The small but vocal New Black Panther Party is woefully disappointed in President Barack Obama, and is openly implying that the best way to reach its goals is no longer through “the ballot” but through “the bullet.”

In the Spring edition of the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) newspaper — cover reading “The Ballot or The Bullet: which way for black people?” — NBPP Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz breaks down the presidential election, concluding the Democratic Party is the “institutional pimp of Black peoples and the Black Nation” and that Obama has “been a real disappointment.”

“Black peoples are the whores and prostitutes of the Democratic Party, and mistreated mistress that is courted in the late of night, but left hanging when it is time for real change in the light of the post election day,” Shabazz wrote, following a dissertation on the need to “Vote for Revolution.”

Shabazz detailed his past hopes for Obama as the first African-American president, noting that Obama has not lived up to them — specifically by continuing the policies of the Bush administration in the so-called war on terror and ignoring the economic plight of black Americans.

“The black community is at large no better off that (sic) before he was in office. We are curious as to what his agenda is for Black people in America and if he even has one,” Shabazz added.

The lead editorial in the 36-page publication is written by the paper’s editor, Chawn Kweli, entitled “4 years and a Bucket of Hope: The Change That Never Came,” which describes the group’s excitement, and subsequent disappointment, after Obama was elected.

“Mr. Obama’s policies have not corrected the economic troubles of America, they have gotten worse,” Kweli wrote. “The debt continues to expand [into the trillions], and the administration’s handling of international relations has hardened dialogue with foreign nations. Mr. Obama’s policies have been especially harsh to us the Black community. He [Obama] bailed out Wall Street and the auto makers but kept us at the top of the unemployment ladder.”

CONTINUED at The Daily Caller.

At 6’6″, William “Big Willie” Andrew Robinson III — a bowler hat perched atop his head, his voice booming — cut an imposing figure among the youth of South Central Los Angeles during the 1970s. That figure both belied and contributed to his mission, which was to end gang violence and racial unrest through drag racing. Robinson died this past Saturday after a short illness. He was 70.

For a life lived in the furtherance of “peace through racing,” as was his mantra, Big Willie should get the Jalopnik Peace Prize. If there were such a thing.

His seemed an impossible task in a city whose racial entrenchment began decades before. Post-war racial violence in Los Angeles traced its roots to the 1920s, when blacks began to exit a claustrophobic ghetto, seeking elbow room in traditionally white areas, and were met with fists, blackjacks, knives, and gasoline bombs.

CONTINUED at Jalopnik.

Monti raised alert levels on Sunday at some sensitive sites across Italy to handle the recent violence that has hit the country.

Interior Minister Anna Maria Cancellieri also said on Sunday that she was considering bringing in the army to defend certain locations.

“There have been several attacks on the offices of Equitalia (the agency handling tax collections) in recent weeks. I want to remind people that attacking Equitalia is the equivalent of attacking the State,” she said.

“The army could be used to guard buildings which could be the target of violent protest. The danger of an escalation exists. It’s a situation which demands drastic action,” she added.

On Saturday, two Molotov cocktails were thrown at the offices of Equitalia in Livorno, Tuscany, and severely damaged the front of the building after they blew off. Moreover, a letter bomb, which did not blast, was sent to the organization’s offices in Rome on Friday.

CONTINUED at Press TV.

Two suicide blasts ripped through the Syrian capital today, killing 55 people and leaving scenes of carnage in the streets in the deadliest bombing attack since the country’s uprising began 14 months ago, the Interior Ministry said.

UN-Arab League envoy Kofi Annan said his peace plan could be the last chance to avoid civil war in Syria, where a truce has failed to end 14 months of bloodshed that monitors say has killed nearly 12,000 people.

Annan told the UN Security Council on Tuesday that the priority in Syria was “to stop the killing” and expressed concern that torture, mass arrests and other human rights violations were intensifying.

Regime forces “continue to press against the population,” despite a putative truce that started on April 12, but attacks are more discreet because of the presence of UN military observers, diplomats quoted him as saying.

“The biggest priority, first of all we need to stop the killing,” Annan told reporters in Geneva, adding that his six-point peace plan is “the only remaining chance to stabilize the country.”

Annan briefed the council on his efforts to get Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to implement the plan, which he said was possibly “the last chance to avoid civil war.”

CONTINUED at Taipei Times.

There was extensive coverage in the media of the recent Bahrain Grand Prix, and in particular the off-track events that surrounded it. The majority of this coverage suggested Formula One was there for financial reasons, despite the risk to team members’ lives and the overall political situation in the host country.

In response to this, many Formula One journalists stated there wasn’t actually any trouble in Bahrain at all; that even if you looked for it, you struggled to find the apparent riots and shootings.

But all this misses the point. Amnesty International recently released a reportwhich stated that 35 deaths were reported in Bahrain over a two-month period last year. Five of these were due to torture.

Why were the F1 press looking for riots when the true crimes of the rulers of Bahrain were hidden away, well out of the view of the public and the foreign press? The journalists in Bahrain should have illustrated their unease with the situation by discussing the Bahrainis who have been killed in the fight for their cause.

And the media should have looked at the bigger picture. As journalists, that’s their role. Formula One goes to many countries which have blemished human rights records. Many sports visit countries that murder, suppress and kill their citizens. The debate should be about whether it is right for these countries to be represented in international sport and whether these countries should be allowed to host international sport.

By answering these questions, I think we can begin to answer the great sport and politics divide. It should be right for Bahrainis to come to London to represent their country and fight for Olympic medals this summer. It’s right because it’s such a personal thing. Athletes dedicate their lives to doing the best they can in their chosen discipline. Most of the time they have nothing to do with politics.

So should it be right for Bahrain to host a grand prix? This is where the debate gets complicated.

Formula One ignored the rest of the world and went to South Africa in the 1980s during the apartheid. Was that right? Were other sports right to ignore the country? And does ignoring the country mean you’re ignoring its citizens and their plight?

Ultimately, by being in South Africa, Formula One put the spotlight on the country in a massive way. Rugby then went and finished the job by uniting the country with the 1995 World Cup.

That’s why Formula One was probably right to have gone to Bahrain. But, these are murky waters.

There are so many questions that surround the theatres of sport and politics, and they have been missed by the press in recent weeks. Great questions have been left unanswered when the recent Bahrain Grand Prix offered an opportunity for sensible answers to be found.

That’s the real shame from last weekend’s grand prix.

Source: Bleacher Report.

*Written by L.B. Frank.

Wow, was I in for a surprise last night. I had the pleasure of attending a US Congressional Candidate Forum for District 19 last night. I’m not going to say what state I live in, nor the names of the people running for office. I will make up names for them that better exude their personality or my impression of them. The following are my thoughts on the questions and their answers.

There were 8 candidates on stage last night. We had a Mitt Romney Wannabe, a Lawyer Kid, a Guy They Say doesn’t have a Chance, a Bean Counter from Washington, a Mitt Romney Wannabe #2, a Duck Phillips, a Formerly Libertarian Leaning Radio Show Host, and a Democrat. 7 of the 8 people on stage are running in the Republican Primary for US Congressional Seat 19 in our district, the last guy is the only Democrat running for the seat.

They were asked a series of questions off of the GOOOH questionnaire, and a series of questions from the audience. I submitted three questions, and none were asked. Boo. They were asked the questions, and then they had to hold up a red or green sign whether they were for or against the topic.

The first question was “Would you support any legislation that would alter the promise made to those 55 and up when it comes to their Social Security benefits?”.  All but one said “No”. That is “No” to privatizing, “No” to voluntary disassociation, “No” to raising the cap, “No” to lowering benefits. The Formerly  Libertarian Leaning Radio Show Host was the only one that said we have a $16 trillion dollar debt, and was the only one that would say that we had to look at everything on the table. I can respect that. I submitted a question to be asked, that wasn’t, “Is Social Security a Ponzi scheme?” The way that Social Security is run right now, it’s relying on the forced confiscation of wealth earned by tax payers in the form of FICA withholdings on their paychecks. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that Social Security will run out of money and be in perpetual RED in as little as 2016. The last time I looked at the calendar, it’s 2012. So, in an effort to garner the votes and campaign donations from the nearly 300 people in attendance, they said “No, I would rather let the Social Security bankrupt our country instead of tell you the truth”.

The second question was “Would you support any legislation that would alter, remove, abolish the Tax Code as it stand now and replace it with a flat tax or the FairTax?” All Greens on stage. The Lawyer Kid said basically that he supports a flat tax and the FairTax is dangerous. The FairTax is a 194 page legislation, but takes an over 400 page book to explain. That is not even remotely true. The FairTax legislation is 133 pages as written today, the book written by Neal Boortz and Congressman John Linder is  188 pages, that includes the Table of Contents and the Index in the back. He said it was dangerous because we don’t know what it will do, but it is wholly acceptable to support a flat tax, even thought that only adds to the complexity of the 3 million word, 76,000 page Tax Code we currently have today. He was saying that it is wholly acceptable to only tax producers in our economy. He was saying that is wholly acceptable to continue to have the world’s highest corporate tax rate. He was saying that it is wholly acceptable to keep the IRS to track you down and put you in a cage if you make a mistake on your tax forms and point a gun at you and force you to pay your taxes in weekly withholdings, whether you can afford it or not. He completely misunderstood and misrepresented the FairTax, where there are no corporate taxes, where you don’t have to file taxes, where you keep 100 percent of your income and investments. Only The Guy They Say Doesn’t Have a Chance said that the FairTax returns the tax system to the original constitutional restrictions and treats everyone equally, removes loop holes and lobbyists. The rest of them basically said, “Yeah, pander, pander, pander.” No solutions, nothing. If we want to get serious in this country about the economy, about jobs, about the future, we have to look at a solution that is simple and makes sense that also takes power out of the hands of government and returns it to the people. The FairTax is that solution. If only these people on stage would stand behind it, they promise “To fight for you!” Bull, show me by supporting legislation that will get the government out of my finances, out of my pay check and won’t throw me in jail if I don’t understand something with 76,000 pages and 3,000,000 words.

Later the question was asked, “Would you support any efforts to use legislation to decriminalize marijuana?” Now, I’m going to be as honest as I can, even though I’m writing on the Internet where nothing is true yet everything is believable. I have never smoked marijuana. I have never put any drugs into my body other than alcohol, caffeine, and medications. It’s not something that appeals to me. But, I am a warrior for freedom. I am a defender of liberty. And when I heard this question last night, I thought “Finally! A question that actually has value!” Nope. These so-called liberty-loving Republican candidates said “NOPE”. The Repubs all raised the red flag of the War on Drugs. The Lawyer Kid said “It’s a gateway drug, it’s dangerous, I don’t want kids smoking it and also there is this thing in the Constitution called the Commerce Clause, so yeah, I don’t think it’s a good idea.” The rest of them parroted his sentiments. Even though I know at least one of them on that stage has smoked before. “Commerce Clause??” Really? If the user grows the plant themselves, in their own garden, on their own property, and uses it in their own home, while consenting to administering the smoke of some sort of vegetation into his or her own body and THAT is enough justifiable reason for the imperial federal government to reach into your home and yank you out and put you into a cage?

“Article I, Section 8, Clause 3: [The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes”

Where does it say that they have the authority to do so? These people, these men, these human beings, are appealing to us, the audience, the voters, more human beings, for  the authority and permission to hire men with guns to tell us how we are allowed to live. Don’t ever forget that. These holier than thou, righteous men want the power to tell you what you must do, what you are not allowed to do in your own home.

“IV Amendment of the Constitution: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.”

I’m sorry, but that is just wrong. And the worst part, the audience applauded them. Freedom dies every time the audience applauds unjust laws. They got us into $16 Trillion in debt, the “War on Drugs” has cost us a trillion dollars. After 40 years of this, even U.S. drug czar Gil Kerlikowske concedes the strategy hasn’t worked. “In the grand scheme, it has not been successful, forty years later, the concern about drugs and drug problems is, if anything, magnified, intensified.” We have already tried the whole prohibition thing, it doesn’t work. Violent cartels are making hundreds of millions, we are paying hundreds of millions to imprison hundreds of thousands for victimless crimes, we paying billions in a “war effort” that doesn’t make sense. If someone has a drug problem, they can be treated just like someone with an alcohol problem. If they are caught driving while intoxicated, treat them the same as with alcohol. The whole supply/demand paradigm works with drugs too, the demand is still there today, after forty years, but supplies are scarcer due to the black market effect and it raises the cost. If you increase the risk, you increase the cost. As the costs go up, but demand stays the same, the risk taking to get the money to purchase the product goes up, thus crime, violent crime. That is what should be punished and that is what would go down. Market forces would reduce the prices of the goods; reduce the crimes inherent in procuring the goods, tax dollars won’t go to waste in incarcerations. debt goes down.

If the thought that if it is dangerous and therefore should be outlawed is true, the candidates should have proposed to outlaw cotton candy, hamburgers and alcohol, among everything else in life. Too much of anything is bad for the body, the best way to reduce its use is through education and not more guns and more political power.

This Lawyer Kid and the rest of them are just pandering to the masses, while trying to sound strong, and in effect, trample on the Constitution, our Rights, they are treating us adults as children. We have brains, we can think, we don’t need a government to make decisions for us, and these people are trying to get the power to do so.

They asked a bunch more questions, like about ending the Federal Reserve, they all send “No”. “We need market stability” and crap like that. As if the market was worse prior to the Fed, fiat currency and so forth.

I walked away with more disgust in my stomach than anything else. They were cheered; it was like those in the audience didn’t even listen to them. “Yay! Take more of my rights away!” Remember the old saying “One man’s trash is another man’s treasure”? It’s the same thing with rights, just because you don’t use all of your rights, there might be someone else that does. Just because you don’t value some of your rights, doesn’t mean that there is another person’s freedoms being trampled on, and if their freedoms are being trampled on, so are yours.

This primary season and this November, please remember to vote on principles. Vote on what your heart tells you. Read the Constitution and vote down the line on what the Constitution authorizes and nothing else. These people last night, if elected, will get to vote on hundreds of issues over their time in office. They are promising you that they will vote on principles when they get there. You do the same. The way I see it, if they get to vote 100 times in Congress, and you only get to vote for them once, you have to make a decision that is 100 times more principled than theirs’. If everyone does the same, we might actually be able to vote a better class of people into Washington and have a better, freer future of us and our children. As for the Republican Party, I wished they learned from their mistakes from the past instead of repeating it like they did last night.

There is a video that could be loosely translated as “Terrorist Turkish border opening fire on the Syrian side” that pretty accurately sums up what’s going on at the ultra-volatile geopolitical hotspot of the moment.

The voice over says, “This is the Syria-Turkey border, and this is an operation of the Free Syrian Army [FSA] … The Gate [that would be the Syrian side of the border, housing the Gate checkpoint] is going to be seized.”

What this means is that Turkey is sheltering the FSA right on the border, only a few meters – and not kilometers – away from Syrian territory. Way beyond hosting a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) command and control center in Iskenderun for months now – a fact already reported by Asia Times Online – Turkey has now advanced right to the border, enabling a back-and-forth by heavily weaponized guerrillas/mercenaries to attack a sovereign state.

Imagine a similar scenario happening, say, at a Mexican-US border in Arizona or Texas.

This can be seen as a very peculiar Ankara interpretation of “safe havens” and “humanitarian corridors” as outlined by what can be seen as the prime blueprint for regime change in Syria: a report [2] by the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution, authored by the usual cocktail of Israeli firsters and Qatar-affiliated Middle East “experts”.

So expect to see this movie generating countless sequels; the FSA attacking a Syrian border checkpoint, killing soldiers and then retreating under a hail of bullets, which will inevitably hit a nearby Syrian refugee camp.

The border escalation graphically illustrates the wider scenario: civil war.

CONTINUED at The Asia Times.