Fascist Confusion: Head of National Black Chamber of Commerce Calls Obama Administration A Bunch of Brown Shirted Marxists

Harry Alford, president and CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce, really needs to work a bit harder on his historical references. On The Laura Ingraham Show, Alford labeled the administration “Marxist” and “fanatical” and added that they “might as well put on the brown shirts and swastikas.”

Alford was a supporter of Obama in 2008.

The most aggrieved parties may be Marxists and Fascists, however. The Brown shirts were worn by fascists. Marxists often wore tasteful Mao jackets in the East or proletarian garb in the West.

Alford has written such pieces as Why Does President Obama Hate Black Businesses?. An article that curiously begins with “It is not about race.”

The organization seems a family affair. Kay DeBow Alford is the Senior Vice President of the organization.

Source: Fox

79 thoughts on “Fascist Confusion: Head of National Black Chamber of Commerce Calls Obama Administration A Bunch of Brown Shirted Marxists”

  1. Mike Spindell:

    Yes ignorance is bliss, man I bet you are one content hombre.

  2. “Now you all run along and let people who actually know something have a conversation”


    You raise arrogant ignorance to an art form. You know nothing about economic, political or philosophical theories and yet you continue to assert your nonsense when constantly proven wrong. You are a charter member of the cult of “ME” and follow its’ teachings
    blindly, since you are merely another self-centered child, looking
    for a theory to condone/praise you own lack of empathy/compassion.
    I pity those in your life because they are merely seen by you as extensions of your own needs.

  3. I already have proven you wrong.

    Multiple times.

    You’re just too wrapped up in your illness to see it.

  4. Buddha,

    While we’re at it, here’s a few other things Jefferson was not:

    a beatnick,
    a Trojan,
    a dishwasher,
    A cosmonaut,
    A nuclear physicist,
    An objectivist.

    Go ahead, just try and prove me wrong

  5. “Socialism is a system where the government directly owns and manages businesses. Corporatism is a system where businesses are nominally in private hands, but are in fact controlled by the government. In a corporatist state, government officials often act in collusion with their favored business interests to design polices that give those interests a monopoly position, to the detriment of both competitors and consumers.”

    I don’t know, seems more like fascism to me. So maybe I owe the socialists an apology since they think government should own the corporations. But then again, if they own them then they are corporatists.

    What were you saying about logic?

    Man, you guys make me laugh.

    So a capitalist who believes in no government intervention in the market and does not believe in too big to fail is a corporatist but a couple of warmed over socialists aren’t corporatists because they believe in government involvement in corporations.

    I am now laughing my self silly. You guys don’t know what you believe or don’t believe. David Hume is certainly your man.

  6. No I am not. Buddha is Laughing uses Jefferson for more than just government.

    You can slice it any way you want, but fascists and socialists are corporatists.

    Now you all run along and let people who actually know something have a conversation.

    Neither of you knows jack about it.

    Jefferson’s roots are in the rights of man not in Karl Marx and he also came to see the French Revolution for the blood bath it was. Liberty, Equality, Brotherhood my ass. It was a collectivist blood bath.

    I know you all cant help yourselves since you believe everything you were taught in your university courses. So I should pity your lack of education. But maybe if you try real hard you can catch up and move into true liberalism rather than the collectivist bullshit you both repeat like parrots asking for a cracker.

  7. Greed Boy,

    You are completely full of shit and your wallowing in the irrelevant just proves that. Because that’s some Pyrrhic “victory” you’ve established in that last bit of drivel. How so? Let me demonstrate . . .

    “He probably wasn’t a corporatist either because only fascists and socialists are corporatists.”

    This again shows that you make up definitions to suit your purposes.

    Jefferson wasn’t a fascist, although you’d sincerely like to think he was apparently.

    Jefferson wasn’t a corporatist.

    But then again, neither are socialist’s corporatists.

    They cannot be by definition.

    A socialist believes in organizing government and society around the needs of the people.

    A corporatist/fascist (indeed the terms are interchangeable and the father of fascism, Mussolini, preferred the term corporatism) is a fascist who believes in organizing government and society around the interests of business.

    A corporatist is someone who thinks corporations and business interests should be free from government regulation and taxation and/or receive preferential treatment by government in other ways (as if exemption from the law wasn’t enough).

    Someone like you for example, ya fascist, or your hero Obama.

    Because he’s not a socialist either, nitwit. If he were? BP and the rest of the oil industry would be nationalized and 2/3 of Wall St. would be in prison for their role in the CDS debacle and the other 1/3 would be running for cover to make sure what they were doing was on the up and up. But enough about your failings and the failures of Obama.

    Back to Jefferson. He wasn’t a toaster either. Let’s look at what Jefferson was instead of what he wasn’t. That’s far more revealing. There was a reason Marcus Aurelius advised “Of each and every thing, ask what is it in itself” and why one of Aristotle’s laws of thought (the very foundation of philosophy) is the law of identity (expressed as A ≡ A and so perpetually abused by your St. Ayn). What Jefferson isn’t is irrelevant.

    Jefferson was a Liberal. His philosophical roots are firmly planted in the Humanist movement of the 16th Century. One need read no further than the Declaration of Independence to confirm this fact although further reading will only affirm this statement as true.

    Jefferson was supportive of the French Revolution in principle if not the details of its execution. Pardon the pun as Jefferson’s main contention against the French Revolution was the execution of nobility. He was all for the Humanist principles the revolutionaries stood upon as they were the same principles on which he drafted the Declaration, but he also recognized that there were practical differences between a colony throwing off the chains of an imperial power and the overthrow of an established government. In the case of France, he thought that all the violence was far too destabilizing to the international community and favored a more gradual approach to regime change, advocating that Lafayette persuade Louis XVI to issue a charter of rights-a modest proposal that would have left the monarchy intact.

    Jefferson was anti-tyranny. To argue otherwise is simply ignorant. This would include being against economic tyranny. His dislike of banking and corporations goes to this point. He was not against capitalism. He was against allowing capitalism interfere with the business of government in “[establishing] Justice, [insuring] domestic Tranquility, [providing] for the common defence, [and promoting] the general Welfare” that is both of and for We the People. This position not only summarizes Jefferson’s attitude toward capitalism, but mine as well. Free markets are fine as long as the do not interfere with the operations of government towards those ends specified in the Constitution. When a market starts to negatively impact the common good or national security (the common defense), like for-profit health care and the oil industry, it should be either heavily regulated or – in the most extreme circumstances of abuses – nationalized.

    Jefferson was an egalitarian. The Declaration again proves this as the man who penned “all men are created equal” could be nothing else. In as much as he believed all men should have equal rights under the law, he would most certainly not have been for the proposition that all men should be equal under the law unless they are engaged in commerce in which case they should be free from regulation or governmental restrictions of any sort as it “interferes with the free market”.

    But, no, Jefferson was not a socialist in name. Mainly because the term “socialism” hadn’t been coined during his lifetime. The first use of the term “socialism” wasn’t until the mid-1830’s, nearly a decade after Jefferson’s death in 1826. Given that the rise of socialism is rooted in both the Humanism of the 16th Century and the events of the French Revolution, one cannot say “Jefferson was a socialist”. And I didn’t. However, what one can say is that given Jefferson’s own established common philosophical roots with socialism, his stand against all forms of tyranny, and his stated distrust of capitalism and its ability to interfere with governance by and for We the People that had Jefferson lived on to this day he would more likely than not be a democratic socialist (as detailed in a previous post) given the history of corporate and business abuses in this country and around the world since his death.

    So once again, where the rubber meets the road, you get run over, Greed Boy.

    Now run along.

    The mature non-sociopathic adults are trying to have conversations here.

  8. “All I wanted was for you to admit Jefferson wasn’t a socialist”


    Buddha will no doubt put you in your place, but the stupidity of this, is something I just can’t pass up. Who the hell ever said Jefferson was a socialist? No one did. This is just typical of the excretions you pull out of your ass and think they are arguments. Do you even realize how ridiculous most of your comments here are?
    What you present is not argument it is nonsense propaganda. To be charitable to you one might say you’re into disinformation, so really know how dumb your style of argumentation compared to logical discussion, but use it as invective. That is the charitable interpretation because you really might be quite unaware of your ignorance. This by the way is not about your beliefs, which someone could no doubt produce a logical (if wrong)
    justification. This is about how you portray your beliefs which is childish and ignorant beyond comparison.

  9. Putz:

    there you go again, changing the focus. All I wanted was for you to admit Jefferson wasn’t a socialist. Which you did.

    He probably wasn’t a corporatist either because only fascists and socialists are corporatists. As far as I know, Jefferson was neither. You really aren’t very bright. How did you get through law school? You must have been tutored by someone.

    You’re not very good at asking “when did you stop beating your wife”.

    So which one are you Mr. Socialist/Corporatist apologist?

    You talk a big game but when the rubber meets the road, all you socialists cant wait for the government to own GM or give big fat subsidies to farmers and any other business with their hand out. Look at “share the wealth” Obama, biggest corporatist I ever saw.

    You are a pant load there loopy drawers.

  10. “and I never said the DEI Co. was mentioned in that letter, only the possibility that he would be thinking about it for the reasons mentioned above.”

    Yeah, because indirect lies are so much better than direct ones, sociopath.

    I relayed an on point writing.

    You tried to say it meant something it manifestly didn’t by making up the meanings of words to suit your purposes.

    You also tried to take it out of context by making up context that simply does not exist in the letter quoted.

    I even went so far as to provide the whole letter to show how utterly full of shit you are, fascist apologist.

    I have, however, over the course of multiple threads shown multiple instances where Jefferson specifically used the term “banks”, thus illustrating the Jefferson did know the difference between banks and corporations. Contort it however you like. Jefferson thought little of corporations as evidenced by his letter to George Logan.

    I have proof that you have failed to refute.

    Whereas you have no proof that he was pro-corporation.

    The burden of proof is still yours to make in proving Jefferson was a corporatist.

    And before you start your wishful conjectures upon “fruits of labor” this and “sweat of the brow” that, keep in mind the context in which Jefferson was writing: most people at the time worked for themselves as sole proprietors or in small unincorporated partnerships. Jefferson was talking about individual labor and individual profits, not corporate exercises and corporate profits. Corporations then as now are a legal artifice – a fiction – and to suggest that Thomas Jefferson was concerned about the rights of a legal artifice more so than the rights of natural beings? Is simply ludicrous. Not that being ludicrous will stop you from trying. For every one writing of Jefferson’s about labor and fair taxation, there are at least ten about the importance of individual liberty (NOT corporate liberty). Had he meant corporate liberty, he’d have said corporate liberty. Nowhere in these his most important words:

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

    . . . are corporations mentioned as having inalienable rights or any other rights. Jefferson knew that a corporation is a legal fiction. Corporations are subject to the restriction of the rule of law and have no other existence than what the law – the sole creating force behind corporate charters – allows them to have. The tool was abused then. What is being done with it now? Is simply destroying the world. For what?

    For money.

    You seem to think corporations have inalienable rights by the way you keep gyrating about laws restricting them.

    Prove that too while you’re at proving Jefferson was pro-corporation. You can’t prove either. But it sure will be funny to watch you try.

  11. ole Fedinand was as wrong as you are.

    Couldnt find any other writings by Jefferson on corporations could you. You cant because they dont exist.

    and I never said the DEI Co. was mentioned in that letter, only the possibility that he would be thinking about it for the reasons mentioned above.

  12. I see you still have a problem understanding English.

    The burden of proof is on you.

    Jefferson wasn’t talking specifically about the Dutch East India Company in that letter to George Logan dated November 12, 1816 you are referring to, indeed, the bulk of the letter in question was addressing issues of religion and the duties of ethical governance. Since you keep asserting otherwise? Here is the letter in full:

    “I received your favor of Oct. 16, at this place, where I pass much of my time, very distant from Monticello. I am quite astonished at the idea which seems to have got abroad; that I propose publishing something on the subject of religion, and this is said to have arisen from a letter of mine to my friend Charles Thompson, in which certainly there is no trace of such an idea.

    When we see religion split into so many thousands of sects, and I may say Christianity itself divided into its thousands also, who are disputing, anathematizing and where the laws permit burning and torturing one another for abstractions which no one of them understand, and which are indeed beyond the comprehension of the human mind, into which of the chambers of this Bedlam would a [torn] man wish to thrust himself. The sum of all religion as expressed by it’s best preacher, ‘fear god and love thy neighbor’ contains no mystery, needs no explanation. But this wont do.

    It gives no scope to make dupes; priests could not live by it. Your idea of the moral obligations of governments are perfectly correct. The man who is dishonest as a statesman would be a dishonest man in any station. It is strangely absurd to suppose that a million of human beings collected together are not under the same moral laws which bind each of them separately. It is a great consolation to me that our government, as it cherishes most it’s duties to its own citizens, so is it the most exact in it’s moral conduct towards other nations.

    I do not believe that in the four administrations which have taken place, there has been a single instance of departure from good faith towards other nations. We may sometimes have mistaken our rights, or made an erroneous estimate of the actions of others, but no voluntary wrong can be imputed to us. In this respect England exhibits the most remarkable phenomenon in the universe in the contrast between the profligacy of its government and the probity of its citizens. And accordingly it is now exhibiting an example of the truth of the maxim that virtue & interest are inseparable. It ends, as might have been expected, in the ruin of its people, but this ruin will fall heaviest, as it ought to fall on that hereditary aristocracy which has for generations been preparing the catastrophe.

    I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country. Present me respectfully to Mrs. Logan and accept yourself my friendly and respectful salutations.”

    Please note that nowhere are the Dutch East India Company or banks mentioned. But wealthy corporations are mentioned specifically. See the highlighted last paragraph.

    As to show you “shit”? You’re a fanatic, Randie von Mises. I couldn’t convince you the sky is blue. I’m not talking to you. I’m talking around you.

    “I can say with great certainty that he is not a socialist.”

    So what? I never claimed he was. I said I am a democratic socialist as in I favor social democracy. Do you even know what social democracy is? I kinda doubt it, Brainwashed Greed Boy. The principles of social democracy are:

    1) Freedom — not only individual liberties, but also freedom from discrimination and freedom from dependence on either the owners of the means of production or the holders of abusive political power;

    2) Equality and Social Justice — not only before the law but also economic and socio-cultural equality as well, and equal opportunities for all including those with physical, mental, or social disabilities; and,

    3) Solidarity — unity and a sense of compassion for the victims of injustice and inequality.

    I know. That offends your objectivist laissez-faire fascist sensibilities in that it both expresses compassion and altruism for others but it also tells industry that just because they hold the means of production it doesn’t mean they are above the law or able to abuse people with impunity. And if that offends you? Good. Offending a sociopath is a badge of honor.

    You can state with absolute certainty Jefferson wasn’t a socialist? So what. Again, I’ve never claimed that. Which makes your claim irrelevant. Jefferson was, however, for social justice as he was both a noted egalitarian and proponent of equity in law. However, your dreams that Jefferson was a Libertarian are just like your dreams Rand had a workable philosophy in application or claims that I said Jefferson was a socialist – wishful thinking. He was anti-tyranny. That mean anti-economic tyranny as well as anti-government tyranny. Given that both Rand and von Mises espouse views that lead both of those forms of tyranny, I can state without a doubt that Jefferson wouldn’t have been an objectivist nor a follower of the Austrian school of economics. No not only is your point irrelevant, it’s moot factually speaking.

    My being a democratic socialist has nothing to do with being a Jeffersonian Constitutionalist. One is a political/economic philosophy, the other is strictly a political philosophy. That you’re trying to put words in my mouth is nothing new though. Trolls such as yourself often try that tactic when their arguments fail. Socialist? If anything, Jefferson was a follower of Locke economically speaking. There are also many letters where Jefferson talks about the importance of equity in governance and the importance of the common good. The common good and social justice were even a theme in his Inaugural Address:

    “During the contest of opinion through which we have passed the animation of discussions and of exertions has sometimes worn an aspect which might impose on strangers unused to think freely and to speak and to write what they think; but this being now decided by the voice of the nation, announced according to the rules of the Constitution, all will, of course, arrange themselves under the will of the law, and unite in common efforts for the common good. All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.”

    Unlike you, I haven’t attributed anything to Jefferson he didn’t say and any attributions have been in context.

    Jefferson my “patron saint” regarding economics? Hardly. Unlike you, I don’t believe in patron saints. If I had to pick one for economics though, it would be Ferdinand Lassalle – he who was loathed by both Marx and Engels, founder of the ADAV (later the SPD) Germany’s oldest political party and on the side of labor. Lassalle, like both myself and our Founders including Jefferson, saw government as an independent entity free from the undue influence of business in pursuing the best interests of the people. That whole “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare” thing that you corporatist schills like to gloss over when it threatens your profits.

    If Jefferson’s my “patron saint” of anything it’s in how I interpret the intent of the Framers in light of the Declaration. It’s about freedom from tyranny. Including freedom from economic tyranny. If you don’t like that? Too bad.

    “So get another patron saint dirt bag.”

    Good luck with telling me what to do or whom to favor or quote, corporatist boot licker. That I’m better at it than you is again simply your misfortune. Your cooperation on these matters is greatly appreciated.

    As ever, one lives to be of service.

  13. No I do not think he was a corporatist. I think he would have mixed feelings about about what is going on now.

    Too big to fail? Government bailed them out against the advice of a good many people. No one I know who is an Objectivist or libertarian thought it was a good idea, they all uniformly were against it. I would imagine Jefferson would have been against it as well.

    I see you had the same luck I had looking for examples of Jefferson criticizing corporations.

    I wasn’t trying to rationalize anything, I was pointing out that corporations are owned by individuals or groups of individuals, that government is more powerful than any American corporation today.

    You haven’t shown me shit, because that one letter is all that exists and Jefferson was talking about banks and the Dutch East India Company and also probably ecclisiastical corporations.

    So you don’t have shit to prove otherwise.

    There are so many letters where Jefferson talks about labor keeping the money they make and not being burdened by government and the limits of government power. I can say with great certainty that he is not a socialist. So get another patron saint dirt bag.

  14. I already did show you and you tried to twist the language to mean what you wanted it to mean instead of actually what it means.

    “I believe that is what Jefferson was referring to, and in that respect he is correct of course.”

    Then you, like all people who operate off of faith instead of facts and logic, will continue to “believe” what you want to believe, Oh Worshiper of Ayn. The words mean what they mean, not what you want them to mean. If you think Jefferson was a corporatist? The burden of proof is on you, sparky. I gave evidence, you countered and I destroyed your counter thus retaining the quality of my evidence. It’s not my fault you have not way with English.

    “But in regards to Exxon Mobil or to Goldman Sachs not so much. They may be greedy and manipulative but they are not government nor can they threaten government. At the time the Dutch East India Company could.”

    Then you are both wrong and naive. WTF do you think “Too Big To Fail” means, sport? If corporations were still not a threat to government? Lloyd Blankenfein would be in prison right now and BP/Halliburton/Transocean stateside assets would be seized to make the U.S. public whole for the damage they have done to the Gulf through their criminal negligence. The nature of the threat of corporations to government has not changed one whit since the time of Jefferson: the economic ability to interfere with the operations of government serving the will of the people no matter their machination of choice.

    So what you own a corporation? So do lot’s of people. Lots of people own guns too but they all aren’t criminals and killers. The true question is about the tool corporations – the legal fiction – and controlling that tools abuse by bad actors. You wouldn’t use your corporation for bad? Well bully for you, greed boy! Many others have including Exxon and Goldman Sachs. Yet the corporate veil is protecting the criminals heading up those corporations just fine because, unlike you, they wield enough economic clout to be a threat to some aspect of governmental operations or to the government itself.

    The rest of your post is more puerile self-rationalizing bullshit to justify your failures as a person, “Roco”. The question is who are you trying to convince? Us? Or yourself?

    But enough about you, because despite what you may thing, Randie, it’s not all about you.

    Now . . . since you failed to refute my evidence, the burden is on you to come up with additional evidence to the contrary.

    Prove that Jefferson was a corporatist since you seem to think he was.

    This ought to be good for a laugh.

  15. Then show me some other places he talks about corporations.

    I don’t have any sacred cow in this. If Jefferson is against corporations then show me.

    I believe he was talking about banks in this particular case due to the panic. And if he wasn’t he was probably referring to the Dutch East India Company, which was a monopoly of the Netherlands I might add.

    “The Dutch East India Company (Dutch: Vereenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie, VOC) was a chartered company established in 1602, when the States-General of the Netherlands granted it a 21-year monopoly to carry out colonial activities in Asia. It was the first multinational corporation in the world and the first company to issue stock.[2] It was also arguably the world’s first megacorporation, possessing quasi-governmental powers, including the ability to wage war, imprison and execute convicts,[3] negotiate treaties, coin money, and establish colonies.[4]”

    Exxon Mobil cannot imprison convicts, negotiate treaties, coin money or wage war, nor can it set up colonies. Although I suppose it could buy a couple of small islands.

    I believe that is what Jefferson was referring to, and in that respect he is correct of course. But in regards to Exxon Mobil or to Goldman Sachs not so much. They may be greedy and manipulative but they are not government nor can they threaten government. At the time the Dutch East India Company could.

    Go learn some history and actually read Jefferson in the context of his words in the Declaration.

    I have a corporation and I am an individual. I also have insurance to protect people whom I might harm through negligence. If I harm someone through intent I get to go to jail, the corporate veil will not protect me. I do not coin money nor wage war, nor can I afford to colonize more than my backyard. The only living beings I imprison are the dogs and to a lesser extent the cat (she is a free agent who just hangs out waiting for me to serve her every desire).

    Laugh all you want, I’ll be laughing last and hardest.

  16. Now pardon me.

    I have some laughing at your expense to return to . . .

  17. I’ll take lessons on principles from someone who manifestly doesn’t have any except “greed and selfishness are good” about the time Hell freezes solid. Just like I’ll take the assessment of my ability to grasp ideas from simple to complex from a liar at about the same time.

    As to making up history? It’s not history that’s the problem here, sport, although you have made that up too when it suits your purposes. The problem here is language and meaning. Maybe it’s Jefferson’s archaic spelling that is causing you so much confusion.

    “moneyed \ˈmə-nēd\, adj.,

    1: having money : wealthy
    2: consisting in or derived from money

    Synonyms: affluent, deep-pocketed, fat, fat-cat, flush, loaded, rich (also monied), opulent, silk-stocking, wealthy, well-endowed, well-fixed, well-heeled, well-off, well-to-do”

    Monied is simply a synonym for wealthy. Nothing more, nothing less. Jefferson meant “wealthy corporations” when he said “monied corporations”. Not “banks”.

    It’s called English.

    You should get some.

  18. Laugh all you want. I didnt make up that bit of history above.

    You should learn to think in terms of principles. It makes things much easier to grasp. Your poli sci education was a jumble of socialist dogma and look how you turned out, unable to grasp simple ideas. Like printing money will cause inflation. They didnt teach you that in socialist dogma er economics 101 did they.

  19. “Your facile and superficial analysis is underwhelming” said the fascist apologist who makes up history and his own meanings to words.

    Pardon me whilst I laugh in my coffee.

Comments are closed.