Mikey Likes It!

Tuesday, March 22, 2022

Jimmy Dore, Superman (and Lois) and Dan Cohen

Jimmy Dore notes the crush on the left in Ukraine.

That idiot Amy Schumer's saying he needs to be on the Oscars. She's as stupid as she is fat. I've no use for the Oscars and won't be watching now since she's a host. They made the decision to stand with that fat head so I don't need to waste my time on them.

I do need to make time for SUPERMAN AND LOIS. We didn't watch tonight. My daughter and I watch it together. But we forgot because THE CW let's it take weeks off. They weren't on last week and this week we forgot until it was off. It's in the cloud but we're going to watch it tomorow because we both forgot and she's tired and sleepy.

So let me talk TV Superman and TV Lois.

As a little kid, I would watch the 50s show and just want to see Superman fly. That's all I wanted each episode. It didn't take much for me. :D But I can't watch it today. And I really don't care for either of the Lois Lanes that were on that show, sorry.

I was still a little kid when LOIS AND CLARK: THE NEW ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN started airing. I loved that show. I loved Teri Hatcher and Dean Cain as Lois and Superman and thought they were perfect. Yeah, I still wanted to see Superman fly but I actually enjoyed the character and liked both Clark and his Superman persona.

Then, as my teens were playing out came SMALLVILLE. Not a fan, not a bit. I didn't see Tom Welling as Superman. In fairness to him, h ewasn't SUPERMAN for most of the show -- he was pre-Supberboy when the show started. I didn't care for it at all. There wasn't a lot of super powers or much of interest. There was no Lois -- Kristin Kreuk was nice as Lana and I always make a point to watch anything she's in -- BURDEN OF PROOF, REACHER and BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, for example. But Lana's not Lois. And Chloe was just gross. I couldn't stand her. I remember mentioning that to C.I. and Ava back in 2005 or 2006 and they said that Allison Mack was crazy, insane and would end up in a facility one day. Well, she's in prison now so I guess that counts. Three year sentence for her role in that cult that turned people into sex slaves. She should have gotten many more years. She was so disgusting on SMALLVILLE. She always looked like, if you sat behind her in a class, she'd reek of piss, know what I mean?

By the way, Ava and C.I.'s latest is "TV: 'No one was looking after me!' (that includes you yourself)."

The movie Supermans? Christopher Reeves and Margot Kidder were great as Superman and Lois in the first two films. After the fitst two, it's hard to care or believe in Superman. I did not like Brandon Routh's Superman but he was hurt more by the lack of a good Lois Lane. That also hurt Henry Cavill. Amy Adams a good actress but she's not Lois. I never believe her as Lois. I really disliked Henry as Superman and thought he was the problem forever. It's the lack of real chemistry between him and Amy. You just don't see them as a couple. You don't think they fit because they add nothing beyond what the script gives you. You don't feel like they have fun together, let alone that they're drawn to each other.

SUPERMAN AND LOIS? This new show on THE CW is great. Tyler Hoechlin is perfect as Clark and as Superman and plays it so well you get excited like you did when you were little and reading a really good Superman comic. And Bitsie Tulloch is great as Lois. (This is the second show she's starred in that I've covered here. I wrote about her previous series GRIMM for years.) She's a different Lois and there are times that Clark exasperates her. But you never doubt that even then Lois loves him. She does a great job with the role and she and Tyler come across onscreen like a couple who really loves each other.

Now for some truth about Ukraine via MPN's Dan Cohen:

Since the Russian offensive inside Ukraine commenced on February 24, the Ukrainian military has cultivated the image of a plucky little army standing up to the Russian Goliath. To bolster the perception of Ukrainian military mettle, Kiev has churned out a steady stream of sophisticated propaganda aimed at stirring public and official support from Western countries.

The campaign includes language guides, key messages, and hundreds of propaganda posters, some of which contain fascist imagery and even praise Neo-Nazi leaders.

Behind Ukraine’s public relations effort is an army of foreign political strategists, Washington DC lobbyists, and a network of intelligence-linked media outlets.

Ukraine’s propaganda strategy earned it praise from a NATO commander who told the Washington Post, “They are really excellent in stratcom — media, info ops, and also psy-ops.” The Post ultimately conceded that “Western officials say that while they cannot independently verify much of the information that Kyiv puts out about the evolving battlefield situation, including casualty figures for both sides, it nonetheless represents highly effective stratcom.”

Key to the propaganda effort is an international legion of public relations firms working directly with Ukraine’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs to wage information warfare.

According to the industry news site PRWeek, the initiative was launched by an anonymous figure who allegedly founded a Ukraine-based public relations firm.

“From the first hour of war, we decided to join the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to help them distribute the official sources to show the truth,” the nameless figure told PR Week. “This is a hybrid war: the mix of bloodily struggling fight with a huge disinformation and fake campaign lead by Russia [sic].”

According to the anonymous figure, more than 150 public relations firms have joined the propaganda blitz.

The international effort is spearheaded by public relations firm PR Network co-founder Nicky Regazzoni and Francis Ingham, a top public relations consultant with close ties to the UK’s government. Ingraham previously worked for Britain’s Conservative Party, sits on the UK Government Communication Service Strategy and Evaluation Council, is Chief Executive of the International Communications Consultancy Organisation, and leads the membership body for UK local government communicators, LG Comms.

Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Tuesday, March 22, 2022. Again, we look at the lies about the IRaq War -- and how Barack Obama has never been held accountable. Plus I've added a response regfarding some e-mails about the upcoming Oscars.

As we did yesterday, we'll again be noting Saif Ansari's bad piece at JACOBIN. His piece is the perfect example of how and why the Iraq War cotninues. Lies, selct truths, favoritism, omissions, all passed off as 'nothing but the truth.'

An e-mail Martha passed on to the public account yesterday included this:

So President Obama wasn't sure how he would have voted if he had been in Congess when the Iraq War took place, so what? He was anti-war and wanted to end the war before it started and after he it started. He never waivered and he did end the war.

Saif, is that you?

There's so much wrong with the stupidity in the quoted statements above.

First, yesterday's snapshot ended when it did because I was done dictating having gotten off the treadmill and having done my cool down so I was headed to the shower. On my end, there was the belief that this private conversation in a public sphere would not be confusing because we should all know what happened after he became president but apparently we're too invested in lying there as well.

Before we get to Barack as president -- and this is not a biography and will not cover every point -- let's drop back to before that.

Some idiots supported Barack because he was 'anti-war.' He was not.

Elaine covered this at her site, I covered it here. But for those late to the party, by several years, who want to pretend like they arrived on time . . .

I have always maintained I understood how someone could be taken in by Barack even if they were pro-peace. And I've explained how I was taken in.

Anyone who considered thmselves a friend of Barack's in Chicago back in the day, Elaine or I knew. Most of them, we both knew. The more radical they were politically, the more likely we knew them. (Note, they've all been discarded by Barack and that happened once he became president.) So we knew of Barack. Equally true, I've knwon Bobby Rush for decades. So I also knew that Barack wasn't who he pretended to be.

Fine, I don't care, I just wanted politicians who would end the war. He was going national. He was going to run for the US Senate. And because Elaine and I had money to donate, we were invited to one of his earliest fund raisers.

We chit and chatted and nodded with others present -- we knew over 2/3s of the room, and waited until we got our face time with Barack. Elaine immediately spoke of how illegal the war was and how we shouldn't have gone into Iraq. And she notes how the US troops need to come home. And 'anti-war' Barack? He informs us that US troops are on the ground now so it no longer matters. Huh?

He tries to move along the conversation with the fake ass charm that too many have fallen for but I stop him with a nicer equivlaent of "Bitch, what did you just say?" And he's quite clear that he's not for ending the war, it's started.

We had assumed we'd be writign checks ofr the maximum amount -- that our initial donation would be it for the primary race he'd be fighting (and, as it turned out, fighting dirty -- no one ever wants to note how Barack used sealed court records to destroy an opponent in the primary and again in the general). We went from, "Let's get him in the Senate!" to "get the f**k away from us." We left.

But prior to that moment of face to face time, it had been exciting. He was against the war, He was bi-racial and a fresh start ("fresh start" was especially popular among his Chicago friends that and "a new page"). We were taken in by the narrative. We knew better or should have, but we got taken in and that's how we ended up in Chicago.

But unlike a lot of idiots, when he showed us his true nature, that was it. We didnt' support him. We didnt' defend him.

Far too many people claimed he would end the war and that we had to vote for him. Even now they lie.

Barack didn't end the war. And while he promoted the lie that he wanted to in his 2007 and 2008 speeches, he didn't plan on it. Samantha Power -- despite John Nichols whoring for her -- did not leave Barack's campaign because she called Hillary Clinton a "monster." She'd already survived that and it didn't really matter. BArack was on camera flipping Hillary off. He was making sexist remarks about her constatntly and that didn't matter. he was putting 'converted gays' onstage, excuse me, ex-gays. That's who he was on the campaign trail and people lied for him and looked the other way for him. Self-laothing lesbian Laura Falnders gave him a pass on that. Remember her mantra, we will hold him accountable, just not now! COuldn't do it in the primary, she said. Had to line up behind him. But in the general election, we'd hold him accountable and make our demands. Then she never did that but insisted when he was in the White House . . . But she never did. She didn't defend immigrants when he beacme the deporter-in-chief, she defend We The People when his two terms saw that massive transfer of wealth from the people to the already rich. She never did anything.

At any rate, people should have woken up. Yes, their so-called 'leaders' failed them. Medea Benjmain, et al. Though Barack was voting for every war funding item, CODESTINK didn't bird dog him. CODESTINK did find a face of color to hide behind when they wanted to go after Hillary for being White. It was a rare moment when a CODESTINKER found the time to share a byline with an actual woman of color.

The whores lied to get him in the White House and then they continued to lie.

Just looking aback on it, it's appalling what they got away with. Hadn't planned to go into this but let's note that Barack was friends with someone who was once on the most wanted list -- the FBI most wanted list.

So the press lied for him and FAIR hissed in the most idiotic way possible and tried to insist that Barack was treated unfairly in a debte because he was asked about it.

The Weather Underground was a desiginated terrorist outlet. Do you believe that they were terrorists? Doesn't really matter. When someone's running for president -- especially while touting their supposed superior judgment, things like that do matter.

People have a right to ask. And Barack should have been, if he were truly left, able to talk about how a corrupt system went after the Weather Underground (the FBI did not need to steal a woman's panties for their investigation -- sickos).

In fact, a year before Barack began his run for the nomination, THE NATION had rolled out another attck on Weather Underground. We defended the group at THIRD. Toad Gitlin -- thankfully now dead -- was forever attacking the Weather Underground.

We saw them as a response to the times they were created in.

We also saw the sexism at play as everyone went on and on about Bill Ayers. I love Bernardine Dohrn to this day. I think she is a fascinating person. I still speak to her. I've never had any use for Bill. No one with any brains ever has. Bill was the arm candy, he was the trophy wife. Benardine was the leader. She didn't write a passive aggressive memoir -- one the media avoided in terms of what it said about them and how it explained some of them were in on what was taking place.

Bernardine would never write such a friviolous book. She was and remains a revolutionary. And I respect her. She led the Weather Underground. But, in 2008, the press couldn't grasp she was the power in the couple and focused constnatly on Bill. and they went with the lie Barack and his campaign told, their kids were in school together. That's how they knew each other.

No.

The Obama girls were not born in the 70s. But the press -- including THE GUARDIAN -- ran with that lie. Chease Boudin is 41 years old -- Bernadine and Bill raised him. Barack's oldest daughter is now 24. They did not go to school together. And heaven ehlp us all if the two had lseep overs back in tn 2008.

It was one lie after another. And people gobbled it up over and over. Because they chose to. At some point, when all the evidence is before you and you make the decision not to recognize it, you are choosing to be fooled.

Samana Power was not fired for calling Hillary a "monster." That moment had passed. It was what was coming. And we wrote about it the Friday it started coming out. And continued to write about it the next week. By contrast, after it came out, the day after, John Nichols ignored it and wrote a lie-filled column in which he even lied that Hillary and Samantha were friends. They were not. He was using the "monster" flap to distract from reality.

Reality was that Samantha had opened her big mouth to the BBC. Barack was claiming to be anti-war and saying he would pull US troops out of Iraq and would do so quickly. He gave a timeline. And the chief diplomatic expert in his campaign? She told the BBC that this promise wasn't a promise. They you had to say things to get elected but you weren't bound by them when elected. When Barack was elected, Samantha insisted, he would asses the situation in Iraq and then decide what he would do.

All the whores played dumb.

Many months later, the forever useless Tom Hayden -- oh, if only he'd lived long enough fo# #METOO -- emerged months later in July finally agnry -- momentarily -- about Barack and took THE HUFFING POST to huff about this March incident -- in July, he huffed. And pretend no one had known about it. And blame Hillary Clinton for that. SHe should have informed the world. Well, Tom, she did raise the issue. Her campaing rasied it repeatedly for over a week. Back in March of 2008, when it mattered. It was whores like yourself who stayed silent. Tom knew about it in real time. I have the e-mails form him where he was whining to me about my covering it here in real time and how I was hurting "the case."

Funny, he said that to me back in the 80s as well -- that I wa shurting "the cause." HOw so? By refusing his advances and making it clear that I would never, ever sleep with him.

Barack gave a very informative interview while he was running. It was to THE NEW YORK TIMES. War cheerleder Michael Gordon wrote it up. Most ignored the write up. It wasn't much to read. The transcript of the interview, however, was wroth reading and the paper published that online. It was covered in this "Iraq snapshot," and, at THIRD, we used the transcript to write what THE TIMES should have written "NYT: Barack Obama Will Keep Troops In Iraq." Read it, in his own words, read him saying that even if he pulls troops out, he's open to putting them back in.

He never ended the war.

All US troops did not leave. We covered the Senate hearing where the late Senator Kay Hagan made that point in real time. The press was there in full force but, strangely, they didn't cover the truth about what their little pet was actually doing. Ted Koppel did. On NPR and on NBC, he covered what was actually happening during the drawdown passed off as a withcrawl, he covered how many would be remaining, he had confirmation on camera from the military for the NBC report.

STrange, isn't it. This was his post-NIGHTLINE beginning. And it ended with those stories. First the NBC outlet was pulled fromt he airwaves, then the long-running NPR program hit the dust.

And we never really got reporting from Ted again.

But we covered those reports here at lenght. The NBC one? We covered it before it aired. REpeatedly. Then we covered it after it aired. And then we covered it for years aftwards.

Barack did not oversee a withdrawal. He oversaw a drawdown -- a reduction. That's not what he promised on the campaign trail but the press was happy to join him in lying about it.

In 2012, the idiot Mitt Romney was told that he needed to point this out. He was told that he needed to go for this because Barack was running with the lie that he'd kept his promises -- except of course for closing Guantamano Bay. He had withdrawn US forces from Iraq!!!!

Mitt was told by his chief advisor that this was where Barack was weak and this was what he needed to hit on.

But he didn't. Because he's trash and he always was trash.

This paragraph used to appear here a lot:

December 6, 2012, the Memorandum of Understanding For Defense Cooperation Between the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Iraq and the Department Defense of the United States of America was signed. We covered it in the December 10th and December 11th snapshots -- lots of luck finding coverage elsewhere including in media outlets -- apparently there was some unstated agreement that everyone would look the other way. It was similar to the silence that greeted Tim Arango's September 25th New York Times report which noted, "Iraq and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could result in the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on training missions. At the request of the Iraqi government, according to [US] General [Robert L.] Caslen, a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence."

September 25 of 2012. The election year. That's when Tim was able to get the truth into the paper of no record. Jill Abrramson was still the eidtor of the paper and she was insisting that no truth be in the paper about Barack, he had to be re-elected. Tim snuck that into a report on Syria. It ran buried in the middle of that piece. It should have been front page news but Jill repeatedly nixed it.

A year after the wisthrawal that wasn't, Barack was sending US troops back into Iraq. (Where they joined other US troops becuase all troops did not leave.)

That's the reality regarding Barack.

And if you stil l think he ended the (ongoing) war, that's on you for believing it now.

JACOBIN whores for him all this time later. Apparently, Laura Flanders, it's still not the time to hold Barack Obama accountable.

And that's how we ended up with the 19th anniversary of the ongoing IRaq War.

_________________________________

Added at 1:48 pm EST 3/22/22:

Shirley reports a number of e-mails to the public e-mail account insist that I wrote the above to avoid weighing in on Amy Schumer. Sorry, you're wrong.

I didn't have Amy on the mind at all. U dud bute nt tibgye ib /ant ub tge oast, She was maing a complete ass out of herself for over a year. But I said nothing because a firend had made a film with her and I wanted the film to do well (Goldie Hawn is the friend)> So Ignored her and didn't call her out for being a poor sport and getting NETFLIX to cahnge their ratings.

Sorry, Amy, no one likes you anymore. You were briefly a film star. And then you had to open that mouth of yours. You don't know anything and should frankly just sit down and close your mouth.

You are no longer a film star. You're even questionable as a film actress. That's because you have alienated so many people with your views that they never needed to know about.

You are a joke in the industry and that's why HULU is your last shot after the film career died, after the reality nonsense flopped.

ABC has gotten the Academy to elimat handing out some awards live because they think the problem is the long hours the broadcast runs. No. Ratings are down for the Oscars because of all the partisan nonsenset that's passed off as politics.

Her statements abouit 'going there' do not help the ratings. The first commercial featuring the three hosts was an embarrassment. Amy had all the lines and all the action. While Regina Hall -- an award winning actress -- and Wanda SYkes -- a comedian and actress of many years -- had to watch White failure act the fool. Are they co-hosts or her sidkicks?

Now Amy has said that the president of Ukraine should appear.

No.

Are you working for your cousin Chuck Schumer? Amy, you're not working for the Academy. As a member of the Academy, you are not working on my behalf.

You are trying to bring your partisan nonsense into a celebration of the arts.

The fact that we are not celebrating the arts in the broadcast is what has hurt rating.

Among other things, the man you want to bring to the Academy Awards night of honor is shutting down leftist outlets in Ukraine.

Forget everything else, Amy, that alone says no. Equally true, you may love him but he's not Nelson Mandela. Take your crush somewhere else. It does not belong on stage.

But more to the point, there was never a reason to say "Yes."

The Oscars are about art. And you clearly are not qualified to co-hsot because you don't grasp that.

We need to celebrate the arts. We do not need your current cause or your current nonsense.

That's Diana Ross with her latest mix of "I Still Believe" from her latest album THANK YOU.

Why am I noting that? Diana's a frined. It's a great song. I love THANK YOU> That is all true.

But there's another reason and goes to the failures of ABC and Amy.

It's great that Regina and Wanda are co-hsoting -- even if the commercials keep focusing on White Amy. This is big step.

It is not, however, the first and we need to celebrate the people who got us here. Diana Ross is the first woman of color to ever be a co-host of the Oscars. That should be pushed by aBC, that should be discussed and addressed. This is historic. I'm sure REgina will bring a full appreciaton of the arts in her duties as co-host. I look forward to Wanda cracking me up.

They got here because pioneers like Diana broke down the barriers. We should ignore White Amy and her patisan nonsense and celebrate Regina and Wanda while acknowledging all the men and women who came bfore and brougtht us to this point.

-------------------

The following sites updated:

Monday, March 21, 2022

Isaiah and Jimmy Dore

Saturdday night, Isaiah's THE WORLD TODAY JUST NUTS "We Feed Them" went up.

And, as C.I. notes in the snapshot, you can pare that with Jimmy Dore's report below.

How are you ging to pay for it? How are you going to pay for it? That's the estion they ask when it's bout something We The People need. Medicqre For All, studentl lon forgiveness, whatever. The immedite response is how re you going to py for it.

But give billions to Ukraine?

Never enters their mind how it's going to be pid for.

They know how it's going to be pqaid for: WITH OUR TQX DOLLARS!!! They won't spend our tax dollarst to make our lives better but they'll blow it on people in a far away country?

That's abuse. If you heard that a parent was doing that, leaving their own children neglected to impreess other people? You'd call it abuse and that's what it is.

I find it disgusting.

C.I. notes Jimmy Dore twice in the snapshot today. I got a complaint about the first noting. A little tattle tale wanted me to note that C.I. said Jimmy Dore is inconsisentent when it comes to holding Tulsi accountable.

Guess what? He is.

And C.I. likes Jimmy Dore -- she posts more of his videos then we do. When were were short for a feature at THIRD yesterday, she's the one who said, "Just post his video on Amy Goodman We've called her out so it's a subject covered for years hree, longterm readers will know all about the topic and it'll be new in that Jimmy's taking her on over Ukraine."

She's always promoting Jimmy.

But she's not going to whore. If it's wrong, it's wrong.

And Jimmy's a great guy. He's a great journalist. But he does have that blind spot for Tulsi.

And Tulsi did sell us out at the end of July back in 2019. I went off on her here. I had been her biggest supporter up until then. And I was volunteering with her campaign and wrote about that here. And then it was over. When she was on that stage -- finally -- with Joe Biden and we were all waiting for her to call him out. Instead, she excused him. And even Jake Tapper couldn't believe it. So he asked her again. And she let Joe off again. Then she went on MSNBC and elsewhere making excuses for Joe Biden and pretending he wasn't a War Hawk.

I don't forgive her for that. I don't pretend that she didn't gift Joe with the presidency by not holding him accountable. He was on the ropes back then. She could have focused on him and knocked him out, Instead, she went after Kamala Harris -- who was already dead in the water -- and let Joe off with a pass.

I blame her. I call her out on being a fake ass. And I don't like her anymore. She tricked me. She whored and lied and you can trick me once but I'm not so stupid that I'll fall for you again.

Sorry.

Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Monday, March 21, 2022. JACOBIN whores for the IRaq War.

Over the weekend, the Iraq War hit the 19th mark, 19 years and still going. Will US troops ever leave Iraq? At this rate, no. And we know how the corporate media in the US did their part to start the illegal war and to keep it going. We address that fact constatly. We've also noted, over the years, how Pandhandle Media -- the beggar media -- send money, send money -- also keeps the illegal war going. This anniversary?

Silence from the beggar media for the most part.

To be clear, when we don't get silence from them on Iraq, we don't get much of anything. They do af, "It's 19 years old" statement and then rush to offer what everone knew back when Bully Boy Bush occupied the White House. Nothing as recent as two years prior is ever offered because they don't pay attention to Iraq. They can show up to do their useless segments and writing that would be the same if they wrote it ten years ago but they can't talk about Iraq today -- the political stalemate, the protests (more and more over rising costs), the large number of women being murdered (Juare is apparently the furthest US 'feminists' will allow their minds to wonder when women are being targeted), etc.

Enter JACOBIN and Saif Ansari -- the latter of whom bill shimself as "Philosopher, lawyer and writer. Indian American/Muslim atheist." SOmeone break it to the idiot that Muslim isn't a race, it's a religion so, if you bill yourself as an aehist, you're not a Mulsim. Basics are hard for Saif as he makes clear when writing about Iraq for Jacobin -- a place he doesn't normally cover but apparently someone at JACOBIN felt that the piece was needed and theyf armed it out to Saif as one of the non-White guys they actually have working at JACOBIN. Isn't that just another form of colinialism?

At any rate, Saif starts out his piece slamming US President Joe Biden which is more than fair. Joe is president and the war continues under his watch. Joe supported the war in the US Senate. And then, the whole thing quickly falls apart. The first section with huge pro lems:

And yet not even during the heated final debate of the primaries in 2020 did Bernie Sanders (who had voted against the invasion in 2002 as a representative of Vermont) make the case — which he had alluded to on the campaign trail more than once — that Biden was unfit to serve as president because of what was, in Sanders’s view, “the worst foreign policy blunder in the modern history of the United States.”

Elizabeth Warren, another candidate who had called the Iraq War a mistake, also failed to challenge Biden’s historical defense of the invasion — from denying that he had ever believed Hussein possessed WMDs to lamenting that the only mistake he had made was to trust the Bush administration. When asked whether Biden was to blame, Warren — a legal academic who had begun her political career taking on the president over the 2005 bankruptcy bill — demurred.

In fact, the most strenuous criticism against Biden’s role in the Iraq War was leveled in March 2020 by an air force veteran who accused Biden of having the blood of fellow service members on his hands. But despite his overtures that he had come to regret his support for the war — which became increasingly unpopular in the upper echelons of the Democratic Party in subsequent years — Biden never learned from his mistake.

Eleven years after the intervention in Libya’s [. . .]

Tulsi Gabbard? Isn't that the name that belongs in the above? Yes, it is. Caling Tulsi out for fake assery isn't a popular move. We don't worry about popularity here. We worry about the truth. SO we won't just be Abby Martin saying her name on a JaACOBIN podcast and then laughing. No, we'll actually go there as we did in real time. In the final debate that candidate Tulsi made the stage for, we were all expecting the big showdown. This was anti-war Tulsi. She'd played that anti-war arm chair zealot over and over. And the war, she'd tell voters over and over, was her biggest issue. It effected everything -- including how much money we had to spend on other issues -- needed issues.

Bill de Blasio and others had confronted Joe during the debqtes of the candidates for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. Tulsi hadn't. And she had an excuse, she wasn't on the stage with him. The field was so crowded back then that they had to divide them up into groups.

So she'd go on MSNBC, for example, on June 26, 2019 and slam Joe for his actions regarding Iraq but she wasn't on stage with him.

But Wednesay, July 31st, she was finally on stage with Joe Biden. And big talking Tulsi, whose big issue was the war, was on stage with Joe Biden who voted for the IRaq, War, who did a pre-war hearing that was stakced with war supporters though Joe tried to pretend it was fair and balanced, the man who voted over and over to keep funding the war, the man whod efended it over and over (despite his 2019 lie that he had turned on the wr the minute bombs started ropping). Here was Tulsi's chance to finally take the fight to Joe.

It was going to be an epic throwdown, right?

Wrong.

We recounted it at lenght and repeatedly over and over. For example, see the next day's snapshot.

Joe Biden was on the ropes. He was struggling and he could have been eliminated that night. If Tulsi had done the job she should have, he could have been out of the primary.

But instead, she decided to take out Kamala Harris. Jimmy Dore rightly points out that Kamala ended up without any support at all. Throughout the entire thing, the long process, no one was flacking to her. He's right. But he is someone who has some allegience to Tulsi that is greater than his allegiance to the truth. Now I'll overlook that on Jimmy. He speaks out on many important topics. And I'll defend her from the lunatic attacks from WHoopi Goldberg and others.

But I'm not going to pretend that we saw Tulsi was a whore at the debates.

Read the transcript -- or read the snapshot -- because Tulsi went after Kamala and Kamala was no threat. She was never going to get the nomination. She had no large base of support. Most women did not rally to her. African-Americans in the south did not relate to her.

But Tulsi used her time and her ammo on Kamala. Not on Joe.

Her defenders -- and, sadly, that included BLACK AGENDA REPORT -- would make excuses for her. There was no excuse. Joe Biden was the choice of the establishment and he was being carried by the corporate meid and covered and pimped by them.

She should have taken out Joe.

Sher refused to do so.

If you missed that debate, you may join the liars and insist that she was making statements and -- B.S. That's a damn lie. Jake Tapper was a moderator. He specifically called on her regarding Joe Biden and he was puzzled -- watch his face -- by her remarks which were rescuing Joe and excusing his actions.

He looks like he's wondering if she understood the question. SO he then goes back to her for a second time and is more specific. And Tulsi again takes a pass.

That night, the next day and through the weekend, Tulsi shows up where ever she could on TV and repeatedly insisted that Joe said his vote was wrong and that was good enough for her.

His actions wnet far beyond just his initial vote but Tulsi buried that in hre comments and buried Joe's Iraq issues for the press. When the self-promoted anti-war candidate told the American people and the press that Joe had nothing to apologize for or make amends for that everything was fine? There was no longer a story there. The media wants conflict. And it wants conflict is can hide behind to pretend to be objective. Had Tulsi held Joe accountable on the stage, the issue of the Iraq War would have been forced itno the conversation by the national press.

My allegiance is not to any politician.

Tulsi is one of the reasons Joe Biden is in the White House. She had the chance to tak ehim out and instead aimed her fire at Kamala. People like pig Michael Tracey were overjoyed.

What they refuse to admit now is that Tulsi gave the nomination to Joe on that night in July of 2019. They refuse to also admit that the woman Tulsi 'destroyed' on stage is now Vice President of the United States. So exactly how badly did Tulsi destroy Kamala?

It was pure fake assery.

Dennis Kucinich left people in tears in Boston back in 2004 at the DNC convention. I didn't defend him. I told the young teenagers who were crying in the open -- especially one young woman -- that Dennis didn't deserve them. That they had more integrity and more ethics than he ever would.

I don't whore for a politician. I hold them accountable.

It's a shame that no one wants to hold Tulsi accountable. It's how we will get another Bernie Fake Ass SAnders to divert us all and we will pour energies into him and risk our own health to try to deliver the nomination to him and he will sell us out and try to use us as his fan clubm.

JACOBIN trets Tulsi as an aside because they get vicious feedback. I don't care what the e-mails to the public account are like. I will defend her right to speak. I will defend her from vicious attacks on her patritoism. I will not, however, pretend that she's anti-war or that she will speak with an anti-war voice.

She betrayed everyone and she needs to be held accountable.

Saif writes:

American voters used to give a damn about the Iraq War. In 2008, Barack Obama leveraged widespread discontent with the war to secure the Democratic nomination, courting progressives and young people alike. In fact, it’s widely believed that Hillary Clinton lost to the senator from Illinois not just because she had voted for the war — and was instrumental in rallying ambivalent Democrats to the cause — but because Obama had decried the invasion from the start.

Where do you start with that garbage.

American voters used to give a damn about the Iraq War?

The voters are the ones who walked away?

I don't remember the voters issuing a statement the week after the November 2008 election stating that they were shutting down. No, that was United for Peace and Justice which made a ton of money off the war. But they then used their organization to shelter elected Democrats and theywhore to get Barack into the White House. Leslie Cagan is a grown ass woman and then some -- the whiskers on her chin prove that. But the woman who's too cowardly to tell a board meeting that she's a Community -- she is one -- is the same woman who whored for Barack and didn't want to be around to hold him accoutnable.

They lied. They lied to the voters and told them Barack was an anti-war candidate.

He wasn't. He never was.

The media stuck in on Iraq just a little bit longer. As 2008 drew to a close, newspapers and networks in the US announced that they were closing BAghdad desks ABC announced that anything that happened in Iraq could be covered by their using BBC coverage of the war.

So the 'leaders' deserted and then the US news deserted all before Janaury 2009 and yet the person JACOBIN blames is voters?

When we do our Zooms there are always students who will say they showed up thinking this was going to be historical, a look at what had been done to Iraq. They didn't realize that it was still being done. I don't them blame them or attack them. I understand why they don't know about Iraq, the corporate media doesn't cover it and the so-calleldl politicians who care (Barbara Lee) won't mention it.

Saif writes tht ''some believe'' Barack used Iraq to destroy Hillary's chances. Some believe that? It was his whole argument advanced by his suppoters. as well as by himself. It demonstrated his supposed superior judgment.

We heard tht over and over. And we saw CODESTINK bird dog Hillary while avoid him despite the fact that hew as voting for the Iraq War once he was in office.

No, he did not vote for the 2002 authorization of the war. He was not in the US Senate at the time so he could not vote for it.

Patricia J. Williamson was a typical whore for Barack. Despite being a law professor, and presumably understanding what ethics are, she wnet on KPFA and lied on THE MORNING SHOW about how Barack, in 2002, had voted against the Iraq War. When confronted with her lie by a caller, Patty refused to admit the truth.

They all lied, they all whored. THey used poor Kimberlé Crenshaw. I told her they were using her so I don't feel sorry for her. She was warned. They wanted to attack Hillary and promote Barck so White women teamed up with Kimberle to use her skin color in the byline. They didn't give a damn about her or her observations. She thought she was breaking through. HUFF POST, THE PROGERESSIVE,e veryone was noting some column she had co-written and the importance of it and . . . . By 2009, when she was no longer needed as cover to hide behind, she went back to being unwanted in the circle jerk that ignores most people of color. But for awhile there, she was convicnced that everyone was interested in her and she'd finally broken through.

Saif wants you to know that Barack was agains the war from the start.

But he wasn't.

He was against it enough to give a tiny speech. It was so smallt hat iwas insignificant. Footage existed of it -- I'm still friends with the person who asked Barack tp speak in Chicago that day. But the turnout was small. So 2008 campaign decided to 'recrete' it and the press let them do that. I've seen the original. It's not inspiring, the voice doesn't soar. Hes not impressive in his remarks or in his delivery. So they shot it several years later and the press let him get away with it.

Why dods it matter?

I mentioned Boston 2004, remember. I was there. I was there when he gave that lousy speech at the convention. Matthew Rothschild called it out in THE PROGRESSIVE. It was a war speech. And then, three years later, Matty wants to whore for Barack and begins praising the speech. That's what a whore does, erase the past.

And that's what JACOBIN's doing.

It was in Boston that THE NEW YORK TIMES asked Barack -- anti-war Barack -- about he Iraq War and noted that the top of the ticket, John Kerry had voted for it. Barack pointed out that he wasn't in Congress and said he didn't know how he would have voted if he had been in Congress.

When Bill Clinton raised this point, he was smeared as a racist. We've repeatedly noted Bill's criticue over the years

But since you raised the judgment issue, let's go over this again. That is the central argument for his campaign. 'It doesn't matter that I started running for president less a year after I got to the Senate from the Illinois State Senate. I am a great speaker and a charismatic figure and I'm the only one who had the judgment to oppose this war from the beginning. Always, always, always.' "
"First it is factually not true that everybody that supported that resolution supported Bush attacking Iraq before the UN inspectors were through. Chuck Hagel was one of the co-authors of that resolution. The only Republican Senator that always opposed the war. Every day from the get-go. He authored the resolution to say that Bush could go to war only if they didn't co-operate with the inspectors and he was assured personally by Condi Rice as many of the other Senators were. So, first the case is wrong that way."
"Second, it is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, numerating the years, and never got asked one time, not once, 'Well, how could you say, that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war and you took that speech you're now running on off your website in 2004* and there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since?' Give me a break."This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen...

I dictate the snapshots. I am not looking at the above. I mention that because as we repeatedly returned to that quote, we would add more links to it to back up what Bill was saying. My friend's pulled that from a piece I did with Ava back in 2011. I steered him to that because I'm hopning it has all the links in it. If it doesn't do the research yourself. I'd also recommend the piece for THIRD entitled "The Temple Prostitutes in the Cult of St. Barack."

JACOBIN fits in that same temple with the other prostitues when they publish garbage like this.

And I'm not even at the half-way mark on that awful article.

How does the Iraq War continue? Be cause of whoring like what JAOCBIN posted that never hodls anyone acountable.

Isaiah's THE WORLD TODAY JUST NUTS "We Feed Them" went up Saturday night.

And you can pair that with this video from Jimmy Dore.

New content at THIRD:

The following sites updated:

Thursday, March 17, 2022

Jimmy Dore, Sabby Sabs and Binoy Kampmark

First, this is Sabby Sabs and she's got a note on Jimmy Dore.

Now here's Jimmy Dore.

And there's a reason that we are in so mucb trouble as a nation -- idiots like Kamala and Nancy are public servants. Idiots like Joe Biden. We have too many fools and they're not running the country, they are ruining the country. These fools are in a rush to push for the end of the world and they don't even seem to grasp what that would mean.

Binoy Kampmark (DISSIDENT VOICE) notes:

Wars disturb and delude. The Ukraine conflict is no exception. Misinformation is cantering through press accounts and media dispatches with feverish spread. Fear that a nuclear option might be deployed makes teeth chatter. And the Russian President Vladimir Putin is being treated as a Botox Hitler-incarnate, a figure worthy of assassination.

The idea of forcing Putin into the grave certainly tickled South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham. Liberated by more generous rules regarding hate speech (freedom in Silicon Valley is fickle), Graham took to Twitter to ask whether Russia had its own calculating Brutus willing to take the murderous initiative. Moving forward almost two millennia for a historical reference, the Senator pinched an example from the Second World War (when else?). “Is there a more successful Colonel Stauffenberg in the Russian military?” The only way to conclude the conflict was “for somebody in Russia to take this guy out.”

In support of the proposition came Fox News host Sean Hannity, using long discredited logic in dealing with the leaders of a country. “You cut off the head of the snake and you kill the snake. Right now, the snake is Vladimir Putin.”

Armchair psychologist types tend to suggest that homicidal fantasies are fairly common. Julia Shaw of University College London told those attending the Cheltenham Science Festival in 2019 that this was to be expected from humans, enabling them to think through “the consequences” of their actions, obey a moral code and “develop our empathy.”

Shaw might have missed a beat on this one, especially regarding the harm wished upon the Russian leader from a certain number in self-declared Freedom’s Land. Empathy has been in short supply, and the moral code, if it can be called that, has gone begging.

They;re all crazy. We might be hurtling towards a nuclear war but that's not a 'mature' thought to have, apparently. 'Maturity' is to be found in screaming for death and destruction and insisting upon upping the level of violence.

We deserve so much better when it comes to our public servants.

Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Thursday, March 17, 2022.. The rabid hate-fest that passes for public affairs programming in the US is something to ponder.

Starting with Sabby Sabs.

Whoopi can't get next to the table. Note that. It's not the double chins, it's the extreme girth that should alarm everyone. She's so fat she has to scoot her chair way, way back because her belly is too big for her to be close to the table.

She's ugly, yes. But she can be as ugly as she wants. She's been ugly for years. But she can't be that fat. Not when she's diabetic. She wants to talk about examples being set by others? Fatty is out of control with her diabetes. She's way too fat. If anyone really loved her in her life (no one does), they'd sit her down and say "Whoopi, you're going to lose a foot. You've got to get your weight under control."

Sabby is shocked that Joy said that Tucker wouldn't "be welcoed here for much longer" and she can't believe that she used to watch the show. Apparently not for that long. When Bully Boy Bush occupied the White House, when Joy was on the panel, THE VIEW did what it's doing now -- for the right wing. It's really easy for those losers to pretend otherwise but they condmened people left and right and that includes Joy. In fact, Joy was part of the 'hot topic' that went way off the rails one day. Barbara Walters was not on that show but had to come on the next day to straighten things up.

Joy and the other ladies (exepting Lisa Ling) trashed Jane Fonda who wasn't even part of the news cycle. They just started trashing her. They just started trashing her, ssaying she belonged behind bars, saying this and saying that. A FOX NEWS talk show could not have been as hateful to Jane as THE VIEW was. And Joy laughed with the hideous Meredith, at the end of the segment, about how Jane would never ask to come ont he show again.

Jane ask?

No, bitches, Jane doesn't ask to be on a show. A show asks her to be on.

Barbara Walters had to come on the next day and note that the conversation had gone too far and that what was said was wrong.

Barbara is not part of the show now (due to health) and there's n one who can come on and tell these out of control lunatics to STFU.

They're not qualified for anything but they speak on everything. And they are never wrong in their mind.

I decline to comment on everything because I can't know everything. But the less educated women of THE VIEW think they know everything -- which is why you'll notice the idiot Sunny is always reading off remarks. Love that unscripted but really scripted quality Sunny has because it's lets us know she's an idiot. She can't even formulate the froth she's spewing on her own.

It's really time for THE VIEW to end. And thta's going to depend upon the viewers saying enough. There are toher programs you can watch which don't have lunatics in front of the cameras screaming for this person to be arrested, this tried on treason, this kicked out of the country, this . . .

In other words, the women on other morning shows aren't as rabid 00 or, let's be honest, as ugly. More and more to be a member of THE VIEW, you really do have to be ugly.

So just say no to ugly, rabid people.

That's the only way that you're going to end this garbage. And it is garbage.

This is not it did have rules and follow them. That's not the case anymore. It's time for the show to go. The women who have inheretied it will just continue ta daytime talk show. Not one to be on a genearl entertainment network. The hosts are ignorant of events and even of basic necessities.

To note another incident, the ladies walked off during an interview because they didn't like what was being said. That was Whoopi, that was Joy. They walked out. They were sent back on stage because whore's don't want to lose money but, again, the next day Barbara had to show up to fix everyting. She had to explain the idea was that THE VIEW would engage, not that it would do that nonsense.

More to the point, hosts -- paid hosts -- do not have the right to walk out in the middle of an interview.

They know nothing about anything. They don't know the basics of hosting a talk show. They don't know the basics of what they're discussing.

This is not a show worth embracing and to keep watching these War Harpies is to embrace war. It's to embrace hate. Last month, Whoopi was distorting the Holocaust. She lied and she faux apologized and some of the left defended her. She lies all the time. She shouldn't be on air

She should be at a fat farm working every day to reduce her girth to a point where it is not endangering her health. She's not ten or thirty pounds overweight. She is grossly overweight. And she is diabetic.

When the health problems come along, no one should feel sorry for her. She's in con-compliance.

And maybe that's where the hate she's spewing comes from. And maybe she's poisoning her body intentionally. But I'm not going to feel sorry for her when she's the one destroying herself.

I also don't think we need to hear from anyone whose life is out of that control. She's like an addict who is active in her addiction. She's not someone to be a moderator as a result of that.

And before she worries next about what message Tucker or Tulsi is sending, she might want to grasp that she -- tugboat Whoopi -- is sending a message as well and it's that daibetics can be diagnosed and then get grossly overweight and it's nothing to worry about or be concerned about.

She wants to sti in judgment on everyone else in the world on every thing they do. But she doesn't want to apply the same eyes on and commentary about her own health.

Caitlin Johnstone (ICH) observes:

The only real anti-war position on the Ukraine conflict is support for de-escalation, diplomacy, and detente. Yelling “PUTIN BAD” and calling for escalations that could lead to a very fast, very radioactive WWIII are not anti-war, and indeed such sentiments are being exploited to prolong this war.

No efforts are being made toward diplomacy and peace, only toward escalations like building an insurgency and unprecedented economic warfare which fit perfectly into pre-existing US agendas against Russia. This is in the exact opposite direction of peace.

De-escalation is a skill we’re meant to start learning in kindergarten. These people act like they learned their de-escalation skills in the Minneapolis Police Department.

If you want to keep screaming that Putin is Adolf Hitler and even insignificant concessions like promising not to add Ukraine to NATO would be Chamberlainesque “appeasement” then go ahead, but don’t pretend you’re anti-war or pro-peace, because you’re not.

Wars end in one of two ways: with diplomacy and negotiation, or with mountains of corpses. If you’re opposed to any kind of negotiation with Moscow to bring about peace, then you want the latter. And if you do, you should get your bitch ass on a plane and join the front lines.

So let's tart a GoFundMe for the ladies of THE VIEW so they can put their tough girl asses on the line and use something more than their useless mouths as the crow and bray for more war.

Quick sidenote, THE VIEW is not the only embarrassment appearing on so called public affairs programs. A CNN friend called and played me a clip of US House Rep Maria Salazar revealing herself to be an idiot and an insulting one on Tucker Carlson's program. Tucker said "our boys" and I don't expect anything more from him. I don't consider him to be high at the top of the food chain or even the least bit aware of the world he lives in. But the elected US official began repeating it and running with it "our boys." SHe doesn't want to send "our boys" to Ukraine. Over and over.

The place of a woman like that is not in the House or the Senate. If she's not aware that women are part of the US military, that women are in combat, that women serve, she's too dumb to serve in Congress, hell, she's too dumb to greet you at the door of Sam's. Maybe she should meet with some US senators? She could speak with Tammi Duckworth, for example, who could speak about serving in Iraq, she could speak with Joni Ernst. She could speak with any number of women. By 2012 alone, 283,000 American women had deployed to either Iraq or Afghanistan (or, in some cases, to both).

That an elected member of Congress could be so stupid is appalling. That the member is also a woman just adds further insult when she's erasing the service of other women.,

Turning to the ongoing persecution of Julian Assange, Marjorie Cohn (TRUTH OUT) notes:

The British judicial system has erected still another barrier to Julian Assange’s freedom. On March 14, the U.K. Supreme Court refused to hear Assange’s appeal of the U.K. High Court’s ruling ordering his extradition to the United States. If extradited to the U.S. for trial, Assange will face 17 charges under the Espionage Act and up to 175 years in prison for revealing evidence of U.S. war crimes.

With no explanation of its reasoning, the Supreme Court denied Assange “permission to appeal” the High Court’s decision, saying that Assange’s appeal did not “raise an arguable point of law.” The court remanded the case back to the Westminster Magistrates’ Court, which is the same court that denied the U.S. extradition request on January 4, 2021.

In all likelihood, the magistrates’ court will refer the case to the British Home Office where Home Secretary Priti Patel will review it. Assange’s lawyers then have four weeks to submit materials for Patel’s consideration. If she orders Assange’s extradition — which is highly likely — his lawyers will file a cross-appeal in the High Court asking it to review the issues Assange lost in the magistrates’ court.

If the High Court refuses to review those additional issues, Assange can appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. That could take years. Meanwhile, he languishes in London’s high-security Belmarsh Prison, in fragile mental and physical health. He suffered a mini-stroke as his extradition hearing began. United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer wrote in a Twitter post that the “U.K. is literally torturing him to death.”

US President Joe Biden could end this nonsense at any time. He could drop the pursuit of Julian. He might if pressure were brought to bear. Julian's crime was journalism. Joe loathes him because Julian exposed US War Crimes. And if Joe gets away with it, the US government will begin punishing other foreign journalists operating outside of the US. It will demand that they be turned over to the US because their truthful reporting embarrassed the US government. Oscar Grenfell (WSWS) points out, "The British and US authorities are seeking to make an example of Assange, to intimidate widespread anti-war sentiment, and to create a precedent for further political persecutions targeting opposition to war and militarism. At the same time, the incessant media propaganda over Ukraine is being seized upon, to drown out other crucial issues, including Assange’s plight."

Craig Murray (ICH) notes:

With Julian still, for no rational reason, held in maximum security, the legal process around his extradition continues to meander its way through the overgrown bridlepaths of the UK’s legal system. Today the Supreme Court refused to hear Julian’s appeal, which was based on the grounds of his health and the effect upon it of incarceration in the conditions of the United States prison service. It stated his appeal had “no arguable legal grounds.”

This is a setback which is, most likely, going to keep Julian in jail for at least another year.

The legal grounds which the High Court had previously ruled to be arguable, were that the USA government should not have been permitted to give at appeal new (and highly conditional) diplomatic assurances about Assange’s treatment, which had not been offered at the court of first instance to be considered in the initial decision. One important argument that this should not be allowed, is that if given to the original court, the defence could argue about the value and conditionality of such assurances; evidence could be called and the matter weighed by the court.

By introducing the assurances only at the appeal stage – which is only on points of law and had no fact-finding remit – the USA had avoided any scrutiny of their validity. The Home Office have always argued that diplomatic assurances must simply be accepted without question. The Home Office is keen on this stance because it makes extradition to countries with appalling human rights records much easier.

In saying there is no arguable point of law, the Supreme Court is accepting that diplomatic assurances are not tested and are to be taken at face value – which has been a major point of controversy in recent jurisprudence. It is now settled that we will send someone back to Saudi Arabia if the Saudis give us a piece of paper promising not to chop their head off.

It interested me in particular that the Supreme Court refused to hear Julian’s appeal on the basis there was “no arguable point of law”. When the Supreme Court refused to hear my own appeal against imprisonment, they rather stated their alternative formulation, there was “no arguable point of law of general public interest”. Meaning there was an arguable point of law, but it was merely an individual injustice, that did not matter to anybody except Craig Murray.

My own view is that, with the Tory government very open about their desire to clip the wings of judges and reduce the reach of the Supreme Court in particular, the Court is simply avoiding hot potatoes at present.

So the extradition now goes to Priti Patel, the Home Secretary, to decide whether to extradite. The defence has four weeks to make representations to Patel, which she must hear. There are those on the libertarian right of the Tory party who oppose the extradition on freedom of speech grounds, but Patel has not a libertarian thought in her head and appears to revel in deportation, so personally I hold out no particular hope for this stage.

We'll wind down with this from Black Allaince for Peace:

For Immediate Release

Media Contact

press@blackallianceforpeace.com

202 643 1136

MARCH 15, 2022—The Black Alliance for Peace (BAP) declares its support for garment workers in Haiti and stands with the Haitian people who, migrating from the country for economic or political reasons, have faced racism, hostility, and terror abroad. We also condemn the neo-colonial political economic policies of the U.S. government, its international allies, and the multinational corporations who have created Haiti’s imperial crisis by continuing to undermine the sovereignty and independence of the Haitian people.

Early in the year, garment workers launched protests at the Caracol Industrial Park in Haiti’s northeast region. These protests have since spread to Port-au-Prince. The workers—mostly women—have demanded wage increases and decried the dehumanizing and demeaning sweatshops in which they are employed. Their demands have been blocked by the U.S. government and by those foreign corporations, including Hanes, New Balance, Champion, Gilden Activewear, Gap, and Walmart, which have profited from a decades-long history of Haitian labor exploitation and wage suppression. With wages at a criminally-low figure of under $5 per day, the workers are demanding an increase to $15 per day.

At the same time, thousands of Haitian people continue to abandon their homes and flee their country for economic and political reasons. Their journeys abroad are uncertain and perilous and their encounters with foreign governments have been punitive and hostile. Only last week, a boat carrying more than 300 Haitians capsized off the coast of Florida. In Mexico, Haitian migrants confront daily the racism of immigration agents and the National Guard and thousands of Haitians have been illegally incarcerated in Tapachula in what some have described as concentration camps. The Dominican Republic, with help from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, is militarizing its border with Haiti, beginning construction on a planned 164-kilometer long wall with 70 watchtowers and 41 access points. Dominican President Luis Abinader has called it an “intelligent fence”: It will use radars, drones, movement sensors, cameras and, of course, well-armed border patrol agents to prevent Haitian migration.

Meanwhile, the Biden administration deports Haitian asylum seekers at a record pace. Biden has continued the use of Trump-era policies including “Remain in Mexico” and “Title 42” to deny asylum seekers the right to due process and safety. More than 20,000 Haitians have been deported within Biden’s first year in office, a number greater than the record of the previous three presidents combined.

It goes without saying that the treatment of Haitian people provides a stark, racial contrast with that of Ukrainian refugees. While Biden has told Haitians, “Don't come over,” he has welcomed Ukrainians “with open arms.”

For the Black Alliance for Peace, imperialism is the root cause of both the protests of Haiti’s garment workers and the experiences of Haitian migrants. While multinational corporations have undermined Haiti’s workers, the U.S. government, alongside U.S.-led bodies like the Organization of American States (OAS) and the CORE Group, have decapitated the Haitian state. As Haitain wages have been suppressed, Haitian democracy has been throttled. And as Haitian immigrants are abused in and deported from foreign countries, it is foreign meddling that has created the conditions forcing Haitians to migrate.

Thus, as Jemima Pierre, BAP’s Haiti/Americas Committee Coordinator, reminds us, “Haiti’s domestic crises are crises of imperialism, generated by the policies of the United States and its allies.”

The Black Alliance for Peace reaffirms its solidarity with the Haitian people in their unremitting struggles for peace, independence, and self-determination against U.S./UN imperialism. We salute our sisters and brothers fighting for higher wages and better working conditions at home, and in their quest for a better life abroad.

The Black Alliance for Peace (BAP) calls on all organized labor to organize boycotts of Hanes, Levis, Fruit of the Loom and H&M in solidarity with Haitian workers.
BAP demands that the Biden regime stop its racist hypocrisy and end deportations of Haitian asylum seekers.
BAP demands that Haitian refugees and asylum seekers in the United States, the Dominican Republic, Mexico and elsewhere be treated with dignity and be afforded their legal rights under international law.
BAP calls on all organizations in the Caribbean and Latin America to issue denunciations of the OAS and United States and organize regular pickets outside of their headquarters and embassies.
BAP calls on all human rights organizations and members of the Black liberation movements to organize long term strategic solidarity campaigns to support self-determination for the Haitian people.

No Compromise, No Retreat!

###

The following sites updated: