I'm black and I'm proud!

I don’t know if you saw the discussion about Professor Louis Gates and his “nemesis”, Officer Crowley, sharing a common ancestor. I thought this was amusing.

Professor Henry Louis Gates share the same Irish heritage, both apparently having traced their ancestry back to the famous Irishman “Nial of the Nine Hostages.” Gates was quoted as having said, “I’m descended from a white man. A white man who slept with a black slave. And we know from the analysis of my DNA that ….goes back to Ireland.”

I chuckled about this because it reminded me of the 1991 film “The Commitments”, in which the film’s protagonist, an Irish singer named Jimmy Rabbitte, wants to form a band that plays American rhythm and blues music. When he is trying to explain his concept for the band, he says:

“Do you not get it, lads? The Irish are the blacks of Europe. And Dubliners are the blacks of Ireland. And the Northside Dubliners are the blacks of Dublin. So say it once, say it loud: I'm black and I'm proud.”

So, don’t you see? Gates and Crowley are both Black and White…Now why can’t we all just get along?

Obama borrows from the Chavez book of plays

As the founder and former President of Free Venezuela, Inc, a non-profit organization dedicated to researching and analyzing the policies and activities of the Venezuelan socialist regime led by Hugo Chavez, my duties required me to stay abreast of the news there, to form intelligence networks that provided information that was not making it into the mainstream news, assess its quality, and then reports to members of Congress.

Our work was used by Florida Senators and Congressmen sitting on International Relations committees, to call for hearings and to form policy. It also was of good enough quality that we were contacted by officers within SOCOM (Southern Command) and the FBI. I presented information on news programs, debated socialist professors from local universities, and was invited to speak at the University of Miami. I also was invited to serve as an independent elections observer for the Presidential Recall Referendum.

I provide this brief snippet of my bio in order to explain that I have a fairly deep and unique view of the Venezuelan government’s socialist policies. That understanding also provides me with a unique perspective into what we see coming from the Obama administration. That knowledge and experience led me, during the 2008 election, to warn that Obama’s stated intentions were alarmingly similar to the failed socialist policies of Hugo Chavez, and were indicative that Obama truly was the redistributionist socialist ideologue about which many pundits were warning.

New information has come to light that will send shivers down the spines of citizens enlightened enough to understand the implications.

In particular, I feel compelled to analyze comments made by Robert Reich, Economic Advisor President Obama, spoken in an Economic Recovery Plan meeting on 01/07/2009. These comments were recorded and broadcast on C-Span2, so no one can claim that this is false, or “taken out of context”.

Robert Reich: “It seems to me that infrastructure spending is a very good and important way to stimulate the economy quickly. To find projects that can be done that have a high social return, that can also be done with the greatest speed possible. I am concerned, as I’m sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to high-skilled people who are already professionals or to white male construction workers…I have nothing against white, male construction workers, I’m just saying that there are a lot of other people who have needs as well, and therefore in my remarks, I have suggested to you… ways that criteria can be set so that the money goes to others: the long-term unemployed, minorities, women, people who are not necessarily construction workers or high-skilled professionals.”

To start with, please note that Reich qualified his statement as providing advice about infrastructure spending. This has been the mantra lately by the Obama administration: that the Bush administration neglected investment in the physical infrastructure and, following FDR’s model of revitalization of the economy by putting people to work building infrastructure, Obama has highlighted this as a priority.

Obama said, in his inaugural speech:

"The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act - not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. "

When under the intense view of the national spotlight, Obama described infrastructure spending that actually is infrastructure: highways, bridges, power networks.

But under less intense scrutiny, his advisors, and the Democrat congressmen present who agreed with him, applied the term to something entirely different. And they also clearly added an anti-white pre-requisite to the formula. To find projects with a “high social return” is a phrase almost directly out of the Chavez book of socialist agenda, referring to redirecting money along the lines of economic justice rather than economic stimulus.

To limit recipients to non-white, low-skilled “minorities” and “women” suggests an inherently discriminatory and even racist policy, which again is highly reminiscent of the policies that were intended to destroy the “Oligarchy” (what the Chavistas call the predominantly white middle and upper classes).

If this passage is indicative of the Democrat strategy, then we can infer that they will borrow trillions of dollars that will then be funneled to “minorities”, under the guise of “infrastructure investment”, even though by their own definition, they want to give money to the “long-term unemployed” (a key word for welfare recipients), which is not infrastructure. In short, this is a deception.

This looks suspiciously like reparations in disguise.

It is highway robbery of the middle class and industries who will have to repay the debt. And those long-term unemployed low-skilled workers are not the source of economic stimulus. This type of policy, providing free or cheap money to the poor so they can spend it, is precisely the kind of thinking that created the economic collapse to start with.

These redistributive theories are hauntingly similar to the populist strategies used by the Chavez regime to buy support in the short term, causing long-term and devastating economic results.

My hope now is that the Venezuelan community in the United States, with its first-hand knowledge of these kinds of policies and their deleterious effects on the society and economy, will speak and help to educate the American populace.

Otherwise, Americans may as well get used to the fact that we have just joined the ranks of the world’s banana republics.

Whose welfare is it, anyway?

Near the end of the Obama/McCain presidential campaign, a Florida television station recorded a woman who was extactic that--if Obama were to win the election--she wouldn't have to worry any more about paying her mortgage, or filling her gas tank. Yes, it's gotten to the point that some people appear to think that Uncle Barack will provide for everyone.

This reminded me of a discussion I had with some of my students way back in 1994.

I was a teacher in an inner urban school, during the period when the Republicans in Washington wanted to reform welfare and make it Workfare.

One of my students walked up to my desk in front of the class and asked me; “Sir, what do you think about them taking away our welfare?”

“Our Welfare? What do you mean, ‘our’ welfare?”

“I mean, it’s mine and my Momma’s, it’s what we need to get by.”

So I asked him, “What makes you think it’s yours?”

“Well, ‘cause we are the ones that need it, so it’s ours.”

I looked at him carefully, and noticed that—as he was a basketball player—he was wearing a pair of expensive Air Jordon’s that cost about three times what my shoes cost.

“Do you have a job?” I asked him.

“What? You know I don’t, Sir, I’m a basketball player!” he protested. “My Momma works two jobs just to support me and my brothers!” Understandably, he seemed indignant that his momma had to work so hard.

“Why does that mean, you can’t have a job?”

“Because I have practice every day, and I have games every week, I don’t have no time to be working at no $5 a hour job!” he answered, indignantly.

“OK, that makes sense.” I commented... “those are nice Air Jordon’s, buddy. Who bought those for you?”

“My Momma did,” he said, a little cautiously.

“Nice Momma, you know those are worth more money than I could afford to pay for shoes, right?” I asked

“Yes, you do wear some lousy shoes!” he joked, and the class laughed.

“Right. Now, whose shoes are those?” I asked.

“Mine!” he quickly answered.

“Are they? Let’s pretend for a moment that your Momma bought you those shoes so that you would do really well at basketball. She hopes you will work hard, and get a scholarship, and build a future…”

He smiled. “That’s right, she does.”

“But let’s pretend that instead of working hard, you loafed around in the gym, and didn’t practice, and just chased the girls, and your Momma got really mad and said to you, ‘Son, I paid for those shoes to give you an advantage, to help you succeed, and you blew it! Instead of working, you just lazed around, so since you don’t appreciate what I gave you, I’m taking those shoes away, and I’ll give them to your little brother, who is willing to work hard!’ Now, she would have the right to do that, wouldn’t she?”

He was silent. The whole class was silent. “So…really, whose shoes are those?”

He paused, thinking about the question, and obviously uncomfortable with the conclusion to which I had led him. Finally, he sheepishly answered: “My Momma’s.”

“Because she paid for them. Right. Now, who pays for ‘your’ welfare?” He didn’t answer. “I do. And all the other teachers do. And all the other workers do. We give you all some money to help you—not to ‘get by’, as you put it, but to get ahead. And here you are, wearing shoes I can’t afford, and not working because you are an athlete, and making your Momma work two jobs, and talking about how all of this is yours. It is NOT yours. I bought the welfare, I paid for it, it’s mine. And I have the right to demand that you and everyone else who receives it do something with it, and work for it, and not just laze around chasing girls. Your Momma has the right to demand that you work for your shoes, and I have the right to demand that anyone who receives welfare work for that money. Now, that’s what I think about that.”

An amazing thing happened. That huge, 6 and a half foot tall black athlete stood up tall, looked at me very critically, and then gave me his hand. And he said, “You know what, Sir? That’s why we all love you. You say it the way it is.”

He went to his seat and that was the last we ever talked about it.

Response to Colin Powell’s endorsement of Senator Obama

The most disappointing aspect of Colin Powell’s endorsement of Barack Obama is not that he supports Obama, but that the reasons he gives are, for the most part, so patently absurd, that it calls in question the intellectual qualifications of a man I once greatly admired.

For example, Powell states that, while he admires McCain, he has “concerns about the direction the party has taken in recent years, it’s moved more to the right than I would like to see it…”
What is absurd about this statement is that McCain is notoriously centrist, and not a far right “radical”. In fact, his moderate stances have alienated him from his party. It is to this that he is referring when he says that he has stood up to his own party and has “the scars to prove it.” So, supporting Obama will do nothing to bring the Republican party to the center. Quite probably, the opposite is true.

Powell had questioned Obama and asked; “do you bring good judgment to the table.” He then states that he watched over this “final exam” of the candidates went through during the recent the economic crisis. “I must say that…in the case of Mr. McCain, he was a little unsure about how to deal with the economic problems, and almost every day there was a different approach to the problem…he didn’t have a complete grasp of the economic problems that we had.” Secondly, on the choice of Sarah Palin, “I don’t believe she’s ready to be President of the United States…and so, that raised some question about the decision that Senator McCain made.”

To start, I'd like to point out that, at the height of the crisis, I don't remember anyone that seemed sure of what to do. Not the Fed Chairman, not the executives, not the congress...and I certainly do not have any recollection at all of hearing anything substantial from Obama at that time. In fact, he stubbornly continued to promise to spend hundreds of billions of dollars, as if the worst financial crisis of the century were not actually happening. How does that demonstrate having any "grasp" of the economic problems we have had?

By contrast, Powell says that, “on the Obama side…he displayed a steadiness, an intellectual curiosity and a depth of knowledge and an approach to looking at problems like this…and picking a vice president that truly is ready to jump in and be president on day one. And also not just jumping in and changing every day, but showing intellectual vigor.”

There is irony in this that Powell apparently missed. It was McCain who immediately suspended his campaign in order to try to get Republican support for the “bail out” plan. While Obama continued to enjoy the praise of his cult following, McCain tried to rally the troops.

It is McCain, not Obama, who has it very clear in his mind that the origin of the cause of the crisis lies squarely in the Democrat policies that led to the Community Reinvestment Act. It was the Republicans, led by John McCain (and others), who warned of the imminent financial meltdown, but their efforts at reform were thwarted by Obama and Chris Dodd.

The Republicans are not free from the blame: it was Bush’s support of the continuation of the Community Reinvestment policies through the Ownership Society that perpetuated the momentum toward the crash. It should be noted that this sort of social engineering is not a conservative policy, and should be considered to be additional evidence that the failure of the Bush administration was that it was not conservative enough, rather than—as Powell said—that the party had moved “too far right”.

Powell goes on to criticize the Republican Party again by saying that their approach {in the election} “has become narrower and narrower, while Obama … is crossing lines, racial lines, ethnic lines, generational lines…and I’ve been disappointed about the approach that the McCain campaign has taken… If Mr. McCain says that William Ayers is a washed up terrorist, then why do they make the connections with him all the time? And the party has moved even farther to the right and I have problem with that.”

This is probably one of the most astonishing things Powell could say. It was John McCain who reached across racial lines to try to find a fair and just solution to the immigration issue that split the Republican Party over the past few years. And even Powell cannot deny that there were more minorities in high-level posts under the Bush administration than under any other administration in American history!

As for the accusation that the Republican party has been saying that Obama is a terrorist: that is false.

What the party has been saying is that one can examine the kinds of friends that Obama keeps, and from that draw conclusions about how he actually feels about the country. Obama’s “friends” include the felon John Resco, the domestic terrorist William Ayers, the stridently anti-American and anti-white reverend Wright, among others.

Was that not a reasonable thing to ask?

Ask yourself the inverse, to test the proposition:

What would happen if John McCain had befriended the Atlanta Centennial Olympic Park bomber Eric Robert Rudolph? If he had launched his political career from his living room? If he had written a forward and endorsement for his book?

We would all agree that, given the hypothetical situation I outlined above, it would be very reasonable question McCain’s judgment. So why isn’t it allowed to apply that logical question to Obama?

Because he’s black?

To say that the media has “given Obama a pass” is an understatement. But now even Powell has decided that Obama has somehow demonstrated “good judgment”, in spite of his associations with some very seedy individuals.

It is difficult to take Powell at face value. When his reasoning seems so shallow, so contradictory, we must ask ourselves if maybe—just maybe—Powell was not the intellectual that we had thought. It is possible that Powell was brilliant in terms of military issues and is an intellectual midget when it comes to social and economic issues.

Or, perhaps, he was the intellectual we believed, but now finds himself swayed less by political loyalty than racial loyalty.


Why should we believe that he is picking Obama for any reason other than race? Is that unfair to ask?

When the Democrats constantly attack every white voter who says he or she can’t vote for Obama, when they say that they must therefore be racist, they are drawing the conclusion that the only logical reason why a white person can’t vote for Obama is because of his race.

So why would it not be fair to apply the same “logic” to Powell? Since none of the reasons Powell gave actually make any sense, the only logical inference is that Powell is actually voting for Obama because he is black.

The acceptable hate

I’ve received an interesting commentary—indirectly mind you, the person did not post it on my blog—in response to my post about the Congressional Black Caucus’s involvement in the housing debacle that has helped topple our economy.

Here is the response:

“This kind of malarkey doesn’t even deserve a response. Next thing you
know, Blacks will be blamed for slavery and the Holocaust will be blamed on the
Jews…. What I am saying, if people want to place blame on Democrats then so be
it. There’s nothing wrong with that, but when you start spouting “Black
Democrats” “Jewish Democrats” or “Latino Democrats” etc… that’s when it’s a
problem. When you start placing racial ethnicity in from of the word
Democrat then that is where I have a problem. There’s no such thing
as a Black Democrat. There’s no such thing a Jewish Democrat.
There’re Democrats period. There’s no need to add racial undertones to
politics and government – there’s enough of that already and then some. No
need in adding more fuel to the fire.”

My first response was to re-examine my writing, and see if she was correct. Am I just “adding fuel to the fire”? Is it unfair, when discussing a Democrat’s policy and opinion, to point out their race?

Let me begin this analysis by stating up front my intentions in writing these blogs, especially those that deal with race.

First of all, I don’t consider myself to be a racist. I do not hate anyone for their race, nor do I hate any race of people, nor do I believe in any semblance of “White Supremacy” or any other similar bigotry.

That being said, I am quite sure that some of my beliefs and statements might offend some Blacks. They may very well feel that I am saying something that they think is wrong, a misrepresentation, a stereotype, whatever. I’m open to being corrected or instructed, which is why I have spent so much time reading books about Black History, race relations, etc.

So, why do I feel compelled to write about this issue? Because I am convinced, like Barack Obama and so many others, that the issue of Race is not a settled issue. It is not over, discrimination is still alive and “well”, and we as a country, regardless of our individual race, religion, or political perspective, have to work together to heal this festering wound.

However, I agree with Pastor Madding, the Black minister of ATLAH who points out that Whites have recognized the error of their ways, their policies, and laws that discriminated, and have begun a path toward reconciliation and redemption. I agree with the good Pastor who said that Whites living today know nothing of slavery, were not alive then, and played no part in it. Few Whites living today were involved in Jim Crowe, and a great deal has been done to rectify those laws. Affirmative Action, a policy that resulted from the Great Society, is the most recognized example of this attempt to help Blacks overcome the long legacy of discrimination. The “Ownership Society”—the plan promoted by the Bush administration to help minorities get loans so that they can enjoy home ownership—was another example. In my opinion, both projects failed miserably.

Alright, you may ask. If you really want to help with race relations, why in the world do your posts sound so angry and why do you attack Blacks?

First of all, I don’t attack Blacks. I attack some Black leaders. There’s a big difference.
Second of all, I’m attempting to point out that, as I stated before, bigotry is still alive and well today—but it’s not the kind of bigotry that was witnessed back in the days of public lynching, cross burnings and state-sanctioned discrimination. The form of discrimination today is much more subtle, much more insidious, and can be found on both sides.

What I’m seeing happening now is a new and dangerous movement. I’m not sure Blacks sense it, they may see it as business as usual. But in this period of our history, in which Barack Obama claims to be the first “post racial” candidate—and enjoys a very great likelihood of winning the Presidential election—and while he and his followers claim that Obama will bring America together, my sense is that the exact opposite is happening.

It’s as if Blacks, feeling poised so close to finally breaking through the last great barrier to the most powerful political position in the country (and arguably in the world), are now beginning to vent deeply held resentments and this is showing in a steady stream of subtle, race-based political propaganda punctuated by a periodic release of venomous invective.

I feel compelled to use my blog as a forum to state my opinion very clearly and forcefully about these race issues, because I sense that if the kind of wacky bullshit we see now—race based attacks and innuendo used to shut up white politicians and make whites feel guilty to blackmail them (us) accept policy that is unwise and destructive, then we’re likely headed toward racial conflicts.

Why point out the race of some of these politicians and Black leaders?

• When Black commentator Fatima Ali actually threatens that if Obama doesn’t win the election there will be race wars, they are using race and the fear of violence to sway public opinion. Does her race have nothing to do with it?
• When Black politicians like Cynthia McKinney say that the Department of Defense ordered soldiers to murder and then dump the bodies of 5,000 blacks during Katrina, you can’t say that race had nothing to do with that!
• When Black politicians perpetuate urban legends and distorted history based upon race in order to stoke the fires of resentment, that can’t be ignored.
• When Black congressmen (Alcee Hastings for example) attack White candidates—based solely on the candidate’s race—and try to imply that the White candidates “don’t care about Blacks and Jews”, you can’t ignore that.
• When Black congresswomen Maxine Waters actually defend riots and looting because “they” (the black participants) were “righteous” to take what they wanted and that it should not even be considered stealing—that can’t be ignored.
  

The amount of anti-White attacks, the level of the threats and insults, has increased. The hatred of Whites by Blacks has been excused, rationalized, and accepted, even promoted.

There can be no avoiding the discussion that many of these Blacks feel totally just in hating whites. They feel vindicated in looting and stealing. They have been convinced that they are soldiers fighting against the great White-Devil. And as they get closer to having their first Black president, the feeling that “we’re finally gonna take what’s ours” is apparently growing.
Will American Blacks, when they finally are in power, do to American Whites what Blacks in Zimbabwe and South Africa did to the Whites there? Are they going to wage war on their White countrymen?

Don’t tell me race has nothing to do with it. It has everything to do with it.

Modern Liberals and the "Neo-Massa Cult"

I’ve got just a quick note for the conservative commentators: you guys keep missing the most important points in the speeches made by the left!

I am seeing a real hullabaloo being made about Michelle Obama’s speech in which she had advised voters to make their choices based on issues, and not to cast a vote because “she’s cute.”

Let’s be clear: there’s nothing wrong with her saying that. Get off her back! Weeks before, conservatives were criticizing the voters who wanted to vote for Obama simply because he is considered “handsome” by some women, or simply because he is Black by others. Michelle was right. There are probably some voters who are enamored of Palin because she has a great personality and is “cute”—not to say that she is not a solid intellectual, also—but her attractiveness can be a big factor.

But please, pay closer attention to everything that Michelle Obama said! Michelle did us all a favor and revealed something absolutely crucial about her liberal, leftist mentality. The full quote, before the “cute” reference, was that voters should consider the candidate that best serves “your personal interests”.

How far have the Democrats fallen? Barack Obama likes to be compared to President Jack Kennedy, but let us remember that Kennedy extolled Americans to “ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”

The Obamas are peddling the exact opposite message from the Kennedys! The Obamas are telling the voters: “Vote for the guy who will give you stuff for free. Vote for the guy with the handouts.”

The destructiveness of this perspective is obvious. It’s like Obama wants to be the national crack dealer. “Vote for me, man, I’ll make you feel good. I’ll give you some rock for Free. We’ll tax the rich the guys to pay for your fix!”

And liberals will defend this by making quaint and absurd statements that actually compare Obama to Jesus: "Jesus was a community organizer; Pontius Pilate was a governor."

The second issue that comes to mind was John McCain’s visit on ABC’s The View. I mentioned this in yesterday’s blog, but it seems worth mentioning again, in the context of the new Michelle Obama quote.

In a exchange between McCain and the women co-hosts about what kind of judges he would appoint, McCain said he would appoint constitutionalist judges. Most commentators focused on the perceived ignorance of Whoopi’s question—an issue I addressed yesterday. But I want to focus more on the comments of co-host Joy Behar, below:

Goldberg: “Do I have to worry about being returned to slavery because certain
things in the constitution had to be changed?”

McCain: “That’s an excellent point, Whoopi, {loud audience applause for Goldberg} I thank you.”

Goldberg:“I got scared!”

Joy Behar: {laughing} “She saw herself back on the plantation! Don’t worry, honey, we’ll take care of you, us white folk we’ll take care of you!”

{Black Co-host Sherri Shepherd reacted by actually hiding her head in apparent embarrassment.}

Analyze Behar’s response in conjunction with the previous comments of Michelle Obama:

Michelle Obama:“Vote for the guy who serves your personal interest.”
Joy Behar:“Don’t worry, honey, us white folk, we’ll take care of you.”

Can it be any clearer, folks?

Can’t you people see the inherent racist and infantile dogma that is being sold to you like snake oil? At the same time Democrats blast capitalists for “selfishly” striving for success and amassing personal wealth, they contradictorily offer excuses and compensation for failure, and encourage the populace to hold their cap in their hand and wait for Uncle Sam to give them their due. Instead of demanding self-respect and responsibility of our population, the Democrats are selling indulgences, governmental pardon for irresponsibility, laziness, and victim mentality.

Hell, let's say it like it is: the leftists are subsidizing stupidity and laziness instead of demanding that people take responsibility for their actions and use their God-given talents to achieve success!

It is a political form of the psychological regresso ad uterum—the return to the
womb—which, in the terms of Black society, now appears to be a longing for a
return to the “Massa’s” patronistic protection, a nostalgic yearning for the
Plantation.

Perhaps the anthem for the Obama campaign should be the Stephen Foster tune, Suwanee River;

Way down upon de S’wanee ribber, Far,
far away, Dere's wha my heart is
turning ebber, Dere's wha de old folks stay.
All up and down de whole
creation Sadly I roam, Still longing for de old
plantation And for de old folks at home.
All de world am sad and dreary, ebry
where I roam,
Oh! Darkeys how I my heart grows weary,
Far from the de old folks at home…

Is that what is going on?

Is the African American ATLAH ministry, led by Pastor Manning, correct in their assessment that Barack Obama is an unworthy socialist who is selling the Black community a neo-communist a wealth re-distribution plan?

“The person who is running on this wealth distribution plan is Barack Hussein Obama. His wealth distribution plan has got a lot of people talking…I want you to look at how misguided the Church is regarding its understanding of the …scripture… we need to be armed with the word of God. Now that’s Obama’s plan for America…you should take from the wealthy and give to the poor…

But is that what Jesus would do? … Absolutely not. If you are poor, and
you are given a talent and you don’t use it, you don’t get to take the rich man’s money and spend it. You don’t get any welfare programs, you don’t get any social services programs…you don’t get that in Jesus’s plan… If you don’t use your talents in the right way, what you have will be taken from you and given to the rich! …

Jesus is saying, ‘You are lazy. And if you don’t use your talent, I’m not gonna take the wealthy man’s…I’m not going to take Exxon’s money and give it to you! Cause I gave you a talent and you haven’t used it. ... If you’d use your talent the way you’re should have used it, you’d be the one with Exxon’s money. I’m gonna take your poverty and give it to Exxon and send you to hell! …that’s the way it ought to be.

Someone has to come along and say to us; ‘No, that wealth redistribution model is wrong! It’s anti-God, it’s anti-Bible, it’s anti-word, and it’s anti-personal development as well. We can get the government to subsidize us…and it makes us lazy, it makes us wicked.” --Pastor Manning

Of course Pastor Manning is decried and slandered, accused of being an "Uncle Tom" by the very left that screams about racism everywhere else.

I am tired of the media missing these highly revealing commentaries that really clear away the confusion about what the Obama supporters are really proposing. And what’s more, the politicians—especially McCain—cannot afford to simply smile at the camera and not take people like Behar to task when they hear this kind of commentary. It should not be allowed that white liberals accuse conservatives of racism and discrimination, when it is the liberals who are openly telling Blacks that they cannot take care of themselves and they need the patronizing support of their liberal white friends!

The liberal socialists are promoting a cult of dependency, much in the same way that racist Southerners rationalized slavery by saying that Blacks were not intelligent enough to survive without their Masters--or "Massas" as they were called in the colloquial pronunciation.

Now, they don't see it that way. Of course not. They think it is "compassionate" to take from the rich and give to the poor. They think Robin Hood is a hero--not a thief! They idolize Fidel Castro, who essentially established an island of slaves, but hey: "They have free medical care!" They worship Pancho Villa because he promised land and dignity for the Indians--even though what he brought was war and killing.

At some point, it will have to become self evident that the "Neo-Massa Cult" is racism dressed in Socialist ribbons and bows.

And then all the press will be talking about how awful it is, and "why didn't anyone warn us?!"

***{Additional Information*** One of today's most interesting headlines is about the foul mouthed Sandra Bernhard's tirade against Sarah Palin, which she repeatedly calls her vulgar names, but most interestingly, says that if Palin went to New York she would be "gang raped" by the "black brothers." So, we have a white, liberal Jewess perpetuating the stereotype of Blacks as rapists...and where is the Liberal outrage? Silence from the left. Yet another example of racism that is forgiven if it's from a lib!"

They slander the Founders and throw babies in the trash

A couple of days ago, it was reported that a newborn baby was found alive in a Trash Can in a Phoenix middle school. The healthy baby boy’s mother was a 14-year old girl who delivered the baby in the bathroom of an administration building and—being young, confused, and frightened—abandoned the baby in a panic. Reports on the event stated that “due to the abandonment of the baby in a life threatening situation, investigators will do a possible child abuse report and submit it to the Maricopa County Attorney's Office for review.”
This is not the first time we’ve heard of this sort of thing.

A quick search finds multiple recent tales of women trashing their newborn babies, often resulting in the death of the child. Here’s one in which the baby survived, and here’s another, the baby was also found in time and survived. These mothers were not scared teens. They were both 24 years old. Tragically, in another story, a woman attending her high-school prom left the dance, delivered her baby in a bathroom, and then trashed it. This time the baby died, yet at the time the article was, the mother was not charged.

So in the middle of the election cycle, a young woman named Gianna Jessen, who is a member of a 527 group called BornAliveTruth.org, is challenging Obama to define when a baby has rights and to support legislation that would protect babies born alive after abortion attempts.

Her story is very unusual. She started her life as abortion that failed. Her mother tried to abort her, but she was born alive. Luckily for her, the abortionist was not in the clinic when she was born, because if he had been, he would have terminated her life by smothering her, or letting her die of exposure—and this would have been legal under current law, because the aborted fetus has no rights. She was fortunate. The attending nurse called an ambulance and she received treatment and obviously survived.

A transcript of the advertisement her group is running reads:

“Can you imagine not giving babies their basic human rights, no matter how they
entered our world? My name is Gianna Jessen, born 31 years ago after a failed
abortion. I’m a survivor, as are many others…but if Barack Obama had his way, I
wouldn’t be here. Four times, Barack Obama voted to oppose a law to protect
babies left to die after a failed abortion. Senator Obama, please support born
alive infant protections. I’m living proof these babies have a right to live.”

These issues may seem unrelated to the current election cycle, but they are not. It is well recognized that the next president will very likely appoint one or more Supreme Court justices, which is why McCain’s selection of a very pro-Life VP (Palin) energized the conservative base: it was confirmation that he was committed to selecting strict ‘constitutionalist’ judges that very well might overturn Roe v. Wade.

McCain was asked about this when he was a guest on the ABC program, The View. In a brief but telling exchange between McCain and the women co-hosts, his response about wanting to appoint constitutionalist judges was challenged by Whoopi Goldberg:

Goldberg: “I don’t want to misinterpret what you are saying; did you say you
want strict constitutionalists?”
McCain: “I want people who interpret
the
constitution the way our founding fathers intended them to do.”
Goldberg: “Do
I have to worry about being returned to slavery because
certain things in the
constitution had to be changed?”
Goldberg: “That’s
an excellent point,
Whoopi, {loud audience applause for Goldberg} I thank
you.
Goldberg: "I got scared!"
Co-host Joy Behar: “She saw herself back on the plantation! Don’t worry, honey, we’ll take care of you, us white folk we’ll take care of you!” Co-host Sherri Shepherd hid her head in apparent embarrassment.

Did anyone else notice the obviously patronistic statement made by the liberal Behar?! Thank goodness that nice white liberal is going to "take care" of the poor little black girl! But no comments have ever been uttered: Liberals get away with racist remarks all the time! and isn't this the CORE of the liberal Democrat belief? "Don't worry, we good Whites are gonna take care of you poor, downtrodden Blacks!"

This discussion takes us away from the topic of abortion, but cuts to the heart of the real matter: human rights. And it also highlights a common misconception held by many Blacks and perpetuated by either ignorant or devious Black leaders (such as Reverend Wright and Barack Obama), that the Founding Fathers were racists who institutionalized and perpetuated slavery when they wrote the constitution.

This distortion of history is convenient to leaders who want Blacks to see themselves as victims and want them to hate and oppose their government. It also becomes evident from the patronistic attitudes of liberals--like Sherri Behar--who subconciously believe that Blacks are not capable of taking care of themselves and need "us whites" to "take care of you".

When I was a teacher in an inner-urban, mostly Black school in Florida, one of my students was shocked to find out that there had been Black slaves throughout the continent. She said: “I thought it was white Americans that invented slavery!” And when I tried to disabuse her of this misconception, she furiously accused me of trying to “re-write history”.

But this could not be further from the truth. In fact, the Founding Father’s opposition to Slavery was one of the main reasons for desiring a separation from Great Britain.

“The historical fact is that slavery was not the product of, nor was it an evil introduced by the Founders; slavery was introduced in America nearly two centuries before the Founders. In fact, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay noted that there had been few serious efforts to dismantle the institution of slavery prior to the Founding Fathers. …one of the reasons given by Thomas Jefferson for the separation from Great Britain was a desire to rid America of the evil of slavery imposed on them by the British.”

Thomas Jefferson was not the only Founder who opposed slavery.

“In 1774, Benjamin Franklin and Benjamin Rush founded America's first
antislavery society; John Jay was president of a similar society in New York.
When Constitution signer William Livingston heard of the New York society, he,
as Governor of New Jersey, wrote them, offering: ‘I would most ardently wish to
become a member of it [the society in New York] and... I can safely promise them
that neither my tongue, nor my pen, nor purse shall be wanting to promote the
abolition of what to me appears so inconsistent with humanity and
Christianity... May the great and the equal Father of the human race, who has
expressly declared His abhorrence of oppression, and that He is no respecter of persons, succeed a design so laudably calculated to undo the heavy burdens, to
let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke.’”

The Founders struggled to end slavery and had already begun almost immediately after declaring independence from Britain, and years before the ratification of the constitution on December 7, 1787. Pennsylvania and Massachusetts abolished slavery seven years before the constitution was ratified (1780), and just four years later, Connecticut and Rhode Island abolished slavery. Slavery was abolished in New Hampshire in 1792 and in Vermont in 1793. New York took six more years (1799) and New Jersey abolished it 1804—that’s fifty seven years before the start of the civil war.

It could be said that American fought not one but two wars in order to free the slaves. The first was to separate from Britain, which had imposed slavery upon the colonies, and about which George Washington commented: “I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it [slavery].” Eighty five years later, Americans fought the Civil War to finish the job and free the slaves in the South.

Given this historical context, it must be clear to any reasonable historian that the majority of the Founders—and probably the majority of the average citizens—abhorred slavery and had purposely worded the Bill of Rights (“All men are created equal”) and Constitution in such a way as to facilitate the inevitable end of slavery.

Although it is easy to say that Jefferson and others who owned slaves were “hypocrites”, one should keep in mind that slavery was the economic model in existence for centuries before the industrial revolution, and although it was recognized as an abhorrent system, there was no viable solution available until the 19th century. We citizens today find ourselves in a similar moral predicament: we know that our addiction to fossil fuels, internal combustion engines, and consumerist economic models cause damage to the environment, and we all recognize that we should try to find an alternative, but at this time, no practical alternative is available. So while people like Obama and Gore run around lecturing us how we need to get rid of our gas guzzling vehicles, they continue to drive cars and fly in private jets. Some day we will surely solve this problem, but should historians look back at the proponents of alternative energy and call them hypocrites for not having the solution sooner?

The second modern conundrum that parallels the issue of slavery is that of abortion. And it is this issue—and particularly the story of Gianna Jessen—that ties all the previous themes together.

Because, while it is clearly established principal that all humans have equal human rights, proponents of Abortion—cleverly marketed as “Choice”—struggle to deny the human fetus with the status of “human being”. It is this monstrously contradictory opinion that creates our contemporary moral dilemma. After all, current dogma holds that it is a woman’s choice—which is a “private” matter protected by the constitutional right to privacy—to abort a fetus in her body. As long as the fetus is not “human”, as long as it is considered nothing more than “cells”, then it cannot legally be considered “murder” to kill those cells.

The Jessen story destroys this argument. The late-term abortion forced the baby to be born, and the mercy of one nurse saved her life. If the abortionist had finished the job, suffocating the infant, it would have been perfectly legal. Now that she is an adult, she is capable of asking the question that other aborted fetuses cannot: what rights did I have? At what point did I get rights? And who is the inventor of this moral calculus that determines when an infant is human and when it’s “just cells”?

By contrast, if it was alright to kill a healthy baby in an abortion clinic, why is it wrong for a young woman to throw a baby in the trash?

In this, I disagree with conservative talk show hosts who blasted Whoopi Goldberg’s question. It was not foolish or stupid. It was an opportunity squandered by McCain, who—in his desire to pander to women and minorities—did not recognize that he had just been offered a perfect opportunity to differentiate the Republican party from the Democratic party.

His response to Goldberg should have been forceful and unequivocal. The Republican Party wants to select Supreme Court justices that are constitutionalists—that is, judges who will apply the law according to the strictest intent of the Founders. Those Founders abhorred slavery, they clearly recognized the injustice that was wrought by governments and laws that dehumanized people of color and allowed for their inhumane treatment. Those same Founders fought the very first battles toward Black Liberation. They laid the road to liberty and sanctified it with the blood of national sacrifice, and provided the roadmap to liberty in the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution. It was the Republican Party that then waged war to finally free the slaves and secure forever the human rights for all people in the United States. It is the Republican Party that has made it their doctrine to spread those rights around the world. And it is the Republican Party that believes that the sanctity of human life cannot be violated—not even in the womb. The Republicans can look Gianna Jessen in the eye and say: in the more perfect union we wish to form, you would have always had the same rights to life and the pursuit of liberty as all the rest of us.

Whoopi, if you really believe in human rights, why can’t you open your heart to giving those rights to the most helpless among us?

Whoopi, it is time that you and people like you see through the lies, and make the same commitment that the Founders made over two hundred years ago, when Supreme Court Justice John Jay wrote:

"neither my tongue, nor my pen, nor purse shall be wanting to promote the
abolition of what to me appears so inconsistent with humanity and Christianity"

Or are your words just hollow?

The race baiter is as guilty as the one who pulls the trigger

On September 2, 2008, a Philadelphia journalist named Fatima Ali wrote a warning that, if America didn’t choose Barack Obama as president, there would be a “full-fledged race war”. I wrote a short piece about that, saying in essence that the term she chose could not be interpreted in any way other than to suggest that violence was inevitable.

Her choice of language caused a great deal of outrage, which she addresses in an article today. And, as I had predicted, she now is trying to sound much more reasonable, and say that all the extremely foul responses she received is evidence that “we don’t have to wait until after the election for a race war. We’re in one now.”

She then goes on to cherry pick from among the most extreme responses she got in order to qualify her assertion that angry whites are already starting a race war.

The absurdity of this situation is simultaneously hilarious and alarming. It was not Whites who threatened Blacks with violence; it was a Black columnist who fired the first verbal salvo. It was a classic example of race baiting, and what a manipulative act of propaganda it is! For this woman to proclaim “I hate violence, but I do see a growing wave of intolerance sweeping the nation”, and threaten not once but twice with a race war, to be surprised that Whites would feel threatened and respond with a warning of their own (that they are ready to defend themselves) is either the stupidest journalistic blunder I’ve ever seen, or the most cynical attempt to provoke a violent reaction.

She goes on to say:

“No, we're not anywhere near "post-racial" times. If we were, the possibility
that a black man may well become our next president wouldn't matter.”

I feel obliged to write Ms Ali directly.

Fatima, why can’t you understand that for the vast majority of Americans, Obama’s race is not the issue; it’s the issue that you make of his race and the threats that you made that is the issue! Whites are nauseated by being told that if they don’t vote for a Black candidate, that it is because they are racist. Extremists like you leave no room for the possibility that your candidate is simply too inexperienced, too socialist, has too many friendships with extremists who hate the country, for us to simply vote him into office and just keep our fingers crossed that it will all work out.

And instead of giving us the benefit of the doubt, that just maybe those of us who vote for McCain want him for his experience, you instead assume the very worst about us and then threaten us—and by extension, our families—with a war based solely on race!

Your final sentence in the article pretty much sums up the idiocy of the position:

“And two words out of 775 in my original column would not have unleashed the
kind of hatred that makes me want to retreat to a bunker.”

Was it not your own beloved Barack Obama who said: “Just words! ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident’, Just words! ‘I have a dream’.” If you admire Obama so much, did you learn nothing from that speech, in which he was illustrating the importance of choosing your words carefully?

Two words? Just two little words? No, my dear, it was the intention, and the threat, behind the words, that caused the reaction. You issued the incendiary comments. You cannot blame the reaction on others. It's exactly like yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, and then denying responsibility by declaring the panicked crowd to be fools.

If you really do “hate violence”, then it would have behooved you to write a piece that was a mea culpa, instead of issuing a second challenge.

If Obama loses this race—which it appears he may do—and there really is violence, you need to say a prayer from inside your bunker, and ask for forgiveness, because at least some of the blood will be on your hands! Because the one who used race to bait for violent reactions is just as guilty as the people who actually pull the trigger.

Race wars, Riots, and the Left's idea of "Democracy"

***WARNING***'BAD WORD' ALERT***WARNING***

I just read an article by Fatima Ali, published in the Philidelphia Daily News, in which laments what she perceives as a political crisis in America and quotes a Langston Hughes poem:

"Hold fast to dreams, for if dreams die, Life is a broken-winged bird that cannot fly, Hold fast to dreams, for if dreams go, life is a barren field, frozen with snow."

Beautiful quote. Peaceful, although quite melancholy. Ali then goes on with a litanny of accusations against the republicans, and ends with this nugget:

If McCain wins, look for a full-fledged race and class war, fueled by a
deflated and depressed country, soaring crime, homelessness - and
hopelessness

Say what? Did this African-American journalist just threaten America with a "full-fledged race war"? Are you kidding me?

Isn't Philly supposed to be the "City of Brotherly Love"? Is a race war any way to show the love?

Is she going to try to claim that-when she said "war"-she didn't really mean the shooting kind? Then what the hell did she mean by "full-fledged"? That term means "da real thing, bro". She means that Blacks will wage war against Whites. And by stating "class war", she seems to think that there will be an actual uprising of working class people-of all races-who will raise arms against the "upper" class.

So, what classes are going bear arms against their fellow citizens? Will that be middle class on down? Or just the working class? Or maybe, what she means is, all the anarchists and neo-communist scum like the ones who protested violently against the Republican National Convention.

The rampaging protesters attacked members of the Connecticut delegation,
spraying them with a noxious liquid. One 80-year-old delegate needed medical
treatment. Others tossed bottles, slashed tires and shattered windows -
including those of a police car.

These are the "peace" protestors. Notice, during the Democratic Convention the previous week, the only violence was from the same left-of-center anarchists and communists who support Obama-but were outraged that Obama was not quite far enough left to fully erect their communist cocks. No, they need a new Che Guevara to do that.

Che gives the kids a woody they can use to bash windows.

No, these ruffians won't be happy until they have a war-oh, wait, that's right, silly me, they're against war. War is bad. Even a war that topples a tyrant and mass murderer. Even a war that liberates an entire nation and gives them the ability to choose their own future. War in which the US government is ever the protagonist must, by definition, be bad.

Race wars and class wars, on the other hand, those are GREAT. Revolution is the aphrodesiac of the left.

These are the "Recreate 68" radicals, and if you just take a gander at the "Soirée" artwork you can see the reference to the French revolution right away. Again: the lefties all think that revolution is Oh-so-kewl. Any time you can get together to kill the rich has got to be a good time, don't you agree?

Well, I'm not sure to which "Dream" Ali thinks Langston Hughes was refering in his poem, but if it involves race wars, it sure doesn't sound like Martin Luther King's "dream". And it sure doesn't sound like she's the kind of "dreamer" that John Lennon had encouraged us all to envision...you know, "imagine all the people Living life in peace..."

No, this is the kind of "over the cuckoo's nest" kind of revolutionary talk that Lennon had rejected when he wrote:

We all want to change the world But when you talk about destruction Don't you
know that you can count me out

Race and class wars. Hmmm. Why does this remind me of Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, Hugo Chavez and Robert Mugabbe?

I've been saying for a while that Obama-far from uniting Americans across racial boundaries-would more likely trigger a passionate and violent conflict. Not because whites would react against him as a President, but because it would encourage the radical left-and especially certain elements within the radical black community-to lash out in a kind of psychopathic and racist assault against the preceived oppressor. An Obama Presidency would give some folks the feeling that "aha! we're in power NOW", and the direct result of decades of victimology promoted by the likes of Reverend Wright would make these new racial and class vigilantes feel entitled to their rage, just in their violent expression, and unstoppable.

Articles like Ali's will help to spread a sense of vindication and righteousness.

In the meantime, I've heard from several different white colleagues-none of whom are what anyone would consider to be gun-toting racist rednecks-that they are genuinely concerned about what the Black reaction would be if Obama loses. This same concern was echoed by Fox Radio host Tom Sullivan who asked a simple question:

Let me put it to you a different way. What if Barack Obama is not -- does not
win the Democratic nomination, or he does win it, and loses in the presidential
race against John McCain? Is black America going to throw their hands up and
say, 'Man, you know, I thought we were getting somewhere in this country, but
this is just a bunch of racial bigots in this country and they still hate blacks
and, I mean, if Barack Obama can't get elected, then we're never gonna have
anybody that's a black that's gonna be elected president.' And will there be
riots in the streets? I think the answer to that is yes and yes

Sullivan was then savaged as a racist neo-con for even daring to ask if Blacks might respond violently to an Obama loss. But what is so shocking or racist about wondering? Afterall, weren't there riots triggered by the verdict in the Rodney King case? Didn't Blacks threaten to riot if O.J. Simpson was found guilty? (they did; I was a teacher in a mostly Black school and the students were literally running through the halls yelling "WE GONNA RIOT!"). Aren't there people saying "Recreate '68", in reference to the race riots of 1968?

Of course, it's fair to remind everyone that there were PLENTY of "White riots" in response to the civil rights struggle, but I can't remember the last "White riot", since nowadays Whites-especially conservatives-don't riot over these issues. So it isn't unreasonable to wonder, under these very unusual circumstances, what might happen?

But most importantly, I think it's highly irresponsible for Black journalists to begin suggesting in any way that this would be expected, acceptable, inevitable. Let's be totally frank here: if Obama loses, and Blacks take to the streets to burn down cities, fire upon and beat up White citizens (such as the white trucker Reginal Denny beat up during the Rodney King riots in 1992), I have to think that Whites are not going to just sit back and let their towns be burned and their families be threatened.

America does NOT need any sort of class or race war. We need redemption, we need progress. The self-proclaimed "Progressives" must aggressively police their own radicals and make it very clear that they cannot be against "that war in Iraq" and for a race war over here.

If you're a peace-nik, for goodness' sake, promote peace.

Black Holes and race baiting

You know, it’s hard to get work done when there is so much stupidity in the world.

Folks, here we go again. As I have said before, the new Obama-era is going to trigger a landslide of bizarre behavior from blacks, and here is just the latest example.

While in a Dallas city council meeting, a councilman was discussing how paperwork entering a department was getting lost, and he described it by saying “it’s like central collection is becoming a black hole.” Scientifically a “black hole” is a collapsed star whose gravity is so strong, nothing can escape. No light is emitted, and thus the object is totally dark, hence "black."

Two black councilmen sitting near him were offended by the reference to a "black hole", which they believed was clearly a “racist” comment. And, they demand an apology.

“In this day and age, with diversity, you don’t go around making that kind of comment.”

Hey, it’s part of God’s creation: God must be a RACIST!

The commissioner explained it this way. “It’s like angel cake, and devil cake. If it’s white, it’s angel cake. If it’s black, it’s devil cake. If you barter, that’s good. But if you Jew someone down, that’s bad. ‘Hey, I thought it was alright!’ NO, NO IT’S NOT!”

Oooh, great logic!

Now, let’s be real about this. There very well may be some phrases that are anachronistic vestiges of the era of Slavery, and therefore could conceivably perpetuate a discriminatory meaning. "That's the pot calling the kettle black" is one of the phrases. "Cracking a whip" is another that always makes me a little uncomfortable in "diverse" settings. The other day, a black coworker used the phrase regarding the white project manager. I cringed...should I have been offended? Was he calling her a "massa"? A "cracker"? I don't think so. I think he was just using a common idiom and had no hidden agenda.

But of course, it's ok, because he's black. What if SHE had used that phrase?

Well, this is so irritating; I’m just going “to call a Spade a Spade.” (is that an offensive term? Doesn't it just refer to cards?)

Commissioner Wiley is either one ignorant dumb ass, or is a classic race-baiter.

Maybe we should put him on a “BLACK LIST”. I hope this issue does not leave the other commissioner with a "BLACK EYE".

It might even put a "BLACK MARK" on his record.

I guess it's racist for doctors to carry a "BLACK BAG".

We need to redefine the term "IN THE BLACK" for your budget: it used to be a good thing, but now it must be racist.

Why? Because in this day and age, "we have diversity."

This most recent stupidity takes place just days after Jesse Jackson blasted Obama for "talking down to black people", making Jackson want to "cut his nuts off". See, apparently it's degrading for a black candidate to speak to other blacks and say that they need to take some responsibility for their own actions. Quit talking down to them, Barry! They can't take care of their own problems, don't you know? They are too busy "driving while black"!

And then there was the article from Brittain, in which it was decided that children who say "yuck" to ethnic food they are not familiar with are "racist". That's right!!! If you introduce your child to jerk chicken or boiled mustard greens, and the child doesn't like it--the child is a RACIST!

That's like saying the child is a racist if he is scared of the dark!

Obama/Richardson negotiate with Chavez

I chuckle when I remember how—when I first considered starting a blog—I worried I wouldn’t have much to talk about. A week into this and I have to be very selective about the topics I want to tackle. There just isn’t enough time.

I’ve been really concerned for a long time about the influence of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez in American politics. I have good reason to be concerned.

Chavez announced, early in his Presidential career, that one of his top objectives is to get a “Bolivarian” president elected to the Whitehouse. For those who don’t know, Simon Bolivar was the great liberator of Venezuela, and Chavez has hijacked his venerable memory and uses him as his principle mascot. Thus, Chavez’s neo-Marxist movement is called the “Bolivarian Revolution”. A “Bolivarian”, thanks to the Chavista perversion of the name, is a person who sympathizes with leftist (communist/socialist) ideologies. So Chavez was essentially announcing his intention of helping install a socialist government in the USA.

Golly, gee, I must be an alarmist. Right? We, the GREAT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, have nothing to worry about from tiny little countries like Venezuela (or Iran, or Iraq…isn’t that what Obama said?).

When I hear this statement, I shudder. It is the height of arrogance to look down at nations like Venezuela or Iran and say, “that’s a tiny little nation, what can they do?”

Look at the level of disruption caused by a tiny little nation called Viet Nam back in the ‘60s. Look at how much negative and long-lasting influence a tiny and poor nation called Cuba has had in our hemisphere. Look at how the influence and strategic assistance of Fidel Castro helped launch the career of Chavez. Look how the meddling and interference of Chavez has implanted socialist governments in Ecuador, Bolivia, Argentina, Panama, Nicaragua, Uruguay, and how they are trying to do the same in Mexico, Chile, and Peru.

The fact is; Chavez has immense financial resources at his disposal. And, contrary to the ranting and raving of leftists, the United States did not use its incredible power and wealth to bully and buy out the governments of small nations in the Americas—or to be more accurate, not to the full extent that is often purported. The USA does have and use influence, but a number of US laws prevented directly influencing the politics within our neighbors. That is to say, the activities of US citizens is curtailed so that they cannot bribe, blackmail, or otherwise directly “purchase the favors” of foreign governments.

I’m not saying that there are no corrupt individuals out there, but as a matter of policy and official behavior, it is a no-no.


Chavez, on the other hand, has directly influenced elections in multiple countries (see the list above). The most notorious cases involve money funneled directly into Ecuador, Bolivia, and Argentina, in order to finance the campaigns of Chavez’s socialist friends. In Ecuador, I have good reason to believe that Chavez bribed the military to overthrow the government of Lucio Gutierrez (I’ll post a detailed story about why I believe this to be true), and in Argentina, an alert (and rather beautiful) Airport security guard captured a suitcase with money smuggled by Venezuelan agents into Argentina with the purpost of secretly financing the presidential campaign of Kristina Fernandez de Kircher.

So as I watch Obama’s election campaign and see how he has miraculously collected hundreds of millions of dollars, out-raising even the famous Clintons by a factor of ten to one, I can’t help but wonder: where is all that money coming from?

Now I hear that New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson (who is a rumored possible Vice Presidential candidate for Obama) has gone (quietly) to Venezuela to talk to Chavez about releasing the US hostages...and Chavez then makes this demand.

According to a respected Venezuelan journalist, Nelson Bocaranda Sardi, June 6 2008 (I’ve included the Spanish text of his article below), Richardson and Chavez discussed in detail how to leverage Chavez’s influence with the FARC in order to obtain the strategic release of three American contractors that have been held by the FARC for a number of years. They hope that the FARC will be willing to show a “good will gesture” for Obama during the election year, and release the hostages in an arrangement that simulates the infamous arrangements between former President Reagan and the Iranian revolutionaries who had taken American hostages at the Embassy, in what is commonly called the October Surprise Theory.

Let’s be clear: this sort of “good will” gesture is never done out of good will alone. Reagan was alleged to have agreed to give Iran weapons and to unfreeze their assets.

So, you have to wonder what sort of quid pro quo is being promised by Obama and Richardson. Could it have something to do with pulling support away from Colombian President Uribe? Or might it suggest that they would take pressure off Chavez?

Without any doubt, there is a lot of politics going on here, and you can bet that Obama/Richardson are promising to support and defend Chavez if he helps them with a November surprise to release the hostages.

Nelson Bocaranda Sardi, RUNRUNES

REHENES GRINGOS: La visita del gobernador de Nuevo México -ex precandidato del partido demócrata, ex secretario de Energía en el gobierno de Bill Clinton y quien apoya prominentemente al ya candidato Barack Obama- al presidente Chávez para conversar sobre la suerte de los tres contratistas estadounidenses secuestrados por las FARC desde hace unos años y que tuvo ribetes novelescos. Por un lado el gobernador, amigo de Alí Rodríguez cuando éste era ministro de petróleo, trajo un guante de beisbol firmado por algún integrante del equipo de Colorado y en su conversación en español abordó temas de mutuo interés. Chávez le pidió que le informara en detalle del proceso electoral norteamericano y le asegurara que el Partido Republicano no tenía posibilidades de ganar en noviembre. El caso de los rehenes fue abordado y el venezolano le explicó su problema con Uribe y el tema del intercambio humanitario. Chávez le confirmó que él siempre había estado buscando la liberación de esos contratistas. Allí se asomó la posibilidad (todo esto antes de los últimos acontecimientos negativos para los guerrilleros) de que la guerrilla tenga un gesto de buena voluntadpara con el candidato demócrata -bien cuando sea nombrado en la convención de Denver o si llegara a ser electo Presidente- liberando a los tres ciudadanos gringos. Nada de hacerle un favor a Bush por parte de ellos. Se copiarían la situación vivida por Jimmy Carter con los rehenes estadounidenses en Irán que no fueron liberados sino al minuto después de juramentado Ronald Reagan como presidente. Richardson está buscando ser designado secretario de Estado en un eventual gobierno de Obama. Lo que quedó claro para el gobernador es que el presidente venezolano, dentro de su permanente doble lenguaje, sí está interesado en solucionar ese caso. Para las FARC estos tres secuestrados han sido un perfecto paraguas protector para evitar incursiones del Ejército colombiano que los ha tenido cercados en dos oportunidades, pero por no arriesgar las vidas del trío se han replegado. Sigue insistiendo...

You better cast a Black Snow-White!

In my first blog, I analyzed the senior thesis of Michelle Obama, and discussed the absurd notion apparently put forth by Black “sociologists” that demand that White schools and other institutions actively promote “Black Culture”, draw attention to Blacks in History, and—even when Blacks are a tiny minority of the population within the institution—ensure that programmed non-academic activities should not “systematically follow the interest of Whites.”


In other words, even if 90% of the students are White, it’s just wrong not to plan things that Blacks will want to do. It might make them feel bad.


This demand is patently absurd. It’s obvious that in schools in California, for example—the Asian and Hispanic student population might be much larger than that of Blacks, so wouldn’t it make more sense to plan non-academic events for them? But then, wouldn’t Blacks feel left out again?


It reminds me of my little niece who, at the age of six, demanded that all visitors to her house stop their conversations and sit down to watch the movie of her choice. She just wouldn’t shut up and let the adults talk, she demanded that everyone participate in what she thought was entertaining, and damn it, if you didn’t do it, she was gonnna yell, scream and cry until her needs were attended to.


Now, that may seem a little harsh. Yeah, I know. Blacks suffered at the hands of White bigots and were marginalized in various ways. OK. So I think it’s great that there are people attempting to draw attention to the historic travesties that were inflicted on Blacks. Films like “Roots”, the “Color Purple”, “The Tuskegee Airmen”, and others have shed light on some very sad and even uplifting historical stories. And it’s not just Black directors who are contributing. Clint Eastwood directed a fantastic movie about Charlie Parker called “Bird”.


But now we have Spike Lee insulting Eastwood’s masterpiece film, “Flags of Our Fathers”.


In case you didn’t see it, “Flags of our Fathers” is about the young marines who raised the U.S. flag over Iwo Jima following a brutal battle. The event was captured in a one of the war’s most striking photographs, later converted into the Marine Corp War Memorial statue that is world-famous. Most of the men who participated died soon after the photo was taken. The ones that didn’t were employed as a propaganda tool to try to rally waning public support from the war-weary country at the end of the Pacific campaign. One of the flag raisers was an American Indian, and was prominently portrayed in the movie.


So what’s Spike’s beef?

None of them was black. Of course, historically--that's accurate.


Spike wants to point out that, in the entire film that Eastwood directed, he never once portrayed the Black munitions unit that was involved in the protracted battle. Lee found the lack of Black soldiers to be unacceptable. He complained, "That was his version. The negro version did not exist."


Eastwood’s response is perfectly logical: the film wasn’t about the black munitions corp. It was about the men who raised the flag, were turned into heroes and propaganda spokesmen, and about what became of their lives. Oh, and by the frickin' way, Spike: THEY WERE NOT BLACK.


Eastwood further stated, “If I go ahead and put an African-American actor in there, people'd go, 'This guy's lost his mind.' I mean, it's not accurate."


Eastwood is totally correct. The movie is not about whether or not there were Black soldiers at Iwo Jima. But to radical Blacks, historical accuracy is not what is important: they want to be the center of attention, even when it’s not appropriate.


So, just like my little niece, the world needs to stop its grownup talk about nuclear disarmament, dwindling energy sources and skyrocketing food costs, and never mind Global Warming.


But you damn well better pay attention to the one thing that counts: Blacks have played a role in History.


Now I know why Kevin Costner created a role for a Black Moor (Morgan Freeman) in Robin Hood:


To keep Spike Lee off his ass!

So, the next time anyone thinks about doing a Snow-White redux, just remember:

YOU HAD DAMN WELL CAST A BLACK SNOW WHITE!

Democrats need to get it right on Chavez

For over six years, the Florida-based non-profit organization, Free Venezuela, Inc. worked to complete its mission of educating the American public and elected officials about the ongoing socio-political crisis in Venezuela. Six years ago, our warnings that Hugo Chavez posed a real and present danger to the National Security of the United States, and to regional stability and development, were met with skepticism.

But time proved us correct.

One would have to be living in a cave to not be aware of the multiple and serious international complaints against the government of Hugo Chavez, its expansionist policies, repeated interventions in the internal affairs of surrounding sovereign nations, weapons accumulation, ties to terrorist and violent revolutionary groups, and other threatening actions and policies.

During the height of the 2004 Presidential campaign, Free Venezuelan leadership analyzed the positions of the candidates (George Bush and John Kerry) with regard to their positions on the looming crisis in Venezuela, and made friendly contacts within both camps, in order to ensure that the candidates were fully informed about the situation and hopefully would include the crisis in their policy statements.

To our great pleasure, the Kerry campaign responded by publishing a very brave statement that criticized many of the Chavez regime’s most nefarious actions and let it be known that, were he elected, John Kerry would keep a close watch on the developing situation. This comment was widely commented on by the Hispanic population in Florida. After all, Chavez’s policies have direct and dire implications for not just the Venezuelan community, but for Colombians, Bolivians, Ecuadorians, Mexicans, and—most importantly considering their numbers as voters in Florida—the Cubans. It highlighted the Bush administrations lack of leadership in the hemisphere. And it also sent a very powerful signal directly to Hugo Chavez: Americans of both parties see through the propaganda, and recognize that the Chavez policies are destructive to region stability.

Looking forward

As the 2008 elections loom near, Republican Presidential John McCain has taken a hard line against Cuba and Venezuela.
Arizona Senator has called Cuba "a national security threat," adding that "as president, I will not passively await the long overdue demise of the Castro dictatorship ... The Cuban people have waited long enough." He is an adamant supporter of Colombia’s President Uribe, who has enjoyed striking successes in his long battle against the FARC terrorists, and whose economy is expanding healthily thanks to trade agreements with the USA.

This stance is arguably the right position. Quite distressingly, the Democratic leadership embodied by the two frontrunners, Senators Clinton and Obama, initially made very lackluster statements to the effect that they would be willing to meet with Chavez either without conditions, or with only some pre-conditions. There has been very little willingness to confront the Chavez regime for its roll-back of constitutional protections, meddling in the affairs of other nations, questionable alliances with powers hostile to the United States, massive weapons purchases, etc.

Now that Senator Obama has apparently acquired the official candidacy for the Democrats, he has now begun to take a more hard line position on Venezuela. He is in a very weak position, however. His longstanding pacifist policies make any hawkish stance seem to be worthless saber-rattling.

Obama’s weak and waffling positions reinforce the stereotype that the Democratic leadership is lacking clarity, conviction, and spine.

How can the Democratic leadership claim to have international diplomatic skills and yet be so glaringly unaware of the dangers that are lurking in our own hemisphere? They should not be afraid to criticize Chavez’s policies, since by doing so they would be the good company of so many current and former heads of state. Even his some of his former international allies, Zapatero (Spain) and Da Silva (Brazil) have joined the chorus, with President Lula Da Silva stating that “it is a danger for Brazil and for Latin America for there to be a military power installed in the continent. An arms race would oblige us to divert funds from social spending to ensure military balance.”

The interventionist policies of Chávez government has had nefarious impacts on numerous nations in the hemisphere. From Ecuador to Mexico, Bolivia to Argentina, and especially in neighboring Colombia, there is a growing outcry that Chávez has illicitly funneled millions of dollars into those nations to influence elections and strengthen leftist groups across the region.
In the most recent and most infamous case, the FBI has concrete evidence that the Chávez government covertly funneled large sums of money into Argentina to influence the election of Kristina Fernandez de Kirchner. The implications are frightening: the Castro-Chávez axis is using Venezuelan petro-dollars to destabilize the region and influence elections. In December, 2007, Chávez even had the temerity to threaten creating a “violent revolution” in Bolivia if the opposition there did not quit battling President Evo Morales.

The Democrats, who should be publicly laying claim to a long heritage of Diplomatic leadership in the Americas, are instead abdicating this leadership role to the more belligerent Republican Party. The Democrats must find a way to stand strong on international issues of national security and regional stability, but do so in a way that differentiates them from the more bellicose Republicans.

A proposal to the Democratic Leadership

So what can the Democrats do that will achieve the goals of 1) gathering Latino Votes to their party, 2) demonstrate consistency in their philosophy and policy, 3) showcase their resolve in tough international issues and diplomatic skills?

The solution is by taking an international leadership stance that offers a roadmap to actionable diplomatic solutions, which embodies the Democratic traditions, rather than bellicose saber rattling, which has typified the Republican approach.

Step One: Lead in the world bodies.

In keeping with the traditional Democratic philosophies to avoid violent conflict by allowing established world bodies to settle disputes and put constructive pressure on potentially dangerous governments, the Democratic presidential candidates should write a joint statement calling on the Organization of American States to hold an emergency session and consider applying the OAS Charter to the Venezuelan crisis.

A number of Latin American leaders have stated their frustration with the lack of action from the OAS. Most recently Bolivian ex-President Jorge Quiroga stated that Chavez has the majority of OAS member states under his control thanks to his use of petroleum as a weapon, and that the OAS is not living up to its mission.

Step Two: Involve former heads of state to create a strong, international approach with experienced, respected Latin American leaders.

Democrats should organize an international forum of former and current Latin American Presidents to air their complaints about the policies of the Chavez regime and to highlight their concerns about the consequences of the policies, as well as to propose legal, peaceful and diplomatic solutions.

Suggested participants; Arias (Costa Rica), Uribe (Colombia), Gutiérrez (Ecuador), Quiroga (Bolivia), Lagos (Chile), García (Perú), Toledo (Perú), Saca (El Salvador), and Aznar (Spain), Zapatero (Spain) and Da Silva (Brazil).

Step Three: Call for a study of the increasing regional militarization and imbalance and seek active policies to reverse the trend.

A number of Latin American Presidents, from Uribe in Colombia to Lula da Silva in Brazil, have remarked that they are concerned about the Venezuelan military buildup. Huge arms purchases from Russia, China, Belarus, and other nations should concern all Americans. Make policy proposals that would help neighboring nations correct the military imbalance that is being created.

Step Four: Take a leadership role in supporting the Venezuelan civil society that is attempting to defend its space within the society and guarantee the continuance of liberty and human rights.
The Democrats should request testimony before congress from independent organizations to provide unbiased reports about human rights violations, state sanctioned acts of violence, assaults on freedom of expression and the free press, and other undemocratic irregularities.

The Democrats could also propose a change in immigration policy to provide Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Venezuelans who are fleeing the increasing political repression, social chaos and violence in their nation.

Step Five: Call for investigations of the consistent and repeated accusations that the Venezuelan electronic electoral system has been rigged to allow the Central Government to control election results.

In conclusion

Up until now, the republican administration has neglected the situation, but the aggressive comments from McCain suggest that he may make it an election issue to highlight Obama's lack of experience.

The Democrats have got to find a way to appear to lead on these issues. Up until now, they have not been able to figure out what to do.

Michelle Obama’s Princeton senior thesis: an analysis

Michelle Obama’s Princeton senior thesis: an analysis
By Shakedown Crews
For the subject of my first Blog, I wanted to spend a little time on an issue that has been touched on by the mainstream media (Politico), but not in great depth. It interests me because, as a former White liberal and Democrat, I have always had an interest in race relations in our country. I had considered it part of my duty as a citizen to try to mend fences, as it were, and to do what I could to help heal our society.
A number of issues over the past ten years have made me considerably more conservative. But I am still interested in race relations in the USA. My perspective on what to do and how to do it has changed. But I still read on the topic and try to educate myself.
Most recently, I read Juan William’s book, ENOUGH, in which he explores the wonderful ideology and activism of one of my current heroes, Bill Cosby. I won’t go into great depth on that book in this blog entry. In short, Williams and Cosby have a message for the Black community: Clean up your act, take responsibility, and quit waiting for someone else (Black “leaders”, the government, etc) to raise you up.
Now, in the meantime, I was carefully observing the 2008 Presidential campaign of Barak Obama, and I was alarmed by a number of “indicators” I saw that suggested that—although he hopes to be a “great uniter”—he actually harbors secret radical ideologies that may divide the country. His long-term association with Reverend Wright, whose extremist views are based upon the Black Liberation Theology, concerned me greatly. Black Liberation Theology is not an ideology that promotes the idea, to quote African-American taxi driver Rodney King who was beat by Los Angeles police, “Why can’t we all just get along?” No, the Liberation Theology was based upon Marxist theories of class warfare, and Black Liberation Theology added the element of Race to that notion of warfare. The result is a rather toxic cocktail that calls Whites “the devil” because of the legacy of slavery. It conveniently overlooks the thousands of years’ traditions in Africa in which Slavery was a common practice, and instead conveniently dumps the evil upon the White doorstep alone.
So for a U.S. Senator to attend—over twenty years—a church whose leader was an extremely controversial proponent of extremist and divisive thought, should have set off alarm bells much earlier than it did.
Obama tried to distance himself from his pastor—without actually leaving the church—by stating that he was retiring and a new and wonderful pastor was coming. But when the new pastor invited another radical Priest (this time a Catholic priest) who expressed more of the same Liberation Theology radicalism from the pulpit and accused Obama’s democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, of being a White Supremacist, Obama finally had to leave the church. Too little, too late, but that’s just an indication of his poor judgment, isn’t it?
So in this context, the country has been wondering why Obama would hang out with this kind of people if—as he repeatedly says—he doesn’t believe it.
When his wife, Michelle Obama made a public gaffe by saying that “for the first time in my adult life I’m proud of my country”, much was made of the statement because it clearly showed a lack of patriotism on her part.
That statement caught my interest, because I was pretty sure we could surmise what she meant, but we needed additional evidence.
That evidence became available when Michelle Obama’s (her maiden name was Robinson, but I’ll refer to her by her current name for this essay) Princeton senior thesis paper was made public.
Well, it was sort of made public, by Politico. You see, the thesis was stored in the library, entitled “Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community”. In that essay, Obama states:
“I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this thesis.
I authorize Princeton University to lend this thesis to other institutions or individuals for the purpose of scholarly research.”
Apparently, that thesis was not made available for journalistic research. As reported by Politico,
“The 96-page Princeton thesis, restricted from release by the school's Mudd Library, has also been the subject of recent scrutiny….Attempts to retrieve the document through Princeton proved unsuccessful, with school librarians having been pestered so much for access to the thesis that they have resorted to reading from a script when callers inquire about it. Media officers at the prestigious university were similarly unhelpful, claiming it is ‘not unusual’ for a thesis to be restricted and refusing to discuss ‘the academic work of alumni.’
Politico did a two-page analysis of the thesis, which I did not find gratifying; I wanted to know more, and I think you might also. I should note that the 1985 essay is now quite old, and gosh, you know, I held some pretty stupid ideas when I graduated from university at the tender age of 24…or was that 26? So let’s not condemn Obama strictly by the text of the essay, but if we connect the dots between what her Pastor has said, what she has said, her husband’s refusal to wear a lapel pin, and what she wrote in her essay, we can see fairly clearly what her ideologies are.
And she hints that she is a segregationist. Oh, I’m sorry, I mean separationist.
I took time to read the essay, and did a little analysis of it, so you won’t have to. You can thank me later.
The basic premise of the 1985 essay was to Interview blacks who were graduates of the majority-white Princeton University, most of whom attended the school during the ‘70s at the height of the civil rights movement, and to find out
“to which degree they are comfortable interacting with Black and with White individuals…; the extent to which they are motivated to benefit the black community…; the ideologies they hold with respects to race relations between Black and White communities; and the feelings they have toward the black lower class such as a feeling they should help improve the lives of this particular group of Blacks.”
She specifies that
“It is important to understand what will happen to blacks that attend white schools: “will they feel any obligation … to help other Blacks… who are less fortunate than themselves?”
Obama gives some theoretical/ideological background for her approach, which is in itself quite telling. She starts by exploring the “Separationism/Pluralism and Integrationism/Assimilation” paradigm. She explains it thusly:
“The idea of Separationism and Pluralism …is…discussed by Billingsley (1968) who believes that there is a need for Blacks to build up their own communities; define themselves by new “Black” standards different from old White standards; and exercise power and control over their own institutions and services within the Black community…Stokely Carmichael and Charles Hamilton’s (1967) developed definition of separationism in their discussion of Black Power which guided me in the formulation and use of this concept in the study. ‘The concept of Black Power rests on the fundamental premise: Before a group can enter the open society, it must close ranks. By this we mean that group solidarity is necessary before a group can operate effectively from a bargaining position of strength in a pluralist society.”
I’ll return to this concept later, because it poses some incredible contradictions and traps for the Black community.
To get her respondent’s input on this issue, she formulated the following question:
Question # 4. “How would you describe the views you held during the three periods [pre-Princeton, Princeton, Post-Princeton] about relations between Blacks and Whites in the U.S.
Very strongly Separationist and/or Pluralist
Moderately Separationist and/or Pluralist
Undecided
Moderately integrationist and/or assimilationist
Very strongly integrationist and/or assimilationist”
I find it very interesting that this Thesis was written in 1985. I am curious to know how it was that the Black community managed to go from being 100% focused on achieving desegregation in the late 1960’s, to the point that by the mid 1980’s they were discussing Separationist policies.
Oh, and how is separationism different from segregation? Could it mean: “Separated—on our terms” perhaps?
Contrasting the Separationist ideology, Obama very briefly explores the notion of Integrationist ideology, but surprisingly does not provide any real detail or even a quotation by one of its preeminent proponents. I would interpret that to mean that she is not very interested in the arguments posed by the integrationists.
She does, however, go into depth about the difficulties that Black students face at “White” universities.
“Dejoie believes that ‘Institutional policies of predominately White universities have established practices which favor the prefered [sic] groups and have ranked priorities which are meant to facilitate the tasks and improve the conditions of White students while ignoring the needs of the black students’. Dr. Dejoie goes on in her study to discuss the effects of biased curricula which does not encourage, ‘…the contribution of Blacks, the study of Blacks, as a group’.”
This quote is very telling. Apparently, “White schools” don’t focus enough attention on Blacks and their “contribution”. Presumably, Black sociologists believe that schools need to formulate assertive policies to force Whites to focus on the accomplishments of Blacks in history.
The curricula of most schools generally focus on events, players, causes, effects, and results. A history course that explores the rise and fall of the Third Reich should focus on the historical context of the war, the factors that led up to the war, the events during the war, how and why the Nazi regime collapsed, and the major players during the war.
But should special focus on the Black group of pilots called the Tuskegee Airmen really be a required central focus? Why focus on Blacks, then, instead of Japanese-Americans who contributed? Are Japanese groups clamoring for equal attention? Why not focus on Hispanics who fought in the war (are there Mexican-American or Puerto Rican groups protesting)? And what about the Native-American contribution? Oh wait…have I just lost focus on the primary purpose of the course—“The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich”?!
This discussion goes on:
“Dejoie also discusses the negative aspects of social and non-academic activities…: “As in academic areas, the social aspects of university life systematically follow the interests of the White students—the majority group”.
Now, this is pretty amazing. Think about it. Obama must agree with Dejoie (since she feels the need to quote Dejoie), when she criticizes “White Schools” because the social life “systematically follow[s] the interest of the White [majority] students”.
And what would you reasonably expect…that the majority White school systematically create social aspects appropriate for Pacific Islanders, Vietnamese or Japanese? No, of course not. So are they saying that it’s only Blacks who need to be accommodated, because they are a special minority?
Or are they saying that Blacks should not attend majority White schools because social life follows the interest of White students. What should “White” schools do to correct this? “Systematically” promote “Black culture”? And what exactly would that look like? If a White school organized Brake-Dance parties or Krumping sessions, they’d be attacked for their insensitive racial stereotyping.
By the way, what are “White interests”? I thought Americans of many races shared interests in football, basketball, music, art, theatre…for that matter, what are the “Black interests” that are not being addressed and can only be done at a Black school? This is fascinating to me. I’d never categorized my interests by racial lines. From my (obviously skewed) perspective, whenever I’ve seen kids get together to explore music, computers, robots, rockets, or whatever, it was the subject that drew them in, and the racial identity of the participant was irrelevant.
The only time “race” has ever become relevant to “interests” is when it is so obvious that the participant’s ethnicity is rare for the interest. Think that’s racist? Then consider Jamaican Bobsledders. Now, why would it be racist for someone to be fascinated in such a concept? There is such an obvious disconnect between the nationality and the environment from which they come, and the very nature of the sport. Black skiers are another rarity. So much so, they have formed their own non-profit organization to promote the sport. Are they racist for noticing that few of their own have explored the sport, or are we racist for noticing how rare it is to see Blacks on the slope and to be happy to meet the few who have taken up the challenge?
So, what would be better? For the Blacks on predominantly White schools to try new things (skiing, bobsledding, and hockey) presented to them by their White counterparts…or for White schools to try to promote things they think are uniquely “Black”. Brake Dancing. Krumping. Purple cars with spinning wheel caps…? It sounds absurd because it is absurd.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I understand what Michelle means when she says “as a result of such biases…it is often difficult for some Black students to adjust to Princeton’s environment; and…there are very few …support groups”. I lived for a year in Costa Rica (1990), and it really can be difficult to adjust to a ‘new culture’. Of course, there are some key differences: I didn’t speak the language at first, and the cultural differences were quite drastic and unknown to me. I didn’t have much of a “support group”, and I was definitely part of an obvious minority—we gringos with very light skin do tend to stand out.
Obama says,
“My experiences at Princeton has made me far more aware of my ‘Blackness’…I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don’t belong…it often seems as if I will always be Black first and a student second.”
This may not be the most comfortable feeling, but if we are honest with ourselves, is there ever going to be a time and place in which all of us are the same? Would that even be desirable? So isn’t it simply a matter of maturity and a good-natured outlook to understand that there will be times when we are in the minority, we are drastically different from the people around us, and how they react to us will depend greatly upon how we act while among them?
Blacks in America can’t (and don’t) say they don’t know about “White culture”. The usual issue is that Whites don’t know much about “Black culture”. Which leads Whites to ask some pretty silly questions, make some dumb assumptions, etc. The true test of character, however, is how you handle that. I can’t recall how many times when I was in Costa Rica, Mexico, Panama, and other countries, that I was accosted for being a “gringo imperialista” by the left-leaning students on campus, and bombarded by criticism for the US’s invasion of Panama the year before. Many people rudely attacked me with their extremely biased, bigoted, and completely wrong opinions of Americans in general, and White Americans in particular. I could choose bitterness, resentment and hate. I could choose (as many students did) to turn “anti-American” and lead the vehement attacks on their own country. Or, I could choose to be patient and understanding, and to accept fault where it was deserved, defend myself and my country when necessary, and to do so in non-confrontational methods. I initially joined in the attacks on the country, but with maturity and clarity, I eventually chose the latter.
Blacks at majority White campuses have to make the same choice. They can either be diplomatic representatives of their “people”, or chose to conflict with people. And they have to make a conscious effort to separate well-meant but naïve questions or comments from mean-spirited attacked by bigots.
But if they choose to believe that they are confronting an enemy, that everyone is different and they have nothing in common, that choice will ensure that what they will find is confrontation, misunderstanding, and isolation. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Another key area that Obama wanted to explore is what she called “Benefit Attitudes.”
“The second set of dependent variables in this study tries especially to measure the extent to which the respondents were motivated to benefit various social groups…The first variable was designed to provide some idea of how interested the respondents are in positively contributing to the Black community relative to other social groups such as the White community, their families, their occupations.”
This quote was revealing, in that there seems to be an underlying suspicion that, if Blacks study with Whites and get comfortable with them, they’ll no longer care about other Blacks, as if their contact with Whites will turn them “White”, and of course, since we all know that Whites are racists who don’t like Blacks (I’m being sarcastic here, just in case you don’t get it), they are not concerned about Black suffering. Right?
Also, is there a judgment statement being made about a well-educated Black person who places a high value on their occupation? What exactly should we expect from someone who has acquired a very expensive education? Should they turn their backs on their family and financial success and instead go get a low-paying job at a non-profit? This appears to me to be yet another echo of the Marxist bent found within the Liberation Theology. It suggests to me that one of the reasons the Obamas didn’t distance themselves from Pastor Wright might have been—just maybe—because they agreed with him.
It seems to me that there is a subtle hint here that Obama disdains people who actually might want the “good life”, instead of working for the “common good.” This makes sense for the leftists, since socialists like Hugo Chavez and others publicly proclaim that “being rich is evil”, and there is a long line formed among the leftists and Democrats who want to cozy up to Chavez. I wonder if that’s why Barak wanted to meet with Hugo: To talk about how evil it is for everyone (except them) to get rich?
“The second variable …was designed to measure the nature of the respondents’ attitudes …specifically toward members of the lower class [Black] community …it is impossible to help everyone and everything equally at the same time.”
Oh, boy, that’s a rich statement. But you have to look into what she says next to get the full impact:
“Feelings of obligation to improve the life of the Black lower class, feelings of guilt for betraying the Black lower class, as well as feelings of shame or envy toward the Black lower class are investigated in this study.”
Am I mistaken in interpreting her statements that she perceives receiving a good education as “betraying the Black lower class”? Before you disagree, read the question from her survey:
Question # 5. “When you think of lower class Black Americans and the life they lead, how true for you personally are the following statements?
I feel proud that I have been strong enough to avoid remaining in, or falling into, that life.
I feel lucky that I was given opportunities that they are not given.
I feel guilty that I may be betraying them in some way.
I feel ashamed of them; they reflect badly on the rest of us.
I feel their life is more honest than mine; I would become part of it if I could.
I feel obligated to help improve their life.
I feel they must help themselves.
I feel they are the White community’s problem; not mine.
I feel there is no way they can be helped; their situation is hopeless.

Ah, it’s the “you can only serve one master” ploy, eh?
So the idea is beginning to form, that Blacks who go to White schools may internalize “White values”, become less “Black”, become “materialists” or “capitalists” and forget—even betray—poor Blacks. Let’s cut to the quick: if you are Black, and you get a good education, and are comfortable with whites, are you an Uncle Tom? Are you a “House Negro”? Would any respondent actually say “poor blacks are the problem of the White community?”
Again, this is in keeping with the Liberal notion that compassionate people will eschew wealth (because they believe wealth is a zero-sum game), actively promote minorities who are victims of White oppression, and—because conservatives oppose doing this via the mechanism of big government—Liberals therefore conclude that Conservatives are not compassionate and do not care about the poor.
So, if a Black (like Clarence Thomas) is a conservative, and educated at an Ivy League school, how can the Black community relate to such a person?
Remember that I taught at a predominantly Black high school? I had a Black female student that had attended the Million Man March, and while there had the exciting opportunity to meet “with all the Democrats in the NAACP”. I asked her if she met any Republicans in the NAACP, to which she snorted, “You can’t be a Republican and be in the NAACP! We don’t think you can be a Republican and still be Black.” Oh really?
Another interesting passage is when Obama goes through an analysis of the variables, listing things such as the respondent’s originating class, number of books in the household, relationship to God, and even “the race of the person whom the individual most admired…”
I can’t speak for others, but if you asked me whom I admired most as a child, I’d have a hard time coming up with one name. I had many heroes. Now, ask me the same question, but throw in the qualifier “what RACE” was the person I most admired…it adds a whole new dynamic, doesn’t it? The question itself forces the respondent to filter the list of most admired personalities along the lines of race. The question forcibly interjects a discriminatory consideration, and must also trigger a series of emotional responses.
I imagine a black respondent suddenly (and possibly subconsciously) weighing the response: “since I am Black, would it mean I’m a sell-out if I admired a non-Black individual most?” Does that suddenly make a Black candidate suddenly more admirable as a response? How is Obama going to judge a Black individual who admired a white figure (suppose it was a white parent, grandparent, or influential teacher) more than Harriet Tubman or W.E.B. Dubois? Would she take that as proof that the higher educated Black with books has “sold out” to the White culture?
So, remember my statement about the “self-fulfilling prophecy”. There are perfectly good reasons why a respondent might say that their most-admired person was Black before attending University, and White afterward, without actually meaning that the person is no longer proud to be Black or is now unconcerned about Black issues. But if you are determined to see that getting too close to Whites will change you for the worse, guess how you will interpret these responses.
Hypotheses
The basic hypothesis of her thesis is that, the longer the Black student spent with Whites, the more comfortable (s)he will feel with them. Duh! You think? Isn’t it obvious that anyone would be uncomfortable around people about whom they know little or nothing and think they have nothing in common? And isn’t it obvious that, over time, people will discover that they are more alike than they thought? Hey, I think we’ve had a breakthrough here!
She goes on to say that
“I also … hypothesize that this sense of comfort with Blacks will be greatest in all the activities measured by this dependent variable except intellectual activities. Intellectually, Blacks may be more comfortable with Whites as a result of a greater amount of exposure to Whites in an academic setting… ”
Essentially, she comes to the conclusion that the Blacks, after so much time at Princeton has forced Blacks “to compete intellectually with Whites more than Blacks”, making them feel more comfortable on “intellectual” terms with Whites than they are with other Blacks.
Whoa. Am I reading that right? The word “competing” implies matching skills. It implies improving those skills to match one’s competitors. The Black student will therefore develop intellectually thanks to their interaction with Whites. Is that what she’s saying? So were they less skilled before meeting Whites on a competitive playing field?
If so, then how would the Black community benefit if the Separationist ideology she appears to support were followed?
Another interpretation might be that the Black students would, by virtue of the close contact with Whites, become intimate with the White mindset and learn that “they aren’t as bad as I thought…” They might become comfortable with Whites when they learn that Whites are not “white devils” after all.
That would come as a shock to the Black Liberation Theology proponents, wouldn’t it? It might be better to keep blacks poor and apart from Whites, in that case, right?
So Blacks would, in the long term, become more comfortable with Whites, but is it really feasible (given this interpretation) that they would become “more comfortable with Whites than with Blacks?” There is a big difference: It is one thing to learn that the people you once scorned as a bunch of racists are actually pretty decent people, and you are comfortable being around them. It’s quite another to get to the point where—intellectually or otherwise—you begin to prefer their company to your “own people”.
Again, I have experience in this area. Being an Anglo, English speaking American, I was originally most comfortable around “my own people” (a silly term, since I’ve never been comfortable around anyone based simply on their race). But by the time I had become totally fluent in Spanish and had lived abroad, then surrounded myself with Latino friends and married a Venezuelan, my Latin friends often remarked that I was “more Latino than Gringo”. And yes, I became more comfortable with some Latinos than with most Anglo-Saxon Americans. The difference was, that I was very comfortable with educated and well travelled Latinos, and uncomfortable with uneducated and closed-minded Whites.
The inferred dilemma in the Obama essay is that this is somehow a betrayal of the Black community. Do you see the contradiction? Whites who learn to feel comfortable among Blacks are not seen as sellouts. Blacks who get an education and feel comfortable with Whites—are no longer Black.
Obama is revealing that she is not above the most basic emotional scarring left over from the trauma of slavery. Let’s boil down the argument to the most basic level: will becoming comfortable with Whites make her an “Uncle Tom” or “House Negro”? Is she suddenly an “Oreo” (Black on the outside, White in the middle)?
Her husband was initially attacked in the early days of his campaign as being too “White”, or at least, “not Black enough”. Mind you, not by Whites, but by Blacks.
This is all part of the not-so-secret but shameful legacy among Blacks, for whom lighter colored skin is often seen as preferable. This is also known as the “paper-bag test”: Young Black men and women were often encouraged by their parents and grandparents to bring home mates whose skin was lighter than a paper bag. This was seen as a step up, especially for their offspring. This is not openly discussed, because it contradicts the “Black Pride” movement. But it is a very real social undercurrent.
This preference simultaneously causes a bit of a shameful reaction… “are we betraying our Blackness? Should we celebrate our Blackness by trying to be as ‘Black’ as possible?” So educated Blacks suddenly become “White”.
When I was a teacher in a predominantly Black inner-urban high school in the rural South, I actually had students killed by other Black students because they thought they were acting “White”, simply because they were trying to get an education and behaved in a way that reflected those different values.
Blackness is at war with itself. Obama’s essay reveals the inner turmoil of that conflict, and the emotional strains placed on her as she tries to alleviate those feelings. Achieving a great education is wonderful. But does it make her less Black? Can she counter the feelings of guilt and betrayal by obsessively trying to benefit “less fortunate Blacks”? She says, on page 20 of her essay, that
“…Blacks who are more comfortable with Whites than with Blacks will probably be less interested in benefitting the Black community…The more respondents spend time with Blacks, the more positive and compassionate they will be in their attitudes towards lower class Black Americans…”
This argument is precisely the reasoning behind the vicious and bigoted attacks on Supreme Justice Clarence Thomas that would start in 1991, when President G. Bush (4I) nominated him to replace Thurgood Marshall. Thomas was a conservative Black. He spoke clear English without a hint of “Ebonics” and took the stand that Blacks had to accept individual responsibility for their own successes.
Clearly, considering Obama’s rhetoric, she would see Thomas through the prism of her opinion that, because Thomas did not believe that government was the solution for Black suffering, he therefore had spent too much time with Whites, was more comfortable with Whites than Blacks, and no longer was compassionate toward lower class Blacks.
None of which is necessarily true. Because the primary argument is that dependency on Government does not teach independence and does not strengthen the community, but contrarily weakens it.
The results
Her study did find that most of the respondents reported spending more time with Whites post-Princeton than pre-Princeton, or rather, a drop of time spent with other blacks from 61% to 39%. The number of respondents who actually made a change to spend more time with Blacks was 15%.
It should be noted, that no distinction was made in the study to account for the fact that Princeton graduates are very likely to work in prestigious companies which would tend to be predominantly White or mixed, but at any rate would obviously increase their contact with Whites. So the study does not account for whether that increase of contact was due to choice or as a result of work.
An interesting result of the study shows that a significant number of Blacks studying at Princeton experienced a change of opinion about “separationist” beliefs during the period they studied there. While 26% of them were strongly separationist before attending Princeton, this number increased to 40%. But after graduation, this ideology decreased to 31%. A bias in the reporting should be noted: The study states that Black respondents reported Separationist ideologies ranging from 26%, 40%, and finally 31%. The study could just as easily state the percentages of Black respondents reported non-separationist or integrationist percentages, or both equally. But that was not the angle the author chose. Her focus is more upon separationists, and only in passing does she state that the number of respondents who changed toward integrationist ideologies rose from 16% to 32%.
Obama also states that “the percentage of respondents who were motivated to benefit the Black community increased from 46% at the Pre-Princeton point to 64% at Post-Princeton.”
With regard to the “comfort level” of Blacks with other Blacks after a Princeton education, she found that
“the 26% of the respondents who were comfortable with Blacks rose to 37% from Pre-Princeton to Princeton, and then dropped back to 22% during the post-Princeton point.”
The intellectual comfort indicator showed predictable changes.
“During the Princeton to Post-Princeton period…only 10% [were] more comfortable with Blacks while 31% became more comfortable with Whites.”
The primary assumption she makes is that the comfort level felt by the respondents has to do with the amount of time the respondent spent with other Blacks during the Princeton and Post-Princeton years. Interestingly, no mention is given to the idea that the comfort level might have to do with values, changes of values, and the possibility that an educated person, regardless as to race, will have different values than an uneducated person. So educated Blacks may feel more comfortable with educated Whites than with uneducated Blacks, but the inverse can also be said: educated Whites would prefer the company of educated Blacks over that of uneducated Whites.
The preference may have little or nothing to do with race.
At one point in her essay, she makes a couple of interesting admissions:
“…However, it is conceivable that my four years of exposure to a predominantly White, Ivy League University has instilled in me certain conservative values. For example, …I find myself striving for many of the same goals as my White classmates—acceptance to a prestigious graduate or professional school or a high paying position in a successful corporation. Thus, my goals after Princeton are not as clear as before.”
Why does Obama say that her “goals after Princeton are not as clear as before”? What is so “unclear” about gaining such a great education and finding herself striving for many of the same goals as her White classmates? A great Post Graduate degree, a great job: does she think that these things are the antithesis of being Black?
“These experiences have made it apparent to me that the path I have chosen to follow …will likely lead to my further integration and/or assimilation into a White culture and social structure that will only allow me to remain on the periphery of society; never becoming a full participant.”

Ah, could this be the sentiment that explains Michelle's statement about never being proud of her country? It appears to explain a lot. Despite her great education, she was convinced that this innately racist country would never allow her to play a critical and central role in its future. But now that she sees Whites voting for her husband, she can allow herself to feel proud of the nation again.

It might be, Michelle, that the nation was great even before you belatedly realized it.

When we consider the stated ideology of the “Separationists”, I am stricken first by how similar the arguments of these Black sociologists parallel the segregationist desires of the racist whites in the 1950’s and 1960’s. This ideology was the same that express itself as “separate but equal”, especially when applied to schools, and seemed to be in direct conflict with segments of the society—led by such men as Martin Luther King—that fought for desegregation.
I also find it somewhat ironic that the separationist ideology on the one hand feel the need to keep apart from society, and then complain that they will never “become a full participant.” How do you reconcile that? And if you admit that the Black students benefitted by having to compete with White students at Princeton, then wouldn’t that suggest that the integrationist ideology again makes more sense?

As long as Blacks think that economic and educational success is a “White” ambition, then Blacks will forever remain “on the periphery”. This is not a problem that Government, or Whites, or anyone but Blacks can solve. It is the same problem that Bill Cosby and Juan Williams are aggressively addressing.

It is not a betrayal of the Black community to seek success.

It is a betrayal to perpetuate the belief that success means you have suddenly stopped being Black. Because the inverse statement to that is that failure is a Black trait.

If the Obamas really want to give us Change we can believe in, then this is the message that the Obamas need to address.