A Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen Ford
 

Members of the royal Saudi mafia. Always eagerly complicit in the crimes of Western imperialists.

The Arab Spring was not allowed to get very far before the Arab Counter-Revolution pounced, first on Libya, now on Syria, to reconfigure the region by military means and, thus, make it safe for the various members of the imperial club. The Americans and their European and Arab allies are seeking Syrian territory to place under their “humanitarian” shield – a “liberated” city like Libya’s Benghazi for them to “defend.”

“Counter-revolution, or, in the case of the Arab Spring, the crackdown on the very idea of a revolution, is always bloody.”

A year ago this month, the Arab Spring began in Tunisia, sending the United States, the old colonial powers of Europe, and the royal rulers of the Persian Gulf into sheer panic. The imperialists and hereditary potentates were visibly shaken at the prospect that mass movements in Tunisia and Egypt might spread throughout the Arab world, where the United States is deservedly despised by most of the public. After the old and moldy President Mubarak was removed from office by the Egyptian army, it became common to hear the Arab Spring upgraded to the Arab “Revolution.” But of course, that was very much premature, the kind of declaration that comes out of the mouths of people who are either delirious or have no idea what revolutions are all about. The imperialists and their allies, however, understand very well that the nature of revolution is to remove their fingers from the levers of power, to strip them of their wealth, and to punish them for the crimes they have committed. Revolution is more than a feeling. As Malcolm X said, “You haven’t got a revolution that doesn’t involve bloodshed.” And the primary reason for that is, the people who have wealth and power and know that they are guilty of unspeakable crimes will shed oceans of blood to avoid being overthrown. They will also throw a lackey or two of theirs to the mob, so as to give the people a feeling of victory. But, as I said, revolution is more than a feeling.

Counter-revolution, or, in the case of the Arab Spring, the crackdown on the very idea of a revolution, is always bloody. Often, it is a great display of blood, to remind the people of the real nature of power. By late January of this year, the United States and its European allies and the filthy rich royal parasites of the Persian Gulf had a game plan to make sure the Arab Spring was a very short season. NATO, with President Obama “leading from behind,” launched a counter-revolution with industrial-strength Shock and Awe, attacking a developing desert country of six million people with enough firepower to bring down a mid-size industrial nation. But the conquest took almost nine months, because Libya was defended by the most courageous little army in the world, heroes who braved death from the skies with no cover to hide them, and no hope of inflicting casualties on the Euro-Americans.

“Syria faces the same cast of murderous characters that destroyed Libya.”

It is easy for American and European governments to justify to their people any atrocity, any war crime, any theft of sovereignty committed against Arabs and Africans and Asians. The official western narrative for the Libyan aggression was that NATO was obligated to save the city of Benghazi from Muammar Gaddafi. Now Syria faces the same cast of murderous characters that destroyed Libya. It is Act Two in the counter-revolution to short-circuit the Arab Spring. The Syrian regime is denounced, even by formerly friendly nations, for refusing to withdraw its forces from those cities that have seen the worst bloodshed. But, if Libya provides any lesson, it is that the Americans, the French and their Arab allies will kill many tens of thousands and destroy the country entirely if they are allowed even the smallest excuse to declare some part of Syria a “liberated area” deserving of support from NATO warplanes and missiles. Therefore, the Syrians must resolve that they give up not one inch of territory, that there be no cities – not even a small one – in the hands of the opposition. In short, no Benghazis.

For Black Agenda Radio, I’m Glen Ford. On the web, go to BlackAgendaReport.com.

BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com [6].

http://traffic.libsyn.com/blackagendareport/20111214_gf_ArabSpring.mp3

 [7]

• Arab Spring ba radio commentary Libya Syria 

Source URL: http://blackagendareport.com/content/lesson-arab-counter-revolution-syria-must-allow-no-benghazis

 

¶

 ADVERT PRO NOBIS
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

IF YOU THINK THE LAMESTREAM MEDIA ARE A DISGRACE AND A HUGE OBSTACLE
to real change in America why haven’t you sent at least a few dollars to The Greanville Post (or a similar anti-corporate citizen’s media?). Think about it.  Without educating and organizing our ranks our cause is DOA. That’s why our new citizens’ media need your support. Send your badly needed check to “TGP, P.O. Box 1028, Brewster, NY 10509-1028.” Make checks out to “P. Greanville/ TGP”.  (A contribution of any amount can also be made via Paypal and MC or VISA.)

THANK YOU.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Truthout News Analysis | Crossposted with Antemedius

President Barack Obamaz would like the world to know that the US can do whatever it damn well pleases, thank you very much.

Obama also wants the whole, wide world to get this through its thick skull: only rogue governments that implement a policy of rendition, torture, indefinite detention and extrajudicial assassination are guilty of human rights abuses and should be held accountable.

That’s the clear-cut message Obama articulated late last Friday when he issued a proclamation commemorating the 63rd anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

“All people should live free from the threat of extrajudicial killing, torture, oppression and discrimination, regardless of gender, race, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, or physical or mental disability,” Obama’s proclamation states.

Apparently, the Nobel Peace Prize-winning president doesn’t believe the extrajudicial killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, a US citizen the administration asserted was a top leader of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula who was assassinated last summer by a drone strike Obama personally authorized, without being afforded the right to due process as guaranteed by the Constitution; or the indefinite detention of detainees at Guantanamo, especially those who have already been cleared for release; or the administration’s refusal to allow prisoners detained and tortured by the US government in Afghanistan to challenge their detention, rises to the level of human rights abuses as outlined in his stunningly hypocritical proclamation.

Obama’s proclamation also contained another embarrassing contradiction: it declared the week of December 10th as Human Rights Week, the same week Congress debated and is set to pass the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a controversial piece of legislation that would give the president the power to indefinitely imprison without charge or trial or a court hearing anyone suspected of terrorist activity in the US.

On Wednesday, White House spokesman Jay Carney said Obama’s senior advisers would recommend to the president that he should not veto the bill, as Obama had promised to do, because Congress made minor changes Monday to the provisions in the legislation related to the treatment of terrorism suspects with which the administration is now satisfied. (Note: Obama was not concerned about Constitutional violations afflicting ordinary citizens, but only his own executive privileges, which he seeks to expand.)

When the US voted in favor of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, it promised to uphold several ideals, including one that said, “no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention, or exile.”

Kenneth Rothz, the executive director of Human Rights Watch, said if Obama signs the bill, he will “go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law.”

Obama’s quagmire of contradictions on human rights is laid bare in a powerful and timely new book written by Juan Méndez, (left) the United Nations Special Rapporteur For Torture and Marjory Wentworth, a Pushcart Prize-nominated poet, teacher and longtime human rights activist.

In “Taking A Stand: The Evolution of Human Rights,” Méndez and Wentworth interweave Méndez’s personal story as a lifelong human rights activist and lawyer into human rights themes.

“Each chapter is [centered] around a particular human rights issue, [Méndez’s] role in shaping the dialogue around the issue and ideas for the future,” Wentworth said during an online book salon at Firedoglake two weeks ago hosted by this reporter.  

Since his first days in office, Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have promoted the narrative that the US is a human rights leader. But as former Amnesty International Secretary General Ian Martin notes in his introduction to “Taking A Stand,” that assertion has been severely “undermined by [the US government’s] inability to rise above political alliances and increasingly by its own direct violations of human rights.”

Obama has severely damaged the US’s standing in the world by refusing to investigate and prosecute the widespread human rights abuses that took place during George W. Bush’s tenure in office, Méndez said he has invited “other nations to follow the U.S. example of impunity for torture” and has provided “rogue regimes with a ready-made excuse for rejecting international community concerns about their own abuses,” Méndez and Wentworth write in a chapter devoted to accountability.

Méndez described Obama’s attitude, during the Firedoglake book salon, as a “twisted version of US exceptionalism,” where the “rules” only apply to “others.” Indeed, on Wednesday, the State Department announced that the US government had implemented sanctions against two Iranian officials for committing “serious human rights abuses” in connection with massive protests that took place in the country in 2009 over the disputed presidential election.

“This is the fourth time we have designated individuals and entities under human rights sanctioning authority” under a September 2010 executive order signed by Obama, said State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland.

According to a State Department fact sheet issued in 2010, Iranian “protesters were detained without formal charges brought against them and during this detention detainees were subjected to beatings, solitary confinement and a denial of due process rights at the hands of [Iranian] intelligence officers….”

“In addition, political figures were coerced into making false confessions under unbearable interrogations, which included torture, abuse, blackmail and the threatening of family members,” the State Department’s fact sheet said.

Sound familiar? Under policies sanctioned by Bush, Dick Cheneyz and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, war-on-terror detainees were imprisoned at secret, black site facilities and at Guantanamo Bay without formal charges brought against them. Those prisoners were also subjected to beatings, solitary confinement and a denial of due process rights and were coerced into making false confessions under unbearable interrogations, which included torture, abuse, blackmail and the threatening of family members.

Need another example of the administration’s “twisted version of American exceptionalism”? Last June, the White House issued a statement condemning Hamas for abducting Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit five years ago and holding “him hostage without access by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), in violation of the standards of basic decency and international humanitarian demands.”

“Abduction,” is also known in US intelligence circles as “extraordinary rendition,” and hiding prisoners from the ICRC. That, too, sounds familiar. Of course it does, the latter was a policy enacted by Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney and other former Bush officials. In fact, a January 2, 2004, memo drafted for military police and interrogators at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and signed by Col. Marc Warren, the top legal adviser to Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, who was commander of US forces in Iraq, was entitled “New plan to restrict Red Cross access to Abu Ghraib.” The contents of that memo have never been released.

Moreover, in 2004, Rumsfeld admitted that at the request of then-CIA Director George Tenet, he authorized the US military in the fall of 2003 to hide an Iraqi prisoner from the ICRC and other organizations that monitor the treatment of prisoners.

Rumsfeld told reporters at a June 17, 2004, press briefing that Tenet sent him a letter asking the US military to imprison the Iraqi who was believed to be a high-ranking member of Ansar al-Islam, a Kurdish terrorist group suspected of links to al-Qaeda. Tenet further told Rumsfeld to be sure the detainee was kept off the prisoner rolls, which he was for six months.

The White House’s decision to weigh in on Shalit, who Hamas has since released, is another example of the Obama administration’s contradictory stance on human rights whenever Israel’s track record is raised.

In their book, Méndez and Wentworth documented Israel’s own human rights abuses, and they were critical that the US condemned a report of a United Nations investigative team led by Richard Goldstone regarding Israel’s treatment of Palestinians in Gaza. Méndez said he cannot explain why “Israel is generally shielded from effective action on human rights,” by the US, but he does not believe it’s purely a political decision.

“I suspect the [US government’s] reasons are complex and not just political expedience,” Méndez said during the book salon. “But complexity is no excuse in this case, especially because the US could use its influence positively and, in general, I don’t think it does. Israel is by no means the worst offender in the region, nor are some forces innocent of abuse on the Palestinian side either. But the human rights issues are real and Israel’s ability to fend them off with support of the US and other Western governments is not only a problem for the victims of abuse; it is also an obstacle to peace.

Overall, Méndez said Obama’s “failure of leadership” and his decision to “look forward, not backwards,” on human rights abuses that took place during the Bush years is “seen [by foreign government leaders] as a decline in [US] influence and moral authority (sic)… that hurts other foreign policy interests as well.”

Speaking of “looking forward,” this is perhaps the best example of Obama’s “twisted version of American exceptionalism”: in March of 2010, Obama spoke to an Indonesian television reporter who queried him about whether he was satisfied the Indonesian government was taking proper steps to address past human rights abuses.

Obama said, “We have to acknowledge that those past human rights abuses existed. We can’t go forward without looking backwards.” (Emphasis added.)

Méndez and Wentworth understand that Obama will never exercise his responsibility as dictated in the Convention Against Torture, and initiate an investigation into past human rights abuses that took place during the eight years George Bush occupied the White House.

“Juan and I feel strongly that you pay for it in the end,” Wentworth said in an interview following the book salon. “I think we’re going to pay a price in ways we don’t even know.”

Méndez agreed, but he still remains hopeful.

“None of us can really hold our breath while we wait for the [US government] to live up to its obligation to investigate, prosecute and punish every act of torture committed by its agents,” Méndez said during the book salon. “The lack of delivery on the promise to have a day of reckoning [which Attorney General Eric Holder had said the public was owed] is truly disappointing. But again, experience shows that issues of accountability do not go away. Of course, it is preferable to have accountability in real time. But justice, even if it comes late, will come and be welcome.”

That brings to mind the maxim, “the wheels of justice grind slowly but exceedingly fine,” which would apply to recent court action in Argentina where a dozen former military and police officials, including a Navy officer [Alfredo Astiz, left] who earned the nickname “Angel of Death,” now 59,  were sentenced to life in prison last month for the kidnapping, murder and torture of leftist activists during the height of the country’s military dictatorship in the 1970s. Méndez was one of the activists tortured. There’s a riveting section in “Taking A Stand” where he describes in detail how his torturers used an electric prod on his genitals and other parts of his body until he begged them to kill him. That he survived and went on to shape the modern human rights movement is nothing short of a miracle.

Méndez’s criticisms of the US government’s human rights record is not limited to its treatment of war-on-terror detainees. He also butted heads with the Obama administration over the military’s treatment of Pfc. Bradley Manningz, an Army intelligence analyst who is accused of leaking government secrets to WikiLeaks and faces life in prison. A pretrial hearing for Manning is scheduled for Friday at Fort Meade, Maryland.

Méndez said he became concerned about Manning when he started to hear reports about his abusive treatment, which included being held in solitary confinement for 23-hours a day, during his incarceration at Quantico. Méndez said he had “frank conversation[s] with the [Department of Defense] about the conditions of [Manning’s] incarceration” and requested that he be permitted to visit and speak with the soldier confidentially. 

“I was allowed to see him but with no guarantees of confidentiality, terms that I could not accept,” Méndez said during the Firedoglake book salon. “I offered to see Manning nonetheless, through his lawyer, if he wanted to see me, but he preferred not to waive his right to a truly private conversation. In the meantime, when he was moved from Quantico to Fort Leavenworth, his conditions changed and since last April he is no longer in solitary confinement. I am still insisting on seeing him. In a few weeks I will release my views on the case, since the exchange of information with the [US government] is essentially over.” 

…………………………

Jason Leopoldz is an investigative reporter and the deputy managing editor of Truthout. He is the author of the Los Angeles Times bestseller, News Junkie, a memoir. Visit jasonleopold.com for a preview. Follow Jason on Twitter: @JasonLeopold.

¶

 ADVERT PRO NOBIS
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

IF YOU THINK THE LAMESTREAM MEDIA ARE A DISGRACE AND A HUGE OBSTACLE
to real change in America why haven’t you sent at least a few dollars to The Greanville Post (or a similar anti-corporate citizen’s media?). Think about it.  Without educating and organizing our ranks our cause is DOA. That’s why our new citizens’ media need your support. Send your badly needed check to “TGP, P.O. Box 1028, Brewster, NY 10509-1028.” Make checks out to “P. Greanville/ TGP”.  (A contribution of any amount can also be made via Paypal and MC or VISA.)

THANK YOU.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

By digby, Hullabaloo I think one of the most stunning aspects of the administration’s decision not to veto an historic expansion of government power to imprison even its own citizens indefinitely and without due process is the context. Sure, we live in a very dangerous world. But we’ve been living in one at least since the advent of of The Bomb and the last I heard we were picking off Ad Qaeda members three at a time. The fact that this is happening with the war in Iraq wound down and Afghanistan scheduled to do so as well is what’s odd. Ginny Sloan of the Constitution Project put it well: But what will we say to future generations if the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA) becomes law? That legislation contains a provision that authorizes the president to indefinitely imprison, without a criminal charge or court hearing, any suspected terrorist who is captured within the United States — including American citizens. It is difficult to imagine a greater attack on one of the most basic of individual freedoms protected by our great Constitution. As Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his dissenting opinion in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), “The very core of liberty secured by our Anglo-Saxon system of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the Executive.”  If members of Congress choose — for the first time in our nation’s history — to codify a system of indefinite detention without charge and authorize such confinement on the basis of suspicion alone, they will do so with their eyes wide open. The attacks of 9/11 are now more than ten years old. Although our troops are still engaged in Afghanistan, the fog of war has long since lifted. Indefinite detention will now be law, not some emergency measure that history will judge to have been a mistake made in a crisis. It is a well thought out codification of certain views that have become commonplace in American society — that “terrorists” (to be defined by whomever sits in the White House) are not to be allowed the due process allowed to other human beings because our government just *knows* they are so dangerous we cannot even take the chance that they won’t be found guilty. That turns the rule of law on its head. Adam Serwer has been following this story for Mother Jones and described the “changes” this way: The conference version of the bill gives the White House so much room to maneuver around the “mandatory” nature of the military detention provisions that Congress can argue they’ve given the administration the “flexibility” it needs to fight terrorism effectively. At the same time, the bill creates a presumption of military custody for foreign nationals suspected of terrorism where there was none before. That means next time a foreign national gets pulled off a plane with their underpants on fire, and the administration doesn’t throw him in a brig somewhere, elected officials can run to the microphones and express their frustration that the White House is defying congressional will. I think that’s a long shot, don’t you? What administration is not going to simply throw them in the brig rather than “defy congressional will” and try them in a civilian court. It won’t happen. Instead, we will see “terrorists” (however they’re defined) disappeared into a military justice system indefinitely, just as those Gitmo prisoners, many of them innocent of any serious crime, have been left to moulder in prison basically forever. As Serwer noted, “the transfer restrictions effectively turn Gitmo into the Chateu d’If.” (I have used the same reference many times, calling it “The Count of Monte Cristo effect.”) The horror of indefinite detention, often in solitary confinement by capricious decision with no due process is one of the greater horrors of the imagination (to me anyway.) Consider what we’ve already done: One spring day during his three and a half years as an enemy combatant, Jose Padilla experienced a break from the monotony of his solitary confinement in a bare cell in the brig at the Naval Weapons Station in Charleston,South Carolina. That day, Mr. Padilla, a Brooklyn-born Muslim convert whom the Bush administration had accused of plotting a dirty bomb attack and had detained without charges, got to go to the dentist. “Today is May 21,” a naval official declared to a camera videotaping the event. “Right now we’re ready to do a root canal treatment on Jose Padilla, our enemy combatant.” Several guards in camouflage and riot gear approached cell No. 103. They unlocked a rectangular panel at the bottom of the door and Mr. Padilla’s bare feet slid through, eerily disembodied. As one guard held down a foot with his black boot, the others shackled Mr. Padilla’s legs. Next, his hands emerged through another hole to be manacled. Wordlessly, the guards, pushing into the cell, chained Mr. Padilla’s cuffed hands to a metal belt. Briefly, his expressionless eyes met the camera before he lowered his head submissively in expectation of what came next: noise-blocking headphones over his ears and blacked-out goggles over his eyes. Then the guards, whose faces were hidden behind plastic visors, marched their masked, clanking prisoner down the hall to his root canal. […] Now lawyers for Mr. Padilla, 36, suggest that he is unfit to stand trial. They argue that he has been so damaged by his interrogations and prolonged isolation that he suffers post-traumatic stress disorder and is unable to assist in his own defense. His interrogations, they say, included hooding, stress positions, assaults, threats of imminent execution and the administration of “truth serums.”  A Pentagon spokesman, Lt. Col. Todd Vician, said Sunday that the military disputes Mr. Padilla’s accusations of mistreatment. And, in court papers, prosecutors deny “in the strongest terms” the accusations of torture and say that “Padilla’s conditions of confinement were humane and designed to ensure his safety and security.” “His basic needs were met in a conscientious manner, including Halal (Muslim acceptable) food, clothing, sleep and daily medical assessment and treatment when necessary,” the government stated. “While in the brig, Padilla never reported any abusive treatment to the staff or medical personnel.”  In the brig, Mr. Padilla was denied access to counsel for 21 months. Andrew Patel, one of his lawyers, said his isolation was not only severe but compounded by material and sensory deprivations. In an affidavit filed Friday, he alleged that Mr. Padilla was held alone in a 10-cell wing of the brig; that he had little human contact other than with his interrogators; that his cell was electronically monitored and his meals were passed to him through a slot in the door; that windows were blackened, and there was no clock or calendar; and that he slept on a steel platform after a foam mattress was taken from him, along with his copy of the Koran, “as part of an interrogation plan.” Mr. Padilla’s situation, as an American declared an enemy combatant and held without charges by his own government, was extraordinary and the conditions of his detention appear to have been unprecedented in the military justice system. Philip D. Cave, a former judge advocate general for the Navy and now a lawyer specializing in military law, said, “There’s nothing comparable in terms of severity of confinement, in terms of how Padilla was held, especially considering that this was pretrial confinement.” Padilla was famously thrown back into the civilian system when the Supreme Court overruled the decision under which he had been held in those conditions. The damage had already been done. Indefinite detention, particularly with solitary confinement, foranyone, American or not, is a form of torture. I think dday’s analysis of why this happened is probably correct: Remember that the White House has little problem with indefinite military detention. They just want to be able to dictate when it gets used and on whom. So they obviously see enough flexibility here to carry out unconstrained intelligence gathering and detention policies. The part at the end, where they hope and pray that Congress will go back and fix the bill if it ever becomes a problem, is just nonsense. And the bill overall is ripe for abuse. The White House simply didn’t want to take the political hit for vetoing a bill that “supports the troops.” And they weren’t aroused enough by the thought of indefinite military detentions to mount any serious opposition to it. The status quo remains in practice and the symbolism of codifying indefinite detention is probably a price they are willing to pay. The word is that the National Security types were overruled by the political people, but at the end of the day the only people who are worried about this for the long term are a bunch of shrill civil libertarians who are watching some very basic human rights and constitutional principles be eroded even years after the fog of war has cleared. And those of you who trust that the Obama administration will not misuse this discretion should not be soothed. This law will remain on the books long after he is gone. How do you suppose the first Tea Party president will interpret it?

 

¶

 ADVERT PRO NOBIS
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

IF YOU THINK THE LAMESTREAM MEDIA ARE A DISGRACE AND A HUGE OBSTACLE
to real change in America why haven’t you sent at least a few dollars to The Greanville Post (or a similar anti-corporate citizen’s media?). Think about it.  Without educating and organizing our ranks our cause is DOA. That’s why our new citizens’ media need your support. Send your badly needed check to “TGP, P.O. Box 1028, Brewster, NY 10509-1028.” Make checks out to “P. Greanville/ TGP”.  (A contribution of any amount can also be made via Paypal and MC or VISA.)

THANK YOU.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

WATCH VIDEO BELOW 

Current TV’s host Cenk Uygur is one of the few (perhaps the only) major media figures denouncing in no uncertain terms the abomination bound to be signed into law by Obama, but the latest betrayal of the Constitution brought to the floor of the Senate at his behest. (Watch Carl Levin (D) admit this much). The rest of the media herd, as usual, is reporting this truly historical news without much comment, as a “bipartisan” measure. Which I suppose in their sellout, manure-filled brains, makes this sneak attack on American liberties alright. 

(allow a few moments for video to load)

In this edition, Cenk starts off the show hammering the Defense Authorization Act, which — if signed by Barack Obama — will allow the military broad powers to act within the U.S. against American citizens, and wipe out the protections of the posse comitatus precisely forbidding such abuses. “Where’s everybody outraged about this, that they’re gutting the Constitution before our eyes?” Cenk asks. “Where is that legendary tea party that claims that they care so much about the Constitution? Where are you?”  With their brains ever more addled by the thick fog of idiotic trivia, the multiple layers of lies dished out by the corporate media, and the endless struggle to make ends meet, the American people are in no position to respond—yet. But time will come when these outrages will be recognized for what they are and at that moment we’ll finally see if this nation’s mettle lives up to its billing.

Incidentally, in a prior post evaluating Cenk’s performance as an outspoken critic of the system we said he showed plenty of promise and sincerity, but remained trapped in the confusion that characterizes the bourgeois mind.  We see no reason to substantially alter that assessment, but we do note, with some relief, that he seems to be moving steadily left, as the system continues to insult his sense of fairness and truth with a multitude of offences every single day. —Patrice Greanville

¶

 ADVERT PRO NOBIS
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

IF YOU THINK THE LAMESTREAM MEDIA ARE A DISGRACE AND A HUGE OBSTACLE
to real change in America why haven’t you sent at least a few dollars to The Greanville Post (or a similar anti-corporate citizen’s media?). Think about it.  Without educating and organizing our ranks our cause is DOA. That’s why our new citizens’ media need your support. Send your badly needed check to “TGP, P.O. Box 1028, Brewster, NY 10509-1028.” Make checks out to “P. Greanville/ TGP”.  (A contribution of any amount can also be made via Paypal and MC or VISA.)

THANK YOU.
____________________________________________________________________________________________