Race Relations: Better or Worse under Obama?

Tomorrow President Obama will be giving a speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial on race. Since Sen. Obama became President Obama race has been a hot topic for many in the media and even those on social media as well. Originally, many viewed the election of Sen. Obama to the Presidency of the United States as a positive step toward improved race relations in the United States. Star Parker wrote, Racial Divide Worse Under Obama, initially, "There was exhilaration that the nightmare was over- finally. That wrongs have been righted, that we can get on with America's business without the ongoing issue of race looming, and that we can stop looking at blacks politically as a special class of Americans."

Star Parker was on to something here. America had elected its first black President four years prior to were piece. The trouble is the election didn't bring forth the calming aspect Parker, and others, wished for; rather it armed the media with a new talking point - race. From the time that Sen. Obama was elected President, those that oppose President Obama's ideals for America have been labeled racist. Granted there are parts of America that still harbor deep seated racist thoughts and that is not something that will completely go away.

At the same time, as Star Parker had hoped that "we can stop looking at blacks politically as a special class of Americans" the media did just that. Anytime a black politician or candidate for office voiced an opposing view of President Obama's agenda - the media and more specifically social media - labeled them as an Uncle Tom. How does that promote race relations?

In a recent town hall in New York President Obama answered a professor's question by saying, "Fifty years after the March on Washington and the 'I Have a Dream' speech, obviously we have made enormous strides. I'm a testament to it, you're a testament to it, the diversity of this room and the students who here are a testament to it. And that impulse toward making sure everybody gets a fair shot is one that found expression in the civil rights movement and then spread to include Latinos and immigrants and gays and lesbians." Now, on social media when one invokes the "I Have a Dream" speech and the famous lines where Martin Luther King implores America to view people not based on the color of their skin rather on the merit of their character by any white person that person is persecuted by many in the black community.

Why is it so wrong for people of all color to invoke those sacred words of MLK? Is it not better for America, better for race relations that we all have a common theme, a common thread from which to weave the future? MLK nailed it. Unfortunately we have failed. We can point fingers to the past all we want.

Governor Bobby Jindal recently wrote an Op-Ed for Politico, The End of Race, where he points out that, "Racism is one of the more tragic features of the human condition. Like greed, envy and other sins, it has been around for thousands of years, on every continent." Gov. Jindal continues, "Here's what I've found in Louisiana: The voters want to know what you believe, what you stand for, and what your plan to do, not what shade your skin is." Gov. Jindal parents came here from India around the time of MLK's assassination.

Louisiana, the Deep South, voted in Bobby Jindal as Governor of the state. A colored man, a child of immigrants - why? Because of his ideals, his beliefs, his plan - not the color of his skin. Louisiana is the same state that David Duke hails from too.

Congressional Black Caucus Chairwoman (CBC), Rep. Marcia Fudge of Ohio stated in response to a question on the trajectory of race relations in Niall Stanage piece Black Lawmakers Lament Flaring of Racial Tensions under Obama, "Right after the election of the president, I would have thought it was going in a positive direction, but I am not so sure anymore."

In the same article, CBC member Rep. Barbara Lee of California said,"The country, for whatever reason, has not confronted race in the way that it should. With stop-and-frisk, and all the issues around income inequality, you really have to wonder [how much things have improved.] But I think a lot of it is to do with the idea that race has been an issue that we can talk about."

Niall Stanage does hit the nail on the head later in the piece when stating, "Put those economic factors together with the high-voltage legal cases on the killing of Trayvon Martin and the curtailment of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and it is easy to see why black politicians, and liberals in general, are ambivalent over where things stand." Stanage is guilty of what many in the media and on social media equate - black politician to liberals. Not every black politician is a liberal but as I stated earlier for some reason those black politician's that speak non-liberal talking points are labeled Uncle Toms.

The melting of race today in America is taking place. The Ruling Class understands that if America completes the melting of race into a society of merit of character they have lost control and are in danger of office. It is time for America to embrace MLK and view less on skin tone and more on character. Race relations are in a similar boat that ethnic relations were in Boston, New York and other major cities in the 1800's. It took time for the "Natural Born" citizens to accept the Irish, the Germans, the Swedes, etc...

President Obama hits and misses today

President Obama interrupted the daily White House Press Conference to say a few words about the fallout from the Zimmerman not guilty verdict. Below are the words spoken by President Obama along with some commentary by myself.

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/president.obama.trayvon.martin.speech.video.transcript.full.text.george.zimmerman.verdict/33281.htm

Well, I -- I wanted to come out here first of all to tell you that Jay is prepared for all your questions and is -- is very much looking forward to the session.

Second thing is I want to let you know that over the next couple of weeks there are going to obviously be a whole range of issues -- immigration, economics, et cetera -- we'll try to arrange a fuller press conference to address your questions.

The reason I actually wanted to come out today is not to take questions, but to speak to an issue that obviously has gotten a lot of attention over the course of the last week, the issue of the Trayvon Martin ruling. I gave an -- a preliminary statement right after the ruling on Sunday, but watching the debate over the course of the last week I thought it might be useful for me to expand on my thoughts a little bit.  

First of all, you know, I -- I want to make sure that, once again, I send my thoughts and prayers, as well as Michelle's, to the family of Trayvon Martin, and to remark on the incredible grace and dignity with which they've dealt with the entire situation. I can only imagine what they're going through, and it's -- it's remarkable how they've handled it. Hey Mr. President - I know it is not politically opportunistic for you but what about Zimmerman's family? The question begs asking while belittles the tragedy none.

The second thing I want to say is to reiterate what I said on Sunday, which is there are going to be a lot of arguments about the legal -- legal issues in the case. I'll let all the legal analysts and talking heads address those issues.

The judge conducted the trial in a professional manner. The prosecution and the defense made their arguments. The juries were properly instructed that in a -- in a case such as this, reasonable doubt was relevant, and they rendered a verdict. And once the jury's spoken, that's how our system works. Amen Mr. President.

But I did want to just talk a little bit about context and how people have responded to it and how people are feeling. You know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot, I said that this could have been my son.Actually you said that "if I had a son it would look like Trayvon Martin."  Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago. And when you think about why, in the African- American community at least, there's a lot of pain around what happened here, I think it's important to recognize that the African- American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that -- that doesn't go away. Mr. President, I completely agree.

There are very few African-American men in this country who haven't had the experience of being followed when they were shopping in a department store. That includes me.

And there are very few African-American men who haven't had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars. That happens to me, at least before I was a senator. There are very few African-Americans who haven't had the experience of getting on an elevator and a woman clutching her purse nervously and holding her breath until she had a chance to get off. That happens often. While I recognize that the examples are reality they are also generalized and stereotypical.

And you know, I don't want to exaggerate this, but those sets of experiences inform how the African-American community interprets what happened one night in Florida. And it's inescapable for people to bring those experiences to bear. Mr. President, you mentioned context above - but now we lose context in Florida?

The African-American community is also knowledgeable that there is a history of racial disparities in the application of our criminal laws, everything from the death penalty to enforcement of our drug laws. And that ends up having an impact in terms of how people interpret the case.

Now, this isn't to say that the African-American community is naive about the fact that African-American young men are disproportionately involved in the criminal justice system, that they are disproportionately both victims and perpetrators of violence. It's not to make excuses for that fact, although black folks do interpret the reasons for that in a historical context. Now we are back to context but the issue in Florida lacks context. Mr. President, why are you not giving this speech or working into this speech the senseless bystander deaths in Chicago and Los Angeles as gangs shoot at each other?

We understand that some of the violence that takes place in poor black neighborhoods around the country is born out of a very violent past in this country, and that the poverty and dysfunction that we see in those communities can be traced to a very difficult history. At what point does the next or even the current generation take accountability for themselves?

And so the fact that sometimes that's unacknowledged adds to the frustration. And the fact that a lot of African-American boys are painted with a broad brush and the excuse is given, well, there are these statistics out there that show that African-American boys are more violent -- using that as an excuse to then see sons treated differently causes pain. Perhaps the reason why Black youth are believed to be violent is the role models the black community chooses to emulate. Hip Hop and Rap perpetuates the stereotypes of black youth and society. We all should emulate role models that stood for principle and held themselves more accountable to their actions than others as the standard bearer. Some examples of yore are John Adams, Fredrick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Abe Lincoln or MLK. Recent examples could include - Bill Gates, Oprah, Daymond John, John Tillman, or the late Steve Jobs.

I think the African-American community is also not naive in understanding that statistically somebody like Trayvon Martin was probably statistically more likely to be shot by a peer than he was by somebody else. Agreed Mr. President but the media attention on this issue doesn't sell newspapers or get people elected - that is the real tragedy.

So -- so folks understand the challenges that exist for African- American boys, but they get frustrated, I think, if they feel that there's no context for it or -- and that context is being denied. And -- and that all contributes, I think, to a sense that if a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario, that, from top to bottom, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different. By lacking context in ones life is not an excuse to lash out because of frustration. Mr. President, let's examine why the white male teen might have seen a different outcome. Yes, one possible reason in the case of Martin/Zimmerman is that Zimmerman may not have followed after learning the teen was white. Another possible reason why the outcome may have been different is the white male teen more than likely would have been less confrontational with Zimmerman - because us White Fathers tell our kids that if a person in authority asks a question, no matter how ridiculous it may be, to answer in a polite manner. Now, I am generalizing to be fair but so are you, Mr. President.

Now, the question for me at least, and I think, for a lot of folks is, where do we take this? How do we learn some lessons from this and move in a positive direction? You know, I think it's understandable that there have been demonstrations and vigils and protests, and some of that stuff is just going to have to work its way through as long as it remains nonviolent. If I see any violence, then I will remind folks that that dishonors what happened to Trayvon Martin and his family. Amen Mr. President!

But beyond protests or vigils, the question is, are there some concrete things that we might be able to do? I know that Eric Holder is reviewing what happened down there, but I think it's important for people to have some clear expectations here. Traditionally, these are issues of state and local government -- the criminal code. And law enforcement has traditionally done it at the state and local levels, not at the federal levels. The Jury spoke and verified what the local police originally thought - Zimmerman was justified. 

That doesn't mean, though, that as a nation, we can't do some things that I think would be productive. So let me just give a couple of specifics that I'm still bouncing around with my staff so we're not rolling out some five-point plan, but some areas where I think all of us could potentially focus. Fair enough.

Number one, precisely because law enforcement is often determined at the state and local level, I think it'd be productive for the Justice Department -- governors, mayors to work with law enforcement about training at the state and local levels in order to reduce the kind of mistrust in the system that sometimes currently exists. No one will deny that the police in many areas in the United States have an image problem. Once we start nationalizing this - where does it stop? Wasn't the notion of bringing diversity into the police force to help improve the mistrust? Then again, the juries not guilty verdict verifies the assessment of the officers on the scene the night Zimmerman shot and killed Martin.

You know, when I was in Illinois I passed racial profiling legislation. And it actually did just two simple things. One, it collected data on traffic stops and the race of the person who was stopped. But the other thing was it resourced us training police departments across the state on how to think about potential racial bias and ways to further professionalize what they were doing. Will need to check into this before passing judgement but from what I hear it sounds like a good program.

And initially, the police departments across the state were resistant, but actually they came to recognize that if it was done in a fair, straightforward way, that it would allow them to do their jobs better and communities would have more confidence in them and in turn be more helpful in applying the law. And obviously law enforcement's got a very tough job. Yet, Mr. President - the black youth of Chicago continue to kill each other with no end in sight. 

So that's one area where I think there are a lot of resources and best practices that could be brought bear if state and local governments are receptive. And I think a lot of them would be. And -- and let's figure out other ways for us to push out that kind of training. Code for another layer of public union employees and red tape.

Along the same lines, I think it would be useful for us to examine some state and local laws to see if it -- if they are designed in such a way that they may encourage the kinds of altercations and confrontations and tragedies that we saw in the Florida case, rather than diffuse potential altercations. Mr. President, the Tampa Bay Sentinel already did that and found that if we took away Stand Your Ground laws it would have a disparate impact on blacks in Florida.

I know that there's been commentary about the fact that the stand your ground laws in Florida were not used as a defense in the case.

On the other hand, if we're sending a message as a society in our communities that someone who is armed potentially has the right to use those firearms even if there's a way for them to exit from a situation, is that really going to be contributing to the kind of peace and security and order that we'd like to see? Mr. President, while Zimmerman didn't use the defense, when his head as hitting the concrete there wasn't a way to exit but death. Other cases that have invoked Stand Your Ground defense were very similar - see the Tampa Bay Sentinel article. 

And for those who resist that idea that we should think about something like these "stand your ground" laws, I just ask people to consider if Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk? And do we actually think that he would have been justified in shooting Mr. Zimmerman, who had followed him in a car, because he felt threatened? If Martin felt his life was in danger with threat of death; yes. Let's remember though, Martin was seen atop Zimmerman throwing punches toward the ground. 

And if the answer to that question is at least ambiguous, it seems to me that we might want to examine those kinds of laws.

Number three -- and this is a long-term project: We need to spend some time in thinking about how do we bolster and reinforce our African-American boys? And this is something that Michelle and I talk a lot about. There are a lot of kids out there who need help who are getting a lot of negative reinforcement. And is there more that we can do to give them the sense that their country cares about them and values them and is willing to invest in them? Mr. President, America can reduce its bias in all manners of life. By doing that it will help all children not just black boys. The justice system, the police scrutiny, the guarded mentality of non-black society stems not solely from a racial bias but a bias reinforced by hip hop, rap and other modes of entertainment. I am not naive to the fact that we are all a tinge racist while others are a lot more than a tinge. Those feeling frustrated or with more than a tinge, I'd venture come from a home with a single mom, dad or are being raised by a single grandparent. We need to promote, in all communities, the importance of the family unit. Studies have shown that children in a family unit are better members of society; in general.

You know, I'm not naive about the prospects of some brand-new federal program. Thank God!

I'm not sure that that's what we're talking about here. But I do recognize that as president, I've got some convening power. Oopps, I spoke too soon.

And there are a lot of good programs that are being done across the country on this front. And for us to be able to gather together business leaders and local elected officials and clergy and celebrities and athletes and figure out how are we doing a better job helping young African-American men feel that they're a full part of this society and that -- and that they've got pathways and avenues to succeed -- you know, I think that would be a pretty good outcome from what was obviously a tragic situation. And we're going to spend some time working on that and thinking about that. How about we gather their parents first! 

And then finally, I think it's going to be important for all of us to do some soul-searching. You know, there have been talk about should we convene a conversation on race. I haven't seen that be particularly productive when politicians try to organize conversations. They end up being stilted and politicized, and folks are locked into the positions they already have. I agree - keep the politicians, the haters, the gin factory workers all away from the conversation of race. Let's start the conversation of race in our backyards around a fire pit. Let's get out and talk to our neighbors. 

On the other hand, in families and churches and workplaces, there's a possibility that people are a little bit more honest, and at least you ask yourself your own questions about, am I wringing as much bias out of myself as I can; am I judging people, as much as I can, based on not the color of their skin but the content of their character? That would, I think, be an appropriate exercise in the wake of this tragedy. Amen, Mr. President. We do need to look at the content of our character. Let's get the ball rolling. Let's go through all the laws this land and strike out laws that call on race for justification of a law and insert character. We have made a protective class, we have made a second class, we have made lessor class of people through our legislation. A crime is a crime - murder is murder - torture is torture - it is no more egregious if it done between races, by the same race, sex, or sexual orientation.

And let me just leave you with -- with a final thought, that as difficult and challenging as this whole episode has been for a lot of people, I don't want us to lose sight that things are getting better. Each successive generation seems to be making progress in changing attitudes when it comes to race. I doesn't mean that we're in a postracial society. It doesn't mean that racism is eliminated. But you know, when I talk to Malia and Sasha and I listen to their friends and I see them interact, they're better than we are. They're better than we were on these issues. And that's true in every community that I've visited all across the country.

And so, you know, we have to be vigilant and we have to work on these issues, and those of us in authority should be doing everything we can to encourage the better angels of our nature as opposed to using these episodes to heighten divisions. But we should also have confidence that kids these days I think have more sense than we did back then, and certainly more than our parents did or our grandparents did, and that along this long, difficult journey, you know, we're becoming a more perfect union -- not a perfect union, but a more perfect union.

All right? Thank you, guys. Amen, Mr. President.

Former LAPD officer Christopher Dorner: Hero or Villain?

I will admit that when former LAPD officer Christopher Dorner uploaded his manifesto and decided the only means to clear his "good" name was to take to the streets of Los Angeles and enact revenge, I really didn't care to follow. People snap for various reasons and take vengeance out in any manner they see fit; unfortunately. As I read the various websites I routinely look at this morning, I saw on www.nbcnews.com (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/17/16990419-protesters-call-for-clearing-fired-lapd-officer-christopher-dorners-name?lite) that about 200 protesters went to LAPD headquarters yesterday to show support for former LAPD officer Christopher Dorner.

The protest raised my curiosity as to why might a pocket of our population take time of their day to advocate for a man that just terrorized and killed people in California. The NBC news article quoted one protester:

"We're protesting some of the police brutality -- not just LAPD, but all over the nation," said protester and Lomita resident Vincent Namm, a former Marine. "With Chris Dorner, habeas corpus just got thrown out the window.''


The article prompted me to search and see what else may be said in support of former LAPD officer Chris Dorner. In a CNN article a professor of English at Columbia University is quoted as (http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/13/us/lapd-dorner-fans) :

"But when you read his manifesto, when you read the message he left, he wasn't entirely crazy. He had a plan and mission here, and many people aren't rooting for him to kill innocent people, they're rooting for somebody who was wronged to get a kind of revenge against the system." Hill added. "It is almost like watching 'Django Unchained' in real life."

Django Unchained! Before I continue here is a link to the manifesto in the event you haven't read it: http://christopher-dorner.com/christopher-dorners-manifesto-full-unedited-copy/ . Okay, former LAPD officer Chris Dorner is being compared to Jamie Foxx's character in Django Unchained? Now I have not seen the movie, yet it is on a long list of ones to see, but my understanding of the movie is a freed slave seeks to rescue his wife from a slave owner. How does this equate?

Not to digress to far, but what makes a manifesto sane or crazy? I mean if one reads the Communist Manifesto written by Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels one will see that both men had a plan and mission. That being said does it wash away the tyranny and death that Marxist thought brought to Russia all okay? Dorner reflects, in his manifesto, of an altercation with Jim Armstrong on the playground at the Norwalk Christain elementary school as his first encounter with racism:

My first recollection of racism was in the first grade at Norwalk Christian elementary school in Norwalk, CA. A fellow student, Jim Armstrong if I can recall, called me a nigger on the playground. My response was swift and non-lethal. I struck him fast and hard with a punch an kick. He cried and reported it to a teacher. The teacher reported it to the principal. The principal swatted Jim for using a derogatory word toward me. He then for some unknown reason swatted me for striking Jim in response to him calling me a nigger. He stated as good Christians we are to turn the other cheek as Jesus did. Problem is, I’m not a fucking Christian and that old book, made of fiction and limited non-fiction, called the bible, never once stated Jesus was called a nigger.

Now the word "nigger" is a very powerful word. As with any word the definition of the word is dependent on the use of it. I agree with Dorner that Armstrong should not be using derogatory language and that Dorner should let it be known that usage of such language ought not to be tolerated. Equally intolerant to the derogatory language is the use of violence to illustrates one objection to intolerant language. Regardless of ones religious dogma to resort to violence as a primary mode of defense or objection is not acceptable in a free society.

Personally, I do hope that journalists take note of items within Dorner's Manifesto for if he is telling the truth of events that took place as far back as 2009 then it should be known. Everyone understands that the LAPD does not have a stellar track record in relations with the public regardless of ones race, sex or other cultural divisions. Was this a cover up? Time will tell.

Although I am not one for conspiracy theories, I do find it a bit odd that Dorner would take his own life when he wrote:

If possible, I want my brain preserved for science/research to study the effects of severe depression on an individual’s brain. Since 6/26/08 when I was relieved of duty and 1/2/09 when I was terminated I have been afflicted with severe depression. I’ve had two CT scans during my lifetime that are in my medical record at Kaiser Permanente. Both are from concussions resulting from playing football. The first one was in high school, 10/96. The second was in college and occurred in 10/99. Both were conducted at Kaiser Permanente hospitals in LA/Orange county. These two CT scans should give a good baseline for my brain activity before severe depression began in late 2008.

If Dorner hoped for his brain to be studied then why shot yourself in the head? At the end of the day, society needs to address the lack of accountability, respect and candor that exists in our society today. There are numerous angles and topics of discussion to be had from this, but let's not make this guy a hero or a martyr just yet. Nor do we make the LAPD the bogey man just yet either regardless of the track record. For if we solely go on track record then to Dorner's own admission "Unfortunately I was swatted multiple times for the same exact reason up until junior high" then Dorner is a bully.

Why do we allow Race Baiting?

I was going to blog today about Rep. Akin not getting out of the race after his remarks on "illegitimate rape" but I found this article: http://www.theroot.com/blogs/paul-ryan/does-paul-ryans-black-girlfriend-matter

Keli Goff goes down an interesting path with this article in determining if the fact that Rep. Ryan dated a black girl or the fact that he has black sister-in-law. I understand bringing up race, to some, is no place for a white middle class male living in the Midwest since that equates to a life of privilege and open doors. Yet, I will do it anyway because it's important to discuss race in most contexts.

Ms. Goff does raise a valid point if ones views or belief accurately reflect their actions. Now, I have always been told that actions speak louder than words but that aside. The article goes right up to the edge of calling Rep. Ryan a racist since his minority friends are the exceptions to the rule. Ms. Goff writes, "Research has shown that those who hold stereotypes about a particular group of people are unlikely to have those stereotypes altered merely by encountering someone who defies that stereotype. Instead, they are likely to view that individual defying said stereotype as an exception." Here is the research: http://www.faculty.umb.edu/lawrence_blum/publications/publications/A48.pdf

When did stereotypes become racist? Everyone generalizes to a point until they do encounter people from said group. The media loves to paint with the broad brush and so do many on the blogsphere; I will admit I do it from time to time as well. Ms. Goff ends with, "No, I am not calling Ryan a racist, I am saying, however, that if you want to know where a politician's heart lies when it comes to a particular community, it may be best to look at that person's polices..." I.E. voting record.

To this point I completely agree with Ms. Goff that we need to vet our candidates for higher office instead of focusing on stereotypes. Race shouldn't be a factor for anyone casting a vote but we all know that it is unfortunately - both for or against. Trouble is that if one uses race to vote against a candidate its racism but if they vote for the candidate based on race alone it's historic. They both are example of racism. To Ms. Goff's question - What do you think? - No, we should be talking about the race of one's girlfriend or wife or husband or candidate. The focus should be on the issues and if one disagrees with another it can be because of a difference of opinion on how to solve the issues of the day and not the color of the skin of the other person. Ms. Goff says that white folks use "I have black friends" as a cover for racist action if that is really the case then it is equally the case that calling another black an "Uncle Tom" is also a cover for racist action.  

MLK Day offers more than honoring the man

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" are the words penned by the Founding Fathers in their declaration of severing ties to the King of Great Britain. "I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers" is just one aspect of Martin Luther King's famous "I Have A Dream" speech. Today we give honor to the slain Civil Rights leader.

A lot has changed since the Declaration of Independence in America to overcome the inequities that existed at her beginning. One thing that still prevails is the lingering racism and the heated rhetoric that comes with discussing the topic. Many laws have been enacted to ensure equality yet we to more harm than good. The last election cycle saw a shift in the political landscape as Tea Party backed candidates and other Conservatives won at all levels of government in a manner never experienced. Then we had the tragic shooting in Arizona by a deranged mad man to which the airwaves blew up with blame, hate, and ignorant thought. We, as a country, are facing a time where government has grown to large and consumes too much while drifting away from one with "unalienable Rights".

Some see the birth of the Tea Party a direct response to Obama being elected President of the United States while mainstream media has spun it as well. Now, as with all groups, the Tea Party does have its fringe element but their views are not aligned with the base. In fact the Tea Party is not much different than the group Ross Perot attempted to form a decade or so ago. I bring the Tea Party into the conversation because the vitriol that has surrounded the movement does not echo the "Dream" of King or the use of "unalienable Rights" within the Declaration of Independence. President Obama's memorial speech did touch on taking pause and reflection hopefully today we can do more.

Take a moment today to read Dr. King's "Dream" speech and look around your community and see if society is living up to it. As well, read the Declaration of Independence and ask yourself, "Is our current path of government allowing ALL people of the United States the ability to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness?"

Free Speech?

The above billboard appeared in Mason City, Iowa and compares Obama to Hitler and Stalin. Now flash back to when Bush was in office and the following sign was held at a protest rally of Iraq war.

Both signs draw comparisons between sitting presidents and Hitler; yet one is blasted as racism while the other is lauded as free speech. Are both displays of free speech? What makes the comparison of Obama to Hitler racist? Plus, what is the fascination of comparing our President with Hitler? Is the current comparison to invoke Hitler's spirit for economic development? Hitler too did inherit a severe, actually more severe than Obama's claim, and brought Germany sustained economic growth until the Nazi Party crafted the "Final Solution" and sought out more land from neighboring countries. While the White House has held off comment to the recent billboard its owner, Kent Beatty, sees the billboard as "freedom of speech" but back peddled a bit by saying, "It doesn't reflect our views, necessarily" (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100713/ap_on_re_us/us_iowa_obama_billboard_3).

Which brings back up the question: Does the comparison of Obama to Hitler represent free speech or racism in action? How does it differ between comparing Bush and Hitler?

Recent Polling finds more than Neo-Con’s within the Tea Party Movement

For the past year I have heard to mantra of racism, bigotry, and right-wing extremist tied to the Tea Party movement. When I have asked those espousing the mantra about the source of their conclusions very few are from firsthand accounts of the Tea Party events. I witnessed one such Tea Party event last year in St. Paul and even blogged about it. While I agree with many points the Tea Party movement was pushing that day, I did not enlist as my independent spirit still struggles with party affiliation. This morning as the kids were reading themselves for school and while watching Morning Joe I came across and interesting article in the Los Angeles Times about the a recent poll conducted.

The LA Times reported that Tea Party members "are average Americans, 41% are Democrats, independents" (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/04/tea-party-obama.html). The ironic part of the poll results is that it runs contrary to the mantra being drummed up by the mass media and Progressives as to who "belongs" to the Tea Party. It was a series of three national phone surveys done yesterday that resulted in 17% of those polled identified themselves "part of the Tea Party movement."

Could it be true that the Tea Party is actually comprised of average Americans just fed up with the growing size of government, rising debt, the absence of fiscal responsibility in Washington, and the threat of increasing taxes? According to the LA Times article the breakdown was "28% independent, 17% Democrat and only 57% Republican." Gallup's Lydia Sadd wrote, "[Tea Party members] age, educational background, employment status, and race – Tea Partiers are quite representative of the public at large." What I am curious about is how many people polled on Sunday identified themselves as Coffee Party members. The fact that 41% of those identifying themselves part of the Tea Party movement raised concern for both major parties as the mid-term elections draw near. Could a third party emerge in November? Will the Tea Party folks be the swing group? Or will the demonizing of the Tea Party continue? Will they continue to be painted by the mantra even though more and more independent and Democrat minded folks are joining?

To Debate “ObamaCare” translate to Racism?

Frank Rich over the weekend wrote an Op-Ed, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/opinion/28rich.html, that asserted, "That a tsunami of anger is gathering today is illogical, given that what the right calls "Obamcare" is less provocative than either the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or Medicare, an epic entitlement that actually did precipitate a government takeover of a sizable chunk of American health care. But the explanation is plain: the health care bill is not the main source of this anger and never has been. It's merely a handy excuse. The real source of the over-the-top rage of 2010 is the same kind of national existential reordering that roiled America in 1964." Now I was not born till 1971 so I did not experience 1960's first hand. I have read a number of sources while studying history at UND and do not see the comparison that Frank Rich is drawing between "ObamaCare" and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Rich asserts that racial overtones are the main cause for all the outrage which I do not buy.

As Rich points out accurately the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed the Senate with 73 votes (bipartisan) versus the partisan vote and reconciliation of "Obamcare". From what I have read and seen, Americans are fed up with government growth and mounting debt. It has nothing to do with a President that is mullato. Pat Sajak, yes Wheel of Fortune Sajak, wrote an Op-Ed to retort Rich, http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=36241, Op-Ed. Sajak's message was, "Welcome to post-racial America, where those who oppose a piece of legislation must defend themselves against the scurrilous charges of a man who seems much better suited to reviewing "Cats"." The reason I quote Sajak is because the nature of Rich's claim to fame as being a theater critic.

Sajak goes on to say, "This was a particularly shameful column, and the millions of Americans who oppose this legislation are owed an apology. Are they right? Are they wrong? Let's discuss it. Let's debate it. Let's yell and scream if we want to. But would it be too much to ask that we approach the matter based on its merits and leave the psychobabble to Dr. Phil?" Who is more on the ball; Rich or Sajak?

Because one opposes "ObamaCare" does that automatically make them a racist, sexist and a homophobic? Let's look at the facts of the bill and debate it. Yes it is already passed but remember it was House Speaker Pelosi that made it clear that Americans will see what is in the bill after it is passed. Right now Morning Joe, on MSNBC, is discussing the fringe elements media spin and if things are being accurately displayed by the mass media. The only death threat on record, to this point, is against Republican Eric Cantor. But I digress. Will "ObamaCare" place burdens on United Sates companies as AT&T, Verizon, John Deere and Catepillar are all asserting to which Democrat leadership response is to drag the CEO's in front of Congress to defend their revelations.

How do we debate the merits of health care reform that was passed without invoking "psychobabble" and labeling those in opposition as being a racist, sexist or homophobic? Or is a post-racial America a pipe dream?

Obama’s Justice Department asserts power in Kinston

The Obama Administration is furthering partisan politics while exerting federal power over local politics. A letter was sent this past weekend to Kinston City Attorney James Cauley III that stated, "Removing the partisan cue in municipal elections will, in all likelihood, eliminate the single factor that allows black candidates to be elected to office" (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/55818). Last year Kinston voters approved, with 65% of the vote, to make city council elections nonpartisan by removing party affiliation from the ballot.

The letter further stated, written by Assistant Attorney General Loretta King, that, "In Kinston elections voters base their choice more on the race of a candidate rather than his or her political affiliation, and without either the appeal to party loyalty or the ability to vote a straight ticket, the limited remaining support from white voters for a black Democratic candidate will diminish even more. Numerous elected municipal and county officials confirm the results of our statistical analysis that a majority of white Democrats support white Republican over black Democrats in Kinston elections. At the same time, they also acknowledge that a small group of white Democrats maintain strong party allegiance and vote along party lines, regardless of the race of the candidate."

Now Kinston is 2/3^rd black and 1/3^rd white so the assertion that King makes that black candidates, I mean black Democrat candidates will see their chance diminish is ludicrous. If people in Kinston voted on racial lines, black candidates – regardless of party – would always win. The simple fact that the Obama Administration is allowing the Attorney General's office to exert unconstitutional powers upon Kinston only fuels partisan politics and heightens the concept of race tension. As Americans we ought to be looking at candidates and evaluating them based on what they stand for, what they have done, and what they hope to accomplish instead of voting because of race, gender or party affiliation. Part of the reason why a third party candidate struggles to gain a foothold is due to partisan voting and the belief that we as Americans have only two viable candidates to choose from. How is this working for most Americans?

Now does this type of heavy-handedness by the Obama Administration and the assertion that if you are black you are a Democrat being picked up by mainstream media; no. A quick search of the internet will show only conservative sites are reporting the abuse of power by Obama's Department of Justice. The Department of Justice points to the Voting Rights Act to protect the black voters of Kinston. Abigail Thernstrom, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights appointee, argues, "The Voting Rights Act is supposed to protect against situations when black voters are locked out because of racism. There is no entitlement to elect a candidate they prefer on the assumption that all black voters prefer Democratic candidates" (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/20/justice-dept-blocks-ncs-nonpartisan-vote/print/).

The Washington Times story also stated that "Ms. King's letter in the Kinston case states that because of the low turnout black voters must be 'viewed as a minority for analytical purpose', and that 'minority turnout is revelevant' to determine whether the Justice Department should be allowed a change in election protocol." Let me get this right. The Department of Justice is saying that black voters in Kinston are dumb and lazy? Although I am not black, I am appalled for blacks in Kinston that Obama's Justice Department feels that black candidates are not strong enough to stand on their own principles; rather they need to be labeled Democrat to get elected. How does this stance further bi-partisan politics and remove the "second class" citizenship for blacks?

“You Lie” does not translate to “I am a racist”

Former President Jimmy Carter found himself back in the fray after commenting on the recent incivility on the House floor by Rep. Joe Wilson. In a town hall meeting in Atlanta Carter responded to a question from the audience on the outburst by Rep. Wilson with, "I think it's based on racism. There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president." There is a reason why Carter was a one-term president and part of that might just be his assumptions. Rep. Wilson's outburst of "You Lie!" during President Obama's speech last week to a joint session of Congress was not motivated by racism. To think that is just as asinine as the vote to rebuke Rep. Wilson after his apology to the man he called a liar was accepted.

President Obama was discussing what his health care reform plan was not about and attempted to put rumors to rest. Rep. Wilson outburst came after President Obama said that his plan would not cover illegal immigrants. The H.R. 3200 bill does not contain language that forbids illegal immigrants from gaining access to a public option; one would be naïve to think that they would not be covered. After taking office many polls had President Obama's approval rating in 70's and now its plummeted to the low 50's with some even dipping below 50 percent.

Pundits from Matthews to Maddow assert that the free fall in poll numbers for the president is because Americans are racists. Really? So sometime between January and September a shift in polls has to be because of the color of the president's skin and not because of the policies he wants to implement. Americans are waking up and understanding that we have drunk from the government trough far too long. Government has seen the addiction as a means to gain further control of our lives and people are fed up. Million of American's are out of work and struggling to keep their homes, cars, and way of life as they watch their government growing larger and larger.

Instead of acknowledging the growing size of government is the angst being portrayed at the Tea Parties and in the polls, supporters of President Obama assert it is the underlining current of racism. Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) said on Tuesday that if the House did not rebuke Rep. Wilson for his outburst that people will start wearing "white hoods and white uniforms again and riding through the countryside." Seriously Mr. Johnson, as an elected official and the voice of Georgians, do you really feel the outburst and not rebuking the action would led to a stampede of southern justice? I'd like to believe that America, in general, has moved beyond racist tendencies when commenting on public policy agendas. Perhaps I am naïve in my thought process.

The media is doing its part as well to move forward the discussion that Rep. Wilson's outburst was racially motivated. Maureen Dowd wrote in her New York Times column on Sunday that "I've been loath to admit that the shrieking lunacy of the summer…had much to do with race. But Wilson's shocking disrespect for the office of the president – no Democrat ever shouted 'liar' at W. when he was hawking a fake case for war in Iraq – convinced me: Some people just can't believe a black man is president and will never accept it." Again, I do not see where Rep. Wilson outburst in response to President Obama explanation that illegal immigrants will not be covered under his health care reform plan.

There will always be fringe groups that feel all actions taken or not taken are based solely on race. Fortunately for America the vast majority of the public does not have deep seeded racist thoughts – no matter what ones race is – and has accepted the election of the first president of mixed race. I can only imagine how the progressives will frame the debate during the next presidential election if Obama is not re-elected. Let's agree – politicians, media outlets, and private citizens – that if someone disagrees with policies suggested by President Obama that it is not race based; rather the disagreement arises from the policy shift itself.

Racism Card: Does it belong only to minorities?

Yesterday I posted a question on Facebook that resulted in 34 comments being made that never really addressed the question that was posed. The ponder made was “How is the words of Glen Beck in regards to President Obama being a racist any different than the words the left and other leaders in the black community used during Katrina calling President Bush a racist? Is this similar as we can have BET but not WET? Or NAACP vs. NAAWP?” The comments that followed ranged from questioning the validity of Glen Beck to “birthers” to Gates/Crowley situation.

My question was not to defend the actions taken by Glen Beck; rather to point out that people like Kanye West, Al Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson all asserted that President Bush “hates black people” because FEMA dropped the ball with Katrina and that was acceptable commentary.

Kanye West said, “George Bush doesn’t care about black people” during the NBC aired program “A Concert for Hurricane Relief”. Prior to the comment Kanye West had stated that “I hate the way they portray us in the media. If you see a black family, it says they’re looking. See a white family; it says they’re looking for food. They’ve given them permission to go down and shoot us.”
Rev. Al Sharpton said on Keith Olbermann’s “Countdown” on MSNBC September 1, 2005, “The real question is not only those that didn’t get out. The question is why has it taken the government so long to get in. I feel that, if it was in another area, with another economic strata and racial makeup, that President Bush would have run out of Crawford a lot quicker and FEMA would have found its way in a lot sooner.”

Rev. Jesse Jackson claimed President Bush was “incompetent” and “racist” and questioned President Bush, “How can blacks be locked out of the leadership, and trapped in the suffering?”

Today Mr. Gates, Sgt Crowley, and President Obama will be sitting down for a beer and discuss what took place during the events that led up to Mr. Gates arrest. One of those commenting on Facebook accused my question as a Rovian Ploy. I am not sure where that comes into play; perhaps someone is able to explain it further for me. During the Democrat primary, the Obama campaign tried to paint former President Clinton as playing the race card; Bill Clinton a racist? No!

President Obama waded into the Gates/Crowley case without knowing the facts of the case, the media reported without the full facts, and now things are coming to light. All this said, I am not defending what Glen Beck said nor giving credence to him; rather I am looking at the situation in a big picture format. The catalyst of the conversation just happens to be the Glen Beck’s exercise of free speech that has offended others in the nation.

The ultimate question is why it is okay, accepted by society, for minorities to claim racism or have exclusive organizations while white America is vilified for similar claims or exclusive organizations?

Henry Gates Jr:Over reacted or Racial Profiled?

Picture this, two men are seen, by a neighbor, trying to break in the front door of a house. The “alleged” break takes place in Cambridge, Massachusetts. To add to the drama the two men “allegedly” breaking in are both black. A female neighbor, attempting to be a Good Samaritan, calls the local police to report the “alleged” break-in. To her surprise she finds out the next day that the two men “allegedly” breaking in were the resident of the home and a person driving him home that night. Now enter the officer on duty responding to the call of an alleged break-in. To make the situation more combustible, let’s say the officer is white.

This very situation took place at 17 Ware St. in Cambridge, MA. The resulting conversation between the office and “alleged” break-in artist spawned a flurry of headlines and accusations of racism on the part of the officer.

LA Times headline – “Henry Louis Gates Jr. arrested. Seriously, Cambridge?”

Boston Herald – “Al Sharpton rips Cambridge cops”

Associated Press – “Black scholar’s arrest raises profiling questions.”

ABC News – “Prominent Black Scholar Arrested After Racism Charge”

Boston Globe – “Racial talk swirls with Gates arrest”

Funny how the media focuses on the allegations made by the man arrested and not on the particular situation at hand. According to the police report, as cited in the Boston Globe article listed above, “A visibly upset Gates responded to the officer’s assertion that he was responding to a report of a break-in with, “Why, because I’m a black man in America?”” The officer put in his report, according the Boston Globe, “Gates then turned to me and told me that I had no idea who I was ‘messing’ with and that I had not heard the last of it.”

Now why in the world does Mr. Gates feel the need to add to an already volatile situation with the “Do you know who I am” routine? The officer is responding to your home because someone in the neighborhood felt it was being broken in to. To add to the confusion to the emotional conversation, Mr. Gates responded to the officers repeated request to speak with him outside with, “Ya, I’ll speak with your mama outside” (Boston Globe.7/21/09).

S. Allen Counter is quoted in the Boston Globe as saying, “This is very disturbing that this could happen to anyone, and not just to a person of such distinction. It brings up the question of whether black males are being targeted by Cambridge police for harassment.” Really? S. Allen Counter is a Harvard Medical School professor and ought to know better than to make a statement like this. Once again, let’s look at what brought the officer to the location. Two black men were “allegedly” breaking down the front door of a home which prompted a nearby neighbor to call police to investigate.

Lawerence Bobo, a Harvard sociologist, told the Boston Globe that “Gates ‘did ask him some pointed questions, like: ‘Is this happening because you’re a white cop and I’m a black man? Is this why this interaction is still taking place?’” Bobo went on to say, “Who’s not going to feel upset and insulted when a police officer won’t accept the fact that you’re standing in your own living room?”

Gates was only arrested after he followed the officer out of the house accusing him of racism. Gates is set to be arraigned on August 26th. The Boston Globe did have the police report available on their website but took it down according to Damian Thompson of the Telegraph. Damian Thompson does speculate why the Boston Globe pulled the report by writing “It’s absolutely fascinating. It doesn’t just depict Gates playing the race card; it describes him flinging a whole pack of 52 cards at the officers” (Telegraph.co.uk, 7/21/09) Unless the report resurfaces we will have to wait until the arraignment to find out what was actually reported.

In the meantime, if an officer of the law stops you and asks you a question or two just comply. As was the case with Fong Lee, had Mr. Gates just shown the officer his ID and been compliant he would not have been handcuffed and taken to jail. Instead of showing respect for the law and being a pillar for the youth, Mr. Gates was upset because his neighbor called the police on an apparent break-in and the officer asked, perhaps demanded, for proof of residence and did not arrest Mr. Gates until he continued the verbal barrage and racial accusations upon the officer.

Rev. Wright - "Jews" control President Obama

Like the stray dog that never seems to get the hint, Rev. Jeremiah Wright is back in the headlines with his claim that “Jews” are preventing him from talking with President Obama. Rev. Wright spoke with David Squires of the Daily Press and retorted when asked if he has contacted President Obama that, “Them Jews ain’t going to let him to me. I told my baby daughter that he’ll talk to me in five years when he’s a lame duck, or in eight years when he’s out of office.”

Now while the election process was playing out last year, I contended that President Obama was a Manchurian Candidate. Rev. Wright went on to say, “once you start compromising your beliefs, you become a puppet of a political machine you are no longer yourself.” Rev. Wright asserted Jews control President Obama in light of Barak’s decision to no send a delegation to a recent world racism conference in Geneva, Switzerland. “Ethnic cleansing is going on in Gaza. Ethnic cleansing of the Zionist is a sin and a crime against humanity, and they don’t want Barack talking like that because that’s anti-Israel.” Now, who am I to argue with a man of God when he attempts to affirm my assertion of Manchurian Candidate Barack Obama?

Rev. Wright may be on the right track but then why did they allow President Obama, during his message in Cairo, demand Israel stop the natural expansion of settlements? Newport News reported a retort by Rabbi Scott Gurdin to Rev. Wright’s accusations. Rabbi Scott Gurdin said, “I want to be cautious about what I say, because I don’t want to sound like Rev. Wright. But my goodness, if a prominent Jewish person said something at a rabbinical conference that was disparaging against blacks, he (Wright) would be all over it.” There is a lot of truth to what Rabbi Gurdin states.

It is rather comical how racism and anti-anything words can be spun by certain minority groups and cannot be done by others. Perhaps Rabbi Gurdin now understands how white Americans feel and understand why many see a double standard exists. A prime example is Sotomayor’s comments about how a Latino women making a better decision than a white male. Mainstream media will not condemn either statement.

You can hear Rev. Wright comments at the link below.

http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-local_wright_0610jun10,0,7603283.story

President Obama foreign policy: Hypocrite or Savior

Today the United Nations (UN) is to start a conference on racism around the world in Europe. The goal, according to the BBC, of the UN Racism conference is to review progress “in fighting racism since a 2001 forum.” The trouble is several key players are boycotting the conference; including the United States.

The BBC reports that many “Western countries see this as a curtailment of free speech” as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is expected to speak. For the past month and a half President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have traveled across the globe in a good will tour apologizing for the actions of United States. President Obama has cloaked the apologies as means of “strengthening our hand” by reaching out to our enemies.

To boycott the UN racism conference is a bad move for a country that fought a war over slavery, saw Civil Rights leaders slain (King), and saw a historic election when Sen. Obama became for the first black President. President Obama said, repeatedly, while running for office that he’d sit down with President Ahmadinejad without preconditions. Then why does he not, or at least send a delegation, attend the UN racism conference?

President Obama continues to make mistake after mistake on foreign policy. While meeting with leaders of Americas, many criticized the President for hand shaking with foreign leaders that have spoken out against America, but President Obama missed an opportunity to re-define Democracy and the important role the United States played during the decades that surrounded World War II.

The United States for decades after World War II has been the leader of the free world, granted the past decade our leaders have failed us, and the President Obama apology tour only weakens the position of the United States by giving hope to those that wish the demise of our great country. President Obama’s administration is missing a big opportunity by boycotting the UN Conference on Racism and is a hypocrite for the reason of not attending.

Reference: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8006852.stm