Use the drop-down boxes above to navigate through the Website  
Return to Reasoning List

Here is a link to this page:

Black President

1 - 1011 - 2021 - 3031 - 4041 - 5051 - 6061 - 7071 - 8081 - 9091 - 100
101 - 110111 - 120121 - 130131 - 140141 - 150151 - 153
Time Zone: EST (New York, Toronto)
Messenger: Ras KebreAB Sent: 7/20/2008 8:05:08 AM

word sound

Messenger: Eleazar1234 Sent: 7/20/2008 8:24:23 AM



Feel No Way by Peter Tosh

Nobody feel no way
It's coming close to payday I say
Nobody feel no way
Everyman get paid a quota's work this day
Can I plant peas and reap rice
Can I plant cocoa and reap yam
Can I plant turnip and reap tomato
Can I plant breadfruit and reap potato
Can I tell lie and hear truth
Can I live bad and love good
Can I deliver and get down
Can I give a dollar and want a pound
Can I be wrong and get right?
Can I be kicked and don't fight?
Can I drink water and get drunk?
Can I drink whiskey and stay sober?

Messenger: NineMile2004 Sent: 7/22/2008 10:54:58 PM


I'd also be careful seeing Obama as a great leader. Babylon is so so powerful over the weakminded, the ones that find love in things, money, and power over fellow humans. TO me Mr. Obama already has shown that there is more than what we know. The campaign finance issue has shown me that this man will say anything to get in power. Let us pray that once he is in power he will use it for good and not to still his hunger for power. Words mean nothing, and only time will tell. I have my doubts and keep my mind open for possibilities.

Messenger: Ras KebreAB Sent: 8/29/2008 7:30:22 AM

A friend of mine asked i,why do you think now they are letting a black man become president
i could only ask, is the real question,are they letting a black man become president, or is the real question,are they MAKING a black president and why?

I am just about to go and watch the speech Obama made yesterday, its already being called the best speech of the last 35 years, the best politikal speech,that is.
I want to see if i can look through the cracks,read between the lines

Excuse my mistrust of you,mystery babylon,but i can only go by your filthy deeds over the ages

And yet still, i find iself eager to see how Jah´s will will manifest in these times.Babylon can scheme and plot all they want,but in the end Jah´s will will always prevail,i know that as sure as i know im breathing.

Wonder if Obama will be Cyrus in these times
Or, will
"The heaven shall reveal his iniquity; and the earth shall rise up against him."?, as Job warned.

Holy I Selassie I JAH Rastafari,thy will be done.

Messenger: Ras KebreAB Sent: 8/29/2008 5:02:29 PM

Well i watched it, i didnt know what i expected really, no doubt a good speech but its the same thing i guess, promise after promise after promise.
The euphoria that people over there are feeling right now kind of reminds i of, when i was living in London, it was i think quiet similiar when Tony Blair was running. There was so much hope, new labour party, change, and all that
Will this be the same disappointment?

knowing politiks, i would say Most likely,,,,but we will see

Messenger: Ras power Sent: 8/31/2008 2:08:34 AM

i can't belive my ears, or eyes,lol,

by there fruits u shall know them, and just watch fox news to see how they scramble in panic, to ini if many was in the i majesty time i would here the same.

i been watching from the begining, cnn,c-span,fox, ai-jezera,pbs
respect PBS, with historians, and the sort

the campain is the reflection of the man, his rise through education, and exprience,

and just cause a black man broke through, they let him,

the bible tell me that promotion come only from jah, he establish kings and remove kings, if obmah makes it it is through had work, remember the man inspired thousands to vote, raised money from the people, and jah, because he help those who help their selves.

mc cain u should be afraid of, pro-life government, do anyone know what this mean? and the woman, seeing not even his campain people did not know shou it was in dseperation for vote,

an end to choice, for women, and attempt to change laws that exsisted and people fought and diea for, he is against afermitive action, chcck PBS on line live video

can't belive u all fall to the replublicans swift vote propergander and not do your oun research.

in the history of america, every tim black people raise them selves the nation gets stronger, slavery, civil rights, war,etc.

respect the man who made history, he is for the healing

blessed love rastafari

Messenger: wahdahdah Sent: 8/31/2008 4:05:47 PM

greetings in the name of JAH RASTAFARI! i man think back to every time someone like Obama, or the 2 kennedy's, or Lincoln spoke such words of change our countries hatred for any possitive movement toward progression ended in taking them out and off the earth. when i watch the man obama speak about green energy and moving away from gas and oil usage i fear for that man's life. weather or not he is blowing smoke and hungry for power he still has caused much uproar among those who wish to keep our country in a state of dependency. if he can keep himself alive and create a 10th percent of the change he claims, more power to him. i man just get a wicked wicked feeling some fool will be a patsy like that of Ozwald and take the life of yet another. may Jah bless all who are trying to do Jah works.
the only true leadership comes from H.I.M. teaching so JAH know what shall be. give thanks and praises unto JAH RASTAFARI. one love wahdahdah...

Messenger: Eleazar1234 Sent: 8/31/2008 11:03:14 PM

Obama’s Denver speech: Populist demagogy in the service of militarism
By Patrick Martin
30 August 2008

Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author

The speech delivered by Senator Barack Obama Thursday night, accepting the Democratic presidential nomination at a football stadium in Denver, combined populist rhetoric with invocations of patriotism and pledges to escalate the war in Afghanistan and build up the US military “to meet future conflicts.”

The acceptance speeches of the Democratic and Republican nominees are among the most important ceremonies in American politics and are given massive media attention. Obama’s speech, according to television reports Friday, attracted an audience of 38 million people, more than twice the number who watched John Kerry in 2004.

The candidates use these occasions to speak simultaneously to two quite distinct audiences: the financial and political elite, who, in the final analysis, play the critical role in determining the outcome, and the masses of voters who will cast ballots November 4, but whose interests are given only lip service by the two big business parties.

Obama devoted the bulk of his remarks to populist-sounding denunciations of the Bush administration and Republican presidential candidate John McCain, and media coverage focused largely on this aspect of the speech. But the central purpose of the speech was to show that he can provide a new and supposedly more “progressive” rationale to mobilize popular support behind American militarism.

The Democratic candidate made many harsh criticisms of the Republicans, and spoke with apparent confidence, clearly feeling that powerful sections of the ruling elite stand behind him and want new management of the affairs of US imperialism in the wake of the Bush administration’s debacles in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

But his indictment of the Bush, McCain & Co. was notable for what it left out. There was no mention of Guantánamo, torture, secret CIA prisons, illegal wiretapping, or all the other violations of democratic rights carried out on the pretext of conducting a “war on terror.” In a key Senate vote last month, Obama backed expanded wiretapping and surveillance powers for agencies like the National Security Agency and the FBI.

Equally significant, Obama criticized the war in Iraq as a strategic blunder, not an act of aggression that has resulted in the slaughter of over one million innocent people. He presented the US occupation, which has shattered Iraq as a functioning society, as though the Bush administration was favoring that country at American expense. “Iraq has a $79 billion surplus while we’re wallowing in deficits,” he complained.

Obama began his speech with a brief description of the grim economic circumstances facing tens of millions of people in the United States, including declining real wages, foreclosures and falling home values, and skyrocketing gas prices, credit card debt and college tuition costs. He blamed these conditions not, of course, on corporate America, but on the Bush administration and the Republican Party, and declared that McCain was simply ignorant of the difficulties confronting working people.

The measures which he proposed to counter the effects of the crisis were vague and hollow, as in his pledge of “affordable, accessible health care” at the end of a laundry list of other promises, with no explanation of how this was to be accomplished in the teeth of opposition from the insurance, drug and for-profit hospital industries.

He embraced many of the nostrums of the Republican right, calling for the elimination of capital gains taxes on many businesses and modest tax cuts for most working families, rather than the mobilization of federal resources to provide jobs, raise living standards and rebuild economically blighted areas.

Most importantly, Obama sought to direct popular anger over deteriorating social conditions along the lines of economic nationalism, blaming foreign scapegoats rather than the real source of the crisis, the American capitalist class and the system of private ownership and private profit.

Thus, in his indictment of the conditions facing working people in the industrial centers of the Midwest, he referred to a factory worker “who has to pack up the equipment he’s worked on for twenty years and watch it shipped off to China.”

He hailed the capitalist market, while claiming that “businesses should live up to their responsibilities to create American jobs,” and he pledged to “stop giving tax breaks to corporations that ship jobs overseas.”

This economic nationalism was the basis of his most important domestic policy promise: a ten-year program to “finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East.” Obama used this pledge to suggest, again, that foreigners, not American corporate bosses, were responsible for the crisis at home.

There is actually less to this promise than meets the eye, since barely 10 percent of the oil consumed in the United States comes from the Middle East. Persian Gulf oil mainly flows to Europe and Asia, while the US draws the bulk of its oil imports from the western hemisphere (particularly Canada, Mexico and Venezuela), as well as from Africa.

The goal of American military intervention in the Persian Gulf is not to guarantee current shipments of oil to the US market, but to put the United States in control of the oil lifelines of its main economic competitors and strategic rivals, particularly Western Europe and China.

Even Obama’s pledges of improved social conditions were linked to the growth of American militarism. Thus he called for a guarantee of an affordable college education to every young American “if you commit to serving your community or your country.”

While this language might appeal to young people facing skyrocketing tuition costs, it has a very definite, and very reactionary, subtext: Obama is planting the seeds for a new Democratic administration to reestablish the draft. Such an effort would certainly be accompanied not only by manufactured panic over some new foreign policy crisis or terrorist attack, but by claims that compulsory military service is needed in the name of “fairness” and “shared sacrifice.”

When he finally turned explicitly to foreign policy, Obama came out aggressively against the Bush administration’s mismanagement of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and declared himself more than willing to match up his credentials to serve as “commander-in-chief.” This theme was underscored in the run-up to his speech by the appearance on the platform of a parade of retired generals who vouched for the Democratic candidate’s militarist credentials.

Obama won the Democratic nomination, at least in part, by claiming to be more antiwar than Hillary Clinton. But in his acceptance speech, he made it clear that he was running not as a principled opponent of the Iraq war, but as an advocate of a different war.

“While Senator McCain was turning his sights to Iraq just days after 9/11, I stood up and opposed this war, knowing that it would distract us from the real threats we face,” he said. “When John McCain said we could just ‘muddle through’ in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11.”

Obama argued that Bush’s bellicose posturing over Iraq had served as a substitute for a more coherent global strategy. “You don’t protect Israel and deter Iran just by talking tough in Washington,” he said. “You can’t truly stand up for Georgia when you’ve strained our oldest alliances.”

Even more ominously, he declared, “We need a president who can face the threats of the future, not keep grasping at the ideas of the past.” In other words, instead of continuing the stalemate in Iraq, Obama wants to extract US troops from that quagmire so they can be used in Afghanistan, against Iran, or in the struggle against more powerful antagonists like China and Russia.

The candidate invoked Roosevelt and Kennedy as Democratic predecessors, not for their association with liberal social reforms, but in their capacity as leaders during World War II and the Cold War. “As commander in chief, I will never hesitate to defend this nation,” he said, adding, “I will rebuild our military to meet future conflicts.”

Obama ended his speech with a brief citation from the speech delivered by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. at the March on Washington 45 years before to the day. Remarkably, he did not speak of King by name, referring to him only as “the preacher.”

He avoided the core of the 1963 speech, which is not the oft-quoted “I have a dream,” but rather King’s indictment of the injustice and oppression of blacks in the American South, and his declaration that American society as a whole had failed to fulfill the democratic promise of the American Revolution.

King told his audience, “Nineteen sixty three is not an end, but a beginning. And those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. And there will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.”

There is not the slightest hint of revolt by the oppressed in the Obama campaign, despite efforts by some Democrats, sections of the media and “left” apologists like the Nation magazine to present him as the leader of a mass insurgent movement against the political establishment.

Media reaction following the speech fell along predictable lines, with MSNBC, ABC, CNN and much of the press hailing Obama’s nomination as the culmination of the civil rights struggles of the 1960s, while Fox television and the Wall Street Journal howled that, despite his conservative tone and paeans to the military, he was seeking to revive New Deal or Great Society liberalism.

One liberal commentator who gushed over the speech, columnist Harold Meyerson, noted Obama’s invocation of Kennedy and Roosevelt, and wrote that in his combination of military muscle-flexing and economic appeals to working people, Obama was reminiscent of another Democratic president: “Add this rhetoric of toughness to his hard-times populism, and Obama comes off as the leader not just of Roosevelt’s and Kennedy’s party, but of Truman’s as well.”

It is both true and damning to note that Obama’s rhetoric and approach are reminiscent of the Democratic president responsible for the single greatest atrocity in the history of American imperialism, the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Obama seeks the presidency under conditions where the protracted economic decline of American capitalism makes impossible any return to the liberal reform policies of a Truman. An Obama administration would involve the use of liberal demagogy—without any actual economic concessions to working people—to support an aggressive program of American militarism in the Middle East, Central Asia and throughout the world.

Messenger: Eleazar1234 Sent: 8/31/2008 11:04:29 PM

Selassie: It is our opinion that the world hasn't changed at all. We believe that such changes has modified nothing. We don't ever notice any differences between monarchies and republics. To us they appear two substantially similar methods of governing the nation. Well, tell us,: What is the difference between a republic and a monarchy?

Fallaci: Actually, your Majesty, I mean to me, it appears that in republics where democracy reigns the leader is elected. But in monarchies he isn't.

Selassie: We don't see where the difference lies.

Fallaci: Never mind, Your Majesty. What is your opinion of democracy?

Selassie: Democracy, republics: What do these words signify? What have they changed in the world? Have men become better, more loyal, kinder? Are the people happier? All goes on as before, as always. Illusions, illusions. Besides, one should consider the interest of a nation before subverting it with words. Democracy is necessary in some cases and We believe some African peoples might adopt it. But in other cases it is harmful, a mistake.

Messenger: Ras KebreAB Sent: 9/1/2008 2:05:01 AM

Ras Power, i am not sure,but it seems as if you are speaking to i?

If so, plz make yourself clear because i am having trouble overstanding your words

What of what i said is it that you say you cant believe your ears or eyes??

What? Just because you see Fox campaining against Obama, does that prove his righteousness??
If you think that, i say think again, because you should know by now, babylon ALWAYS, always plays both sides, seen

"the bible tell me that promotion come only from jah, he establish kings and remove kings, if obmah ....." etc etc

Excuse i, but i wonder, is that what you were saying when Bush was elected? hmm? Jah helps those who help themselves?, is that what you said then.....well, you should ,for Bush certainly did help himself...helped himself right into office, didnt he, idren?

"can't belive u all fall to the replublicans swift vote propergander and not do your oun research."

I really hope that was not for i
seen, a person who has fallen to propoganda as you say, has already made his mind up
but if you read everything i have said, i have not made my mind up about anything, i am still waiting to see what will come out of all this
Iyah, if anyone has fallen to propoganda,it seems to be you, because your words seem to indicate that you HAVE already made up your mind........and knowing full well the history of babylon and Amerika, that in my opinion is an extremely silly thing to do
I dont care what Pbs or Cnn or Fox or anyone says, i will wait and see what will be.

Mcain i should be afraid of??
Iyah, i am not afraid of neither of these people, i fear only i Lord and God and King

Respect the man who made history?
what kind of sense is that, idren
first of all he has not made any history to speak of
even Hitler made history, doesnt mean i have to respect him,does it.
Ini shall be the witnesses of history in this time, and ini shall wait and see just what kind of history he will make.
But that will be extremely difficult when ones like the i are already saying "he is for the healing" even before he has done anything yet.

Jah know, in i heart i hope and pray that you are right and he is indeed for the healing....but i (and you) will only know that for sure by his deeds to come, not just by his words.


So,iyah, as the Wailers sang, CAUTION;THE ROAD IS WET

Blessed Love

1 - 1011 - 2021 - 3031 - 4041 - 5051 - 6061 - 7071 - 8081 - 9091 - 100
101 - 110111 - 120121 - 130131 - 140141 - 150151 - 153

Return to Reasoning List

Haile Selassie I