Saturday, May 9, 2020

Does anyone really need to hear from a bitch named Barack?

First off, that's an important interview to watch.  You may find clips of it on your TV channels but it's posted in full on Megyn Kelly's YOUTUBE channel and that's the outlet that conducted the interview.

Second, does anyone really need to hear from a bitch named Barack?

I'm a Black man.  I normally say "African-American."  For this post, I need to say Black because Barack is both "African" and "American" but he is not Black.

He is bi-racial and for the bulk of his life that is how he billed himself.  When he tried to take down a Black man (Bobby Rush) and lost, bi-racial Barack suddenly become "Black."

Does it matter?

It matters for a number of reasons.

1) Bi- and multi-racial are actual categories.  People identify as such and it matters to them.  In the 90s, they couldn't identify as such on the census.  It took them expressing their outrage and demanding change.  So for a bi- or multi-racial person to today pass themselves off as Black is offensive -- especially if they had spent over three decades claiming bi-racial instead.

2) If you are going to claim Black, you damn well better defend Black.  Black men are not as 'enchanted' with Barack as some groups.  That's because we saw the little bitch attack us, over and over.  The original racist against Black men is Barack who blamed us repeatedly with the sort of racist stereotypes you'd expect from Ronald Reagan.  (No surprise, Regan was someone Barack had spent years praising.)  Black fathers were repeatedly insulted and trashed by Barack.  Now I get it, Barack Sr. didn't want Barack Jr.  So despite his book of lies about his father, Barack's always hated Daddy.  Deal with that in therapy, you bitch, America doesn't need it and we, Black men, have suffered enough due to our government without having to be attacked by the first faux Black president.

3) There is a Black experience.  When Samuel L. Jackson expresses outrage that an American director casts an American film about MLK with a British actor playing MLK?  Samuel's right.  That is White washing the role.  It doesn't matter that the actor is Black.  The UK experience is completely different.  MLK was a Black American and it is outrageous to do a film about him without a Black American playing the role.  It's as bad as casting Luise Rainer over Anna Mae Wong in THE GOOD EARTH.  Samuel is right.  And there's a reason that the actor in SELMA was hitting some high notes up until he played that role.  We don't like him, Black men in America.  We don't like him playing MLK and we don't forgive it.  Chinese Americans should not have been expected to forgive MGM or Luise Rainer.  Barack did not have the Black experience that we have in America.  He spent his early childhood in Indonesia.  He then went where?  Hawaii.  And that's probably what led him to identify as bi-racial because that's a norm in Hawaii (and that's a good thing, Hawaii was more accepting decades before the rest of the US caught up).  In college, he dated one White women after another and began his public history of trashing Black men -- usually Black fathers -- with his comments.  Barack has publicly ridiculed the Black experience.  Black men in America have been targeted by our government and our police and our institutions.  Barack benefited from not being Black.  That's what Joe Biden's racist remark in 2008 was about 'clean cut' blah blah blah.  And Barack was not part of the Civil Rights movement which is why so many right wingers supported him -- they could put the whole race 'issue' behind them.

4) In the last primary (2019 and this year), a Black person was running.  His name was Cory Booker.  Cory looks Black and is Black.  He knows the Black experience.  It's the culture he grew up in.  And there was a bi-racial person running.  A lot of Black lesbians supported Kamala Harris.  There's this subset of Black lesbians that are racist -- as are some straight Black men -- and only want to be with light skinned women.  They get behind any light skinned gal they can.  Kamala is light skinned.  She is bi-racial.  She is not Black.  She is not Black in America by any means.  She rejected her Black father (which makes her a lot like Barack, doesn't it?).  Her mother was from India and immigrated to the US four years before Kamala was born.  Her father came to America a year later from Jamaica. She's called herself "mixed."  That's as late as 2019.  For some reason -- she needs some sort of moral cloth to cover her immoral actions? -- she will declare herself Black when pressed on some issues -- as in, "As a Black woman . . ."  Cory Booker was the only Black candidate running for the presidency in the Democratic Party.  She shortchanged a Black man by refusing to be honest about what she was.  She tried to use her (half) race to make appeals in North Carolina.  She undercut an authentic Black man with her attempts to pass.

I say all of that because now Barack wants to tell us what to do in the upcoming elections and what to expect.  Bitch, shut the hell up.  You've been partying on Richard Branson's yacht.  You're nothing but a celebrity.

You did nothing to help Black America and we're tired of you.  When the Occupy Movement began, one of their biggest accomplishments was putting Black voices out front and letting them tell the truth about Barack.  That's something the corporate media never allowed. 

Tara Reade?  I believe her.  The interview at the top is news.  Barack?  We're back to the point I've been making since the pandemic started -- I'm sick of celebrities.

I'm sick of these out of touch assholes showing up in the midst of a crisis to try to act like they're one of us.  They're not.  Go party with Bruce Springsteen and Tom Hanks and Richard Branson again, bi-racial Barack.  We see who you choose to hang with -- celebrities and White ones at that.  We don't need to hear what you think of the pandemic or the response or what you think of the upcoming elections.  You're just another braless celebrity trying to get attention.  F**k off.

Going out with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Friday, May 8, 2020.  Tara Reade's case against Joe Biden only gets stronger.

Walker Bragman Tweets:

With each new piece of evidence providing corroboration for her story—affirmations from people she told over the years, a video of her mother calling Larry King, and now a court document—it becomes harder to brush Tara Reade aside. This is the real test of the Me Too movement.

In the US, Tara Reade has charged that Joe Biden assaulted her in 1993.  More proof emerged yesterday backing up Tara and Megyn Kelly began airing parts of her interview with Tara.  First with the latest proof.  Matt Fountain (SAN LUIS OBISPO TRIBUNE) reports:

A court document from 1996 shows former Senate staffer Tara Reade told her ex-husband she was sexually harassed while working for Joe Biden in 1993.
The declaration — exclusively obtained by The Tribune in San Luis Obispo, California — does not say Biden committed the harassment nor does it mention Reade’s more recent allegations of sexual assault.
Reade’s then-husband Theodore Dronen wrote the court declaration. Dronen at the time was contesting a restraining order Reade filed against him days after he filed for divorce, Superior Court records show.

Read more here:
In it, he writes Reade told him about “a problem she was having at work regarding sexual harassment, in U.S. Senator Joe Biden’s office.”
[. . .]
Dronen, who still lives in San Luis Obispo County, confirmed he wrote the declaration.
“Tara and I ended our relationship over two decades ago under difficult circumstances,” Dronen said in an email to The Tribune on Thursday. “I am not interested in reliving that chapter of my life. I wish Tara well, and I have nothing further to say.”

Read more here:

Read more here:

By any standards past survivors have been held to, Tara's case has been proven.  Sarah Al-Arshani (BUSINESS INSIDER) adds:

Dronen also wrote that Reade told him she left the position after striking a deal with the chief of staff of Biden's office. 
"It was obvious that this event had a very traumatic effect on (Reade), and that she is still sensitive and effected (sic) by it today," Dronen wrote.

At her YOUTUBE channel, Megyn Kelly has posted two sections of her interview with Tara.

Kelly is expected to post the full interview later today.   At THE NATION this morning,  Sarah Nesbitt and Sage Carson note:

If Democrats hope to hold themselves up as principled defenders of survivors’ rights and fair process in the post-Kavanaugh era, they must establish a formal, unbiased investigation into Tara Reade’s allegations against the presumptive Democratic nominee.
So far, they’ve fallen far short of this standard. When asked on April 30 about Reade’s allegations against Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi responded, “There is also due process and the fact that Joe Biden is Joe Biden.” In so doing, Speaker Pelosi joins a long line of powerful individuals who have invoked “due process” and “he’s a good good guy” arguments to ensure that their political allies will avoid accountability and scrutiny.
When politicians and other powerful people strategically call for “due process” to defend their political allies, what they tend to mean is “no process.” This strategy has been wielded by liberals and conservatives alike—in schools, in workplaces, and in the mediato avoid confronting the possibility that someone they know, trust, or believe in may have perpetrated violence. It has also been used by powerful men themselves, like Harvey Weinstein, to try to avoid public criticism. Until Pelosi supports a framework through which Reade’s allegations can be given a fair hearing, it is hard to read her statements as anything but a disingenuous attempt to boost an ally, particularly as the evidence corroborating Reade’s claim mounts.
Pelosi isn’t the first to erroneously invoke the legal right to due process. As Alexandra Brodsky has written, the constitutional guarantee of “due process” is a far cry from the baseless notion that “no one can be mad at you unless a judge has donned robes.” The right arises when the state threatens to take away a right to which the accused person is normally entitled. This includes instances where someone faces jail time for an alleged crime, or the possibility of a court order that limits where they can physically go as the result of an alleged assault. Further, the extent of the process due depends on the gravity of the right at stake. The fact that a fair investigation may expose Joe Biden to public shame and potential repudiation does not implicate his due process rights.
Cynical invocations of “due process” are familiar to survivors. Take, for example, the modern campus sexual assault movement. In the 2010s, survivors of sexual violence organized on campuses across the country to demand action from their schools and the Department of Education after their reports of assault and abuse were routinely swept under the rug. This led to critical but incremental change: In 2011, the department released a Dear Colleague letter, a non-binding piece of federal guidance, that clarified for schools that Title IX’s prohibition on sex discrimination means institutions must respond fairly and promptly to allegations of sexual misconduct. But even the mere prospect of accountability activated a backlash from men’s rights advocates invoking “due process” to stack the procedural deck in favor of students accused of sexual misconduct. 

As Tara's case grows ever stronger, pig boys panic.  For example, Joe Scarborough found time to Tweet against Tara this morning.  Hey, Joe, how did that dead intern end up your office again?  Also taking a break from sniffing his own ass, Michael Tracey Tweets to the world that he's investigated and he's about to go to town on Tara.  Michael, sniffing your own fingers is not investigation and the whole world already knew you were a sexist pig. 

Expect more of their nonsense in the days to come because so many have given a pass on smears. So much for everyone having a right to be heard.  And if you missed it, Tara's attorneys hare hideous and pure evil.  Why?  One donated to a Trump campaign, one defended Max Blumenthal or . . .

Krystal Ball Tweets:

Another smear. This lawyer regularly represents victims including Weinstein survivors and Fox News employees. His last donation was to Hakeem Jeffries. Why don’t you do some journalism on all the lawyers who turned Tara down bc of the politics?

The media has done a lousy job.  It was C-SPAN who, this week, brought on  RAINN's (Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network) vice president Heather Drevna to discuss the way survivors can respond to an assault.  THE NEWSHOUR didn't do that, NPR didn't do that, MSNBC didn't do that . . .  Go down the list.  So we get all these outraged statements from fools who don't know the first thing they're talking about -- that would include Senator Dianne Feinstein.  Sarah Jones Tweets of DiFi:

she will be in her 90s when her term is up and maybe that's why she's still talking about sexual assault like it's 1965

Ebony Purks (THE PAISANO) observes:

It seems suspicious that news outlets have been relatively quiet about Reade’s story for weeks because, naturally, it is the news’ responsibility to report facts objectively. Whether the allegations against Biden are true or not, the story deserves attention. For a former staffer to come forward with assault allegations against a front-running presidential candidate is major, and for news outlets to blatantly ignore Reade’s allegations sends a harmful message to women.
By not reporting the story, these media outlets are picking a side, and the side they are picking is against the facts, the facts being the existence of Reade’s accusations. It was frustrating to only see the discourse of Reade’s story from Twitter users rather than reporters. I know liberal news outlets are hesitant to report the story because it is somewhat close to November, and they may feel Reade’s story gives Trump leverage over Biden’s presidential campaign. As we all know, the Trump presidency is perhaps the most controversial and messy presidency America has seen, and liberal news outlets do not want to report anything negative on America’s only chance at beating Donald Trump: Joe Biden.

However, it is not the news outlets’ responsibility to decide how people receive the facts; it is their job to report the facts.

Tara Reade tells Megyn Kelly that Joe Biden should drop out of the race but that she doubts he will.  His dropping out would be the best thing for the party and for the world.  His campaign created no enthusiasm and now he's polling worse than Hillary Clinton did at the same time in 2016.  And his policies are disgusting.  Reese Erlich (PROGRESSIVE) examines Joe's foreign policy record and notes:

By far Biden’s most reprehensible stand was his strong support for the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq. As documented by Professor Stephen Zunes in The Progressive, Biden forcefully supported the war, but later claimed he opposed it. (Of course, Trump lied about his support for the war as well.)
When the Iraqi occupation failed in the mid-2000s, Biden infamously called for splitting Iraq into three parts along sectarian lines, so the United States could continue imperial control at least in Kurdistan.
Even today, Biden favors maintaining some troops in the region, using the excuse of fighting ISIS. “I think it’s a mistake to pull out the small number of troops that are there now to deal with ISIS,” he’s said.
Biden hasn’t learned the lessons of the Afghan war either. After nineteen years of failed war and occupation, he still wants to maintain some troops in the country.
“I would bring American combat troops in Afghanistan home during my first term,” Biden tells the Council on Foreign Relations. “Any residual U.S. military presence in Afghanistan would be focused only on counterterrorism operations.”

But whoever wins in November will have to face the new reality: People in Afghanistan and the United States are fed up with the war. All foreign troops will have to withdraw.

In Iraq, as noted yesterday, there's a new prime minister.  Omar Abdulkader  (CBS NEWS) reports

After five months of difficult negotiations, Iraq's parliament approved the intelligence chief Mustafa Al-Kadhimi as the country's new prime minister on Thursday. The long-time spy master, who appears to have U.S. backing, will now lead a government to replace the one forced to resign months ago amid widespread protests.
But his biggest challenge may be convincing a fed-up public that he'll act in their interest before he acts in the interest of the U.S. or any other foreign power.
"This government came as a response to the social, economic and political crises our country is facing," al-Kadhimi told lawmakers Thursday. "It is a government that will provide solutions, not add to the crises." 
Iraq is facing a coronavirus-fueled financial crisis, crumbling infrastructure battered by years of war and scant investment, ongoing political instability and the threat of a resurgent ISIS testing its beleaguered security forces.
While addressing those issues, Kadhimi must also prevent his country becoming a literal battlefield in the for-now-still-rhetorical war between its neighbor and ally Iran, and its more distant but more powerful ally the United States.

Jean Shaoul (WSWS) offers:

Al-Khadimi, who spent 25 years in exile in the UK and US, is on good terms with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and is viewed as a US spy. He appeared initially to have the support of some of the Shia parties after Iran, which in practice controls parliament and can therefore neuter him, gave the nod.
However, Kataeb Hezbollah, one of militias within the Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) close to Iran and part of Iraq’s armed forces, accused him of complicity in the January 3 assassination of Iran’s General Qassem Suleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, a prominent member of the Iraqi government and PMU leader, aimed at undermining Iran’s political influence in Iraq. Their killings have spawned major disagreements among the various Shia factions, with four PMU units loyal to Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani breaking from the PMU, which Washington is seeking to exploit.

Al-Khadimi has still to fill several posts in his cabinet after parliament refused to endorse some of his nominees, including the key oil and foreign affairs ministries. But his line is clear: he said he will uphold the political sectarian system known as muhasasa and work with Washington in the “strategic dialogue” over relations between the two countries scheduled for June.

Amnesty International issued the following today:

The newly-formed government in Iraq must ensure human rights are placed at the heart of its agenda, and reverse course from decades of impunity, Amnesty International said in a new open letter.
Writing to new Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhim after the government was sworn in yesterday (7 May), the organization highlighted continuing concerns relating to the lack accountability for the authorities’ violent response to protests last year and early this year; in the aftermath of the conflict against the armed group calling itself ‘Islamic State’ (IS); and also concerns relating to COVID-19 and domestic violence.
“This new government has an opportunity to ensure that the promotion and protection of human rights in Iraq is prioritized after years of appalling violations,” said Razaw Salihy, Amnesty International’s Iraq Research.
“The Iraqi people have paid too high a price for decades of impunity and what have so far been repeatedly hollow promises by the authorities. We welcome the government’s stated commitment to hold those responsible for protesters’ killings accountable, and to prioritize addressing the needs of the internally displaced people.
“It must now translate these promises into immediate and meaningful action, including addressing the Iraqi people’s longstanding socio-economic grievances.”
COVID-19 and domestic violence
In response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, Iraq has been placed into partial lockdown which has led to a rise in cases of domestic violence.
The letter adds: “The uptick in cases of domestic violence reported by media and civil society organizations, in some instances leading to the death of women and the severe injuring of a young girl, demands immediate action by the government to ensure that women and girls can access essential services and protection.”
Response to protests
Protests in the country late last year and early this year were met with a brutal response by authorities, leading to the unlawful killing of hundreds of people and leaving thousands more injured.
According to research carried out by Amnesty International, security forces - including members of the Popular Mobilization Units, as well as unknown gunmen - met the largely peaceful protesters with live ammunition, hunting rifles, live fire consistent with sniper fire, tear gas and water cannons.
Amnesty International is calling on the government to urgently rein in security forces, and initiate thorough and independent investigations into the killings. The letter adds: “The authorities have had months to change course away from violent repression. They must reassure protesters that they have a right to expect that the security forces will protect them and not arbitrarily kill and maim them and that their government will address their grievances, particularly their demands for their social and economic rights to be met.”
Aftermath of ‘Islamic State’ conflict
The letter also addresses several issues relating to the conflict against IS, including the collective punishment of internally displaced Iraqis with perceived affiliation to IS, the fate of thousands of men and boys who were forcibly disappeared by security forces during the conflict, impunity for human rights abuses committed by all parties to the conflict, and crimes committed against ethnic and religious minorities in northern Iraq.

The full text of the open letter can be read here.

The following sites updated:

  • No comments: