On The Dennis Marks Racist Claim That The Black Lives Matters Movement's Slogan Is "Only Black Lives Matter"

This racist comment concerning the Black Lives Matter movement from the racially-biased blogger Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks).

This started with a post on the Contra O'Reilly blog from fellow racist Willis Hart about the killing of Eric Garner. According to Willis the "fat asthmatic" was (at least partially) to blame for his own death. Then Willis asked "what about the African-American merchants whose rights were being infringed upon by Garner?" (he was taking away their cigarette sales, presumably).

Which prompted the following response from Dennis...

Dennis Marks: ...why bring race into it at all? It's a meme injected into these discussions by the very racist protesters. The ones that argue that only black lives matter. This meme has been at play despite the fact that race wasn't a factor at all in any of these incidents. (12/26/2014 AT 4:15am).

Later, Dennis authored this comment bashing the NAACP.

Dennis Marks: In recent months, the NAACP has embraceed the supremacist slogan that only lives of those of one race matter. (5/23/2015 AT 12:02pm).

That the Black Live Matter movement or NAACP is saying "only lives of those of one race matter" is pure bullshit. This is the racially-biased Dennis interpretation of what they're saying, but the racially-biased Mr. Marks is wrong.

Of course "all lives matter", but the reason the BLM movement (and slogan) exist is because our system is obviously biased against African Americans. According to a 4/8/2015 RawStory article, more African Americans were killed by the police in 2014 than in the 9/11 attacks.

The Rightwing pushback to this (police killing Black people) is to say more Whites than Blacks are killed by the police. A talking point that, of course, Dennis goes with.

Dennis Marks: More whites are killed overall by cops. (8/29/2015 AT 11:59:00 AM EDT).

According to PoltiFact, over the past decade 2,151 Whites and 1,130 Blacks were killed by the police.

However...

Brian Forst, a professor in the Department of Justice, Law and Criminology at American University, said this difference is predictable. "More whites are killed by the police than blacks primarily because whites outnumber blacks in the general population by more than five to one", Forst said. The country is about 63 percent white and 12 percent black. Rather than comparing the raw numbers, you can look at the likelihood that a person will die due to "legal intervention" [statistically. And] When you do that, the numbers flip. A 2002 study in the American Journal of Public Health found that the death rate due to legal intervention was more than three times higher for blacks than for whites in the period from 1988 to 1997. (Police kill more whites than blacks. Response to statement by Conservative pundit Michael Medved. 8/21/2014 Politifact article by Jon Greenberg).

A Black person is 300 percent more likely to be killed by a police officer than a White person, Dennis! Yet Dennis uses the fact that the US is approximately 63 percent White and 12 percent Black to LIE about Blacks being more likely to be shot and killed by the police. He ignores this fact and, instead misrepresents the truth by pointing out that more Whites are shot by cops. Shameful.

But Dennis' "evidence" against the BLM movement doesn't end there! After stating that "All Lives Matter is beautiful" Dennis cites a recent Rasmussen poll that says Black people prefer the term "all lives matter" to "black lives matter". Dennis sez "even black people strongly prefer all lives matter".

Bullshit, Dennis. As it turns out the reason Rasmussen got that response is because they asked the question designed to get the answer they wanted. An answer that discredits the BLM movement. Even Black people don't identify with BLM, is what Dennis is saying (by pointing to the Rasmussen poll).

The Rasmussen flawed question was "yes, black lives matter, but don't all lives matter? That seems to be the subject of some political dispute".

But there is ZERO dispute! NONE. The BLM movement isn't saying that all lives don't matter. But Rasmussen implies that they are. Then they ask which statement is closest to their own views, "Black Lives Matter" or "All Lives Matter". Unsurprisingly, even Black people said "All Lives Matter" (63%).

But notice that Rasmussen didn't ask if the respondent supports the BLM movement. Why? Because (I strongly suspect) there would have been a lot of overlap, in that people could say "all lives matter" but still support BLM.

The Conservative response of "All Lives Matter" is, as David Bedrick points out (in an 8/24/2015 HuffPo article) "a form of willful colorblindness [and] ignorance of America's racist past and present".

This is why Conservatives like Dennis say the BLM movement is "racist" and that "all lives matter" is "beautiful". Racists like Dennis support the status quo and do NOT want anything done to address the VERY REAL problem of the police killing African Americans at a three times greater rate than White Americans.

According to Dennis "we are not clueless here" (he's speaking of people who prefer "all lives matter" over "black lives matter")... but, YES, Dennis is totally clueless. In regards to the BLM movement, and in regards to his own racism.

Turns out that Dennis is the most common type of racist... the one that doesn't realize that he is one.

IMO Dennis Marks absolutely is this kind of racist... one who vehemently denies he is racist, but takes positions that clearly show he is quite racist. His opposition to the BLM movement being just one more example of how racist Dennis is.

Supporting Document
Only Black Lives Matter Ugly Racist Protesters Don't Say, DSD #16.

TADM #80. See also SWTD #311.

Evidence Shows Dennis Marks Might Be The Kind Of Person Who'd Assassinate A Doctor Who Performs Abortions

The following comment is one, IMO, that strongly shows what a completely wack nutjob Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) is.

Dennis Marks: The abortion industry thrives on people not knowing what they do. PP is very extreme, and greedy: they demand tax money to to be used to harm unborn children all the way up to newborns. It's run by sickos who get their jollies killing as many of the unborn as possible. Do they need to engage in their deadly sadism on the public dime? (7/31/2015 AT 12:33pm).

A "newborn" is an infant that has "recently or only just born". Planned Parenthood docs do NOT kill newborns. If they did they would go to prison, as killing a newborn is murder. If Dennis truly believes this is happening, what is his proof?

Without asking or getting an answer, I can tell you with 100 percent certainty that there is zero proof. If PP was "run by sickos who get their jollies killing as many of the unborn as possible" (including newborns), there would have been arrests and prison sentences handed down.

And I find this allegation pretty disturbing, as what Dennis is alleging is that PP docs are evil. I mean, what else could a person be if they got their "jollies" in this manner except evil? BTW, this comment is even more disturbing because people who think doctors who perform abortions are EVIL are the kind of people who bomb abortion clinics or assassinate doctors.

Is Dennis such a person? Has Dennis ever thought of using a gun to shoot a doctor who performs abortions? I don't know. But if Dennis has ever protested outside an abortion clinic... if he's a part of that movement? Then I think he definitely should be on the radar of law enforcement as a possible assassin... an individual who might snap and decide he needs to kill PP "sickos" who "engage in deadly sadism".

Supporting Document
Anti-Choice Extremism, DSD #17. (A catalog of many radical anti-choice comments from the blogger dmarks).

TADM #79

Is Dennis Marks A Baldheaded Man Who Sports A Ponytail?

According to Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) I am a baldheaded man who sports a ponytail. Or I'm a man with a large bald spot on the top of my head with long hair on the sides that I pull back into a ponytail.

Dennis Marks: Rusty... you get a free pass to call WD, with his ponytail "baldheaded". Whether or not he is in fact bald. (9/13/2014 AT 8:12am).

Ah, no Dennis. Rusty originally referred to YOU as bald with a ponytail.

Rusty Shackelford: I think I'd lay about 5-1 that either dmarks or WD are one of those bald headed gray haired guys that have a pony tail. You know the kind of guy that other guys laugh at. (12/26/2011 AT 3:30pm).

In response, Dennis wrote the following...

Dennis Marks: "...bald headed gray haired guys that have a pony tail..." Which is it? Bald, or with a pony tail? (12/26/2011 AT 7:44pm).

And, in reply to Dennis' question, Rusty wrote...

Rusty Shackelford: Yep dmarks, confirmed... its you... the middle aged bald guy with the pony tail. Bad look buddy, bad look. And please, dump the Dockers. The other guys are snickering at you. (12/26/2011 AT 8:26pm).

Rusty confirmed that he believes Dennis is the bald man with a ponytail. Initially he said it was either me or Dennis, then he CONFIRMED it was Dennis (in his mind). Yet ever since then Dennis has repeated (a number of times) that *I'm* a baldheaded dude with a ponytail. Or that I have a ponytail (without mentioning the "bald" part).

Anyway, I'm with Rusty on this one. In that I believe that it is likely that Dennis is a bald man with a ponytail, and that him ignoring Rusty's conclusion that Dennis has the ponytail (and bald head) is projection.

How likely this is... that is another matter. The likelihood is probably low. More likely is that Dennis simply liked the insult (originally aimed at him as well as me), so he ignored Rusty's "confirmation" and started using the "insult" against me. With no evidence to back up the accusation... at all.

For the record, I am not bald. No bald spot either, nor receding hairline or ponytail (which I've never had).

In any case, regardless of whether or not Dennis is a baldheaded guy with a ponytail, I give myself a free pass to believe Dennis is the kind of guy that other guys laugh at... for being typically off his gourd in regards to his political views. In regards to that I say, "yep dmarks, confirmed... it's you who is the middle-aged guy with political views that are totally nuts".

He might also be mostly bald and sport a ponytail. Although, if he was embarrassed by Rusty pegging him in regards to his "look"... he might have cut the ponytail off.

3/3/2016 Update: dmarks (in a 1/17/2015 comment I just stumbled across) makes an admission that confirms my suspicions... dmarks: did you know that I'm a baldheaded ponytailed moron? (No joke, dmarks wrote it. Follow the link if you don't believe me).

Image: I've heard that Dennis enjoys getting attention by flashing strangers in parks. Could this picture be a shot of the sicko engaging in this perverted behavior?

Supporting Document
Bald Men With Ponytails, DSD #4. (A catalog of Dennis Marks comments concerning bald headedness and bald men who sport ponytails).

TADM #78

Dennis Marks Anti-Choice Extremist Dipshittery Re Planned Parenthood "Chopping Up Kids And Selling The Pieces"

This commentary concerns serious dipshittery from the anti-choice extremist Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) in regards to the recent flap over the Planned Parenthood deceptively-edited and illegally-filmed videos. A comment that contains many factual inaccuracies and well as a revelation that Dennis is on the side of those who want to defund PP. (the War on Women side).

Dennis Marks: I read that this is all OK because the money that PP is making chopping up kids and selling the pieces is not enough for them to make a profit. A real weak defense. If we use this logic, we can excuse any other corporation for any sort of malfeasance if it is not making a profit (i.e. bungling business practices, poor management) at that time. Too bad the Hyde Amendment, put in place to stop the government from being involved in the business of harming the young, isn't interpreted to such direct subsidy to the abortion industry. But the funding could end up in danger. Remember ACORN, the election fraud scam, that got cut off finally. (7/31/2015 AT 12:31pm).

Wrong. The "defense" is not that the money they are paid is "not enough for them to make a profit", it is that they are legally prohibited from making a profit. And they are not.

But Dennis is obviously completely oblivious to why PP is "selling" the fetal tissue to begin with, what the law says, or that the Center for Medical Progress (the anti-abortion group that released the videos) is alleging there is profit involved.

Which they are alleging. But they're lying.

The president of Planned Parenthood [Cecile Richards] said her organization's clinics never adjust the abortion procedure to better preserve fetal organs for medical research and that the organization's charges cover only the cost of transmission to researchers. ... The videos were part of longer discussions, and Richards said the longer videos showed doctors repeatedly saying that Planned Parenthood does not profit from the tissue donations. (Planned Parenthood president says group doesn't profit from fetal organ research by Kevin Freking. Associated Press 7/26/2015).

Of course Dennis makes his allegations of "malfeasance" based on ZERO knowledge of the law or why it exists... which is because this tissue is necessary for medical research.

"This is actually laudable, that women and their families choose to make fetal tissue donations in order to potentially save the lives of other folks", Cecile Richards says (as quoted in the article excerpted above).

How exactly fetal tissue is used for medicine (excerpt from a 7/17/2015 CNN article by Carina Storrs) Fetal tissue has been used since the 1930s for vaccine development, and more recently to help advance stem cell research and treatments for degenerative diseases such as Parkinson's disease. Researchers typically take tissue samples from a fetus that has been aborted (under conditions permitted by law) and grow cells from the tissue in Petri dishes. One of the earliest advances with fetal tissue was to use fetal kidney cells to create the first poliovirus vaccines, which are now estimated to save 550,000 lives worldwide every year. There are also a number of clinical research studies that are investigating whether transplanting different types of fetal tissue into patients could help them recover from diseases, similar to the practice of organ donation. One such study is testing fetal eye (retinal) tissue as a possible treatment for retinitis pigmentosa, a disease that can lead to blindness.

So we're probably talking about millions of lives saved. I bet that, if all the benefits to society that have been gained by this research suddenly vanished (along with the people whose lives were saved), Dennis (as well as the "Center for Medical Progress" idiots) would beg for PP to "chop up kids" in order to get these benefits and lives back.

And, remember that, if the harvesting of fetal tissue for research were outlawed, abortion would still be legal. So all that valuable (for research) tissue would simply go in the trash. But, of course these nuts want to outlaw abortion. They're simply trying to shock people with this LEGAL issue of the sale (at no profit) of the tissue for research. Shock them by lying about PP making a profit, which they are not. And that is the very important "excuse", as that is the law... YOU MORON DENNIS!

As for this business that "harms the young" that Dennis refers to... no such business exists. One of the functions of the non-profit organization PP, is to provide a legal medical procedure to women who elect or require it. Zygotes and fetuses may be "young", but they have yet to be born (which may not even be possible for medical reasons) and don't have the same rights as a born person. Dennis may disagree with the law (even though I've never seen him say he thinks abortion should be illegal), but that law, as it currently stands, says abortion (with some limitations) is legal.

Dennis is utilizing "appeal to emotion", which "is a logical fallacy characterized by the manipulation of the recipient's emotions in order to win an argument, especially in the absence of factual evidence". The factual evidence that is absent here is that PP is doing anything illegal.

And it's a really good thing that the Hyde Amendment, which was put in place to appease anti-choicers by stopping the government from being involved in assisting lower-income women get the medical care they require, isn't interpreted as a direct subsidy to the "abortion industry". Even though this "industry" doesn't exist. But if the Hyde Amendment were interpreted that way... it would be really bad for lower-income women. Because the result would be an increase in back alley abortions and women dying because of them. As well as women dying due to complications/complicated pregnancies.

But poor women dying is not something radical anti-choicers like Dennis care about. F*ck those women. They made bad life choices (being poor) and deserve to die. This is the mindset of those like Dennis... make no mistake about it. A mindset I disagree with strongly. Which is why I support getting rid of it. It's "too bad" the Hyde amendment exists at all, IMO.

But it does exist and it does prevent any of PP's federal monies from going toward paying for any abortions. Which is why PP subsidizes abortion services for poor women via private donations. Zero federal dollars are used to fund abortions... which represents 3 percent of what PP does, despite another liar on the comment thread (the one I pulled Dennis' comment from) saying "performing abortions are by far the majority of their services". No, sorry, that's a lie. (a lie repeated by O'Reilly in the video below).

As is this second comment from Dennis. A lie. Actually, this one is FILLED with lies.

Dennis Marks: The abortion industry thrives on people not knowing what they do. PP is very extreme, and greedy: they demand tax money to to be used to harm unborn children all the way up to newborns. It's run by sickos who get their jollies killing as many of the unborn as possible. Do they need to engage in their deadly sadism on the public dime? (7/31/2015 AT 12:33pm).

PP provides critical women's health services across the US to needy and lower-income women. That is the OPPOSITE of "sadism". PP is doing good work that I, as a Christian, support fully. Dennis is the one who does not know what PP does. As I pointed out above, the idiocy that spews from his pie-hole thrives on this extraordinary ignorance.

Killing a newborn would be murder, btw. And it is something no PP doctor has EVER (as far as I know) been charged with. (Kermit Gosnell, an abortion doctor who was convicted of murdering three infants who were born alive during attempted abortion procedures and sentenced to life in prison, did not work for PP).

Video: Juan Williams acts as the voice of reason VS 2 other Fox dumb-dumbs who have no idea what Planned Parenthood does or how Obamacare Works. Video from Media Matters (8:11).

Update 8/2/2015: In regards to Dennis referring to the alleged ACORN "election fraud scam"... Dennis is lying, as usual. See my debunking of his baloney here. (SWTD #300: ACORN Target Of GOP Lies Because They Registered Voters).

TADM #77

Is The Phallophilic Dennis Marks Sticking His Firearm In His Naughty Place?

Awhile ago Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) revealed himself to have a sick obession known as fecalphelia, which (with Dennis) takes the form of him referring to my comments on other blogs as "defecation" and filtering out these "floaters" (my remarks) as "flushing". In another comment re removing my comments Dennis tells the blog host that "it is time to wipe". (a reference, yet again, to a toilet function).

In another comment that is even more disgusting Dennis says "WD is blowing shit out of his mouth". Sick, right? But that isn't the end of Dennis' many sicknesses.

In addition to his fecalphelia, Dennis is a confirmed phallophile, which (with Dennis) takes the form of an obsession with "weinergrams" and the delusion that I have sent him such images (photos of my genitalia), which I absolutely NEVER have.

This same phile has Dennis picking up on another blogger's use of the word "beef" (re the "feud" between dmarks and I) and using it in another connotation. One that reveals where his obsessions lie.

Dennis Marks: Mr Sanders' link to to his fanboy blog proves nothing more than his mancrush obsession, as he failed to find any lies to call me out for. His "long standing beef" is still hanging out. (4/10/2015 AT 7:38am).

The "fanboy blog" that Dennis refers to is THIS blog. He thinks my criticisms of him here amount to me being his "fan".

In any case, in reply to this comment in which Dennis imagines a "man crush" that does not exist, I said "you're imagining my beef hanging out RIGHT NOW, aren't you? I think dmarks needs to find himself a boyfriend".

It is comments like these have led me to believe that Dennis might be a closeted gay man. (probably self-hating).

Which brings me to the comment that caused me to believe that Dennis might be doing something inappropriate with his gun. Should he own one. Previously he indicated that he did not own one, but was thinking about making a purchase (from a gun show or private seller... so the government was unaware of his acquisition).

It was in the following comment where his phallophilia and gun nuttery collided, although (of course) he (again) projected his sick obsessions onto me. (Note: Comment by another blogger included, as what Dennis sez is in response to it).

Jersey McJones: I'd rather be a hoplophobe than a phallophile. ;) (7/29/2015 AT 1:06am). Dennis Marks: Dervish Sanders is both, while you are not, Jersey. (7/29/2015 AT 5:49am).

This comment, in which Dennis sez I have an "irrational aversion to weapons" (the definition of "holophobia") and sez I am also a phallophile, did not last long. Dennis quickly deleted it... likely because he realized it said more about his own obsessions than it said anything about the proprietor of this blog.

I was able to pull up the Google cached page and grab a screenshot, however. A screenshot that I have appended to the end of this commentary. (Note: Google cached pages are regularly updated, so the link I just gave may or may not show the deleted comment. It depends on how much time has passed between the date of the publication of this post and when you click the link).

In regards to the Jersey McJones comment... I think he makes a very good point. Which is that many of these gun nuts may be making up for an "equipment" deficiency with a big gun. A desire that presents itself as an obsession with, and a need to possess one or many guns.

Now, on the blog where this exchange took place, Libertas and Latte, the blog host focuses almost exclusively on defending gun rights against (what he calls) the "the gun control cabal".

Referencing the Jersey comment, the proprietor of the Latte blog (a blog where there are zero commentaries about coffee and only the "libertas" for anyone to as many guns as they desire) makes the same connection I just made (a connection between how some nutters might view firearms in a "homoerotic" light).

Constitutional Insurgent: ...the gun control camp cannot seem to proffer an argument without invoking laughable memes and buzz phrases about the "eeeevil NRA" or odd homoerotic projections comparing firearms to the phallus... (7/30/2015 AT 7:40am).

Homoerotic you say? All I've heard is that a gun might substitute a for straight man's insecurity regarding their manhood. But Latte's mind goes to "homoerotic". Maybe he's talking about himself without knowing it? Who knows?

I do know that Dennis has made many comments in the past that indicate to me that he may be a closeted gay man. In another comment on another blog Dennis said (referring to me) "he loves to compose graphic lube-dripping gay-sex comments". However this reference to something I've never done is (I think) more projection.

In fact it seems that lubing up that area (so something can be inserted) is an act that is on Dennis' mind constantly. In another discussion Dennis levied a bogus charge of anti-semitism against the Occupy movement based on a YouTube video starring someone who calls himself "Lotion Man". Dennis provided a link to this video in his comment, and I therefore assumed that he had looked at it and knew the "anti-semite" he was referring to called himself "Lotion Man".

However, when I responded to Dennis' comment linking to the Lotion Man video, he responded back with a comment that made it clear he had no idea who "Lotion Man" was. Even though this was the dude making the anti-semitic comments. In a video that Dennis linked to. Instead he assumes (when I refer to Lotion Man) that I'm talking about something else.

Dennis Marks: I have no idea about Mr. Sander's lotions. It's probably something perverted again, and I don't want to think about it. (2/1/2014 10:28:00 PM EST).

So why does his mind go there? Frankly I think it's because Dennis was (again) imagining my "beef". Imagining my "beef" with lotion on it and me inserting it somewhere Dennis would find pleasurable. Which, if that's Dennis' thing, is OK (or none of my business). Although I've informed him previously that it isn't MY thing and that he should stop including me in his fantasies. I mean, he CLEARLY was thinking about it, as that is where his mind went immediately. Despite the fact that I was talking about the subject in the video HE LINKED TO!

So... did Dennis finally realize that his fantasies regarding yours truly were just that... fantasies that were never going to happen? And did Dennis then look elsewhere to fulfill his needs? Clearly (being in the closet) he was too embarrassed to go looking for a boyfriend.

Instead (to fulfill these desires) he uses a gun instead of a dildo? I think so. I think Dennis' gun became an object of sexual attraction and he wanted his gun to "do" him. I conclude this based on the evidence as laid out above.

Obviously it would be better for Dennis if he came out of the closet and found himself that boyfriend he wants. Better because there wouldn't be a danger of him firing a bullet up his ass.

I assume he sticks his gun up his poop shoot with the safety OFF (and his finger on the trigger) because he finds the excitement of possibly killing himself necessary in order to climax.

I could be wrong... but I think there is a very strong case that Dennis is engaging in this exceedingly risky behavior. The gun-obsessed Latte man alludes to the "homoerotic" act, although I'm sure he does so with no thought in his mind about Dennis defiling his firearm in this manner. Even though that might very well be exactly what Dennis is doing.

Video: "You can go on YouTube and find me, The Lotion Man", the subject of this video says (near the end). This is the Clip that shows "Anti-Semitism at Occupy Wall Street Protest"... which Dennis thinks proves the entire movement is anti-Semitic (2:20).

Supporting Document
Perverted Phallophile's Homoerotic Homoerotica Featuring Noam Chomsky Nude, DSD #12.

TADM #76

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