused to endorse Graham’s suggestion that citizenship rights be repealed for children of illegal immigrants. While refusing to take questions, he suggested instead that he would look narrowly into reports of businesses that help immigrants arrange to have babies in the United States in order to win their children U.S. citizenship.

The 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War, granted citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States,” including recently freed slaves.

Defenders of the amendment say altering it would weaken a fundamental American value while doing little to deter illegal immigration. They also say it would create bureaucratic hardships for parents giving birth.

Quoting a newspaper columnist, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada said Republicans were “either taking leave of their senses or their principles” in advocating repeal.

An estimated 10.8 million illegal immigrants were living in the U.S. as of January 2009, according to the Homeland Security Department. The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that as of 2008, there were 3.8 million illegal immigrants in this country whose children are U.S. citizens.

Return to Davey D’s Hip Hop Corner

Harry Reid, Michael Steele, Negro Dialect & Political Grandstanding on the Backs of Blacks

Share/Bookmark//

Harry Reid, Michael Steele, Negro Dialect & Political Grandstanding

by Davey D

By now everyone has heard about the racial firestorm that has brewed because of some remarks attributed to Senate majority leader Harry Reid in a new book called Game Change. They were made in a private conversation during the 2008 campaign where Reid noted that then Senator Obama might be successful because he was light-skin and didn’t speak with a ‘Negro Dialect’. Obama in typical fashion avoided the mess that can come when discussing race by quickly accepting Reid’s apology, downplaying the remarks and announcing ‘the book is closed’ on the subject.

Of course Obama’s Republican counterparts seeing that Reid is in a tight re-election race have been trying their best to blow this issue up. The party of Ronald Reagan who supported South African Apartheid, the party of John McCain who said ‘No to a Martin Luther King holiday are suddenly getting all Jesse Jackson-like and riding hard for all those who have been on the receiving end of racial insults and oppression.. Thank you Republican Party-I guess…Not! LOL

Reid’s remarks have been the lead story on every news channel with news directors feverishly pouring through their rolodexes, seeking to get a Black pundit, seemingly any Black pundit to come to a studio where they would normally never see the light of day except during Black history month. Here they’re asked to wax poetic about Reid’s remarks. Some of these outlets have gone so far as to have two or three Black folks on at the same time thus violating the unwritten ‘one-Black-on-set-at-a-time’ rule.

It was good to Black scholars like Marc Lamont Hill weighin in on Harry Reid's remarks, but it would be good to see him and others weighin in on Sunday morning talk shows

To me I was more offended seeing a Professor Tricia Rose, Professor Marc Lamont Hill, BET’s Jeff Johnson and the dozen of other Black faces invited to discuss an old white man using the word ‘Negro’ versus seeing them invited on a regular basis to discuss a variety of other topics that have arguably more impact. I would’ve like to have seen some of those Black voices on the Sunday morning talk shows earlier this year dragging Harry Reid’s ass through the coals around the Healthcare debate when single payer and later public option got snatched off the table. To me the insult was seeing Black intelligence limited to just this topic whereas I might see a dimwit like Ann Coulter invited to weigh in on everything from the War in Afghanistan to what Chris Brown did to Rihanna.

I suppose I shouldn’t blame Harry Reid for that lack of Black visibility on these news outlets, but I will. As the Senate majority leader, I want him pushing for legislation that de-consolidates media and makes it more accessible to the wide array of voices and perspectives in the community. I want him to be leading the charge to undue the damage he helped create when he voted Yes for the infamous 1996 Telecommunications Bill.

Reframe the Debate and Hold Reid Accountable

In any case, while this Harry Reid saga runs its course, I think its important that folks push the envelop a bit and reframe the debate away from the narratives seemingly designed to fit the agendas of media outlets, disingenuous politicians or media darlings trying to blow up their names. I wish people who went on these shows were more aggressive in dismissing the Harry Reid vs Trent Lott angle which has resulted in wasteful discussions about who was more offensive and whether or not double standards are at play. That discussion is a trap.

Comparing Harry Reid to Trent Lott is a trap. It only serves the purpose of media outlets looking for conflict and GOP folks trying to stay in the news cycle

The thing we needed to be focused on was the rationale behind Harry Reid‘s remarks and his political relationship to an African-American community that votes to the tune of 96% for the Democrat political party that he leads in the Senate. Our discussion needed to be centered on us evaluating whether or not one of the most powerful lawmakers in the country was setting policy that met the needs and wants of our community.

What caught most people’s attention about Reid’s remarks was him using the phrase Negro Dialect.  It was used in a private conversation and it raised eyebrows because as far as most of us know Senator Reid has never publicly called Obama a ‘Negro’ Senator or President. We haven’t heard him call his African American colleagues in Congress, Negroes.. So where did this phrase ‘Negro dialect’ come from? Why did he use such an out of date word? Was his use of the word just a bad habit or was it reflective of old-time thinking filled with whatever baggage and stereotypes that many whites had stuck in their heads back in the 50s and 60s when the use of that word was pervasive?

Sadly too many pundits were falling over themselves making ding dong excuses for Reid. Some were saying he’s elderly and thats how old folks talk. Others were jumping through hoops talking how we have the United Negro College Fund, the NAACP-National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and how the word is used in the 2010 Census therefore it was ok for Reid to go there.

All thats fine and dandy, but last I checked Senator Reid is not a historic 66 year old or 100 year Civil Rights old institution. Last time I interviewed NCAAP head Julian Bond, he didn’t call me Negro and neither had Ben Jealous. I’ve hosted events sponsored by UNCF and no one walked up to me and handed me a script that would would’ve had me addressing our people as ‘Negro’. If these folks stay up to date so can Senate majority leader Harry Reid.

When I first heard of Reid’s remarks the first thing that came to mind was ‘How often does he interact with Black folks on the Capitol Hill’? Cause I’m sure by now someone would’ve checked him. He would’ve had to run into a Maxine Waters, Keith Ellison or someone else who was outspoken who would’ve said; ‘Look Senator, I know your 71 years old, but its 2010 and if my 90 year grandmother from the backwoods of Mississsippi ain’t using the word ‘Negro’ therefore you too Senator Reid can stop using it ‘.

Now unless someone is covering for him, we haven’t heard that such conversation took place. Hence that makes me think, that Senator Reid knows all about speaking multiple dialects? I guess during the day when he’s in in the Senate chambers, he has a distinguished ‘US Senator-dialect’ by night when he’s kicking it in private he loosens up a bit and becomes more Archie Bunkerish with his language?

So again, just to make sure…since Senator Reid used Archie Bunker type language then our primary concern should be examining his voting record to make sure the Senator’s not pushing Archie Bunker type policies. His slip up gave us an extra excuse to hold him politically accountable.

We need to see if Harry Reid's outdated words are reflected in outdated policies

For example, earlier this year Senator Reid voted to prohibit funding for ACORN, an organization that played a key role in helping get President Obama elected. Was Reid’s vote a calculated political decision or did he come across one too many folks from that organization who he felt spoke with a ‘Negro dialect’ thus getting him to draw some far gone  conclusions that ‘Negroes can’t be trusted to do things right’ so hence no funding?

2 or 3 years ago Reid voted to make English the official language for the country. What was going on in his head? Was there no room for Negro dialects? Did he want people to speak only ‘good ole American English’ thus inspiring to cast a vote to make sure?

Just like his political enemies we need to be looking at his voting record and making sure his private conversations of insensitive language was used is not matched by his votes and the agenda he sets for the Senate. You can peep his voting record here: http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=53320&category=13

Dealing with Republican Hypocrisy

Moving beyond Reid, one needs to look closely at the how the Republicans are handling this. I found it funny to see RNC chair Michael Steele express his supposed outrage for Reid’s remarks when he himself was chin checked by disgruntled members of his own party who felt like he was tarnishing the Republican brand by going on televison talk shows trying to be hip by using Hip Hop jargon which isn’t too far removed from what some might call Negro/Black dialect.

RNC Chair Michael Steele is gonna have a Jesse Jackson moment, he needs to tell Rush Limbaugh to stop playing the Barack the Magic Negro song

Steele said he was trying to make the party more attractive and more Hip Hop like. That whole thing got shut down with the quickness. If you recall, Steele got a verbal ass whupping from radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh who was annoyed and later outraged by Steele’s behavior. It all reached a boiling point when Steele went on the now defunct DL Hugley show which aired on CNN. Sitting between Hughley and Public Enemy frontman Chuck D, Steele got jammed up about why he would hang with a political party that had leaders like Rush Limbaugh who at the time was underfire for saying he ‘wanted President Obama to fail’. Those remarks were coming at the heels of Limbaugh enraging African Americans by repeatdly playing a song during Obama’s campaign called Barack the Magic Negro.

Steele tried to laugh it off, talk a little hip hop slang and assure critics that Limbaugh was ‘just an entertainer’. When Limbaugh heard Steele tried to play him, he went off and smashed on Steele in the tirade of tirades. Limbaugh took to the airwaves and publicly reminded Steele he had 20-30 million listeners and that if he doesn’t start showing some loyalty to the party  he might discover that conservative will not wanna talk to him when he came calling. Limbaugh told Steele that he needed to stop going on TV and start raising money for the RNC. It was a brutal tongue lashing, that resulted in Steele apologizing to Limbaugh and being a lap dog ever since..

We won’t even mention that Steele didn’t have the guts to tell Rush to retire when he was playing the Barack the Magic Negro song. He didn’t even tell him to stop. In fact not too many of the outspoken GOP members stepped up and expressed outrage for racial insensitivity expressed by someone who claimed to be advocating for them.

Just to show you how meeley mouth Steele and his people are let’s see the lack of reaction in April 2009, one month after he got the verbal beatdown by Rush Limbaugh. In the great state of Texas, during a televised session on voter protection fellow GOP party member state rep Betty Brown said Asian-Americans need to come up with more accessible names.

She said;“Rather than everyone here having to learn Chinese — I understand it’s a rather difficult language — do you think that it would behoove you and your citizens to adopt a name that we could deal with more readily here?”

Brown went further when she told Chinese-American community organizer Ramey Ko, “Can’t you see that this is something that would make it a lot easier for you and the people who are poll workers if you could adopt a name just for identification purposes that’s easier for Americans to deal with?”

Here’s the video of that incident…

Perhaps Senator John Coryn should clean up his own backyard and ask Texas State Rep Betty Brown to resign before stepping to Harry Reid

Like I said Steele was nowhere to be seen. He wasn’t on TV calling for Brown’s retirement. And not to make this a partisan issue but facts are facts, the Democrats in the Texas House asked only for an apology. They did not ask for her to resign. To this day you don’t hear too many Republicans talk about this infamous incident. They try to downplay it. But I guess we’ll have to bring this up now that Texas  senator John Cornyn went and opened his big mouth by demanding that Harry Reid resign.

This is the same Senator Coryn who resides in a state that is 30% Latino voted ‘No’ to confirm President Obama’s Supreme Court pick, Judge Sonia Satamayor. Coryn was all up in arms, being pompous and showing outrage at remarks Justice Sonia Satamayor made that he considered racially insensitive. I guess I can understand that if he was consistent. He said ‘No’ to Sotomayor,  but not once did he ask representaive Betty Brown to step down… Coryn has no creditibility thus nothing more needs to be said. I guess Steele, Coryn and that whole cabal are only willing to do the Jesse Jackson thing to a point.

On a somewhat lighter note one has to wonder if Senator Reid expressed concern about the use of ‘Negro Dialect’ when Senator Hillary Clinton broke it out  during her campaign. In the same vein did Michael Steele, Senator Coryn or any of their ilk ask Hillary to step down and resign for her ‘Negro speaking moments’? This of course raises the question to which the answer should be more than obvious, ‘Is what we seen expressed over this past week, righteous indignation, a genuine response to racial insensitivity or political opportunity’? As they say in the hood It’s all politics-It’s all politricks.

Return to DaveyD’s Hip Hop Corner

Ignorance at the Tea Party, Fox News & the Dumming Down of Urban Radio

Share/Save/Bookmark//

teaparty-Hitler-obamaSo everyone has been talking about Saturday’s Tea Party March on Washington and how it represents a sea change of sorts. Perhaps it does, perhaps it doesn’t. Whether it was 1.2 million people or tens of thousands who showed up, it all has to be put in context.  First, we already know close to 46 million people voted for John McCain and Sarah Palin so close to half the country that voted has a different political outlook on things. We should not be suprised or intimidated by how vocal that opposition is. We have our own troops in large numbers.

Second, many of the rallies that McCain and Palin held were pretty similar to the Tea Party demonstration in the sense they played upon people’s fear of change and were staging grounds for then candidate Obama’s character to be viciously assassinated.  We heard Palin invoke everyone and everything from Obama being a Muslim, to him not being a real citizen of this country, to him being a guy who ran around with ‘terrorists’ like Bill Ayers and ‘racists’ like Jeremiah Wright. You name it,  it was said. Everything but the kitchen sink was tossed at Obama during these McCain/Palin rallies. Many of the outlandish and now disproven assertions uttered from the stage were underscored by corporate media outlets like Fox News.

Fox news Pundit Dr Marc Lamont Hill

Fox news Pundit Dr Marc Lamont Hill

Just to show you how deep this gets, people may want to refer to the interview we did last week with Fox News pundit Dr Marc Lamont Hill.

You can hear it here: Breakdown FM Interview w/ Fox News Pundit Dr Marc Lamont Hill .

In that interview Hill spoke frankly about the angst and concern raised by his colleague at Fox News, personality Sean Hannity, who was openly complaining that he had spent two years doing everything he could to derail Barack Obama only to have him win the presidency. Folks need to sit back and ponder on that for a minute. I’ll repeat – for two years Sean Hannity had a nationwide platform and carte blanche to go after Barack Obama.  He makes no bones about his mission to destroy and malign him and according to Hill, Hannity was upset and complaining to Karl Rove that all his shenanigans didn’t work.

I bring this up because we need to keep in mind, when looking at the Tea Parties, they are often depicted as a new emerging movement that just sprung up overnight in opposition to President Obama’s Healthcare plans and stimulus packages. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Tea Parties are merely a continuum of what took place during the 2008 Presidential campaign and what Fox News, by their own admission, had been working on for the past two years.

Third point, with a major 24 hour news network on a mission to derail President Obama now directing people to Tea Parties, should we not be surprised that thousands of people showed up? It would be shocking if they didn’t. After all, this is a radio station/ TV network event. The promotion and overall vibe leading up to the Tea Parties are similar to what we do and experience in commercial radio when we are promoting events like Summer Jam concerts. Our job is to hype it up like there’s no tomorrow.  There’s a technique and formula that has been researched, tried and tested that is used to make this happen. It ranges from having all those involved reciting the same 2 or 3 talking points (today we refer to this as Echoing) all the way down to making sure one is intimately involved and present in the lives of the audience being targeted. Lots of money, resources and time is spent figuring how to craft a message and who is likely to respond favorably when receiving it. Anybody who does media understands this and what I’m talking about is text book. However, the average listener or viewer is led to believe what they are presented is genuine. They’re being duped by a manufactured movement that adroitly plays upon their emotions. It is media marketing of the highest order.

In the case of these Fox News driven Tea Parties, they have been deliberately feeding people misinformation, exaggerations and playing upon stereotypes. That’s apparent in this video below. The ignorance of folks is astounding. Some of it I blame on people who refuse to change and are literally clinging to their guns and religion. That I get, change of this magnitude is hard for some to take.  But a lot of this falls back on the executives and personalities armed with information and psychological profiles on how emotionally amp up their audience. These media execs know that  many of the folks they are talking to have grown up to trust and believe a guy who they see on television wearing a suit and tie with a commanding booming voice and the words news anchor under his name. They trust that what they are hearing is truthful and that the person on their screen is one of them.

Rush Limbaugh w/ his multi-million dollar a year salary is far removed from the 'Average American'. If anything he is part of the rich elite class he supposedly rails against

Rush Limbaugh w/ his multi-million dollar a year salary is far removed from the 'Average American'. If anything he is part of the rich elite class he supposedly rails against

These so called news anchors start off duping their listeners when they use words like ‘we’ and ‘us’ when talking about the ‘average American’, ‘blue collar worker’  or ‘middle class‘. I often have to laugh because there is nothing average, blue collarish or middle class about a TV personality that is making well over a million dollars a year. Oftentimes it’s the deliverer of news and information who is looking at the fact that he or she will have to pay higher taxes or may no longer have all the options to hide and shield their money as in years past. It is those TV personalities who are expected to ante up a bit and pay their full share who are on TV shouting and screaming and suggesting that this country is not fair. News alert folks – Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter etc are not ‘average Americans’ they are rich people who make millions and part of the ‘elite’ they pretend to rail against. It is their personal interests they are trying to protect while using the ignorance of poor and working class people to do their dirty work. This is nothing new. It’s a tried and true method that harks back to the early days of this country when White aristocrat landowners pitted poor white indentured servants against the Black African slaves they work alongside of in the fields.

The 2009 Tea Parties are merely an updated version of what took place once upon a time with corporate media being the tool that has violated our trust and replaced trust with techniques and talking points designed to manipulate folks. Today is such that if a personality tells his trusting listeners shit on a stick is healthy for you there is a  substantial number of people who will believe it and seek out shit sticks. Here’s the video of people attending the Saturday, September 12th Tea Party.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUPMjC9mq5Y

Where’s the opposition to the Tea Parties?

This is the 64 thousand dollar question. Because we are so dependent upon media for news and information many of us have concluded that because we don’t see large numbers of people standing up to the ignorance shown in the video that people are in agreement or simply aren’t organizing. Anyone who is even modestly involved in politics knows this is not the case.  We have organizations like Color of Change who have been very effective  and are doing what they can, but they are missing a key ally – corporate media that is competitive with the one that sent people out to the tea parties. This is especially true of media that speaks to the 18-30 crowd in the urban landscape. If radio jocks and tv personalities that reach these urban audiences spent less time talking about beefs between rappers or trying to be the next TMZ, we could have just as many people out on the White House lawn as the opposition.

Urban radio talk show host is one the few who is allowed to regularly talk to the urban masses and help keep folks politically informed. Most urban jocks are all about gossip mongering and stoking beefs

Urban radio talk show host is one the few who is allowed to regularly talk to the urban masses and help keep folks politically informed. Most urban jocks are all about gossip mongering and stoking beefs

We saw this happen two years ago when tens of thousands came out for the March for the Jena 6 when radio personality Michael Baisden used the airwaves to get behind the cause. We saw this happen right after Katrina when urban radio turned its focus on relief efforts. We certainly saw this leading up to and during the Million Man March when urban media  played a key role in helping  get people out.  We saw millions of people take to the streets when Spanish language radio alerted its listeners and got everyone focused on  Immigration Rights resulting in the turning of the political tide.

The advantge that  Fox News has in doing these Tea Party rallies is that owner Rupert Murdoch is 100% behind the effort so all his air personalities are on point as they push the same agenda. With Spanish Language and urban radio such was not the case.  Shortly after the large Immigration rallies, corporate owners to those outlets issued memos and instructed their on air talent to stop announcing and hyping up these rallies. We haven’t seen them since.  It wasn’t like the issue died or people no longer cared, the mediums that drove people to the streets had been dismantled and the on air personalities had their hands tied.

The same  hand tieing happened with urban radio. Leading up to the election we had on air personalities on many of the music oriented outlets from around the country stop their daily offerings of gossip and meaningless banter and turn their focus to getting folks registered to vote and out to the polls for last year’s historic election. Many of those stations started calling themselves the Obama Station or Obama Jams and would play excerpts from his inspiring speeches in their jingles and station drops.  It was a beautiful thing to see our airwaves be used to politicize and energize people, but sadly once Obama got sworn in, like the Immigration Rights fervor, much of the political conversation died on the vine.

What became sadly apparent is that many of these urban outlets had lined themselves up behind Obama because he was a hot item and could lead to increased ratings. Once Obama got in office, radio personalities stopped their political chit chat and got back to the gossip mongering under the guise of ‘hot topic of the day’.  It didn’t matter that record numbers of  listeners registered and voted and were arguably politicized.  There was no meaningful follow up to keep those fires stoked. There was no Sunday morning urban political talk shows added to the line ups. There was no special political correspondents added to the mix. The intelligent discourse and people behind it were all but banished from the airwaves with disastrous end results. On many urban outlets you never had the on air jocks talk intelligently and in earnest about the stimulus package, healthcare bill and even the racist elements that have showed up to act a fool at the townhalls. It’s been a  return to the dumb down strategy of yesterday leaving many of us frustrated and voiceless in national dialogues.

So when incidents like Skip Gates getting arrested or more recently Van Jones resigning, aside from the talk shows who covered them, we had in many urban circles more people unaware of such incidents and more excited about Jay-Z releasing his Death to Autotune song than the issues at hand.

The biggest irony of all this is seeing how today’s corporate media has distorted and totally abused what was once shrewd strategy employed by veterans of the Civil Rights struggle. Dr. Martin Luther King talked about how local urban stations, then known as Black radio, were key pillars in the Civil Rights struggle. He argued that the music and commentary of socially aware and concerned radio jocks was an essential ingredient in getting people fired up, out on the streets and spurred into action armed with intelligent talking points and an understanding of the issues. Had it not been for urban media doing its part there would not have been large turnouts at many of those rallies. The ratings came from being a gathering place, a proverbial campfire of sorts for the community. One looks at the dedication that outlets like Fox News has in turning out their base even if they are being misled and duped into supporting things that will go against their economic interests and wonder how come we have not stepped it up and done right by our side by being the echo chamber for important issues impacting us… Below is a video of that highlights the Dr. King speech and the dumb down approach taken by urban radio in today’s crucial times.

Something to ponder

-Davey D-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHdnMfGtAxM

Return to Davey D’s Hip Hop Corner

John McCain Says No To Sonia Sotomayor-What is the GOP Thinking?

daveydbanner

Share/Save/Bookmark//

When I read about guys like John Mccain from Arizona or the two Texas Senators Kay Bailey Hutchinson and John Coryn saying they aren’t gonna vote for Sonia Sotomayor, it makes me wonder what sort of plans does the GOP have for courting a growing Latino vote?

As the country grows Blacker and Browner and both communities find they are facing similar economic, social and political oppression the potential for a game changing Black-Brown coalition to form is in place.  I can only wonder how the GOP will reconcile this, especially in places like Texas and Arizona where you have large Latino populations.

Granted an entire community’s vote is not hinged on a Yea or Nay nomination for a seat even one on the Supreme Court, however, the rejection of Sotomayor has been laced with some unavoidable racial undertones. This is coupled by over-the-top hate speech from Right-wing talk show hosts  who pull no punches.  Is the GOP really trying to shoot itself in the foot?

I keep thinking the GOP is soon going to be doing some divide and conquer type things to split the potential strong hold a solid Black-Brown political coalition one can have. It won’t be the first time they’ve done this.

-Davey D-

FLOOR STATEMENT BY SENATOR JOHN McCAIN
ON THE NOMINATION OF JUDGE SONIA SOTOMAYOR
TO SERVE AS A JUSTICE ON THE UNITED STATED SUPREME COURT

August 3, 2009
 
Washington, D.C. ¬- U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) today made the following statement on the floor of the U.S. Senate:  
 

John McCain says he ain't gonna be supporting Sonia Sotomayor. Here's a guy who can suypport an idiotic racist like Sarah Palin, but he can't get behind a strong intelligent sister like Sonia Sotomayor-Go figure.

John McCain says he ain't gonna be supporting Sonia Sotomayor. Here's a guy who can suypport an idiotic racist like Sarah Palin, but he can't get behind a strong intelligent sister like Sonia Sotomayor-Go figure.

“Mr. President, it is with great respect for Judge Sotomayor’s qualifications that I come to the floor today to discuss her nomination to the Supreme Court. 
 
“There is no doubt that Judge Sotomayor has the professional background and qualifications that one hopes for in a Supreme Court nominee.  She is a former prosecutor, served as an attorney in private practice and spent twelve years as an appellate court judge.  She is an immensely qualified candidate.
 
“And obviously, Judge Sotomayor’s life story is inspiring and compelling.  As the child of Puerto Rican parents who did not speak English upon their arrival to New York, Judge Sotomayor took it upon herself to learn English and become an outstanding student.  She graduated cum laude from Princeton University and later from Yale Law School.  Judge Sotomayor herself stated that she is ‘an ordinary person who has been blessed with extraordinary opportunities and experiences.’ 
 
“However, an excellent resume and an inspiring life story are not enough to qualify one for a lifetime of service on the Supreme Court.  Those who suggest otherwise need to be reminded of Miguel Estrada.  Mr. Estrada also was a supremely qualified candidate.  And he too has an incredible life story.  Miguel Estrada actually immigrated to the United States from Honduras as a teenager, understanding very little English.  Yet, he managed to graduate from Columbia University and Harvard Law School magna cum laude before serving his country as a prosecutor and a lawyer at the Department of Justice.  Later, he found success as a lawyer in private practice.  However, Miguel Estrada, in spite of his qualifications and remarkable background – in spite of the fact that millions of Latinos would have taken great pride in his confirmation – was filibustered by the Democrats seven times, most recently in 2003 because many Democrats disagreed with Mr. Estrada’s judicial philosophy.  This was the first filibuster ever to be successfully used against a court of appeals nominee. 

Texas Senator and Gubenatoral candidate Kay Bailey Hutchinson says she will not vote for Sonia Sotomayor

Texas Senator and Gubenatoral candidate Kay Bailey Hutchinson says she will not vote for Sonia Sotomayor

 “I supported Mr. Estrada’s nomination to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, not because of his inspiring life story or impeccable qualifications, but because his judicial philosophy was one of restraint.  He was explicit in his writings and responses to the Senate Judiciary Committee that he would not seek to legislate from the bench.
 
“In 1987, I had my first opportunity to provide ‘advice and consent’ on a Supreme Court nominee.  At that time, I stated that the qualifications I believed were essential for evaluating a nominee for the bench included ‘integrity, character, legal competence and ability, experience, and philosophy and judicial temperament.’ 
 
 “When I spoke of ‘philosophy and judicial temperament’ is it specifically how one seeks to interpret the law while serving on the bench.  I believe that a judge should seek to uphold all acts of Congress and state legislatures unless they clearly violate a specific section of the Constitution and refrain from interpreting the law in a manner that creates law.  While I believe Judge Sotomayor has many of these qualifications I outlined in 1987, I do not believe that she shares my belief in judicial restraint. 
 
 “When the Senate was considering Judge Sotomayor’s nomination to the Second Circuit in 1998, I reviewed her decisions and her academic writings.  Her writings demonstrated that she does not subscribe to the philosophy that federal judges should respect the limited nature of the judicial power under our Constitution.  Judges who stray beyond their constitutional role believe that judges somehow have a greater insight into the meaning of the broad principles of our Constitution than representatives who are elected by the people.  These activist judges assume that the judiciary is a super-legislature of moral philosophers. 
 
“I know of no more profoundly anti-democratic attitude than that expressed by those who want judges to discover and enforce the ever-changing boundaries of a so-called ‘living Constitution.’  It demonstrates a lack of respect for the popular will that is at fundamental odds with our republican system of government.  And regardless of one’s success in academics and government service, an individual who does not appreciate the common sense limitations on judicial power in our democratic system of government ultimately lacks a key qualification for a lifetime appointment to the bench.
 
 “Though she attempted to walk back from her long public record of judicial activism during her confirmation hearings, Judge Sotomayor cannot change her record.  In a 1996 article in the Suffolk University Law Review, she stated that ‘a given judge (or judges) may develop a novel approach to a specific set of facts or legal framework that pushes the law in a new direction.’  Mr. President, it is exactly this view that I disagree with.
 
“As a district court judge, her decisions too often strayed beyond settled legal norms.  Several times, this resulted in her decisions being overturned by the Second Circuit.  She was reversed due to her reliance on foreign law rather than U.S. law.  She was reversed because the Second Circuit found she exceeded her jurisdiction in deciding a case involving a state law claim.  She was reversed for trying to impose a settlement in a dispute between businesses.  And she was reversed for unnecessarily limiting the intellectual property rights of freelance authors.  These are but a few examples that led me to vote against her nomination to the Second Circuit in 1992 because of her troubling record of being an activist judge who strayed beyond the rule of law. 
 
“For this reason, I closely followed her confirmation hearing last month.  During the hearing, she clearly stated that ‘as a judge, I don’t make law.’  While I applaud this statement, it does not reflect her record as an appellate court judge.  As an appellate court judge, Judge Sotomayor has been overturned by the Supreme Court six times.  In the several of the reversals of Judge Sotomayor’s Second Circuit opinions, the Supreme Court strongly criticized her decision and reasoning.  In a seventh case, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling noting that in her written opinion for the majority of Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor had ignored two prior Supreme Court decisions. 
 
 “While I do not believe that reversal by the Supreme Court is a disqualifying factor for being considered for the federal bench, I do believe that such cases must be studied in reviewing a nominee’s record. 
 
 “Most recently, in 2008, the Supreme Court noted in an opinion overturning Judge Sotomayor that her decision ‘flies in the face of the statutory language’ and chided the Second Circuit for extending a remedy that the Court had ‘consistently and repeatedly recognized for three decades forecloses such an extension here.’  Unfortunately, it appears from this case, Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., that Judge Sotomayor does not seek ‘fidelity to the law’ as she pledged at her confirmation hearing.  As legislators, we enact laws.  The courts must apply the law faithfully.  The job of a judge is not to make law or ignore the law. 
 
“Further, in Lopez Torres v. N.Y. State Board of Elections, the Supreme Court overturned Judge Sotomayor’s decision that a state law allowing for the political parties to nominate state judges through a judicial district convention was unconstitutional because it did not give people, in her view, a ‘fair shot.’  In overturning her decision, the Supreme Court took aim at her views on providing a ‘fair shot,’ to all interested persons stating, ‘it is hardly a manageable constitutional question for judges – especially for judges in our legal system, where traditional electoral practice gives no hint of even the existence, much less the content, of a constitutional requirement for a ‘fair shot’ at party nomination.’
 
 “In her most recent and well-known reversal by the Supreme Court, the Court unanimously rejected Judge Sotomayor’s reasoning and held that white firefighters who had passed a race neutral exam were eligible for promotion.  Ricci v. DeStefano raised the bar considerably on overt discrimination against one racial group simply to undo the unintentionally racially skewed results of otherwise fair and objective employment procedures.  Again, this case proves that Judge Sotomayor does not faithfully apply the law we legislators enact. 
 
“Again and again, Judge Sotomayor seeks to amend the law to fit the circumstances of the case, thereby substituting herself in the role of a legislator.  Our Constitution is very clear in its delineation and disbursement of power.  It solely tasks the Congress with creating law.  It also clearly defines the appropriate role of the courts to ‘extend to all Cases in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties.’  To protect the equal, but separate roles of all three branches of government, I cannot support activist judges that seek to legislate from the bench.  I have not supported such nominees in the past, and I cannot support such a nominee to the highest court in the land. 
 
 “When the people of Arizona sent me to Washington, I took an oath.  I swore to uphold the Constitution.  For millions of Americans, it is clear what the Constitution means.  The Constitution protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms to protect himself, his home, and his family.  The Constitution protects our right to protest our government, speak freely and practice our religious beliefs.
 
“The American people will be watching this week when the Senate votes on Judge Sotomayor’s nomination.  She is a judge who has foresworn judicial activism in her confirmation hearings, but who has a long record of it prior to 2009.  And should she engage in activist decisions that overturn the considered constitutional judgments of millions of Americans, if she uses her lifetime appointment on the bench as a perch to remake law in her own image of justice, I expect that Americans will hold us Senators accountable.
 
 “Judicial activism demonstrates a lack of respect for the popular will that is at fundamental odds with our republican system of government.  And, as I stated earlier, regardless of one’s success in academics and in government service, an individual who does not appreciate the common sense limitations on judicial power in our democratic system of government ultimately lacks a key qualification for a lifetime appointment to the bench.  For this reason, and no other, I am unable to support Judge Sotomayor’s nomination.”

Return to Davey D’s Hip Hop Corner