Johnathan Capehart on Jill Stein’s ‘fairy-tale candidacy’ & her ‘foul language on race’: or Mrs. Clinton is the only ‘rational choice’ in 2016, a comment by Political Partisan

The Clinton’s Reaganite agenda, they governed as a team, attacked black people on two fronts: Welfare Reform and a Crime bills that enabled The New Jim Crow. Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, of 1999 repealed Glass-Stegall. A harbinger of 2008!

And what benefit did these three pieces of legislation do for anyone?  Call this whole record catastrophic. Capehart’s attack on Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka and their campaign as a ‘fair-tale candidacy’ smacks of political desperation, of an apologists for the status quo: Obama and Mrs. Clinton as the anointed successor, with the DNC as partner. The as if of this whole propaganda exercise, of name calling, is that Stein and Trump represent the irresponsible political fringe, and by default Mrs. Clinton represents political rationality, sanity. The attack on the Green Party, in regards to NATO , one of the co-conspirators of the Ukrainian Coup, is to provide cover for Victoria Nuland, as a possible candidate for Sec. of State for Clinton. Among a host of other political imperatives. The New Cold War, with Putin as the New Stalin, demands fealty to the Party Line of the defense of NATO, as again in the 21st Century, a bulwark against Russian revanchism. ‘The gangster states of NATO’ is much too candid a description for the political conformist/apologist Capehart, for a foundering NATO e.g. former NATO general Rasmussen is now ‘advisor’, read viceroy, to American puppet Poroshenko.

Ajamu Baraka, Jeremiah Wright and Cornel West are speakers, thinkers and writers who do not mince words, absolutely no surprise, except to the delicate sensibilities of the Washington Post’s Editorial Board.

Political Partisan

P.S. Thank you @walterrhett

About stephenkmacksd

Rootless cosmopolitan,down at heels intellectual;would be writer. 'Polemic is a discourse of conflict, whose effect depends on a delicate balance between the requirements of truth and the enticements of anger, the duty to argue and the zest to inflame. Its rhetoric allows, even enforces, a certain figurative licence. Like epitaphs in Johnson’s adage, it is not under oath.'
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.