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.

Forget the Bush Doctrine. We need to look forward.

Coffee break talk last Friday centered on Sarah Palin’s first interview with ABC’s Charlie Gibson. In general, she received good marks for her adroit responses to Gibson’s questions, with the one exception being Gibson’s alleged “gotcha” moment when he asked her: "Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?''

Palin paused, looking a bit perplexed, and tried to get some clarification by asking: “In what regard?”

When Gibson finally—and rather pedantically—revealed that he was referring to the Bush policy of pre-emptive strikes, Palin responded by reaffirming that the US has the right to respond to what it perceives as an imminent threat.

Liberals tried to point to this moment as an example of how Palin is weak on her comprehension of international policies and is ignorant about the “Bush Doctrine”. All which is powerfully contradicted by the brilliant commentator, Charles Krauthammer, in his article “Gibson’s Gaffe”.

Krauthammer makes the point that there is not one “Bush Doctrine”, but rather a total of four. The one to which Gibson referred is the third in the series, and technically was incorrect, because it is Bush’s fourth policy statement that will probably be remembered as his “doctrine”:

"The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of
liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of
freedom in all the world."

Liberals have remained fixated on Bush’s third policy statement, the one stating that the US has the right to preemptively strike against nations that harbor terrorists or support them and pose a threat to US security. They cling to this argument because they believe they will gain political points—and political office—by reminding America of how we got into the war in Iraq.

This may be an interesting discussion, but discussions of "presidential doctrine" is table fare for historians and will do nothing for America's future. So Charlie Gibson's question was not only misleading and probably wrong, but really was totally irrelevant!

I’d like to use this moment as an example of how these so-called “leaders” are not leading at all. It was not Bush’s third policy statement that is now heating the current and riskiest global crisis, but his fourth and most far-reaching that needs deeper examination.

The “Bush Doctrine” quoted by Krauthammer is potentially the more controversial of the two. After all, it this part of the Bush policies that has inspired the administration to take such an aggressively supportive role of Eastern European democracies such as Ukraine, Poland, Czech Republic, and Georgia. Bush’s determination to defend the former Soviet bloc countries is making Moscow feel threatened. In response to the ‘missile shield’ that the United States is offering to put into Poland and the Czech republic is at the source of the conflict with Georgia/Russia. We must remember that it was shortly after the Bush administration worked out deals to locate the missiles in Poland that Moscow responded, threatening that their response could be a military one.

Russian President Medvedev was quoted in NOVOSTI, Russian news source:

“These missiles are close to our borders and constitute a threat to us,"
Medvedev said in an interview with Al-Jazeera television on Tuesday. "This will
create additional tension and we will have to respond to it in some way,
naturally using military means." … The Russian president said that offering NATO
membership to Georgia and Ukraine, two former Soviet republics, would only
aggravate the situation.

Shortly afterward, the Russians apparently manufactured a political crisis in Georgia by encouraging Georgian rebels of Russian descent to ramp up their activities. The Georgians responded militarily in an attempt to restore control of the breakaway region, giving Moscow the excuse it wanted to invade the territory in the role of “peace keepers.”

While the US and Europe wrung their hands over the issue, it became clear that the US was not willing to confront Russia militarily. But the Bush administration did respond diplomatically, and began to press to speed the inclusion of the other Soviet bloc nations in NATO, thus providing them with a promise of multilateral military defense, if needed.

Predictably, this action again provoked Russia. But watch this time, it appears that the Russians are looking to expand their influence in our hemisphere.

Weeks after the Georgian conflict, as tensions between the United States and Russia continue to escalate, Venezuelan caudillo Hugo Chavez declared that Venezuela sided with the Russians in the Georgian affair, and bragged that the Russians and Venezuelans were planning war games in the Caribbean region.

The Russians then flew two Tu-160 long distance strategic bombers into Venezuela. Chavez declared that the presence of the bombers was a warning to Washington that “Venezuela is no longer poor and alone.”

Other reports indicated that Chavez had been courting Russia for a long time in the hope of convincing Moscow to establish a Navy port there and install an aircraft carrier in the Caribbean.
Congresswoman Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said she was not concerned about the presence of the Russian bombers in Venezuela: “I don’t think Russia would launch attacks on the United States.” By contrast, Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md) said that “There is a continuing pattern over the last several months of Russian intimidation…and they are using the same old bullying intimidation tactics that go back to Brezhnev and Stalin.”

Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski, stated clear concern.

“What you are suggesting doesn’t surprise me, and yes it concerns me,” said Murkowski. “If it is clearly a flexing of muscle and effort to display force, it makes you wonder what the objective is and what the appropriate response should be.”

What is the objective?

Today’s leaders—both Republicans and Democrats—may be missing the point entirely. The threat is not that Russia might launch a military attack against the United States. It is that the Russians might act as a shield to protect Chavez’s socialist regime, giving him the ability to increase his interventionist policies in regional countries such as Bolivia, Ecuador, Honduras, Nicaragua, and others.

This past weekend, violence erupted in some of the Bolivian ‘departments’ (the equivalent of states) between supporters of socialist president Evo Morales and his conservative, capitalist opponents. The Bolivians expelled the American diplomat, claiming that he was promoting violent protests. Chavez stepped in and expelled the American diplomat in Caracas, causing a quid pro quo expulsion of the Venezuelan ambassador from Washington. Chavez then demanded that the Bolivian government respond with force to the “imperialist aggression” and that if Morales was overthrown, he—President Chavez—would send Venezuelan troops to Boliva. “I am prepared to die for Boliva,” he professed.

If the Russians had a naval base in Venezuela, Chavez would feel free to deliver on his repeated, hollow threats. The borderline-dictator and friend to the Colombia FARC terrorists, having bought the technology to build a Kalashnikov AK-47 and ammunition factory in Venezuela, would have the ability to arm hundreds of thousands of rebel forces throughout the continent, thus turning his dream of creating a continental revolutionary army into a reality. Russian protection would make US intervention in this plan much more difficult.

The objective that eludes our congressmen and women could be this: if the US continues to make threatening moves in the Russian neighborhood, they will respond with parallel maneuvers. If we are uncomfortable, we will have to back off our support for the Soviet bloc democracies to get the Russians out of our back yard.

I cannot reiterate strongly enough how potentially dangerous this is. Chavez has repeatedly insisted that the “non-aligned” nations, including Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, etc. need to work together to create an “asymmetrical” attack on the United States, in his words, to create many “Viet Nams” which would simply be too much for the United States to handle.

The United States is already struggling with the entry of millions of illegal aliens, and this during a time of relative peace throughout Latin America. If Chavez manages to create a wave of socialist revolutions across the continent, the number of refugees could increase exponentially.

It is time for the representatives in Washington to get this through their heads: Hugo Chavez is a serious threat to Democracy in the hemisphere, and his alliance with Russia is potentially explosive.

What should be the American doctrine on the Eastern European democracies? Are we really ready to go to war to defend them when they are threatened by Russian imperialism? If so, are we willing to go to war to defend democracies in our own hemisphere that are threatened by local (Bolivarian) and European (Russian) imperialism? The two concurrent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have nearly broken our nation. Are we going to be drawn into the many "Viet Nams" in which Chavez and his cronies want to lure us, in order to lure us into our own doom?

The best thing that could happen right now would be for idiots like Charlie Gibson to stop playing "Gotcha" and instead start asking Presidential candidates Obama and McCain to address this issue now and clarify what they would do about the situation.

Bugger off, loud mouth British idiots.

In response to British wonk Jonathon Freedland, who warns America that we had better vote for Obama, because

"The World's verdict will be harsh if the US rejects the man they yearn
for...

An America that that disdains Obama for his global support risks turning the current anti-Bush feeling into something much worse."

How dare you write a critique of the American presidential campaign in which you try to persuade—or is it warn—Americans that the world is demanding Barack Obama, and Americans had better give them what they want? And then you go on to imply that we had better elect him so the world doesn’t think we’re racists…Who do you think you are?

You are so out of touch with the reality within this country that your article is truly laughable. The liberals here are literally comparing Obama to Jesus, but he is an empty suit. He is former drug user and dropout, who slept in alleys until local communists found him and began to lift him up. Yes, he then managed to go to a good college where he did nothing noteworthy.

Then he was—ooooh! Shiver me timbers! He was a community organizer! A rabble rouser. Nothing more.

And then he was supported by the local Chicago machine to run for state office, where he voted “Present” more than “Yes” or “No” combined. He did nothing noteworthy.

And then he was pushed toward the senate, and since his opposition faltered early on, Obama was unopposed. And in Senate, he is totally un-noteworthy.

So, you European clods would dare to push a no good, arrogant wanna-be Messiah on us, without even thinking about how much worse that sort of inexperience and idealism could be for the world than what we have currently. Leftist idealism has resulted in nearly all of the world’s greatest tragedies, and we are not fooled.

As for your article…you say that Africa, Russia, the Middle East want Obama and then say that if it was “up to the free world”…are you nuts? Russia, Africa, and the Middle East are the free world?

This is the same "free world" that still finds it easier to believe that Americans killed their own people on Sept 11, 2001 instead of the obvious and true fact that it was a conspiracy by foreign Islamist terrorists in al Qaeda. Why would we give a damn what you think?

When you European pansies grow some balls and start defending yourselves from the foreign invasion that is destroying your culture and your national resolve, then we’ll talk.

Meanwhile, go back to your gay marriages and high taxes and massive welfare and leave us alone. We haven’t cared one wit for your opinion on our political affairs since July 4, 1776.

Bugger off, you socialist bastard.

"My Muslim Faith..." and lipstick on a pig.

It should have been obvious to everyone, when VP candidate Sara Palin made the joke comparing hockey moms to pit bulls, that the small minded and poor losers would turn her joke into an insult.

Palin: “You know the difference between a pit bull and a hockey Mom? Lipstick!”
A few days later, while discussing the McCain/Palin platform, Obama made the following statement:

“You can put lipstick on a pig…{the crowd, instantly realizing the reference, gets restless} but it’s still a pig!”

He then added another insult clearly aimed at McCain: “You can wrap an old fish in paper and call it change, but it still stinks.”

Interestingly, only days before, Obama had slipped and said “my Muslim faith.” And then he goes and insults a well loved Christian woman by calling her a pig.

It reminds me of the Islamist extremists who called Christian and Jews pigs and monkeys. Taken in that light, the insult of Palin sounds like an extremist Muslim insult. Doesn’t it?

Now, Obama is trying to claim that he had uttered the cliché as a joke about policy. He wants women to believe that he was not insulting Palin, even though it was clear by the audience reaction that they all knew it refered to Palin. In fact, the democratic party had started referring to Palin as "lipstick on a pig" as far back as August 30.

You'd have to be an absolute idiot to not realize that it was in fact an insult of Sara Palin. Because right after the "lipstick" reference, he immediately went on to mention "an old fish". If the lipstick on a pig quote refers to Palin, then it's clear that the "old fish" reference refers to McCain, whose age has been constantly attacked as a detriment to the candidacy.

There is no denying that the arrogant Obama, stunned by his sudden negative turn in luck that now has him losing the race, is lashing out.

I'd have to say that the real pig in the race is the mysoginist pig named Barack Hussein Obama.

Biden, Obama, and the objective paralysis caused by moral relativism

When Senator Barack Obama accepted the invitation to a ‘town hall’ discussion with mega-pastor Rick Warren, he surely must have anticipated that he would be asked about his pro-abortion stance. And when the inevitable question was posed to him, to consider the nearly forty million aborted fetuses in the United States, and to answer “at what point {does} a baby get human rights?”, Obama’s response was admittedly “flip”:

“…whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity…is above my pay grade.”

A number of weeks later, having selected Senator Joe Biden as his VP choice and running mate, it was Biden’s turn to state his opinion on the issue. NBC anchor Tom Brokaw asked Biden,

“When does “life” begin?” Biden answered:

“I know when it begins for me. It’s a personal and private issue. For me, as a Roman Catholic, I’m prepared to accept the teachings of my church. But let me tell you, there an awful lot of people of great confessional faiths—Protestants, Jews, Muslims and others, who have a different view. They believe in God as strongly as I do. They are as intensely religious as I am religious. They believe in their faith and they believe in human life. And they have different views as to when… {life begins}. I am prepared as a matter of faith, to accept that life begins at the moment of conception. But that is my judgment. For me to impose that judgment on everyone else who is equally and maybe even more devout than I am, it seems to me as inappropriate in a pluralist society. But then you get the pushback, ‘What about Fascism’, everybody, you know, you gonna say “Fascism is alright?” Fascism isn’t a matter of faith. No decent religious person thinks that fascism is all right.”

Brokaw followed up: “You’ve stated that you believe that life begins at conception, and you’ve also voted for Abortion Rights.”

Biden responded: “What I voted {for was} against curtailing the right, criminalizing abortion, I voted against telling everyone else in the country, that they have to accept my religiously based view.”

For the purpose of this essay, I’d like to call this belief system the “Biden Principal”. Let’s make it official, and tag it onto the man who believes he is so experienced in International Affairs that he is singularly qualified to be Vice President and eventually President of the United States--and yet is incapable and unwilling to make any moral judgment that might impose values on anyone else.

Now, contrast Obama and Biden's responses—inspired by the Biden Principal—to the one from Senator McCain, when asked the same question:

“At the moment of conception.”

This simple dialog is one of the most revealing and crucial moments in the entire presidential campaign, and has to be explored. Although the theme is focused like a Laser on the Abortion/Pro-Choice debate, it has ramifications for all aspects of a Democratic Presidency and the type of policies that the country could expect from them.

Because at the heart of the matter, the Democrats are basically saying that Morality is not a universal value, that opposing opinions almost always should be valued equally, and that it would be “inappropriate” for anyone to “impose” their values on others in a “pluralistic society”. In every case, the Democrats have made an absurd attempt to state that the Catholic Church is still “struggling” with the issue about when a human fetus should be considered human life—despite the extremely clear signal from Rome that Abortion is murder, it is a sin, and it is condemned.
But, to state it another way, the Democrats are practicing a form of the old adage to “Eat your cake and have it to.” A more accurate revision might read: “Abort your child and commit no sin.”

Now, I simply cannot help thinking, Obama should thank God that President Lincoln was a Republican, and not a Democrat. Because if Lincoln had applied Biden’s moral relativism to the issue of Slavery—had he wavered or waffled or caved to public pressures as did his Democratic opponent, General G. McClellan—Obama and all other African-Americans living in the United States today, would all be a slaves.

Because this exact type of moral decision making is not an optional skill for a President. It is not enough to vote “Present” when facing the moral crises that rock the nation.

• “Is slavery wrong? Shall we wage a civil war, killing hundreds of thousands of our own citizens, in order to free millions more?” YES!
• 
  “Shall we enter the war and push back the advances of Fascism?” YES!
• 
  “In order to end history’s most horrendous war, shall we drop a nuclear bomb, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, in order to avoid an invasion that would kill millions?” YES!
• 
  “Shall we change the laws of the nation to give Women or Blacks the right to vote and participate fully in the society?” YES!
• 
  “Shall we condemn Islamic extremism and launch a war to destroy the enemy who attacked us and killed our citizens?” YES!
  

The issue of Abortion is highlighting a moral contradiction within our society that echoes the sins of our ancestors, and cannot be put to bed. Obama worshipped at the altar of a minister who regularly called not only for redemption, but also for reparations, for the sins committed in the name of Slavery.

What redemption is possible for the murder of 40 million unborn souls? This staggering number makes the horrors of Nazi Fascism look paltry! Six million Jews killed? That’s barely a fraction of the number of children who were butchered inside the womb. For what? What exactly is the equation in which “ABORTION” is the “final solution”?

Biden’s statement about Fascism is absolutely crucial: “you get the pushback, ‘What about Fascism’, everybody, you know, you gonna say “Fascism is alright?” Fascism isn’t a matter of faith. No decent religious person thinks that Fascism is all right.”

The most logical interpretation of this statement is that it is fascist for any group to impose a moral imperative upon any other group who holds religious conviction that what they are doing is correct. But by this very same illogic, if Southerners in the Confederacy held religious convictions that Blacks were not human, or were sub-human, it would therefore be fascist for the Northern abolitionists to impose their values upon the Confederacy and force them to end slavery.

Let’s extrapolate further: the Islamist terrorists who attacked the United States on September 11, 2001, immolated themselves in a religiously-inspired suicide mission designed to fulfill the Fatah of their religious leaders and their Prophet Muhammad and kill as many infidels as possible. The Biden Principal logically would not allow for the United States to respond militarily to the Taliban and al Qaeda threat—since these enemies are inspired by deeply held religious beliefs, we are morally obliged to recognize those religious beliefs and elevate them to an equal standing with our own.

The United States, having attacked the Taliban with the intention of supplanting the Islamist regime with a less radical regime, is therefore a fascist aggressor.

And in the case of abortion, the liberals must fight to contradict any attempt to provide the human fetus with a status of “human”, because to do so would be to impose their “religious values” upon others who do not share that value. Faced with an unsure, unclear, ambiguous decision, the liberals have chosen to dehumanize the human fetus in order to secure the more concrete liberty; carefree sexual intercourse without the “punishment” of consequences.
By contrast, the conservatives have taken the opposite solution to the very same problem: faced with an unsure, unclear, ambiguous decision, the conservatives have chosen to humanize the human fetus, eschew carefree sexual intercourse and consider the consequences of an unwanted child not as a punishment but as a direct consequence of a poor decision that is, nevertheless, a blessing from God.

This moral clarity is essential in a President. Reconsider the list of decisions that past presidents had to make, from Slavery to Suffrage, involvement in world wars and how to achieve victory, as well as when and how to defend our national security in a time in which the enemy is a religious fanatic determined to destroy the nation by any means possible.

This is why it is unacceptable, and even shameful, that Barack Obama responded to Minister Warren’s question by stating that the judgment was “beyond his pay grade.” The sort of false-humility, this "Biden Principal" that paralyzes leaders into inaction, this will get us killed.

In the case of American children, it has already resulted in the deaths of forty million.

It is, quite literally, a holocaust of indecision.

Sara Palin is the GOP's Will Rogers

A quick note on Sara Palin’s VP acceptance speech.

First of all, let me clarify that I am still a registered Democrat. Old habits die hard. And I’m hopeful that somehow we can save the party and bring it back from the socialist abyss and make it the party of the average Joe.

My opinion on the Dems is that they have allowed arrogant urban liberals to take over the party, they idealize European socialist values and have been convinced by their liberal college professors that the average American is a tacky, unsophisticated hillbilly who is incapable of comprehending the complex reality that they—the leftist elite—understand. And they have been sucked into the populist morass that has them convinced that the only way to solidify electoral support is to flirt with class warfare, romanticize revolution, and offer up government subsidized give-aways.

Finally, they are right to believe that Americans want the war to end. But they are committing George McClellan’s mistakes during the Civil War and assuming that a war-weary public wants peace at any cost. History will prove that Obama is committing the same mistake that cost McClellan the Presidency.

I listened to the Sara Palin speech last night—twice—and was enthralled by her. After the speech, I heard a commentator say that "the conservatives have found their Obama."

But, I don't think that's right. Because Obama is one of those types that fulfill the role that is often referenced in the following way: "Everyone serves some sort of purpose, even if it's just a bad example."

Obama may have "a back-story", but it's more of the story of the wayward child who eventually finds his way and becomes endearing to a certain element of the population—but really is the antithesis of the average American out there on the range, or the ranch. How many of the average American at one point turned to cocaine and sold drugs? How many of them took advantage of their race to get preferential treatment and go to an Ivy League school and STILL resented America?

Palin’s acerbic wit was spot on last night. She really “took the Mickey” out of the Obamas, Harry Reid, and the libs in a way that was astonishingly powerful yet amusing. She presented herself as a bulldog with lipstick, an analogy that serves her well. She gave the Democrats a tongue lashing with a home-spun flavor that reminded me of a conservative Will Rogers.

If there was one primary successful tactic in Palin’s speech, it was that she totally undermined the Obama story and subtly revealed Obama’s elitist, unpatriotic attitude, and humorously highlighted his total lack of experience. And she reinforced the correct interpretation of American attitudes about the Iraq War. As a mother of a soldier deploying to Iraq, she wants her boy to come home victoriously. This effectively confirms the notion that Obama is to the Iraq War what George McClellan was to the Civil War: a surrender monkey.

To quote George C. Scott’s Patton, “Americans love a winner, and abhor a loser.” We want our troops to come back—victoriously.

I had not been expecting such a powerful speech from Palin. But she truly delivered, in spades. In fact, I think it’s safe to say that Palin may have demonstrated that she is—as a political speaker—on a par with Bill Clinton.

Watch out, Obama and Biden. The McCain camp just rolled out a secret weapon that might just turn the war.

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.