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Harry Alford, president and CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce, really needs to work a bit harder on his historical references.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. Buddha is Laughing:

    I searched all of Jefferson’s letters and found no other mention of corporations except monied corporations. I believe those to be banks and I further believe he mentioned them as threats to the nation because paper money is a threat to liberty as we are seeing now.

    Your facile and superficial analysis is underwhelming.

  2. RyanWI:

    here is an interesting article that supports my contention that the welfare state and socialist ideology in Germany under Bismark helped pave the way for the Nazis.

    http://mises.org/daily/1787

    A quote from the article:

    “The authentic German liberals have fallen into total obscurity. Today, the figures who are celebrated as early-twentieth century German liberals are men who were, in fact, collectivists and forerunners of the totalitarian state.

    A major example is Walter Rathenau. Of this collectivist mystic, F. A. Hayek wrote, in The Road to Serfdom:

    “Although he would have shuddered had he realized the consequences of his totalitarian economics, yet [Rathenau] deserves a considerable place in any fuller history of the growth of Nazi ideas. Through his writings he has probably, more than any other man, determined the economic views of the generation which grew up in Germany during and immediately after [the First World War]; and some of his closest collaborators were later to form the backbone of the staff of [Hermann] Göring’s Five-Year Plan administration.”[25]

    Hayek adds to Walter Rathenau the name of Friedrich Naumann, many of whose views, Hayek states, were similar to Rathenau’s, and were “characteristic of the combination of socialism and imperialism” that became the prevailing ideology in Germany.

    The fitting culmination of this German soi-disant “liberalism” came in 1933. By then the so-called “liberal” party had assumed, suitably enough, the name of Staatspartei, the State Party. The “liberals” in the Reichstag had been reduced to five in number. When Adolf Hitler proposed the Enabling Act, in March of 1933, which handed over total control over German society to the Nazis, the “liberals” of the State Party voted in favor of the Act. The only members of this last, quasi-independent Reichstag to have the honor of voting against the Enabling Act were the Social Democrats. Real liberals must sincerely wish it had been otherwise. Among the “liberals” who voted for the Nazi takeover was Theodor Heuss, later the first president of the Federal Republic and the first leader of the Free Democratic Party.
    It was only after the catastrophe of the Second World War that something resembling a genuine liberalism was reborn in Germany, inspired in part by the Austrians, Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek, who had preserved the liberal heritage of the nineteenth century for the twentieth.[26]

  3. Top official from Obama-backed black chamber faces criminal charges

    A top official from the U.S. Black Chamber, Inc. – the Obama-backed, rival upstart to Harry Alford’s National Black Chamber of Commerce – has a checkered past and faces criminal charges from allegations he exploited a Hurricane Katrina victim.

    The revelations have left the North Carolina chamber in shambles, but Alford, head of the National Black Chamber of Commerce, said his group would step into the void.

    “We knew this was going to happen. We have contacted people in Raleigh and will go down there and assist them in starting a bona fide chamber. We are actually going to Wilmington, N.C., next week to do the same (cleaning up his trail of ‘blood’). How does the White House feel about their little project now?” Alford said in an email.

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/06/top-official-from-obama-backed-black-chamber-faces-criminal-charges/#ixzz1Ld0XM7si

  4. “your response is typical of the ignorance that abounds concerning the true nature of fascism. It is socialism with a nationalistic perspective.

    Germany had a long history of being socialistic prior to the take over by the Nazis. The Nazis continued that economic model and threw in crazy. Nazi Germany was a socialist nation. The Nazis took it to the extreme but the philosophical foundation of socialism is not freedom.”

    Wow! And all this time I was told via school, documentaries and the like that Hitler was a huge admirer of Mussolini and fascism!

    Whew … I’m sure glad we have people like Roco here to tell us the truth … I will sleep MUCH better tonight with this knowledge!

  5. @Roco

    First off, the idea that Germany was socialist before Hitler took power is pure fantasy. Germany was probably one of the least socialist states in Europe before the Nazis took power.

    The lower German classes, especially the urban working class, did tend toward Marxism. But these people were not the basis of Nazi power. The Nazis came up with the support of the middle class white collar workers who feared the increasing power of the proletariat. In fact one of the very first things Hitler did when he came to power was abolish all labor unions and replace them with a single Nazi-run union called the “Labor Front.”

    Luckily for Hitler, the inherent nationalism of the German people prevented any strong opposition from the unions. This was not the case in fascist Italy where the socialist labor unions were a constant enemy of the Mussolini government. The entire original purpose of the “black shirts” was to serve as a paramilitary force to counter the socialist unions.

    You could possibly make an argument that the Nazis were not far-right. (In fact, I made that same argument in a college paper.) But the only way you can do this is to argue that they weren’t true fascists. Fascism itself is most definitely a far-right political movement.

    Also, I’m not getting where you are coming from with regards to socialism being in opposition to freedom. Both left and right wing governments can include varying levels of authoritarianism. Pretty much all Communist governments are left-wing authoritarian in nature. (Soviet Union, North Korea, China.) But many governments that we consider quasi-socialist are quite free, especially in the west. (France, Portugal.) Governments of the religious right wing are typically among the most suppressive of all. (Afghanistan under the Taliban, Iran, Saudia Arabia.)

    In the United States, our leftists tend toward being more accepting of personal freedom than our rightists. This is likely due to the leanings of our population, which tends to the center-right. It is natural that if your position is off-balance from where the average Joe stands, you are going to want more “tolerance.” However, this isn’t a hard rule. Our most personal freedom oriented political movement is actually center-right. (The Libertarian Party.)

    Levels of freedom have very little connection with whether a government tends to the right or left of the spectrum politically, or economically. The only thing I would say is pretty standard is that the further a government moves toward the right or the left of it’s people, the more supressive it must become to continue to operate effectively.

  6. Roco,

    You should realize that you have zero credibility at this point.

    “Those corporations you talk about? They are banks, monied corporations. There had been a panic in paper in the late 1700′s caused by banks printing paper money. That was what he was talking about. Now our government prints paper.”

    That’s not what Jefferson was talking about and it was debunked here: http://jonathanturley.org/2011/04/21/general-electric-profits-up-77-but-company-avoids-paying-a-penny-in-taxes/#comment-224380

    Your denial and projection is most amusing though.

    It looks good on you.

  7. “Germany had a long history of being socialistic prior to the take over by the Nazis.”

    Sure Roco, Bismarck and the Kaisers were pure socialists.
    I know that history is made by the winners, but here in the US with Teabaggers like Roco, history is remade by the lying whiners.

  8. Ryan:

    your response is typical of the ignorance that abounds concerning the true nature of fascism. It is socialism with a nationalistic perspective.

    Germany had a long history of being socialistic prior to the take over by the Nazis. The Nazis continued that economic model and threw in crazy. Nazi Germany was a socialist nation. The Nazis took it to the extreme but the philosophical foundation of socialism is not freedom.

  9. dip stick:

    I think Jefferson was a champion of liberty, you are the one that uses him to support your socialist notions. And you are the one that wants a cabal of government and business not me. I want a separation of business and government, you want government to control business and thus individuals.

    Those corporations you talk about? They are banks, monied corporations. There had been a panic in paper in the late 1700’s caused by banks printing paper money. That was what he was talking about. Now our government prints paper.

    What the f..k do you think he would think about that?

    You don’t understand Jefferson or the Constitution.

    Get your money back if you went to law school.

    By the way that quote doesn’t say anything about taxing the people or taxing any organization for that matter.

    Learn to read and comprehend dingle berry. Also learn some history putz.

  10. “For what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with “socialist” in its name to be but socialism?” — Roco

    People’s Republic of China.
    Saddam’s Republic of Iraq
    Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
    Democratic Republic of Vietnam
    German Democratic Republic
    Islamic Republic of Afghanistan
    Islamic Republic of Iran
    Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
    Republic of Rwanda

    If the name of a government is an indicator of the political or economic system that it operates under, Republicans have a lot to answer for…

    Or is it that you consider Hitler to be so morally above these nations that he couldn’t have possibly chosen to include specific words purely for their propaganda value?

  11. None of what you quoted backs up your contentions. In fact, this bit here:

    “I will compress them within the narrowest compass they will bear, stating the general principle, but not all its limitations.—Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political:—peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none:—the support of the state governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns, and the surest bulwarks against anti-republican tendencies:—the preservation of the General government in its whole constitutional vigor, as the sheet anchor of our peace at home, and safety abroad: a jealous care of the right of election by the people, a mild and safe corrective of abuses which are lopped by the sword of revolution where peaceable remedies are unprovided:—absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the majority, the vital principle of republics, from which is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of the despotism:—a well disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace, and for the first moments of war, till regulars may relieve them:—the supremacy of the civil over the military authority:—economy in the public expence, that labor may be lightly burthened:—the honest payment of our debts and sacred preservation of the public faith:—encouragement of agriculture, and of commerce as its handmaid:—the diffusion of information, and arraignment of all abuses at the bar of the public reason:—freedom of religion; freedom of the press; and freedom of person, under the protection of the Habeas Corpus:—and trial by juries impartially selected. These principles form the bright constellation, which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation.”

    Flies in the face of your assertions. Jefferson doesn’t say commerce shouldn’t be taxed, but rather that it should be equitably and fairly taxed as little as possible while still allowing the government revenues sufficient to government’s job.

    I didn’t say Jefferson was a socialist. You’re the one doing that. I’ve said Jefferson was an egalitarian and Liberal who favored regulation corporations and banks to limit their influence on government. Which he was that. And that must really burn your ass, eh, sparky?

    It’s almost cherry picking season.

    With skills like yours, surely you can pick up a second job.

  12. dip stick:

    here is the full context of 2 of the quotes, doesn’t seem to me like I am taking them out of context. His first inaugural was pretty clear to my way of thinking especially when you read Jefferson in the context of the Declaration.

    If you think Jefferson was a socialist, you are nothing but a fool. It is venal of you to use Jefferson in support of socialism. In fact it is beyond venal.

    “Let us then, with courage and confidence, pursue our own federal and republican principles; our attachment to union and representative government. Kindly separated by nature and a wide ocean from the exterminating havoc of one quarter of the globe; too high minded to endure the degradations of the others, possessing a chosen country, with room enough for our descendants to the thousandth and thousandth generation, entertaining a due sense of our equal right to the use of our own faculties, to the acquisitions of our own industry, to honor and confidence from our fellow citizens, resulting not from birth, but from our actions and their sense of them, enlightened by a benign religion, professed indeed and practised in various forms, yet all of them inculcating honesty, truth, temperance, gratitude and the love of man, acknowledging and adoring an overruling providence, which by all its dispensations proves that it delights in the happiness of man here, and his greater happiness hereafter; with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow citizens, a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government; and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.

    About to enter, fellow citizens, on the exercise of duties which comprehend every thing dear and valuable to you, it is proper you should understand what I deem the essential principles of our government, and consequently those which ought to shape its administration. I will compress them within the narrowest compass they will bear, stating the general principle, but not all its limitations.—Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political:—peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none:—the support of the state governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns, and the surest bulwarks against anti-republican tendencies:—the preservation of the General government in its whole constitutional vigor, as the sheet anchor of our peace at home, and safety abroad: a jealous care of the right of election by the people, a mild and safe corrective of abuses which are lopped by the sword of revolution where peaceable remedies are unprovided:—absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the majority, the vital principle of republics, from which is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of the despotism:—a well disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace, and for the first moments of war, till regulars may relieve them:—the supremacy of the civil over the military authority:—economy in the public expence, that labor may be lightly burthened:—the honest payment of our debts and sacred preservation of the public faith:—encouragement of agriculture, and of commerce as its handmaid:—the diffusion of information, and arraignment of all abuses at the bar of the public reason:—freedom of religion; freedom of the press; and freedom of person, under the protection of the Habeas Corpus:—and trial by juries impartially selected. These principles form the bright constellation, which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation. The wisdom of our sages, and blood of our heroes have been devoted to their attainment:—they should be the creed of our political faith; the text of civic instruction, the touchstone by which to try the services of those we trust; and should we wander from them in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps, and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty and safety.”

  13. Sure. I like quotes from fascist apologists who take Jefferson out of context. They show what a venal lil’ soulless propaganda troll of a person you are, Roco.

  14. Otteray Scribe:

    “Lessee, Pepperdine is the college that saw fit to hire the despicable Ken Starr as a professor. Anything that comes out of their faculty is suspect.”

    From your discussion with FFLEO, I see you have a PhD. We could replace Ken Star with Otteray Scribe and Pepperdine with your school. But an honest person would not do that, they would look at the merits of each individual. But it is not surprising a collectivist would care more for the organization than the individuals who make up the organization.

  15. hey Dip stick, did you like my quotes?

    Stormfront isnt that a bunch of neo-socialists? You would be better posting to that blog since you would force people into more servitude than they have now.

  16. Of course, that von Mises doesn’t want Hitler associated with his “capitalism über alles” theory isn’t too surprising either. Austria has taken enough heat for being Hitler’s birthplace let alone the home of the “Austrian school of economics”, e.g. the “fascist school of economics”.

    Why don’t you goosestep your way over to a blog where people aren’t going to think you’re a vile POS, say FOX or perhaps Stormfront. Plenty of sociopaths to preach to in those venues. Big Smile! Say hello to your fellow trickle down economics fan here.

    Because around this place?

    All you’re going to get is de-bunking and mockery.

    Because that’s what venal clowns deserve.

    Unless on top of everything else, you’re a masochist too.

    In which case . . .

    Carry on.

  17. And von Mises is a fascist as well as a fascist apologist.

    If the facts are starting to bore you?

    Go troll someplace else, sociopath.

  18. Lessee, Pepperdine is the college that saw fit to hire the despicable Ken Starr as a professor. Anything that comes out of their faculty is suspect.

  19. Listen up DB, fascism, Marxism and socialism are pretty much the same thing. Just a matter of degree.

    This is what George Reisman, Ph.D., Pepperdine University Professor Emeritus of Economics has to say about it:

    “The identification of Nazi Germany as a socialist state was one of the many great contributions of Ludwig von Mises.

    When one remembers that the word “Nazi” was an abbreviation for “der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei — in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers’ Party — Mises’s identification might not appear all that noteworthy. For what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with “socialist” in its name to be but socialism?

    Nevertheless, apart from Mises and his readers, practically no one thinks of Nazi Germany as a socialist state. It is far more common to believe that it represented a form of capitalism, which is what the Communists and all other Marxists have claimed.

    The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.

    What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.

    De facto government ownership of the means of production, as Mises termed it, was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State. If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State.”

    Now I know why you don’t like Von Mises douche bag, he called it straight you Marxist putz. Go spout your totalitarian propaganda somewhere else sport, this is a site devoted to civil liberties. You belong on North Korea’s Facebook page propaganda monkey.

    For any readers wishing to educate themselves about the true nature of fascism and socialism here is the link:

    http://mises.org/daily/1937

    I don’t look foolish sport, about the only one that believes your lies is that Marxist Krugman, he ain’t worth a shit either. Go peddle your lack of economic knowledge to the chimps at the local zoo, they might believe you if you give them a free banana.

    Just a few quotes to leave you with DB:

    “I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.”

    “If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy.”

    “Take not from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.”

    “Economy in the public expense, that labor may be lightly burdened, I deem one of the essential principles of our government and consequently one which ought to shape its administration.”

    you really are starting to bore me propaganda monkey, Uncle Joe thinks you are a numb nut and is tired of paying for substandard work. He told me you give Marxists/socialists a bad name due to your incorrigible stupidity.

  20. “I ain’t creating propaganda douche bag, I am just telling the truth.”

    When you make up history and definitions of words, that’s not telling the truth. That’s lying. Speaking of which . . .

    “I wouldn’t want people to know fascism and socialism are pretty much the same either.”

    I wouldn’t want them to think that either. Because it’s not true. That’s what I mean about making up definitions, sport.

    Socialism is any of the various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods for certain markets, but still allowing for personal property and regulated free markets and a primary goal of social equality, distribution of wealth based on one’s contribution to society, and economic regulation that best serves the interests of society as a whole. As a political philosophy, is is on the left of the political spectrum, but due to the varied natures of socialism, it ranges from center left to far left, with democratic socialism being at the center left.

    Contrast with . . .

    Fascism is nationalistic, militaristic, totalitarian, and not only is production geared toward supporting militarism, it is centralized into an oligarchical control system and the laws of the country are geared solely toward business interests (if business interests are regulated at all). Although politically syncretic (drawing from the right and the left), in practice most political scientists consider fascism an extreme far right form of government as it is distinctly anti-liberal and anti-egalitarian.

    “Get your history straight propagandist. Quit spreading that Mao and Stalin death is good dogma.”

    Mine is straight. With cites even. I’m not the one claiming Hitler was a socialist when he was in fact a fascist. I’m also not promoting the theories upon which Mao or Stalin operated on either. This once again shows you are making up definition. I’m a democratic socialist. Mao was a agrarian communist and Stalin was an industrial communist. Seriously, if you want to make things up, you need to do a better job of it.

    “It is actually sad that you would push an economic system that does nothing but cause misery on good people by telling them it is good for them.”

    No. It’s actually sad that you’d promote an economic system that is good for the few at the expense of the good of the many. Because that shows you’re a selfish egotistical uncaring bastard when it comes to society. You know. A sociopath.

    “Keep spouting your socialist propaganda, its just funny.”

    Thanks. I will. But you mistake the qualities of laughter. I laugh at your ideology because it’s myopic, stupid and ultimately destructive to society. You laugh at my ideology because you either 1) don’t understand it (for which a strong case can be made based on you perpetually making up definitions) or 2) you’re a sociopath who would laugh at anything that helps others without you profiting in some way. I’m thinking it’s a combination of both in your case, sparky.

    “Ho, Ho, Ho who you gonna loot today? The butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker?”

    I’m not looting anyone. Taxation isn’t theft despite your lies to the contrary. But as far as taxation goes, it should be proportionate and equitable. The companies that make the most profits, like oil companies and banks, should pay the highest tax burden just like the highest earning individuals should. The more you benefit from society, the more you should pay to support society. Why? Because that’s fair.

    Now run along, lil’ liar.

    Spread your “greed is good” gospel to those people stupid enough to believe it. Maybe blogging at FAUXNews is more your speed. Where the average IQ of posters and readers is about 85. You won’t win any converts here. Why? Even those regulars who disagree with me about politics and economic preferences aren’t stupid enough to buy your bullshit. This is an above average smart blog. You are way out of your depth peddling your venal selfish tripe here.

    Please come back if you want to be made to look the foolish liar again. Really. It’s no trouble at all.

    Your cooperation in these matters is greatly appreciated.

Comments are closed.