BLF say they are Fearless of WMC terrorism

Once again Black First, Land First (BLF) wants to control the ignorant masses with promises of radical change and, of course, the enrich the few select elite. A party that will put blacks first and direct real change from slavery to emancipation, and a firm belief that Africa is for Africans.


The big shout out of the BLF is land reform and fighting the real enemy, white capital criminals and black new comrades such as Nelson Mandela, Malema and Jacob Zuma. The BLF party has sung a song that entices violent hatred towards current leaders and white people. The basis of taking control in South Africa is to take back the stolen land by any means necessary.  The leaders of the BLF praise Robert Mugabe and want the masses to take back the land in South Africa, using a similar manner in which the land was taken from white Zimbabweans. An important resolution of the revolutionary project is the expropriation of land without compensation to the oppressors, the white capitalists.
 

And in the latest article they once again state they are FEARLESS -  

BLF fearless in the face of WMC terrorism

Black First Land First (BLF) has been resolute and fearless in the face of terrorism perpetrated against them by agents of white monopoly capital (WMC). This terrorism was again being enacted by journalists on Radio 702 this morning (2 August 2017), where black journalists Eusebius McKaiser, Ferial Haffajee, Vuyo Mvoko and Sam Mkokeli talked extensively about how they plan to deal with BLF.

 BLF has been challenging the overtly and covertly racist reportage of white journalists who not only demonize black leaders in the political, social, and economic spheres, but even go so far as to cover-up and normalise corruption by white people.

 BLF has simply been expressing their view to white journalists – that their racist reportage would no longer be tolerated. Since then, the media fraterinity that is paid by, and beholden to, white monopoly capital, has been hauling BLF to court in an attempt to muzzle the revolutionary voice of BLF.

 What is most insidious, is that these white beneficiaries of aparthied are using Black people as stooges to do their dirty work: first Mahlatse Gallens was used to take BLF to court on behalf of the South African National Editors Forum (SANEF) and today Eusebius McKaiser and other black journalists are planning to once again take BLF to court. It appears that white monopoly capital is particularly incensed by BLF President Andile Mngxitama. To this end it was revealed by Sam Mkokeli of SANEF, that SANEF is doing everything legally possible to put the BLF President behind bars. Not only is this shocking and worrying, but it also shows that white monopoly capital knows very well that the Roman-Dutch legal system of South Africa, was designed to serve them since 1652.

 As black people, we cannot afford to allow ourselves to be turned against each other by white people and white monopoly capital. History shows us time and again that white people and white monopoly capital are adept at engineering black on black violence, only to later subjugate the victor in those conflicts.

 Let us stand united behind BLF. Let us all be fearless, despite the well documented ruthlessness of white monopoly capital. Link to this article 

 *********************

Recently the BLF have continued to stir the pot of hatred against whites and frequently remain in the news.  BLF are nothing more than Gupta puppets.

Facing the threat from North Korea: 5 essential reads

People watch news on missile launch in Pyongyang, North Korea.
AP Photo/Jon Chol Jin

Editor’s note: The following is a roundup of archival stories related to North Korea.

North Korea has launched repeated tests of ballistic missiles, which it claims are now advanced enough to carry a nuclear warhead as far as the United States. Although experts have cast doubt on the veracity of these claims, the international community has sounded the alarm. South Korea in particular is taking steps, with support from the U.S., to defend itself against the threat.

To better understand this intensifying conflict, we turned to stories in our archive.

Basics

1. Especially for younger generations, the origins of this conflict are not always clear. We asked East Asia scholar Ji-Young Lee of American University to take us way back in this Q&A and explain how Korea got divided into North and South in the first place. Along the way she unpacks some myths about the effect the North Korean regime has had on its people:

“Still, not all North Koreans are interested in defecting. According to anthropologist Sandra Fahy, interviewees said they left the North reluctantly driven primarily by famine and economic reasons, rather than political reasons. A majority of them missed home in the North.”

2. By now, most people are familiar with the man at the helm in North Korea – Kim Jong Un. But his motives still mystify world leaders. Foreign policy expert Stephen Dyson of the University of Connecticut writes a brief history of how the U.S. has sought insight into the minds of other strongmen – from Hitler to Khrushchev:

“History tells us that to influence Kim, we must empathize (note: not sympathize) with him. To figure out what makes him tick, Trump and his advisers must first understand how we look to the North Korean leader, peering at us from his very particular vantage point.”

Options

3. What options are on the table for dealing with the threat from North Korea? A good first step would be increasing U.S. cooperation with Asian allies on security issues, writes Flynt Leverett, a former National Security Council and State Department staffer and professor at Pennsylvania State University. But will Trump’s focus on trade get in the way?

“For Trump and ‘inner circle’ advisers like Steve Bannon, the top concern is economic. Trump and his team see U.S. trade deficits, concentrated in Asia, as draining America’s wealth and threatening its national security…Overall, Trump’s Asia strategy is unlikely to boost Sino-U.S. cooperation on regional security.”

4. Another option that the international community has resorted to for years is imposing sanctions to limit the regime’s ability to develop nuclear weapons. But these sanctions have had, it seems, limited effect. John Park at Harvard University interviewed former North Korean business managers who bought components for the regime’s nuclear and missile programs. His findings suggest that sanctions must be revisited:

“As sanctions have become tougher, these local Chinese middlemen have charged higher fees to reflect the elevated risk of doing business with North Korean clients. Instead of hindering procurement activities, we found that sanctions have actually helped to attract more capable middlemen, who are drawn by the larger payday.”

5. And after a cyberattack linked to North Korea penetrated the global banking system last year, analysts are urging U.S. leaders to take the online threat just as seriously. As Frank Cilluffo and Sharon Cardash from George Washington University write:

“North Korea keeps its military capabilities secret, and is particularly cautious about revealing its cyberwarfare capabilities. South Korea’s Defense Ministry estimates that North Korea’s ‘cyber army’ is 6,000 strong. That’s as big as the U.S. military’s Cyber Mission Force is planned to be.”

Danielle Douez, Associate Editor, Politics + Society, The Conversation

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

Misleading statements on Russia meeting recall Clinton's impeachment

President Clinton during his grand jury deposition, Aug 17, 1998. AP Photo/APTN

According to a biographer of Donald Trump, “He’s been lying his whole life, almost reflexively.”

Now, President Trump may be lying to his team of private lawyers who are handling issues relating to the investigation into Russian meddling in the election. Last month, Trump’s personal lawyer, Jay Sekulow, told “Meet the Press,” “the president was not involved” in drafting a misleading statement describing a meeting at Trump Tower between campaign members and a Russian lawyer in June 2016.

But when the Washington Post reported that the president had “personally dictated” the statement, the White House confirmed that Trump “was personally involved” in drafting it.

Failure to be truthful with his private lawyer is what led to former President Bill Clinton’s impeachment. At the heart of the Articles of Impeachment brought against Clinton was the charge that he gave “perjurous, false and misleading testimony” and allowed his attorney to make “false and misleading statements” in a sexual harassment lawsuit brought by Paula Jones.

As a scholar of legal ethics, I teach my law students that if Clinton had been truthful with his lawyer, it’s likely he never would have been impeached. Like Clinton, Trump badly needs advice from lawyers who are fully informed of the truth. In the opinion of many legal experts, the pattern of misleading statements about the Trump Tower meeting has already increased Trump’s exposure to criminal prosecution or impeachment. The stakes have just been raised with news that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has obtained grand jury subpoenas in connection with the Trump Tower meeting.

Clinton’s impeachment

When Clinton was forced to testify in the Jones lawsuit, his personal lawyer, Robert Bennett, attempted to block questioning about Monica Lewinsky. Bennett showed the judge an affidavit in which Lewinsky stated, “I have never had a sexual relationship with the president.” Clinton’s lawyer described the affidavit as “saying that there is absolutely no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form, with President Clinton.” Bennett then asked Clinton if “never had a sexual relationship with the president” was “a true and accurate statement as far as you know it?”

Clinton answered under oath: “That is absolutely true.”

In a later court filing, Bennett admitted the Lewinsky affidavit was false. But in his autobiography, Bennett insists when he told the judge there was “absolutely no sex of any kind” between Clinton and Lewinsky, “I believed it with all my heart.”

If Bennett is to be believed, at the time of Clinton’s testimony he was unaware that Lewinsky had engaged in oral sex with Clinton. We can also infer he did not know, as Clinton explained in later grand jury testimony, that his client was interpreting the affidavit’s phrase “never had a sexual relationship” as not including oral sex.

If Clinton had told his lawyer the full truth, Bennett could have advised against Clinton’s disastrous word game about the meaning of “sexual relationship” – advice that if taken would probably have prevented Clinton from committing perjury, thus avoiding later impeachment.

As explained by the American Bar Association, there is an ethical rule that would require Trump’s lawyers to treat everything he tells them with complete confidentiality. Trust is “the hallmark of the client-lawyer relationship” so that a client can “communicate fully and frankly with the lawyer even as to embarrassing or legally damaging subject matter.”

In my view, Trump should learn from Clinton’s mistakes to never put his lawyers in the position of making statements in his name that later turn out to be false. Clients who don’t tell lawyers the full truth not only lose the benefit of wise advice. Even worse, as Clinton found out, inadequately informed lawyers may inadvertently do their clients great harm.

Clark D. Cunningham, W. Lee Burge Chair in Law & Ethics; Director, National Institute for Teaching Ethics & Professionalism, Georgia State University

This article was originally published on The Conversation.