I was watching the television, fingers crossed, hoping and praying for an Obama victory. The video made its way to conservative news stations and was presented with duplicity. I knew it was just a matter of time before some cracker would try and make something of it. There they were, a couple of New Black Panther crusaders, Jerry Jackson and King Samir Shabazz, protecting their polling place from the atrocities one might witness during the 1940′s against blacks wishing to cast a vote. They were dashing looking, in freshly laundered and military crisp black uniforms–sort of a black-ops look, with cute matching berets and armed with a dainty little blackjack. Even though the New Black Panthers are a non-racist and peaceful organization, and it would take severe cajoling to cause them to become agitated, such as the suspicious and incredulous audacity that white people would show up at a black polling area uninvited, it was quite obvious by the body language of the New Black Panthers in the video that it was an intimidating experience for them to be approached by the white interlopers. Some said they were poll watchers, others said they were there to vote. Either way, the crackers should not have been there. It was obvious they had McCain and Palin written all over their faces, and there is no question that they would have voted the McCain/Palin ticket at a black polling area.

Without the use of guns, knives, or any other lethal method of killing, the New Black Panthers used a Gandhi-like approach of negotiating with the interlopers; they used the term “cracker” and various other non-violent and peaceful “threats,” along with the perfectly justifiable twirling of their blackjacks that would be the envy of any marching band batonist. The whites fled the scene. If some “cracker” turned tail and ran, they probably had a reason to flee the scene. As Eric Holder has stated, “We are a nation of cowards,” and that is what was witnessed, white people being cowards and running.

Then along come George Bush and his Department of Justice filing charges against the two New Black Panthers for violating the civil rights of the white people. Of course, the New Black Panthers no-showed their court date; what’s the point, the deck was stacked: white President, white Attorney General, white judge. So the DOJ under Bush received a verdict of guilty by default from the court. That is the end of that, they are going to jail for voter intimidation and civil rights violations. But, glory be to God, Obama was elected President and Eric Holder was appointed Attorney General. The rest of the story reads like one of those heartwarming stories from the New Testament, where the dead white guy is brought back to life. Eric Holder and his DOJ asked that the conviction be tossed out the window because, well quite frankly, you just can’t have a federal government, especially with a black President, throwing blacks in jail for violating the civil rights of whites.

Now along comes the United States Commission on Civil Rights with their witch-hunt spewing conspiracy rhetoric: “There was a culture of hostility within the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division to the race-neutral application of the nation’s voting laws.” The Commission wants to use as “evidence” multiple testimonies from within the DOJ affirming that the DOJ systematically will not prosecute a black on white civil rights violation, the DOJ’s complete unwillingness to cooperate with the investigation, and play hide and seek with evidence requested by the Commission. The rabid conservative leaning Commission would have you believe that there is an unadulterated environment of hostility against whites who complain about their civil rights and discrimination committed by blacks at the DOJ just because there are thousands of pieces of alleged “evidence” to support this claim.

Just as the New Black Panthers’ case was dismissed by a divine miracle protecting all that is righteous and Eric Holder’s people, the DOJ has finally been cleared by the most credible and agenda-free investigative commission possible, the United States’ very own Department of Justice. During the DOJ’s bleakest hours, during the darkest hours of its self-investigation, during the mysterious hours of being overwhelmed with literally thousands of internal e-mails of the Department of Justice, notes, papers, almost 50 interviews, and various other “allegedly incriminating evidence” of blatant racism within the DOJ, the evidence was analyzed, cogitated, and deliberated. The DOJ’s own unbiased investigation was able to conquer the evidence at hand and profess that no professional misconduct or poor judgment was used by the DOJ, and that based on “a good faith assessment of the law” the case against the New Black Panthers was dismissed, but was “not influenced by the race of the defendants.”

It’s official. Eric Holder and the Department of Justice have not demonstrated prejudice and racism against white people.

But, the question must be asked: Is there ever a legitimate reason to skirt the rule of law by the Attorney General, and use a personal vendetta for the law’s application? Absolutely, and Eric Holder made that very case when Rep. John Culberson (R-Texas) badgered him about the issue: “There’s clearly overwhelming evidence that your Department of Justice refuses to protect the rights of anybody other than African-Americans to vote,” harangued the Republican provocateur.

Eric Holder rebutted the pronounced prejudice of this elected race-baiter with a heartbreaking and gut-wrenching answer intertwined with metaphysical reasoning that intimidation of white voters at the polling booth by black crusaders with a blackjack cannot be a crime: “When you compare what people endured in the South in the 60s to try to get the right to vote for African Americans, and to compare what people were subjected to there to what happened in Philadelphia—which was inappropriate, certainly that…to describe it in those terms I think does a great disservice to people who put their lives on the line, who risked all, for my people.”

With all aspects considered, what is wrong with the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ using racial factors when determining whether to enforce voting rights laws? Is it wrong for Holder to protect “his people” from themselves and federal law?

Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-PA) (formally Arthur Davenport, but was renamed when his mother, Frances Brown, decided she was an African Queen, and renamed herself Queen Mother Falaka Fattah), said the Black Panthers–”should not have been there.” But he did assign blame where blame is due by stating that the Republicans were making too much out of a fleeting incident involving a couple of people. “The most unethical thing a person can do is make allegations based on absolutely nothing.” Apparently, Fattah was not hoodwinked by the testimony of DOJ lawyers, thousands of emails, and 50 interviews that manifested rampant racism within the DOJ. Fattah could see beyond the evidential hyperbole.

Fattah is a smart man; he would obviously dismiss the actions of John Wilkes Booth as he just “should not have been at that theater,” and he was less than a “couple of people,” so what is the big deal? Rest assured, following the lead of the DOJ and Eric Holder, it is obvious that Fattah would have been satisfied if James Earl Ray had been acquitted by a jury of his family. That is, of course, unless Fattah has a double standard, which I would find completely implausible.

What would Martin Luther King think about America today under the rule of a black President and a black Attorney General? How proud he would be. What would he think about the progress made where the law of the land commands that no one be judged by the color of his skin? How proud he would be. What would he think about this historical black Attorney General appointed by a black President who insists on judging people by the color of their skin rather than their character? How proud he would be. After all, in his I Have a Dream speech, “King said, I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they are judged by the color of their skin and not by the content of their character, but only if we have a black President and a black Attorney General.

To compound my xenophobic indiscretions, I was completely oblivious, apparently suspended in a pathological state of denial that I was a racist, until Barack Obama was elected president. I have been branded the appellation of racist because of my fundamental disdain for the unconstitutional orientation of Barack Obama, and his bizarre and insatiable appetite to eradicate the bedrock of this country– by, no less, the most credible bastion of equitable thought– the contemporary Leftist perspective.

The ensuing are confessions of my racism, as defined by the Left:

• Barack Obama is President. He is black. He is attempting irreparable harm to this country. I am stalwartly against his policies. I am white. Therefore, I am racist.
• Barack Obama is displaying all the characteristics of a fascist. I despise fascism. Therefore, I am racist.
• Barack Obama has accomplished nothing of merit in his professional life, has no track record of operating any enterprise, has spent the majority of his life being subsidized by taxpayer money, and his leadership skills are a testament to this. I believe Palin, as unqualified as she was, was much more qualified than Obama. Therefore, I am racist.
• Barack Obama continues to associate with and support the criminal organization ACORN, and continues to fund them as they commit felony after felony across this country for his party’s benefit. I think ACORN should be prosecuted, fined, then systematically dismantled and cast asunder. Therefore, I am racist.
• Barack Obama is a pal of William Ayers, the unrepentant domestic terrorist in the same vein as Timothy McVeigh, except for the fact that McVeigh was not set free on a legal technicality. Obama steadfastly refuses to denounce Ayers or his acts of terrorism. I think Obama has a soft spot for domestic terrorists if their ideologies align. Therefore, I am racist.
• Barack Obama is a defeatist and if left unchecked, will cause the United States to become a defeatist nation at a time when our world increases in evil. As stated, I believe Obama is a defeatist. Therefore, I am racist.
• Barack Obama displays an apocalyptic fascination with an enervated America, especially as other nations are either expanding or evolving their nuclear arsenals and militaries. Therefore, I am racist.
• Barack Obama has proposed cutting 1.2 billion dollars from the missile defense fund and is in the process of dismantling the missile defense shield in Eastern Europe, at a time when rogue countries, such as Iran and North Korea, either have the capability, or are developing the capability, to become nuclear nations. I believe Obama is illiterate when it comes to this nation and its ally’s defense. Therefore, I am racist.
• Barack Obama continues to punish small businesses, which create 70% of this nation’s jobs (while actual unemployment is 17%), by raising taxes, increasing regulation, and forcing small businesses to fund insurance for their employees during a recession he has perpetuated. Obama’s ideology has the ingredients for a long, deep, and sustained recession. I believe Obama is economically illiterate. Therefore, I am racist.
• Barack Obama has demonstrated with impunity that for someone who claims to have taught Constitutional Law, he is completely ignorant of the Constitution’s intent and meaning, or abhors the intent and meaning, or both. I believe that if Obama actually did teach constitutional law, he was commissioned to the post without merit, and woefully lacking substance. Therefore, I am racist.
• Barack Obama is in the midst of destroying the best health care system in the world. He will destroy the individual rights of the entire country to implement his socialist medicine. I hope his health care bills never come out from under the Pelosi-Reid rock.  Therefore, I am racist.
• Barack Obama, as a sitting president, has so far declared war on Rush Limbaugh and Fox News Channel. I think Obama is on the brink of being incapacitated by immaturity. Therefore, I am racist.
• Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize for accomplishing nothing. He accepted. I believe Barack Obama to be the phoniest president this country has experienced. Therefore, I am racist.
• Barack Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, refuses to prosecute ACORN, and has even reinstated their grants from the Department of Justice. This is at the behest of Obama. I believe Obama to be culpable in the criminal activities of ACORN as an accessory. Therefore, I am racist.
• Barack Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, called America a “nation of cowards.” I believe Eric Holder and Barack Obama are cowards. Therefore, I am racist.
• Barack Obama, in reacting to the arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Gates, a black man, by Officer James Crowley, a white man, stated with no knowledge of the details of the events other than the race of each individual, “I don’t know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played. Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home.” I think Barack Obama’s first instinct was a prejudicial and racist comment. Therefore, I am racist.
• Barack Obama’s thesis from Columbia shed insight as to his early predilection for socialism and a disdain for the Founding Fathers: …the Constitution allows for many things, but what it does not allow is the most revealing. The so-called Founders did not allow for economic freedom. While political freedom is supposedly a cornerstone of the document, the distribution of wealth is not even mentioned. While many believed that the new Constitution gave them liberty, it instead fitted them with the shackles of hypocrisy. I believe Obama does understand the Constitution, but abhors its authors and its intendment, and will do anything within his power to make it permanently irrelevant. Therefore, I am racist.

So there you have it, caught red-handed– a racist. Indeed, a racist that has never invoked Obama’s skin color or race for disparaging purposes. But keep in mind, if you call people stupid long enough and often enough, they will probably, at some point, start to believe they are stupid, then act accordingly.

If you think you too may be a racist, please utilize the following flow chart for verification.

Ever since Obama ascended to the throne of America, wholesale racism has emanated from the bowels of this once unconditionally non-prejudicial country. It wasn’t until a black president was elected, by the majority of citizens, mind you, that racism started permeating the very fabric of this once great country. Not a single source of media can be browsed without an incident of racism or race-based discrimination being boldly highlighted in the headline. The exception to this is conservative media outlets. For some peculiar and iniquitous reason, conservative media seems to be content ignoring the million plus acts of racism taking place in the country every day since Obama was elected. Newsworthy and myriad acts of racism are committed around the clock, yet the conservative media seems to be content with selfishly ignoring these atrocities while enjoying a viewership of many multiples over their liberal media brethren. Shameless.

The admirable folk of Arlington, Virginia are pushing back against industrial racism mandated by Virginia, but at what peril is anyone’s guess. Arlington, Virginia has filed a lawsuit against the state of Virginia to hopefully right a wrong so egregious, it evokes memories of the height of state sanctioned racism. And if Arlington is successful with its lawsuit, the verdict could reverberate throughout this country. It could have the instantaneous impact on racism that the ratification of the 13th Amendment did. With the stroke of a pen, racism and discrimination were eliminated by legislative fiat.

What is this nefarious and scandalous form of racism perpetuated by the state of Virginia of which I speak? Has Virginia reinstated slavery? No. Has Virginia reincarnated Jim Crow era laws? No. Has Virginia unleashed attack dogs and high-powered water hoses on congregating blacks? No, much worse than any of these described atrocious acts.

If you feel your hackles begin to rise on your neck with indignant anticipation of the acts of racism that I am about to unveil, hold steady, as you are likely an accessory to this heinous and disgusting act. I am guilty, and am forever compelled to seek atonement by spreading the word that every metropolitan area and state  is complicit of this crime. It started innocently enough: a few friends and I were out for a joyride on a local turnpike, for expedition of our travels, and hoping for a greener earth, we pulled into the HOV lane. In retrospect, we might as well have hung a hangman’s noose out the window.

HOV lanes. High occupancy lanes. HOT lanes. High occupancy toll lanes. It’s that ugly. These egregiously racist emission-saving and transportation-easement tools of racism have, unfortunately, been unleashed on the minorities of Arlington County.

The facts are these:

Arlington: Race a Factor in HOT Lanes

By SHERRI LY

A lawsuit filed by Arlington County last month claims the lanes benefit wealthy white people and discriminates against minorities. While the only rule to get in the HOV lanes on Interstate 395 is you must have three people in the car, Arlington claims adding HOT lanes would cut out poor and minorities by defacto.

Buried in the lawsuit filed last month, county attorneys argued the HOT lanes, “encourage and enable a financially-able, privileged class of suburban and rural, primarily Caucasian residents from Stafford and Spotsylvania counties operating single occupancy vehicles (“SOV”) unimpeded access on toll lanes.”

In other words, it benefits wealthy white people.

A few pages later, the suit claims the Federal Highway Administration and the Virginia Department of Transportation failed to do the proper environmental analysis and that “their actions also constituted civil rights violations as they discriminated against minority and low income communities.”

Arlington County Chair Barbara Favola says the race issue only arose because the environmental review includes socioeconomic impact.

“It is not our intention to play a race card. I think that’s a very divisive approach,” Favola told FOX5.

Before filing the lawsuit, she says, the board never actually discussed race as a factor and that air quality has always been the chief issue.
“We were concerned about everybody being affected by the project. We thought congestion was not going to be significantly reduced,” Favola said.

It is apparent what is going on here. Immediately following Obama’s election, this country has reverted back to state mandated racism not seen since circa 1860; this brand of racism, according to left leaning pundits, is more rampant and virulent than anything offered up a decade and a half ago. This is not conjecture nor anecdotal accusations, my friends, one only needs to spend a modicum amount of time perusing mainstream media, listening to Democrats, and one will be abhorred at the level of racism that has engulfed this country after Nov. 4.

HOV/HOT lanes, mon Dieu, what’s next, public lynching? Or perhaps a far worse form of racism, the continued disagreement of Obama’s policies and resistance to Fascism. That is a level of racism that cannot be tolerated for any length without rending this country asunder.

The Rorschach inkblot test is one form of administering a psychological evaluation for diagnosing underlying thought disorders. After staring at an array of ink blots, the testee describes what the shapes represent. This test was played out in real life yesterday as a political cartoon in the New York Post.

Perhaps a preamble is necessary in order to make manifest the various dynamics surrounding the political cartoon. Two events were headline news earlier this week: the signing of the spending package by President Hope and Change; and the pet chimpanzee that went on a maniacal rampage, almost killing his owner’s friend, and was subsequently killed by the police. Two hundred pound pet monkey violently attacking the owner’s friend= monkey bad; President Hope and Change signing an $800 billion defective spending bill that no one has read, including Hope and Change = leaders stupid. For these two events to occur simultaneously is manna from heaven for a political cartoonist.

The cartoon:

Any observer with a passable intellect, common sense, and a semi-workable sense of cerebral balance, would know that the cartoon referenced the monkey attack, and the verbiage from the officers represented an intellectual view of the spending package. But Post Haste was the ignorant reaction from the visceral in regard to the cartoon. Leading the charge was race baiter and racial opportunist, Al Sharpton.

Sharpton said the cartoon….”invokes historically racist images in suggesting an ape wrote President Barack Obama’s economic stimulus package.” Sharpton also stated, “The cartoon in today’s New York Post is troubling at best, given the racist attacks throughout history that have made African-Americans synonymous with monkeys.” The spending bill was written by congressional Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, (a white woman), and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, (a white man). I personally don’t find it objectionable that Sharpton referred to Pelosi and Reid as monkeys, but I am sure there are plenty of monkeys that would be highly offended by the comparison.

Also chiming in from the peanut gallery is Rolland Martin, a syndicated columnist who on a good day is limited to just being a racial bigot. Martin gleefully celebrates the death of anyone he has anointed as racist. Referencing the deaths of Georgia Gov. Lester Maddox and Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, and speaking shortly after the death of Sen. Jesse Helms, Roland glibly stated, “Death has a way of sanitizing the most virulent and despicable aspects of prominent lives, especially those who trafficked in racial bigotry. Now they are joined in the conservative wing of heaven by former Sen. Jesse Helms of North Carolina.” Perhaps Martin should re-read–assuming he has read it once–the Bible, as there is very little compassion for the type of liberalism that is pervasive in our society today, much less accommodating a liberal wing in heaven. Martin called the cartoon offensive, careless and racist , and also said the cartoon was clearly comparing President Obama to a chimpanzee.

The cartoonist, Sean Delonas, in his defense said, “It’s absolutely friggin ridiculous. Do you really think I’m saying Obama should be shot? I didn’t see that in the cartoon. The chimpanzee was a major story in the Post. Every paper in New York, except The New York Times, covered the chimpanzee story. It’s just ridiculous. It’s about the economic stimulus bill. If you’re going to make that about anybody, it would be Nancy, Pelosi, which it’s not.” As the York Post said in its defense of running the cartoon, “Sometimes a cartoon is just a cartoon – even as the opportunists seek to make it something else.”

Quite serendipitously, Eric Holder, the Attorney General of the United States, and one of Obama’s more deplorable picks, stated quite analogously yesterday, “Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and I believe continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards. Though race-related issues continue to occupy a significant portion of our political discussion, and though there remain many unresolved racial issues in this nation, we, average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about things racial.”

Eric Holder is correct: we are a nation of cowards because we cannot discuss the issue of race. The reason being because Eric Holder, Roland Martin, Al Sharpton, NAACP, New Black Panthers, et al, are ardent racists, and, as demonstrated during the Obama campaign, all criticism of Obama was rooted in racism. There was plenty of dialog about race, and it usually went as so:

Smart person, “Obama is not qualified.”

Racist, “That’s a racist statement.”

Smart person,”Was Obama born here?”

Racist, “That’s a racist question.”

Smart person, “Obama is a Socialist.”

Racist, “That’s a racist statement.”

Smart person, “I don’ agree with Obama’s liberal ideology.”

Racist, “That’s a racist attitude.”

And on and on and on with the same old race baiting poppycock. Indeed, there was plenty of race dialog during the campaign, and it has not abated one iota. Case in point is the statement by black South Carolina Congressman James Clyburn that, “southern governors opposing the stimulus package is a slap in the face of African-Americans. Folks, it does not get any more racist than this in the 21st century.”

Until the multitudes of simple-minded apostles resist being led down the path of philistinism by these sectarian, intolerant, and self-serving provocateurs, no honest dialog will happen.

This cartoon, this ink blot, this litmus test of common sense, was an unwitting test of one’s propensity for racism. Whoever was offended by this cartoon is a racist because of his projection bias. Their projection bias of racism will always be attributed to something or someone else as long as they harbor their disfigured disposition. Whatever one’s inclination happens to be, will be found in what they have contact with: if good, then good will be reflected back; if hateful, hate will be reflected back; if racist, racism is reflected back.

Have we, as a country, achieved a point where the word “monkey” is now deemed racist? Should we refer to the hairy creatures as macaca fascicularies-Americans? Is this the point we have arrived at?

Yes, indeed, we are a country of cowards. Al Sharpton, Rolland Martin, James Clyburn, and Eric Holder, and their ilk are the cowards–Americans only in the academic sense: they are unfit to be considered my countrymen; they are unfit to be considered patriots of this country. Indeed, Mr. Holder, you are a coward, and as far as there not being enough dialog about race, you are a liar; in fact, there has been so much talk about race this past year, I am quite frankly sick of it, especially the racist dialog coming from your side of the aisle.

]]> http://www.jimbyrd.com/america-a-nation-of-cowards/feed 3 http://www.jimbyrd.com/obama-press-secretary-bombarded-with-questions-about-cabinet-tax-cheats-and-lobbyists http://www.jimbyrd.com/obama-press-secretary-bombarded-with-questions-about-cabinet-tax-cheats-and-lobbyists#comments Wed, 04 Feb 2009 04:49:47 +0000 jimbyrd http://www.jimbyrd.com/?p=1655 Obama press secretary, Robert Gibbs, was put on the defensive when bombarded with questions about Obama’s cabinet picks that had either violated his ethos directive, or violated the Internal Revenue Service’s tax guidelines by refusing to pay taxes on their income.

Obama spokesman defends ethics standards

Feb 3 02:18 PM US/Eastern

WASHINGTON (AP) – Despite the tax problems faced by high-level nominees, and the exceptions made to the no-lobbyists pledge, President Barack Obama’s spokesman is defending the administration’s ethical standards.

Robert Gibbs told reporters Tuesday, “The bar that we set is the highest that any administration in the country has ever set, with the exception of Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State; Eric Holder, Attorney General; former senator and current lobbyist, Tom Daschle, secretary of Health and Human Services; Bill Richardson, ex-secretary of Commerce pick; lobbyist William Lynn, Deputy Secretary of Defense; Nancy Killefer, chief performance officer; Timothy Geitner, Treasury secretary; and lobbyist Mark Patterson, chief of staff Treasury department. If you make exceptions for these picks, the ethical standards are pretty high so far this week, up to today, Tuesday, after Daschle and Killefer withdrew. And Obama is confident that we should be able to carry this ethical momentum into the weekend, perhaps.”

Gibbs also noted that Obama stated on Fox news, “I consider this a mistake on my part, one that I intend to fix and correct and make sure that we’re not screwing up again. It was the process that derailed my Health and Human Services nomination. There are just too many personal and prying questions asked for these jobs. I feel confident that if we eliminate most of the questions in the vetting process, we can get these nominations through more smoothly.”

During a briefing filled with questions about Tom Daschle’s decision to withdraw from consideration to be Health and Human Services secretary, Gibbs pointed to experts who describe the administration’s ethics rules as the strongest in history if Obama would only follow them.

He also said those experts recognized that Obama would need to make exceptions to his pledge on almost every cabinet pick if he continues on his current path of choosing lobbyists and tax delinquents, and it seems unlikely that he will have an administration free of former lobbyists and tax delinquents. The experts also expressed concern that Obama is only three picks away from having the first administration that would be in violation of the RICO act.

Obama’s choice to become the No. 2 official at the Defense Department recently lobbied for military contractor Raytheon. And his choice as deputy secretary at Health and Human Services, lobbied through most of last year as an anti-tobacco advocate.

I will take the reader through a sequential, yet abbreviated, view of racism, and the systematic process and legislation passed to eliminate it. It will be viewed through a prism of objectivity– as opposed to subjective balderdash–from the Emancipation Proclamation through 1965. After 1965, the path takes a subjective turn and the reader can follow the macabre journey of Michelle Obama as she fights a daily battle against racism, unlike any seen since the Jim Crow era, to complete her education. And how she was able to overcome suffocating oppression and emerge as a well rounded American patriot, who stands proud, and thanks her country everyday for the opportunity it gave her.

1862: The Emancipation Proclamation was issued by President Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War on September 22, 1862. Lincoln’s proclamation declared that all slaves be freed within the “rebellious states”.

1865: After the Civil War concluded, The 13th Amendment was ratified in 1865 abolishing slavery in the United States.

1866: The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was passed on April 9, 1866, over the veto of President Andrew Johnson. The Civil Rights Act outlined the newly gained rights for the freed slaves.

1868: The 14th Amendment was ratified on July, 9, 1868. This amendment clarified the 1866 Civil Rights Act.

1896: Plessy v Ferguson (1896) addressed the “separate but equal” status of blacks. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of racial segregation under the doctrine of “separate but equal”.

1867-1965: Shortly after the end of the Civil War and the ensuing Constitutional amendments it spawned, the Jim Crow laws became the de facto laws outlining the rights of blacks. The Jim Crow laws were primarily in the Southern states and their intent were to restrict and circumvent the newly acquired rights of the freed slaves from the 13th and 14th Amendments. These laws were in effect from 1876 until 1965. The laws separated black Americans from white Americans through a “separate but equal” modus operandi. A few examples of the Jim Crow laws where blacks and whites, by law, were not allowed to co-exist and the catalysts responsible for their abolishment: Public transportation (Rosa Parks), public schools (Brown v Board of Education), restricting the ability to vote with poll taxes and literacy tests (24th Amendment) , segregated restaurants, drinking fountains, etc.(Civil Rights Act of 1964).

1965: Michelle Obama is born.

In very recent American history, as currently as the preceding 40 years, black Americans had fire hoses turned on them; attack dogs were unleashed on them; they were lynched; they had crosses burned in their yards; blacks were, across the board, unable to integrate with whites in the public arena.

The preceding chronology is, without dispute, unadulterated racism. When a black American, who lived in that era, speaks of the racism they were subjected to, or witnessed, it is believable and raw. When Michelle Obama talks about racism, knowing her background, it is paramount opportunism.

What is the significance of Michelle Obama in this presidential race? Michelle and Barack Obama are a package deal. To believe otherwise would be intellectual absurdity. She is equally as much an Achilles Heel to his campaign as his own anti-American and racist background and current credo. There is far too much unknown about Barack Obama, and what is gradually being extracted from the penumbra, is apocalyptical. Michelle Obama is a significant piece of the puzzle in elucidating Barack Obama the presidential candidate. When Michelle’s views are exposed, so are the views of Barack.

By the time Michelle Obama was born, in 1965, the grisly, industrial degree of public, overt racism had vanished. It was replaced with individually held racism, resentment, and prejudices caused by over active legislation. People continued to harbor racism for the simple reason that no matter how many legislative agendas are passed against racism, you cannot legislate thoughts, feelings and attitudes–when you do, it breeds resentment and prejudice, and can be confused with racism.

Reflect on the preceding atrocities that black Americans endured and the horrible racist atrocities that Michelle Obama had to endure at Princeton and Harvard. Michelle would have you believe, as she does, that the racism she endured at two Ivy League universities is indistinguishable from the atrocities endured by blacks until 40 years ago.

Michelle Obama’s road to Princeton followed the following route: Michelle Obama was a good student in High School, not a great student, just good. She was not at the top of her graduating class. Her High School academic accomplishments did not garner the attention of her school’s college counselors–they used their resources on the smarter students who had been preparing to enter top tier universities. In the aggregate of graduating seniors, her grades and test scores did not merit an Ivy League university’s entrance. But, Michelle had an ace up her sleeve–affirmative action. She applied to Princeton and was accepted. She made it to Princeton and Harvard by being the beneficiary of reverse discrimination. If her ancestors were of a different racial background, she would not have serendipitously been accepted to Princeton, which beget Harvard, and the reader would never have heard her name.

Princeton was founded in 1746 by white men. Classes were taught by white men. It was intended to educate white men. It was a white university. Bruce Wright was the first black accepted to Princeton in 1935. When he showed up for class, and through visual inspection, it was discovered he was black, he was sadly, and undeservedly, sent home even though he was, as opposed to Michelle Obama, academically qualified on merit. The barrier to blacks at Princeton was broken in 1942 when 4 black sailors graduated from Princeton. The four black graduates were not replacements for more qualified white students to operate within a quota, but replaced white students that were less qualified. Michelle Obama replaced someone of a different race, better grades, more well rounded, and obviously from the gist of her senior thesis, more interested in an education from Princeton rather than chasing racist ghosts around campus. Yet, because the Civil War was fought and millions of white men died so the black slaves could live free; because of multitudes of legislation, enacted by white men, so blacks could enjoy the same rights as whites in America; because billions upon billions of white taxpayer dollars were and are being spent to continue to open doors to blacks 150 years after the 13th and 14th amendments were ratified–she is angry at white America. Doors have been opened through discrimination against white men and this somehow has made Michelle Obama a very angry black woman with her angst pointed at white America and who believes there is absolutely no reason to be proud of her country other than her husband running a good presidential campaign.

Michelle Obama has described the racism she endured at Princeton and Harvard in horrifying detail. She felt she was perceived as not equal. By sensing racism, she stated she was made more aware of her blackness than ever before. That is the extent of her racism experience at two Ivy League universities. Michelle Obama’s racism experience can be equated to the windmills that Don Quixote perceived as dragons. Michelle Obama has spent an inordinate amount of time obsessing about racism rather than realizing, on her worst day at Princeton or Harvard, she may have been subjected to disdain for, according to fellow black students, having a choleric disposition as a student, and being the benefactor of reverse racism in the guise of affirmative action, but nothing more than probable self perpetrated affliction.

I can think of nothing more repugnant than Michelle Obama’s description of her treatment at Princeton and Harvard. Universities she would have been unable to attend on her own academic merit. Her continued hatred and bitterness toward America, when there are millions of black Americans who can tell you first hand the atrocities they experienced as recently as 40 years ago, is loathing. She was able to attend Ivy League universities by being the benefactor of racism, with perceived racism in the air, while her elder compatriots attended segregated schools mandated by law and were unable, by law, to drink out of the same water fountains, eat at the same restaurants, etc. as white people.

What has a Princeton and Harvard education done for Michelle Obama? They have produced an off-the-rack, rich liberal elitist and an unappreciative affirmative action beneficiary.

During her husband’s presidential campaign, Michelle’s senior thesis at Princeton was temporarily withdrawn from the public view until after the presidential election. Under monumental pressure, Princeton made it public again. The title of her thesis was “Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community”.

Following are the highlights of Michelle Obama’s senior thesis to give the reader an insight of her separatist ideology:

• The introduction to her thesis stated the following: My experiences at Princeton have made me far more aware of my ‘blackness’ than ever before.
• I have found that at Princeton, no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my white professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don’t belong. Regardless of the circumstances under which I interact with whites at Princeton, it often seems as if, to them, I will always be black first and a student second.
• She stated that America was founded on “crime and hate”.
• Predominately white universities like Princeton are socially and academically designed to cater to the needs of the white students comprising the bulk of their enrollments.
• In defining the concept of identification or the ability to identify with the black community, I based my definition on the premise that there is a distinctive black culture very different from white culture.
• She pointed out that Princeton (at the time) had only five black tenured professors on its faculty.
• There was no doubt in my mind that as a member of the black community, I am obligated to this community and will utilize all of my present and future resources to benefit the black community first and foremost.
• Her findings also stressed that Princeton was infamous for being racially the most conservative of the Ivy League universities.

To summarize her thesis, she sent out a questionnaire to 400 black alumni of Princeton. Only 90 were returned for a percentage of 22%. The other 310 alumni probably found her line of questioning presumptive racism that they did not endure, and possibly found the questions racially provocative. The conclusion of the survey was contrary to her myopic view of blacks with Ivy League educations. Her synopsis of the results: “I hoped that these findings would help me conclude that despite the high degree of identification with whites as a result of the educational and occupational path that black Princeton alumni follow, the alumni would still maintain a certain level of identification with the black community. However, these findings do not support this possibility.”

She was apparently confused and disappointed that black alumni, and then current students, from Princeton did not share her perception of racism and separatist views and she was obviously agitated that black alumni left Princeton and went on with their lives and assimilated into mainstream America, as all successful people of any race, creed, or gender do–if they opt to succeed on their own merit–and left the racial rhetoric and self destructive ideology to radicals like herself and other profiteers like Al Sharpton, Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson, et al .

Michelle Obama sees the world in black and white. She sees two worlds that don’t exist: One world white and one world black and chooses not to see the center of her dysfunctional universe where there is one world, significantly larger than the peripheral fantasy planets she sees orbiting it. This world, based in reality, harbors the majority of American’s who believes the dream is there for anyone who chooses to chase it. Michelle and Barack have an enormous block of timber resting on their shoulders.

She has stated as recently as a month ago that, “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country, and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change. Life is not good: we’re a divided country, we’re a country that is just downright mean, we are guided by fear, we’re a nation of cynics, sloths, and complacents.”

Is America ready for a black president? Emphatically no!

If a vote is cast for Obama only because he is black, or a vote not cast for him because he is black. The answer is no. Barack Obama is not a viable presidential candidate, not because he is black but because of who he and his wife are, as people, and what they represent. Barack Obama, with Michelle at his side, if elected, will significantly turn the clock back on race relations in the U.S. Not because race relations are at the level that racist profiteers would have you believe, but because the Obama’s will create a race problem of indeterminable magnitude.

But, conversely, is America ready for an honorable person to be president who just so happens to be black or just so happens to be a woman, or both? Emphatically, yes!

Barack and Michelle are divisive individuals and are not cut from presidential cloth and Barack is definitely not an honorable person running for president who just happens to be black.

Maya Angelou was sexually abused at the age of 7, a mother at 16, a Creole cook, the first Black female San Francisco cable car conductor, a cocktail waitress, a professional dancer, a drug addict, a madam for lesbian prostitutes, dabbled in prostitution, a successful singer, an actress, a playwright, edited an English-language magazine in Egypt, a university lecturer, a civil rights activist, an author and poet. She has either won, or been nominated for every conceivable award to be had from singing, acting, and writing.

The referencing of the past prostitution and drug use could have been left out, but it would have been dishonorable to her honesty, and she would have found that much more offensive than its inclusion. Her introspection on past indiscretions is part of her journey and a message to anyone, that no matter where you find yourself, …”see where you are and admit it…as soon as you admit it you can be like the prodigal son, or daughter, and go to a safe place.” She also believes the past should be addressed out of honesty. If you deny your past transgressions, and present yourself to your children as perfect, then their slighted faults are magnified because they compare themselves to their parent’s perfection.

Maya Angelou is an author of beautiful and powerfully moving verse and prose. The primary subject matter of her writing deals chiefly with discrimination and racism at any level, regardless of race or gender. She accounts for how she deals with racist talk–the quote is long but very poignant:

I will not sit in a group of black friends and hear racial pejoratives against whites. I will not hear “honky.” I will not hear “Jap.” I will not hear “kike.” I will not hear “greaser.” I will not hear “dago.” I will not hear it. As soon as I hear it, I say, “Excuse me, I have to leave. Sorry.” Or if it’s in my home, I say, “You have to leave. I can’t have that. That is poison, and I know it is poison, and you’re smearing it on me. I will not have it.” Now, it’s not an easy thing. And one doesn’t all of a sudden sort of blossom into somebody who’s courageous enough to say that. But you do start little by little. And you sit in a room, and somebody says — if you’re all white, and somebody says, “Well, the niggers — ” You may not have the courage right then, but you say, “Whooh! My goodness! It’s already eight o’clock. I have to go,” and leave. Little by little, you develop courage. You sit in a room, and somebody says, “Well, you know what the Japs did then, and what they’re doing now.” Say, “Mm-hmm! I have to go. My goodness! It’s already six o’clock.” Leave. Continue to build the courage. Sooner or later, you’ll be able to say out loud, “Just a minute. I defend that person. I will not have gay bashing, lesbian bashing. Not in my company. I will not do it.”

When we talk about racism, we have to see that we are not just talking about acts against blacks, we are talking about vulgarities against any human being because of her — his — race. This is vulgar. That is what it is, whether it is anti-Asian, whether it is the use of racial prejudices about Jews, about Japanese, about Native Americans, about blacks, about Irish, it is stupid, because what it is really is it is poison. It poisons the spirit, the human spirit. I know there are blacks who say, “I can use the N-word because I mean it endearingly.” I don’t believe that. I believe it is vulgar and dangerous, given from any mouth to any ear. I know that if poison is in a vial which says P-O-I-S-O-N and has a skull and the cross bones, that it is poison. But if you pour the same thing into Bavarian crystal it is still poison. So I think racism is vulgar any way you cut it.

She has the perfect prescription for politicians who have trouble with addressing their changing stances on issues with too many nonsensical excuses. It would serve them well, along with the country, if they would use her method of addressing it, “Say everybody, you know what I said yesterday, and said so fervently, and said with such passion? Well I don’t believe that any more. I have been changed. Now that is courage.”

Hypocrisy is the malignancy of all great works.

Maya Angelou’s works suffer from this malignancy.

It is abhorrible that the Archdiocese of Chicago has allowed Michael Phleger to be a Priest. It is more abhorrible that he is allowed to continue to lead the Faith Community of Saint Sabina Catholic Church in Chicago. Phleger is a White Priest who leads a Black church through agitation, racism, and hate. Phleger continuously parades inflammatory, racist, and anti-American Black figures through his church to spread their hate-filled prescription for equality. The list includes, but is not limited to, Louis Farrakhan, who Phleger presented with an award from the church, Al Sharpton, Harry Belafonte, Rev. Otis Moss, Jr, among others, and now–Jeremiah Wright. Phleger, at best, is slightly more palatable than Wright.

Phleger perpetuates racism by believing that his Black congregation cannot function if not fed a steady diet of racist and separatist ideology. Rather than teaching directly from the Bible and following the guidelines in the Catholic Catechism, he believes that hate and separatism will set them free. Phleger declared to a crowd of Black participates at a rally with Jesse Jackson who were protesting a Chicago gun shop, that allegedly sold guns to criminals, that the owner of the shop should be “snuffed out.” Forget the 10 Commandments,–just kill him.

The first litmus test for a Pastor or Priest of the Christian faith is do they fit the definition of 2 Corinthians 3:18: But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord. Are they Christ like?

Unfortunately for their apologists and flocks, Father Michael Phleger, Jeremiah Wright, Otis Moss, Al Sharpton, et al, have more in common with Faust’s Mephistopheles than Christ.

Barack Obama’s imbecilic defense of Jeremiah Wright, and, in essence, all Black churches that expound a racist and separatist agenda , said it is perfectly acceptable for them to be racist because of the history of Blacks in America. It is White America’s fault for not accepting it and in order to move forward, it will have to be accepted. It is irrelevant whether one understands a Black Christian church or not. The fact there is any significant difference between a Black Christian church and any other Christian church is highly debatable. There is one Bible and one fundamental set of rules, and move too far outside the boundaries, and you will achieve cult status. These churches, and optimistically assuming there are only a few and Obama does not speak for Black churches in general, cannot speak their hateful doctrine and get a free pass, for it is common knowledge as to what constitutes racist and hate speech. There is no justification nor is there any honor in promoting hate.

This past Friday Maya Angelou was honored for her birthday at the Faith Community of Saint Sabina Catholic Church. The benediction for her celebration at the church was given by Jeremiah Wright. She accepted the invitation from Faith Community of Saint Sabina Church at the peril of her works losing credibility by her contrary actions.

It is disheartening that Maya Angelou has embraced, and endorsed by her actions, this defective cast of provocateurs and their separatist axioms.

Her words have the power to transcend racial boundaries. She is the driving force behind her word’s power. If she would have applied the courage she spoke of to resist racist exhortation, and publicly declined the invitation and denounce their ideology, her words would have grown even stronger to anyone of any race who needS strength to repudiate racism. But, by accepting from this particular church, with this particular Priest, and allowing Jeremiah Wright to perform the benediction, she has imprisoned her powerful words against any and all forms of racism within the boundaries of one race.

This Easter Sunday, the new Pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ, Otis Moss III, gave a sermon comparing the retiring Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s public lynching at the hands of the media to Jesus’ death at the hands of the Romans.

On the holiest of days for the Christian religion, Easter Sunday, a polemic church that promotes heretical values antithetical to Christian doctrinal values has the audacity to compare Jeremiah Wright to Jesus. This church is endorsed, supported, and defended by presidential candidate Barack Obama. After 20 years of loyal involvement, this church is Barack Obama. Is it plausible to believe that Obama, who’s resume is void of any accomplishment of substance, can intertwine this temperament with the standard of America, and vice versa, to form a “more perfect union”?

The one variable that Obama is discounting is standards.

Every society has standards that encapsulate the society as a whole and provide avenues for any imaginable form of advancement or satisfaction if done within the confines of the etiquette prescribed by the standards of society. Although this is only part of what defines a culture, it is integral. There has and will continue to be sub cultures. Some sub cultures were the result of unjust laws and societal constraints, and some were, and are currently, not. Most sub cultures are sects that refuse to accept the protocols of integration into society and live in the periphery by choice or by mesmerizing indoctrination.

Jeremiah Wright, the Trinity United Church of Christ, and the new standard bearer of this misguided ideology, Otis Moss III are determined to keep, at the very minimum, their congregation in sub-culture status. This is not just within the confines of the church, as these people leave the church on any given Sunday, and take with them the venom that permeates their very being into their ordinary life. They then attempt to engage mainstream America with opposing standards and counterproductive tools being supplied by their church. Any individual choosing to exist in a sub culture, will not succeed in the prevailing primary culture.

Example: if one desires money, conventionally, one works. If one desires more money, one acquires education or tries one’s hand at an entrepreneurial pursuit. If one desires more opportunities for money, they procure an advanced education. None of the prescribed procedures for money will be effective without one’s ambition being fueled by hard work and the absence of entitlement. Note: this example only applies to money because the perceived root of the problem and the cure that is being taught at Obama’s church seems to revolve around money from another branch of society.

There appears to be an emerging penumbra of racism within Obama by self decreed proxy.
So don’t be distracted by his magniloquence rhetoric in defense of his church or any Black leader that speaks with a racist tongue. The following is a transcript of Obama’s appearance on the Michael Smerconish’s radio show. Obama has defended Trinity United Church of Christ by stating, …“it is not a crackpot church. This is a pillar of the community and if you go there on Easter on this Easter Sunday… you would think this is just like any other church. … So I don’t want to suggest that somehow, the loops you have been seeing typifies the services all the time. That is the danger of the YouTube era. It doesn’t excuse what he said. But it gives it some perspective.” No one, in any capacity or position, should be defended, at any level, if their means to an end is by perpetuating racism and hatred.

Keep your eye on the ball. Focus only on the ball. Barack Obama is the ball. Obama is going to have to address this Easter Sunday’s vitriolic sermon by his church. He cannot, at this point, with any authority, legitimately disassociate himself from his church and its continued rhetoric. Keep your eyes on Obama, and do not allow yourself to become mesmerized by his elocution.

According to Obama’s new pastor, Otis Moss, the church is in the midst of a battle, and needs money to fight this battle. He never mentioned, specifically, who their opponent was, only that money would alleviate the problem. Money can be donated to the “Resurrection Fund”. Jeremiah Wright was not in attendance at the Easter Sunday service, one could only assume, and presumptively so, that he was somewhere walking on water. Since Obama was not in attendance either, perhaps Wright did as Jesus did with Peter, and held Obama’s hand so he could experience walking on water and bolster his faith in a faithless enterprise .

There have been great men who were good politicians but rarely have great politicians been great men.

When faced with a political scandal, politicians will generally take one of three methodical actions in defense of said scandal. At times, a crossbred hybrid of the actions is employed if the potential damage commands it. The three political defense mechanisms that follow are the options available to politicians:

Option-1) Lie. Nothing fancy or baroque, just a plain straightforward lie. Lie about any knowledge of the scandal and deny having any involvement in it. The next step is to wait and judge the fallout.

Option-2) Excuses. Contrive a plausible excuse as to why it happened along with an underlying reason of its happening. Expound the fact that it was not your fault it happened. At some point during the excuse stage the employ of a fall guy may be necessary for the achievement of salvaging a political career.

Option-3) The Nuclear Option. When backed into a corner and said politician’s knees are buckling from the weight of irrefutable evidence of said scandal, one may have to apply the Nuclear Option–which can be the unraveling of a politician’s career–be honest and tell the truth. The truth is incontestably a politician’s last resort for salvation.

Thus presents Obama’s potential waterloo in regards to Rev. Jeremiah Wright and the Trinity Church of Christ.

The dubiously esteemed Rev. Jeremiah Wright is a certified racism provocateur. He is a historically and substantially well documented racist, anti-Semite, and anti-American, and is currently an albatross around Obama’s neck that is beginning to have the prospect of removing Obama’s head along with its extraction.

The ensuing is a very brief discourse, for the benefit of the uninformed reader, of the hate speech that has disgorged from the mouth of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright over the course his career:

• Wright told his congregation to insert the phrase “God damn America” in the stead of “God bless America” in the song of the same name, since that is what the Bible says for killing innocent people.
• He accused the U.S. government of providing drugs, building bigger prisons and passing the three-strike law for the sole purpose of Blacks.
• He condemned the U.S. as a racist society and again said God Damn America. He also, in the same statement, referred to the U.S. as the “U.S. of KKK-A.”
• The Trinity United Church awarded its highest social achievement award to Louis Farrakhan. Wright also, in 1984, visited Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi with Louis Farrakhan.
• Rev. Jeremiah Wright said during a sermon on the first Sunday after 9/11 on Sept 16, 2001 that the United States brought the attacks from al Qaeda on itself for its own terrorism. He later amended this statement to say that America was attacked as retribution for racism.
• He has classified Zionism as racism and compared Israel to South Africa during apartheid because of their occupation of Palestinian territories. He accused the U.S. of inventing the AIDS virus and distributing it worldwide to keep third world nations in poverty.

While these are just a few highlights of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s decades of promoting racism, anti-Semitism, and anti- Americanism, they are manifold enough to produce an unclouded gauge of his character or the character of his apologists.

Obama’s conundrum is that every one of these incendiary statements by Wright are tattooed on his forehead because of his predilection for Wright and the Trinity Church of Christ. Obama has spent 20 plus years of being mentored by Wright, financially supporting the Trinity Church of Christ and never, until being politically motivated, did he attempt to distance himself from the savage viewpoints of Wright and the Trinity Church of Christ–and then he only tried to remove himself from certain statements by Wright rather than a denunciation of the source.

Lies: When these statements from Obama’s pastor, mentor, and church manifested themselves in the press, his natural political instinct was to use Option 1 and lie. And lie he did. He went on record, for years, and stated that he has never been exposed to any of the inflammatory words from Rev. Wright nor any of the oratorical offenses since being a regular member of the Trinity Church of Christ since 1988. The fall out was too great and potentially too damaging because the lie was too implausible, so he methodically moved from Option 1, to Option 2.

Excuses: Obama went into excuse mode in defense of his mentor and church. He implored why his mentor and church should be excused for their vitriolic discourse. His reasoning was because Wright is Black and the church is a Black Church—the latter holds true if Obama’s statement, that all Black churches are the same, is taken at face value–which is incomprehensible. Obama would also be a benefactor of this excuse by receiving a passport of dissociation by proxy and race. He enlightened the White Community on the fact that Black churches are different from White churches, even though they worship the same God and do so with the same operating manual. Obama’s church, and according to Obama, most Black churches, teach a racially exclusive theology with a theological modus operandi that would, at the least, make a White parishioner uncomfortable. Obama never explained how this antithetical Christian ideology could be reconciled with the teachings of Christ nor the teachings of the New Testament. One could suppose that, according to Obama, Blacks also have a pass with their Creator.

Obama’s deployment of Option 2 pales in comparison to Bill Clinton’s execution of Option 2. Clinton performed, with Oscar worthy aplomb, his now infamous “it depends on what the meaning of “is” is. Clinton’s excuse is he did not have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky because their congress was not technically sex, so he answered under oath accordingly. Obama believes that Wright’s speech and his 20 plus years of support are not technically racism and anti-Americanism because it was spoken by Blacks and as you know, Blacks have a history….

Truth: Obama completely botched Option 3. He never mentioned his lies nor apologized for them or his support of Wright and his church. He never addressed his pattern of lying about Rev. Wright–a complete violation of Option 3. He only denounced certain statements by Wright, rather than Wright the racist. Obama disingenuously kept himself out of the racist loop. Obama gave the great racial uniting speech after Option 1 and Option 2 weren’t selling. Unfortunately his speech did nothing but spotlight his years of lying about his knowledge of Rev. Wright’s hateful rhetoric during this, at best, milquetoast model of media vetting. Obama’s speech failed to extract him from his contradictions.

His speech can be encapsulated into three sentences: 1) I know I said one thing for years, but this is what I am saying now, sort of. 2) If White America will overlook Black America’s continuing with its racist dialog, anti-Semitism, and anti-American rhetoric, things will come together. 3) If White America will address and fund a laundry list of grievances from Black America, the country can, if all three recommendations are followed, and I am elected President, achieve a more perfect union. Obama, and his camp, would be well advised to come to terms with the fact that his oratory prowess may have, up to this point, blanketed his lack of substance, but it cannot cover his lies and burgeoning racism.

Since the racist disposition of Rev. Wright and the Trinity Church of Christ has been brought to light in the press, the church issued the following statement “Nearly three weeks before the 40th commemorative anniversary of the murder of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., the Reverend Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright’s character is being assassinated in the public sphere because he has preached a social gospel on behalf of oppressed women, children and men in America and around the globe.”

Two questions arise from the church’s statement that should be addressed: Why the omission of the subject matter at the heart of the controversy? If one mixes the lethal elixir, drinks it, then spews the poison from one’s mouth–then sells the tapes in the church’s lobby–is the resulting disclosure by the media character assassination or is the press matter-of-factly reporting character suicide?

The heart of Obama’s speech is his being able to “form a more perfect union” for this country. This “a more perfect union” idea is very attractive and rapidly attainable. But, contrarily so, his speech was nothing less than an apologetic screed for the defense of racist like Wright et al. Obama gave them a pass because of the discrimination they may have suffered in their past or present, rather than trying to distance himself from their brand of racism with his speech. The caveat he proposed, to achieve “a more perfect union”, to White America, is that White America should atone for its past sins against Black America by understanding and be willing to tolerate the continued racist attitudes of Black churches and leaders, and be willing to address their needs, as a class, rather than the needs of a nation as a whole. Obama believes the Black leaders and churches, who continue to espouse racist dialog, should be given a pass because they cannot break free from the metaphorical shackles of the past because of America’s racist history.

To give further insight into Obama’s ever emerging racist credo, while discussing racism in America during a radio interview a few days after his speech, Obama said of his White grandmother: The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity. But she is a typical white person. If she sees somebody on the street that she doesn’t know, there’s a reaction in her that doesn’t go away and it comes out in the wrong way.

Obama wants to lead this nation out of the perceived racism, that in his mind, would rival the Jim Crow era, but, since he has had absolutely no impact on the racist views of his mentor and pastor, and his church for the past 20 years, how does he honestly propose to change the racist views of a nation in four years?

For an objective view of the demonstrators that descended on Jena, Louisiana, let’s use a scientific application to reach a fair and accurate comparative analysis. We will use Newton’s Third Law of Motion: for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Ensuing is a hypothetically equal and opposite reaction, based on numerical and intrinsic facts mirroring the events of Jena, Louisiana by Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson et al.

An estimated 20,000 protesters swarmed the streets of Jena, Louisiana on Sept. 20, 2007 in protest of 6 black teens, either convicted or indicted, for the violent and brutal racially motivated beating of Justin Barker, a white classmate of the 6. To gain a balanced perspective, contrast it with the Duke rape case in the first few days before the case fell apart. Four white Duke lacrosse players were charged with raping a black female stripper from Durham North Carolina who was hired to entertain at their party.

Three months prior to the beating, there were hangman’s nooses hung from a tree that the white students congregated under. The nooses were hung after blacks students started congregated under the same tree. With a three month span between the nooses and the beating, it would make the two events mutually exclusive. To directly link the two events, as the protesters are attempting to do, through causal analysis, would be a miscarriage of logic.

To keep the numbers and characters in exact relation, assume that 3,000,000 whites march en mass into Durham , consequently shutting down the entire city- the schools, the government offices including the courthouse, the library and private businesses– forcing them to close, thus suspending commerce and the day to day community activity. Assume the organizer is as equally racist as Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Malik Shabazz. Include members of the KKK to balance out the militant racism and hate mongering of Malik Shabazz and the New Black Panthers and various other racist organizations and leaders chanting “white power” and “no justice, no peace.” Assume the mob is demanding that the Duke lacrosse players be cleared and released before ever going to trial. That sums up what happened in Jena, La.

A second area of contrast, following the Duke rape case charges, assume white activists charged into the town and, after the prosecutor shared information about the case with the activists, they took to the streets and shouted the exact chants that the New Black Panthers shouted in Durham: “What do we want? Justice! And when do we want it? Now!” Malik Shabazz leads with a lynch mob mentality.

Was this an altruist endeavor by these false prophets? No! If it was, Bell would not be sitting in jail with a $90,000 dollar bail and a court appointed attorney one week after they left Jena. If the protesters collected .50 cents per person, that would be enough to raise the ten percent of the bail to procure a bail bondsman and subsequently the release of Bell. Sharpton, Jackson, Shabazz and company could have also raised enough money from the protesters, only 1-2 dollars per protester, or out of their own racist lined pockets to get Bell a better attorney. Mychal Bell’s conviction in the beating was overturned because he was tried as an adult rather than a juvenile. He remains incarcerated awaiting either a re-trial as a juvenile or the District Attorney to file an appeal of the case being overturned.

The only person who has been tried and convicted to date of the six is Mychal Bell. Mychal Bell is the seraph at the center of the protest who is in need of being rescued. Mychal Bell has an extensive criminal record for someone only sixteen years old. The day of the beating, his record consisted of:

• A battery conviction – 12/25/2005
• Criminal damage to property conviction – 7/25/2006
• A battery conviction – 9/2006
• Criminal damage to property conviction – 9/2006
• An active warrant from another municipality at the time of the beating.

At the time of the beating Bell was on probation for his previous crimes and had an outstanding warrant from the nearby town of Rapides Parish. You will find none of this information in the main stream media–it does not make for a compelling story line. It is the same prejudiced and biased reporting that headlined the Hurricane Katrina and the Duke lacrosse case.

Mychal Bell at best could be described as a malefactor and at worst a murderer in waiting. He has the distinction of being on the fast track to becoming a career criminal. Another anathema not mentioned is– Why would someone of his documented violent criminal past be allowed in school? This is the Patron Saint at the center of this circus.

The protest in Jena was a three ring circus and Al Sharpton was the Ringmaster. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson’s appetite for media attention is pathological. Racism has become an industry and the major stockholders were all gathered in Jena. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are the false prophets of racism. These false prophets have done more damage to the Black community than whites could have conceivably done since Martin Luther King. To continually portray black perpetrators of crime as victims is nothing but a cancer in the black community. Honestly, what have any of them actually accomplished other than perpetuate racism? Nothing!

Case in point:

The Rev. Al Sharpton said in a statement Saturday that some of the families have received “almost around the clock calls of threats and harassment,” and called on Gov. Kathleen Blanco to intervene.

“These people need more than an investigation. They need protection,” the Rev. Jesse Jackson said. He said his organization would be in touch with President Bush’s nominee for attorney general, Michael Mukasey.

Jesse Jackson held his sharpest criticism for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama saying the candidate is, “acting like he’s white.” Jackson was particularly referring to the senator’s lack of response to six black juveniles being arrested on attempted-murder charges in Jena, La.

“If I were a candidate, I’d be all over Jena,” Jackson said after an hour-long speech at Columbia’s historically black Benedict College. Though as a controversy monger Jackson already is “all over” the incident.

To use the concept of causal analysis, these death threats are a direct result of Al Sharpton et al and their venomous racial rhetoric. In all honesty, these families need protection from these Black leaders. This should make manifest, at least in the academic sense, that Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Malik Shabazz are nothing less than domestic terrorist and any actions they take begets terrorism.

The Black Panthers took control of the microphone and made their usual threats: We’re nonviolent when people are nonviolent with us,” one speaker said. “We’re not nonviolent with people that are violent with us.”

Jesse Jackson called the beating a “schoolyard scuffle.” That would be akin to calling the assassination of Martin Luther King a gross mistake. Both statements are blatantly and repulsively inaccurate. Al Sharpton also fails to mention that a black U.S. attorney, Don Washington, investigated the “Jena Six” case and concluded that the attack on Barker had absolutely nothing to do with the noose-hanging incident three months before. Jesse Jackson said the teens should be given probation. The defendants have yet to go to trial and the evidence has yet to be presented and they are crying for probation. Why were they not in Durham in the early days proposing probation for the lacrosse players before their trial? Because they are racist and racism is their cash cow. There is no money or media exposure in publicly defending white people.

In speaking about the ‘Jena 6′ case last week, Jesse Jackson repeated his mind numbing mantra that there are “more blacks in jail than college. The actual statistics are blacks in jail outnumber blacks in college 3 to 1. This is a self incriminating statement from Jackson, unless you want to blame whites for their plight. The first and foremost at blame are the individuals in prison. Second is their family environment that has been eroded by these activist. Third is the false prophets that influence them. These false prophets have perpetuated the massive social breakdown in the Black community. Even though these de facto leaders of the Black community are listed as number three, their culpability should be weighted equally.

Jesse Jackson compared Thursday’s rallies in Jena to the protests and marches that used to take place in cities like Selma, Ala., in the 1960s. Al Sharpton claimed Thursday’s peaceful demonstrations were to highlight racial inequities in the criminal justice system.

To compare the protest in Jena, La and the defending of a black youth with an extensive violent criminal past, and currently in jail for the beating of a white youth, to the civil rights marches led by Martin Luther King, demonstrates the depth of the megalomania that infects Sharpton, Jackson and Shabazz.

Anyone who has not been brainwashed by these pseudo leaders would know that Martin Luther King would not have supported this demonstration or the individuals at the center of it. MLK was an advocate of non-violence and would have distanced himself from the racially motivated brutal beating of six on one. Would he be a supporter of the violent rhetoric of the New Black Panthers? No! Would he approve of the methods of Sharpton and Jackson? No! Would he be getting rich off of the racism industry? No!

To invoke the name of Martin Luther King and calling this assault on Jena the greatest civil rights movement since the 60′s is unadulterated delusions of grandeur.

The hanging of the nooses was not prosecuted because there was not a crime on the books for it. Was it a racially motivated hate crime? Possibly and possibly not. The hangman’s noose is not a racially exclusive method of killing nor is it a hate crime. Where’s the victim? The act of hanging someone with a hangman’s noose has a long history as a form of capital punishment. In contrast it also has a very short history of the lynching of Blacks by lynch mobs. Is it suspect that the nooses where hanging from the very tree that the black students gathered under? Absolutely. Was the punishment of a three day suspension appropriate for their acts? Absolutely not. Hanging a hangman’s noose in those circumstances is an allusion of violence and should have resulted in a more severe punishment from the school board. For the record, the principle wanted a more severe punishment and the school board overruled and handed down the three day suspension.

To call for the prosecution of the students that hung the nooses by the Black community, when there is not a prosecutable law on the books , is no different from the historical mob lynching of blacks void of a valid law or legitimate cause for the lynching other than skin color.

[digg=http://digg.com/political_opinion/Jena_6_A_Study_of_Racism_and_Race_Relations]