Publicly and privately, most Republican strategists tout the party line on Voter ID. Publicly, it’s on principle, they say, with legions of conservative think tankers, fellows and analysts providing “reams” of data and evidence on hints and instances of “voter fraud.”

“The fraud denialists also must have missed the recent news coverage of the double voters in North Carolina and the fraudster in Tunica County, Miss., — a member of the NAACP’s local executive committee — who was sentenced in April to five years in prison for voting in the names of ten voters, including four who were deceased,” said Heritage Foundation senior legal fellow Hans von Spakovsky. “And the story of the former deputy chief of staff for Washington mayor Vincent Gray, who was forced to resign after news broke that she had voted illegally in the District of Columbia, even though she was a Maryland resident.”

Still, opponents of Voter ID, a legal measure that has hit the political landscape in a wave of state legislative maneuvers and referenda, dismiss such talk as delusional and lacking on pure numbers. Whether or not GOP-fueled fears and gossip are true, it doesn’t change the fact that one of the most obscure legal battles in recent American history is actually turning into one of the most knuckle-up and personal fist fights of the 2012 election season.

Which is the point, argues one prominent white Republican consultant who refuses attribution due to close business and political ties within the African-American community. “This is about winning. Pure and simple,” says the source in a conversation with the Philadelphia Tribune. “This is, not really, about race or anything doing with racism like a lot of people on the left are claiming. I know it might look like that, but I think that a lot of people are really underestimating what lengths Republicans will go to just to win a race. And if that means disenfranchising a few people along the way, then that’s just the way it is.”

That the source insisted on anonymity speaks to the sensitive nature of the topic. The moral optics of the fight clearly do not favor Republicans, especially the voting blocs of state legislators who keep putting the measures in place in an effort to eliminate shenanigans at the polls. Nine states, mostly clustered in the South, require some form of legitimate identification to vote; more than two dozen states — including Pennsylvania — have some sort of Voter ID law in the proposed legislative pipeline. Key political battleground states like Ohio and Florida (known to turn the tide of an election) have “repressive election legislation” according to the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law, which shows it all on a big, colorful interactive map on its website.

Many of the laws are passed in states with large African-American populations – the same population that provided Democrats with enough bounce in 2008 to catapult Barack Obama into the White House.

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) President Ben Jealous, thinks they’re more angry about the color of the man in the White House than they are about his politics. “You’re talking about the oldest and most successful head game in the realm of racist politics,” argues Jealous, who rattles off a chronology of key moments in history where the Black vote has been suppressed. Jealous eagerly gives the rundown, arguing that throughout this country’s history, there’s a direct correlation between major moments of progress for African Americans and the subsequently bad aftertaste of racist response. “You have to do the investigation and look back years ago. Voting bans today are identical to voting bans of years ago.”

To Jealous, it’s an all out assault, driven in part by the Obama’s win in 2008. Since then, he said, “more bills have been pushed through to limit ballot access than in any other time in U.S. history. When our democracy expands, people who object to the direction of it are going to find creative ways to suppress it.”

“The urgency is on state-sponsored voter suppression. These are laws that require multiple forms of Voter ID and there are, in many instances, thousands of older Black folks who don’t have the ID.”

The impression, based on Jealous’ observations and the standing consensus of many prominent Black political leaders and civil rights icons, is that Voter ID is the Battle of the Bulge. It’s an African American Alamo, the last big political stand of 2012 that requires just as much sweat, vocal push and blood – if need be – as the 1960s civil rights mass movements. There are two problems however.

On one hand, there’s a growing internal discussion within the Black political community that shows some cracks in that consensus. Some Black Republicans, many privately out of fear of public humiliation at the barbershops and churches, take their party’s line on the issue, claiming that it’s an embarrassment that Black leaders would actually admit that large numbers of Black folks don’t have one of the most common pieces of personal baggage in existence: their ID.

Consultant and strategist Raynard Jackson, however, is a bit more brazen and open about it. “To my knowledge, I have never heard anyone claim they were discriminated against if they were not allowed to fly or enter a government building because they didn’t have an I.D.,” blasts Jackson, who feels the “21^st century poll tax” argument is overblown.  “To the contrary, people know the rules in advance, so therefore they comply.”

“I don’t know anyone — young or old, Black or white — who doesn’t have any form of government sanctioned I.D.”

Former U.S. Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL), who is Black, won’t take Jackson’s side on that argument, but he has stunned Black politicos and civil rights types with his persistent charge on behalf of his home state’s Voter ID law – considered by the Lawyer’s Committee and other organizations as one of the most egregious in the South. “I was certainly critical of the Georgia Voter ID law,” Davis’ backtracks a little.  “[But] I’ve looked at the issue and what Alabama has done over the past several months.  Any Voter ID should make an exception for different circumstances and make identification available free of charge.”

Davis, a former member of the Congressional Black Caucus up until he suffered a stinging defeat in a gubernatorial primary in 2010, shifts uncomfortably these days at the accusation that he’s “sold out.” The tone in his voice gets considerably sharper when pitching Alabama’s voter ID law further, at some points pivoting.  “There is a group of individuals out there who don’t have a driver’s license.  Those individuals should have a chance to get identification, so they have the opportunity to vote.  I don’t think a fair Voter ID law is going to disenfranchise any group of people.”

But, beyond the sparring and philosophical open-mic battles, the other problem deals with awareness.

It’s just not that sexy an issue.

Conduct an informal survey of average Black folks working to make ends meet in, say, North Philadelphia or Southeast D.C. on Voter ID, and chances are they’ll stare at you in befuddlement.

Ask those under the age of 25 and younger about it, and you’re likely to get more information on Nicki Minaj’s latest tattoo.

It’s a challenge Jealous is aware of. After speaking fluidly and almost non-stop for nearly 20 minutes on the topic, he’s reached a pause on that question. Still, he doesn’t sound frustrated. He just regains footing and boasts the confidence an NAACP president is supposed to have.

“The NAACP can always get as much attention as TMZ. You look at the Troy Davis situation where it was one of the most visible events in 2011,” says Jealous.

“We must make the conflict visible. And we are working state by state and nationally to make that happen. You finally start getting conversations on street corners and in barbershops. They have to understand that their right to vote is under attack.”

A Black conservative group is criticizing the NAACP’s voting rights awareness campaign as “demeaning” to African Americans, and accuses the civil rights organization of “crying wolf.”

Last week, officials with the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People urged all Americans to resist voter restriction measures in their states and educate themselves as to their voting rights. Restrictions – such as identification requirements, restricting voter registration, disenfranchising convicted felons and restrictions on early and absentee voting – could bar as many as 5 million people from the polls, they said.

This week, critics from Project 21, The National Leadership Network of Black Conservatives, fired back.

“I don’t understand where the NAACP is making the point that this is disenfranchising voters,” said Cherylyn LeBon Harley, a spokesperson for Project 21 and former senior counsel on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, speaking specifically on voter ID measures. “In fact, this is protecting voters. You have to show an ID to check into the Holiday Inn Express, then it makes perfect sense that you should do the same when you are exercising the most sacred constitutional right – the right to vote.”

In a blistering statement, Project 21 officials argued that the measures requiring voter ID protected Blacks’ right to vote as vigorously as they protect others.

“It seems the NAACP conveniently forgets how their position demeans Blacks,” said Shelby Emmett, another member of the group. “We fought for over a hundred years not just to vote, but to have that vote count and mean something. How does allowing illegal immigrants and dead people to vote and other forms of voter fraud secure and protect Black rights?”

NAACP officials said history disproves Project 21’s point of view.

“For them to release a statement like that, it’s reckless,” said Hilary Shelton, senior vice president for policy and advocacy for NAACP. “It means that they haven’t done their due diligence or research to see just where things are.”

Shelton noted that concerns about photo ID requirements are just one aspect of the NAACP’s discussion on voter suppression, noting that changes to early voter and Sunday voting provisions were also a cause for worry.

“In 2008, we saw an historic turnout, and that meant standing in line two and three hours to exercise the franchise,” Shelton said. “Extending that means you’re extending the life of the line. What we’re going to see is it going from two, three, four hours to four, six hours and longer.”

The NAACP estimates suggested that nearly 38 percent of the potentially disenfranchised voters are Black – nearly 2 million people. Some 13 percent of Black men are disenfranchised nationally, and in some states up to one-third of Black men are denied the right to vote. When voting restrictions on convicted felons are included, the numbers rise dramatically, with another 5 million people being disenfranchised.

Project 21’s press release didn’t include any data disproving the NAACP’s research, a fact that Shelton noted.

“It sounds like the same kind of gut response that’s created a lot of these problems across the country,” he said.

Sticking to the issue of photo IDs specifically, Harley dismissed concerns, noting that many states have offered to pay for identification cards and that many low-income people are already required to have an ID.

“If you are lower income and are on social services, you’re required to have an ID,” she said. “Despite what people may think, most people are going to have an ID.”

On Saturday, the NAACP held its “Stand for Freedom” march in New York City in an effort to raise awareness about voter restriction policies, proposed and enacted, in 38 states across the country. Organizers said 25,000 took part in the march, which also included labor unions, the National Action Network and several Democratic groups. It started at the Manhattan offices of Koch Industries and ended at the United Nations headquarters. The group also plans to lay its grievances in front of the U.N. high commissioner for human rights, and ask for a U.N. opinion.

 “Millions upon millions of people are potentially affected by restrictive changes to voting laws,” said Benjamin T. Jealous, president and CEO of the NAACP, last week. “Those people are disproportionately Black, Latino, students and the poor.”

Emmett argued that the NAACP’s position belittled African Americans.

“Maybe if they viewed Blacks as capable beings, obtaining identification wouldn’t equal a ‘poll tax’ but would instead equal Blacks protecting and defending their rights as Americans to a fair and transparent process open only to real, live American citizens,” she said. “Maybe it’s the NAACP that is instituting a new barrier to voting.”

Contact staff writer Eric Mayes at 215-893-5742 or This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .

As the Republican presidential race heats up, and Republicans around the country struggle to decide who they want as their eventual nominee — race has found its way into the debate.

Gingrich, who is already under fire for labeling President Barack Obama “the food-stamp president,” touched off further controversy on Thursday for declaring he would visit the NAACP and explain to the organization why African Americans should “not be satisfied with” food stamps.

The former House speaker’s incendiary remarks came on the heels of Rick Santorum’s earlier comment in which he appeared to single out African Americans as recipients of federal aid — a statement that an NAACP official declared “inaccurate and outrageous.” Santorum has denied he was singling out Blacks.

“I didn’t say Black.” Santorum said to CNN and Fox News. He told John King Wednesday night, “I’ve looked at that quote, in fact I looked at the video. In fact, I’m pretty confident I didn’t say Black. I started to say a word, and then sort of changed and it sort of — blah — mumbled it and sort of changed my thought.”

And let’s not forget Ron Paul’s evolving story on his newsletters. Confronted about their racism when he campaigned to return to Congress in 1996, Paul first tried to defend the remarks. It wasn’t until 2001 that he floated the notion that someone else had written the newsletters, and it’s only recently that he completely deplored their racism and claimed he had absolutely no idea what was in them.

Santorum’s comments were criticized by National Urban League President Marc H. Morial as pandering to racist elements within the GOP. Morial also said that 70 percent of people on food stamps are white. The Agriculture Department does not break down food stamp participation rates by race.

NAACP President Ben Jealous also criticized Santorum’s remarks.

Food stamp participation and costs have risen under Obama, from 28.2 million participants at a cost of $37.6 billion in 2008, to 44.7 million participants at a cost of $75.3 billion last year, according to federal data of what is officially known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. The increases followed the steep economic downturn that began in 2008.

Gingrich, in a variation of a line he has used in other recent speeches, said in New Hampshire, “I’m prepared, if the NAACP invites me, I’ll go to their convention and talk about why the African-American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps.”

“And I’ll go to them and explain a brand new Social Security opportunity for young people, which would be particularly good for African-American males because they are the group that gets the smallest return on Social Security because they have the shortest life span. And under Social Security today, you don’t build up an estate,” Gingrich said.

Jealous responded to Gingrich’s incendiary comments Friday with the following statement: “It is a shame that the former Speaker feels that these types of inaccurate, divisive statements are in any way helpful to our country,” said Jealous. “The majority of people using food stamps are not African-American, and most people using food stamps have a job.”

“We invited Speaker Gingrich to attend our annual convention several times when he was Speaker of the House, but he declined to join us,” Jealous continued. “If he is invited again, I hope that he would come with the intention to unite rather than divide. Gingrich’s statement is problematic on several fronts, most importantly because he gets his facts wrong.”

On the website YourBlackWorld.com, political analyst and commentator Dr. Boyce Watkins wrote: “I’m not sure where Gingrich is getting his perception of the Black experience in America. I’ve never asked for a welfare check in my life, and neither have most of my friends.”

The left-leaning Center for American Progress wrote on its ThinkProgress blog: “Not only is his perception of food-stamp beneficiaries prejudicial, it’s false.”

The center took the time to note that whites comprise the majority of people who are participants in the nation’s food-stamp program. In addition, most of the participants on food stamps are either children or senior citizens.

Gingrich spokesman R.C. Hammond said Thursday in response to the criticism: “Newt believes that every American should have the opportunity to earn a paycheck, rather than be given a food stamp, and he is prepared to make that case in every neighborhood to all groups of all backgrounds in America. Furthermore, this theme of taking the conservative message to every American — including the NAACP — has been a constant refrain during Newt’s entire career.”

Gingrich has actually tried in his recent comments invoking the NAACP to demonstate his commitment to reaching beyond traditional GOP groups to Democratic constituencies.

On Wednesday he said, “My goal is to create a very big coalition. If the NAACP invites me, I will come and speak. If the various Latino groups invite me, I will come and speak. If the construction unions get fed up enough over the [Keystone] pipeline and invite me, I will come and speak.”

And last month in Columbia, S.C., he said, “Outreach is when five white guys hold a meeting and then call you. Inclusion is when you’re in the meeting. And I can assure you precisely because we want to decentralize back home, we want to have people back home with a bigger responsibility, that’s why I’m asking you to be with me. I want every community in America to have a better future.

“And I will tell you, unlike some candidates, if the NAACP invites me to come to their annual convention, I’m going to come there and I’m going to invite them to join us in getting America back on the right track so every American can work.”

Two Gingrich surrogates — former New Hampshire Sen. Bob Smith and former Ohio Rep. Bob McEwen — sought to make the case that their former House colleague would be a stronger candidate in a general election against Obama than Mitt Romney.

“You have to remember that in the Iowa caucus, 75 percent of the voters did not pick Romney,” Smith told reporters in a conference call.

McEwen was even more blunt, saying of Romney, “I don’t know how a party can nominate a guy like that and expect to win.”

In a subsequent interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity, Gingrich lumped himself in with Santorum and Texas Gov. Rick Perry in further distinguishing himself from Romney.

“Santorum and Perry and I — all three — represent an American conservatism that is dramatically different than a Massachusetts moderate,” he said. “We all naturally have a similar reaction to Romney’s policies ... We three would write a platform more conservative than the platform that Romney would want to write.”

As traditional news organizations like The Associated Press and CBSNews.com picked up Gingrich’s remark — he had said something similar the day before, including an offer to visit Latino groups — the Gingrich campaign recognized trouble.

R.C. Hammond, Mr. Gingrich’s spokesman, was overheard at an evening event in New Hampshire chewing out a reporter over the coverage while kicking a door.

He said Gingrich’s statement was not patronizing, but an act of outreach to an organization usually ignored by Republicans. In a 2007 book, Gingrich criticized President Bush for failing to address the NAACP. It was a sign “to the African American community,” he wrote, “that Republicans did not see them as worthy of engagement in dialogue.”

The National Journal and New York Times contributed to this report.

Zack Burgess is the enterprise writer for The Tribune. He is a freelance writer and editor who covers culture, politics and sports. He can be contacted at zackburgess.com.

The Philadelphia Tribune reported in its Tuesday, Dec. 13 edition that a Black conservative group is criticizing the NAACP’s voting rights awareness campaign as “demeaning to African Americans,” and accuses the civil rights organization of “crying wolf.”

The group, Project 21, and other conservatives are wrong to support bills to change laws that will require voter photo identification at polling places in Pennsylvania and other states across the country.

The NAACP was right to march this past weekend to urge all Americans to resist voter restriction measures in their states and to educate themselves about their voting rights.

The Black conservative group’s cynical attempt to appeal to ethnic pride as a reason not to oppose voter identification laws is not a credible argument. The NAACP and other opponents of the voter identifications are not saying African Americans do not have, or are incapable of getting, photo ID, but the fact remains that voter identification laws would pose an unnecessary barrier to voting.

Yes, African Americans and other minorities are capable of getting photo identification like any other group — but the fact remains that studies show that minorities, the elderly and very young voters would have more difficulty obtaining the photo identification necessary to vote.

A 2006 survey by the American Research Corp. showed that 25 percent of African Americans, 18 percent of senior citizens and 18 percent of 18- to 24-year-olds don’t have photo IDs.

On Monday an amendment was added to soften the Pennsylvania House-passed voter ID bill by the Senate State Government Committee. The amendment would allow voters to use IDs issued by colleges and nursing homes in addition to official state IDs, such as drivers’ licenses.

The amendment is marginal and does not go far enough.

The changes would not help senior citizens who don’t live in nursing homes and lack proper identification because they no longer drive.

The amendment still does not address the fact that higher percentages of minorities do not possess a photo ID when compared with the population as a whole.

State Sen. Anthony Williams, D-Philadelphia, correctly points out that there is no crisis of fraudulent voting for the bill to address. Williams suggested that if a problem existed, the Attorney General’s Office should investigate it before legislation is passed.

“To say that it is a crisis and that the house is on fire, that should require someone to show that the house is on fire, “Williams told Associated Press. “I’m very concerned about putting restrictions on one’s ability to vote.

Republicans are pushing unnecessary voter identifications laws that will disenfranchise voters.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder was right to use an event celebrating the anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday Monday to emphasize the Obama administration’s dedication to protecting the American people from discriminatory voting practices.

“Despite our nation’s record of progress and its long tradition of extending voting rights, today a growing number of citizens are worried about the same disparities, divisions and problems that Dr. King fought throughout his life to address and overcome,” Holder said at an MLK Day event in Columbia, South Carolina.

Holder’s remarks come just weeks after the Justice Department blocked South Carolina’s new ID law from taking effect, citing an unfair burden on minority voters.

Under the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act, South Carolina is one of 16 largely Southern states that must seek approval from the Justice Department or the federal courts for changes made to state voting laws.

The South Carolina law required each voter to show a state-issued photo identification card to cast a ballot in an election.

Voter ID laws have been introduced in at least 34 states, including Pennsylvania.

Republican supporters claim the laws would prevent voter fraud.

But there is no evidence that voter fraud is an urgent major problem in America.

It is not a coincidence that Republican lawmakers have recently enacted laws designed to limit Americans’ access to the polls, laws that will disproportionately discourage those — African Americans, Hispanics, students and the poor — who voted in large numbers in 2008 to elect Barack Obama.

The NAACP and other civil rights organizations have been outspoken against the onslaught of an unprecedented number of restrictive voting measures introduced in recent years.

There must an aggressive national campaign to register and mobilize voters and get them to obtain the required ID while vigorously opposing the new restrictive measures.

Organization presents facts to United Nations

Calling the recent national proliferation of voting restrictions the most “vicious, coordinated, sinister attacks” on voting rights since the end of Reconstruction, officials with the NAACP are urging all U.S. citizens to organize and push back through an NAACP call to action.

“Millions upon millions of people are potentially affected by restrictive changes to voting laws,” said Benjamin T. Jealous, president and CEO of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, in a conference call on Monday. “Those people are disproportionately Black, Latino, students and the poor.”

The combined measures — enacted or proposed in 38 states — could stop up to 5 million people from voting.

In addition to urging citizens to get involved, the NAACP will lay out its case before the United Nations, including the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and ask for U.N. opinion.

The call to action was issued on Monday as the NAACP released a new report titled: “Defending Democracy: Confronting Modern Barriers to Voting Rights in America.”

The 67-page report contends that the new measures are part of a concerted effort to block the vote in the wake of President Barack Obama’s election in 2008 — and to defeat him in 2012.

“They are intended to attack the very electoral strength that made possible the nation’s first Black president,” said Jealous.

Voting restrictions — such as voter identification requirements, restricting voter registration, disenfranchising convicted felons and restrictions on early and absentee voting — are part of a campaign designed to disenfranchise minority, older and poorer voters, Jealous said.

NAACP estimates suggested that nearly 38 percent of the disenfranchised are Black — nearly 2 million people — that 13 percent of Black men are disenfranchised, nationally, and that in some states up to one-third of Black men are denied the right to vote. When voting restrictions on convicted felons are included, the numbers rise dramatically, with another 5 million people being disenfranchised.

The tactics are new, more subtle than the threat of violence that was used to keep Blacks from voting in the century that followed the Civil War — but ultimately, they could be just as effective.

“This is not Jim Crow. It’s James Crow, Esq. Jim Crow used blunt tools. James Crow, Esq. uses surgical tools,” said the Rev. William Barber, president of the North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP.

The 2008 election demonstrated the power of Black voters who, when measured by percentage, turned out in nearly equal numbers to their white counterparts. The report found that 66.1 percent of whites turned out to vote and 64.7 percent of Blacks, an unusually close margin. That figure also represented a jump of about 15 percent for Black voters when compared to the 2004 presidential election.

And, according to the report, higher numbers of minorities have continued to vote.

In the 2010 mid-term election participation by Black youth, when compared to other mid-term elections, rose to 27.5 percent, up from 24 percent in 2006 — the highest turnout in youth since 1972.

With people of color making up 26.6 percent of U.S. citizens of voting age, and a demographic shift taking place as the white population decreased from 75 percent of total population to 72.4 percent, “ultraconservative” forces have mobilized to suppress the vote, said Barber.

“We must fight back against any attempt to suppress, segregate, isolate or steal the potential power of our vote,” he said. “We must fight back.”

The report also included a detailed look at the measures that have been enacted over the last several years. For example, in 2011, Alabama, Kansas, Mississippi, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin all passed photo ID laws. Florida Georgia, Maine, Tennessee and West Virginia passed restrictions on early or absentee voting. Overall, a combined 25 different restrictive measures have been enacted in states across the country.

Hilary Shelton, Sr. Vice President for Policy and Advocacy for NAACP said the organization had launched a national awareness campaign with legislators and policy makers, and was prepared to sue or join existing lawsuits in an effort to defeat suppression tactics, and also urged all citizens, regardless of race, to oppose the spread of such measures.

“We want to be sure that our communities are prepared to help those that are now going to be challenged with these new laws — so that even with these unnecessary obstacles they’re also able to fully participate in the electoral process,” he said. 

Contact Tribune staff writer Eric Mayes at (215) 893-5742 or This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .

Did you see George Clooney getting arrested in front of the Sudanese Embassy in Washington, D.C.? The Hollywood activist brought his “A-Team” for the latest demonization of the Islamic government of the Republic of Sudan.

The staged sidewalk show featured: Clooney’s father Nick, civil rights leaders Martin Luther King III, NAACP President Ben Jealous, and actor and comedian Dick Gregory. The staged protest also included veteran “anti-Sudan” activists, African-American Rep. Al Green from Houston, Massachusetts Reps. James McGovern and John Olver, and Rep. Jim Moran of Virginia.

How Martin Luther King III allowed himself to be cast as a bit-player in the show is questionable; but Green looks at his role and arrest like a badge of honor. In an interview with the Houston Chronicle, Green lauded Clooney for “shining a spotlight on turmoil in Sudan.” Dazzled by the star-and-celebrity-power around him, Green said “Actions like these to prevent humanitarian crises usually start with one person, and [Clooney] has been that one person.”

Fred Kramer, executive director of Jewish World Watch and Clooney’s cellmate, said “It was dignified, an incredible array of activists and champions for the issue.” Kramer is a part of a Washington lobby that’s comprised of a collection of groups that has provided ongoing opposition to Sudan’s Islamic government. And, Green can’t help but gush because he’s a part of such a superbly creative visual extravaganza designed to demonize the Sudan government.

The protest had the legendary King name but many of us doubt that Martin, the father, would have placed his credibility among such a lot. Anti-Sudan activists have misled the American public on Sudan for decades and the spectacle in front of the Sudan Embassy was an endorsement of the rebels the Americans support in southern and eastern regions of Sudan. The record over past decades shows that America’s imperialist policies have supported separatist movements in the south of Sudan, particularly in areas where oil was found.

U.S. intervention on the side of rebel forces during the long civil war is long and permanent. Forces such as Clooney and his colleagues caused the division of Africa’s largest country into the oil-rich South and the diminished North. The cause of Clooney and cohorts is “regime change.” The charade’s current origins date back to 2002, when Christian Solidarity International (CSI), paid $50 each to buy back 400 Sudanese men, women and children from “Arab slave traders.” The Sudan Campaigns reek with imperialism and buffoonery and much care should be taken before one casts their lot with them. Clooney is no friend of these Africans and there’s no evidence that he’s done anything to positively affect the lives of people on the ground in Sudan. They spent millions to pass “Save Darfur” legislation and have made “smashing the Sudanese an American cottage industry.” In 2006 Clooney made a TV special called “A Journey to Darfur.” In 2011 Clooney co-wrote a Washington Post Op-Ed titled “Dancing with a dictator in Sudan” in which he encouraged diplomatic isolation of the Sudan regime and freezing of targeted accounts and transactions of senior officials.

“Caution” should be exercised regarding these “slam Sudan” activists. They have manufactured media events and stories that distorted situations in the region. It was through, what Louis Farrakhan calls “deceitful practices” that these activists successfully brought about the division of Sudan. A critical look reveals these campaigns to be rife with imperialist policies and practices that further demonize Arab and Muslim people. People in Congress, like Green, need to be less parochial and progress toward the “constructive engagement we need to pursue with the country and people of Sudan,” not new lies that advocate the overthrow of the Sudanese government. Unfortunately, the family of Martin Luther King Jr. has done plenty over the last decades to tarnish his legacy. Marty sullied his father’s image and legacy for a speaker fee, travel, and lodging to be a bit-player in the Clooney Show.