Category: Donald Trump
Truth to Power: Next Cuban Leader Rejects US ‘Imperialism’
| October 8, 2017 | 8:49 pm | Cuba, Donald Trump, Fidel Castro | No comments
Backdropped by a monument depicting Cuba's revolutionary hero Ernesto Che Guevara, Canada Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, center left, and his wife Sophie Gregoire-Trudeau, are accompanied by Cuba's Vice Prime Minister Miguel Diaz Canel, right front, during a ceremony at the Jose Marti Monument n Havana, Cuba, Tuesday, Nov. 15, 2016.

Truth to Power: Next Cuban Leader Rejects US ‘Imperialism’

© AP Photo/ Ramon Espinosa
Latin America

Get short URL
82178302
https://sputniknews.com/latam/201710091058058466-next-cuban-boss-rejects-US/

Havana’s anticipated next leader, Miguel Diaz-Canel, has refuted calls by Washington to change the island nation’s ways, declaring that “changes needed in Cuba will solely be carried out by the Cuban people,” in a stark rebuttal to US political and economic demands.

After stating his intention to step down in 2018, current Cuban President Raul Castro is expected to be replaced by the Caribbean island nation’s First Vice-President Miguel Diaz-Canel.

Loud & Clear
Trump Moves to Kill ‘Detente’ With Cuba: A Policy in Need of a Pretext

Speaking on Sunday, Diaz-Canel unambiguously castigated the US for its heavy-handed economic, military and diplomatic tactics.

At a ceremony commemorating the 50th anniversary of the death of Argentinian revolutionary Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara, who participated in a Bolivian revolt that echoed the 1959 Cuban overthrow, Diaz-Canel reminded his listeners that “imperialism can never be trusted, not even a tiny bit, never.”

In an apparent response to US President Donald Trump’s assertion that the US embargo on Cuba would not be fully lifted until Havana adopts Washington’s version of Western democracy and capitalism, Diaz-Canel said, “Cuba will not make concessions to its sovereignty and independence, nor negotiate its principles or accept the imposition of conditions,”

“The changes needed in Cuba will solely be carried out by the Cuban people,” the popular 57-year-old politician added, cited by Reuters.

With no direct elections for national office in Cuba, Diaz-Canel is projected to be the likely appointed replacement to iconic figure Fidel Castro’s younger brother Raul, now 86, and would make the relatively young leader the first Cuban head without the Castro name since the mid-20th century.

The US president claimed in June that sanctions on Cuba would be ratcheted back up to pre-Obama levels while concurrently gutting the staff at the US embassy in Havana.

Trump’s administration has issued travel warnings to US citizens seeking to vacation in the once-popular island nation.

“Some unnamed officials are propagating unusual nonsense without any evidence, with the perverse aim of discrediting the impeccable reputation of our country as a safe destination for foreign visitors, including from the United States,” Diaz-Canel claimed.

A Chapter in a Declining Empire

A Chapter in a Declining Empire

 – from Greg Godels is available at:
http://zzs-blg.blogspot.com/

Everyone not yet anesthetized by the anti-Russia hysteria, should read Robert Parry’s The Rise of the New McCarthyism. The estimable Parry argues for similarities between today’s overheated political antics and those of an earlier time. He likens the relentless Russia-baiting of 2017 with the red-baiting of the post-war period often identified with Wisconsin Senator Joe McCarthy.

But that is not quite right. Labelling the post-war delirium, characterizing the anti-Communist frenzy of the period as “McCarthyism” places far too much weight on that sole figure. True, Joe McCarthy exploited the climate, pushing the absurdity of the times to even more absurd levels. Yet we overlook the causes of the poisoned atmosphere just as surely as we would if we labelled this moment we live in as “Maddowism,” after the woman committed to exploiting the mania for ratings, after Rachel Maddow’s prodding anti-Russian sentiment to ever greater heights.
Political fever, like that of 1919 in the US, 1920-22 in Italy, the 1930s throughout Europe, 1946 and 2003 in the US, and again today in the US, is usually driven by crises– threats or perceived threats to the system. It reflects weaknesses or vulnerabilities resulting from economic distress or international conflict. Whether the threat is real or perceived, identifiable or mythical, ruling classes use a crescendo of fear and alarm to foster an atmosphere of conformity and compliance.
During and after World War I, the Bolshevik revolution frightened the US ruling class into its first “Red scare,” an orgy of war-induced patriotism and media-crazed fear of mythical Red barbarity, an orgy resulting in mass arrests and deportations.
Similarly, the victory of the Soviet Union, the expansion of socialism, the intensifying struggles for national liberation, and a domestic left third-party challenge to two-party hegemony spurred the ruling class to spark a second Red scare. A critical mass of consensus was quickly achieved, persisting throughout the Cold War. Thus, it is misleading to say, as Parry does, that “…the 1950s version was driven by Republicans and the Right with much of the Left on the receiving end, maligned by the likes of Sen. Joe McCarthy as ‘un-American’ and as Communism’s ‘fellow travelers.’”
In fact, except for the “fellow travelers,” most of the non-Communist left and most liberals gleefully joined the red-baiting hunting party for “subversives.” Those who didn’t enthusiastically join the mob did little or nothing to diminish the campaign. Certainly, when the purges began to target the moderate anti-Communists, liberal voices did pathetically stir.
Consequently, those familiar with the history of Cold War US repression are not surprised by liberal complicity in the anti-Russia madness today. It should be no surprise that the liberals and the petty-bourgeois left betray the truth, make common cause with the forces of hate, distrust, and prejudice. In times of crisis, that’s what they too often do.
Outside of a few notable voices, liberal/left intellectuals are buying the anti-Russia frenzy. Despite the fact that US security services have an unbroken record of lies and manipulations, they are today manufactured to be the saviors of US “democracy.” The entertainment industry has cast “deep throat” Mark Felt– a crazed, disgruntled FBI official, bitter because he didn’t inherit the directorship from J. Edgar Hoover– as the hero of the Watergate debacle. Industry moguls stretch credulity to portray him as the courageous forerunner of the sleazy James Comey.
How quickly the liberals have forgotten the shame of 2003, when a ruling class-induced frenzy of lies and distortions prompted an unprovoked US invasion of a sovereign country. Have the scoundrels fabricating “evidence” against Iraq left or have they been removed from the State Department, the CIA, the FBI, etc.? Or are they still there, now busy spinning lies against Russia?
Liberals and the weasel-left should heed Parry’s warning: “Arguably, if fascism or totalitarianism comes to the United States, it is more likely to arrive in the guise of “protecting democracy” from Russia or another foreign adversary than from a reality-TV clown like Donald Trump.” Apart from flirting with war, the new consensus against Putin and Russia further erodes the remaining vestiges of democratic life in the US. Fear has brought us an Orwellian destruction of privacy and freedom, along with a murderous foreign policy and, now, a shamefully uncritical conformity.
War by Other Means
If “The New McCarthyism” is an inaccurate description of our times, what would be more suitable? Perhaps “The New Cold War” would be more appropriate since US aggression is both global and endless. The US is conducting war or war-like actions in Africa, the Middle East, South America, the Caribbean, and in Asia. Any and every country that fails to accept US global leadership becomes a target for US aggression.
This constitutes a desperate attempt on the part of US elites to maintain their place at the top of the hierarchy of imperialism, their ultimate mastery over all global affairs.
After the arrogant declaration of victory in the Cold War and the presumption of global governance, matters begin to fall apart for the champions of US global dominance. Former clients like Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and Saddam Hussein began to defy US hegemony. States like Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador choose paths independent of the US template for the global economy. Other states like Yugoslavia, Cuba, and DPRKorea refused to acknowledge that socialist economic relations were outlawed in the post-Soviet era. Still other states like Iran, post-Yeltsin Russia, Libya, and Syria reject US interference in their and their neighbors’ affairs. And, of course, the world’s largest economy (PPP)– PRChina– does not accept a subordinate role in global affairs.
In short, the US role as self-appointed world policeman has been answered with far-from-servile acceptance by the world’s people.
The US response to resistance has been violence. Uncountable deaths and injuries from invasion, occupation, and remotely-mounted attacks have been visited upon combatants and civilians alike. The stability of numerous countries has been disrupted, usually under the cynical banner of human rights. Over the last two decades or so, US imperialism has restructured its aggression, relying more and more on surrogates, drones, and economic aggression, but with the same deadly results.
Obama’s cabal of liberal interventionists has refined and expanded the tactic of imposing international sanctions, a particularly brutal, but seemingly high-minded form of aggression.
We should not deceive ourselves. International sanctions may masquerade as a mechanism of civil enforcement, but they are, in fact, acts of war– war by other means. The current world balance of forces allows the US to cajole, intimidate or manipulate UN member states to endorse strangling the economies of US adversaries under the guise of UN sanctions. The UN virtually rubber stamps the US initiatives to cut the lifelines of countries, organizations, even corporations that dare to ignore US dictates. Similarly, the EU and NATO act as sanction lapdogs.. The consequences of sanctions can be just as destructive, as death-dealing, as overt military aggression. Shamefully, even Russia and PRC– the victims of sanctions– have collaborated on these sanctions in recent years, an opportunistic approach meant to ingratiate themselves with US leaders.
At the same time, no UN economic sanctions have been imposed upon the serial human rights violator, the apartheid state of Israel– merely calls, resolutions, and condemnations.
In a toxic atmosphere of incredulous “sonic” attacks charged to Cuban authorities, provocative claims of Russian government meddling in everything from the electric grid to Facebook, allegations of Venezuelan drug trafficking, suspicions of Chinese espionage, and the many other marks of induced paranoia, the fight for truth is the only escape, the only response to the ugly throes of a diseased, embattled empire. Most assuredly, the empire is in decline, though most of its citizens are unaware, sheltered by a thick curtain of deceit.
Greg Godels (Zoltan Zigedy)
zzsblogml@gmail.com
Cuba denounces expulsion of its diplomats from the U.S. as politically motivated
| October 4, 2017 | 8:09 pm | Cuba, Donald Trump | No comments

Wednesday, October 4, 2017

Cuba denounces expulsion of its diplomats from the U.S. as politically motivated

https://communismgr.blogspot.com/2017/10/cuba-denounces-expulsion-of-its.html
On September 29, 2017, the US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson announced the decision to significantly downscale the diplomatic staff of the US embassy in Havana and withdraw all their relatives, claiming that there had been “attacks” perpetrated against US Government officials in Cuba which have harmed their health.
Once again, on October 3, the US Government, in an unwarranted act, decided that 15 officials of the Cuban Embassy in Washington should depart from the United States, claiming that the US had reduced their diplomatic staffing levels in Havana and that the Cuban Government had failed to take all appropriate steps to prevent “attacks” against them.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs strongly protests and condemns this unfounded and unacceptable decision as well as the pretext used to justify it, for it has been asserted that the Cuban Government did not take the appropriate measures to prevent the occurrence of the alleged incidents.
In the meeting that, at the proposal of the Cuban side, was held with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, the minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Cuba, Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla, warned him against the adoption of hasty decisions that were not supported by evidence; urged him not to politicize a matter of this nature and once again required the effective cooperation from the US authorities to clarify facts and conclude the investigation.
It is the second time, after May 23, 2017, that the State Department orders two Cuban diplomats in Washington to abandon the country; that the US Government reacts in a hasty, inappropriate and unthinking way, without having evidence of the occurrence of the adduced facts, for which Cuba has no responsibility whatsoever and before the conclusion of the investigation that is still in progress.
Just as was expressed by the Cuban Foreign Minister to Secretary of State Tillerson on September 26, 2017, Cuba, whose diplomatic staff members have been victims in the past of attempts perpetrated against their lives, who have been murdered, disappeared, kidnapped or attacked during the performance of their duty, has seriously and strictly observed its obligations under the Geneva Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 referring to the protection and integrity of diplomatic agents accredited in the country, in which it has an impeccable record.
As was informed by the Ministry on August 9 last, since February 17, 2017, when the US embassy and State Department notified the alleged occurrence of incidents against some officials of that diplomatic mission and their relatives as from November 2016, arguing that these had caused them injuries and other disorders, the Cuban authorities have acted with utmost seriousness, professionalism and immediacy to clarify this situation and opened an exhaustive and priority investigation following instructions from the top level of the Government. The measures adopted to protect the US diplomatic staff, their relatives and residences were reinforced; new expeditious communication channels were established between the US embassy and the Diplomatic Security Department and a committee of experts was created to make a comprehensive analysis of facts, which was made up by law enforcement officials, physicians and scientists.
In the face of the belated, fragmented and insufficient information supplied by the US, the Cuban authorities requested further information and clarifications from the US embassy in order to carry out a serious and profound investigation.
The US embassy only delivered some data of interest on the alleged incidents after February 21, when President Raúl Castro Ruz personally reiterated to the Chargé d’Affairs of the US diplomatic mission how important it was for the competent authorities from both countries to cooperate and exchange more information. Nevertheless, the data supplied later on continued to be lacking in the descriptions or details that would facilitate the characterization of facts or the identification of potential perpetrators, in case there were any.
In the weeks that followed, in view of new reports on the alleged incidents and the scarce information that had been delivered, the Cuban authorities reiterated the need to establish an effective cooperation and asked the US authorities for more information and insisted that the occurrence of any new incident should be notified in real time, which would provide for a timely action.
Besides all of the above and in the interest of contributing to the investigation and legal process established by virtue of the Cuban Criminal Procedural Law, the US received from Cuba some requests for information as part of the inquiry procedure.
The information delivered by the US authorities led the committee of Cuban experts conclude that this was insufficient and that the main obstacle to clarify the incidents had been the impossibility to have direct access to the injured people and the physicians who examined them; the belated delivery of evidence and their deficient value; the absence of reliable first-hand  and verifiable information and the inability to exchange with US experts who are knowledgeable about this kind of events and the technology that could have been used, despite having repeatedly stating this as a requirement to be able to move forward in the investigation.
Only after repeated requests were conveyed to the US Government, some representatives of specialized agencies of that country finally traveled to Havana on June last, met with their Cuban counterparts and expressed their intention to cooperate in a more substantive way in the investigation of the alleged incidents.  They again visited Cuba in August and September, and for the first time in more than 50 years they were allowed to work on the ground, for which they were granted all facilities, including the possibility of importing equipment, as a gesture of good will that evidenced the great interest of the Cuban government in concluding the investigation.
The Cuban authorities highly assessed the three visits made by the US specialized agencies ,which have recognized the high professional level of the investigation started by Cuba and its high technical and  scientific component, and which, as a preliminary result, concluded that, so far, according to the information available and the data supplied by the United States, there were no evidence of the occurrence of  the alleged incidents or the causes and the origin of the health disorders reported  by the US diplomats and their relatives.  Neither has it been possible to identify potential perpetrators or persons with motivations, intentions or means to perpetrate this type of actions; nor was it possible to establish the presence of suspicious persons or means at the locations where such facts have been reported or in their vicinity.  The Cuban authorities are not familiar with the equipment or the technology that could be used for that purpose; nor do they have information indicating their presence in the country.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs categorically rejects any responsibility of the Cuban Government in the alleged incidents and reiterates once again that Cuba has never perpetrated, nor will it ever perpetrate attacks of any sort against diplomatic officials or their relatives, without any exception. Neither has it ever allowed nor will it ever allow its territory to be used by third parties with that purpose.
The Ministry emphasizes that the US Government announced decision to reduce Cuba’s diplomatic staff in Washington without the conclusive results from the investigation and without evidence of the incidents that would be affecting their officials in Cuba has an eminently political character.
The Ministry urges the competent authorities of the US Government not to continue politicizing this matter, which can provoke an undesirable escalation and would rarify and reverse even more bilateral relations, which were already affected by the announcement of a new policy made in June last by President Donald Trump.
The Ministry reiterates Cuba’s disposition to continue fostering a serious and objective cooperation between the authorities of both countries with the purpose of clarifying these facts and conclude the investigation, for which it will be essential to count on the most effective cooperation of the US competent agencies.
Havana, October 3, 2017.
US-N Korea War ‘Real Possibility’ as Risk of Military Measures by Trump Grows
| September 29, 2017 | 7:54 pm | Donald Trump, DPRK | No comments

https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201709291057801880-us-north-korea-war-report/

A man watches a television news programme showing US President Donald Trump (C) and North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un (L) at a railway station in Seoul on August 9, 2017

US-N Korea War ‘Real Possibility’ as Risk of Military Option Grows – Think Tank

© AFP 2017/ JUNG Yeon-Je
Opinion

Get short URL
Hot Button Issue: Latest Launches, Nuclear Tests Escalate Korean Crisis (90)
83249536

The risk of war between North Korea and the United States is now unprecedented as Pyongyang is making rapid progress in the development of nuclear weapons and Washington keeps threatening a military solution to the crisis, an influential British think tank said in a report.

Such a conflict would likely result in “hundreds of thousands” killed and injured and there could be “far-reaching consequences” for the global economy, Malcolm Chalmers, Deputy Director-General of the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), wrote in the analysis.

The author warns that taking into account the level of tensions between Washington and Pyongyang as well as the current impossibility of diplomatic alternatives, military measures could be taken by the US president. Trump and his advisers may wish to “resolve the issue sooner rather than later.”

“War is now a real possibility. With North Korea making rapid progress in its missile and nuclear programs, time is not on diplomacy’s side,” the report said.

According to Chalmers, the war could start in a number of ways. Pyongyang could attack first if it believed Washington was preparing an attack; or the US could launch an attack if the North fired missiles into the ocean near Guam or California.

“If war were to begin, it is likely to involve large-scale US-led air and cyber offensive during the early stages, followed by massive North Korean retaliation against South Korea and US bases in the region, using conventional, chemical and possibly nuclear weapons. Under these circumstances a full-scale invasion of North Korea would be highly likely,” the report said.Tensions on the Korean Peninsula remain unprecedented as Washington and Pyongyang continue their exchange of threats and bellicose statements.

‘Erupting the Will for Revenge’

Meanwhile, a North Korean state-run outlet on Friday bashed the recent flight drill of US strategic bombers and fighters near the North Korean coast, calling it a “provocation,” according to Yonhap.

“The independent sortie of a US B-1B Lancer strategic bomber squadron over international waters in the East Sea is an extremely dangerous act, designed to drive the situation of the Korean Peninsula to extremes. … The US belligerent bravado will only fiercely erupt our will for revenge,” Uriminzokkiri, a website providing news from North Korea’s Central News Agency (KCNA), said.Over the weekend, US Air Force B-1B Lancers and South Korean F-15 fighter escorts went north of the demilitarized zone dividing North and South Korea in a flight route and flew along North Korea’s east coast.

On Tuesday, President Trump reiterated that the US is ready for the “military option” to resolve the crisis.

“We are totally prepared for the second option, not a preferred option. If we take that option, it will be devastating, I can tell you that, devastating for North Korea. That’s called the military option,” Trump said during a news conference at the White House’s Rose Garden.

Bannon-backed judge trounces Trump’s pick in Alabama GOP Senate primary
| September 27, 2017 | 8:27 pm | Donald Trump, political struggle | 1 Comment

https://www.rt.com/usa/404706-moore-senate-alabama-trump-bannon/

Bannon-backed judge trounces Trump’s pick in Alabama GOP Senate primary

Bannon-backed judge trounces Trump’s pick in Alabama GOP Senate primary
Firebrand judge Roy Moore has defeated incumbent Senator “Big Luther” Strange in the runoff Republican primary for a Senate seat from Alabama. While President Donald Trump campaigned for Strange, many of his advisers have stumped for Moore instead.

Strange has served in the Senate since February, appointed by Governor Robert Bentley to fill the seat vacated when Jeff Sessions was confirmed as the US attorney general. In April, however, Bentley stepped down amidst a corruption scandal. The new governor called for a special election on December 12.

READ MORE: Trump threatens ‘Little Rocket Man’ in Alabama campaign rally for Sen. Strange

In addition to support from Trump and Vice-President Mike Pence, Strange received over $9 million dollars from the SuperPAC called the Senate Leadership Fund, aligned with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky).

Moore, a former Alabama Supreme Court judge, had the backing of former White House senior adviser Steve Bannon and his news outlet Breitbart, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, ousted White House adviser Sebastian Gorka, and many other outspoken Trump partisans who argued the judge would be a better champion of the president’s agenda..

With over 90 percent of precincts reporting, Moore received 237,935 votes (54.8 percent) to Strange’s 196,402, or 45.2 percent.

This was the first defeat for a Congressional candidate who was openly endorsed by the president. Trump did not seem too upset, however, congratulating Strange on a “good race” and Moore on his victory, and endorsing him in the December election.

Moore, 70, has been ousted from his state Supreme Court position twice. In 2003, he was dismissed for hanging a copy of the Ten Commandments in his courtroom, Thirteen years later, he defied the US Supreme Court’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.

At a campaign rally in Fairhope, Alabama on Monday, Moore sported a cowboy hat and at one point drew a gun waved it in the air, trying to illustrate his commitment to the Second Amendment.

Moore will face Democrat Doug Jones in the special election.

The Heat: DPRK tensions, Puerto Rico recovery and Trump controversies Pt 2
| September 27, 2017 | 8:10 pm | Donald Trump, DPRK | No comments

The peculiar patriotism of Confederate monument huggers | Opinion

Updated on September 25, 2017 at 2:05 PM

http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2017/09/national_anthem_protests.html

In “Bart-Mangled Banner,” a 2004 episode of The Simpsons, 10-year-old Bart Simpson offends the town of Springfield when it appears to them that he’s mooning the United States flag.  It’s all a big misunderstanding, one that can only be understood by watching the whole episode which includes Bart going temporarily deaf, Bart taunting a donkey at a donkey basketball game and that donkey ripping Bart’s shorts off with its teeth right before the flag is displayed for the national anthem.  The people of Springfield are outraged at Bart’s apparent disrespect.

“How dare he?!” a character of obvious Southern extraction yells.  “That’s the flag my grandpappy rebelled against!”

I think we need to stop pretending that episodes of The Simpsons don’t predict the future.  “Bart-Mangled Banner” aired more than 13 years ago, and, yet, it seems to precisely predict the contradictions being noisily aired in 2017:  so-called patriots shedding tears over the erasure of Confederate iconography from the public landscape while simultaneously professing allegiance for the flag the Confederates opposed.

Consider Beth Mizell, the Republican state senator from Franklinton who failed in her attempts to protect four Confederate monuments in New Orleans from being removed.  In June, she released a 4-minute video explaining her opposition to the monument-removal trend.  It includes this doozy: “No real citizen was screaming for those monuments to be torn down, but now they’re gone.”

You’re a citizen of the United States at birth if you were born in the United States or one of its territories; or if you were born abroad to parents who were citizens. You can also be foreign-born and apply for naturalization.  Everybody I know personally who was opposed to the monuments to Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, P.G.T. Beauregard and the White League is a citizen, a real citizen.

Mizell is doing that thing that so many conservative politicians do: dismissing people who disagree with their opinions as phony or fraudulent Americans, as inauthentic. She doesn’t even concede that the anger at the monuments might be real, vowing to keep fighting to protect disputed monuments “regardless of who wants to pretend to be offended.”

In her mixed-up worldview, being an American means honoring those people who took up arms against America to perpetuate the enslavement of black people.

If Mizell were by herself, we could respond to her comments real citizens with a laugh and a “whatever.” But she’s not by herself. She’s one of many who have expressed the peculiar belief that reverence for the Confederacy and its symbols is part and parcel of reverence for the United States.

Even the president of the United States falls within that group. Donald Trump has criticized those who protest “our beautiful (Confederate) statues and monuments,” and he’s criticized those who, he says, are disrespecting the American flag by declining to stand respectfully as the national anthem is played.  On which side would Trump have fought in the Civil War?  Or would he have taken his morally evasive “bad people on all sides” approach?

It certainly is confusing to hear people declare allegiance to the United States flag at the same time that they’re weeping at the removal of Confederate flags and monuments. Some people might believe that some black people are sending mixed messages when they criticize they, say,  properly criticize the Confederate battle flag as treasonous and racist and at the same time support professional athletes who kneel during the national anthem.  But it should be fairly easy to understand:  Most sensible black people hate the Confederacy and its images and find it foolish that anybody would expect them to harbor anything other than hatred for the army that fought for their ancestors’ enslavement. Protests that intersect with displays of the United States flag aren’t coming from a place of hatred but disappointment:  How come America isn’t as good as she claims to be? Why won’t Americans collectively demand that everybody be treated fairly and justly?  In a country that has a Constitution and says it follows the rule of law, how is that police officers, government agents, get to kill black people with near impunity?

Martin Luther King Jr. expressed that disappointment the night before he was assassinated when he said, “All we say to America is, ‘Be true to what you said on paper.'” After pointing out the promises explicitly guaranteed by the First Amendment, King declared that “the greatness of America is the right to protest for right.”

A Gallup poll conducted two years before his assassination revealed that a large majority of Americans had a negative opinion of King. That should let us know that anybody who points out that America isn’t what she says she is, anybody who demands that America stop doing black people wrong, is going to be criticized – reviled even.

But somebody’s got to point out the hypocrisies: the hypocrisy of lingering racism in a country with a Declaration of Independence and a Constitution and the hypocrisy of so-called patriots championing the Confederacy and its imagery.

Jarvis DeBerry is deputy opinions editor for NOLA.COM | The Times-Picayune. He can be reached at jdeberry@nola.com or at twitter.com/jarvisdeberry.