Russia’s “Hypocrisy” on Crimea and the World’s Buyer’s Remorse on Kosovo

By: Julia Gorin
Republican Riot

One recurring theme over the past two years of the Crimea affair has been the invocation of Kosovo by reporters and pundits who barely remember the word. Surprisingly, Geraldo Rivera — despite having flown a helicopter for America’s terrorist allies the KLA — invoked Kosovo in the proper context on “The O’Reilly Factor,” saying, “Like it or not, Kosovo was the precedent for this.”

But more often, the attempt is to counter the Crimea-Kosovo analogy, and sometimes it’s a strained attempt to accuse Russia of hypocrisy for supporting Crimean separatism (as with South Ossetian, Abkhazian, and Transdniestrian), while having been against Albanian separatism in Kosovo.

One instance came this past February, in an otherwise fine article by former Herald Tribune columnist Jonathan Power:

Please put your hand up if you support giving lethal arms to the Ukrainian army and also supported the US going to war with Iraq in 2003 and with Libya in 2011, the former which unbalanced much of the Middle East and the latter which has left a country almost destroyed, semi-ruled by malicious militias. Also raise your hand if you supported in 1999 the West going to war against Serbia in order to wrest away its province of Kosovo and give it independence — a move which ironically Russia opposed, arguing that this would set a precedent for territorial separation by force of arms. If you supported all these three interventions don’t take offence if I question your judgment on the issue of arms for Ukraine.

Excellent points all. I just need to address the use of “ironically,” which others have also used when describing Russia’s position on Kosovo in contrast to its positions since. (In addition to a bit of it in 2008, in March of last year, for example, Patrick Goodenough of cnsnews.com wrote, “Ironically, the same government now invoking a Kosovo ‘precedent’ led the international opposition to Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence….Moscow warned the move would embolden separatist movements everywhere; the U.S. insisted that Kosovo was a unique case, and that it set no legal precedent.”)

Payback is a bitch. It’s not “irony.”

If you’re giving someone a taste of their own medicine — of the reality they created against better sense; if you’re demonstrating the peril and instability that playing with borders and reordering the world invites — which you’ve spent more than a decade imploring them to reconsider — your original position doesn’t retroactively become “ironic.”

Unless a writer is only now waking up to Kosovo, and is naturally all confused about how we got to Here. Here is where Russia gets to show the West what can happen in this messy new world, and why Russia was against it to begin with. Only the perk Here is that, unlike Kosovo — where America had no national interest — Russia (and others) can invoke the foul precedent in cases that do serve its national interest (and aren’t nearly as destructive as ‘Kosova’). How devious.

If the U.S. is willing to embolden worldwide separatism by setting a precedent — while unilaterally proclaiming it a “non-precedent” and reserving it the “unique case” designation despite more justifiable and deserving separatism — Russia can help make that happen. If you’ve squandered your “special” button on something that wasn’t even in your national interest, don’t blame Russia for going about it more smartly. We sure make it easy for Russia to look clever, while working day and night to make it look sinister.

Russia is making a point. That it can help you reap the fruits of your labor. Why do only we get in on the world-redesign? Russia can paint too. Especially since it’s better at coloring within lines, unlike the messy finger-painting we’ve been doing.

So, the separatism that Russia supports today isn’t a contradiction of the whole Kosovo affair, it’s a continuation. And a continuum.

Although the following may be giving Russia too much credit, every self-determination case it supports may also serve as an invitation for Washington and Brussels to come back to sanity. A sort of mutable tough-love olive branch that can remorph back into enmity if that’s what the West continues to choose. In the case of Kosovo specifically, even though Washington and its Albanian masters would have us think it’s a fait accompli, reversal is possible. Especially with all the buyer’s remorse that’s been voiced internationally. If that leads to the “disbanded” KLA retaking up arms again — this time against our troops as they repeatedly threatened to do throughout the early post-war years — then maybe it’s time Washington learned to fight actual enemies, as opposed to inventing ones like Serbia and Russia.

Nor is it just a case of Russia self-fulfilling its own prophecy about a domino effect, as we can see not only from Palestinian invocations at the UN of the Kosovo precedent, but also from the plethora of irredentist and self-determination movements asserting themselves since Kosovo’s February 2008 UDI.

As for this wanton reordering of the world, it’s not just an issue of shifting European borders, which the world agreed after WWII to not do (and today’s statesmen re-profess it at every chance, adding, “Just as soon as we get this Kosovo thing done.”) It’s also an attitude, one that has manifested in Washington-led actions turning international norms on their head. In an email back-and-forth over the past year, Balkans observer Nebojsa Malic put it this way:

Russia’s view of the world is that there is an order, established at the end of WW2, for which they’ve paid with millions of lives (and we with hundreds of thousands). Even through the Cold War, it mostly held together.

The assumption in 1991 was that the US and NATO would adhere to this order — which is why the Russians agreed to dismantle the Soviet Union. Instead, the US violated it, essentially saying “the law don’t apply to us, just you,” and went nuts. Bombing, regime-changing, color-revolutionizing and “reforming” everyone to Hell and gone. Terrorizing the world is bad. When it’s a self-appointed cop doing it, that’s worse.

Moscow asked nicely, over and over again, if the West — from London and Berlin to Washington — was really, really sure it wanted to do this. What they got was “We are the Empire, we make the rules, obey or perish.” Also a resurgence of U.S.-backed Nazis (Croatia, Ukraine, etc).

The American perspective is that the order became “obsolete” in 1991, when its constraints prevented the untrammeled use of American “leadership” — so America decided to selectively dismantle it. Even though that’s the very order that gives its power any actual legitimacy, as a victor of WW2 who defined the international order (setting up the UN, Bretton Woods, World Bank etc).

The “we beat the Nazis so we can do whatever” excuse wore out over time. For two reasons: a) the Soviets did the disproportionate amount of actually beating the Nazis; and b) writing the law doesn’t put one above it.

Russians have been grumbling about all this since 1999 — but for years they weren’t in a position to do much about it. The US backing Nazis in Kiev, of all places, was the last straw, considering the Soviets had 27 million dead fighting that beast back in the 1940s…

In the Russian view, there is room on this planet for everyone, so long as they don’t trespass. In the American view, there is room on this planet only for those who play ball. The rest will submit or die. How very like some folks we know…

And then, as icing on the cake, the West deliberately snubbed the last major celebration of Victory Day that any veterans may still be alive for (don’t reckon many will be around 5 years hence). Some insults one just cannot forgive.

So while US hipsters mark “VE Day” by dressing up in 1940s costumes left over from the set of Captain America, and organize a half-our air spectacle named “Arsenal of Democracy,” millions of Russians march with the photographs of their parents and grandparents who fought in the war, and call them the “Immortal Regiment.”

Three guesses as to who I think will win.

Indeed, one eye-roller for my Russo-loathing parents has always been the popularly held Russian sentiment that some great destiny awaits Russia. I fear America may finally show Russia the way to it, just by wreaking so much havoc. But I also fear that in the end the destiny will be the opposite of great.

In Nebojsa’s analysis above, I would only replace the word “Washington” where “America” appears, since America and Americans are not represented by the Washingtonians. “American” behavior in the past 20 years has been anything but, and there is a huge disconnect between Washington and Americans, like so many third-worlders led around by the nose by their leaders, until it ends in anguish for the masses when the consequences of their leaders’ policies arrive. We sometimes dismiss it with, “People get the leaders they deserve.” Let’s remember that when it comes our time to pay the price for Washington’s foreign misadventures, something we’ve already had a taste of.

Meanwhile, the 70-year snub — complete with the spectacle of Washington telling world leaders to boycott Russia’s observances (which backfired when the Czech president kicked out baby ambassador Andrew Schapiro and reaffirmed that his visit would be a thank-you to Russia “for not having to speak German in this country” — was foreshadowed three years earlier by Nebojsa in his “Victory Day” article:

[W]hen you look at the EU, it resembles nothing so much as what Nazi slogans described as the “European family of nations” working together for the prosperity of all. The whole endeavor has roots in National-Socialism…Then there is the bizarre situation that the map of Europe today looks suspiciously like the one from 1942, and all of Hitler’s allies in the Balkans are now the staunchest allies of the American Empire. In that corner of Europe, at least, WW2 is still being fought. Only this time, the Luftwaffe and the panzers are supposedly the “good guys”.

The newly reunited Germany, the nascent European Union and the rising American Empire [risen, but overreaching] all saw an opportunity in dismembering Yugoslavia. What followed was an eerie re-run of the 1940s carnage. Croatia’s [1990s] “democratic” president, Franjo Tudjman, led an NDH [WWII Croatia] revival — but because he was allied with the U.S. and not Hitler this time around, he succeeded where his predecessor failed. In Bosnia, Alija Izetbegovic had Washington’s support to make a bid for an Islamic state, causing a bloodbath when both Serbs and Croats objected. Albanians were likewise armed and supported to re-establish the “Natural Albania” of 1941-45.

But the cruelest twist was that these [actual Nazi heirs] accused the Serbs of Nazism — and their PR flacks used Communist propaganda to do so….Who would have ever thought to see American bombers, German tanks and Communist propaganda working together towards a goal Hitler once had: to crush Serbia as an example to others.

When Hitler invaded, Yugoslavia had been rotten already. Croats actually greeted the Wehrmacht with flowers. Few have dared ask how Tito could have put Yugoslavia back together, after all that. Yet the answer is very simple: he allowed many of the Nazi collaborators to change their uniforms at the last moment, defecting to the winning team….No wonder only Russia still celebrates Victory Day. In the rest of Europe, it’s Hitler’s ghost that rejoices.

Earlier I mentioned there being buyer’s remorse on a global scale over Kosovo independence. Below is a sad snippet of the character of these regrets over recent years (though much has since been resolved in Kosovo’s favor, naturally). The backtracking has come even from the Vatican, which had stood at the forefront of almost every Balkans separation (Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosovo):

“Vatican will not recognize Kosovo” (B92, March 21, 2013)

The Vatican will not recognize Kosovo, claims Serbian Foreign Minister Ivan Mrkić, adding that some countries could rescind their decisions to recognize Kosovo.

Mrkić told daily Večernje novosti that Serbian officials had been assured that the Vatican would not change its stance on Kosovo…When asked why he thought that some countries could rescind their decisions to recognize Kosovo, Mrkić said:

Some countries have already done it. Sao Tome and Principe has annulled the decision to recognize Kosovo’s unilaterally declared independence. Mali was for a long time among the countries that recognized Kosovo on all sites until their president sent a letter to the public stating it was not true,” he explained, adding that it was quite possible that more countries would rescind their recognition.

A possibility indeed, if one couldn’t count on arm-twisting by Washington. Several countries at the 2011 Non-Aligned Movement summit described the enormous and constant pressure from the U.S., Britain, and France, “depending on whose former colonies they were.” (Also illustrating first-world desperation over Kosovo — in addition to America’s begging tours in places like Bangladesh — is the way its mighty representatives pounce on every new recognition, no matter by how obscure a country, principality or island. Such as when recognition was announced in February 2009 by Maldives — which had been considering de-recognizing amid a probe into whether officials took a $2 million bribe for recognition — “US secretary of state Hillary Clinton thanked Maldives for its decision…[and] welcomed [Foreign Minister] Shaheed’s efforts to encourage other countries to support Kosovo.”)

Here was Italy three years after Kosovo’s unilateral declaration, and three months after the Council of Europe’s revelations about the KLA’s murder-for-organs business:

Kosovo is mistake, Italian MEP says (B92, March 27, 2011)

MEP Pinno Arlacchi has said that Kosovo is the international community’s biggest mistake in the past 12 years, adding that [the] EULEX mission is a complete failure… “We created a mafia state and we care only about not letting the truth come out,” the Italian MEP added…[T]he EU and the international community should stop having a false image of Kosovo as a stable place.

“…The political situation in Kosovo and the fact that organized crime dominates its territory represent a huge threat to the security of the EU and the regional countries, even Albania,” said Arlacchi…who actively took part in the creation of Italy’s structures for combating mafia in the 1980s. “EULEX has been a complete failure. They have no strategy or idea what to do, and they did not take into account Europe’s experience in combating organized crime,” he underscored.

Remorse by Poland came a year after the declaration of independence:

Kaczynski: Polish Recognition was a Mistake
President of Poland Firmly Against Severing Kosovo from Serbia
(May 14, 2009)

…While visiting Belgrade on Wednesday [President Lech] Kaczynski said he, along with Polish opposition, is against the decision of Donald Tusk’s government to recognize southern Serbian province of Kosovo as an independent state…[and] also openly backed the policy of the Serbian government and President Tadic in regards to the preservation of southern Kosovo-Metohija province.

According to polls, the majority of Polish people share President Kaczynski’s firm position that Poland should not have backed Pristina Albanians’ unilateral declaration of independence. Apart from Poland’s president, one of the most prominent voices on [the] Polish and EU political scene fiercely opposed to the wanton mutilation of [the] Serbian state is Sylwester Chruszcz, a Member of the European Parliament and President of the League of Polish Families, who didn’t hesitate to declare the recognition of UDI by Albanian secessionists in the Serbian province was a “fatal mistake”, nor to remind that, regardless of the illegal individual recognitions, “Kosovo is Serbia”.

The government of Premier Tusk characterized a decision to recognize a mafia state on Serbian territory — which it called “difficult” — as boiling down to a “choice Poland had to make between its key allies in the European Union on the one side and aligning with Russia on the other.”

Meanwhile, here is where the Czechs were on “Independence Day” in 2008:

Czech lawmakers ask intl. community to support Serbia (B92, Feb. 17, 2008)

…The letter stresses that international law and the rule of law, although imperfect, “are the only wall standing between us and the rule of evil, the only wall capable of diminishing the rules of jungle in international relations.”

The current Kosovo status crisis is seen as an example of a breach of both these basic elements of civilization.

They remind that the valid UN SC Resolution 1244, adopted in 1999, defines Kosovo as an autonomous territory of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, SRJ, and thus guaranties its successor-state, Serbia, territorial integrity.

“Obviously, the U.S. and Europe are using two different yardsticks: one for Serbia, another for Kosovo, Croatia — where the Serb population was exiled from their homes in Slavonia and Krajina — and Turkey, with its fight against ‘Kurdish separatism’,” the letter continued.

The Czech lawmakers and former statesmen believe that Serbia’s offer of a broad autonomy is the only possible solution within the known principles of morality and law.

“A violent, internationally legitimized secession of this historic province from the Republic of Serbia would make a dangerous precedent for small states in Europe and beyond,” the appeal concluded. […]

In 2010, analyst Rick Rozoff pointed out that “The EU nations that led the drive to recognize Kosovo’s secession were Britain, France, Germany and Italy, the same four countries that met in Munich 70 years earlier to cede the Sudetenland and then all of Czechoslovakia to Nazi Germany.”

In a sad twist, the Czech Republic itself joined that pathetic crowd, answering not to its outraged public, but to international diktat:

Czech President: “How Ashamed I Am Of Czech Kosovo Recognition” (B92, May 24, 2008)

…”I was very upset by the words of Ambassador Vereš, who said that Serbs did not take personally Kosovo recognitions by countries such as Finland, Holland or Germany, but that the Czech government’s move hurt them,” Klaus wrote in an article for Mlada Fronta Dnes daily, which he entitled, “How ashamed I was”.

The Czech president reminded that he personally cannot be at peace with the recognition, and that for this reason he decided to receive Vereš, which the diplomats describe as a highly unusual move….He added that Vereš reminded him of several key moments in the common history of the two nations.

“The ambassador’s father studied in Prague after the war, to be sent home by our authorities after 1948, because he would not renounce Tito in favor of Stalin,” Klaus continued…[A]s the Warsaw Pact troops entered Czechoslovakia in 1968, Yugoslavia was the only country to declare its own mobilization.

The Czech government’s decision to recognize the unilateral independence, which Serbia rejects as illegal, has caused a storm in the local political scene, which continues unabated for the third day.

The leader of the Czech communists, Vojteh Filip, said last night… “Legally, the Czech decision to recognize Kosovo will be finalized once the president appoints the Czech ambassador to Priština. We have asked Vaclav Klaus to block the appointment of Janjina Hžebičkova,” Filip explained.

Czech: request to cancel the recognition of Kosmet independence (June 14, 2008)

Vice President of the Czech Parliament House of Commons Wojtech Fillip has stated that he has prepared a proposal for MPs to vote on the cancellation of Governmentʼs decision to recognize the unilaterally proclaimed independence of Kosmet. While stressing that the decision of the Government in Prague is contrary to the international law, Filip underlined that this act should be put out of power in a legal manner, and that the current authorities should be disabled from making moves without the consensus of the majority of citizens, MPs and politicians…The legal cancellation of governmentʼs decision would represent a positive precedent not only in Czech, but in the whole Europe, as it would send a message that the recognition of Kosmet independence means a huge jeopardy for the international legal system in the whole world, emphasized Wojtech Filip.

Favorite to win Czech elections calls Kosovo “terrorist” (B92, DANAS, Jan. 24, 2013)

…Speaking for the ČTK news agency, [Miloš Zeman] said that if elected, he would “not allow a Czech ambassador to be sent to Priština”.

“I would withdraw even the charge d’affaires that is there now, let alone send an ambassador. I consider Kosovo a terrorist regime financed by narco-mafias,” Belgrade-based daily Danas is quoting Zeman as saying.

It was the opposition of the outgoing president, Vaclav Klaus, that prevented the appointment of an ambassador in Priština, although the Czech Republic is among the 22 of EU’s 27 nations that have recognized Kosovo.

Also experiencing at least momentary buyer’s remorse was racing-to-recognize Switzerland:

There are also concerns about the Swiss position and the fact that some politicians have been calling for the country to retract recognition for Kosovo – after being one of the first to recognise it.

Media Question Wisdom of Recognising Kosovo (Swiss Info, Dec. 17, 2010)

Does Switzerland bear a responsibility for the legitimacy of the Kosovo government, given it was one of the first nations to recognise Kosovo’s independence?

There have been criticisms expressed in the Swiss media this week of Switzerland’s diplomatic move, following a Council of Europe report accusing Kosovo’s leader of heading a mafia-style organisation.

According to [Swiss politician] Dick Marty, the European Union, the United States and the United Nations were all aware of the crimes committed by the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), but turned a blind eye in favour of short-term stability.

His report accuses Thaci of being the head of an organised crime ring during the Kosovo Albanian guerrilla war against Serbia in the late 1990s – a ring that assassinated opponents and trafficked in drugs as well as organs harvested from murdered Serbs.

And newspapers like Geneva’s Le Temps took Switzerland to task. On Thursday, it said that Switzerland was following and even encouraging the trend of quasi-absolving crimes committed by the Albanians…. “How blind! How could such a careful country that insists on human rights be so partisan,” asked Le Temps.

In Le Temps’ view, Switzerland carries a larger part of the burden than other countries on account of its connections with the KLA. […]

Hit with a war just five months after Kosovo’s unilateral secession, Georgia too lapsed into self-preserving sanity:

Georgian Opposition Wants U.S. To Renounce Recognition Of Kosovo (Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Nov. 5, 2009)

…Labor Party Secretary-General Joseph Shatberashvili…says that Labor Party leaders believe that if Washington would revoke its recognition of Kosovo’s independence it would cause Russia to reconsider its decision to recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states.

Shatberashvili said that after the talks in the United States, Natelashvili — who is known as one of Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili’s “most consistent critics” — will travel to Moscow to hold similar talks with Russian officials.

Moscow recognized the Georgian republics as independent countries after a brief war with Georgia in August 2008. […]

As well, an MEP from one of Washington’s chief cohorts in the Kosovo affair spoke up belatedly:

MEP Van Orden: ‘Not happy’ about Kosovo outcome (EurActive, April 9, 2008)

British Conservative MEP and foreign affairs committee member Geoffrey Van Orden believes greater autonomy for Kosovo within Serbia would have been a better solution, strengthening reformists in Serbia and improving Western relations with Russia…

“I’m not happy personally about the outcome in Kosovo. I’m not sure that was the best we could come to and I think we should have tried harder to find a way to give Kosovo greater autonomy within Serbia. I’m not looking for ways to make relationships with Russia more difficult than they are. On the contrary, I want good relations with Russia and I think it’s in Russia’s strategic interest to have good relations with the West. I don’t see a lot of point in just finding issues which are going to put Russia on a different side to ourselves, and this is one of them. And after all, we are not dealing with a Serbia ruled by Milosevic, we are dealing with a democratically elected government in Serbia, and it seems very strange, that now that we have a democratically elected government, that we kick them in the most sensitive place.”

Even one of the chief architects of reversing WWII in 1990s Yugoslavia, Germany, had a former official with second thoughts (after laying the groundwork for what he’s complaining about):

Former German chancellor terms recognition of Kosovo an error (India — Top News, May 5, 2008)

In an interview with Russian state news agency RIA Novosti, Schroeder said the declaration had come too early and was thus wrong…It had created new problems without solving old ones, he said. The European Union had succumbed to pressure from the United States on the Kosovo issue. […]

(Though really, Schroeder was more concerned that the fast pace could hurt the future of Serb compliance: “Former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder says that EU member-states have been too quick in recognizing Kosovo’s unilateral independence….he hoped that the EU would realize its responsibility for leaving Serbia’s pro-European forces out on a limb.”)

Any Kosovo recognizers feeling genuine buyer’s remorse would find support from non-recognizers Romania, Spain, Greece and Slovakia, that last one reaffirming its non-recognition in June 2013:

“Consensus in Slovakia not to recognize Kosovo” (B92, June 5, 2013)

Slovak Foreign Minister Miroslav Lajčak has told the Tanjug news agency…that his country would not recognize Kosovo…Commenting on the announcement of Romanian Prime Minister Victor Ponta that he will discuss possible recognition of Kosovo with his Slovak counterpart Robert Fico, Lajčak said:

“When people ask me whether Slovakia will change its position or why it still has not changed the stance, I ask them if they heard any politician, read any article, heard any journalist, representative of a non-governmental organization or a citizen say that Slovakia should recognize Kosovo. They have not.

“This stance is based on a resolution of the Slovak parliament but is also accepted by the entire society…So, when Prime Minister Ponta arrives next week, I am sure he will get the same answer from my prime minister,” Lajčak stressed. […]

Lajcak: Kosovo’s independence is illegitimate (Aug. 12, 2009)

“Kosovo’s decision was based on political instead of legal criteria. Two elements were missing in the process: an agreement between Belgrade and Pristina and legalization of the process through international institutions, mainly the UN Security Council,” said Lajcak…

Here was Romania before its 2013 bout of faltering:

Basescu: “Problem started with Kosovo must be stopped” (Aug. 23, 2008)

… “It is wrong to grant ethnic minorities collective territorial rights,” [Romanian president Traian] Basescu said. “Western forces do not realize this and the consequences are major problems with territorial integrity in the Balkans, the Black Sea region, and in other parts of Europe.” […]

Spanish paper: Mistake called Kosovo (B92, Jan. 24, 2008)

One of Spain’s most influential dailies says that Kosovo’s independence is imminent, and wrong.

“Kosovo will soon declare independence, with the backing of Germany and the United States, despite the fact that the border change was not in keeping with international law, nor EU practice, and Spain is not heard or listened to by anyone in the EU,” ABC said today in an editorial.

“The creation of an independent state for Kosovo Albanians will set a precedent for many parts of Europe with minorities who, often without reason, consider themselves discriminated,” the daily wrote.

The author, [Pedro] Schwarz, pointed out that state borders, “at least in the European continent,” are inviolable, and that this principle was “more important than succumbing to the temptation to create new states in line with ethnic principle.”

The article stressed that Kosovo Albanians, encouraged by the support of the UN special envoy, Martti Ahtisaari, and the promise of independence by the United States and some EU members, “did not show the least readiness to reach a reasonable agreement with Belgrade.”

Kosovo independence was declared rashly: Greek President (FOCUS News Agency, Dec. 3, 2009)

Greek President Karolos Papoulias said in an interview to Czech Pravo newspaper Kosovo independence was declared rashly and the states which have not recognized it are in fact defending their national interests, the Serbian BETA agency informs.

According to him, the international community should have insisted on negotiations between Belgrade and Pristina to continue because the plan of the UN envoy Martin Ahtisaari has been prepared “hastily”…Kosovo will be a center of conflicts. […]

Meanwhile, on the eve of the declaration itself: Former NATO commander in Kosovo General Fabio Mini: RECOGNITION OF KOSOVO INDEPENDENCE A BIG MISTAKE (Serbian Press Agency SRNA, Feb. 16, 2008)

“If the UN recognizes Kosovo, tomorrow everyone will have the right to ask for the same: Northern Ireland, the Chechens, the Basques, etc.,” assessed Mini. The Italian general does not understand the international community’s hurry to recognize the unilateral proclamation…because, he said, a few years is not enough for such processes.

In an interview for the Milan daily “Corriere dela Serra”…[Mini] assessed that Italy would be making “a horrible mistake” if it recognized Kosovo, even bigger than its recognition in record time of Croatia in 1992. “The independence of Kosovo [will] only serve the ruling clans….”

Lot of mistakes done to Serbia by European States, diplomat (Serbianna.com, Aug. 5, 2008)

Former Italian foreign minister Gianni de Mikelis, who is also a member of the European Parliament, said…that recognition…was a mistake, as well as the sending of the EULEX mission to Kosovo. According to him, it is evident that Kosovo will not become a UN member, as the majority in the General Assembly, not only China and Russia, would be against it. Serbia will not allow admission of Kosovo in the UN, but it cannot go backwards either, and such a situation creates instability and [a] problem for the whole of Europe.

UPDATE: After letting the cat out of the bag in January 2013 that UN membership for Kosovo — as well as Serbia’s recognition of Kosovo — are indeed part of the grand plan — then trying to stuff the cat back in — the Reich asserted itself: March 25, 2013 — Germany Urges Serbia to Allow Kosovo UN Seat:

[N]ormalization of the relations between Kosovo and Serbia should eventually include a UN seat for Kosovo… “If the situation developed this way, we in Bundestag would be ready to tolerate [Serbia’s] failure to fulfill some of the additional conditions.”

UPDATE: In case we hadn’t guessed, “normalizing relations” now also means what Europe has been impossibly swearing it wouldn’t:

March 28, 2013 — Serbia Must Recognise Kosovo: “German MEP Elmar Brok said neither Serbia nor Kosovo can hope to join the European Union if they have not recognised each other first.” What’s more, longstanding UN member Serbia and the newest non-state Kosovo “’should join the EU at the same time’, in order to avoid a situation similar to that between Macedonia and Greece, whereby Serbia could ‘use the veto to obstruct Kosovo’s membership in the union.’”

Explanation of how it works: “Whenever the both sides are urged to negotiate, it is mostly…to get the Serbs to accept something…more things leading to Serbia recognizing Kosovo.”

You don’t have to be Russian to be infuriated.


Forum: Is it Time To Replace The GOP? Would You Support A New Party?

The Watcher’s Council

Every week on Monday morning, the Council and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher’s Forum with short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture or daily living. This week’s question: Is it Time To Replace The GOP? Would You Support A New Party?

The Noisy Room: I am very close to that pivot shift. The tipping point for me will be the nomination for 2016. If a true conservative does not clinch the nomination due to RINO machinations, then I will swing to a Third Party, consequences be damned. There will be those who say, if you do that, Hillary Clinton is assured the ascendency. My reply to that is if someone such as Jeb Bush is nominated, Hillary Clinton or the likes of Bernie Sanders will win anyway and we have nothing to lose anymore. I truly believe if a candidate such as Ted Cruz is forced to run on a Third Party ticket, he stands an excellent chance of winning – barring voter fraud and being assassinated by the powers-that-be.

I believe a new Civil Rights movement has just been born out of this week’s Supreme Court rulings. The end of our Constitutional government is upon us with lawless rulings from the bench and the dissolution of the three branches of government into one monstrously corrupt executive behemoth. Leaders will now rise in that movement and Ted Cruz will almost certainly be one of them. He is one of the few with the stones to stand and tell it like it is. He is also a master debater and won’t be silenced. I am joining with other Constitutionalists out there such as Trevor Loudon, James Simpson, Cliff Kincaid, Wild Bill, the Black Robe Regiment and many, many others calling for civil resistance. We will not comply. A third party could very well be at the forefront of the resistance. As Daniel Greenfield of Sultan Knish penned it, be the best saboteur you can be.

The Independent Sentinel: I always said that I would wait until 2016 to give up on Republicans and I would prefer to do that. They are our only hope and they haven’t had the majority they need to overrule Barack Obama on anything except those bills that liberals like.

Oddly, when the Democrats held power, they got what they wanted and now that they don’t hold power, they get what they want. The establishment refuses to use the power of the purse. It appears that the Republican establishment is too weak-willed to fight back, think keeping their jobs is the prime objective, or maybe they are just as liberal as the Democrats.

The establishment is now punishing Conservatives who do what their constituents want over their demands. We see Mitch McConnell ripping into the Confederate flag instead of telling people that flag was a creation of the Democratic party. The list of unappealing Republican establishment responses is endless.

If they don’t cut it out and if they shove a RINO down our throats, then I will join any reasonable movement to start a third party.

JoshuaPundit: I’ve done a lot of thinking about this one, especially as I saw the reaction from all sides to this weeks’ events.

I am by no means a die hard Republican, but I am loyal to certain principles they supposedly represent. I actually hoped that after they won control of congress, we would finally see them do as they promised and uphold those principles again. But we were simply lied to.

I no longer feel it is possible to hijack or take control of the GOP. My own feeling is that this Regime’s unprecedented NSA spying and secret data collection unearthed things certain congressmen, government figures and even perhaps a Supreme Court Justice or two desperately want hidden. After all, this president has used these tactics before, and that kind of leverage would certainly account for his aggressive attitude since the midterms. Whether it’s that or simple cowardice or avarice, it doesn’t matter.

I also no longer see waiting around until 2016 as an option. The time to organize is now, a year and a half before the elections so that cohesive principles can be agreed on, strategy plotted out and lines of communication opened. We need to act to secure the liberty of ourselves and our prosperity, rather than once again depending on the Republican Party (or the Democrats, for that matter) to do it for us.

Doing so gives us a much larger, united seat at the table. And it provides a framework for something new and badly, badly needed.

And another thing to consider… we may need that unity and that structure before 2016. These recent decisions have quite a bit of teeth in them and the way they’re certain to be enforced by the Obama Administration is pretty clear, at least to me.

Laura Rambeau Lee, Right Reason: Those of us who actually care enough about our country to follow politics have come to the realization that both the Democrat and Republican Party no longer represent the American people. Unfortunately, while we grew up, went to work, raised our families, and pursued our personal version of the American Dream, the “trusted servants” we elected to protect our rights and interests were pursuing their own agendas. When we finally realized what was happening we got involved and worked very hard to get professed “conservative” Republicans elected, only to be bitterly disappointed once they took office.

We now know that no one, or very few, of our elected officials are working and looking out for our interests. The Democrat Party has been infiltrated with progressives bent on destroying everything that has made America great, in particular the middle class. The Republicans are no better, beholden to big corporations and bankers, also at the expense of the middle class. The government has become a massive wealth redistribution machine through the confiscatory theft of our hard earned wages via numerous tax and regulatory policies.

After last week’s Supreme Court decisions, it has become even more apparent that activist judges allow their political leanings to color their decisions instead of considering the cases before them with strict scrutiny and interpretation of the Constitution. We are no longer a nation that follows the rule of law or respects the will of the people or state’s rights.

We do need a third party and I would support one. The question is do we have enough time to turn everything around, and who would stand for us and be our voice.

Bookworm Room: To put it bluntly, I think that the Republican Party sucks eggs. It does not represent conservatives. Instead, as James Taranto long-ago said, it represents Leftists who have a slight edge on Democrats when it comes to fiscal conservativism. The GOPers are on board with every single Progressive idea — they just think that we ought to be a little more responsible about paying as we travel down The Road to Serfdom.

Having said that, I think true conservatives lack the critical mass to create a meaningful third party, especially with a pivotal election less than a year and a half away. Moreover, in this technologically driven age, the Republican Party has the infrastructure, and that’s something that can’t quickly be replicated either.

What I’d like to see is a coup without the Republican Party. Not having previously been of a revolutionary frame of mind, I’m not quite sure how to go about doing this, but I would certainly begin with fighting vigorously in the Republican primaries to destroy every RINO, starting with Boehner and McConnell.

Interestingly, an idea that has been picking up more and more traction in the comments section at my own blog is the feeling that, true to his Chicago roots, Obama has been blackmailing people like Boehner, Roberts, and McConnell. Indeed, my readers feel that the prosecution against Hastert was a little warning to all three of them to toe the Obama line with both the trade deal and the Obamacare ruling.

I have to admit that this idea, crazy though it is, seems more and more feasible lately. It certainly explains a lot of the insanity going on at the highest level of Republican governance, including Trey Gowdy’s peculiar inept and slow Benghazi investigation.

It was Sherlock Holmes who said when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. Either that, or I’m getting even more crazy than the Leftists.

The Glittering Eye: In political science there’s something called “Duverger’s law”. That’s the observed tendency of all non-proportional representation, “first past the post” representative democracies to become two party systems. The implication is that any third party is strictly a temporary phenomenon–it won’t be able to stay around long enough to gain any real influence. Add to that the reality that when the electorate is closely divided between the two surviving parties a third party tends to throw elections towards the party it is least like and you’ve got a pretty substantial argument against a third party.

Forty-five years ago I read a very interesting history of the New York State Conservative Party that outlined the circumstances peculiar to New York that made its creation a sensible move and articulated the party’s role: to nudge the Republican Party, in New York at the time very much more liberal than it is now (remember John Lindsay?), in a direction more to its liking. Unless and until we go to a proportional representation system that’s the role I’d see for any third party and I think the Tea Party is filling that role pretty effectively for the Republicans.

Don Surber: Meh.

Ask Marion: It is absolutely time for the GOP to go, as did the Whig party, whom they replaced!

The GOP leadership has stabbed their base, as well as the American people in general, in the back and has sold out to the ruling elite, as have the Democrats. For anyone who doubts that or does not keep up with the day to day treachery in Washington, D.C. please read: The Time For Changing Is Now. The time for change ”is” now, and in order to save America and what freedoms we have left, the change must take place swiftly in the form of not a 3rd party but rather a new replacement party, nullifying the GOP.

The creation of a 3rd party while leaving the GOP in place would just weaken the ability of average Americans to fight for and win back what the Constitution gives us. A new party must replace the Republican party. It is something I have fought supporting for a long time, but the past couple of weeks have proven that we cannot wait any longer.

As Sarah Palin said when she was asked this same question. “;I do not wish to leave the Republican Party, but if they leave me…?!?” Well their leadership seems to be leaving all of us, leaving me no choice but to support a new party to replace them!

Wolf Howling: It is time for a lot of things. One is a complete restructuring of our completely out of control courts. Two is a requirement that no regulation pass into effect until voted on by our elected representatives As to time for a third party, under normal circumstance, the answer would be a resounding yes. The Republican hierarchy are leading the way in enacting Obama’s second term agenda. Having voted Republicans into office in what was a historic wave election, they promptly rolled over and played dead. It is long past time for a third party. Our current crop of Republican congresscritters, as currently constituted, are a fifth column.

That said, we are on the knife’s edge of being so far transformed by Obama and the left, that to support a third party now would be to kiss America – the America envisioned by our Founders and written into our Constitution – goodbye forever. We need to vote for the most conservative candidate – and that appears to me to be either Ted Cruz or Carly Fiorina. We then have to hope against hope that it actually makes a difference in the direction our country is headed.

Well, there you have it.

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum. And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council and the results are posted on Friday morning.

It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere and you won’t want to miss it.

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter… ’cause we’re cool like that, y’know?


The Top Five Most Racist Presidents

By: Renee Nal
New Zeal

Scene from Birth of a Nation movie via NPR

Scene from Birth of a Nation movie via NPR

The most celebrated Democratic presidents are also – by far – the most race-obsessed. These American presidents care much less about content of character than they do about melanin levels. Whether their obsession is how black Americans can help launch the Democrats into power, such as in the case of Lyndon B. Johnson; or if the disdain for the “other” is really just straight-up racism, such as in the case of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the common thread – of progressivism – remains.

5.) Lyndon B. Johnson

Several particularly egregious and racist quotes have been attributed to LBJ. As observed at the Huffington Post, LBJ said in 1948 that President Truman’s civil rights proposal…

…is a farce and a sham…I have voted against the so-called poll tax repeal bill … I have voted against the so-called anti-lynching bill.

So why was LBJ for Republican-passed civil rights legislation in 1964 (a watered-down version of the 1957 civil rights legislation under Eisenhower), but against it in 1948? Just like President Obama, LBJ was evidently not concerned about the plight of black Americans but rather about the continuation of a progressive agenda.

Consider that LBJ’s failed “$20 trillion taxpayer-funded war on poverty” known as the Orwellion-sounding “great society” program has been the single greatest contributor of the breakdown of black families in America.

As noted at Business Insider:

There is more drug addiction and more social and family breakdown among this population than when the Great Society was launched.

LBJ pushed ahead with his “great society” program “which gave rise to Medicaid, Head Start and a broad range of other federal anti-poverty programs,” declaring that “negroes” are “getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness….” and claimed further that his efforts would secure the vote of the “nig*ers” for “200 years.”

As noted in 2013 at the Washington Post:

“Nearly 50 years after the release of the U.S. Department of Labor report ‘The Negro Family: The Case for National Action,’ which was highly controversial and widely criticized at the time [as it was released at the time of the unveiling of the “Great Society”], the new Urban Institute study found that the alarming statistics in the report back then ‘have only grown worse, not only for blacks, but for whites and Hispanics as well.'”

Importantly, the man who most influenced the Great Society initiative was the founder of the radical group “Democratic Socialists of America,” Communist Michael Harrington (see here, here and here).

4.) Bill Clinton

In 1992, Bill Clinton told the New York Times that it was a “mistake” for him to golf at an all-white country club and for good measure, further accused then-President George H.W. Bush and Republicans “of dividing the country racially.”

When Bill Clinton selected global warming fear monger Al Gore as his Vice President, it clearly did not bother him that Gore’s dad walked “arm-in-arm with other segregationist Democrats to kill the Civil Rights act of 1964.” It further did not occur to Bill Clinton to distance himself from “notorious segregationist,” racist, pro-communist, and anti-Semitic “mentor” former Arkansas Sen. J. William Fulbright, who “was one of ninety-nine congressional Democrats to sign the Southern Manifesto, which declared that the Southern states had a right to keep their populations segregated by race.”

As an aside, the famous Fulbright fellowship has been recently renamed to the “J. William Fulbright – Hillary Rodham Clinton Fellowship.”

The Southern Manifesto, by the way, “was signed by 101 members of the U.S. Congress, including 19 senators and 82 members of the House of Representatives. Ninety-nine of them were Democrats.”

As reported at National Review, Bill Clinton was among “three state officials the NAACP sued in 1989 under the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965” for suppressing the black vote. Quoting the Arkansas Gazette from December 6, 1989, the article continues: “Plaintiffs offered plenty of proof of monolithic voting along racial lines, intimidation of black voters and candidates and other official acts that made voting harder for blacks…the evidence at the trial was indeed overwhelming that the Voting Rights Act had been violated…”

The article continues:

During his 12-year tenure, Governor Clinton never approved a state civil-rights law. However, he did issue birthday proclamations honoring Confederate leaders Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee. He also signed Act 116 in 1987. That statute reconfirmed that the star directly above the word “Arkansas” in the state flag “is to commemorate the Confederate States of America.” Arkansas also observed Confederate Flag Day every year Clinton served…

via National Review

According to the book Game Change, as reported in an article at the NY Daily News, Bill Clinton was hoping for the late Ted Kennedy’s endorsement for his wife Hillary as President but Kennedy threw his support behind Obama, prompting Clinton to say,the only reason you are endorsing him is because he’s black. Let’s just be clear.”

Clinton allegedly added,

A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee.

3.) Franklin Delano Roosevelt

FDR spoke at the 1924 Democrat National Convention, also known as the “Klanbake” for the “heavy representation of Ku Klux Klan-friendly delegates,” as reported at the Wall Street Journal. According to Digital History, after the Klanbake, “some 20,000 Klan supporters wearing white hoods and robes held a picnic in New Jersey…”

Roosevelt appointed “confidant” James Byrnes to the Supreme Court, who was so powerful that he was known as the “assistant president on the home front” and who “believed in racial segregation…and worked to defeat anti-lynching bills introduced in Congress.”

Despite the fact that Byrnes was not elected by the people, FDR “assigned Byrnes more powers than ever held by a public official.”

Even worse, FDR appointed prominent Ku Klux Klan member Hugo Black to the Supreme Court. Black’s involvement in the KKK was confirmed by Pittsburgh Post-Gazette journalist Ray Sprigle, a journalist who won a “Pulitzer Prize for Reporting” for his exposé.

Via Liberty Unyielding

As reported at Liberty Unyielding, the revelation was a massive scandal at the time.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt additionally refused to meet with black Olympian Jesse Owens. As reported at the Daily Mail:

President Franklin Roosevelt never congratulated Owens or invited him to the White House. ‘Hitler didn’t snub me – it was FDR who snubbed me,’ Owens said.

But all of the above offenses pale in comparison to Roosevelt’s Executive Order 9066, which “authorized the internment of tens of thousands of American citizens of Japanese ancestry and resident aliens from Japan.” Some Germans and Italians were also interned. Expressing about his position on German and Italian Americans during World War II, Roosevelt stated “I don’t care so much about the Italians, they are a lot of opera singers, but the Germans are different. They may be dangerous.”

As an aside, in 1945, speaking of a Japanese soldier who lost his life defending America, then-Captain Ronald Reagan said,

Blood that has soaked into the sand of a beach is all one color. America stands unique in the world, the only country not founded on race, but on a way, an ideal.

The Japanese faced discrimination even after they returned home by groups “such as the American Legion, Native Sons of the Gold West, and labor unions…”

Not surprisingly, FDR’s Supreme Court, including Hugo Black – who wrote the majority opinion) later found the civil rights horror to be Constitutional.

Perhaps the Supreme Court is not infallible, after all.

2.) Woodrow Wilson

“It is untenable, in view of the established facts, to maintain that the segregation is simply to avoid race friction, for the simple reason that for fifty years white and colored clerks have been working together in peace and harmony and friendliness, doing so even through two Democratic administrations. Soon after your inauguration began, segregation was drastically introduced in the Treasury and Postal departments by your appointees.”

Monroe Trotter to Woodrow Wilson, imploring him to stop rampant segregation in Wilson’s Administration

Progressive hero Woodrow Wilson may be glorified as a “leader of the Progressive Movement” on the federal government website; but this disturbed President was not only racist, he almost single-handedly brought about the resurgence of the Ku Klux Klan in America.

As reported at Liberty Unyielding:

The Ku Klux Klan persecuted black Americans and their white Republican advocates, along with Catholics and Jewish people. The Ku Klux Klan enjoyed a “resurgence” in 1915, thanks mainly to the film, “The Birth of a Nation,” which was based on Thomas Dixon’s “The Clansman.” Thomas Dixon was a “longtime political supporter, friend and former classmate of [Woodrow] Wilson’s at Johns Hopkins University.”

Woodrow Wilson screened “The Birth of a Nation” in the White House. In fact, it was the very first film to ever be shown at the White House. Woodrow Wilson himself was quoted in the film from his own book, A History of the American People.

In his book, Wilson wrote:

“The white men of the South were aroused by the mere instinct of self-preservation to rid themselves, by fair means or foul, of the intolerable burden of governments sustained by the votes of ignorant negroes and conducted in the interest of adventurers.”

This is how it looked (modified) in the movie:

via knowledgeisking.ning.com

If one Googles “intolerable burden of governments sustained by the votes of ignorant negroes,” one is led right to the passage in Wilson’s book, where he continues to breathlessly glorify the Ku Klux Klan.

Wilson was not surprisingly a huge supporter of segregation and even “extended and defended segregation in the federal civil service. Black workers were forced to use inferior and segregated washrooms, and screens were set up to separate black and white workers in the same government offices.”

One quote by Woodrow Wilson not taught in history class:

Segregation is not a humiliation but a benefit, and ought to be so regarded by you gentlemen.

Woman’s Suffrage Leader Alice Stokes Paul would also take exception to the portrayal of Wilson as a civil rights leader.

As reported at TavernKeepers.com:

“After Wilson ignored the Woman’s Suffrage movement, he was finally forced, as a stated “war measure”, and only after increasing pressure from Paul and the National Women’s Party, to promote the [Constitutional] amendment. After Democratic Senators filibustered to prevent a roll call, the amendment was finally passed [granting women the right to vote]. Ayes including 36 (82%) Republicans and 20 (54%) Democrats.”

Protests against Wilson


Ironically, the Democratic Party Website brazenly uses racist Democrat Woodrow Wilson as an example of Civil Rights. They state, “Under the leadership of Democratic President Woodrow Wilson, the U.S. Constitution was amended to grant women the right to vote.”

1). Barack Obama

Like FDR and LBJ, President Obama indeed favors the insidious soul-crushing* (see quotes below) welfare programs that are detrimental to society as a whole, having a particular negative impact on Hispanic and black communities (as noted in the 2014 “Welfare Indicators and Risk Factors” report from HHS: “recipiency and dependency rates are higher for Non-Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics of any race than they are for NonHispanic Whites.”)

Under Obama, food stamps have doubled (Food Stamps also doubled under George W. Bush, from $17 billion to $38 billion, then doubled again under Obama, to $78 billion), CNS found that “38 percent of all children 5 and under in the United States were welfare recipients in 2011” (the latest year data is available from previously-mentioned HHS report), and as reported last year at Policy Mic, the welfare state is growing faster than jobs are being created.

As observed at National Review Online, the culture of racial politics has permeated other areas in the government. Members of the Black Caucus, for example, “now routinely either allege outright racism or exhibit racist attitudes themselves if opposition arises to the Obama agenda.”

Obama additionally is obsessed with skin color to the point of idiocy (as is his wife) – using identity politics ad nauseum to divide Americans seemingly in any way possible – not just by race, but by gender, sexual orientation, religion, wealth, and anything else that can be used to divide, confuse and polarize.

A little-known fact about President Obama is that he is a believer in the Constitutionally abhorrent “disparate impact” legal theory, which basically ignores the root causes of racial disparities and instead seeks to remedy perceived wrongs after the fact. One example of this are the policies that led to the financial collapse in 2008. Read Neil Munro’s article at the Daily Caller to find out how Obama himself contributed to the financial collapse.

But President Obama is easily the number one racist president because his obsession with skin color is a cover for something much more insidious.

President Obama wants communist revolution.

The author does not make this claim lightly.

Throughout his life, Barack Obama has been surrounded by Communist Party members, Democrat Socialist of America activists and other assorted leftist radicals. Trevor Loudon, expert on socialist and radical movements and author of “Barack Obama and the Enemies Within,” and his latest jaw-dropping book, “The Enemies Within: Communists, Socialists and Progressives in the U.S. Congress” was the first to make the connection with the Hawaiian Communist Frank Marshall Davis. Loudon also exposed former “Green Czar” Van Jones as a Communist working in the Obama Administration.

Loudon said,

One thing all of these radical groups have in common is the relentless exploitation of racial and class divisions as a strategy employed to break down American social structure.

But Obama was not only acquainted with Communist card carrying member Frank Marshall Davis; He is also deeply enmeshed with key advisers David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett, both of whom have family and professional ties to Communist Party USA.

Obama also has been acquainted with radicals from:

President Obama and those surrounding him carefully, deliberately and painstakingly degrade and dismantle the Constitution and the founding fathers at every turn; they attempt to marginalize and vilify patriotic Americans because patriotic groups such as the Tea Party are the only force standing in their path to the slow march to communism and global governance.

* See the following quotes and learn from history:

“The lessons of history, confirmed by the evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally to the national fibre. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. It is inimical to the dictates of sound policy. It is in violation of the traditions of America. Work must be found for able-bodied but destitute workers. The Federal Government must and shall quit this business of relief.” – FDR, Annual Message to Congress, January 4, 1935

“Because it is right, because it is wise, and because, for the first time in our history, it is possible to conquer poverty, I submit, for the consideration of the Congress and the country, the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964.”Lyndon B. Johnson’s Special Message to Congress, March 16, 1964

The “…steady expansion of this welfare program [FDR’s Social Security Act of 1935], as of public assistance programs in general, can be taken as a measure of the steady disintegration of the Negro family structure over the past generation in the United States” United States Department of Labor report published in March 1965

This article has been cross-posted from Broadside News.