About Me

Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 
[Click to edit me]

OBAMA WINS! (ACCORDING TO ASTROLOGERS)

OBAMA XXXVIII: PACK YOUR BAGS, OBAMA! YOU WIN!

May 22nd, 2008

Apparently, it’s all over folks!  Barack Hussein Obama will win in November.  It’s a done deal, in the cards or, more precisely, in the stars, at least according to the United Astrology Conference.   (http://news.aol.com/elections/story/_a/president-obama-in-the-stars-panel-says/20080521105309990001?icid=1615984944×1202944136x1200)

Meeting in Denver to be closer to the stars, today’s version of soothsayers predicted the next person elected to the presidency will Barack Hussein Obama.  However, the stars suggest he may never take his seat in the Oval Office. 

Perhaps Vice President Hillary Rodham Clinton calls on her old Arkansas buddies and arranges his removal?  Who knows?  But right now, Obama should be packing his bags to re-locate to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and the rest of us should be working on getting an acquired taste for hummus and the women folk should be getting fitted for burkhas.

Hey, it’s written in the stars!  Remember what happened to Julius Caesar when he ignored the soothsayer!

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

TED AND MARY JO

I personally could never stand Senator Edward Moore (Ted) Kennedy.  That said, I think he and his family deserve our prayers and sympathy in their time of crisis.

However, it’s one thing to cite his long career in the Senate, cite his achievements, and even to gloss over his moral pecadillos and failures but to virtually ignore Chappaquiddick is to do a disservice to the dead, one Mary Jo Kopechne.

As the media rushes to canonize Ted–which considering just his pro-abortion stance would disqualify him for sainthood in the Catholic Church–to sluff off that night, to which Wikipedia devotes all of four lines and calls it an “incident,” is to demean the life and death of Mary Jo.

I don’t propose to detail that “incident” of July 19th, 1969, but for those out there who weren’t born by then or for those who have forgotten the details I would refer you to A Profile in Cowardice, a scrupulously detailed account of the “incident:”  http://www.ytedk.com/intro.htm

It’s fine now, as Kennedy is seriously ill, to praise the man but let us never forget the young woman who needlessly drowned that night in his car. 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

OBAMA'S ACHILLES BRIDE (TEXT)

 

It seems Barack Hussein Obama is perturbed that his blushing bride is finally taking some heat for her comments about the United States.

Tough!

For Obama to suggest that the Tennessee Republican Party’s brief television spot featuring Michelle Obama’s words is “unacceptable . . . [and] low class” is unacceptable and ignorant. (For that TV clip, see  http://news.aol.com/elections/story/_a/obama-tells-gop-to-lay-off-my-wife/20080519080309990001?icid=1615988631x1202640441x1200306070)

Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama has made herself an issue in this campaign, an interesting issue at that, and thereby presents herself as fair game.  As a potential presidential spouse who speaks her mind about contemporary America, a place she evidently doesn’t like very much, she’s entitled to say her piece. However, even if she doesn’t stand by her man, she should at least stand by her words and not pass the whining buck to him.

Be assured that as First Lady she will feel free to critique the nation and its people and problems, a critique that will be a unique perspective. Unlike Laura Bush and Cindy McCain, Michelle Obama will be an activist First Lady. She will be no Bess Truman, no Mamie Eisenhower, no Jackie Kennedy, no Pat Nixon, no Betty Ford, no Nancy Reagan, and no Barbara Bush. She’s far more akin to Eleanor Roosevelt, Roslyn Carter, and Hillary Clinton who, respectively, publically articulated their ideology, sat in on Cabinet meetings, and tried to socialize our health care system.

Should Obama ever be elected to the highest office in the land and become leader of the Free World and Chief Executive of the world’s only superpower, his bride would become the most loud-mouthed radical First Lady since Eleanor. The Whiner in Chief would have his hands full just condemning her critics.

There’s quite a bit to criticize now and there will be much more to criticize subsequently.

Michelle Obama’s outspokenness is not a new development in her life. It predates the current campaign by some twenty-three years, back to her Princeton undergrad days and her senior thesis, Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community. That paper wasn’t supposed to see the glaring light of day until after the election, according to some sources. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8642.html)  The reason is obvious.

She reveals in that thesis an extremely race-conscious persona who perceives the world through a dark prism colored by her combative nature, her evident paranoia, her perception that American Blacks are engaged in a war with White Americans, and a clear desire for Black separation rather than integration into American society.

It’s no wonder the Obama campaign wasn’t eager to share those feelings and did so only after Princeton refused to release the thesis and full disclosure was demanded by such organizations as Politico.com.

Michelle researched her thesis primarily via an 18 point questionnaire sent to 400 black Princeton grads, of which 90 responded, largely with answers that were both surprising and disappointing to her.  The questions dealt with such topics as religion, living arrangements, economic status, and their comfort levels when interacting with blacks and whites before, during, and after attending Princeton

Most interesting were questions about their thoughts about lower class blacks and whether the respondents now held  “separationist and/or pluralist”  or an “integrationist and/or assimilationist” viewpoint. She observed, “I hoped that these findings would help me conclude that despite the high degree of identification with whites as a result of the educational and occupational path that black Princeton alumni follow, the alumni would still maintain a certain level of identification with the black community. However, these findings do not support this possibility.”  Note the word, hoped, a hope that went unfulfilled. Black Princeton grads opted for assimilation and not separation and were becoming too white for Michelle’s tastes. (See http://afk.blogtownhall.com/2008/02/23/michelle_obamas_negative_view_of_white_people.thtml for the entire thesis and commentary.)

Fast forward a few decades during which Michelle attended Harvard Law School, entered the corporate world, met and married Barack Hussein Obama, worked in the public sector, and finally became involved in her husband’s presidential campaign. Now, with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright—who performed their marriage ceremony-- ostensibly out of the picture, she is arguably one of his chief advisors and definitely his most avid campaigner. 

Unfortunately for the candidate, there’s a barely concealed undercurrent of anger and bitterness in Michelle Obama. Suggested long before at Princeton, that undercurrent occasionally bubbles to the surface, as in her now infamous line spoken last February, “Let me tell you something, for the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country.” Just as Barack has tried to backpedal away from his mentor and advisor, Rev. Wright, Michelle has sought to clarify, explain—dare we say, parse—that statement, but with little avail. Lamely, she tried to say that what she meant was that she was proud of how Americans were involved with the political process. 

Whatever clarification there was in her clarification is beyond me. Haven’t Americans, not all, certainly, but millions, always been involved? If she meant, as seems likely, involved in attempting to elect Barack president, why not just say that? Or would that be too divisive? 

In a more recent speech, a real rabble-rouser, Michelle Obama’s projected her negative personal feelings onto all America, much like Jimmy Carter extrapolated his malaise to the nation.  See for yourself:

“In 2008, we are still a nation that is too divided. We live in isolation, and because of that isolation, we fear one another. We don’t know our neighbors, we don’t talk, we believe our pain is our own. We don’t realize that the struggles and challenges of all of us are the same. We are too isolated. And we are still a nation that is still too cynical. We look at it as “them” and “they” as opposed to “us”. We don’t engage because we are still too cynical. …

I could go on and on, but this is how we’re living, people, in 2008.

And things have gotten progressively worse throughout my lifetime, through Democratic and Republican administrations, it hasn’t gotten better for regular folks. . .

We have lost the understanding that in a democracy, we have a mutual obligation to one another . . . we have to compromise and sacrifice for one another in order to get things done. That is why I am here, because Barack Obama is the only person in this who understands that. That before we can work on the problems, we have to fix our souls. Our souls are broken in this nation.”

(For her speech in its entirety, with commentary by Hugh Hewitt, see http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/MediaPlayer/AudioPlayer.aspx?ContentGuid=9e3a08aa-ad84-46cf-8492-6aff289bca42.)

Just what does it take to make Michelle Obama happy and proud of her country? 

As a coed on scholarship after graduating from a Chicago Magnet School, she concluded mournfully in her thesis that her attendance at prestigious, Ivy League Princeton would result in “further integration and/or assimilation into a white cultural and social structure that will only allow me to remain on the periphery of society; never becoming a full participant.” Most of her interim years, while she achieved great success despite her peripheral societal status, are not public record but one would think all her achievements would have made her happy and proud of the country that afforded the opportunity for those achievements. However, one would then be wrong.

Not only does Mrs. Obama have little or any pride in America, she sees this great land as “divided . . . [and] cynical. She sees the nation as populated by “isolated” and “cynical” people in “pain” with “broken souls” living in “fear.” Worst of all, she believes “things have gotten progressively worse throughout my lifetime, . . . it hasn’t gotten better for regular folks. . .”

Mrs. Obama, where the hell have you been for the past fifty years while Blacks have made unprecedented progress and have achieved unimagined success in this country? How have you tried to heal our “broken souls?” And how do you presume to identify with us “regular folks” after your life of privilege? 

What Michelle Obama is preaching is negativism and racial divisiveness under the cloak of change and reform and try as she might to conceal the fact, she is a racial bigot who still seeks Black separation and segregation. That is in line with the aims of Rev. Wright’s hero, Louis Farrakhan, the chief difference being that Farrakhan has the guts to say it.

Is Michelle being picked on in that Tennessee TV ad? I hope so. She deserves it. Like Bill and Hil, we’ll be getting two for the price of one and that price promises to be very steep so we’re entitled to pick away.  She believes “Barack Obama is the only person in this who understands” America’s dire straits.  What arrogant presumption!

As for Barack’s demand that critics refrain from criticizing his wife, I’d agree to that--as soon as she ceases to demean my country and denigrate Americans.

 

 

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

MICHELLE OBAMA--BARACK'S ACHILLE'S BRIDE

Please see my website, http://genelalor.com/, for my brilliant and incisive views on Michelle!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

OBAMA AND THE SWIFT BOATS

OBAMA XXXIV: THE SWIFT BOATS ARE A-COMING…

May 18th, 2008

With apologies to Jo Stafford for mangling the title of that moldy-oldie, let’s get something straight, in fact, a few things.

First, it should be amusing that a first term United States Senator challenges the President of the United States to a debate–if not for the sheer arrogance and presumption of the challenge.  Barack Hussein Obama seems to out-do himself daily with that arrogance.  It’s amazing enough that after four whole years in the Senate, (almost), Obama felt entitled to make a run for the presidency.  Whatever happened to paying your dues, to serving the nation for a goodly number of years before seeking that office?  The man to whom he’s often compared, JFK, served his country in World War II, served in the House for six years and in the Senate for eight years before making his run for the office.  On what does Obama feed that he feels qualified?  

Secondly, Obama should be aware that he is being manipulated.  The choice of Obama as keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic Convention should have been the tipoff.  The Democratic hierarchy chose then to run an undistinguished Illinois State Senator for the presidency, albeit in 2012 or 2016, perhaps feeling it may be time eight or twelve years hence for a Black American president and he would be their boy. 

They didn’t reckon on his arrogance, however, (or the arrogance of Michelle Robinson Obama), so many of his fellow elitists are climbing aboard his bandwagon in hopes of a landing a sinecure or a more prestigious government post. 

Now, thinking he had weathered the slings and arrows of his mentor, the outrageous Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and the financial wheeler dealer, Tony Rezko, and his close ties with a confessed terrorist, William Ayers, and his wife’s lack of pride in her country, Obama has been reinvigorated with elitist presumption and dares to suggest a debate with George W. Bush.

The pundits are saying that Obama refuses to be “Kerried,” as in “Swift-boated,” but what he’s ignoring is that the so-called Swift-boaters who helped dispatch Kerry back to the Senate and to the arms of his foulmouthed bride were correct in their charges against John Kerry.

The Swift-boats are a-coming, Obama, and they will sink you with truth, the truth about Wright and Rezko and Ayers and Michelle as well as some other skeletons rattling around in your closet.

Shakespeare may have presaged this whole farce when Cassius spoke of Julius Caesar, “And this man would now be king?”  Obama may not have immediate dreams of royalty but based on his past it’s not beyond comprehension.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Ted Kennedy

I detest Ted Kennedy but I still wish him well.  If worse comes to worse, may he R.I.P.
Tags: ted kennedy  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

OBAMA, TERRORISM, AND APPEASEMENT

 

This whole hullabaloo over whether Bush was referring to Obama as an appeaser is a proverbial tempest in a teapot and much ado about nothing.  Of course Bush was referring to Obama in his speech in the Knesset!  Most probably he was also referring to what some wag has called an 84 year old walking hemmorrhoid, Jimmy Carter.  And the description fits both.

Carter aside, since it's unkind to abuse the senile, let's look at the context.
 
A simple syllogism:  GWB says negotiating with terrorists is appeasement.  Barack Hussein Obama says he would negotiate with a terrorist state, Iran.  Therefore, Obama is an appeaser.  No? 

Obama is fuming over the insinuation.  See http://townhall.com/columnists/AmandaCarpenter/2008/05/16/mccain_hits_obama_on_diplomacy

Before we can establish whether that syllogism holds any validity we would have to briefly examine both terrorism and appeasement.

Merriam-Webster
 defines terrorism as “the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion” and appeasement as "to cause to subside . . . to buy off by concessions"  (emphasis added).

Since President Mahmoud Ahmadinjad’s Iran regularly threatens the forcible eradication of Israel, finances and trains known terrorists, commits acts of international intimidation, and preaches venom at every opportunity, can we not label Iran a terrorist state?  Since Obama promises that, as President, he would sit down with Mahmoud and negotiate with that pipsqueak terrorist, what could Obama expect to achieve?  Since negotiating involves give and take, that is, offering quid pro quos, what would he give and what would he take?  Why bother to confer if you’re not prepared to concede something?

The possibilities are endless but the bottom line is not:  President Obama would have to offer the terrorist state of Iran concessions in order to gain concessions, much like Chamberlain offered the Sudetenland to Hitler after a desparate Hitler promised to leave the rest of Europe alone.  (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERsudetenland.htm)

That’s called appeasement.  The ultimate result for Chamberlain?  World War II and 60,000,000 dead.  The ultimate result of Obama’s planned appeasement of Iran could be World War III and, perhaps, far more dead people. 

The syllogism holds.  Let Obama fume all he wants.  The shoe fits.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

BERNIE WARD AND HIS "SEXFAIRY"

BERNIE WARD PART II: BERNIE’S “SEXFAIRY” EXPOSED!

May 17th, 2008

(Please see Bernie Ward I post of May 15, 2008 on http://genelalor.com/)

Some media types have tried to label Bernie’s “accomplice” in disseminating kiddie porn as a dominatrix, but it turns out she’s just a normal woman, which no doubt will not endear her to those media types.  See and listen to her: http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/iteam&id=6145828 .

 You have to wonder, however, why those media types tried to discredit her. 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

SENATOR JOE BIDEN--EVER A CLASS ACT!

SENATOR JOE BIDEN’S “BULLSH*T”–EVER THE CLASS ACT

May 16th, 2008

The senior senator from Delaware, Joe Biden, never fails to demonstrate that he suffers from a significant deficiency of true class.  His most recent outburst, calling GWB’s denial that he was referring to Obama as an appeaser “Bullsh*t” was just one more example of that deficiency.  http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0508/Biden_Bushs_comments_were_bullshit.html

Having run and having failed in this his latest of four tries for the Democratic nomination for president, he seems to have his eye on Harold Stassen’s record of futile presidential bids.  One might therefore think that he could have better chosen his description of a sitting president’s words as Bullsh*t, but with Joe it’s understandable.  

Here’s a guy who in 1988 had to admit to plagiarism while at Syracuse Law School in 1965, as well as to inflating his academic record, and other chicanery, such as ”borrowing” lines from a British pol (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/frenzy/biden.htm).  Yet, like his good buddy, the unindicted murderer and fellow pagiarizer, Teddy Kennedy, he gets away with it and the poor dumb Delewareans keep reelecting him. 

Personally, I think Biden hit his low point when, sucking up to the “gay” vote in the first Democratic debate, he suggested his young daughters may end up as lesbians, a prediction that must have fascinated his girls.

Look, Biden’s hair transplants/plugs a while back–which looked like mini cornrows– may be seen as just a demonstration of the guy’s vain, midlife crisis, (or a pitch for the Black vote?). But with his checkered past shouldn’t he be a tad more judicious nowadays as he enters his dotage?

His possible-future-lesbian daughters should remind him, “Daddy!  2012 is just four years away!”

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

OBAMA AND THE COMPANY HE KEEPS

To a degree, being known by the company we keep can be an unfair assessment of who we are.  For example, maybe a person is simply “broad-minded,” and enjoys associating with an eclectic group of people.  That’s fine by me.

But when that eclectic melange isn’t a melange at all, when that grouping of friends and associates lacks any true variations and rather consists of very similar types in terms of philosophy, world view, and convictions, that company the person is keeping is more akin to a coterie of like-thinkers, a veritable gang.  In that case, we can indeed know that person by the company he keeps.

Senator Barack Hussein Obama has a fascinating coterie.  And let’s put to rest objections to the use of his middle name since it is his given middle name and if it’s permissible for fellow Blacks such as Reverend James Manning to use it so too may I.

Apart from the usual political sycophants and hangers-on attracted like flies to dung and aside from his former pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright and confessed terrorist Bill Ayers, Obama has some other curious bedfellows.  They include radicals such as Demond Mullins who served a stint in Iraq and admits to “dehumanizing” innocent women and children while on tour there.  (Anyone recall John Kerry in ‘Nam?)  Poor Demond.  He not only participated in that dehumanization and abuse but was aware of female soldiers being raped by fellow soldiers–and did nothing about it! 

Mullins was a paid consultant for unspecified services to the Obama campaign.  (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=/Commentary/archive/200805/COM20080514b.html)

For other stellar Obama advisors, see http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/01/the_obama_inner_circle.html and BarackObama.com (NO MIDDLE NAME!)   Don’t expect to see Bill Ayers, Rev. Wright, or Tony Rezko there.

Then again, Bilary is being advised by such Dem icons as Madeline Albright and Sandy (How Was I To Know I Was Stuffing Top Secret Documents In My Socks) Berger.

I think the company kept by both Democratic candidates says a great deal about them and about what the future holds should they be elected.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

OBAMA AND THE MEDIA: FELLOW TRAVELERS

There’s an unprecedented phenomenon sweeping this country, and it bodes no good for any American. 

A DISCLAIMER:  The very fact that I have to issue a disclaimer is directly related to that phenomenon:  I respect and greatly admire such American Black politicians as Condi Rice, J.C. Watts, and many others; I believe Thomas Sowell is a brilliant economist and political commentator; I think Ken Hamblin, the self-styled Black Avenger, is an outstanding, unheralded observer of the American scene.  I could go on and on, the point being that they and many other Blacks are great Americans for whom I’d vote into the Oval Office any day. 

That said and back to that phenomenon, many citizens of this great nation are considering electing as President of the United States of America a man who is anything but a great American and is in fact, possibly, the greatest danger to the nation that we have ever faced.  However, our media is giving him a free pass.

We have today the first serious Black candidate for the highest office in the land, Barack Hussein Obama.  However, the national media–and, as a result, millions of people who decide how they will vote based on the opinions of that media–have adopted a virtual hands-off policy with regard to Obama and have avoided giving him the same scrutiny as every other candidate has been accorded.  It is that avoidance and the future repercussions of that avoidance that make Senator Obama a grave threat to the future of our country. 

The causes for the kid-glove treatment of this candidate are multitudinous and complex and I wouldn't presume to fully understand them.  What I clearly understand is that Obama's free pass from the media relieves him of the need to detail precisely what plans for change, his buzzword, are up his sleeve.  They would demand huge outlays of taxpayer money and since most taxes are coughed up by the middle class, does he really expect us to believe he can milk and bilk the corporate sector to fund his schemes?  Economics 101 teaches that corporate taxes are ultimately paid by consumers. 
 
On foreign policy, Obama is equally vague and our media allows him to be.  What's especially unsettling is the obvious Islamic influences on his life, from his father and step-father to his early education to his virtually ignoring the dangers to national security posed by Muslims, all during what may just be the early phases of World War III pitting the Western World against Islamic fundamentalists.  (For clarification of that thesis, please see my book,  An Immodest Proposal for Ending and Winning the War on Terror.
 
Obama's long-time pastor and mentor, Rev. Wright, his new pastor, Rev. Otis Moss, his wife, Michelle Obama, his friendship with Bill Ayers, his financial dealings with Tony Rezko get the attention of the national media only after outrageous tirades or when their past iniquities hit the proverbial fan and can no longer be avoided for that media to have any credibility.  Wright and Moss are unabashed Black racists who despise America, Michelle professed to have no pride in her country, Ayers is an admitted, proud terrorist, Rezko is an obvious crook.  Yet, maybe after a brief story on them, or maybe not even that, most of the media buries them or ignores them.
 
There are clear and present dangers facing America.  Barack Hussein Obama is the most obvious and our national media is aiding and abetting him.
 
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Frank Rich versus John Hagee

Please see:  http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/04/opinion/04rich.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&ref=opinion&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

Ever the hypocrite, Frank Rich–he of the “Paper of Record,” aka, the New York Times which is known to print all the news that fits, rips John Hagee for his Catholic bashing and compares him to Jeremiah Wright.  Well, sorry Mr. Rich, I’ve listened to both and your comparisons are as off base as they usually are. 

As a Catholic, I do take great offense at Hagee’s history of blind hatred toward my religion.  However, to compare Hagee to Wright is tantamount to comparing Martin Luther to Noam Chomsky; Luther merely despised my Church, Chomsky despises all churches as well as his country, ostensibly the United States. 

What bothers Rich isn’t really Hagee’s attacks on Catholicism but rather his love of country and his patriotism, feelings which are antithetical to Mr. Rich’s own sentiments. 

What’s most surprising about Rich’s opinions is that, as a Jew, he should appreciate Hagee’s unrelenting defense of Israel.

Tags: Politics  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

WHITE GUILT?

 

                        WHITE GUILT OR NATIONAL SUICIDE? YOU DECIDE!

Some things are best left unsaid, especially in politically-correct America in 2008 and a prime subject non grata at our PC table today is the issue of race.  It seems that you’re damned if you do talk about it and you’re damned if you do talk about it.

Being an elder, a seasoned-American-citizen, and a non-candidate for public office, I can talk about it with a measure of impunity, if not immunity. What follows is a not a racist screed but does address serious omissions in our national dialogue, the touchy issues of racism and of White Guilt, and how that guilt may influence the upcoming election. If honest commentary and reasoned understandings are considered racism, then so be it.

First, let’s concede the obvious:  Most White Americans, on the whole, have it better than most Black Americans, on the whole.  To deny that is to deny the reality of life in America today.  There are always exceptions to such sweeping statements, as Ben Stein points out in this month's edition of Newsmax, writingthat in the last fifty years Blacks have made advances in our society that are "simply unprecedented in human history in such a short time."  ("Daylight in America," May 2008, p. 24). 

I fully agree with that assessment although I can't subscribe to Stein's endorsement in that same article of Michelle Obama's statement that "she was never proud of America until now."  He went on to say that, "The life of a black person in this country has never been easy and is still not."  I’ll go on to say to that few people live easy lives, here or anywhere and that no one ever said life should be easy.  JFK was equally correct when he famously said that life isn't fair either.  Easy and fair are relative terms but if any two Americans ever led lives that could be described as pretty easy and eminently fair, Michelle and Barack Obama would have to be sitting on the top of the list. 

Born into a middle class family in Chicago, Michelle Robinson Obama enjoyed multiple perks in life, including admission to a Chicago Magnet School, Princeton University, and Harvard Law School.  Not too shabby a vita, at all. Barack Obama was equally blessed, or more so, and attended an elite boarding school in Hawaii from which he moved on to Occidental College, Columbia University, and Harvard Law as well.  (Barack and Hillary would both have us believe they were brought up in tatters in a log cabin where roadkill was Sunday dinner—after, of course, attending church, downing a few boilermakers and bowling a few frames with the hoi polloi.)

The point of that biographical smidgen is that both Michelle and Barack have been privileged to lead singularly comfortable lives.  For Mrs. Obama to wait until she reached the relatively ripe age of forty-four to finally appreciate and feel proud of her country is bewildering at best.  Senator Obama hasn't articulated his lack of pride in America in that same precise terminology but it wouldn't be much of a stretch to believe he has a comparable view. 

As for life's fairness, both Obamas seem to have enjoyed that boon as well, she because of her good fortune and success, he because he has risen into the political stratosphere from undistinguished Illinois State Senator to viable candidate for presidency of the United States in a scant four years. If anything is unfair in their lives, it might be the amazing rapidity of his ascendancy. Silly comparisons with Jack Kennedy, who served in World War II, served six years in the House, and served eight years in the Senate before he made a run for the White House are just that, silly—and presumptuous.

One valid similarity with Kennedy is that the Obamas are quite rich, albeit on a lesser scale.   Michelle has attributed that prosperity to Barack’s two bestselling books but it’s also due in part because they don’t tend to share much of their largesse, according to their tax returns. It should also be noted that, for some reason, they contributed more to charities in 2007 than in the previous nine years combined.

This brings us back to the issues of White-Black equality and inequality. It’s a given that there's a long way for the 12.9% of Americans classified as Black to go to gain 100% parity with Whites and whether that will ever happen is questionable, due to a number of factors. But Black accomplishments in the last fifty years have indeed been unprecedented. In politics, sports, academia, the workforce, corporate America, advertising, the entertainment industry, in every field of human activity, African Americans have achieved and have succeeded far beyond anything Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. could ever have envisioned.  To be honest, let’s concede that at least some of those achievements are the results of affirmative action programs but, still, success is a good thing, a very good thing, for Blacks, for Whites, and for the United States.

So, what’s the catch? 

The catch, the rub, is that far too many American Blacks think along the lines of Michelle Obama and are waiting for their moment in the sun when they too can finally feel pride in America. Very few of us can expect to have that enlightenment as a result of a spouse’s candidacy for president. For that matter, a lucrative career in the NBA, rap music stardom, CEO of Merrill Lynch or Managing Editor of the New York Times are beyond the expectations of the vast majority of Americans of any color. In the vernacular of our times, chances are, It ain’t gonna happen, Baby!  

To predicate one’s national pride on such eventualities is patently unfair to America and to any American who professes to believe in such a scenario. It sets the bar far too high, although some Blacks have gotten over all of those bars. More importantly, that attitude can breed racial disdain among many Whites and it feeds the stereotypical notion that Blacks are not full-fledged Americans.

Ironically, that stereotype can be traced back to the man who is—or was--an idol of the Black community, Abraham Lincoln, and to his signing of theEmancipation Proclamations (1862-1863) when he “freed the slaves.” In point of fact, those proclamations didn’t free many slaves, they weren’t altruistic as much as they were political instruments, Lincoln had a visceral fear of a bi-racial nation, and he strove tirelessly to re-locate former slaves outside our national boundaries.

According to one account in the Illinois Periodicals Online, "Lincoln is thought of as the Great Emancipator, but he thought of the African race as one that was inferior and unsuitable to live in a while [sic--white] society,”a critique which would be harsh coming from David Duke. 

The flip side, over the previous three decades especially, is that now many African American leaders perceive White Americans as inferior and the prime obstacle to the advancement of their race in our society. Lincoln’s fears seem prescient.

Reverend Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam, has long been the leader of the hate-Whitey pack. He has preached open rebellion and partition of the country. He’s unabashedly anti-White and has called Whites “unrighteous” and mere “potential humans — they haven't evolved yet." He also deems Jews to be members of “a dirty [or gutter] religion” as well as “wicked… false”.

No White American could utter such vile inanities without be pilloried in the national media and ostracized from all civil discourse.  Those comments, as well as the equally-racist invective of the Reverends Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, et al. are often accepted as truisms yet on their face are blatant examples of Black racism.  The fatuous defense offered is that Blacks can’t be racist because they lack the “power” to be racist. My response? Baloney! If it quacks like a duck it damned well isn’t a turkey!

Fortunately or unfortunately, Farrakhan is on the precipice of losing his title of White Hater Numero Uno as Barack Obama’s pastor of twenty years, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, scrambles to the top of that heap. More than enough has been written about this hatemonger’s hatemongering—including praising Calypso Louie Farrakhan--so I will only cite his assumed slip of the lip during his softball interview on Bill Moyers’ Journal, April 25th on PBS. In response to LBJ’s former chief of staff/press secretary’s question on “some hard things” Obama had said about Wright, the Reverend responded, “It went down very simply. He's a politician, I'm a pastor. We speak to two different audiences. And he says what he has to say as a politician. I say what I have to say as a pastor. Those are two different worlds. I do what I do. He does what politicians do. So that what happened in Philadelphia where he had to respond to the sound bytes, he responded as a politician. But he did not disown me because I'm a pastor. [Emphasis added]

The Reverend thereby undercut the Great (Semi) Black Hope as nothing more than just another run of the mill, lying politico who will say virtually anything, promise virtually everything, and do whatever’s needed to get votes.

Whether it’s all a devious ploy or a genuine rift caused by Obama’s badmouthing his mentor, both now are on a recrimination rampage. Obama headed for Damage Control Center to distance himself from Wright as the latter continued to diss Obama to the American Press Club as just another pol. 

There’s a whole lotta distancing going on here, as Amos and Andy’s Kingfish might say. It’s all very disconcerting.

Lincoln could never have foreseen the extent of America’s situation today, or maybe he did? At this critical juncture in our history, we are experiencing a national racial schism when demands are being made for slavery reparations, a century and a half after the fact of slavery, when we are seeing astronomical rates of Black crime, mostly but hardly exclusively committed against other Blacks, when illicit sex and illicit use of drugs are rampant, when a new Black culture, in the form of disintegrated families, out of wedlock pregnancies, and a dependency cultivated by liberals are all infiltrating the general American culture.

Where does it end?

A century ago, Africa and Africans were regrettably labeled the “White Man’s Burden.” Today, an unseemly number of African Americans perceive White Americans as their burden, seeing discrimination and hatred at every turn, pleading victimhood at every opportunity, playing the blame game in lieu of facing the truth.   

Those perceptions, if in fact they too are not part of a grand charade, are a large part of the problem and they militate against a solution of the Black-White divide in America.  Sadly, they are a reflection of our times, most recently seen in the case of the shooting death of a Black man, Sean Bell in New York City. Three cops, two of whom were African Americans,, were indicted for manslaughter, reckless endangerment, and assault for doing what they felt had to be done to save their lives. They were acquitted. 

Case closed? Hardly. Arch agitator  Reverend Al Sharpton, has sworn to closethe city in protest of the acquittal. No doubt the Rodney King riot-defense of “No justice, no peace!” will be trotted out once again.

Where does it end?    

Many Blacks and Whites revered a man who at one time seemed positioned to end it, namely, “America’s dad/granddad,” Bill Cosby.   Long gone are the imperturbable Ozzie Nelson and the paternalistic Robert Young who filled that role for many years and in its place we now had Cliff Huxtable. To his credit, Cosby and a few others have pointed out that Blacks cause their own burden and their own problems, views which have been met with ridicule from his own race, people who reject his very reasonable thesis that Blacks must take responsibility for their own lives.

What discomfiting about Bill Cosby is his hypocrisy, and it’s not just the paternity suit and separate sexual assault suit recently filed against him. Those peccadilloes pale in comparison to racism in the Cosby household.

Obama has his Michelle who felt no pride in America for forty-four years and Cosby has his wife, Camille Hanks Cosby, who apparently is in charge of overt family racial militancy.   After the mindless murder of their son, Ennis, in 1997, she inexplicably went on a rant against racism in America even though the murderer, Mikhail Markhasev, was a Russian Zionist. To lose a child must be devastating but to then falsely blame that loss on White racists is clearly irrational. 

Mrs. Cosby has never retracted nor apologized for her racial calumnies.

Bill Cosby could be a closet racial militant, based on the Atlantic article, “This Is How We Lost to the White Man,” (May 2008, pp. 52-62) That title alone—quoted from a Cosby speech--suggests he believes  that America’s Blacks and America’s Whites are at war, not a thought that we could easily ascribe to Dr. Huxtable.   It’s difficult to see a loss in a struggle between two races as anything other than a war or, at least a major conflict, certainly not on a par with a rugby match. 

Perhaps his rhetoric was simply poorly chosen.

So, where does it end? And will it ever end?

Despite the Obamas, Wrights, Sharptons, Farrakhans, and the Cosbys, no one in his right mind would recommend today that American Blacks be banished from the land.  Lincoln’s fears aside, it’s much too late and most Black American families were here before most of our White ancestors. Secondly, it’s immoral to even consider. Thirdly, it’s unfeasible, and who would want America to be denied future George Washington Carvers, Jackie Robinsons, or Thomas Sowells?

The issue isn’t repatriation anymore; the issue is finding a middle ground between Black resentment and White acceptance and that craves answers from the Black community.   Many Whites are achieving reconciliation by cultivating a sense of White Guilt, guilt for the now-ancient sin of slavery, for lynchings, for Jim Crow Laws, for discrimination, for racism, regardless of whether those same Whites were in any way responsible for any of those societal evils. Most were not, yet that Guilt affords a degree of expiation.  

However, White Guilt has major downsides. One significant negative is that denial is unhealthy. To deny the facts of Black on White crime, to deny the fact that many—not nearly all or most—Black Americans are unhappy and resentful, to deny the presence of Black separatists and anarchists in America isn’t just unhealthy, it’s downright dangerous. Another downside would be to elect anyone based on emotion—misguided or not—which is the essence of White Guilt. 

It’s been reported that during the “Woodstock Era,” White suburban girls in droves conducted their own private and not so private effort at reparations by surrendering their bodies to Blacks, including Black militants/revolutionaries/terrorists.  (See David Horowitz’ chilling 1999 expose’, Hating Whitey: and Other Progressive Causes, based on firsthand experience with Huey Newton and the Black Panthers.) No one to my knowledge has explored the personal repercussions of those acts of personal degradation. 

White Guilt Syndrome is alive and well today and may very well help elect Barack Hussein Obama as President of the United States, the ultimate, national self-flagellation. America may elect this man despite his glaring inexperience, his vague and undefined plans for change, his unfunded promises, and his unsettling associations with fanatical racist Jeremiah Wright and with admitted terrorist William Ayers. 

The Founders understood Plato and his views on the perils of a democracy and therefore established this nation as a democratic republic. As America has devolved into adiverse democracy, can Plato’s predicted mob rule and tyranny be far behind? 

In November, instead of giving their bodies, millions of Whites are intent on delivering their votes to Obama as recompense. Future historians will determine the results,. of that national degradation.

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive