Dennis Marks Borrowing A Page From The Joseph Goebbels Playbook

Joseph Goebbels, Adolf Hitler's Reich Minister of Propaganda in Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945, said "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie...".

This is why Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) hates this blog and desperately wishes it was gone. Because Dennis tells big lies, while The Truth About Dennis Marks slaps them down.

Concerning Dennis' Big Lies, one of them concerns this blogger defending, having as a hero, or worshipping brutal mass-murdering murderous dictators. First it was Joseph Stalin who was my "hero" and whom I "worship". According to Dennis I was "caught praising" Stalin. Of course this accusation is complete and total bullshit.

Now Dennis posts lies concerning things I never said concerning Mao Tse-Tung, the Chinese Communist revolutionary and the founding father of the People's Republic of China (which he governed as Chairman of the Communist Party of China from its establishment in 1949 until his death in 1976). This would be the dictator who perpetrated systematic human rights abuses and was responsible for an estimated 40 to 70 million deaths through starvation, forced labour, and executions - ranking his tenure as the top incidence of democide (murder by government) in human history. (excerpted from Wikipedia).

Dennis Marks: [Dervish Sanders is] the same guy who defended Maoism with claims that Maoist rule prohibited police brutality. And of course he uses the phrase "the people" all the time when referring to the tiny group at the top of government, borrowing a page from Red China. (7/23/2015 AT 6:25pm).

Here is another example of Dennis lying his ass off concerning me and Mao.

Dennis Marks: ...you can also remember WD's defense of Mao worshipper Van Jones... in which WD equated Maoism to ending police brutality. I did look it up, and police brutality under Mao was, by the numbers, worse than anything in history. (7/13/2014 AT 2:55am).

Again, total bullshit. With the exception of the last line. But everything Dennis claims about me is a big BIG Lie. It is true that Mao came up in a discussion regarding Van Jones. And I did mention police brutality. But what I told Dennis was that Van Jones belonged to a group that read the writings of Mao and also protested police violence.

Wikipedia/Van Jones/Earlier activism: When he graduated from law school, Jones gave up plans to take a job in Washington DC, and moved to San Francisco instead. He became a member of a "socialist collective" called Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM) that protested against police brutality.

Van Jones (as a member of STORM) protested police brutality. The Maoist rulers of China (1949-1976) engaged in police brutality. I never said otherwise, you lying sack of shit!

Wikipedia/Mao Zedong/Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution/Paragraph 4: The authorities allowed the Red Guards to abuse and kill opponents of the regime. Said Xie Fuzhi, national police chief: "Don't say it is wrong of them to beat up bad persons: if in anger they beat someone to death, then so be it". As a result, in August and September 1966, there were 1,772 people murdered in Beijing alone.

Anyway, regarding STORM, Conservapedia says...

Conservapedia/Van Jones/Maoist Influence: STORM's own literature describes its "Maoist orientation" which conducted "a group reading of Mao's On Practice and On Contradiction". The group studied Lenin's theories of the state, revolution, the party, and "the political ideas of Mao Tse-tung".

Now, I don't know how much stock I place anything on Conservapedia... and their Van Jones page is basically a smear of the man... but I couldn't locate the info anywhere else.

In any case, how into the writings of Mao was Van Jones? That is information that is (apparently) lost to the ages. Van Jones' own website only addresses the rumor that he (presently) is a communist (and says nothing about Mao).

[Question] Are you a communist? [Van Jones answer] No, I'm not... For the better part of a decade, I've been the No. 1 champion of free-market solutions for poor people and the environment. ... Some people experimented with drugs and alcohol, I experimented with world-views and philosophies and I was an angry young guy, I was on the left side of Pluto. The great thing about America is, you can think whatever wacky thing you want to think, and you are free to change your mind once you get older. (The Truth About Van Jones).

So, there you have it... Communist or Maoist, Van Jones moved on a LONG time ago. He is now a champion of the free market. Point is, I never defended Mao and I never equated Maoism to ending police brutality. I only pointed out to Dennis that Van Jones absolutely is not a "worshipper" of Mao (presently) and that STORM protested police brutality (when Jones was a member).

And, FYI, I never defended Van Jones either (in regards to his past). I don't have enough info regarding what happened. Not that it matters, as it is in the past and Van no longer holds those views (whatever views he held).

I also never use the phrase "the people" when referring to the tiny group at the top of government. Those people are our representatives. The People are the citizens of the United States, you idiot! Also, The People, which IS a phrase I use, is a reference the opening phrase of the Preamble to the United States Constitution.

Dennis knows this (how could he not). Yet he lies away. Because that is just the kind of a-hole that he is. But this is hardly new information. Many people have known this about Dennis for quite some time... although most seem to ignore it for some reason. I refuse.

An example of dmarks' being an a-hole? I pointed out to him that I never defended Mao, and his response was to say "I'm glad Mr Sanders has done a 180 on this issue...". Although he surely was (and is) an a-hole to lie about me defending Mao in the first place.

Image Description: Mao, NOT a hero of the Left, despite lies from scumbags on the Right like Dennis.

TADM #75

Dennis Marks Blogging Demagogue

In my last commentary (TADM #73) I discussed remarks the racially-biased blogger Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks), made concerning comments made and actions taken by President Barack Obama in regards to the Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy.

According to Dennis, "this whole beer summit matter had nothing to do with any issue of national importance" (as it would not have happened if Dr Gates wasn't one of his buddies). "It was all personal" and the president was "demagoguing it up" in the deluded mind of Mr. Marks.

Which, according to the definition of demagogue meant the president was "treating or manipulating a political issue in an attempt to obscure or distort with emotionalism or prejudice"... something I proved was total bullshit. First, because columnist Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times specifically asked Obama "what does it say about race relations in America?" Obama, put on the spot, made an extemporaneous remark that he later said he regretted.

Second, the Beer Summit occurred due to negative poll results that suggested a large number of (mainly White) people thought he handled the question badly. So - someone in the White House, most likely - put together this "Beer Summit" idea to try and smooth things over with the law enforcement community and the public. It was about optics and the "teachable moment" Obama mentioned, NOT demagoguery.

The reverse was actually the case, and suggesting racial demagoguery from a African American president is, in my opinion, racist. Very similar to when Dennis said that Obama is an "exceptionally indolent and lazy man". A sentence loaded with dog-whistles that even a dumb-dumb like Dennis has to be aware of. Seriously, I bet Dennis could go to the Stormfront website and post this comment and find a LOT of agreement.

In regards to that (Dennis hypothetically posting on the Stormfront site), I did a quick Google search and found a thread on a discussion board concerning how lazy Blacks are. One commenter wrote the following...

...in my past experiences, the blacks are the laziest of the bunch at work. My last few jobs... I was a minority. This is where you truly see how lazy, degenerate, and hateful to whites most blacks really are. Its like being trapped in the monkey cage at the zoo, just waiting for one of them to start flinging poop. (12/04/2008 AT 02:33am. Comment by "Twitchie" from StormFront.org).

Commentary that sounds like what that Boston cop Justin Barrett said in his email re Henry Louis Gates.

On 7/28, it was revealed... that Justin Barrett, a 36-year-old Boston Police Department officer who has been on the job for two years, and is also a member of the Massachusetts National Guard, sent a mass e-mail to fellow National Guardsmen and to The Boston Globe in which he referred to Gates as a "jungle monkey". Although the email was signed only JB, when he was asked about it, Barrett admitted to his BPD superiors that he was the author. According to an article in the Boston Globe, Barrett wrote the email... "in reaction to media coverage of Gates's arrest July 16", in particular to a July 22 Globe column by Yvonne Abraham, who expressed support for Gates. In the e-mail, Barrett wrote, "If I was the officer he [Gates] verbally assaulted like a banana-eating jungle monkey, I would have sprayed him in the face with OC [oleorosin capsicum, or pepper spray] deserving of his belligerent non-compliance". During the course of the message, Barrett used the phrase "jungle monkey" four times, three times in reference to Gates and once in reference to Abraham's column, which he characterized as "jungle monkey gibberish". (Wikipedia/Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy/Justin Barrett e-mail).

Yeah, these people are worse than Dennis, but just like Dennis, Barrett (who was fired) is in complete denial regarding his racism. In a TV interview Barrett said, "I have so many friends of every type of culture and race you can name. I am not a racist". Sure, that's why you used the term "jungle monkey", because you're NOT a racist. And, note that he used the "Black friend" defense. When Barrett sued (because his unemployment was denied) the Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled that his "egregious misconduct" was "obviously intentional".

Which I think might be true about about Dennis... his misconduct is egregious and intentional. I mean, how could he NOT know that his accusations (our Black president is "indolent and lazy" and guilty of "demagoguing it up") are racist? Although I haven't seen any comments by Dennis where he says he can't be racist due to all the Black friends he has.

But what he does do is (falsely) claim that many Black people are racists. To hear Dennis tell it, it's almost always Black people who are guilty of racism. One of the only times I can remember Dennis referring to a White guy as racist was when he compared Van Jones to David Duke!

Dennis Marks: David Duke is the Van Jones of the right. (4:48pm on an unspecified date sometime after 8/26/2011. From the blog Newspaper Rock).

Van Jone has NEVER used any rhetoric comparable to David Duke. Never. He is a strong champion of Middle Class and working folks, regardless of race. In any case, there is one other instance I can recall where Dennis referred to White people as racist, this time in conjunction with another bash against our president.

Dennis Marks: You should have looked at his career [Obama's] before he ran. His appointment to his Harvard Law post by supposedly well-meaning racists not because he was qualified at all, but explicitly because of his skin color. ... His listless and lazy and by any objective standard, unremarkable legislative record. (1/14/2014 AT 5:26pm).

Even if these "well-meaning racists" selected Obama "explicitly because of his skin color" that does NOT mean Obama wasn't qualified. If this were the case, Dennis would have provided some evidence to show he wasn't. Instead he simply takes the fact that they may have been looking for a Black person to fill the position (in the interest of diversity) to make the idiotic suggestion that they did not select the best Black candidate.

Just because Obama may have been an "affirmative action appointment" does not automatically mean he was unqualified (nor does it mean that those who appointed him were "well-meaning racists"). Assuming this to be the case with no proof at all? I say that's racist.

So, that's two examples of Dennis calling out "white racists", but they are both within the context of bashing Black guys (Van Jones and Barack Obama).

What does this say about Dennis? You can draw your own conclusion, but I know what mine is, which is that Dennis Marks is one SERIOUSLY racially biased individual. As well as someone who is guilty of "treating or manipulating a political issue in an attempt to obscure or distort with emotionalism or prejudice"... or demagoguery.

Image Description: On 7/30/2009, President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Professor Gates, and Sergeant Crowley met at the White House. ...Obama said he believed "what brings us together is stronger than what pulls us apart" and that after the meeting he was "hopeful that all of us are able to draw this positive lesson from this episode".

TADM #74

"N-Word & Other Slurs" Foul Fiction (Examining Dennis Marks' Strong Racial Biases)

The racially biased Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) is one of those who simply does not see how what he says and thinks is racist. As is the case with MANY if not most racists. Most of us, racists included, know it is bad to discriminate based on skin color. There are some hard core racists who embrace this kind of stereotyping (KKK members), but most racially-biased people use some kind of internal logic to justify their racism. And they will actually call other people racists if the other person violates their internal logic.

Such is the case with Dennis. The flawed internal logic he uses to protect himself from realizing he is racist himself is to accuse others. Mostly Black people who disagree with him idealogically (TADM #27). For example, Dennis knows the KKK is bad. And he "knows" there are many Black folks who are "racist". Put those two "knowings" together and you get a comment from him in which he says "Van Jones is the David Duke of the Democrats" (SWTD #144).

Dennis also knows using the N-word is bad. Which is why he infers that Black people who use it are "racist". And if anyone else has an opinion that differs with his opinion, which is that ANYONE who uses it is automatically a racist, that person is a racist as well. Which is what happened to me.

Dennis Marks: wd... thinks it is great to call black people the N word and use other slurs. (9/5/2014 AT 3:38am).

My opinion that differed with Dennis' was NOT that "it is great to call black people the N word and use other slurs". Dennis lies when he says this. Dennis gets this from an old conversation on the Progressive Soup blog in which the proprietor (an African American from the looks of his profile pic) said "simply using the N-word in lyrics is not bashing black people".

Malcolm (the proprietor) was speaking specifically of the rapper Common), who used/uses the N-word while rapping. I agreed with Malcolm that it was not "bashing" - which is how Dennis referred to Common's use the the word. He said Common was "bashing" his fellow African Americans.

As a White person I feel that it isn't for me to say if Black people can "take back" the word by using it themselves or not. I'll leave that for the African American community to hash out (some are for and others are against it). Although I think White people are absolutely not allowed to use the word (not that a White person using it is automatically racist. They might simply be ignorant). In any case, I only said that the rapper Common - or any other African American rapper who uses the word (usually with an "a" replacing the "er" at the end) - is not bashing other Black people. I never said it was "great".

But Dennis passes judgment on me (for something I never said), and on the African American rapper Common. As a White man Dennis thinks he has the right to decide that African Americans are not allowed to use the N-word... which I think is racist in itself. Not being Black, I think Dennis has absolutely no right to pass judgment on the victims of racism using - or "taking back" - this word used (historically) by racist Whites against their people. None at all. That he does think he can be THE judge of this says to me Dennis is surely your typical arrogant (and ignorant) Conservative.

Notice, however, that Dennis did not call Common "racist". He said Common was "bashing" his fellow African Americans. I think this was because Dennis was commenting on the blog of an African American. I know from past experience that Dennis usually has no problem calling Black people racist (and this is why I use the word "infer" above. I'm convinced he meant "racist" but chose not to use that word because of WHERE he was commenting).

Fact is, when Dennis calls someone racist, it usually is a Black person. Specifically Black Democrats (TADM #27). Although he has also referred to some White people as racist. Usually white Democrats (TADM #41).

Such as this comment in which Dennis lies about a Black Democrat with bogus (and racist) assertions concerning "Black Privilege"...

Dennis Marks: Rev Al is a big believer in "black privilege", such that black people can commit crimes and get away with it, while white people can't. (9/9/2014 AT 4:07pm).

This despite the fact that "the incarceration rate for American-Americans is so high that young black men without a high school diploma are more likely to go to jail than to find a job". And that this is "six times as high as the national average".

As opposed to something Al Sharpton thinks, this sounds - to me - like something a Radical Redneck-type White racist would believe. But Dennis attributes this example of ugly racism to Al Sharpton. Sick. And Dennis uses the term "Black Privilege" even though he does not believe in the VERY REAL concept of White Privilege.

Dennis Marks: "White privilege" is a laughable myth: a racist concept made up by the Left... itself a form of racial profiling. (7/21/2013 AT 06:43:00 AM EDT).

So, White privilege is a "myth" (and a "laughable" one) while Black privilege is real? That does it for me. Dennis, while surely not a Radical Redneck-type racist, absolutely is more racist than the average person. And the facts show that he is quite a bit more racially biased, in my strong opinion. Yeah, I know that when Conservatives think of "race hustlers" their minds immediately go to Black LEADERS like Sharpton and Jackson [1], and Dennis' absolutism in regards to the use of the N-word might be understandable and not necessarily qualify him as "racist".

But the White-privilege-no and Black-privilege-yes puts him over the top, I think. And I didn't even bring up Dennis bashing people as "racist" for defending Affirmative Action [2]. Lying about me saying I think it's "great" to refer to Black people using the N-word is, I think, just another vile lie for which Dennis is infamous. So, yes, I think Dennis has a serious problem with racial biases. Again, not as bad as those of the hard-core (racist) Radical scum, but still quite bad.

Footnotes
[1] dmarks: And because Al and Jessie are such racists, they will never do the same about a white guy in handcuffs. (4/15/2012 AT 11:11am).
[2] dmarks: (directed at John Myste and in regards to Myste's defense of Affirmative Action) You were clearly making and defending racist statements... Good riddance, Grand Wizard of the Myste. And don't let your white robe get caught on the door on the way out. (12/9/2012 AT 10:58am). Note: John Myste's response to Dennis labeling Affirmative Action "racist" was to say "You are the first republican I have ever debated on this topic that I actually believed was a racist".

Supporting Document
White Privilege, DSD #2. (Catalog of comments dmarks has made re White Privilege).

TADM #59. See also SWTD #271.

Dennis Marks: King Canardo & Old Bones Champion

Acorn-Style (Old Bone/Canard #1)

"Old Bones" is the term Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) likes to use when he wants no dissent to his tired old lies. For example, Dennis recently brought up the long-debunked nonsense concerning ACORN participating in "election theft".

Dennis Marks: [The Koch Brothers] haven't tried to suppress in real vote. But those who engage in and support election fraud (ACORN etc) are understandably defensive when people try to end their crimes. (7/12/2014 AT 04:10:00 PM EDT).

Dennis is referring to "crimes" that ACORN was cleared of by Congress.

The Seattle Times: The Congressional Research Service says in a new report that it couldn't find any instances in which people improperly registered to vote by the activist group known as ACORN showed up at the polls on Election Day. The report also found no instances in the past five years of the group misusing federal funds. Both houses of Congress voted to cut off money to the group after the release of videotapes showing employees advising two conservative activists posing as a pimp and prostitute. (Congressional report clears ACORN of voter fraud by Jonathan D. Salant, 12/24/2009).

After my comment disputing the Dennis' canard concerning the Koch's "ending of crimes" by a community organizing group that "filed for Chapter 7 liquidation on November 2, 2010, effectively closing the organization", Dennis responded with ad hominens and further canards...

Dennis Marks: I see WD is frying up old bones in canardo oil. In a kettle heated by his own pants-on-fire. I am not interested in a taste of this sordid brew. The record and facts on ACORNs voter fraud racket, and the Koch Bros' lack of any voter suppression are well established. (7/12/2014 AT 11:08:00 PM EDT).

Dennis was the one who brought up the "old bone" canard of ACORN being involved in "election theft", not I... yet this fool has the audacity to accuse me of "frying up old bones in canardo oil".

If anyone's pants are on fire, they are the pants of the lying Dennis. And, as we know the term "old bones" is an ad hominem Dennis brings up when someone calls him on his bringing up old topics and spinning his old canards in regards to them (TADM #49). Old canards he demands go unchallenged... because he can't handle the cognitive dissonance such challenging (with FACTS) produces in his addled brain.

Pro-Khmer Rouge Views (Old Bone/Canard #2)

And the exchange above is but one example of why Dennis is surely the King Canardo as well as the "old bones" champion. But that isn't the end of the "old bones" hypocrisy! A few hours prior to Dennis accusing me of "frying up old bones in canardo oil" he posts the following old lies on the blog of Willis Hart (in response to a blog post about yours truly titled "On the Assertion that Bowles-Simpson is a Conservative Plan").

Dennis Marks: Don't forget his defense of Noam Chomsky's pro-Khmer Rouge views. You left out one of the extremes. (7/12/2014 AT 3:30 PM). Dennis Marks: ...you can also remember WD's defense of Mao worshipper Van Jones..in which WD equated Maoism to ending police brutality. I did look it up, and police brutality under Mao was, by the numbers, worse than anything in history. (7/13/2014 AT 2:55 AM).

Note that the hypocrite submitted that first "old bone" to Willis' blog a few hours before he made the "frying up in canardo oil" comment, and the second one was submitted a few hours after.

As for the comment concerning "Noam Chomsky's pro-Khmer Rouge views", this is an old bone Dennis has been gnawing on for years... as this comment from 2012 shows...

Dennis Marks: Noam Chomsky is a real piece of work. I recently dug into his writings in which he revealed himself to be just about the only person in the civilized world who supported Pol Pot's "Killing Fields" genocide. (1/18/2012 AT 7:17am).

But Noam Chomsky never supported "Pol Pot's Killing Fields genocide". Michael Brull, writing for "The Drum", says "the boring truth about Chomsky [is that] he does not support Pol Pot". [What he did do was say] that the US had no right to invade a country on the other side of the planet to install its own preferred puppet government... (Source: The Drum website. "The Drum" is an Australian enterprise).

Chomsky, in other words, focused his criticism on HIS OWN government... because as a US citizen and journalist, it was more likely he could get his own government to listen than the Cambodian government to listen (BOTH governments were killing Cambodian citizens).

Both regimes were killing Cambodian citizens, but Chomsky felt that those who focused on the atrocities of Pol Pot were doing so in order to provide cover for OUR government's atrocities against the Cambodian people.

Between 1970 and 1973, during the Vietnam War, the United States bombed much of the countryside of Cambodia and manipulated Cambodian politics to support the rise of pro-West Lon Nol as the leader of Cambodia. The Khmer Rouge used the United States' actions to recruit followers and as an excuse for the brutal policies they exercised when in power. (Source: The Holocaust Museum Huston website).

This is why Chomsky is attacked by the Right (and these vile lies told about him)... because he had the audacity to speak against the US government's bombing of Cambodia (Nixon's Cambodian Campaign).

It was the United States bombing of Cambodia under then-president Nixon that gave rise to the Khmer Rouge and THAT is why the Right attacks and lies about Mr. Chomsky. Not because he ever supported Pol Pot, but because he spoke against our bombing of Cambodia.

To say that Chomsky supported genocide is a canard, and, in regards to Dennis bringing it up - and lying about my "defense of Noam Chomsky's pro-Khmer Rouge views" - it is an old bone that is a huge canard.

So I never defended Mr. Chomsky's "pro-Khmer Rouge views" - because HE DOES NOT HAVE ANY!! And for this reason (as well as the other canards and old bones discussed above) I crown Dennis Marks the king canardo and the old bones champion.

TADM #50. See also SWTD #266.

The Racially Biased Dennis Marks Calls Out Another Black "Racist"

In regards to the Senate rejecting President Obama's nomination of Debo Adegbile to head the DOJ's civil rights division (afterwhich Adegbile announced he was withdrawing as a nominee and going into private practice), the following comment was offered by our friend Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks)...

Dennis Marks: The seven Democrats who voted him down were heroic: bucking party to go with principle to keep a racist out of a high office. (3/6/2014 AT 5:11:00pm EST).

This is Dennis calling out another Black person "racist". "Racist" in quotes, because, as his buddy rAtional nAtion points out "I have neither read or heard anything that would lead me to believe Adegbile is a racist".

The reason Dennis accuses Adegbile of racism? His reason is the same as that proffered by the Repubs (who all voted NO).

U.S Senators from both parties objected to Adegbile's signing of an appeal for Black Panther member Mumia Abu-Jamal who was convicted in 1982 for the first-degree murder of Daniel Faulkner, a Philadelphia police officer, on 12/9/1981. Mumia Abu-Jamal was sentenced to death, although the death sentence later was vacated because of problems with jury instructions. Adegbile and other lawyers filed an unsuccessful amicus curiae brief with the United States Supreme Court in 2009, arguing that the conviction was invalid because of racial discrimination in jury selection. (Wikipedia/Debo Adegbile/Nomination to be Assistant Attorney General).

Only in the mind of Dennis (and other racists) are concerns about racial discrimination racist. As Media Matters points out "The legal arguments of the NAACP LDF on behalf of condemned prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal were not in regards to his innocence but rather to unconstitutional death sentencing jury instructions".

Under our system, EVERYONE (even guilty people) is entitled to the best defense their lawyer can mount. Adegbile was simply doing his job as a lawyer, not unlike Chief Justice John Roberts, who "helped represent Florida death row inmate John Ferguson, convicted in the murder of eight people".

The racism charge is completely bogus and ONLY being made because Adegbile's skin color is the same as the person he signed a brief in defense of. And then, only because that skin color is Black. If Adegbile were White, or if they (lawyer and defendant) were both White? There would have been no accusations of racism. The accusations were only made for political/racially-biased reasons.

rAtional nAtion is obliviously unaware (or simply doesn't care), but Dennis has a long record of accusing Black people of racism. Attorney General Eric Holder, American civil rights activist and Baptist minister Jesse Jackson, attorney and author Van Jones, Congresswoman Barbara Lee (the Democrat representing California's 13th district), the 65th US Secretary of State Colin Powell, the Reverend Al Sharpton, MSNBC personality Toure, the rapper Common, and many more (I'm sure).

Likely there are others, but these are the ones I've recorded Dennis commenting on. Dennis is the kind of White person who spends most of his time (when he's thinking of racism) worrying about the "racist Blacks".

I'd also like to direct your attention to a comment from dmarks concerning Barack Obama. While he did not use the word "racist" to describe our current POTUS, Dennis did use a bunch of dog whistles that racists use.

Dennis Marks: You should have looked at his career [Obama's] before he ran. His appointment to his Harvard Law post by supposedly well-meaning racists not because he was qualified at all, but explicitly because of his skin color. His involvement as a "community activist" in which he encouraged people not to work for a better life, but instead to beg for handouts from those who did, teaching people to blame others for problems they brought on themselves. His listless and lazy and by any objective standard, unremarkable legislative record. (1/14/2014 AT 5:26pm).

So, Dennis belives our president to be lazy by "any objective standard", huh? I don't know about you, but my objectivity tells me that this dmarks fellow is a racist. Although he apparently believes there are some "good ones" (like former House member Allen West).

TADM #27