Obama a "Mouthpiece" For Racist American Policy, City Councilman Charles Barron Says

Well, we guess the era of good feelings between President Barack Obama and City Councilman Charles Barron is officially over.

Barron, a Brooklyn councilman not known for subtlety, recently accused Obama of being a "mouthpiece for a racist, imperialistic American foreign policy controlled by generals and corporate elites." He was referring of course to the bombing of Libya, which he says is about "oil and power, not saving people. It's about maximizing profits."

Barron also accused the president of attending a $30,000 a plate fundraiser in Harlem without actually talking with any regular folks. "This was the president's first visit to Harlem since he was elected," Barron wrote. "Shame on him!"

Barron also said, "Black people did not vote for Barack Obama for him to bomb an African country, Libya. They elected him to stand up like a man against the forces of imperialism. They voted for him to bail out Harlem, where there is 50 percent Black male unemployment, like they bailed out Wall Street."

"Your first visit to Harlem since being elected is for a bourgeois fundraiser for the Democratic Party and you don't even have the courtesy to walk the streets of Harlem to meet the masses who put you in office. I hope Black people remember this when [Obama] comes back seeking our vote again."

This apparent rancor wasn't always there. Back in 2007, Barron noted according to the New York Observer that Obama "fought for black people in the South Side of Chicago," and said, "He goes to a black liberation theologist church where they believe in a black Christ."

In 2008, Barron campaigned for Obama in his district, printing 10,000 fliers on the candidate's behalf. "White America will not allow Barack Obama to say, 'I'm proud to be black and I want to make history as the first black president of the United States of America,'" Barron told an Observer reporter at the time.

Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help
Sort: Newest | Oldest
Rebecca Hill
Rebecca Hill

So, African Americans only voted for him because of his skin color.  Well now, look who calling the kettle black?  (pardon the pun but it fits)


How can he say we're bombing Libya over oil and profit? Our companies were doing business in Libya before the intervention. Hedge funds and Private equity funds were rasing money there. Remember, the UN Security council and the Arab League called for military intervention. Even many diplomats from Libya asked for this. Arab nations, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates are participating in enforcing the no-fly zone. China and Russia, would normally veto military intervention by the UN. This time, much to my surprise, they recognized the massacre that was going to happen, and let the vote go through. South Africa, Nigeria, Lebanon, Bosia, Portugal, Colombia, USA, Britain, France, and Portugal voted for intervention at the UN. How can this be American imperialism? When we started droping bombs on Gadaffi's forces, Libyans in Benghazi and other cities cheered. Would Barron would feel better about himself if these people were slaughtered? Maybe, but I would'nt. I think we should be hitting Gaddaffi's military harder, until he, his sons, and top officials leave.


Are you really that naive? Since when does the Arab League dictate American foreign policy? Did the US act on any of the Arab League's many condemnations of Isreal's attacks on Gaza? Americans disrespect international bodies such as the UN out of hand. Kyoto: nope. International Criminal Court: nope. But talk them into supporting your BS and all of sudden their word is gospel.

Since when did the US ever commit it's blood and treasure for purely humanitarian reasons? Why were American companies allowed to do business in Libya anyway? Hasn't Gaddafi been a terrorist madman for decades? Where was the humanitarianism when our multinationals were making billions. Oh that's right, we guilted some black entertainers into giving their money back after performing for Gaddafi's family.

And who are you trying to protect? Rebels with guns aren't innocent civilians. Do you remember how many southern rebels the US killed during our civil war, or the burning of Atlanta. So Libyans in Benghazi cheered. So what? Americans cheer for Sarah Palin, or Justin Beiber. What percentage of Libyans support the US actions? Who knows? There was no vote. Just a bunch of opportunists, CIA operatives and Al Queda sympathisers. You're aware that the section of Libya we're protecting has been a prime source of Jihadists to fight our troops in Iraq, right?

America has international partners the way Al Capone had partners. Countires who are as crooked as them or afraid to go against them.

Grow up.


darryl, thanks for the very emotional response. The Arab League does not dictate American policy, they added legitimacy to the policy, as did the UN. You point out America's inconsistant respect for the UN, but you don't give your own opinion. Should we respect decisions made by the UN or not? Should we reject Kyoto, and ICC, and intervention in Libya? Should we support those decisions? Anyone can simply point out hypocrisy without offering a solution. I prefer that America is on the right side some of the time, than to be consistantly wrong (although it's best to be consistantly right).

"Since when did the US ever commit it's blood and treasure for purely humanitarian reasons"

Somalia, Bosia, Kosovo, Bangladesh, Japan, Indonesia, Chile etc, etc, etc. Not only does the US government put its money where its mouth is, but Americans give a lot to charities doing work overseas like Red Cross, Doctors without Borders, etc.

"Why were American companies allowed to do business in Libya anyway?"

Because Gadaffi agreed to discontinue his weapons of mass destruction program, and compensate families of the victims of the Plane he blew up.

"Hasn't Gaddafi been a terrorist madman for decades? "

Yes, but that's an argument to have removed him from power earlier. He was using military power to murder civilians who were protesting peacefully. Only then did Libyans revolt, joined by some army defectors.

"Where was the humanitarianism when our multinationals were making billions"

Nowhere, we forgot about it. I wish we hadn't, but again: I prefer our government to get it right eventually, than to continue in error.

"And who are you trying to protect? Rebels with guns aren't innocent civilians"

They didn't start with guns. In fact, they are teenagers, college students, lawyers, and common people. Most of them don't know how to use the weapons. Imagine a guy with an AK-47, who doesn't even know how to load it. They shot a morter round off, and it went in the opposite direction to where they were aiming. This is why they're losing, they are mostly regular people, not a real army.

"What percentage of Libyans support the US actions? Who knows?"

We don't know but think about all the Libyan Ambassadors, and Government officials who have asked for military intervention. This is a very rare and unusual step! Could you imagine our Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton calling for foreign military intervention against the United States. These are people whos salaries, and position come from the Gadaffi government. If Gadaffi wins, they will not be able to return home, and thier families in Libya are in danger now. They wouldn't take this step against a 42 year dictator if there wasn't a lot of support in the country. You suggested the rebels may be al-queda sympathizers. Some of them are, we don't know how many yet, but that is a concern. Obama did not want this fight. But Gadaffi made a mistake - he told the truth. He let us know of the massacre that would occur, and Obama had no choice.

"America has international partners the way Al Capone had partners. Countires who are as crooked as them or afraid to go against them."

Read my previous post, and see what a diverse coalition of countries joined. America did not push this, actually France and Britain pushed us.


I guess you want to return to BO--before Obama where everything was ENTIRELY white. Which Republican candidate is paying you for this trash talk?


Putting a Black face on White concepts does not make them magically valid for Black people.


You sound like one of those people who thinks speaking proper English is a "White concept"


coolmikeperry - I hit the 'like' button on your last response. You're actually right. There are not good or bad forms of a language, only standard and non-standard. The standard is set by the people in the top of society. This is true all around the world. You standard and non-standard dialects of Italian, French, Chinese etc. You have standard Jamaican, American,or British English, and non-standard Jamaican, American, or British English. But none of us speaks English as it was spoken, say 1000 years ago, because languages change and evolve.


The term "proper English" implies a value system that I do not endorse. What you call proper English I would call business English. Proper implies that it is somehow better, and that's simply not true. Granted, it is appropriate for many social settings, but I have found that its best to speak the language of my audience. If I were presenting business proposals to the Federal Reserve and Death-Row Records I would use different forms of English in each presentation.

Now Trending

New York Concert Tickets

From the Vault