Archive for the Playthell on politics Category

Tavis and West Expose True Motives

Posted in My Struggle On the Left!, On Dr. Cornell West, Playthell on politics with tags , , , on March 5, 2013 by playthell
                   Cornel West and Tavis Smilie Heckle and Jeckle: Two Trickster Crows

 Truth Crushed to Earth….Will Rise Again!

When I was a boy in Florida the old folks would say “Truth cometh in the morning.”  Well that was never truer than on this Saturday morning, as I awoke to the snarky voices of Tavis Smilie and Dr. Cornell West chattering away on my radio.  I had fallen asleep listening to the soulful blues infested voice of the late great Dinah Washington singing the Duke Ellington/ Juan Tizol tune “Caravan,” and awoke to a hear the dissonant sound of a sarcastic soliloquy fashioned in the fevered brain of Dr. Longhair, and pouring from his pie hole in a lava like flow of putrid bile.  He was joyfully engaging in his favorite sport: Obama bashing.

First, the fuzzy headed professor contemptuously ridiculed the President’s negotiating skills, trashing him for not being able to get the “Public Option” passed instead of congratulating him on the massive overhaul of the medical delivery system that he did manage to finess through Congress with consummate political skill.  This achievement is a major reason why a panel of presidential historians has already selected him as one of the top ten American Presidents.

Yet it was the Affordable Health Care Act – along with the president’s achievements in preventing the collapse of the world economy and ending the Depression at home; his diplomatic triumphs in signing a nuclear arms agreement with Russia that helped insure the survival of life on this planet in a very real way; plus ending two wars, etc – that prompted me to rate him even higher on the scale in the pantheon of American presidents. (See: The Real Barack Obama vs. The Reagan Myth” on this blog)

However what I personally find most galling about Cornel West’s criticism of President Obama is his smug assumption of moral and intellectual superiority.  Part of this of course can be attributed to the smug pretentions of academics that hold PhD’s from prestigious universities – a feeling that is enhanced if they hold professorships at such universities – but I remain at a lost to discover the source from whence the professor’s feeling of moral superiority over the President arises.

With the diligence of Diogenes in search of an honest man, I  perused the history of both men and found nothing in my interrogation of professor West’s record that would provide evidence to support his arrogant assumption of moral superiority over President Obama.  In Cornel West I see a talented intellectual who is well educated in his fields of religion and philosophy, and a gifted orator whose notoriety as a public intellectual is do more to his silver tongue and public relations skills that his intellectual gravitas.   He is a highbrow rapper who, like Little Wayne, has made a fortune playing to the cheap seats.

Conversely, Barack Obama is one of those rare special altruistic personalities who decide to spend their life in public service early on; addressing problems that will enhance the quality of life for their fellow citizens, and they purposely make choices about the type of education they will pursue guided by what they think they will need to become change agents through participation in the political process.

That’s why Barack chose the law, Constitutional law, because he thought it would best equip him to become an agent of change.  That’s also why his fellow Harvard man Dr. WEB DuBois chose the study of history, sociology and economics over a career as a philosopher, and was indifferent to the importuning of Harvard’s George Santayana, perhaps America’s most influential philosopher, to become his protégé – an opportunity West would have leaped at.

Dubois saw that those disciplines would better arm him in the fight to uplift his oppressed people.  And his educational choices led him to become one of the greatest Americans of the last century, and his ideas, scholarship and activism contributed mightily to the advancement of black people here and in Africa.  These are very special people; men like Barack and DuBois.  Indeed, Barack Obama has shown a consistent commitment to changing the plight of the poor and powerless throughout his adult life.

First there was his decision to take a job as a community organizer in the dangerous poverty pockets of Chicago – the people Harvard sociologist William J. Wilson calls “The Truly Disadvantaged” in his revelatory text by the same name.  Then we have Barack Obama’s legislative record in the Illinois State Assembly, and his record in the US Senate.  All of these records unambiguously demonstrate a consistent record concern for the least among us – the poor and the powerless. If you would like to examine President Obama’s legislative record in historical context, see the list at the end of my essay “Civilization or Savagery” on this blog.

Alas, Professor West and his doppelganger Tavis Silly inflicted a conversation on the audience about the looming budget sequester that was so lightweight it would be an act of generosity to call it simple-minded prattle.  Maybe it’s because these guys are in such demand they don’t have time to thoughtfully reflect on these complex issues…or maybe they are shameless charlatans and vulgar careerist who have entered into a Faustian bargain with Mammon and they will say or do anything that will help them achieve their true goal: making money.   I tend toward the former assumption; although it is clear that these guys are scrupulous about getting paid…and as much as possible. After all Cornel gets $30, 000 for a speech.

I see no record of self-less service and sacrifice on the part of West.  From all appearances he is doing just fine on Cloud Nine, spouting dangerous sophistry masquerading as political wisdom, while abdicating his proper role as intellectual  point man in the fight against the Religious Right; whose theology fuels much of the ideology of the contemporary Republican Party.  Instead he attacks what he thinks are President Obama’s moral failings; he even called the President a “war criminal” the other day- while simultaneously calling racist reactionary rednecks like Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich his “Dear Brothers.”

Transparent opportunist that he is, when Dr. West and sidekick Tavis Silly invited Paul Wykoff, Vietnam war combat veteran and head of an organization of Veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, on the show to discuss the plight of veterans, they quickly tried to enlist the old soldier and political progressive into their persistent attack on the President and turn the conversation into a referendum against his leadership and policies.

Paul Reickoff

Paul-Rieckhoff - Iraq and Afghanistsn vets

 Spokesman for Iraq and Afghanictan Combat Veterans 

As West droned on in his annoying voice about the “Dronification of War,”using it to  continue his attack on President Obama, the conversation took an unfortunate for Dr. West and sidekick, exposing them for the lightweight blabbermouths that they are.     Rykoff first explained what it was like fighting on the front lines, since he is an ex-infantryman who saw combat.  He shocked them when he not only refused to denounce the use of drones – since he knows it will save American soldiers from risking life and limb to do the same job these robots do.

But the real kick in the head was when Wykoff said that President Obama was a very elightened leader on questions of war and peace.  He explained that the president had a sophisticated understanding of the technological options open to him as commander-In-Chief and were deploying them Solomonic wisdom .  He went on to say that more importantly President Obama has always pursued non-military options and prefers diplomacy to bombs because unlike many other people in Washington he understands that you cannot impose democracy in a country with bombs and bullets.

To hear Mr. Rykoff  tell it, President Obama is just about as enlightened and humane a leader as one could hope for in matters of war and peace.  Needless to say, I was on the edge of my seat with my ears cocked like a hound dog in anxious anticipation of the learned Dr. West’s response.  Would he acknowledge the possibility that he might have been wrong when he recently labeled the president a war criminal?   My wait proved to be in vain, as vain as Cornel West’s ego, for he  quickly changed the subject without comment.

West fared no better in trying to elicit Wykoff’s aid in painting an ominous portrait of the Africa Command’s mission on the African continent.   Wykoff saw nothing sinister in it, and only questioned whether we should be spending more money on developments at home.  After all, he was on the show to discuss the desperate plight of those who have bravely fought America’s foreign wars but are struggling at home.

I shall soon have more to say about what I think of drone warfare, and the Africa command.  But suffice it to say that in my view Dr. West’s position on drone warfare is neither intelligent nor morally superior to the Presidents; as he evidently thinks it is.  The more I hear from Cornel West the less convinced I am that he is a man of integrity, whose concern the poor and oppressed trumps his need for ego-gratification and the material rewards that accompany celebrity and intellectual notoriety in America.

Some of my colleagues have decided that he and Tavis are simply pimping off the misery of black people, the poor, the unemployed, and the economically distressed working and middle classes.  Since I once held Dr. West in high regard I don’t want to believe that he is that cold blooded.  I think Professor Bushy Bead is motivated by a combination of age old human failings of biblical proportions: Envy, Avarice, Ambition and revenge.  And these vices are fueled by combustible resentments of unrequited love.

If I had the ear of the President I would put a bug in his ear and hip him to how to handle this poot-butt professor; but since I don’t I’m forced to make a public plea: Please show this guy some love!  I would also tell him to consider President Lyndon Johnson’s strategy for handling that dangerous demagogue J. Edgar Hoover, who as head of the FBI, and thus had the capacity to create all kinds of problems for the President during a critical period of American history, when he was trying to do great things.

When Attorney General Robert Kennedy asked Johnson in exasperation, “Why don’t you just fire Hoover?”  To wit that wily old political player Lyndon Johnson responded: “Cause I’d rather have hoover inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in!”

Unrequited love is a Dangerous Thing
Cornel and Barack 
It leads to irrational destructive actions



Playthell George Benjamin
Harlem New York
March 5, 2013 

The Struggle To Vote Continues!

Posted in Playthell on politics with tags , , , on March 1, 2013 by playthell

Martinand John March - Selma to Montgomery

On The Selma to Montgomery March for Voting Rights

 Afro-Americans, Racial Equality and Supreme Court

Watching Congressman John Lewis addressing the rally on voting rights in front of the US Supreme Court yesterday I got a feeling of de ja vu.  It was like America had turned back the clock to 1965, when John Lewis, then a leader of the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee, made a similar speech on the great March from Selma to Montgomery to gain the right to vote for black southerners.  The vicious attack on lawfully assembled marchers, who were mostly Afro-Americans, as the attempted to cross the Edmund Pettis Bridge leading to the former capital of the old Confederacy, shocked the world as it was broadcast around the globe on television.

It proved to be a sucker play on the part of the dumb desperate rednecks trying to preserve their “southern way of life,” the foundation of which was the severe oppression of black folks.  Instead they drove a stake through their own heart. The dim witted white officials who ordered the state police to arrest the advance of the demonstrators in a bloody melee of wanton police violence that was witnessed around the world didn’t understand that the world was changing, and what this implied for their racist apartheid system based on a Nazi like ideology of white supremacy.

The system of white world domination was rapidly crumbling due to the devastation Europeans wreaked on each other in the Second World War, and the rise of militant nationalism in Africa and Asia; the US was in a global struggle with the communist Soviet Bloc for the hearts and minds of the peoples in the newly independent nations.  However we now know, by virtue of studies on American diplomacy during this period such as Cold War Civil Rights: Race and the Image of American Democracy, by Mary L, Dudziak, that those tasked with conducting American foreign policy considered the racist policies of the southern states a major stumbling block in their efforts to sell the American way of life to the leaders of emergent Third world nations.

For instance seven years before the passage of the historic 1964 Omnibus Civil Rights Bill, an Alabama court sentenced a 28 year old man black man named Jimmy Wilson to death for stealing two dollars.   This verdict sparked such intense outrage against the US around the world that Secretary of State John Foster Dullies got the federal government to intervene and stop the execution.  Everywhere he went Dullies was put on the defensive, when confronted with questions about white American barbarism in their treatment of Afro-Americans.

This was 1958, three years after the Bandung Conference, held in Bandung Indonesia, where the emergent non-white nations of Africa and Asia gathered to discuss their future in a new world order.  The question that preoccupied the American government was which side would they choose to align with: The capitalist or communist bloc?  It was a concern that would intensify as the Civil Rights movement against the legal caste system, which was the foundation of racial apartheid and white supremacy in the US, grew more vocal.

Indeed, Dean Rusk, President Kennedy’s Secretary of State, would write memos to Attorney Robert Kennedy complaining about how the racist outrages in the US, which the Russians made sure were widely publicized, was complicating his attempts to counter-Russian overtures to leaders of the new nations and their millions of non-white citizens.  Hence, as Dr. Dudziak shows, addressing major Civil Rights issues like desegregation, became an imperative for victory in the Cold War and thus the political elite was willing address the problem with a new urgency.

The Bandung Conference
Bandung Conference 1955
Africans and Asians Contemplate a New World

This was the political atmosphere in which John Lewis spoke at the 1965 rally in Montgomery in an attempt to persuade the Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act which President Lyndon Johnson would sign into law,  with one of the most eloquent and impassioned speeches in presidential history on the equality of Afro-Americans before the law.

Now, almost a half century later, as a US Congressman, John Lewis is arguing in front of the Supreme Court in an effort to persuade them not to declare section five, the most important part of the Voting Rights Act, unconstitutional.

Once again the fate of Afro-Americans rest on a decision of the US Supreme Court, continuing a long established pattern in American race relations.  In the Dread-Scott Decision of 1857, three years before the outbreak of Civil War, the Supreme Court ruled in a decision written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney that “Black Men have no rights that a white man is bound to respect.”  This left Afro-Americans in legal limbo, at the mercy of their racist white countrymen.  Among other things it meant that free blacks could not claim American citizenship and often had to travel abroad without benefit of a passport.

During the Reconstruction period following the Civil War, the Dread-Scott decision was reversed with the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment on July 28, 1868.  This amendment conferred citizenship on Afro-Americans and mandated equal protection under the law.  In order to insure its ratification Congress made ratification a condition for the former confederate states to reenter the union. The Fifteenth Amendment, ratified in 1870,  gave Afro-Americans the right to vote in quite explicit language: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.’

The Radical Republicans, led by Congressman Thaddeus Stevens and Senator Charles Sumner, was determined that the northern defeat of the southern Confederacy would not be a pyrrhic victory.  So they passed a series of Civil Rights bills to buttress the new constitutional Amendments beginning in 1866, and culminating with the sweeping Civil Rights act of 1875.

This Act outlawed racial discrimination in all public accommodations: hotels, public conveyances and places of amusement open to the general public.  The original draft of the Act by Senator Sumner included a provision outlawing segregation in public schools, but was struck from the bill because the Republicans didn’t believe it could pass.

Thaddeus Stevens

Indefatigable Champion of Afro-American Freedom

Two years later the Compromise of 1877,  a backroom deal struck by the Democrats and Republicans to resolve the disputed presidential election between Samuel J. Tilden and Rutherford B. Hayes, effectively ended congressional Reconstruction and removed the protection of federal Troops from the south, leaving the ex-slaves to the mercy of their former masters.  A reign of terror was unleashed on Afro-Americans by armed white terrorists like the Ku Klux Klan all across the South.  One of its main objectives was to drive Afro-Americans away from the polls. This great terror continued into the twentieth century.

Despite  growing racist violence  aimed at  nullifying Afro-American gains during the period of Radical Reconstruction, four years later, in 1881, the Supreme Court declared the Civil Rights Bill of 1875 unconstitutional.  This was followed 15 years later by the Plessey vs. Ferguson Decision, popularly known as the “Separate but Equal Decision,” which made racial segregation legal.

Taking it to the Streets
Ku Klux Klan
The Klan struts its stuff in the Nation’s Capital
Doing their devlish work in the South

Lynching Bee

American Exceptionalism!

Hence by the turn of the 20th century Afro-Americans had been stripped of virtually all the rights they had gained during the Reconstruction.  The South accomplished its goal of removing black citizens from the voter’s roles through a combination of extra-legal white terror and enacting all sorts of bizarre restrictions on the right to vote, while the Congress and Supreme Court turned a blind eye.

Afro-Americans were fixed in a racial caste system segregated from their white fellow citizens in virtually all spheres of personal and civil life, interacting only as employer and employee, or domestic servants in white households.  Separate but Equal remained the law of the land until the Court ruled in the Brown v. The Board of Education case of 1954, and passage of the Omnibus Civil Rights Act  of 1964; which outlawed segregation in the public schools and public accommodations.  In 1965 Congress passed the Voting Rights Act.

Together this legislation dismantled legal segregation and transformed southern politics.  The heart and soul of the Voting Rights Act  is Section Five, which requires states with a history of racial exclusion to submit any proposed changes in voting laws to the Justice Department for approval.  We can see from all of the Republican chicanery in the last election – where there were numerous attempts to suppress the black and Hispanic vote – that we desperately need the powers of Section Five to be expanded and vigorously enforced.  Not remanded as the state of Alabama, one of the worse historical offenders, is presently asking the Supreme Court to do.

In view of this reality the recent comments on voting rights by Justice Scalia, who is touted as a great legal mind, are the blathering of a charlatan or a fool.  This pie faced, pumpkin headed, black robed, pootbutt burlesque on a great legal theorist, had the unmitigated gall to call the Voting Rights Act “a racial entitlement.”   There is no shame in Scalia’s racist game!

Antonin Scalia


A Racist Buffoon!

Earlier tonight Rev. Al Sharpton played a series of comments by leading right-wing radio bloviators like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, then juxtaposed them with Scalia mouthing the same putrid rhetoric…word for word.  The presence of foul hearted blaggards like Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court is a result of appointments by Republican President’s….so much for the Morons who say it doesn’t matter whether there is a Democrat or Republican in the White House.  Alas, they must share the responsibility for our present crisis.


Playthell G. Benjamin

Harlem, New York

March 1, 2013

On Dov Hikind, Black Face and Jews

Posted in Cultural Matters, Playthell on politics with tags , , , , on February 27, 2013 by playthell
Dov Hikind
Assemblyman Hikind and Family

Is this Guy Really that Stupid?

I bet Dov Hikind is pissed with his son for putting this picture on the internet so the whole world can see it; otherwise it would have remained and inside joke between Hikind – a Brooklyn  Democrat who is New York State Assemblyman – and his constituents.  Did he learn nothing about the perils of the web from the fall of Congressman Andy Weiner, a brilliant politician who was forced to resign his office when he got busted flashing his weenie in cyberspace.  Did he not warn his son about the consequences of putting the wrong stuff out there?  Evidently he did not.

But to dress up in black face, put on a basketball jersey and say that he was just choosing a costume to celebrate the Jewish holiday of Purim, is dumber .  And Hikind’s response to complaints that his actions are offensive is dumber still.  For a smart Jew this guy does some really dumb things. Consider his initial reaction.

“I was just, I think, I was trying to emulate, you know, maybe some of these basketball players. Someone gave me a uniform, someone gave me the hair of the actual, you know, sort of a black basketball player…I can’t imagine anyone getting offended. You know, anyone who knows anything about Purim knows that if you walk throughout the community, whether it’s Williamsburg, Boro Park, Flatbush, Forest Hills, Kew Gardens Hills, people get dressed up in, you name it, you know, in every kind of dress-up imaginable. Purim, you know, everything goes and it’s all done with respect. No one is laughing, no one is mocking. It’s all just in good fun with respect always, whatever anyone does it’s done with tremendous amounts of respect and with dignity, of course.”

Really Dovie?  Are you really that clueless?  For a guy who is a super Jewish Nationalist who was once a follower of the rabid racist Rabbi Mier Khane, founder of the Jewish Defense League, a militant Zionist organization here in the US, then immigrated to Israel.  After settling in Israel Kahane advocated openly racist policies.  The late great Jewish investigative reporter with the Village Voice, Robert I. Freedman, pulled the covers off the Hikind-Kahane relationship in penetrating articles a couple of decades ago.  But Hikind’s tawdry past has now been forgotten in a country with a short memory that disdains the study of history.

For a Jewish Nationalist of Hikind’s vintage to claim that he does not understand why black people are offended by his black face get up exposes him as a duplicitous fraud.  And he has been called to task on this by thoughtful honest Jewish critics – he even offended the Anti-Defamation League, who rarely criticizes Jews about anything.  But given the experience of the Jews and their tradition of criticism and debate, as well as their long tradition of speaking out for social justice, it is not surprising.  One of the most penetrating critiques comes from Ehav Ever, an Israeli who lives in Jerusalem.  Writing on the comment thread of the Politicker, Ehav observes:


There are a lot of Jews who are offended by non-Jews doing things, as a joke against Jews. Especially, when said joke has a long history of use by Anti-Semites. There are Jews who get offended by xian missionaries who started pretending to be Jewish in order to get Jews to convert.
Blackface jokes have a long and racist history behind them and for a Jew to claim to be connected to Torah and first take part in a tradition derived from Avodah Zara and then to take on a custom, blackface, started by those who used it as a part of systematic social degradation is anti-Torah to begin with. It is what the Torah warned against about taking on the practices of the nations.  
The choice is simple a Jew can either cast his/her lot with the Ovdei Avodah Zara who created the blackface fad or a Jew can cast her/her lot with Hashem, Torah, and Halakha.”

Isn’t it incredible that a Jew living in faraway Israel can see the issue so clearly, who is aware of the pernicious racist history of whites “blacking up,” as it was called during the era in American history when black faced minstrel shows parodying black American life and culture was the most popular form of mass entertainment in the nation, but a politician representing a borough with hundreds of thousands of black people does not?  What does it say about the educational system in this country?

It tells us that the system has failed in teaching Americans their true history. This of course comes as no revelation to those of us who have been fighting for decades to get the complete story of American race relations properly taught in our public schools.  The problem lies in the fact that the history of Afro-Americans and Native Americans contradict the great American myth of “the home of the brave and land of the free,” which is the central theme in the master narrative of American civilization upon which the American Exceptionalists based their claims that Americans are morally superior to all the other nations.

Hence this is a willful ignorance designed to avoid unpleasant truths; psychologists call it “living in denial.”  This is the most generous explanation for Assemblyman Hikind’s behavior.  But given his history one cannot truly know what motivates him, so I won’t venture further into an attempt at psychoanalysis, a task for which I am unqualified.  Rather I shall remind Mr. Hikind that there is a long history of his racist role playing by whites in black face who defamed Black Americans for the entertainment of fellow whites.  And although this tradition was started by white Christians Jews, would play a major role in projecting it around the world.

In 1991 I was invited to present a lecture at Harvard on the relationship between blacks and Jews.  The lecture was sponsored by the WEB DuBois Institute, which was headed by Dr. Henry Louis Gates Jr., who extended the invitation.  At the time there is a big uproar over a skit held at the exclusive Friar’s Club in which a Roast was held for the black comedienne who goes by the stage name Whoopi Goldberg.  It is customary for the honoree to become the object of derisive but good natured jokes told by friends and colleagues.  It’s a showbiz thing.

However there is an understanding that the jokes told are designed for the audience to laugh with the object of the roast not at them, which is the difference between good humor and ridicule.  It is a thin line that all comedians who use personal insult as a subject of jokes must be aware of; crossing it can result in real offense.  This is what happened when Whoopi’s Jewish boyfriend Ted Danson appeared in black face and Afro-wig then proceeded to call her a bunch of “niggers.”  The black people in the room were shocked and outraged; television host and former Naval Intelligence Officer Montel Williams said he felt like he was at a Ku Klux Klan meeting and New York Mayor David Dinkins said it was way over the top.

I wrote a column about it in the Daily News and I began my Harvard speech, “Strange Bedfellows: On blacks and Jews in America,” by reading it.  The point was to show how Jews, enjoying the racial privilege bequeathed by white skin in America, were given license  to exploit the Afro-American image in public venues that Afro-Americans were not allowed to do with the Jewish image without being labeled “anti-Semitic” and paying a big price.  Yet the Sambo image represented by burnt cork faces and Afro-wigs is an offensive a symbol to Afro-Americans as the Swastika is to Jews.

Titled “Dear Whoppi & Ted: Sambo is Still Not Funny,” I offered the following observations.   “Like Jim Crow Sambo has had a strange career.  He was last seen in black tux and tails, high hat, burnt cork face and grotesquely large lips professing his love for his Whoopi at the Friars Club.  Not everyone at the party was amused….This incident raises serious issues and poses fundamental questions about how the Afro-American image is exploited in the public arena.”

Danson had offered an apology, just as Dov Hikind has now done, only much faster.  “Words by themselves are not racist; racism is a matter of intent” he said.  My response was “No matter how well intended, Danson’s apologia is sophistry.  Negative images of African Americans are deeply embedded in the national culture, collective memory and imagination of Euro-Americans.”

I went on to review the history of the Sambo figure, quoting Professor Joseph Botkin’s authoritative study, Sambo: the Rise and Demise of an American Jester.  ‘The life of Sambo began with the early colonization efforts of the 17th century…Sambo’s existence gradually evolved as western Europeans directed the energies of blacks on the Sugar plantations in the West Indies and the Tobacco fields of Virginia and Maryland.  Sambo was born during the infancy of the American Republic and over a period of time, Sambo became an integral part of the colonial family…Sambo was the first truly indigenous American humor character throughout the culture.”

By the middle of the 19th century the Sambo figure reached the height of popularity in the Blackface Minstrle show, when it was first Anglo-Saxon performers like Thomas “Daddy Dan” Rice who “blacked up,” then the role was dominated by Irishman, and by the early twentieth century the major black face stars were the Al Jolson and Eddie Cantor, both Jews.   And their acts were a big hit; Jolson was the biggest act of his time after he made the first “Talkie” movie with sound: “The Jazz Singer.”  It was a complete rip off of Afro-American culture that the world witnessed first as a parody of the real thing.

The movie was a big hit, grossing almost four million and almost two million in profits.  With the great success of Al Jolson the Jewish movie Moguls who built Hollywood made many movies with the Sambo figure, even when they began to employ real black  actors  – like Stepin  Fetchin, Willie Best, Mantan Moreland, Eddie Rochester Anderson, etc. – which froze the black actor in that role for decades.

Hence Jews in Blackface is no joke, it is a tawdry tale that cost the black community dearly.  When the sensational song/dance/comedy team Bert Williams and George Walker formed their act in San Francisco during 1893, there were so many white acts performing in blackface the billed themselves as “Two Real Coons.”  George Walker, a handsome dark skinned man who sometimes billed himself as “Mr. Chocolate Drop,” refused to black up, but Bert Williams was forced to paint his face with burnt cork in order to work in the Ziegfeld Follies – which was then the greatest show in the country…if not the world!

This is the painful history that Dov Hikind has conjured up.  And if he doesn’t know it, then he should study the history of this country more carefully instead of just the Jewish experience.  But I don’t think he really wanted to know.  If he did he need only reference the  big blow-up in this city after former Mayor “Crazy Eddie” Kotch performed a blackface routine with Afro-wig while he was serving as the Mayor.  And that’s unacceptable for an elected official in a city with a large Afro-American population.  And we won’t stand for it!

Like Crazy Eddie, “Dumb Dovie” is an ultra-nationalist Jew, and they guard the Jewish image very carefully; ever ready to do battle with anyone who insults the Jewish community.  Hence he should understand that Afro-Americans are as jealous of our image as American Jews are of theirs.  Furthermore this is the 21st century, not the 19th or 20th, and we will not stand for racist insults by public officials.

That’s why Hikind ended up apologizing profusely after first doubling down. His “wrong and strong” routine sparked a fury from the Black community who were joined by anti-racist from all communities including the Jewish community, and he was roundly rebuked. A bit of free advice Dovie: You better Check yo self before yo wreck yoself!  ”


 Al Jolson

Al Jolson

This Jew Became the Biggest Star in Show business Blacking Up

Eddie Cantor


A Major Jewish Star All Blacked Up

Bert Williams


Forced to Black Up to work in the Ziegfeld Follies


Stepin Fetchit and will Rogers 


Jewish Movie Moguls ferred the Sambo Image to real Black Actors!


(Double click to view)

Al Jolson In “The Jazz Singer”

Eddie Cantor On Stage

Playthell G. Benjamin
Harlem, New York
February 27, 2913

A Note to Republicans in Congress!

Posted in Playthell on politics with tags , on February 20, 2013 by playthell
Portman and Ryan
Congressman Paul Ryan and Senator Rob Portman

Do your Damned Job!

Of all the criticisms leveled at President Obama the one that strikes me as the silliest and most unfair is the complaint that the reason Republicans refuse to work with him on critical legislation is because he doesn’t hang out with them and court them as if he were wooing a teenage girl.

We are expected to believe that on issues as important as the impending budget “Sequester,” a fiscal time bomb that was never supposed to go off and if it does will be a devastating blow to the US economy that could throw us back into depression, the Republicans in Congress are refusing to act because the president hasen’t been swilling “keggers” with them.  It is hard to imagine a more patently ridiculous argument!

Aside from the fact that the President faces myriad issues daily that only he can deal with, and this consumes the lion’s share of his day, he is also a husband and father of two teenage daughters.  One would think that this would be applauded by Republicans; since they never tire of preaching the virtues of family life. The people who are upset that he is not a schmoozer appear to overlook the fact that he has a right to a private life, and that this is important to his personal well-being and state of mind.

Hence one need not languish in deep contemplation on this issue because it is prima facie absurd. The Republican Congress is presumably composed of mature, thoughtful adults, people who were elected by their constituents to conduct the business of the nation by passing legislation designed to solve the problems that constantly arise in the life of a great nation. While the drafters of the Constitution intended for it to be difficult to pass laws that will affect the course of the nation and the well-being of the citizenry, they certainly didn’t intend to make it impossible to govern.

There is a school of thought that believes the three fold division of power – with the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government checking and balancing each other – is a good idea in theory but contains the seeds for disaster.  There was always the possibility that it could result in gridlock that makes it impossible to govern; yet the fact that 200 years later we have emerged as the most powerful nation in the world provides impressive evidence that it was a good idea.

For most of our history this system has served the American people well.  It has achieved its main objectives admirably: preventing the rise of a tyrant and offering an alternative to armed insurrections in order to transfer power. After all, these were men who witnessed the tyrannies of the Old World and wanted to create a system that would prevent the rise of tyranny in the nation they were forming.

There is grand irony in all of this, because one could argue that the Founders’ fear of tyranny was fueled by hypocrisy in that they were enslaving Africans and dispossessing indigenous Americans of their lands by force of arms: there were no greater tyrannies anywhere in the world. It was a glaring contradiction that most of the Founding fathers chose not to deal with when they were drafting the Constitution –which is why the word slavery is never mentioned in this exalted document – but the great abolitionist and moral clarion Frederick Douglass never tired of pointing out.

And recent historical scholarship such as Dr. Gerald Horne’s book “Negro Comrades of the Crown, and Slave Nation, by the law professors Alfred and Ruth Blumrosen, convincingly argue that preserving African slavery, not the freedom of white colonists, was the motive force that propelled the war for independence against England and was a powerful influence in shaping the US Constitution.

Hence one could argue that the Founders fear of tyranny was magnified by their practices toward black people.  After all, preaching one thing and practicing another is at best base hypocrisy and Schizophrenia at worse.  All of these fears and contradictions no doubt played a role in shaping the Founders views about checks and balances on government actors and the power they wield.

It also explains why the military was placed under a civilian Commander-In-Chief, and why they included an impeachment process for Presidents or Federal Judges with lifelong appointments. This is also the reason why power is diffused into state and municipal governments, and the resulting ambiguity around exactly who has jurisdiction over what is the reason why we are still arguing about these questions over two centuries later.

When all things are considered, the Founders believed that all parties would act in the best interests of the nation.  Never in their wildest imagination did they dream that contending political parties would elevate the interests of their party over the vital interests of the nation, and that compromise, which is built into system they created, would be viewed as betrayal!

Obviously when this happens the system breaks down and becomes dysfunctional.   In the worst case scenario the country degenerated into civil war…and today the triumph of ideology over pragmatism among Republicans has turned the Grand Old Party into the “Grand Obstructionist Party” and it has crippled our government’s ability to govern.  Hence there are critical issues that cannot be addressed; the result of which is a continuous series of self-induced crises

If anybody thinks that the hard left is innocent of these vices: think again.  The far left is as irrational as the far right when it comes to the imperative of comprise as a vital part of the America political process.  Leftist ideologues have called the President as many nasty names as the so-called Tea Party Patriots – Check out  the essays compiled under “My Struggles on the Left” on this blog – and would be every bit as dangerous if they wielded the political power exercised by the right.

The result is an increasingly dysfunctional government unable to address the pressing problems facing our country; it is a situation that portends disaster!  That’s why the President is taking his case to the electorate in a series of public speeches designed to educate them on what is at stake in the looming sequester.  As I write he is holding a press conference with First Responders, the people we all depend upon when disaster strikes – whether man made or from natural causes i.e. Katrina, Sandy or the 9/11 terrorist attack by Islamic Jihadists.

The picture the President is painting of the consequences if the sequester goes into effect are dire and frightening.  And he is skillfully posing this scenario as the result of a choice by Republicans to inflict pain on the American people, and shoot craps with the fate of the nation, just to save the filthy rich a few dollars in taxes.

This is an especially odious choice since the rich wouldn’t even miss the money, but the fate of many Americans will become imperiled.  And by flashing the numbers of Americans who will lose their homes, jobs and other vital assets, along with those who will lose vital government assets, his message takes on great power.

Taking it to the Streets

barack-obama-2011-with first responders

The President with First Responders

And the President is scaring the hell out of Republicans, who fear that they will be blamed should the disastrous sequester actually kick in.  You can hear it in the mealy mouthed whining of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell; he who pledged to throttle the Obama Presidency through non-cooperation, making the failure of the Obama presidency not the welfare of the nation the Republican goal.  And it is echoed in the increasing panic of John Boehner, “The Weeper of the House.”

What we have here is a deep ideological divide, contending and irreconcilable views of the role of government. And although some of these Republicans know this is self-destructive folly, the far right racist constituency they must appeal to in order to avoid having to face an opponent who is further to the right in the next primary election, will brook no compromise with the Democrats…especially this president: a bumptious, uppity nigger who thinks he’s smarter than everybody else

This problem runs so deep it’s in the DNA of the contemporary GOP, and it cannot be solved by the President having a few beers and shootin the shit with these guys! Not when it’s a political liability to even be seen with the President – it cost Charlie Crist his Job as Governor of Florida!  That’s why all of them snubbed the President’s invitation to come up and view the bio pic of Abraham Lincoln, the greatest President of in their Party’s history, along with less dramatic snubs.

Hence it is nauseating to hear pompous sophists and intellectual poseurs like Joe Scarborough – a failed politician who now pretends to the role of political wise guy – and his chattering cronies, promoting the bogus argument that the reason the Republicans refuse to participate in responsibly conducting the nation’s business is because Barack doesn’t hob nob with them after hours.  I would like them a simple solution that appears to have evaded the talking heads: JUST DO YOUR DAMNED JOB!!!


Playthell G. Benjamin
Harlem, New York
February 19, 2013

A Gun Crazy Nation!

Posted in Playthell on politics with tags , , , on February 14, 2013 by playthell

Camden+Violence+Gun+Buyback - illegal guns confiscated on the streets of Camded

            Illegal Guns taken from the Streets of Camden New Jersey

 It’s Time to Repeal the Second Amendment

It was great to hear President Obama address the gun plague in the most passionate language ever spoken on the subject by a President in a State of the Union address, according to the presidential historians.  Yet given the escalating slaughter of innocents by gun wielding madmen and criminals: It was too little too late.  Although the gun freaks and their lobbyist in the NRA and the American Gun Owners Association portray the President’s call for gun controls as government tyranny that violates the Second Amendment, I think the Second Amendment itself is the problem.

It is a dangerous anachronism that should be repealed!  The reason I think repeal is the only way out of this nightmare of random mass murders by demented gunman seeking a place in history, is because so long as it remains intact its meaning will be subject to interpretation by the Courts, which vacillates according to their political orientation – despite its pious claim to be above politics.  Hence it will be impossible to control the flow of guns, so long as it is left up to the states to pass gun control laws, and some do while some don’t.

The course we must take to end the gun scourge is therefore clear. We must repeal the Second amendment!  Without repealing this amendment our government cannot fulfill its most fundamental obligation to the nation’s citizens: To maintain law and order and protect them from violence which can take their lives or ruin what is left of it, robbing them of any chance at the “pursuit of happiness.”

For instance, I have a friend who had a luminous smile, that’s what I would always think of when I thought of him; that smile which could light up the dark corners of life.   But now the light has abandoned that smile: It went out when his four year old grandson was shot through the head while playing in his front yard, and two thugs started shooting like it was the gunfight at OK Corral.

This was in Camden New Jersey. Homicide has become a part of the rhythm of life in the black neighborhoods of Camden.  Another buddy of mine, a hip savvy guy who led a fabulous life before retirement and is the great Nephew of Dr. WEB DuBois, grew up in Camden and remembers when it was a wonderful place to live.  Now he doesn’t go out at night, because although gun violence does not break out “everywhere it can happen anywhere…not all the time but anytime,” as his distinguished ancestor once said of white American violence against Afro-Americans a century ago.

And yet Camden is not even the most dangerous city in America; Philadelphia, just across the Delaware River, is more dangerous than Baghdad!  I chose Camden because I came across this picture above while listening to a debate about gun control on CNN; the guns in the picture were taken from the streets of Camden, and they had been illegally acquired by their previous owners.  These guns were not found due to detective work, their acquisition is the result of a city sponsored program to buy them from their illegal owners.

The nature of the program tells us that they come from the lower class, more than likely from the Lumpen-Proletariat – that class who are forced to engage in a Darwinian struggle for bread with no formal connection to the legitimate economy.  Young men with no prospects of gainful employment at a living wage; no family who can support them; few educational opportunities; unmarried because they cannot support a family; so they father babies with several women and are plagued with ‘baby mama” dramas.  Hence taking up a gun often becomes the only way they can feel like men besides seducing females, which is hard to do with no green in yo jeans.  It is from this class that the majority of gun violence is committed.

The term of art for this social strata among contemporary sociologists is “the underclass,” and they are the ones who are mainly responsible for turning Chicago into a free fire zone, where whole families get wiped out by gun violence.  Five hundred were slaughtered with guns last year, and forty people have been murdered this month, including the murder of Hadiya Pendleton – a beautiful, bright young lady who had recently performed at President Obama’s inauguration.  In order to place the Chicago murder rate in perspective, consider the following facts.  The murder rate by gunfire in Chicago averages out to better than one a day.

During the height of the race war waged against black America by white racist 1880 -1915, when lynching was at its peak – a black person was killed by white Americans at the rate of one every two and a half days for the entire country.  Tragically, the murder rate for Afro-Americans by the guns of black criminals in the city of Chicago alone more than doubles that.  The murder rates of black citizens – as well as shootouts between criminals – exceed the death rates from Iraq or Afghanistan during the most intense periods of combat!

Yet all attempts by the City of Chicago – as in Philadelphia and myriad other cities – to control the flow of illegal guns on the streets of their cities has been defeated.  Their main enemies have been the state legislatures and the Supreme Court.  Both of these bodies maintain that their opposition to gun control laws is simply a defense of the Second Amendment.

In the case of Chicago, the Supreme Court ruled that their anti-handgun laws were unconstitutional.  The Court’s decision came in the case of Otis Macdonald et al v the City of Oak Park, which was brought by a 76 year old Afro-American, who argued that the gun laws rendered him defenseless in a neighborhood overrun by violent criminals.

The majority opinion was written by Justice Clarence Thomas and was hailed as a masterpiece of “Originalist scholarship.”  The term refers to a school of legal thought advocated by Justice Antonin Scalia, which argues that the Constitution should be strictly interpreted based on the “original intent” of the framers.   Based upon this interpretation the entire matter should be left for historians to decide.  But then Scalia qualified his position and said he was going to follow the meaning in the text whatever the Framers may have been thinking at the time.  Needless to say, this is an arbitrary, even dangerous, approach to the law.

Legal argument already contains enough ambiguities. That’s why the fate of a litigant or defender rest upon how a particular judge reads the law.  And when it is the Supreme Court the Constitution means whatever the sitting majority at the time says it means.  In the case of the Second Amendment the most recent cases have been decided on a 5-4 basis.

This has led to panic in the Republican Party.  For instance, at the confirmation hearings on the nomination of Justice Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions – whose own nomination to the high court was rejected because of his racist history – complained: “Our Second Amendment rights are hanging by a thread.”

 Clarence Thomas: Originalist Constitutional Scholar…
Clarence Thomas II 
….Or shameless Sophist

Since the close votes demonstrate that the Court is sharply divided on the meaning of the Second Amendment, as well as other vital constitutional issues, what could lead Justice Scalia, a so-called strict constructionist, to such a questionable stance on the law?  Could it be that some of his positions are constructed on shaky historical grounds?  Well, in the case of the Second Amendment the right wing has based its argument on invented history; which is to say that the historical evidence does not support their conclusion that the architects of the Constitution intended for every American citizen to possesses a personal arsenal.

In a desperate effort to find some evidence that the Founding Fathers intended for the Second Amendment to arm American citizens to defend themselves against a tyrannical Federal government, right wing ideologues have manufactured a quote and attributed it to three different people, depending whose telling the tale.  “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government,” goes the quote, which they have attributed at various times to Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Thomas Paine, and The Federalist

However there is no evidence that any of them said this.  Yet this idea has become a staple on the far right and is echoed in the rhetoric of right-wing kooks and ignoramuses like Congressman Ron Paul, Michelle Bachman and rejected senatorial candidate Sharon Engle of Nevada.  Anyone who understands anything about the history of revolutions understands that the first thing revolutionists do when they seize power is restore order by any means necessary, including establishing martial law and often a dictatorship until the new order is firmly established.

To believe that the 55 delegates – mostly lawyers, businessmen and big landowners and slaveholders – who drafted the US Constitution would produce a documented that invited their overthrow by armed citizens who disagreed with their policies flies in the face of history and denies all that we know about human nature and the priorities of businessmen.

It is axiomatic that businessmen everywhere prefer a tranquil environment – nobody wants to invest in a war zone where the outcome is uncertain and thus the fate of their investment.  Furthermore, the framers of the Constitution had recently witnessed the chaos that could ensue when armed citizens rose up against the government of the colony of Massachusetts in Shays Rebellion.  Enraged by the foreclosure of farms over unpaid debts and high taxes imposed from faraway Boston, and the arrest of delinquent landowners, armed farmers in Western Massachusetts led by Daniel Shays, a former army officer during the Revolutionary war against England, seized the courthouse in Southampton during the fall of 1786.

It took until winter of 1787 before the rebellion was suppressed by government forces; just a few months before the Constitutional Convention convened during the steamy dog days of August.  To believe that these cautious men – who didn’t even include a bill of rights in the original document, which is why they comprise the first ten amendments to the Constitution – defies reason.

At the time the newly independent North American colonies was governed under the Articles of Confederation.  It would greatly profit Americans who think weakening the federal government is a good idea to study the experience of trying to govern under that system.   It was such a nightmare the framers of the constitution were determined to scarp it for something better; a more effective way of governing.

Hence it is no accident of history that the Preamble to the US Constitution, which establishes its intent and purpose reads: We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”  Anyone with knowledge of the history of this period cannot fail to see that the emphasis on forming “a more perfect Union” and “insuring domestic tranquility” is a direct response to the dangers of a dysfunctional union where the central government depended on the whims of thirteen sovereign colonies.

For instance, under the Articles of Confederation the central government’s inability to establish a uniform system of weights and measures, or determine the rate of tariffs in conducting trade among the colonies, or even defend the Congress against disgruntled veterans of the Continental Army – which forced them to flee from Philadelphia and hasten across the Delaware to seek refuge Camden New Jersey.  All of these were critical reasons that prompted the Founding Fathers to design a compact that would strengthen the Federal government in 1787, the compact they worked out emerged as the US Constitution, which provides for the removal of any public official who does not carry out the will of the majority of the people: The vote and the impeachment process.  Hence there is no need for armed citizens to defend themselvs against their government.

And there is abundant evidence that this was also the understanding, indeed the preference, of the governors of the colonies, who were horrified at the idea that some citizens thought they had license to take up guns to resolve differences with the government.  They all viewed such action as an invitation to disaster. And it was discussed among those in attendance at the Constitutional convention.

Speaking to the delegates at the convention in Philadelphia, Gouverneur Morrison of Pennsylvania warned the delegates that failure would precipitate new outbreaks of rebellion. “The scenes of horror attending civil commotion cannot be described, and the conclusion of them will be worse than the term of their continuance,” he said. “The stronger party will then make traitors of the weaker; and the gallows & halter will finish the work of the sword.”

And George Washington, who was elected President of the newly formed United States of America – the same year that Louis XVI and Marie Antionette, the King and Queen of France, were beheaded in the Place de la Concorde in Paris – made it clear what he thought of the “insurrectionist interpretation” of the Second Amendment.  He personally led troops to suppress a group of Pennsylvania farmers who took up arms against the newly formed federal government that had imposed a tax on “distilled spirits” in 1791.

The incident is remembered as the “Whisky Rebellion,” and is the only instance in American history when a sitting president led troops in the field. George Washington’s position was clear on the issue of the right of disgruntled citizens to take up arms against the government over unpopular policies.

To yield to the treasonable fury of so small a portion of the United States, would be to violate the fundamental principle of our constitution, which enjoins that the will of the majority shall prevail. . . . Succeeding intelligence has tended to manifest the necessity of what has been done; it being now confessed by those who were not inclined to exaggerate the ill-conduct of the insurgents, that their malevolence was not pointed merely to a particular law; but that a spirit, inimical to all order, has actuated many of the offenders.”

The mere fact that the original intent of the drafters of the US Constitution can be so distorted by contemporary politicians, journalists and pro-gun pressure groups like the National Rifle Association and the Gun Owners of America, plus given legal credibility by right wing jurist, provides a compelling reasons to repeal the Second Amendment, and end the gun plague that imperils the “domestic tranquility” of the nation that is cited in the preamble to the Constitution as a fundamental reason for its creation.

It is a promise to the citizens of this nation that transcends the obsessions of the gun nuts!   Now that the course of events has demonstrated that this cannot be achieved while the nation is awash in guns…it’s a no brainer what course we should take: Repeal the god dammed Second amendment!

 The Insurrectionists are Stockpiling Military Weapons
        U.S. Gun Sales Reach Record Levels In 2012
Preparing to fight the Federal Government
Playthell G. Benjamin
Harlem, New York
Februrary 13, 2013

More Dangerous than Django!

Posted in Playthell on politics with tags , , on February 11, 2013 by playthell

Christian Jordon Doner - black avenger

The Happy Bush Whacker


And he’s All the Way Live

“Good name in man and woman, dear my lord, Is the immediate jewel of their souls:
Who steals my purse steals trash; ’tis something, nothing; ‘Twas mine, ’tis his, and has been slave to thousands; But he that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him And makes me poor indeed.”   William Shakespeare


Political officials in southern California have just announced that they are placing a million dollar bounty on the head of Christopher Dorner the 270 pound angry black man who is an ex-cop, naval officer and military sharp shooter that is terrorizing members of the Los Angeles police department.  Described by his former “brothers in blue” as “a trained assassin,” Dorner is accused of having gunned down the daughter and future son-in law of his former superior in the LAPD, and opened fire on a squad car killing one officer.

Yet in listening to the statements from politicians and police officials, one finds no plausible explanation for this murderous outburst from a man who has dedicated his life to the defense of this nation and its citizens, at home and abroad.  And the press is not doing a much better job at it.   The gaps in reportage was noted by that indefatigable media watchdog and great American writer Ishmael Reed, who did a content analysis of a CNN report on the shooter, but he pointed out that it never mentioned the charges of racism, anti-Semitism and abuse of police powers made by Dorner.

According to Christopher Dorner it was his attempt to expose these practices by blowing the whistle on offending officers, who appear to be white that led to a conspiracy by fellow officers, in cahoots with police brass, to drive him out of the LAPD.   According to Dorner his problems with the LAPD began with the following incident:

In 8/07 I reported an officer (Ofcr. Teresa Evans/now a Sergeant), for kicking a suspect (excessive force) during a Use of Force while I was assigned as a patrol officer at LAPD’s Harbor Division. While cuffing the suspect, (Christopher Gettler), Evans kicked the suspect twice in the chest and once in the face. The kick to the face left a visible injury on the left cheek below the eye. Unfortunately after reporting it to supervisors and investigated by PSB (internal affairs investigator Det. Villanueva/Gallegos), nothing was done. I had broken their supposed “Blue Line”. Unfortunately, It’s not JUST US, it’s JUSTICE!!! “

Mr. Dorner goes on to tell an incredible tale about what followed.

“In fact, 10 months later on 6/25/08, after already successfully completing probation, acquiring a basic Post Certificate, and Intermediate Post Certificate, I was relieved of duty by the LAPD while assigned to patrol at Southwest division. It is clear as day that the department retaliated toward me for reporting Evans for kicking Mr. Christopher Gettler. The department stated that I had lied and made up the report that Evans had kicked the suspect. I later went to a Board of Rights (department hearing for decision of continued employment) from 10/08 to 1/09. During this BOR hearing a video was played for the BOR panel where Christopher Gettler stated that he was indeed kicked by Officer Evans (video sent to multiple news agencies). In addition to Christopher Gettler stating he was kicked, his father Richard Gettler, also stated that his son had stated he was kicked by an officer when he was arrested after being released from custody.”

Then Dorner describes what must have seemed like a surreal experience, and it destroyed his faith in the integrity of the LAPD, as he describes all of the cronyism, chicanery and double dealing in the process that led to his demise:

“This was all presented for the department at the BOR hearing. They still found me guilty and terminated me. What they didn’t mention was that the BOR panel made up of Capt. Phil Tingirides, Capt. Justin Eisenberg, and City Attorney Martella had a signigicant problem from the time the board was assembled. Capt. Phil Tingirides was a personal friend of Teresa Evans from when he was her supervisor at Harbor station. That is a clear conflict of interest and I made my argument for his removal early and was denied. The advocate for the LAPD BOR was Sgt. Anderson. Anderson also had a conflict of interest as she was Evans friend and former partner from Harbor division where they both worked patrol together. I made my argument for her removal when I discovered her relation to Evans and it was denied.”

From all that I have heard from those who worked with him, most of whom don’t want to appear on camera for security reasons, Dorner loved his job as a cop; he was what we used to call in the military “gung ho.” And I have seen no compelling evidence of wrongdoing that would justify the LAPD kicking him to the curb.  Alas until the police department addresses this question in a convincing manner, I shall be forced to rely on Mr. Dorner’s version of the story.

Dorner says he has resorted to violence because the LAPD has besmirched his good name and smeared his reputation with invented lies.  He has demanded only two things: an apology from the LA Chief of Police, and that the press investigates his charges of racism and corruption in the LAPD.  Thus far neither request has been met.  The Police Chief Beck, responded to questions about Dorner’s complaints at his press conference with this arrogant comment: “This is a homicide suspect who has committed atrocious crimes. If you want to give any attribution to his ramblings on the Internet, go ahead, but I do not!”

Hence it is reasonable to conclude that the killings will go on until they catch him. He tells us in an eleven page manifesto that he posted online the importance he places on his good name…which he claims the LAPD callously destroyed to conceal its crimes against citizens of that that city.

“The question is, what would you do to clear your name?   Name; A word or set of words by which a person, animal, place, or thing is referred to. Synonyms: reputation, title, appellation, denomination, repute.  A name is more than just a noun, verb, or adjective. It’s your life, your legacy, your journey, sacrifices, and everything you’ve worked hard for every day of your life as an adolescent, young adult and adult. Don’t let anybody tarnish it when you know you’ve live up to your own set of ethics and personal ethos.” 

After telling a round unvarnished tale of whole sale violation of the rights of citizens, especially non-whites, whom the white officers regularly called “niggers” while inflicting physical abuse, Dorner goes on to observe in his manifesto:

Terminating me for telling the truth of a Caucasian officer kicking a mentally ill man is disgusting. Don’t ever call me a fucking bully. I want all journalists to utilize every source you have that specializes in collections for your reports. With the discovery and evidence available you will see the truth. Unfortunately, I will not be alive to see my name cleared. That’s what this is about, my name. A man is nothing without his name. Below is a list of locations where I resided from childhood to adulthood.”

To describe this man as a common criminal is obviously a misnomer, although one can readily see why it is convenient to do so. That way they don’t have to investigate his charges; they can simply dismiss them.  However if Christopher Dorner were a common criminal he would probably be conducting a clandestine robbing spree and living it up in anonymity; knocking off a cop whenever he wanted and not getting away with it. Instead he chose to commit acts of public violence against the police force…a decision that he clearly believes will end in his destruction…in fact he predicts it in his Manifesto.

This is not the behavior of a criminal; these are the acts of a man who wishes to make a political statement that will be impossible to ignore.  And he has lost all faith in the American justice system, which he had dedicated his life to defending, to grant him justice.  Hence he has declared war on those who enforce the system, and he has his former colleagues wetting their pants when they take a leak, because they are holding their Johnson in one hand and their Roscoe in the other, and both hands are shaking.

If any substantial part of Mr. Dorner’s story is true it is clear that the LAPDs racist behavior has pushed him to the point that revenge.  He insists that he is the victim of a racist plot that no self-respecting Black man could silently endure.

“I have exhausted all available means at obtaining my name back. I have attempted all legal court efforts within appeals at the Superior Courts and California Appellate courts. This is my last resort… The LAPD has suppressed the truth and it has now lead to deadly consequences. The LAPD’s actions have cost me my law enforcement career that began on 2/7/05 and ended on 1/2/09.

They cost me my Naval career which started on 4/02 and ends on 2/13. I had a TS/SCI clearance (Top Secret Sensitive Compartmentalized Information clearance) up until shortly after my termination with LAPD. This is the highest clearance a service member can attain other than a Yankee White TS/SCI which is only granted for those working with and around the President/Vice President of the United States. I lost my position as a Commanding Officer of a Naval Security Forces reserve unit at NAS Fallon because of the LAPD.

I’ve lost a relationship with my mother and sister because of the LAPD. I’ve lost a relationship with close friends because of the LAPD. In essence, I’ve lost everything because the LAPD took my name and new I was INNOCENT!!! Capt Phil Tingirides, Justin Eisenberg, Martella, Randy Quan, and Sgt. Anderson all new I was innocent but decided to terminate me so they could continue Ofcr. Teresa Evans career. I know about the meeting between all of you where Evans attorney, Rico, confessed that she kicked Christopher Gettler (excessive force.” 

Then Dorner announced with the deadly finality of judge and executioner: “Your day has come.”  After detailing what had been unjustly taken from him, Dorner once more reminds us of his real character; emphasizing that he does not fit the racist stereotypes that his white colleagues hold of young black men.

I’m not an aspiring rapper, I’m not a gang member, I’m not a dope dealer, I don’t have multiple babies momma’s. I am an American by choice, I am a son, I am a brother, I am a military service member, I am a man who has lost complete faith in the system, when the system betrayed, slandered, and libeled me. I lived a good life and though not a religious man I always stuck to my own personal code of ethics, ethos and always stuck to my shoreline and true North. I didn’t need the US Navy to instill Honor, Courage, and Commitment in me but I thank them for re-enforcing it. It’s in my DNA.

His fellow cops may claim not to understand Dorner’s motives, which is what whites always do when they are called out on their institutionalized racist practices – they know that they have created a formidable killing machine, and their lives and those of their family and friends are in danger every minute he remains at large.  For Dorner is clear in his purpose, which he clearly spells out in his declaration of war.

I will conduct DA operations to destroy, exploit and seize designated targets. If unsuccessful or unable to meet objectives in these initial small-scale offensive actions, I will reassess my BDA and re-attack until objectives are met. I have nothing to lose. My personal casualty means nothing. Just alike AAF’s, ACM’s, and AIF’s, you can not prevail against an enemy combatant who has no fear of death. An enemy who embraces death is a lose, lose situation for their enemy combatants.  Hopefully you analyst have done your homework. You are aware that I have always been the top shot, highest score, an expert in rifle qualifications in every unit I’ve been in. I will utilize every bit of small arms training, demolition, ordnance, and survival training I’ve been given.

Do you know why we are unsuccessful in asymmetrical and guerrilla warfare in CENTCOM theatre of operations? I’ll tell you. It’s not the inefficiency of our combatant commanders, planning, readiness or training of troops. Much like the Vietnam war, ACM, AAF, foreign fighters, Jihadist, and JAM have nothing to lose. They embrace death as it is a way of life. I simply don’t fear it. I am the walking exigent circumstance you created.

The Violence of action will be HIGH. I am the reason TAC alert was established. I will bring unconventional and asymmetrical warfare to those in LAPD uniform whether on or off duty. ISR is my strength and your weakness. You will now live the life of the prey. Your RD’s and homes away from work will be my AO and battle space. I will utilize every tool within INT collections that I learned from NMITC in Dam Neck. You have misjudged a sleeping giant. There is no conventional threat assessment for me. JAM, New Ba’ath party, 1920 rev BGE, ACM, AAF, AQAP, AQIM and AQIZ have nothing on me. Do not deploy airships or gunships. SA-7 Manpads will be waiting. As you know I also own Barrett .50′s so your APC are defunct and futile.”

It is no wonder that the officers named in this manifesto are cringing in their hiding places under armed guards.  This guy is their worst nightmare.  He is akin to a killer Robot who has rejected the orders of its programmers then disappeared, and is now stalking them with all of the death dealing capacity the programmers have given it.  Dorner, a 270 pound bruiser, conjures up images of the “bad nigger” that has haunted the consciousness of many whites since Thomas Jefferson observed his slaves working in the fields one day and said: “I shudder when I reflect upon the fact that God is just.” Dorner is the kind of dude described in the old Afro-American folk ditty about Stagolee:”He got a tombstone disposition/ and a graveyard mind / He’s a mean motherfucker /and don’t give a fuck about dying!”

While the end of this story is already written, it’s anybody’s guess what kind of drama we will witness until they finally kill him.  We will follow the case closely here, and all of us should demand that his very specific charges of racism, brutality and corruption in the LAPD be seriously investigated by the national press…I, for one, am not interested in police reports on this matter because I believe they will all be self-serving.  I would welcome an investigation of the US Department of Justice!

Already there are Facebook pages and Web sites going up that present Mr. Dorner as an avenging hero who is giving the LAPD just what they deserve…one booster is even touting him for President!  And there are a lot of young black and Hispanic males in LA who view Dorner as a real life Django, as they are smoking blunts and pouring spirits in his honor.  Given his growing folk hero status Dorner might prove very hard to find because many are willing to give him aid and comfort as he scrambles to escape the widening police dragnet, which ironically was the location of the famous 1950’s  radio and television cop series Dragnet – which tempts on to wonder if life is imitating art.

Ready to Rumble

Christian Gorner

The LAPD done created a Monster!



Playthell G. Benjamin

Harlem, New York

February 11, 1013

President Obama and Black Joblessness

Posted in Playthell on politics with tags , , , on January 31, 2013 by playthell


                  Nobody knows the troubles I’ve Seen

 Is Barack to blame for Black Unemployment?

This commentary was sparked by an article posted on my Facebook page regarding a statement made by NAACP leader Ben Jealous, on the black unemployment crisis under the Obama Administration. The interpretation given this statement by some of the black commentators revealed such gross ignorance of the political process and the obstacles President Obama has faced trying to exercise his vision of government, that I was compelled to respond in the hope of adding clarity on this important issue.

Originally posted on the Website “Your Black World” – an attempt to clone the now defunct website “The Black World Today” – the article quotes Ben Jealous to the effect that “Black Americans are doing far worse than when President Obama took office…the country’s back to pretty much where it was when this president started…White people in this country are doing a bit better.  Black people are doing far worse.”  

Jealous’ statement is illustrated by numbers cited from the bureau of Labor Statistics.  “The Most staggering statistic is reported in September 2011,” we are told, “when black unemployment reached 16.7 percent – making it the highest unemployment rate for African-Americans since 1983.” 

The article goes on to tell us: “Commentators such as Yvette Carnell, Dr. Wilmer Leon and Boyce Watkins at Your Black World have consistently stated that the president’s performance should be judged based on the quality of his results not the color of his skin.”  From the comment it appears that the author considers this pedestrian observation a statement of profound insight.

However based upon the statements the author chose to cite from these commentators, one gets the impression that Mr. Obama is not to be judged on his performance in the extremely complex job as Chief Executive Officer of the United States and Commander-In-Chief of American Armed Forces; but as a racial spokesman such as Ben Jealous, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson – and according to Dr. Cornel West, MLK Jr.

We are told that these leaders intend to present the President with a “Black Agenda” that he should pursue in his next four years.   Dr. Boyce Watkins, the self-styled “People’s Scholar,” had this to say: “I’m hopeful that Ben is serious in what he’s saying about the Obama Administration, since I’m sure he’s getting in trouble with Obama’s cabinet over his remarks…I have had a hard time finding any concrete evidence whatsoever that the black community at-large has benefitted from having a bi-racial president.”  This kind of talk is more befitting a color obsessed ignoramus or charlatan than someone who expects to be taken seriously as a scholar.

Much noise was made about the fact that Dr. Watkins was refused tenure by his colleagues at Syracuse.  According to Watkins he was denied tenure because of racism, but his colleagues said his work just didn’t measure up…that he was incompetent.  Based upon his comments here I am inclined to believe his colleagues.

For if he is no better at finance than he is at political analysis he deserved to be kicked to the curb!  Having been booted out of his cushy job in the academy, Watkins now seeks to become yet another spokesman for the race, and his PR hook seems to be bashing Obama like his role model Cornel West.  Every mediocre actor knows you can always get over playing to the cheap seats.

Like the other comments cited in this article, Boyce Watkins statements are a burlesque on serious political analysis; he is a pompous poseur, just another pretentious chatty academic mediocrity.  When it comes to making a good political deal he reminds me of a man who can’t tell his ass from a hole in the ground. It is a matter of public record that President Obama has tried his best to get the Congress to pass his jobs bills, but the Republicans in the House repeatedly block it.

These jobs bills are designed to address all the unemployed, including white workers.  So I would like the know-it-alls like Boyce Watkins to tell us how the President is supposed to get a “black agenda” designed to deal specifically with black problems through this Congress?   And beyond these jobs bills will Mr. Watkins and the other “experts” please tell us what the President can do to affect the unemployment rate?  I anxiously await their answers.

The fact is that the only thing any President can do to deal with mass unemployment is what FDR did: MAKE THE GOVERNMENT THE EMPLOYER OF LAST RESORT!!!!!!  And since the president is not a king who can wave his scepter and make shit happen…tell us what he is supposed to do?  It is easy for intellectuals who have never run an election for village dog catcher to talk tough.  But the President of the United States is a politician and Chief Executive of the largest and most powerful country in the world.

Hence he can’t run around talking smack about being black…he has to govern!  Barack, brilliant politician that he is, recognizes that this would be a bad move; once he pitches the employment crisis in racial terms he will be walking into the trap the Republicans have been setting since right after he won his first term.

They want to make this a racial issue because they know that in any racial conflict they will win…this is not rocket science its basic arithmetic!  These colored jokers posing as serious thinkers just run their mouths, but Barack has to run the country!!!!  These are very different tasks that require different tactics, and if he listened to these guys “advice” Barack would be standing on the sidelines running his mouth along with them!

So Watkins and his fellow angry egg heads are full of BS, and I don’t mean bean soup.  Rather I mean the same thing the distinguished Princeton Philosopher Harry G. Franks meant in his book titled “Bullshit!”  And as for those who are claiming that Barack dissed the black church: That is a damned lie!!!!

I dare them to present any evidence for that claim!!!  As for those like Boyce Watkins, who refer to Barack as “bi-racial” in an attempt to diminish his blackness: let me remind you that so was Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington and BEN JEALOUS!!!!!!   So what has that got to do with anything?  Is Clarence Thomas, Herman Cain, Allen West, Allen Keyes and Tim Scott black enough for you?  Please grow the hell up and act like rational beings!!!!!!!

When Work Disappears


The community is thrown into crisis

If Watkins, Cornel West and their fellow malcontent eggheads want to actually do something constructive: ORGANIZE A MILLION WORKER MARCH ON THE CONGRESS TO INSIST THAT THE PASS THE PRESIDENT’S JOBS BILL!!!   Furthermore, I see a lot of doctors by the name of the President’s black critics, but I see no important SCHOLARLY WORKS on the president’s actual accomplishments from them.  ALL OF THE IMPORTANT WORK IS BEING DONE BY OTHER – MAINLY WHITE – SCHOLARS AND JOURNALISTS!!!

Anyone who really wants some in-depth analysis of President Obama’s accomplishments that benefited black people should hurry up and read, “THE New New Deal” by the award winning Time magazine reporter Michael Grunwald, and if you want to know why he has not been able to do more read “It’s Even Worse Than it Looks,” by the leading scholars on the US Congress, Norman J. Ornstein and Thomas E. Mann.

But one need not dig so deeply to recognize the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act will be a tremendous benefit to the black community where 70% or more households are headed by women!  And who will benefit more from taking the banks out of the College Loan program?  What about the $100 million dollar grant to black colleges, what about universal health care?  Clearly Watkins is either a bald headed liar or a damned fool!!!!

If the president’s black critics read some real scholarship they would not be taking these intellectual lightweights like Boyce Watkins and Cornel West so seriously.  And if you want a broad based understanding of the President’s foreign and domestic policies there are 500 essays that deal with these questions incisively at

Incidently there is a section titled “On Dr. Cornel West,” in which there are nine essays where he is seriously critiqued the way he has called for critiquing President Obama…and he fares far worse than the President.  If the veil of ignorance remains firmly over your eyes regarding the facts about Barack Obama’s actual achievements it’s your own damned fault!  So go sit down somewhere and shut your silly trap!!!!!!


Playthell George Benjamin

Harlem New York

January 3, 2013

Reclaiming the Liberal Legacy

Posted in Playthell on politics with tags , , on January 25, 2013 by playthell

Barack being fortified with the laying on of hands.

The Chosen One

Reflections on Obama’s Second Inaugural Address

      Grand occasions of state demand high flown rhetoric, soaring eloquence and optimistic visions for the future from the orators tasked with celebrating the august event.  President Obama satisfied these demands in high style in his second Inaugural address; a speech marked by brutal honesty and impassioned eloquence designed to present the liberal democratic case as millions of his countrymen listened with greedy ears and joyous hearts to his message of hope and progress, as he navigates the ship of state through troubled waters during his next four years at the helm.  It was a stake through the heart of the Darwinian Reaganite clap trap that “government is the problem,” which has become the mantra of the Grand Obstructionist Party.

Jettisoning the ultra-cool demeanor that earned him the moniker “No Drama Obama,” Chilly B. began his speech with a strong declarative statement: “What makes us exceptional — what makes us American — is our allegiance to an idea, articulated in a declaration made more than two centuries ago: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’”  The newly reelected President went on to quickly point out, “While these truths may be self-evident, they have never been self-executing; that while freedom is a gift from God, it must be secured by his people here on earth.”

While these claims are more or less true, depending upon one’s perspective, his next claim, although it has become conventional wisdom, is a burlesque on history. “The patriots of 1776 did not fight to replace the tyranny of a king with the privileges of a few or the rule of a mob. They gave to us a Republic, a government of, and by, and for the people, entrusting each generation to keep safe our founding creed.” 

But, in truth, all of these statements are more myth than history.  It is at best special pleading, an attempt to make American history harmonize with the Master Narrative of US civilization, which is spun by the official mythmakers and based on a strong foundation of “American Exceptionalism.”  All successful American politicians, especially those who pretend to the highest office, must pay homage to this bogus self-righteous myth if they are to have a ghost of a chance at success.

For instance while it is true that the Founding fathers gave us a republic, they gave us a slaveholding Republic like Rome.  A patrician democracy where even among the free white population voting was conceived of as a right that should be restricted to straight, property holding, white Christian males!  Hence from the outset their practice contradicted their preachment about the equality of man.  This resulted in an unequal society where the majority of wealth and power in America is still monopolized by a small minority of white males.

To erase the glaring contradiction of African slavery in their newly minted “democracy” it became necessary to deny the humanity of black people. Frederick Douglass described what that did to the promise of America and the character of white Americans in his 4th of July speech in 1852. I wish Barack had quoted from Douglass, especially since we are still suffering the consequences of America’s racist legacy – most notably in the distribution of wealth by race and gender.

However the President is a constitutional scholar who knows a lot of American history – in striking contrast to most of the Republicans who run around invoking the Constitution as if they are quoting scripture, and are equally ignorant of both the Bible and the Constitution – hence he knows that he is fudging the facts, but he also recognizes that he is cast in the role of politician not professor. Hence political propaganda designed to inspire the electorate and win them to his position in the policy debates, not fastidious professorial pontification which could alienate them with his facts, was Mr. Obama’s  objective.  In reading the speech I have taken the President’s objectives into account.

Yet, even so, I believe the President would have actually strengthened his argument had he donned his professor’s cap for a brief interval and told the tawdry tale of how men who created a radical document that celebrated a universal humanism, and appointed the people as the ultimate arbiters of who shall rule them,  declaring that those who would govern must first gain the consent of those to be governed, was betrayed by greed and racism.  It is quite enough to say that this was a new idea in the world, and it has changed the world for the better, then quote Frederick Douglass on the realities of life for African Americans in the slaveholding republic they created.

On the Fourth of July 1852, Douglass, an escaped Afro-American slave who became a brilliant writer/editor/publisher and the foremost spokesman for freedom and justice in the nation, was invited by his fellow citizens of Rochester New York to present the keynote speech at their annual celebration.  He said in part:

Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? And am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?   Would to God, both for your sakes and ours, that an affirmative answer could be truthfully returned to these questions!”

Douglass went to say what he thought of American democracy 65 years after the ratification of the US Constitution.

What to the American slave is your Fourth of July?” asked Douglass. “I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim.  To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds your of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciation of tyrants, brass-fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade and solemnity,  are, to Him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy-a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of the United States at this very hour.”

Never, to my knowledge, has anyone spoken more courageously and candidly about the shameless hypocrisy of white Americans who passionately professed their love for freedom while practicing an absolute tyranny against millions of their countrymen on the basis of something as superficial as skin color, a biological characteristic that has nothing to do with the content of one’s character.  It is both hypocritical and pathological….a species of collective madness.

This historic hypocrisy on race has caused white Americans to routinely corrupt their most cherished ideals; which make racism a very touchy subject. Virtually all Euro-Americans would prefer to avoid the issue because discussing the race question inevitably brings up the subject of benefit, injury and blame.  Who benefitted from the American racial caste system that spans over three quarters of our history all told?  Who was injured by it?  Who has the liability of compensation to the victims of the monstrous crimes against humanity represented by chattel slavery and the legal caste system that followed for a hundred years after the fall of the slaveocracy?  And, most touchy of all, there is the question of who should be compensated and for how much?

Alas, it is understandable that the President skirted these issues and it is unreasonable to expect him to have addressed them.  After all, it was a political speech designed to inspire a sense of unity in the American people and lift the spirits of the nation.  Hence it should surprise no thoughtful observer of the art of politics that the President may have found hyperbole more useful than history. I have already conceded that on this occasion Mr. Obama was a politician not a professor.   And politics is the art of the possible.

Hence if unity was his goal, a candid review of the myriad sins that stain the nation’s character was not the best strategy for achieving the president’s political objectives.  And since I believe that achieving these objectives must be the president’s paramount concern I defer to his judgment, since he is, after all, the most successful politician in American history.

To expect the President to speak with the unbridled candor of Frederick Douglass, who was an independent minded commentator/editor that was responsible only to his supporters – like yours truly – is as unrealistic as comparing him to Martin Luther King in the way that Cornel West is inclined to do.

For while Dr. King and Frederick Douglass were protest leaders, discontented agitators intent upon shaking things up, President Obama is responsible for the fate of the nation and is trying to calm things down after a very acrimonious election. Hence he must proceed with caution because what he says has serious consequences. Nevertheless, if the President had included even a carefully worded statement that succinctly capsulized the points made by Douglass it would have given more zest to his next statement.

“For more than 200 years, we have, through blood drawn by lash and blood drawn by sword, we learned that no union founded on the principles of liberty and equality could survive half-slave and half-free. We made ourselves anew, and vowed to move forward together.” 

The mention of slavery and Civil War is so opaque it sounds more like a poetic allusion whose meaning is clear only to the tutored ear well-tuned to nuances of American history.  However it is my view that it is the job of intellectuals, who are unburdened by the heavy responsibilities that weight on the President, many of whom have lifetime tenure in their jobs in great universities, or independent commentators like the present writer, to clarify these issues.

From this point on in the speech the President transitions beautifully to the present, showing how venerable American ideals persist over time and what they look like at the dawning years of the 21st century.  With a strong sense of I and thou, as espoused by the philosopher Martin Buber, Mr. Obama’s policy prescriptions are presented as a collective effort of the American people to elevate the public good over private greed. “Together, we determined that a modern economy requires railroads and highways to speed travel and commerce; schools and colleges to train our workers.” He said.

Skillfully employing the rhythmic cadences that echo the refrains of an Afro-American sermon, he reiterates “Together, we discovered that a free market only thrives when there are rules to ensure competition and fair play.  Together, we resolved that a great nation must care for the vulnerable, and protect its people from life’s worst hazards and misfortune.” In this artfully rendered passage the President pointed out the critical role of government in regulating the activities of the private business sector, and reaffirmed the virtues of the liberal welfare state.

Then Chilly B threw a mean left hook that nullified the arguments of his critics on the right, who hysterically charge that he envisions himself as an American Caeser, a law unto himself; an unrepentant fascist communist liberal who wants the government to take everybody’s guns and money.  He treated the charges as the absurdities that they are and coolly dismissed them.  “Through it all, we have never relinquished our skepticism of central authority, nor have we succumbed to the fiction that all society’s ills can be cured through government alone. Our celebration of initiative and enterprise; our insistence on hard work and personal responsibility, are constants in our character.”

 The President went on to reemphasize the role of public policy in meeting the varied needs of the American people.  It was an unmistakable repudiation of the “go it alone” philosophy of the “Free Market” ideologues in the Republican Party who are screaming bloody murder as I write.  But their cries are in vain, destined to fall on deaf ears because that ship has sailed…it was settled in the election, where the choice between President Obama’s liberal communitarian views were chosen over the Darwinian dog eat dog, survival of the fittest dogma of the GOP.

Then President Obama turned cheer leader, extolling the virtues of the American people in soaring rhetoric that expressed his undaunted confidence that together we can master any challenge. “This generation of Americans has been tested by crises that steeled our resolve and proved our resilience. A decade of war is now ending. An economic recovery has begun. America’s possibilities are limitless, for we possess all the qualities that this world without boundaries demands: youth and drive; diversity and openness; an endless capacity for risk and a gift for reinvention. My fellow Americans, we are made for this moment, and we will seize it — so long as we seize it together.”

President Obama also acknowledged that social mobility is becoming rare in the present economy, in which corporations are making greater profits from a cybernated production process that is rapidly replacing human labor with robots and other machines, creating the mass “technological unemployment” that the prescient British economist, John Maynard Keynes warned during the Great Depression of the 1930’s would be a growing problem in the future. Well that future is here.

The President has begun to address this impending tragedy for the working class by the way he invested the stimulus money in projects that could yield new technologies which will generate new jobs to address the growing structural unemployment crisis, a crisis the Republicans continue to confuse with the cyclical crisis of the boom and bust of the capitalist business cycle.  But the President knows better.

Mr. Obama understands that it will require serious government intervention in order to solve the tragic phenomenon of chronic unemployment that millions of Americans are suffering through – even as the business sector enjoys record profits as a result of the American taxpayer bailout yet, refuse to invest in America because they can get quasi slave labor overseas while enjoying the protections provided by our government.

Hence President Obama reminded the American people that “We are true to our creed when a little girl born into the bleakest poverty knows that she has the same chance to succeed as anybody else, because she is an American, she is free, and she is equal, not just in the eyes of God but also in our own.”  And he left little doubt about the responsibility of our government in making this equality a reality.

We understand that outworn programs are inadequate to the needs of our time. We must harness new ideas and technology to remake our government, revamp our tax code, reform our schools, and empower our citizens with the skills they need to work harder, learn more, and reach higher. But while the means will change, our purpose endures: a nation that rewards the effort and determination of every single American. That is what this moment requires. That is what will give real meaning to our creed.”

The President also signaled the direction of his foreign policy which, in contrast with the American Exceptionalists neo-con ideologues that beguiled the Bush Administration into launching a war of choice against and unoffending nation – is a policy that seeks peace and cooperation with other nations.  We should thank the Gods of politics that Mitt Romney didn’t become President, for he was surrounded by these crazy characters and they are trying their best to prod America into a war with Iran, at the behest of the Israeli government.  The President will be far harder to persuade than Mitt.

Mr. Obama summed up his views on foreign relations thusly.

“We will defend our people and uphold our values through strength of arms and rule of law. We will show the courage to try and resolve our differences with other nations peacefully — not because we are naive about the dangers we face, but because engagement can more durably lift suspicion and fear. America will remain the anchor of strong alliances in every corner of the globe; and we will renew those institutions that extend our capacity to manage crisis abroad, for no one has a greater stake in a peaceful world than its most powerful nation.” 

Predictably, neo-con hacks like William Kristol Jr., who, as the Director of the far right think tank Project for a New American Century, was a major architect of the catastrophic Bush Iraq war policy, attacking the President’s quest for peace and glorifying war.  He is just the sort of petulant little Republican chicken hawk who loves to start wars for others to fight.  But he doesn’t get it.  Americans have had more than their fill of foreign military adventures: hence his day is done!  He is just one more hysterical Republican chatter box cutting the fool in public.

It is clear that President Obama fully realized the importance of his inauguration taking place on the holiday of Dr. Martin Luther King, and he left no doubt that he considers it an ancestral imperative to continue Dr. Kings legacy of expanding human freedom and fighting to elevate the least of us.  Symbolically he declared himself by using Dr. King’s personal Bible to swear his oath of office, an unprecedented honor no black American has ever received, and he declared himself rhetorically with this unambiguous statement.

“We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths — that all of us are created equal — is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall; just as it guided all those men and women, sung and unsung, who left footprints along this great Mall, to hear a preacher say that we cannot walk alone; to hear a King proclaim that our individual freedom is inextricably bound to the freedom of every soul on earth.”

The Spirit of Dr. King was Omnipresent

Barack and Dt. King 

Invoked by President Obama

Barack Obama has done Dr. King, and the rest of us, proud despite the hysterical blather of Corny West, the clown prince of Obama bashers.  I will have no more to say about this shameless charlatan and self-aggrandizing mountebank, who seizes every opportunity to interject himself into the Obama saga, to rush from the wings like a minstrel figure with bulging eyes and bushy hair and Bogart the stage upon which the magnificent drama of American politics is being played.  But he is only succeeding in disgracing himself, as more people see him as the envious, avaricious, fraud that he is.

As with all great orators, the President left the audience with a transcendent message of hope, delivered with all the passion and eloquence of a black Baptist preacher, and embodying the fundamental tenants of Christian charity that form the foundation of the “Beloved  Community” envisioned by Dr. King.

You and I, as citizens,” he said, have the obligation to shape the debates of our time — not only with the votes we cast, but with the voices we lift in defense of our most ancient values and enduring ideals. Let each of us now embrace, with solemn duty and awesome joy, what is our lasting birthright. With common effort and common purpose, with passion and dedication, let us answer the call of history, and carry into an uncertain future that precious light of freedom.”

Senator Mitch McConnell, an unreconstructed southern neo-Confederate redneck, says the era of liberalism is back.  He says that President Obama intends to bring the old Democratic Party back.  I say hell yeah!  You got it exactly right; President Obama has reclaimed the liberal legacy.  You can tell from the way the Republicans are squealing like pigs.  And some of us like it like that….the majority of Americans who voted Barack Obama into the Oval Office for the second time on the promise that he would restore and defend the liberal agenda.  I say Bravo!!!

  The President Speaking to the Nation

Barack obama-ks-t1larg 

 A New Beginning a New Vision




 Playthell G. Benjamin

Harlem, New York

January 25, 2013

America’s Othello’s Unvarnished Truth!

Posted in Playthell on politics with tags , , , on January 16, 2013 by playthell
Colin Powell II
A young warrior fresh from the front

 Why the Republicans are howling

As I listen to the rising decibel level of Republican yelps after Colin Powell’s comments on Meet The Press last Sunday, I am once again reminded of the profundity of my granddaddy George’s wisdom; the kind of wisdom that comes from sharp observation of the ways of mules and men over many years.  “Boy” he said “If you throw stones in a pack of jackals only the ones who get hit will howl.”

Well, judging from the impassioned response from card carrying Republicans to a few remarks about the state of the Grand Obstructionist Party made by Colin Powell, a Republican icon, lots of people felt smacked down!

The intensity of the Republican response demonstrates the truth of Mr. Powell’s remarks.  And, ironically, he is speaking frankly to his fellow Republicans in an effort to stop them from committing political suicide. Composed of soulless opportunists, clueless ignoramuses, unrepentant racists, obsequious black quislings and mindless right-wing ideologues, the Republican Party is dangerously out of touch with the expanding electorate and courting disaster.

Yet, even so, Republican responses to Mr. Powell’s comments are way over the top.  Everything from his qualifications for the high offices he has held to his loyalty to the Republican Party has now being called into question, and there seems to be no epithet to down and dirty to heap upon him.  He has been called everything but a child of God by his fellow Republicans!

To the objective observer it is obvious that all of this odious behavior is further evidence that the Republican Party is in a deep crisis that threatens to tear it apart.  They are lost in a masquerade and cannot bear to gaze upon their true image unmasked in the mirror Colin is holding before their faces.

The Chariman of Joint Chiefs

Colin powell map

Supreme Commander

There is no one in America with a more impressive record of service to this nation, whether in war or peace.  At one time he was combat officer minted in the ROTC program at the Harlem campus of City College; a general officer who became Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; a National Security Advisor to the President of the United States, and Secretary of State; Colin Powell has held top offices in the military and civilian sectors.  And he did it all as a Republican.

At the height of his prominence opinion polls showed that General Powell was the most trusted and respected man in public life.  And it is fairly obvious after the experience of Barack Obama that he could have been President had he run for the office.  I think he would have beaten George W. Bush for the Republican nomination and easily defeated Al Gore for the presidency.   And like Bush, Powell also holds an MBA.

There is much speculation as to why he never ran for the presidency, since he was so obviously qualified for the job and wildly popular with Americans of all colors and ethnicities.. The most convincing explanation I’ve heard is that Colin never ran for the nation’s highest office because Alma Powell, his wife of many years, was adamantly opposed to it.  Alma had suffered through his tours of duty on the front lines in Vietnam early in their marriage.

Although he came through that hazardous experience unscathed, she was convinced that some racist white American nut would surely assassinate her husband before allowing him to take up residence in the Oval Office.  And given the vicious character assassination directed at the former General by rightwing nuts as I write, she had a point.

Alma was not willing to suffer through that; she felt Colin had given enough of his life in service to this country and they deserved a break.  She did not wish to spend the balance of her days as the widow of a martyr.  Alas Alma was not alone in her fears that a run for the Oval Office by Colin would result in tragedy.

A group of prominent black Americans led by Hollywood entertainment mogul Quincy Jones and multi-millionaire businessman Bruce Llewellyn, Colin’s cousin, met with Powell and begged him not to run because they believed the racist rightwing propaganda machine would attempt to besmirch his character and muddy his legacy.

The members of this delegation felt that Powell was too important as a role model to black youth and a symbol of Afro-American possibility to risk it all in a presidential race that they evidently believed that he could not win.  It was a generational thing.  For instance, when Michele Obama was asked about the possibility of Barack being assassinated after he decided to run for the presidency she said: “Barack is a black man living in Chicago; he can get shot just going to the gas station.”

I thought Colin Powell should have run and I believed he would have won. He was a strong supporter of Affirmative Action; was hesitant to deploy American military forces; supported the New Deal safety net; respected the rights of organized labor and felt there is an important role for government in developing the nation’s economy just like General Dwight Eisenhower.

And most importantly, he was a pragmatist rather than an ideologue, and could have worked with politicians across party lines in order to get things done.  All of which are opposed by his fellow Republicans.  Hence he has long been a square peg in a round hole, a misfit in the Grand Obstructionist Party.

For years I believed that Powell was in some sort of bizarre denial.  Although many progressive black people were Republicans when he was a boy – given that the southern branch of the Democratic party called “Dixiecrats” was the bailiwick of the most racist reactionary rednecks in the nation, the avowed enemies of black progress who supported a legal racial caste system that served as the model for the Nazi Nuremburg laws directed against German Jews –  by the 1980’s when Colin became a power in Republican politics the GOP had become the home of those same southern racist!

The reason iconic southern segregationists, who had built their reputations on the oppression of Afro-Americans, switched party’s was because the Democrats had become the party that passed the great Civil Rights bills that destroyed the de jure racial caste system in the US – American apartheid aka “The southern way of life.”

Hence the question might reasonably be asked: What did Powell expect?  He was a black member of a party that had adopted a “Southern Strategy” designed to appeal to the racial resentments of white southerners over the victories of the Civil Rights movement.  This strategy prompted white southern politicians cum hardcore racist reactionaries like Strom Thurmond, Jessie Helms, Trent Lott, et al to switch political parties..  How is it possible that Powell did not understand this?

The sad truth is that Colin became the protégée of certain members of the national security establishment, who recognized his talents and placed it above his color, and Mr. Powell entered into a Faustian Bargain with the Republican establishment.  Furthermore, the consciousness of himself as a black man probably didn’t really dawn on him until he was at City College.

This is because in the Jamaican society that shaped his parents Colin was considered a “brown” rather than a “black” man.  And while this distinction meant nothing in the US because the only distinction that really mattered was whether you were white on “Negro” – a socially constructed rainbow “race” whose complexions ran from “Light bright damned near white” to ebony black – in the triple color caste system of Jamaica  the distinction between “black” and “brown” could determine your life chances.

But the Party has changed since Powell’s glory days; first with the rise of neo-cons and now the Tea Party, and now there’s the Devil to pay.  Unwilling to sit silently by like that South Carolina Sambo Timmy Scott, or co-sign the dangerous far right mumbo jumbo of nuts like disgraced Army Colonel and recently defeated Republican congressman Alan West, Powell spoke out about some inconvenient truths that has made him a pariah in his own party.

Everything Colin Powell said is beyond question.  After giving a ringing endorsement to Chuck Hagel’s appointment as Secretary of Defense, a position which is anathema to the right-wing ideologues in the GOP, Powell charged the Republicans with blatant race baiting by major party leaders like ex-governors Sarah Palin and John Sunnu.  And he presented compelling evidence to support his charge.  He said an element of the party just didn’t like minorities.

Powell accused the party of trying to suppress the votes of minorities.  He said the Party was having an “identity problem” he observed that “the country has changed” and if the party does not change with the demographics “they are in trouble.”  That’s putting it mildly, which is characteristic of the precise measured way he speaks about important issues.

It would have been no exaggeration to say that the Republicans are on the path to permanent minority status that will never win another national election unless they change with the times and accommodate themselves to the new political realities.

When Colin Powell was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of the military I always thought of him as a kind of American Othello.  Like Shakespeare’s great black General Othello the Moor, General Powell was the supreme military commander in a nation dominated by white people.  His civilian superiors were all white as was his military subordinates.   Placing him in the same racially charged environment that Shakespeare placed his character in….the result was a tragedy.

General Powell had heard racist things said about him to his face, and he was the subject of intrigues and resentments from white villains and fools driven by envy, avarice and blind ambition – morally deformed cretins who wished him harm and anxiously awaited his fall from grace as they actively plotted to bring it about.

Forsooth, Colin Powel’s Grand Obstructionist Party, in whose interests he yet labors, is full of such treacherous characters: and they wish him ill even as they conspire against our President…to whom he has pledged fealty.

Perchance he shall escape the foul fate mad dogs like Dirty Dick Cheney and McDaddy McCain wish for him.  But brother man had better watch his back.  Maybe his ritual crucifixion – those of coarser sensibilities are calling it a lynching – is the price he must now pay for making a deal with the devil, bartering his racial soul for power and glory.Perhaps he now wonders if they were fools gold.

The answer to this riddle begs a wiser mind than I possess – hence I’m not saying this is the general’s dilemma…but it could be.  After all, like his literary ancestor Othello, all he did was tell the round unvarnished truth.

 The Lion in Winter


Old Soldiers Never Die!

( Double Click to see Powell’s TV Interview)


Playthell G, Benjamin

Harlem, New York

Janurary 15, 2013

On The Savaging of Chuck Hagel

Posted in On Foreign Affairs, On Israel, Playthell on politics with tags , , on January 9, 2013 by playthell

Chuck Hagel

             A Decorated combat Veteran and Ex-US Senator

 Should Ideologues and Special Interests Determine American Foreign Policy?

      While some members of my party – and I am a “Yellow Dog Democrat” – are agitated over the fact that President Obama may be about to appoint yet another Republican to the helm of the Department of Defense – whose raison d’etre is waging war – I have other concerns regarding the appointment of Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense.

As near as I can tell,  these Democrats are principally concerned about the possibility that President Obama’s choice will confirm the myth that only Republicans can be trusted to direct the nation’s defense.  While this is a legitimate complaint from the winning party, who have ample reason to suspect the motives of the losers, I have bigger fish to fry.

For whatever dangers the perpetuation of the myth of the Republican strong man poses – which are not insignificant – the protests coming from the hawks in Mr. Hagel’s own party such as Senator Lindsay Graham and others are far more disturbing.  The questions they raise go directly to the issue of defining a national security policy that is based on an objective analysis of the realities facing our nation.

In order to create effective policies that address American national interests in a dangerous world faced with many complex problems, the first thing any analyst must do is scrap the bogus ideology of “American Exceptionalism,” because it promotes the idea that Americans have a mission to reshape other societies in our image that engenders an evangelical approcach to foreign policy

The next most important precondition is to free policymakers from the corrosive influences of special interests.  Foremost among these interests are political pressure groups and the Military/Industrial complex i.e. the defense contractors who welcome any opportunity to acquire multi-billion dollar government contracts.  Ironically, it was a very popular Republican President and top military commander, Dwight Eisenhower, who warned us of the dangers of developing a military/industrial complex because he believed it would spur the nation to wars for profit.

By virtue of his independent position on the Middle-East and rejection of those who wish to manufacture war hysteria, Chuck Hagel is anathema to both factions. In the storm brewing around his nomination we are witnessing a convergence of these forces that amounts to a dangerous and unholy alliance.  I would argue that the clear and present danger represented by these forces far outweighs the concerns of my fellow Democrats about untoward appearances…which is largely a matter of cosmetics.

I see no cause for great concern here, since President Obama is Commander-In-Chief and whoever is Secretary of Defense will carry out his orders and implement his vision of the world.  Having spent his entire first term in the presidency conducting two major foreign wars, and several police actions, he is no novice in matters of war and peace.

Hence the President will not be intimidated by military men.  The danger represented by the forces that oppose Hagel’s nomination causes me far greater concern, because they reveal the extent to which American foreign policy options are determined by special interests rather than US national interests.

When we look at the policy struggles on a variety of critical issues involving the national interests, it is frighteningly obvious that far too many cowardly politicians keen on political survival are willing to “sell their souls to the company store”.  That’s why we find ourselves in the absurd position of constantly being on the verge of inflicting disaster on our own economic system – throwing the nation into a second Republican induced depression – because Republican Congressmen are scared to death of bucking the commands of anti-tax zealot Grover Norchrist and his Tea Party allies; rightwing zealots who have pledged to run candidates against them in the Republican primaries should they deviate from the Tea Party line.

Given the unlimited spending by special interests, which is now legal due to the disastrous Supreme Court decision in the “Citizens United” case, the anti-tax lobby is very well funded by people like the multi-billionaire Koch Brothers.  The Republicans are reminding us in grand fashion that he who pays the piper calls the tune.

Alas, this cowardly attitude is also reflected in the arena of foreign policy.  Hence, due to the genuflection of avaricious, hypocritical, opportunistic politicians – terrified by the likes of the passionate American Zionist billionaire Sheldon Adelson, who is willing to spend hundreds of millions to defeat candidates that refuse to tow the Israel Lobby’s line on Mid-East policy – the fate of the nation may well be determined by special interests at the expense of the national interests.

Nothing demonstrates this possibility more than the nature of the attacks against former Senator Hagel.  And it is all the more frightening because when you subject these charges to close scrutiny it is readily apparent that Hagel’s major sins have to do with him defending American interests in the world, and unapologetically privileging that interest over Israeli interests.

He has called for negotiations with Hamas, the militant Palestinian organization that the Israelis call terrorists – but was elected to govern Gaza by the Palestinian people, and he opposes taking military action against Iran.  He reluctantly voted for the Iraq invasion but later considered it a mistake, and he opposed the expansion of the war in Afghanistan.

Furthermore,  he wants to reduce the size of the American military and end many foreign deployments.  All of which goes against the policies advocated by the Israel Lobby and their neo-con shills.

In return for his unflinching position that American and Israeli interests in the Middle-East are not identical, and that when they diverge American interest should be paramount, Hagel has been denounced as unqualified by such neo-con ideologues as Bill Kristol Jr. – a pretentious blabbermouth who was hugely influential in persuading Bush to invade Iraq, and even declared an enemy of Israel and worse: an anti-Semite aka a Jew Hater.  In the past this charge has proven to be a kiss of death for anyone in public life.

Everybody who knows Hagel says this is a damned lie, a misrepresentation of his position and character.  After all, this is a man who as a US senator voted for $38 billion in aid for Israel.  And Senator Lindsay Graham’s charge that President Obama’s nomination of Hagel is a defiant “in your face” challenge to Senate Republicans that is yet another slap at Israel, demonstrates the degree to which the Republican arguments bear no relationship to reality.  The Republican mantra that President Obama has shown unprecedented hostility to Israel is sheer poppycock.  No matter how many times they repeat it.

The fact is that the feigned love for Israel by Republican politicians amounts to little more than crass political opportunism and vulgar shameless pandering to the Christian Zionists.  Since Jews are few in number compared to Christians, and most Jews are liberal Democrats anyway, a function of their high level of education, it is the impassioned but untutored Christian fundamentalist soldiers to whom the pro-Israel Republican rhetoric is directed.

However high ranking national security figures in Israel are wary of the intentions of the Republican right and hold a very different view of President Obama.  In an interview in the prestigious journal Foreign Affairs Efraim Halevy, the former head of the MOSSAD, Israel’s CIA, criticized Romney’s use of Israel as a political prop.

“Regarding the election,” Halevy said, I think many of the statements made by the Republican candidate are very undesirable as far as Israel is concerned. I remember an article of Governor Romney’s in the Washington Post in March where he advocated dispatching American warships to the Eastern Mediterranean. Shooting from the hip on these matters is a very dangerous sport to be engaged in. And I think that drawing Israel into this campaign is detrimental to Israeli interests, and I regret that one of the candidates is doing this.”

In response to Mitt Romney’s claim that President Obama had “thrown Israel under the bus,” Halevy offered a counter-view of President Obama’s treatment of Israel. “On the practical side, the United States has been very supportive of Israel during President Barack Obama’s administration — both financially and strategically, we have received a lot of support.” Halevy went on to compare the positions of Romney and President Obama regarding Israeli security.  “What Romney is doing is mortally destroying any chance of a resolution without war,” he said.  “Obama does think there is still room for negotiations. It’s a very courageous thing to say in this atmosphere.”  

And in a later Op-Ed column in the New York Times of October 12, 2012 Mr. Halevy had this to say regarding Republican and Democrat support for Israel: Despite the Republican Party’s shrill campaign rhetoric on Israel, no Democratic president has ever strong-armed Israel on any key national security issue.” He also goes to great lengths to name a list of Republican Presidents who did exactly what they are now falsely accusing President Obama of doing.

Halevy’s views are echoed in the assessment of Ehud Barak, the Israeli Minister of Defense.  Speaking in an interview on CNN during the heat of the presidential campaign last July, Barak said “I should tell you honestly that this administration under President Obama is doing, in regard to our security, more than anything that I can remember in the past.”  When the Republican views of President Obama policies toward Israel are compared with the position of these high ranking Israeli’s, I am reminded of the wise Ibo proverb: “Beware of the stranger who comes to the funeral and cries louder than the bereaved family.”

Let us examine the case against Chuck Hagel and see if his detractors have a point; let’s look objectively at what the evidence suggests.  The crux of the charges against Hagel center around statements he made regarding US policy toward Israel, Iran and the militant Palestinian organization Hamas.  The evidence for the charge that Mr. Hagel is anti-Semitic resides in his comments during a 2006 interview in which he spoke of how the “Jewish Lobby” was “intimidating a lot of people.”

Hagel’s offense here was that he said “Jewish” rather than “Israel” Lobby, and that grave “offense” was compounded by him telling the truth about how they make “friends” and influence the votes of politicians through organized intimidation.   His reference to the “Jewish Lobby” was simply a matter of semantics, confusion regarding the Lobby’s proper name that puzzles a lot of Americans.  Yet in spite of the caterwauling from the Neo-Con warmongers and the pro-Zionists hawks – Christian and Jewish – the modus operandi described by Hagel is true!

The best evidence of this is the carefully directed campaign against his nomination as Defense Secretary being conducted by these very forces as I write.  And whether they are called the “Jewish Lobby” or the “Israel Lobby” is irrelevant: It is a distinction without a difference.  When one analyzes the content of the anti-Hagel rhetoric it becomes abundantly clear that his greatest sin was mentioning the existence of the “Israel Lobby” at all.

What else are we to conclude from the criticism that “Christians are part of the lobby too?”  And even worse are Arizona Senator John McCain’s statements that Hagel’s observations were “inappropriate,” and “There’s no such thing as a Jewish lobby,” McCain said when asked about Hagel’s comments. “There’s an Armenian lobby, there’s not a Jewish lobby. There’s an Israeli lobby. It’s called AIPAC, very influential.”

Aside from the fact that this is dishonest buffoonery, McCain also labeled the lobby incorrectly, and his offense is a far graver one because he said “Israeli Lobby,” which means a lobbying effort by a foreign government to influence America foreign policy in their favor.  This slip is really revealing; perhaps Senator McCain accidentally said what he really believes but dare not say on purpose.  His statement demonstrates that he, like everybody on Capitol Hill, knows the Lobby exists and that they exercise great power over American politics.

But we have seen John McCain change what were supposed to be principled positions so often he rivals Mitt Romney for the title “Mr. Chameleon.”  And we have already seen the extent to which he is willing to go in risking the national interests to gain a political advantage.  After all, this is the joker who argued that Sarah Palin, the airhead Alaskan Barbarian, was qualified to be the Chief Executive of the most powerful country in the world and Commander-In-Chief of the US armed forces.

His choice revealed a cavalier disregard for the national security of the United States, as well as a disdain for American women.  All of the educated women I know considered McCain’s choice of Palin for his vice President an insult to women who had worked long and hard to qualify themselves for top positions in this country.

Most thought that he wanted somebody as clueless and ineffectual as his wife Cindy, and he would treat her likewise, shunting her off into irrelevance once she helped him win the presidency by attracting the “Dumb Dora” vote.  However I have written about all this in earlier commentaries so I won’t rehash it here; my purpose is to remind people who this verbose charlatan is and suggest that the reader consider the source in weighing the drivel that flows from the pie hole of the Mack Man.


What is important here is that American citizens understand the role of the Israel Lobby, and the militant pro-Israel neo-con cabal hatched in the Project for A New American Century, whose egghead policy wonks were the architects of the disastrous Iraq Invasion.  We avoided another reign of errors by this crazy crew only because we defeated Mitt and reelected the President.

One of the scariest things about Romney – and they were legion – is the number of these clowns he had tapped as foreign policy advisors.  For an in-depth analysis of their role in taking the nation into a war of choice read: “How the Iraq War was Hatched in a Think Tank” on this blog.

As early as 2002, stunned by the 911/attack and the recognition of a rising tide of militant anti-American Islamists, even a major neo-con intellectual  who had been editor of Irvin Kristol’s mag “The Public Interest,” a bible of the neo-cons, wrote the following in reference to the power of the Israel Lobby and questioned if it was in the best interests of the United States.

“Today the Israel lobby distorts U.S. foreign policy in a number of ways. Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, enabled by U.S. weapons and money, inflames anti-American attitudes in Arab and Muslim countries. The expansion of Israeli settlements on Palestinian land makes a mockery of the U.S. commitment to self-determination for Kosovo, East Timor and Tibet. The U.S. strategy of dual containment of Iraq and Iran pleases Israel-which is most threatened by them-but violates the logic of realpolitik and alienates most of America’s other allies. Beyond the region, U.S. policy on nuclear weapons proliferation is undermined by the double standard that has led it to ignore Israel’s nuclear program while condemning those of India and Pakistan.”

Although this commentator is on the right, his commentary is on the money and I have made all of these same points in a variety of essays.  No objective observer who is basing their analysis on the facts can arrive at any other conclusion…facts are stubborn things and can’t be wished away by ideologues.

Regarding the power of the Israel Lobby to besmirch the character and wreck the careers of politicians – and journalists too – who disagree with their vision of Israel’s role in the Middle East, and refuse to rubber stamp every policy of the Israeli government because they believe it is not in best interests of the US, the evidence is voluminous.  For the definitive account of how this Lobby works read “The Israel Lobby,” by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, professors at the University of Chicago and Harvard.

After studying American policy in the Middle East, which supports Israeli policy at the risk of alienating everybody else, professors Mearsheimer and Walt raised the following question: “Why has the US been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state? One might assume that the bond between the two countries was based on shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives, but neither explanation can account for the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the US provides.” 

The answer that emerges from their study is clear.  Instead, the thrust of US policy in the region derives almost entirely from domestic politics,” they argue, “and especially the activities of the ‘Israel Lobby’. Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that US interests and those of the other country – in this case, Israel – are essentially identical.”

Woe be unto the politician or pundit who disputes this view of American Israeli national interests.  The fearless professors Walt and Mearsheimer predicted that they too would become the target of attack for undertaking this study of the Israel Lobby and candidly weighing the evidence in their conclusion.

And they were right, as the Anti-Defamation League’s formidable propaganda machine produced a book, The Deadliest Lies: The Israel Lobby and the Myth of Jewish Control, attacking the authors personally and dismissing their study, publishing it under the byline of their pugnacious and hypocritical president Abraham Foxman.

However for those who are students of this question, this writer included, Foxman’s tome was dismissed as self-interested “special pleading” – a term of art among professional historians for writers who attempt to arrange historical facts to justify conclusions that are unsupported by an objective examination of the evidence.   It is the difference between history and propaganda.  Looking to Foxman for objective analysis of a book that criticizes practices of which he is guilty is the equivalent of placing the fox in charge of the chicken coop.

The fate of long time White House Press Corps reporter Helen Thomas is another dramatic example of how the Anti-Defamation League employs their influence to trash the careers of those who oppose them on Mid-East policy. Ms. Thomas was interviewed on camera by Rabbi David Nesenoff of, as she walked to work in Washington one morning.

Ms. Thomas was asked what she thought about the Israelis and she said “I think they should get the hell out of Palestine.” She went on to say of the Palestinians “These people are occupied…and it’s their land.”  The following response from pro-Israeli forces was typical of the kind of attacks Helen Thomas received: “She is advocating religious cleansing. How can Hearst stand by her? If a journalist, or a columnist, said the same thing about blacks or Hispanics, they would already have lost their jobs.”

To begin with neither statement is true.  Racist things are said about black people all the time in the media – including the president – and there are no consequences for the utterers.  Thomas was addressing the European Zionist Jews who invaded Palestine, dispossessed the Palestinian Arabs and founded the colonial settler state of Israel in the mid twentieth century.

Hence the feeling that they should return from whence they came is a widespread feeling in the Arab world and Helen Thomas, like the actor comedian Danny Thomas, is of Arabic heritage.  And there are really foul things said by Jewish commentators about the Arabs on a routine basis.

And I dare say that any American would feel exactly the same way had Arabs colonized England or the US the way the Zionist did in Palestine!  I believe any American who says otherwise – if you can find one – would be a damned liar.  Helen Thomas, who known as “The Dean of the White House Press corps,” raised this question after she was fired from her job reporting on the White House, which she had been doing for over fifty years.  The comment is recorded in a 2010 Playboy magazine interview.

Of course I don’t condone any violence against anyone.” She said. “But who wouldn’t fight for their country? What would any American do if their land was being taken? Remember Pearl Harbor. The Palestinian violence is to protect what little remains of Palestine. The suicide bombers act out of despair and desperation.
Three generations of Palestinians have been forced out of their homes—by Israelis—and into refugee camps. And the Israelis are still bulldozing Palestinians’ homes in East Jerusalem. Remember, Menachem
Begin invented terrorism as his MO—and bragged about it in his first book. That’s how Israel was created, aided and abetted by U.S. money and arms.”

Among those who would be the first to declare war against any foreign force that violated one inch of US territory – even if were in Guantanamo Cuba where an imperialist US government forced a weak Cuban government to accept a perpetual treaty ceding part of their territory to the US for use as a naval base in the late 19th century – is the American Exceptionalist crowd; who are so rabidly pro-Israel.   Helen Thomas accused the US of employing double standards in dealing with the Palestinians and she is right!

Ironically the “Christian Zionist,” who outnumber the Jews among pro-Israel Americans, care not a whit about Jews as such.   Their interest in Israel is inspired by “End Time” theology, which teaches that the Jews must return to Israel before Jesus Christ, “The Messiah,” can return to earth and pass final judgment on the world.

After the Battle of Armageddon, there will come the Rapture and the good saved souls will ascend to heaven to live forever with the righteous of all ages in the presence of God; while the wicked sinners will descend into hell to burn in its fires forever.

Alas, in a strange twist of fate, these pro-Israel Christians also believe that if the Jews do not accept Jesus Christ as the Messiah – which thus far they have not been inclined to do – they too shall burn forever in the fires of hell with the rest of the infidels!  And despite how they may feel about the Jewish prophets in the bible, the way they really feel about contemporary Jews in America is another matter.

Those views were candidly expressed and captured on tape by Reverend Billy Graham, an iconic divine among the Israel loving Evangelical Christians, in a private  conversation with President Nixon in the White House during1972 , which was recorded.  Speaking of the positions of Jews in the mass media Reverend Graham said, “This stranglehold has got to be broken or the country’s going down the drain.” “You believe that? Asked Nixon.. “Yes, sir,” Graham answered. “Oh, boy,” Nixon said, “So do I. I can’t ever say that, but I believe it.”

That the Christian Zionists hold these anti-Jewish beliefs is no secret to the leadership of organized Jewry. They have entered into a Faustian bargain with these Jew haters because they support Israel; just as they have served as holocaust deniers in lobbying against any attempt by Armenian Americans  to persuade the US government to officially recognize the genocide committed against their people by the Turks in 1915, in which a million and a half Armenians were slaughtered.  In yet another Faustian bargain, US Jewish leaders have actively assisted in suppressing recognition of the Armenian victims of Genocide in exchange for Turkish support for Israel.

The testimony of Armenian American journalist and author Mark Arax exposes the duplicity of the powerful Anti-Defamation League on the Armenian genocide, which is shameless and amoral in light of their unceasing and merciless denunciation of those who attempt to deny the Nazi genocide against Jews.  In doing research for a feature story on Jewish holocaust deniers of the Armenian genocide for the Washington Post, Mr. Arax interviewed Abraham Foxman, who heads the Anti-Defamation League.  He recalls:

Then I found my way to the equivocators and deniers who sat at the helms of the major American Jewish organizations. None was more blunt than Abraham Foxman, the head of the Anti-Defamation League in New York. The Armenian Genocide had become his own convenient cudgel to keep Turkey in line.  Foxman had just returned from a meeting with Turkish military and government leaders to discuss pressuring Congress, the State Department and President Bush to turn back the genocide resolution once again.

“Our focus is Israel,” he explained. “If helping Turkey helps Israel, then that’s what we’re in the business of doing.” But such a bottom line would seem an uncomfortable place for a Jewish leader to be when the question was genocide.  “Was it genocide?” he said. “It was wartime. Things get messy.”

Like Winston Churchill, who led Britain’s triumphant struggle against the Nazis, pro-Israel American Jews are quite willing to “make a deal with the Devil” if it empowers Israel.  Since these Jews believe Christianity, especially the fundamentalist variety, is hokum anyway, they are quite willing to risk burning in the Rapture if the Christian fanatics are willing to employ their formidable resources to advance Israel here and now.  They will deal with the Rapture when it arrives.

Together these pro-Zionist Christian and Jewish forces have destroyed the careers of anyone who dares to criticize American policy toward Israel as biased and not in the best interests of the United States, or even worse, criticize Israeli policy toward their Arab neighbors – the dispossessed, powerless and occupied Palestinians in particular.

The case of Helen Thomas is instructive because the attack was led by the ubiquitous Abraham Foxman, who openly called for her to be fired.  And she was!   Just as  Mark Arax’s story died a mysterious death at the Washington Post.   Stories of the ruined careers of journalists, and even professional Foreign Service officers, who opposed the objectives of the Israel Lobby abound and are too numerous to reiterate here.

But we must not allow them to destroy the nomination of Chuck Hagel; hence it is imperative to support the president and urge him to stand firm in this appointment.   When a spineless opportunist like Senator Lindsay Graham, a Republican from South Carolina who is terrified of losing his seat, says Hagel’s views are “out of the mainstream,” well that depends upon how one defines “mainstream.”

Senator Graham’s conception of the mainstream is defined by the policies of the neo-cons that took control of a confused George W. Bush’s Foreign policy after the 9/11 attack.   This is an interventionist policy designed to create a unipolar world under American hegemony, a Pax Americana that resembles the ancient Pax Romama when Rome ruled the world – which means the end of the bipolar world order characterized by a perpetual Cold War /Arms Race with the Soviet Union.  This  view has squandered the so-called “Peace Dividend,” that should have accrued from vast savings on military expenditures when we no longer had to prepare for a possible war with Russia.  What is clear about this view is that it is a formula for perpetual war. Hence it is a good thing that Chuck Hagel is viewed as out of step with this crowd.

However the neo-cons are a recent phenomenon as shapers of American foreign policy. They have been around for years producing policy polemics. But their views on America’s role in the world are opposed by a venerable group of foreign policy /national security intellectuals, who have served at the highest levels of our foreign policy establishment.  Their opposition was clearly stated in a December 25, letter to the Washington Post, in which four former National Security advisors to American presidents – James L. Jones, Brent Scowcroft, Zbigniew Brzenzinski, and Frank Carlucci – strongly supported the nomination of Chuck Hagel.  Their statement reads:

We strongly object, as a matter of substance and as a matter of principle, to the attacks on the character of former senator Chuck Hagel. Mr. Hagel is a man of unshakable integrity and wisdom who has served his country in the most distinguished manner in peace and war. He is a rare example of a public servant willing to rise above partisan politics to advance the interests of the United States and its friends and allies.”

“Moreover, it is damaging to the quality of our civic discourse for prospective Cabinet nominees to be subjected to such vicious attacks on their character before an official nomination.  This type of behavior will only discourage future prospective nominees from public service when our country badly needs quality leadership in government.” 

And, by the way, Colin Powell – who has been a combat soldier, a general officer, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, National Security Advisor and Secretary of State – is giving Mr. Hagel a ringing endorsement as I write.

One of the most formidable myths constructed by the pro-Israel Jewish leadership in organizations like AIPAC – American Israel Public Affairs Committee – and the Anti-Defamation League is that they speak for all American Jews.  But the fact is that they have the loudest megaphone and simply drown out dissenting voices.

This is true whether it is Jewish religious communities like the Satmar Hassidum, who view the state of Israel as a sacrilege because only the Messiah can establish the new Israel, or Jewish theologians like Dr. Mark Ellis – author of the revelatory text “Beyond Auschwitz” or independent radical intellectuals like Lenni Brenner, whose book “Zionism In the Age of the Dictators” sent shock waves among supporters of Zionism – and had to be published in England because he couldn’t find an American with the balls to publish this incendiary and enlightening text – or the late great Village Voice investigative reporter Robert I Freedman, who was the premier reporter on the fanatical rightwing Jews, here and in Israel.

However there is one dissenting Jewish voice that they have not been able to silence, although they would like to, Thomas Friedman of the New York Times.  A New York Times columnist who has been awarded the coveted Pulitzer Prize three times for his writings on foreign affairs, Friedman’s knowledge of Israeli policies toward their neighbors in the Middle East is formidable.  The fact that he also happens to be pro-Israel makes his views all the harder to dismiss.  Friedman’s views on Hagel’s nomination are summed up in his December 26 column Give Chuck a Chance.

It is a column well worth reading in its entirety; especially if, like most Americans, you are not up to snuff on the issues surrounding the attacks on Mr. Hagel.  But for our purposes here one excerpt will suffice.

I am certain that the vast majority of U.S. senators and policymakers quietly believe exactly what Hagel believes on Israel — that it is surrounded by more implacable enemies than ever and needs and deserves America’s backing. But, at the same time, this Israeli government is so spoiled and has shifted so far to the right that it makes no effort to take U.S. interests into account by slowing its self-isolating settlement adventure. And it’s going to get worse. Israel’s friends need to understand that the center-left in Israel is dying.

“The Israeli election in January will bring to power Israeli rightists who never spoke at your local Israel Bonds dinner. These are people who want to annex the West Bank. Bibi Netanyahu is a dove in this crowd. The only thing standing between Israel and national suicide any more is America and its willingness to tell Israel the truth. But most U.S. senators, policymakers and Jews prefer to stick their heads in the sand, because confronting Israel is so unpleasant and politically dangerous. Hagel at least cares enough about Israel to be an exception.”

One need only compare this glowing recommendation of Mr. Hagel with the mealy-mouthed equivocations of Senator Mitch McConnell, the minority leader of the Senate, another Republican who is scared of losing his seat, to recognize the power of the pro-Israel lobby in the US.  Even the fact that Mr. Hagel saved the life of McConnell’s brother during combat in Vietnam was not sufficient to win Mitch’s enthusiastic endorsement!

Such is the power of special interests, and thus the reason why it must be opposed in favor of policies that truly serve the national security interests of the United States.  I believe it is the historically appointed role of Progressive American intellectuals to expose these lies by presenting counterstatements of fact, which is the burden of this essay.

The minimal essential lesson I’d like the reader to learn is that the attack on Chuck Hagel is motivated by special interests that are not in the national interests, and thus Mr. Hagel is the hero of this dangerous melodrama that threatens to become a genuine tragedy….unless we stand up for this old soldier who is still standing up for us.

A Real Soldier at War

Chuck Hagel at war

Chucky  scares the shit outta the Chicken Hawks!


Playthell G. Benjamin

Harlem, New York

Janurary 8, 2012


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,095 other followers