How The Clintons Hooked-up With a Tyrrant King of Morocco to Stack Loot

One thing about Bill and Hillary Clinton is that they are about getting that loot. Case in point among many glaring examples is their relationship with Mohammed the VI, King of Morocco. Now Morocco is no bastion of humanity, in fact it is one of the world’s worst violators of human rights by some estimates.  However, this did not stop HILLBILL from doing what they do, even while she was serving as the Secretary of State of the United Sates.  It appears that while in office, Secretary Clinton often was in communication with lobbyist that served the interest of the King and country.

One of the prize possessions of the King is the state owned mining company OCP (formerly called the Office Chérifien des Phosphates). OCP operates in disputed international territory in an out-of-the-way part of the Saharan Desert that the Moroccan government seized after Spain withdrew in 1975.  However, the government-owned mining company still  extracts the resources in the region without adequately compensating the extremely poor people that live there and consequently, the King and the government have been condemned forthese actions. In 2009 Forbes noted that the African nation controlled almost half of the world’s phosphate deposits and that the year prior, had mined 28 million metric tons of phosphate rock, placing it only behind the China and the U.S. at the time. It must also be noted that King Mohammed VI, has an estimated net worth north of $5 billion.

Now while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State between 2009 and 2013, the Government of Morocco was heavily courting the U.S. using the famous corporate law firm of Covington & Burling LLP, led by the firm’s senior counsel Stuart Eizenstat. To be exact, Eizenstat represented OCP in Washington. Report suggests that the law firm was paid in upwards of $1.3 million since 2012 to lobby the State Department and other federal agencies by the mining magnet. After Clinton office, within a few months the Clinton Global Initiative restarted its foreign meetings as well as also resumed taking huge sums of money from new foreign donors. The Moroccan government is even on the record of providing monetary support for her presidential campaign.

As many have indicated, Hillary is very experienced in these matters.  She must know that for years (when the CIA used Morocco as a Black site) that consistently the nation has been an incessant violator of human rights. In Morocco, thousands of children (mainlygirls) illegally in private homes of the elite as domestic workers, not to mention that there is no freedom of the press, speech or religion.  Of the past few years, the state has increased restrictions on domestic and international human rights groups, for investigating how political dissidents, reporters and others are administered severely long prison terms without due process for what some have called “politically motivated offenses.” In fact I am aware, at least some in the Clinton Stated Department knew for they categorized the government of Moroccoin similar terms.

The same has been said about the company that made the $1 million donation to the Clinton Global Initiative Middle East and Africa meeting in Marrakech on May, 5-7. The irony is that the Clinton’s took the money when some few years earlier the Clinton’s State Department had accused the Moroccan government of being corrupt. However, her criticism dampened and she praised not only the King and the Moroccan government, but also OCP. News and other independent reports note that OCP treats miner whom work in their mines inhumanely. They have been forced to retire early, had their pensions and wages cut dramatically and even state that many or often the target of forced detentions (especially Sahrawi’s trying to obtain independence in Moroccan-occupied Western Sahara.

It is unlikely that Secretary Clinton or Stuart Eizenstat were ignorant of the nefarious activities of the government or OCP.  Eizenstat is a close confidant of the Clintons and served in multiple capacities under the Clinton Administration.  This included serving as the United States Ambassador to the EuropeanUnion, followed up with being Clinton’s Under Secretary of the State forEconomic, Business and Agricultural Affairs and ending up as Clinton’s DeputySecretary of the Treasury.

Without a doubt the country and OCP was aware of what such a donation would get – access and possibly changes in policy and the status in which Morocco was viewed by the U.S. State Department.  Exports have pointed out that OCP has donated as much as $6 million to the Clinton Foundation over the past several years and openly, the Clintons shower the king with praises including being a moderate ruler with whom the U.S. should partner with.  However, this change in perspective is dubious given what was revealed in leaked Moroccan diplomatic cables that display that Hillary Clinton during her tenure as secretary of state on behalf of the nation lobbied UN to turn blind eye to their humanitarian abuses and violations in the Western Sahara. The documents also reveal that the Moroccan government had been occupied for years securing influence the Clinton family regarding dealings between the U.S. and Morocco relations, as well as to gain access to the ruling American elites in Washington, D.C.

One cannot over state this.  First it is a fact that OCP CEO Mostafa Terrab registered with the Justice Department as a foreignagent for Morocco to help get the meetings started with representatives of the Obama administration. Second, the practice of foreign nations seeing and using donations to the Clinton Foundation to impact U.S. policy is so frequent an outcome, that it is not unreasonable for foreign interest to seek this method of operation of supporting the foundation as a means to achieve such goals. Lastly, entities of the Moroccan government hired a firm headed by Washington lobbyist Justin Gray ironically right after he was named a board member of the pro-Hillary Clinton Presidential super-PAC, Priorities USA.

I am certain many will suggest  am just reaching and promoting a conspiracy theory when I am only outlining the way big money global politics happen in a world in which governments are run by crooks, thieves, plutocrats, corporatist and oligarchs. If I am in correct, and there is nothing to see here and is not an indication of how the Clinton’s, their foundation and globalist work, then explain to me how OCP, with all the controversy surrounding it, was able to receive nearly $100 million in U.S. taxpayer support, from the U.S. Export-Import Bank to purchase equipment from two American corporations? I am just asking.

Read More

Obama's Failed Putsch

A coup is a sudden and violent, seizure of power from a government. On occasion it has also been called a putsch.  A little more than two months ago there was such a violent attempt to overthrow the government in the nation of Turkey.  I heard about and read of several theories regarding the effort ranging from it being a theatrical production of Erdogan to a plan of secular aspects of the nation’s body politic as formalized via the exiled leadership of the Turkish preacher, former imam Muhammed Fethullah Gülen. However, none of these are even able to approach being reasonable and logical in my estimation, notwithstanding they are somewhat plausible.

If you asked me, I would say it was planned by the Obama Administration in concert with NATO and implemented in the splendid tradition of the standard U.S. ‘overthrow a democratically elected leader’ playbook under the direction of the C.I.A. of course.  And no, I have no explicit proof of this but history does support the tenable likelihood that I may be right and such is not farfetched at all.

Although I could give numerous examples, I would prefer to remind the reader of what we saw after World War II. After the defeat of Japan in 1945 when it was forced to leave Indochina. At the same time a movement was underway to free peasants in the region was taking off being led by Ho Chi Minh. Although US globalist history will claim that this was a communist led effort, the facts were that it was a grass roots operation.

As Howard Zinn noted, Minh, after he led the overthrew the Japanese, he established the Democratic Republic of Vietnam issued a declaration of independence based on the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the French Declaration of Rights of Man and the Citizen.  It was the first time ever Vietnam was free from foreign rule (and nearly foreign occupation) in history - however the West wasn’t about to let this happen. At the time, the English was occupying South Vietnam, which they eventually returned to the French. Concurrently, Nationalist China under the leadership of Chiang Kai-shek controlled the northern part of Indochina, which the U.S. persuaded them to return it to the French.

To make a long story short, the U.S. did all it could to prevent Minh’s desire of Vietnam unification and created South Vietnam as an American protectorate making Saigon as head of the government under the rule of a former Vietnamese official living in New Jersey named Ngo Dinh Diem. Unfortunately Diem’s rule was unpopular not to mention he was a Catholic in a country where most were Buddhists. And for that extra icing on the cake, he imprisoned all who criticized his administration.

In 1961 Kennedy became president and continued the policies of Truman and Eisenhower in the region. But by 1963 Diem had become even more autocratic and when a Buddhist monk set himself afire in Saigon to protest the artificially established U.S. government, it led to more monks committing suicide by fire to demonstrate their opposition to the government. With the approval and permission of the U.S. by Kennedy, American Ambassador Henry- Cabot Lodge and a State Department official named Roger Hilsman, a group of Vietnamese generals began plotting a coup to overthrow Diem. The result was the assassination of Diem and his brother.

Now many may not see the similarities but for the purpose of brevity I will explain.  The manner in which the opportunity arose in Vietnam for the U.S. to take advantage of a leader, whom in this case they selected and supported until his over-the-top autocratic rule and push for control was perceived as unacceptable by his citizenry, is ironically similar to the comportment of the citizens of Turkey with respect to Erdogan, albeit he was not handpicked by the U.S. he had been working on behalf (to what extent) of the military and geopolitical interest of the U.S., Europe and NATO.

Historically, when democratically elected governments (as with the case of Iran in 1953) or puppet autocratic states (as in Vietnam) and even states in between (as in present day Turkey and the Ukraine), the US will not hesitate to do whatever it can to protect the globalist oligarch and plutocrats of the political establishment and military industrial complex – even an invasion (as in the case of Iraq).

Historically for the U.S., the Coup has been and will continue to be the weapon of choice aside assignation to topple any nation that place their people before American and even western concern. Vietnam was just one example.  We saw the same in Iran in 1953, where America (the CIA) spent millions to hire thugs and professional protestors to act out a real life overly violent protest across the streets of Tehran and this is based on the words of the CIA's Kermit Roosevelt. When loyal troops to the democratically elected leader of Iran Mohammad Mosaddegh it became even more violent resulting in the deaths of hundreds eventually leading the forced resignation of Mosaddegh by members of parliament and others whom had been bribed by Roosevelt some weeks before.  Why were these actions taken, so America and the U.K. could install their puppet Shah whom had agreed to restore Western ownership of the oil industry which Mosaddegh vowed to take from the west and nationalize it? 

Then there is the example of Haiti in 2004 when hundreds of U.S. Special Forces worked with, trained and invaded the country from the Dominican Republic with anti-Lavalas.  U.S. Special Forces were used to trained FRAPH militiamen andanti-Lavalas forces in the Dominican Republic.  Upon which they invaded northern Haiti to set the groundwork for the overthrow of President Aristide. This approach is typical for carrying out a CIA ignited coup, in particular for Latin America, where they target nations that desire political and economic independence from the U.S. We saw this in Venezuela in 2002 and may be witnessing it currently. When successful, participants are rewarded with loot or positions of leadership (see Egypt’s Abdel Fattah el-Sisi for one such example).  In the end, the new leadership always ends up with the funding, backing and support of the U.S.

In the case of Turkey, I suspect that Erdogan bombing of U.S. supported Kurd's supposedly fighting ISIS in the North, and his increasingly dictatorial control on the country in concert with Americas need to have access to Incerlik airfield, everything came to boil.

Nonetheless, finding and instructing opposition forces and the promotion of violence and unrest in the streets is how the U.S. via the CIA create a state of emergency as a way to get rid of an elected or government and to gain power such that U.S. interest are paramount over the will and desires of said nation states.  All that is left is the right time to take action to remove the government and install the coup puppet leaders in its place. We saw this work to perfection in the Ukraine where the Obama coup machine had its most successful outcome (too early to say regarding Yemen).

In January 2014 street protests turned violent in Ukraine.  Most of it was by the hands of the neo-Nazi Svoboda Party and the Right Sector militia.  Ironically the Right Sector militia had only been in existence for less than a year at the time and documents show that it is funded by Ukrainian exiles living in the west – mainly the U.S. and Europe (another typical CIA ploy).  We know that the Obama administration via Assistant Secretary of State Nuland and Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt that the Obama Administration were waiting for and anticipating a coup to happen in Ukraine. 

These are just a few past and recent historic examples that are extremely well documented.  This is why I am of the firm and assured belief that the Obama Administration was behind this.  Then there is the photographic evidence that shows US Ambassador to Turkey, John Basse meeting with Turkish NATO Colonel Ali Yazici (in Photo) the day before the Coup attempt on the afternoon of August 7th.  For the record Col. Yazıcı was one of the leaders of the coup and former military adviser to President Erdogan. According to reports, they met at Cengelkoy café the day before the coup.

The fact is that I may not be able to prove it completely, but what we just saw in Turkey had U.S. DNA all over it. It was a mirror image of what was observed in the Ukraine and to a lesser extent Iraq. And If may be honest, Syria as well, for we all know it is not improbable that the Obama Administration is supporting ISIS against Assad.  I say this in all sincerity, for we knew Erdogan was sending weapons to ISIS and said nothing and Syria (Russia) just intercepted conversation between US forces and ISIS right before we bombed and killed scores of Syrian military fighters.

So say what you may, but I do believe the Obama Administration was behind this, what else can one expect from a president who is also a Nobel Peace Prize recipient?

Read More

Gabon’s Colonial Infection

Once upon a time ago, a cruel and barbarous colonial power came to Africa with its friends to rape and pillage and murder and spread disease. The year was 1839 and through the nefarious barrel of cannon, France forced the signature of a treaty with local chiefs that gave it powers over the southern coastal regions of Africa which we presently call Gabon. The arrangement was made upon a gentlemen agreement made by Europeans at the BerlinConference of 1885 which awarded all of the territory discovered by Pierre deBrazza to France. By 1910 this area would become French Equatorial Africa, and would encompass the separate colonies of Gabon, Congo, Chad, and Ubangi-Shari was formed. Fast forward to 2016, and although a semblance of independence has been achieved by Gabon and its fellow French colonized compatriots, nothing has really changed. Like the majority of African countries after colonialism, many in the west seldom hear of, mention or concern themselves about Gabon. In typical fashion, independence from France in this case only meant that the regular abuse and impoverishment of its population and rampant political corruption would happen under the rule of a fellow African instead of a European: an Africa which as in most examples is merely a stooge for the former pre-colonial power.

Gabon like much of ex-colonial Africa is a symbol of how a rich endowment in natural resources is used by the very few for their personal wealth while regular citizens struggle daily just to survive. Although the nation has an illiteracy less than 3% and the population is generally well-educated, it has little economic growth namely due to French neocolonial economic policies and nepotism and inefficiency (despite as a nation it maintains the third largest hydrocarbon resources in sub-Saharan Africa). Just like most of the developed world, in Gabon the richest 20 percent hold 90 percent of the wealth with the rest of the Gabonese population fighting for scrapes and living in poverty. This is why the protest have exploded to a new high after the recent presidential election in which many think Ping was defeated by Ali Bongo via classic sleight of hand corruption.

According to the constitution of 1961, Gabon is a republic in which the president and members of the legislature are directly elected. Leon M'ba, the first president of the republic, died in office in 1967 and was succeeded by Omar Bongo whom introduced a one-party system in 1968. Not until popular protests occurred in 1990 was Bongo forced to make revisions to the constitution to legalize multiple parties and reduce the term of office for president from 7 to 5 years. Bongo, was the sole candidate in 1973, 1979, and 1986, yet was reelected president amid charges of fraud in multiparty elections held in 1993. His party won a clear majority in legislative elections held in December 1996 also but political unrest continued. In 1997 the constitution was revised again to re-extend the presidential term to 7 years, renewable once, beginning with the 1998 elections, after Bongo won again.

Ali Bongo has been the President of Gabon since 2009 after his father, and then President Omar Bongo died.  El Hadj Omar Bongo Ondimba had served as President of Gabon for 42 years from 1967 until his death. After weeks of violence, the Bongo family is cracking down on a popular protest in an effort to maintain its grip over the nation – a country his family ruled over the country for the last 50 years. However, this would be impossible to do if the family didn’t have the tacit and overt support of France.

One could suggest that France is mostly to blame for this upheaval. Mostly as a function of an antiquated Cold War-era policy known as "Françafrique," whereby France props up dictators in its former colonies in exchange for access to natural resources, military bases, and influence. In the case of Gabon, the country's uranium reserves have been particularly strategic for France. Gabon, like many other post-colonial African nations is a sad example of what has occurred throughout much of Africa, in particular Francophone Africa. Moreover, Gabon also has large oil reserves, but its people are poor, and the country has one of the world's highest infant mortality rates.

No matter what occurs, France will always be the main problem. Although it says politically it has attempted and desires to dismantle the incessant caricature of Françafrique, it has supported and continues to maintain a perceived invaluable yet operose relationship with the only family that has ruled the nation since its quasi-independence from France. The question is if Bongo is removed from office by whatever means, what would fill the vacuum? When France has tried to play the “I’m objective card” itself, it can't. Not to mention that France has to keep on propping up the governments of Mali and Chad as well because if they don’t, like in every other place, radical Islamist movements would create terrorist safe havens and likely fill the void (something the Obama Administration has yet to learn).

But this is what history has shown us what France does.  For example, after supporting a war in Biafra, overthrowing several presidents, collapsing Guinea’s economy and bribing leaders to support its interests, France started to lose the control that it once exercised in Africa. This is probably why France uses extortion to make many African countries continue to pay colonialtax to France since their independence still today.

Anti-Bongo protests haven't let up and have been continuous and gaining momentum over the years, in particular from the younger generation of the Nation. Regardless of the opposition, all say Ali Bongo has not let go of the corrupt practices of his father, who amassed huge personal wealth and lived like a boss during his decades in power. Gabon has one of the highest per capita incomes in Africa, largely because of its oil reserves, but as mentioned previously, at least a third of the country lives in poverty.

So what's next for Gabon? Civil war is definitely a petrifying prospect. So is a crackdown that keeps the Bongo’s in power. At some point, France will probably try to broker an outcome, but the situation may get out of hand. Omar Bongo ruled Gabon, now the continent’s fourth-largest oil producer, for 41 years until his death in 2009. Add this to what all African leaders as well as the European political establishment are very much cognizant of (that nations like France need for their countries' resources); it is very likely that the sleight of hand European manipulation game of passing the buck, turning away the eyes and pretending to be objective will only continue.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Bongo even adopted the same manipulation tactics once used on them by France. Take the example of Total, the third largest European Oil company based in France. Total is the oldest foreign petroleum company in Gabon and owns 58.28 percent of Total Gabon, with the Gabonese government holding 25 percent and if estimates are correct, it produces between 200,00 to output to 500,000 barrels per day. This is a major card to play to maintain French support regardless of how oppressive the Bongo regime is toward its citizenry.

France will not consider past practices, especially in the age of social media. History has shown that when in trouble previously, France will do anything to make sure it has access to natural resources in Africa. When Africans under colonial rule were fighting to liberate themselves from European colonization, France would frequently use the French Foreign Legion to orchestrate military coups against presidents actually represented and selected by the people of those countries. In fact two such efforts were successfully implemented against the First Presidents of theCentral African Republic and the Republic of Upper Volta  (Burkina Faso). In total since independence from France, Coups have occurred more than 15 times in former French colonies.

But propping up Bongo and his lineage for the purpose of access to natural resources isn’t anything new for France.  The question is how will the everyday citizens of Gabon end this deadly infection?

Read More

Yes, Our Generals Have Been Reduced to Rubbish

Rubble is a noun that describes waste or debris from the demolition of buildings in the form of stone, brick, and/or concrete. After saying U.S. “generals under Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have not been successful,” and that under their leadership “generals have beenreduced to rubble, reduced to a point where it is embarrassing for our country” during a media extravaganza produced by NBC, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has been deluged with criticism for his assertions.  Unfortunately criticism aside, there is both truth and merit to his statements whether the word used was rubble or rubbish.

By definition rubbish is something very bad, worthless or useless, it means that something has lost its utility (the state of being useful, profitable, or beneficial). If one looks at how the military leadership has been rendered impotent (utterly unable to do something for lacking in power and strength) he is correct. Since Obama began his term in 2009, with respect to the U.S. military and armed forces, one thing has been clear – he has removed more of the top military leadership brass than any president in modern times.  Let us just look at his record to start with. Since taking office, high ranking military officers have been removed from their positions at a rate that has never been seen before by a U.S. President.  In fact it is somewhat reminiscent of what we have just observed Erdogan do in Turkey.  One report notes that President Obama has removed or purged the military of at least 197 top admirals and generals in his first five years.

Obama fired Rear Adm. Chuck Gaouette, commander of the John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group, for disobeying orders when he sent his group on Sept. 11 to “assist and provide intelligence for” military forces ordered into action by Gen. Carter Ham. By the way, Gen. Ham. was also relieved as head of U.S. Africa Command after only a year and a half because he disagreed with orders not to mount a rescue mission in response to the Sept. 11, 2012, attack in Benghazi.

Then there is the strange issue of President Obama’s approach to defeating the Islamic State. It is well documented that President Obama typically silences any general that advises the use of US groundtroops in Iraq.  The Whitehouse has done this publically and behind closed doors. His consistent mantra, regardless of the advice of those with military and combat experience is that the US will not fight another ground war in Iraq nor will he put US boots on the ground.

This albeit US commanders inform him that it is improbably that the United States military will ever be able to defeat ISIS via air power alone. Gen. Lloyd Austin was the top commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East and Gen. MartinDempsey was the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 2011 to 2015 both advised President Obama that ground troops would be required t defeat ISIS. Yet still, any advice offered that didn’t match Obama’s political aims (not military aims) were rejected, in particular the use of ground troops. Instead, President Obama unilaterally decided that he knew better and would only send an additional 475 U.S. troops to assist Iraqi and Kurdish forces.  Even General Austin’s predecessor, retired Marine Gen. James Mattis, said Obama’s decision not to send ground troops basically makes the mission to defeat ISIS improbable.

It is true Obama had to reduce the number of troops on the ground in Iraq, but namely because he failed to even try to argue against the levels outlined in the 2008 Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq. At the time there were around 45,000 U.S. troops stationed in Iraq and generals on the ground had requested a reduced number but did not foresee the military's troop-level going below 10,000. But such a number was too high for the Obama administration which preferred a number closer to 3,000, which meant that this was never a combat mission but rather served a training only commitment.

The same can be said for the mission in Afghanistan as well. It is well know that the Afghan military do not have the necessary combat troop levels and power to protect every part of the country let alone to be in the position to effectively counter the Taliban. Gen. Martin Dempsey replacement, Marine Corps General Joseph Dunford during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, stated that he didn’t agree with Obama’s decision to pull all troops out by the end of 2016.  His purview was that such a troop reduction seems to place policy over military implications.

This has been noted by several military experts. Retired Army Gen. John Keane, who devised the 2007 Iraq troop surge and has advised Afghan commanders in the past question Obama’s approach to Afghanistan as well as Army Gen. John Campbell, the top NATO commander in Afghanistan, among others.

Keane pointed outthat Gen. Campbell wanted to retain the current force of 9,800, but Mr. Obama “cut that in half,” adding that President Obama frequently “does not listen to his combat field general,” and on six occasions ignored “field commander recommendation on force levels for troops in combat.” And like ISIS, the Taliban is becoming more brazen and powerful while claiming more area without any real push back from the Afghan security forces or police.

In addition, Obama’s plan will have to depend on an unlikely assumption: that the formation of an inclusive Iraqi government under Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi can manifest.  This is the only way President Obama will have a 1 percent chance of defeating the Islamic State without U.S. troops being on the ground.  In addition, this means that Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi will have to make significant inroads into healing sectarian wounds that were engendered by Nouri al-Maliki. But bringing the new Shia-led government to a Kumbaya moment with Iraq’s Sunni minority may proffer to be a lot more difficult and could result in Sunni tribesmen moving towards ISIS instead of away from them. This approach is not only mousy and incoherent; it also involves serious risk (mainly having to depend on an incompetent and dysfunctional Iraqi military).

So Donald Trump may be more accurate than some may desire. When the President fires, without hesitation, top Brass the likes of the aforementioned, and never even considers firing or disciplining appointed member of his staff when they break the law, there has to be some additional motive and or reasoning behind such. Obama. The question is why deliberately reduce or military leadership to rubbish? 

Read More

BLM Adopts Jim Crow and Promote Black Codes Policy

On a Sunday morning the 15 of September in 1963, the Ku Klux Klan murdered four girls when they bombed the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama. The church, which had been built in 1911, would be the last place Addie Mae Collins, Denise McNair, Carole Robertson, and Cynthia Wesley would ever grace. This was one of the seminal events that propelled the Civil rights movement to the forefront of the American consciousness as well shocked the nation presenting it with the horrors blacks in the south and across the U.S. had been dealing with for decades. In basic terms it painted the evil of segregation by race and the incongruence of the premise of separate but equal in the land of the free.

It seems that all of that was struggled for just some fifty plus years ago has been thrown down the drain by self-pitying, micro-aggressed, spoiled self-proclaimed social justice warriors whom appear ill-equipped and unable to exist in the real world without artificially constructing it to meet their self-absorbed make-believe worlds. I guess this is what happens when you raise a generation of mollycoddled kids who are used to getting a trophy just for paying a fee and participating rather than having to earn or work hard for it.

Recently, while reading, I came across something that was truly out of Alice in Wonderland. It seems there is a new “social justice” movement going on on college and university campuses across the nation in which Black college students are demanding that they be segregated from white students, calling for “safe spaces” only for students of color. At Oberlin University, students have demanded “safe spaces” for black students only, as well as rooms in the library, science center for specific use by black students. They even want black/Africa only events at some universities and at Scripps and Pomona colleges, several such have already occurred. The Afrikan Student Union at UCLA is asking for an “Afrikan Diaspora floor” as well as an “Afro-house.” The University of Connecticut is even building a new dorm for black students only. At Cal State Los Angeles, a new housing program opens up dorms for black students who want to be separated from the rest of the campus. A similar housing option is available at UC Davis.

HELLO, this is segregation. As a child of segregation and born in Memphis in 1962, this nothing to play with and not so simple a thing to be tossing around because somebody got their punk azz feelings hurt or micro-aggressed. It also seems as if these kids do not understand the historical precedents set in motion ex post facto Jim Crow regarding segregation and the concept of separate but equal. Let me remind your dumb azz. In the 1896 case of Plessy v Ferguson, the issue of whether public facilities may be segregated based on race was first proffered in the context of transportation. As a result of this case, the Supreme Court said that the Equal Protection Clause was not violated by a Louisiana law requiring whites and blacks to ride in separate railroad cars. From this point on for decades to follow, the courts would hand down a series of decisions that permitted states to segregate people of color up until the 1930s when Charles Hamilton Houston of the NAACP started a surgical dismantling of the "separate but equal" position which defined Plessy. Segregation was rampant in public education from Boston and Maryland to Birmingham and Arkansas. The final nail in obviating segregation and the postulate of separate but equal occurred in 1954 when the Supreme Court decided the case of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. It was the conclusion and opinion of the Court that "Racially segregated schools” are "inherently unequal."

 To be honest, I am bedeviled with what social justice means and what a social justice warrior is. First they can’t be too social if they desire to be isolated from the world, nor concerned about justice if it is only interesting when black folks are killed by cops and not each other and warrior, I won’t even go their (brave or experienced fighter). I mean they are afraid to live around people who have a different skin color than them and are even traumatized simply by reading the word TRUMP written chalk. Likewise, I am trying to figure out what social justice work is for today it seems to be the exact opposite of what it was when I was raised as a child in the segregated south. All I can surmise is that it means tweeting a lot, making a couple-a-few hashtags, protesting and marching in the streets and crying and asking for space when you hear something you don’t like. Clearly it doesn’t involve patrolling streets in Chicago or Memphis, or volunteering to tutor at your local neighborhood school, or working in the jails, prisons and homeless shelters I prefer to spend my time in personally regularly.

The concept of self-segregation is weak and is in dialectical opposition to what Martin Luther King Jr. and other civil rights activist in the past envisioned regarding an America that was open to all without any barriers. Moreover it is comical for people to desire to be segregated while at the same time incessantly complaining and pointing out that they (blacks) are frequently excluded when compared to other students. I would wager if whites had a white only party these same kids would protest vehemently - maybe even saying that doing such would be a form of overt discrimination by other students and a sign of disrespect.

It is also evident that what some of these new age cats want is impossible and more unlikely than taking a yellow brick road to see a wizard. There is no constitutional right not to be offended and just because a baby cries don’t mean you will or should get it. It is impossible to “bullet-proof” any person from reality.

No institution should be in the business nurturing idiotic preconceptions just because someone is uncomfortable. Moreover it is completely impossible to go through and to accommodate every possible example and or situation that might bother or upset someone: especially in places where folks are actively looking for things and ideas to become offended by. I just hope these soft as wet toilet paper social justice warriors that frighteningly and frenziedly represent the future coterie of African Americans, get a spine and learn to deal with know you cannot control everything and that are aware they are pro Jim Crow and black codes when they propose idiotic suggestions like self-segregation.

Read More