Commentaries

Lessons Learned from Osama bin Laden?

President Obama announced this past Sunday evening that “al-Qaida’s leader and symbol” Osama bin Laden had been killed, “Tonight I can report to the American people and the world that the United States has conducted an operation that killed Osama bin Laden…” This is a good thing. President Obama can now fly on to the deck the USS Abraham Lincoln and stand under the “Mission Accomplished” banner that his predecessor prematurely unfurled on October 29, 2003.

It has taken the United States 10 years, over $400B, and more than 2,421 US and coalition lives to get to this point. Since those who fail to understand their history are doomed to repeat it; it is imperative that we ask what lessons that can be learned from Afghanistan as those such as Senator’s McCain (R-AZ) and Graham (R-SC) call for greater involvement in Libya and the US struggles to find common ground in Israel.

President Obama stated this past Sunday, “…the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al-Qaida — an organization headed by Osama bin Laden, which had openly declared war on the United States and was committed to killing innocents in our country and around the globe.” This is a very important point. Had members of the Bush administration paid attention 9/11 may have been avoided. As Michael Scheuer former Chief of the CIA bin Laden unit has written, “…unlike…1941 (Pearl Harbor), there was far less reason for Americans to have been surprised…in 2001…bin Laden repeatedly warned Americans-again, always in pubic –that he would incrementally increase the lethality of his attacks on U.S. interests…” The lesson here is as field intelligence officer Robert Baer wrote, when Washington does not like pieces of particular intelligence, “…it does everything in its power to discredit the messenger.” Also, Washington continues to avoid real analysis and action that would force changes in policy relating to Israel and consistent policy dealing with dictators in the Middle East.

The New York Times recently reported that as a result of the changes in Egypt, the two main Palestinian factions, Fatah and Hamas are settling their differences in order to create an interim unity government. Having Palestinians speak with one voice could pave the way for real and constructive dialogue with Israel. What do the Israelis say? “The Palestinian Authority has to choose between peace with Israel and peace with Hamas…” Instead of recognizing that peace with Hamas could lead to lasting peace with Israel, the Obama administration says that Hamas is a terrorist organization unfit for peace making.

In Libya, Sen. McCain, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has called for more military support — including arms — to the TNC rebels, even though by his own admission he does not clearly know who is backing them. This logic of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” is what led the US to train and support the Mujahideen and work with Osama bin Laden as they rebelled against the incumbent pro-Soviet Democratic Republic of Afghanistan (DRA).his is the logic that led the US to support, arm, and train Iraqi President Saddam Hussein as he fought against Iran. This is the same logic that led the US to support Hamas as it developed as an alternative to the then nationalist objectives of former Chairman Arafat’s PLO.

On Oct. 7, 2001, President George W. Bush announced the beginning of Operation Enduring Freedom against the Taliban regime and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. He stated, “On my orders, the United States military has begun strikes against al Qaeda terrorist training camps and military installations of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. These carefully targeted actions are designed to disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations, and to attack the military capability of the Taliban regime.” What does America have to show for all of this? What else did America get? America got the suspension of habeas corpus, warrantless wiretapping, a historic abuse of signing statements, and an imperial presidency.

In his closing remarks President Obama said, “The American people did not choose this fight. It came to our shores, and started with the senseless slaughter of our citizens.” That is true but what America did choose was the illegal and immoral response to the fight. After 10 years, over $400B, and more than 2,421 US and coalition lives lost, President Obama was able to kill Osama bin Laden with human intelligence sources (CIA and others), 4 helicopters, and 40 well trained Navy Seals. This is how it should have started.

President Obama also sated, “Bin Laden was not a Muslim leader; he was a mass murderer of Muslims... So his demise should be welcomed by all who believe in peace and human dignity.” Again, he was correct. Hopefully America has learned the lessons that will enable it to believe in peace and human dignity as well.

The Right to Possess Firearms; Strong Money Behind a Weak Argument

Thirty years ago on March 30, 1981, John Hinckley, Jr. attempted to assassinate President Ronald Regan in front of the Washington Hilton Hotel. Hinckley fired six rounds from a .22-caliber pistol striking the President, a Secret Service agent, a police officer — and seriously injuring then Regan administration press secretary James Brady.

In response to this senseless tragedy and in spite of still opposition from the National Rifle Association (NRA), in 1993 President Clinton signed The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act into law. The Brady Act simply requires that background checks be conducted on individuals before a firearm may be purchased from a federally licensed dealer, manufacturer or importer - unless an exception applies. Based upon FBI data, currently, 92% of Brady background checks through NICS are completed while the FBI is still on the phone with the gun dealer. In rare cases, a gun purchaser may have to wait for up to three business days if the NICS system fails to positively approve or deny his/her application to purchase a firearm. If a denial is not issued within those three days, the transfer may be completed at that time.

Over the past 30 years since the attempted assassination of President Regan and the dramatically life altering brain damage inflicted upon James Brady, America has endured numerous gun related tragedies. On April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School in Columbine, Colorado Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold murdered 13 fellow students and teachers and injured 21 others. On April 16, 2007 Seung-Hui Cho murdered 32 fellow students and others at Virginia Tec. Most recently on January 8, 2011 Jared Lee Loughner murdered 6 and injured 13 as he attempted to murder Congresswoman Gabriel Giffords in Arizona,

In spite of all of this senseless death, tragedy, and mayhem the NRA, their paid lobbying henchmen, and others continue to oppose reasonable, responsible, and necessary gun laws. They base their argument on a misguided reading of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Any one who understands the English language and punctuation recognizes that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms is in the context of a well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State. As America developed a standing army and a National Guard, the needs for a well regulated Militia went away and with it the right to keep and bear Arms.

Even if that argument does not withstand challenge, assault weapons (those designed specifically for military use, i.e. the killing of other human beings) and extended clips (such as the one used by Loughner to murder 6 and injure 13 without having to stop and reload) have no social redeeming value and should be banned.

A few years ago the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own a gun. Justice Scalia (a gun owner) wrote; self defense is a "central" constitutional right that requires the ownership of guns (specifically handguns) be permitted so that it can be fully exercised. What is important about Justice Scalia’s statement is there’s nothing in the Articles of Confederation, the minutes of the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention, or the United States Constitution itself that supports this position. In fact, the Heller decision disregards the precedent established 72 years ago in a 1939 case, United States v. Miller. As the Honorable Judge Reggie B. Walton wrote in 2004, “For more than sixty years following the Supreme Court’s decision in Miller, there was little judicial debate regarding the scope of the Second Amendment, as almost every circuit court interpreted Miller as rejecting the notion that the Second Amendment provided individuals a constitutional right to possess firearms.”

Over the past 30 years (and longer) American’s have endured the threats of the Hinckly’s, Harris and Klebold’s, Cho’s, and Loughner’s of the world (and others). It’s time for a peace loving enlightened society to do away with the public’s ability to purchase assault weapons and extended clips for handguns. Hunters don’t need them and they serve no socially redeeming value. For more than sixty years the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a personal right to possess a firearm. The NRA has placed strong money behind a constitutionally weak argument.

Did President Obama sell America on Libya?

President Obama is being criticized from all fronts for participating in the no-fly zone over Libya. Both sides of the political spectrum are asking if the humanitarian goals are a cover for regime change. How much will this cost? Who will pay for it? What’s the objective and end game? What are the long-term implications in the region? Supporters and detractors have been demanding an explanation to what appears to be a very contradictory policy.

This past Monday evening President Obama delivered a very well written and thought through explanation of why he authorized the use of US military resources to “establish a No Fly Zone (over Libya) with our allies and partners.” Did President Obama sell America on his actions in Libya? Yes, for now.

By putting this complex problem in the context of a humanitarian effort on one hand while addressing the removal of President Gaddafi “through non-military means” on the other, President Obama was able to strike a very fine balance. “Gaddafi declared that he would show “no mercy” to his own people. He compared them to rats, and threatened to go door to door to inflict punishment.” President Obama went on to say, “Of course, there is no question that Libya – and the world – will be better off with Gaddafi out of power. I, along with many other world leaders, have embraced that goal, and will actively pursue it through non-military means. But broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake.”

President Obama has taken this action within the context of past American failures to act. He stated, “We knew that if we waited one more day, Benghazi – a city nearly the size of Charlotte – could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.” President Obama is not going to make the mistake of inaction in Libya that his predecessor, President Clinton, made in Rwanda.

In striking this fine balance the President failed to address some very obvious contradictions in US foreign policy. He stated, “For more than four decades, the Libyan people have been ruled by a tyrant – Moammar Gaddafi. He has … murdered opponents at home and abroad, and terrorized innocent people around the world – including Americans who were killed by Libyan agents.” If this is true, why was Gaddafi welcomed back into the brotherhood of nations with France and the US leading the parade? In 2009 alone European governments sold Libya more than $470 million worth of weapons and just before this latest dust-up the Obama administration was working to provide Gaddafi another $77 million of weapons on top of the $17 million provided in 2009 and the $46 million the Bush administration provided in 2008.

The President stated, “In the face of the world’s condemnation, Gaddafi chose to escalate his attacks, launching a military campaign against the Libyan people. Innocent people were targeted for killing... Military jets and helicopter gunships were unleashed upon people who had no means to defend themselves against assault from the air.” If, “It was not in our national interest to let that happen. I refused to let that happen.” Why was it in America’s national interest to allow King Kalifia of Bahrain to murder peaceful protesters in Pearl Square and why is the Obama administration through its inaction allowing the Israeli government to attack Palestinians with weapons purchased from the US? Are the people in Bahrain and Palestine any less human than Libyans?

As it stands today, the rebels in Libya appear to have gained significant ground, Gaddafi's forces appear to be in retreat and the US intervened with the backing of Arab League and other entities. But, who are the rebels? If Gaddafi leaves or is removed from power what will happen then, full scale civil war? Will the Arab League support a protracted military endeavor? In Iraq, the US thought the opposition could run the country and was wrong. In Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai can barely control Kabul.

President Obama has articulated his reasons for supporting the no-fly zone over Libya. Did he successfully sell his decision to commit US resources to the international coalition? Yes he did in the limited manner in which they were presented. The real questions going forward are, for how long and to what end?

Wisconsin, a State Approach to a National Agenda

For the past few weeks Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has been trying to sell his state budget proposal as a “reform budget”. Walker, a Republican has claims that Wisconsin is broke and he needs concessions from its public sector employees in order to balance the budget, "I don't have anything to negotiate …We are broke in this state. We have been broke for years." He also wants to end collective bargaining for nearly all public employees saying that there's no point negotiating with the unions when there is nothing to offer.

According to state Senate Democratic Leader Mark Miller, “unions have agreed to accept the increased costs for their members (for health care and pension contributions) if Walker drops the limits on collective bargaining.” For some reason, “yes” on the cost issues is not good enough for Gov. Walker.

Walker’s approach is part of a larger national Republican effort to curtail the power of unions. In Indiana, Ohio, Tennessee, and other states, legislatures are attempting to rewrite laws this that gave public empolyees the right to bargain collectively.

This is also part of the conservative “starve the beast” fiscal political strategy. By creating or increasing existing budget deficits via tax cuts they create a narrative supporting future reductions in the size of government. Economist Paul Krugman summarized the strategy in February 2010: "Rather than proposing unpopular spending cuts, Republicans would push through popular tax cuts, with the deliberate intention of worsening the government’s fiscal position. Spending cuts could then be sold as a necessity rather than a choice, the only way to eliminate an unsustainable budget deficit. They break unions and balance the budget by cutting or eliminating social programs that benefit the poor, working and middle-class’ in America.

It is important to understand the role that unions have played in the American workforce; the making of the middle-class, and the African American middle class. There are many benefits that Americans now take for granted that resulted from collective bargaining such as the end of child labor, the 8 hour work day and paid overtime, compensation for workers injured on the job, unemployment and health insurance, and the minimum wage; just to name a few. All of these benefits have come at a financial cost to impacting the bottom line.

These union issues will have a disproportionate impact on African Americans. A recent labor study conducted by University of California-Berkley, found one in five African-American workers are employed in public sector jobs, versus one in six white workers. African Americans are 30 percent more likely to hold such jobs than whites. For black men, the public sector—everything from police officers and firefighters to sanitation workers and government clerks—is the largest employer, providing 18 percent of jobs. For black women, it’s the No. 2 employer, accounting for 23.3 percent of jobs. Also, public sector unionized employees are more likely to support Democratic candidates.

This is not a new debate, as far back as 1936, President Roosevelt warned America of the battle with corporatists, “We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace—business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering… we will continue every effort to end monopoly in business, to support collective bargaining, to stop unfair competition, to abolish dishonorable trade practices. For all these we have only just begun to fight.” That circumstance was real in 1936 and it is what America is facing in 2011.

President Obama should find strength in the words of his predecessor Theodore Roosevelt, “Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred…today there is only one entrance to the White House—by the front door…there has been only one pass-key to the White House. I have carried that key in my pocket. It is there tonight. So long as I am President, it will remain in my pocket.

It is imperative that American people understand the history of this conflict and it’s root causes. This is an attempt by conservatives to redistribute wealth in America from the bottom up. Krugman was correct when he wrote, "Republicans insist that the deficit must be eliminated, but they’re not willing either to raise taxes or to support cuts in any major government programs. And they’re not willing to participate in serious bipartisan discussions, either, because that might force them to explain their plan — and there isn’t any plan, except to regain power."

Egypt, America Hears You, but is it Listening?

For the past few weeks Americans have watched along with the rest of the world as events in Egypt continue to unfold. Americans have listened intently as President Obama has spoken in very nuanced terms about how he would like Egyptian President Mubarak to proceed. Last week he stated, “I spoke directly to President Mubarak… What is clear -- and what I indicated tonight to President Mubarak -- is my belief that an orderly transition must be meaningful, it must be peaceful, and it must begin now.” He went on to say, “To the people of Egypt, particularly the young people of Egypt, I want to be clear: We hear your voices.” President Obama hears them but is he listening?

According to Bloomburg, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has stated. “…her knowledge of the Egyptian constitution suggested that an orderly transfer of power, allowing time for constitutional changes …would be easier if Mubarak stays in office during the transition.” Her timeline appears to be in conflict with President Obama’s nuanced statement and the wishes of the Egyptian people.

What is clear to most observers is that the millions of pro-democracy protesters streaming into Tahrir Square in Cairo each day and the hundreds of thousands of pro-democracy protesters in cities like Alexandria and Suez are not concerned with constitutional transference of power. They want Mubarak to step down immediately.

To add even more confusion to the American message, former US Ambassador to Egypt and the Obama Administration's special envoy to the Egyptian government Frank Wisner has stated "President Mubarak's continued leadership is critical: it's his opportunity to write his own legacy." In response to Wisner’s comments Secretary of State Clinton has stated his comments were made in a "personal capacity". Clinton told NPR, "…he (Wisner) does not speak for the American government…He does not reflect our policies…” If Wisner does not reflect U.S. polices, why was he sent as the “special envoy” and who’s policy is he reflecting?

This week, according to the L.A. Times, the Obama administration, “… has dampened the sense of urgency and aligned itself with power-brokers such as new Vice President Omar Suleiman, who are urging a more stable, if much slower, move to real democracy.” Since 1993 Suleiman has headed the Egyptian intelligence service, Egypt’s equivalent to the C.I.A. Why such mixed messages? Who’s interests, the Egyptian people or the “power brokers”, are really in play here?

There are some very important facts that mainstream American media is failing to place into context. First, the current events in Egypt are not a result of recent events in Tunisia. Since 1998, Egyptian workers have participated in thousands of work stoppages, factory occupations, and other industrial actions. Workers are striking and others are protesting a deterioration of their standard of living. The Egyptian middle and working classes have been disproportionately impacted by skyrocketing inflation, depressed wages, and food shortages.

Second, many American analysts continue to put this revolution in the non-secular context of the Muslim Brotherhood. This is not a choice between the dictator de jure and Muslin extremists. Seventy-five percent of the unemployed in Egypt are below the age of 30 and of those educated with at least an undergraduate degree; the unemployment rate is thirty percent. High unemployment, inflation, depressed wages, and shortages of food will bring about revolution in any society.

Now, why the mixed messages from the Obama administration? Who’s interests are really at stake? Start with U.S. special envoy Wisner. According to Source Watch, “…he is the son of Frank Wisner Sr., senior CIA official (from 1947 until his suicide in 1965) who was involved in the overthrow of Arbenz of Guatemala (1954) and Mossadeq of Iran (1953).” According to The Independent, currently Wisner Jr. works for, “…the litigation firm Patton Boggs, which openly boasts that it advises "the Egyptian military, the Egyptian Economic Development Agency, and has handled arbitrations and litigation on the [Mubarak] government's behalf in Europe and the US".” As Mrs. Clinton stated, Wisner’s comments were made in a "personal capacity" but that does not mean he was not truly reflecting administration sentiments.

Newly appointed Vice President Suleiman is no champion of civil rights and civil liberties. According to The New Yorker, Suleiman “…was the C.I.A.’s point man in Egypt for renditions—the covert program in which the C.I.A. snatched terror suspects from around the world and returned them to Egypt and elsewhere for interrogation, often under brutal circumstances.” Many consider the “brutal circumstances” torture. Suleiman is now calling for an end to the protests.

Why the mixed messages from the Obama administration? As President Obama hears the voices of the young Egyptians, he is listening to and protecting the interests of autocratic regimes in the region. Netanyahu in Israel, Abdullah in Saudi Arabia, Abdullah II in Jordan, and the C.I.A. all need President Obama to support Mubarak and maintain the status quo. Administrations spokesman Robert Gibbs stated, “…this is about a process. It’s not about a personality.” It is about process; the process of policy. The process of continuing to support autocratic regimes; billions of dollars of military aid that are funneled back to American companies; and the support of Israel.

Once again mainstream American media is not acting as the “fourth estate,” the independent societal and political force that helps the electorate keep a check on government. It is failing to provide the American people with the proper level of insight and analysis. It is not connecting the dots.

Yes, President Obama hears the voices of the young Egyptians but he’s listening to and catering to the autocrats and corporate interests that have allowed Mubarak (and Suleiman) to oppress the Egyptian people for the past 30 years.

Black Farmers Ongoing Struggle for Justice

In 1997, Timothy Pigford and 400 other African American farmers filed suit against the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) for discrimination, Pigford v. Glickman or Pigford I. They alleged that the USDA treated black farmers unfairly when deciding to allocate loans and subsidies. For example, the USDA on average took more than 380 days to process a loan application from an African American farmer while processing an application from a white farmer in less than 30. Also, the top ten percent of corporate and white farmers received on average $1M per year in farm subsidies while African American farmers received on average $200.

On April 14, 1999, Judge Paul Freidman approved a settlement agreement and consent decree in Pigford I. The consent decree established a two-track dispute resolution process (Track A and Track B) for farmers seeking relief. Track A provided a monetary settlement of up to $50K plus relief in the form of loan forgiveness and tax liability. Track B allowed those seeking actual damages to pursue relief provided they could meet a higher standard of proof by supporting their claims by a preponderance of the evidence.

According to the Congressional Research Service, “The deadline for submitting a claim as a class member was September 12, 2000. A court appointed Oregon based facilitator, (Poorman-Douglas Corporation) was selected to notify known and potential members of the class that a settlement had been reached, to receive and screen potential class members' claims to determine whether they met the class definition, and to assign the claims to the adjudicator and arbitrator for action.”

 Poorman-Douglas’ core business is software development not claims administration.  As a result of their inexperience in necessary processes compounded by their geographical distance and unfamiliarity with the affected class; more than 70,000 African American farmers were not notified in a timely manner of the Pigford I settlement.  Failure to notify all of the potential claimants and not allowing those affected individuals to file timely claims resulted in the need for the Pigford II case.

Over 25,000 additional African American farmers were certified as a new class of litigants, Pigford II.  On February 18, 2010, Attorney General Holder announced an additional $1.25B settlement in the case of Pigford II.  Under Pigford II, claimants can seek Track A payments up to $50K plus debt relief, or pursue Track B payments for damages up to $250,000.

As the court works through the final details of what has become the Pigford II settlement Epiq/ Poorman Douglas’ (formally Poorman-Douglas) is again being considered as the Claims Administrator. This is causing great concern among the Pigford II claimants. Also, no minority businesses have been provided the opportunity to participate in the processing or administration of the claims process. Why is the company that dropped the ball in Pigford I being considered for a second opportunity in Pigford II?

Also, why are individuals such as Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) calling for hearings to investigate these settlements after they have been adjudicated in US Courts and stating the Pigford settlement “is full of fraud” and “amounts to paying reparations to black farmers in America. We don’t do reparations in America.” There is absolutely no proof that any “fraud” has been found in claims submitted in Pigford I and no claim’s have even been submitted as a result of Pigford II. Why should African American farmers be treated any differently than the Native Americans in the Cobell case who were awarded $3.4 billion over claims that they were cheated out of royalties overseen by the Interior Department for resources like oil, gas and timber.

It is important to understand that redress under Pigford I or II does not make the victims whole. These remedies merely allow the impacted farmers to walk away from these cases of government sanctioned discrimination with some sense of redress.

If Rep. King is correct and “We don’t do reparations in America,” why did President Reagan sign The Civil Liberties Act of 1988 to redress $20,000 to Japanese American detainees for damages caused for wrongful interment during WWII? Also, in 1992, an additional $400 million was awarded Japanese American detainees and George H. Bush issued another public apology in accordance with the amendment to the act.

Why do members of Congress continue to treat African Americans in a different manner than other Americans? The same mentality that caused the problems for African American farmers with the USDA is now impacting their ability to expeditiously administer the court sanctioned remedy. Failing to allow competent minority owned businesses that are tied to the affected areas and can relate to the affected class to participate in the management and administration of the Pigford claims would be an additional slap in the face to the African American community above and beyond what has been done to America’s Black Farmers.

Even while celebrating their victory in court, America’s Black farmers struggle for justice.

The Hate that Hate Filled Dialogue Produces

While conducting a town hall meeting in Tucson, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) was shot in the head Saturday. She struggles for her life in an Arizona hospital. Giffords was among 13 people wounded in the melee that killed six, including Arizona's chief federal judge, a 9-year-old girl and an aide for the Democratic lawmaker. The country prays for the recovery of the individuals who were wounded and morns the loss of those who have died.

It has been reported that the attack was carried out by 22 year old Jared Loughner. His motivations are unclear at this time. Officials are looking at his MySpace page, YouTube videos, and other web postings looking for a motive. Some postings indicate Loughner is a very troubled individual. He posted the following on YouTube, "I know who's listening: Government Officials, and the People…Nearly all the people, who don't know this accurate information of a new currency, aren't aware of mind control and brainwash methods ..."

There is no nexus or direct connection between Loughner’s attack and the inaccurate, hateful, and inflammatory language that is being accepted as responsible political dialogue. One can not deny that anti-government and anti-Obama rhetoric contribute to a dangerous undercurrent in treacherous political waters?

Let’s be very clear, this is not the first time deranged Americans have lashed out against the social order. Most recently, in 1995 Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, and Michael Fortier bombed the Murrah building in Oklahoma City killing 168 and wounding 450. Anti-abortion violence killed Dr. David Gunn in Florida in 1993 and Dr. Barrett Slepian was murdered in his home in New York in 1998. The difference today is that seemingly responsible politicians and political commentators are contributing to this problem by injecting irresponsible hateful political diatribes into the political discourse?

This is not a First Amendment “free speech” issue. This is a matter of responsible Americans demanding a higher standard of dialogue and holding individuals accountable for the inflammatory fear mongering diatribes that have become accepted as legitimate political speech.

Former GOP VP nominee and former Alaska Governor, Sarah Palin posted a map on her Facebook page that used gun sights to indicate congressional seats that her PAC was “targeting” for the mid-term elections. Coincidentally, Palin listed Congresswoman Giffords seat as one of the top “targets” because of her support for health care reform. Palin regularly calls for her supporters to “Reload!” during her speeches. There’s no evidence that Loughner ever saw this site or heard a Palin speech but we know that sick individuals like Loughner thrive like bacteria in environment of political hatred.

Palin also tweeted her endorsement of an article by Thomas Sowell that compares President Obama to Hitler. She also argued that President Obama's establishment of a BP escrow fund could result in his administration embracing Nazi-like dictatorial powers. Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) has made similar Hitler - Obama comparisons.

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Mike Huckabee have called President Obama a socialist. To call President Obama a socialist or compare his actions to those of Adolph Hitler is inaccurate, irresponsible, and dangerous.

At the Tea Party “code red” rally against health care reform in Washington, protesters carried signs stating “Warning: If Brown can’t stop it, a Browning can,” referring to Sen. Scott Brown’s (R-MA) health care vote and a Browning firearm. On Saturday, March 20, 2010 as Rep’s. John Lewis (D-GA) and Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) were leaving the Cannon office building they encountered members of the Tea Party protesting the health care reform bill. As the protesters exchanged words with the Congressmen, some of the protestors called them a “nigger” and spat upon them. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) was called a “faggot”.

Republican leadership has refused to repudiate and disassociate themselves from the dangerous and incendiary comments of their surrogates. Instead, they seek to improve their political position by riding the wave of anger caused by fear and prejudice. They have been conspicuously silent for too long. Through their silence they are betraying America.

By allowing threats of violence to become an accepted form of political persuasion violence is becoming part of our political reality; the hate that hate filled dialog produces.

As Dr. King once said, “We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people.”

When is Ones Debt to Society Never Paid?

Recently President Obama called Jeffrey Lurie the owner of the Philadelphia Eagles football team to praise them for giving Michael Vick a second chance to play professional football. Vick joined the Eagles last year after being released from federal prison on charges related to a dog fighting ring. This season Vick has made the most of his opportunity becoming the Eagles starting quarterback and leading the NFL in a number of categories. He also works with the Humane Society of the United States on its anti-dog fighting campaign.

White House spokesman Bill Burton provided the following statement:

"The president did place a call to Mr. Lurie to discuss plans for the use of alternative energy at Lincoln Financial Field, during which they spoke about that and other issues. He of course condemns the crimes that Michael Vick was convicted of but, as he's said previously, he does think that individuals who have paid for their crimes should have an opportunity to contribute to society again."

Last week in response to the presidents call to Lurie, political commentator Tucker Carlson told a Fox News panel that not only is Michael Vick undeserving of a second chance, he should have been executed. Carlson said:

"I'm a Christian, I've made mistakes myself, I believe fervently in second chances. But Michael Vick killed dogs, and he did in a heartless and cruel way. And I think, personally, he should've been executed for that. He wasn't, but the idea that the President of the United States would be getting behind someone who murdered dogs? Kind of beyond the pale.” Carlson’s comments beg the question, when is one’s debt to society never paid?

This is another example of the neo-conservative propaganda outlet Fox, distorting the truth in order to further its own divisive political agenda. Remember the Fox Nation headline “President of the United States Loves Gansta Rap” with photos of tattoo laden Nas and Lil’ Wayne thrown in for “flava” after the president acknowledged an appreciation of rap music? This is not too subtle code language that “deracialized” President Obama has another link to the Black community and this is something to fear.

It is important to understand that President Obama did not “get behind” Michael Vick.

Carlson conveniently ignored Burton saying that the president, “… of course condemns the crimes that Michael Vick was convicted…” The president did get behind the idea that motivated the Quakers to construct America’s first penitentiary, the Walnut Street institution (ironically in Philadelphia) in 1790. The idea that reformation and deterrence could be accomplished through penance and hard labor (hence the word penitentiary) and through this process an individual could be reformed and returned as a productive member of society.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, as of 2009 there were 7,225,800 adults under correctional supervision in the United States. Correctional supervision includes adults supervised in the community on probation or parole and those incarcerated in prison or local jails. African American adults are four times as likely as Whites to be under correctional control. Almost 9.2 percent of African American adults were under correctional supervision in 2009.

As the nation is plagued by an unemployment rate of 9.8 percent and a national unemployment rate for African Americans of 16.6 percent it is important to understand the special needs of those with criminal records when it comes to finding gainful employment. The president should be applauded for recognizing the fact that “individuals who have paid for their crimes should have an opportunity to contribute to society again.” Unfortunately, in the minds of too many reactionary neo-conservatives when it comes to President Obama; even when he’s right, he’s wrong.

In spite of the fact that Michael Vick was convicted and sentenced in a court of law; went to prison and served his time; Tucker “the Christian” Carlson does not believe in forgiveness and redemption. In fact, he believes that a human should loose their life for killing animals “in a heartless and cruel way”.

As a self-proclaimed Christian who has made mistakes and fervently believes in second chances, Carlson should actually attempt to follow the teachings of his Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Matt. 7:1 "Do not judge, or you too will be judged." Colossians 3:13 “Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you.”

As long as neo-conservatives divisive political contradictions are grounded in a fear of race, in their eyes, some people can never be forgiven and their debts to society never paid.

Salvaging a Lost Cause; Haley Barbour’s Revisionist History

In a recent article in the Weekly Standard entitled “The Boy from Yazoo City”, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, chairman of the Republican Governors Association “RGA”, and a potential 2012 Republican presidential candidate, waxed nostalgic about Citizens Councils and Yazoo City’s ability to integrate public schools in the 1970’s.

When asked how Yazoo City was able to integrate Barbour said, “Because the business community wouldn’t stand for it ...You heard of the Citizens Councils? Up north they think it was like the KKK. Where I come from it was an organization of town leaders. In Yazoo City they passed a resolution that said anybody who started a chapter of the Klan would get their ass run out of town. If you had a job, you’d lose it. If you had a store, they’d see nobody shopped there. We didn’t have a problem with the Klan in Yazoo City.”

Technically, Barbour is correct. Citizens Councils were an organization of town leaders; they may well have passed anti-Klan resolutions, and there may not have been a problem with the Klan in Yazoo City. This in no way supports Barbour’s unstated premise that some how the Citizens Council in Yazoo City was racially tolerant when it came to integration, voting rights, or the Civil Rights Movement. The racial sentiment in Yazoo City, MS was similar to that in other Mississippi Delta region cities such as Money (where Emmett Till was murdered), Sumner (where Till’s accused murder’s were acquitted), and Jackson (where Medgar Evers was assassinated). Barbour’s feeble attempt to salvage the lost cause of White Supremacy by revising history is a preemptive strike against those who will rightfully question his background if he decides to run for president.

For the record, according to the Thernstrom’s America in Black and White the first Citizens’ Councils of America chapter (initially the White Citizen’s Council) was established in1954 in Indianola, MS in response to the Brown decision. A pamphlet written by Mississippi Judge Tom Brady entitled Black Monday denounced the Brown decision and played to the “obsessive sexual fear” that integration triggered in the South. Integrated schools were perceived to be a threat to White children and womanhood.

To combat this threat Brady proposed the formation of a new organization to resist racial change, less violent and more respectable than the Ku Klux Klan. He thought this respectability would attract a broader following. From this the grassroots organization was founded. What is important to note and contrary to Barbour’s romanticized account is, according to the Thernstrom’s, “The Councils were as committed to white supremacy as the KKK but less crude in their methods.” Others such as the Montgomery Advertiser called them “manicured Ku Klux Klans”. In his book, Away Down South historian James Cobb describes White Southern reaction to racial tensions after WW II, “…as battalions of hostile whites rallied to the Citizen’s Council, the Ku Klux Klan, and other less organized but no less menacing efforts to repulse northern “outside agitators” bent on destroying the “southern way of life.”’

In the same article Barbour describes the political mindset of his parents and his upbringing, “We were Eastland Democrats,” This is another very important point. James O. Eastland, the long-serving U.S. senator from MS was a committed segregationist. According to noted King biographer Taylor Branch, as chairman of Judiciary committee, “James Eastland of Mississippi had killed all but one of the 121 civil rights measures over the past decade (1950s). Barbour by his own admission was raised by segregationists.

Lest we forget, it was Barbour contemporary Trent Lott, former Senator from Mississippi who attempted to re-write the legacy of staunch segregationist Senator Strom Thurmond (R-SC) by saying, the United States would have avoided "all these problems" if then-segregationist Strom Thurmond had been elected president in 1948. Lott was also a frequent speaker at meetings of the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC), once telling its members they "stand for the right principles and the right philosophy …" The CCC is the successor organization of the White Citizen’s Council.

Whether it’s Lott’s “all these problems”; Tancredo’s “we want our country back”; George Wallace’s, “And I'll tell you here and now, I will never be outniggered again,” his more infamous, “segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever…”; Sarah Palin’s reported, “Excuse me, but I don’t mess with black men.”or her reported reference to Sen. Obama defeating Sen. Clinton, “So Sambo beat the bitch!”, Haley Barbour’s failed attempt to re-write history stems from the same bigoted white supremacist ideology as the others and must be rejected as such.

As he attempts to position himself for a presidential run in 2012 or 2016, American’s must let Haley Barbour, the Tea Party, and other conservatives with similar ideology and sentiments know that there is no place in the American political discourse for such sentiment. It’s up to those of us who know the history to publicly speak to and renounce those who attempt to distort it. It’s “our-story” not his.

Post Mid-Term Elections, Where’s the Common Ground?

As a result of the mid-term elections, Republicans will take control of the House of Representatives while Democrats retain control of the Senate. House Speaker-to-be Boehner (R-OH) has pledged to “...listen to the American people and to focus on their priorities."

Republicans have indicated that one of their first orders of business will be to repeal and replace the Obama Administrations health care bill. This comes as no surprise as they have always tied the defeat of health care reform to the demise of the president. In July of last year, Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) stated, "If we’re able to stop Obama on this it will be his Waterloo. It will break him…"

President Obama stated in his press conference last Wednesday, “I told John Boehner and Mitch McConnell last night, I am very eager to sit down with members of both parties and figure out how we can move forward together,…" The challenge for this president will be to find common ground with a group of people who oppose him for who he is not what he stands for. How does the president work with this new crop of conservatives whose ire has been focused as much on race and ethnicity as pubic policy?

For too many in this country, President Obama’s deracialized race-neutral politics has been something to fear. He has been caricatured in racist cartoons. The New York Post published a cartoon drawn by famed cartoonist Sean Delonas, depicting two white police officers killing a chimpanzee. One of the police officers says to the other, "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill." The July 21, 2008 cover of The New Yorker magazine played to the stereotypes of the day with an incredibly insensitive and irresponsible caricature of Senator Obama and his wife Michelle. The caricature had a burning flag, Senator Obama in Islamic garb, Michelle Obama with an Afro and an AK 47 and the two of them doing the fist bump with a photo of Osama bin Laden on the wall.

Recently in an interview with National Review’s Robert Costa former House speaker Newt Gingrich said, “What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]? Again, not so subtle code language playing to the fear of President Obama’s Kenyan heritage and to the unfounded rhetoric of the “birther” movement. Actually, anti-colonial behavior is a good thing if you are a victim of colonialism.

According to Rep. Pete King (R-NY), President Barack Obama is "probably the most threatened president ever …" Most of these threats are not because of health care reform, the stimulus bill, or the problems with Israel. There are still too many people in America that refuse to allow him to govern as The President; they will oppose him at every turn because he’s an African American who is The President.

Contrary to Boehner’s pledge to work with the president and "…listen to the American people and to focus on their priorities," the focus of Republican leadership has primarily been to resist the president at the expense of the American people. Again, the resistance is not based upon what he stands for but for who he is. They intentionally employed a “block-and-blame” strategy that left the American people with the sense that Congress was ineffective.

All Americans have benefitted from the Obama administration being able to pass has been able to pass the first minimum wage increase a decade, the largest single increase in college student aid since the GI bill, expanded health insurance coverage for a considerable number of Americans with the SCHIP program to cover health care for 4 million more children and allowing parents to keep children up to age 26 on their health insurance, instituted enforcement for equal pay for women, and passed the credit card reform act. But for some reason, according to Gallup polls in September 2010, African Americans gave President Obama a 91% average job approval rating to 36% average rating with White’s.

How does President Obama find common ground with race focused Tea Partiers and other Republicans with out alienating his base—specifically African-Americans voters who have been among his most loyal supporters?

Can President Obama find common ground with Republican leadership? I don’t know that he can. They say the first step towards recovery is admitting that you have a problem. Maybe it’s time we recognize them for what they are and call it for what it is.

A Pattern of the Politics of Compromise and Contradiction

In the wake of President Obama’s “tax compromise” with Republicans, many on the left have expressed their out-right disgust with this outcome. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) spoke for 8 hours on the floor of the Senate to protest the compromise. The “vast majority” of members of the CBC oppose the plan in its current form.

During his December 7 press conference the president addressed his “sanctimonious” Democratic critics by saying, “People will have the satisfaction of having a purist position and no victories for the American people. And we will be able to feel good about ourselves and sanctimonious about how pure our intentions are and how tough we are…” In his December 10 Op Ed entitled Memo to the Left: Hands off Obama” Colbert King wrote in response to disgruntled liberals talk of a primary challenge to the President, “If the left costs Obama his presidency in 2012, the Democratic Party as a whole will lose out.”

Message to President Obama and Mr. King, it’s not “sanctimonious” liberals fighting or the left potentially costing the President his office in 2012. Any failure in 2012 will not be attributed to “sabotage” of “the nation’s first black president” as Mr. King writes, it will be attributed to President Obama abandoning his base as he engages in the politics of compromise and contradiction. Here are a few examples:

In June of 2009 while speaking to the American Medical Association about health care options, President Obama said, “…one of these options needs to be a public option that will give people a broader range of choices and inject competition into the health care market…” In July of 2009 during his Weekly Address on Health Care Reform he stated, “…any plan” he signs “must include…a public option.” After “input” from pharmaceutical industry lobbyists’ such as Billy Tauzin, president and CEO of PhRMA and health insurance industry lobbyist’s such as Karen Ignagni, president, American Health Insurance Plans, President Obama dropped his support for the “public option” and the importation of lower cost drugs from Canada in order to get the deal done.

Many experts attribute Goldman Sachs’ collateralized debt obligations, or CDOs, which had been insured with AIG with contributing to or exacerbating the economic recession. During the 2010 mid-term campaign, President Obama used the analogy of a car being driven into a ditch to describe the Republicans control of government leading to the economic recession and their current tax proposals, “You had a group of folks who drove the economy, drove the country, drove our car into the ditch…”

The contradiction here is that there are seven former Goldman Sachs employees currently working within the Obama administration including Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geitner; Dianna Farrell, Deputy Director, National Economic Council; and Gary Gensler, Commissioner, Commodity Futures Trading Commission. According to McClatchy newspapers, the 2008 Obama presidential campaign received $994,795 in contributions from Goldman employees. “Lawrence Jacobs, a University of Minnesota political scientist, said that "almost everything that the White House has done has been haunted by the personnel and the money of Goldman . . . as well as the suspicion that the White House, particularly early on, was pulling its punches out of deference to Goldman and its war chest.” I guess some economic ditches are more preferable than others.

One of the ways President Obama planned to pay for health care reform was with the revenues that would be generated from not extending the Bush-era tax cuts. During the mid-term campaign in September President Obama said, "This isn't to punish folks who are better off, God bless them…It's because we can't afford the $700bn price tag..."

In November senior advisor David Axelrod floated the trial balloon of a compromise by suggesting that the administration would back a temporary extension of the current tax rates for the wealthy. President Obama denied those statements and said Axelrod’s comments were “misinterpreted”. Obviously, Axelrod was the harbinger of things to come.

For President Obama to now say that he felt “… the middle-class tax cuts were being held hostage to the high-end tax cuts. I think it’s tempting not to negotiate with hostage-takers, unless the hostage gets harmed…” fails to take into account that real hostage negotiators don’t fold when hostage-takers look to harm the hostages. They allow the snipers to “take the shot” and eliminate the hostage-takers or they send in the commandos to free them. President Obama did neither.

The President’s problems with his base are of his own making. It’s becoming increasingly more difficult to recognize what he stands for. The left is battling to get the president to fight to keep his campaign commitments and do what they elected him do. President Obama appears to be abandoning his base as he engages in the politics of compromise and contradiction.

Black Republicans in 2010, Symbolism vs. Practical Politics

In the wake the election of President Obama a number of analysts and pundits have been calling the 2010 mid-term elections the “year of the Black Republican”. According to the New York Times, “… at least 32 African-Americans are running for Congress this year as Republicans,” and they “… are running with a confidence they have never had before.”

Many of them such as congressional candidates Vernon Parker in Arizona and Princella Smith in Arkansas feel that President Obama’s victory has made it possible for them to run in their respective districts but they disagree with his politics. Ideologically, many are Christian conservatives calling for smaller government, less spending and stronger national security. According to Smith, “Aside from the fact that I disagree fundamentally with all his views, I am proud of my nation for proving that we have the ability to do something like that…”

These candidates feel empowered by the success of President Obama. The historic symbolism of his election is resonating across various strata’s of this country. The practical viability of their candidacies has more to do with their politics than symbolism. As Black Republicans what policy initiatives are they championing within the party that will improve the lives of African American people?

The last question would not normally be an issue except for the fact that many of these individuals label themselves as “Black Republicans” as an inducement to raise funds and fill a specific niche within the Republican party while deracializing their politics when they are asked to be accountable to the African American community for the ultra-conservative ideology they espouse. For example, on the web site of a prominent Black Republican web site The Frederick Douglas Foundation, the core pillars of the foundation as stated are “"We are Devoted Christians - Proud Black Americans – Active Republicans”. They obviously don’t understand the substantive differences between a Lincoln Republican and a Reagan Republican, “actionary” vs. reactionary.

So far, 2010 has turned out like 1994 and 2000, the other years of the “Black Republican”; not so well. Princella Smith lost her bid for the Republican nomination in Arkansas with only 32% of the vote. In Alabama, Les Phillip lost his bid getting 16% of the vote. In North Carolina, both Black conservatives Jerry Grimes and Lou Huddleston were also soundly defeated.

All too often pundits and politicians demonstrate their ignorance of the African American experience by trying to assign simplistic answers to very complex problems, events, and circumstances. This usually results in African Americans and their politics being viewed as devoid of substance, myopic, shallow, and emotional; when in fact, Black politics is policy focused and born out of a people’s historical experience. For example, the RNC believed that significant numbers of African Americans would register as Republicans if the party chair were African American.

During his acceptance speech as RNC Chairman, Michael Steele promised, “it's time for something completely different, and we're gonna’ bring it to them.” Well Chairman Steele, what substantive policy initiatives have you and most of your cadre’ of conservatives brought to the African American community?

The party offers less government to a constituency that needed its government to help end slavery, Jim Crow, desegregate schools, integrate the armed services, and pass Civil Rights legislation? In a time of record unemployment in the African American community, disproportionate incarceration rates, predatory lending, and racial profiling, the African American community needs more affirmative action by its government, not less.

The party offers less government spending to a constituency that needed its government to invest in Head Start, Medicare, Medicaid, and other social programs. In these stark economic times this country needs an increase in government spending for more SBA loans, access to capital, extensions of unemployment benefits, PELL grants, and job training?

The party proposes more government spending on defense than social programs? Dr. King once said, “A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom.”

According to the New York Times, Allen West, a Black Republican candidate for Congress in Florida said, “I ran in 2008 and raised half a million dollars, and the state party didn’t support me and the national party didn’t support me, …” Today he says that things look great.

Many Black Republicans continue to fail like their predecessors in 1994 and 2000. Today, more of them are being supported by the party but still fall short at the polls. They can’t sell the message in the African American community because it’s antithetical to the African American experience and too many White conservatives like the message but won’t buy the messenger.

It is imperative that African Americans wield power in both parties but power is demonstrated by substantive policy output. These candidates need to move away from rhetoric and symbolism to practical substantive politics and policy.

Is Middle-Class America Exhausted from Defending President Obama?

On Monday while at the “Investing in America” town hall meeting to discuss the state of the American economy an African American woman, self described middle-class veteran and CFO of a veteran’s service organization told President Obama:

"Quite frankly, I'm exhausted. I'm exhausted of defending you, defending your administration, defending the mantle of change that I voted for, and deeply disappointed with where we are right now. I have been told that I voted for a man who said he was going to change things in a meaningful way for the middle class. I'm one of those people. And I'm waiting, sir. I'm waiting. I -- I don't feel it yet ... Is this my new reality?"

Is this the bellwether for the Obama administration from his base of middle-class America and African American’s as well? Too many have been asking “where’s the beef?”

Amidst recent U.S. Census Bureau numbers showing income, poverty, and health insurance coverage in the United States for 2009 going in the wrong directions, and mid-term elections in November, the Obama administration is facing real challenges. The median household income in the US was $49,777; for White’s $51,861 (down -0.5% from 2008) and Black’s $32,584 (down -4.4% from 2008). In 2009 43.6 million people or 14.3 % were in poverty up from 39.8 million or 13.2% in 2008. This is the largest number in 51 years for which poverty numbers are available. Of this, in 2009 12.3% or 29.8 million are White and 25.8% or 9.9 million are Black.

According to the most recent Rasmussen poll numbers, “26% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-five percent (45%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -19”. According to recent Gallup numbers, “President Obama's job approval rating averaged 88% among blacks and 38% among whites in July, a 50-percentage-point difference that has been consistent in recent months…”

The African American self-described middle-class questioner’s premise appeared to be based more on economic circumstance than race. Also, she did not indicate that she would not continue to support President Obama. In the midst’s of her frustration she demonstrated patience, “I'm waiting. I -- I don't feel it yet ... Is this my new reality?”

It is obvious that based upon the U.S. Census numbers regarding income and poverty as well as recent Rasmussen and Gallup poll numbers that the nations eroding economic circumstance is impacting the public’s perception of the president’s job performance. That notwithstanding, contrary to misperceptions about blind racial allegiance, there are a number of reasons that African Americans remain solidly behind President Obama.

First, in terms of party affiliation and votes cast, African Americans have remained a sold democratic voting block since the election of President Roosevelt in 1932. Second, in today’s partisan political landscape, the Republican’s failure to provide African American’s any substantive policy options is not providing most African American’s any reason to shift. Also, unfounded bias and bigoted attacks by conservatives such as former House speaker Gingrich and Dinesh D’Souza, validate the perception that the Republican Party does not welcome independent minded people of color. According to Gingrich, “What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions] …That is the most accurate, predictive model for his behavior.” Statement’s such as these will not win many friends or positively influence people.

Even with that being true, it must be noted and understood by President Obama and his advisors that he will begin to loose significant support within the African American community if he and the Democratic Party do not begin to target much needed relief to the community. They have it wrong when they say to help White America will help Black America. “Trickle-Down Economics” failed during the Reagan administration and will fail today. A rising tide may lift all boats but will not lift them equally. To help Black America will help White America. Long-term success must come from the bottom up, not the top down.

Yes, Barack Obama is the president of all of America but the greatest amount of resources and effort must be “targeted” and focused like a laser into the areas of greatest need. Efforts to target America’s urban centers that are suffering disproportionately from unemployment, underemployment, poor quality public education, and poverty will help all of America.

The African American self-described middle-class questioner’s premise appeared to be based more on economic circumstance than race. This could be a bellwether for the Obama administration from his base of middle-class America and African American’s as well? Too many have been asking “where’s the beef” since they can no longer afford to serve it to their families at the dinner table.

Stand on Principle, President or Politician?

On Friday evening while celebrating a Ramadan Iftar dinner at the White House President Obama did what any president should do, defended the rights of Americans to practice their religion on America soil. The problem is that on Saturday, bowing to pressure from some Republicans and others, the president became a politician and tried to parse his words, softening the solid stand he took just one evening before.

During his Friday evening speech President Obama told his guests, "Let me be clear: as a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country … That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances …This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable." Our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable but is his?

On Saturday while in Panama City, Florida, President Obama softened his stance saying that his Friday evening comments were not an endorsement of the New York Muslim community center and mosque project proposed to be built at Park Place, two blocks from the target of the 2001 attacks. “I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making a decision to put a mosque there…I was commenting very specifically on the right that people have that dates back to our founding. That is what our country is about.”

The position of those in opposition to the proposed 15 story mixed-use space which would include a mosque, a performing arts center, a pool and a restaurant is very clear. Abraham H. Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) says, “To us…the overriding concern should be the sensitivities of the families of the …At its essence, our position is about sensitivity. Everyone -- victims, opponents and proponents alike -- must pay attention to the sensitivities involved without giving in to appeals to, or accusations of, bigotry.”

Foxman is dead wrong. Being sensitive to the concerns of the families of the victims is very important. Allowing those concerns to undermine the constitutionally protected right of the free practice and exercise of religious expression can not be supported.

Islam did not attack America on September 11, 2001; misguided Muslims did. To oppose the building of a mosque because of the actions of a few Muslims is by its definition bigotry. Catholicism did not molest boys, Catholic priests did. Should all Catholic churches in New York be closed because of the actions of too many pedophile priests and the Vatican’s inability or unwillingness to control them? Should all Christians be condemned because of the atrocities committed by the Ku Klux Klan, a white “Christian” organization or because the “Christian” Rev. Jerry Falwell supported and defended the raciest government in South Africa and opposed the release of Nelson Mandela?

When discussing qualifications for a Supreme Court nominee, President Obama was castigated by Republicans such as House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) and others for saying, "I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles, as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes." Now Boehner says, "This is not an issue of law, whether religious freedom or local zoning. This is a basic issue of respect for a tragic moment in our history." Congressman Boehner was wrong in his criticism then and is wrong now. We should now be more sensitive to a moment in history than 223 years of Constitutional law? The Constitutional protection of religious freedom can not be weighed or analyzed based on the subjective perspectives of certain Americans. In protecting the rights of a few, we protect the rights of us all.

On Friday evening the president was correct on the issue and correct on the law. He should now stand as firm as he was clear, “… Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country … This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable."

Tough Times Require Tough Decisions

After a nine month investigation into alleged ethics violations against Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) the House Ethics Committee has released its report. The Committee has found that the congresswoman improperly used her office to assist OneUnited, a Massachusetts-based bank in receiving $12 million in federal bailout funds in December 2008. Her husband, Sidney Williams owned stock in and served on the banks board of directors from January 2004 to April 2008. The congresswoman now stands charged with violating three rules-one that requires its members to "behave at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House," a second that prohibits lawmakers from using their influence for personal benefit and a third forbidding their using their office to dispense favors.

The developments in this case are making for tough decisions for the congresswoman and fellow Democrats as Congressman Charlie Rangel (D-NY) faces his own ethics trial in the weeks leading up to a very difficult mid-term election season. The congresswoman like Congressman Rangel has vowed to fight the charges in a House Ethics Committee trial.

Both Rangel and Waters are expected to win re-election, Rangel to his 20^th term and Waters to her 11^th. Their decisions to stand and fight have much broader ramifications outside of Harlem and Watts. As far as the mid-term elections are concerned, Republican strategists are poised to paint already vulnerable Democrats with the broad brush of unethical behavior. Many Democrats are fearful that two ethics trials of prominent Democrats so close to the elections will weaken their chances in swing districts, costing them the House and possibly the Senate. Others are concerned that the racial dynamic (Rangel and Waters are African American) could muddy the deracalized political efforts of the president.

Congressman Rangel and Congresswoman Waters have been true public servants and have served their districts well. Both have committed themselves to defending the interests of minorities and the poor in America’s urban centers and across this country as a whole.

During his almost fort years in the House, Congressman Rangel co-authored the five billion dollar Federal Empowerment Zone demonstration project to revitalize urban neighborhoods throughout America. He authored the Low Income Housing Tax Credit, which is responsible for financing ninety percent of the affordable housing built in the U.S. in the last ten years. He also championed the Opportunity Tax Credit, which provided thousands of jobs for underprivileged young people, veterans, and ex-offenders.

During her twenty years in office Congresswoman Waters has led the fight against the importation of crack cocaine into America’s inner cities, police brutality and predatory lenders. She has fought to provide funding for job-training centers in Watts and protect and enhance consumer and business access to credit. She has led the fight for children to have a right to adequate housing and championed the rights of those with HIV/AIDS and those suffering with Alzheimer's disease.

In spite of his outstanding record of service and in light of his pending trial, some are calling for Rangel to step aside. On Friday July 30^th President Barack Obama called ethics charges against Representative Charles Rangel "very troubling". In stead of remaining neutral, respecting the constitutionally guaranteed presumption of innocence, and allowing the process to run its course, President Obama, as he did with Mrs. Sherrod jumped the gun by saying he hoped the lawmaker could end his career "with dignity." To date, no one has gone on record suggesting Congresswoman Waters step aside.

Only Congressman Rangel and Congresswoman Waters really know their guilt or innocence. Politicians tend to be very proud people with relatively large egos. Do they fight for their political lives, win re-election, and possibly further cripple an already damaged party or step aside, take one for the party, leaving their constituents without the representation they have come to expect? “Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.” (Proverbs 16: 18-19)

As dedicated public servants they have to consider what is best for the people they’ve been elected to represent. As political animals, they have to consider what is best for their party. Do they fight and win the personal battle but loose the political war? Tough times require tough decisions.

Right is Right; Wrong is Discretionary

In the wake of the House Ethics Committee formerly charging Charles Rangel (D-NY) with thirteen ethics violations, another member of congress is poised to have an ethics trial in the House. It has been reported by numerous sources that Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) will be charged with improperly intervening with Treasury officials to bailout a bank in which her husband owned at least $250,000 in stock and on whose board he once served.

The congresswoman has denied any wrongdoing and has chosen to go through an ethics trial. According to POLITICO, "Congresswoman Waters has chosen to go through an adjudicatory subcommittee hearing, rather than accept any of the counts from the investigative subcommittee …”

Many may see this simply as the Office of Congressional Ethics (OEC) doing its job. The OEC receives information of congressional wrongdoing, investigates, and refers those cases where “probable cause” is found to the House Ethics Committee for formal proceedings and charges. Unfortunately, based upon who is making the initial allegations and who is being formerly investigated, right may be right but wrong appears to be discretionary (or left up to interpretation).

Political watchdog organizations such as the National Legal and Policy Center, the Landmark Legal Foundation, and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Government have all made requests to the OEC to investigate members of congress for ethics violations. The interesting data point to consider is that of all of the active OEC investigations focus on members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC). According to Dr. Ronald Walters, “it is curious … that in over 30 of the probes the new Office of Congressional Ethics was considering, the only active investigations were on Black Congresspersons …” It’s not that CBC members Rangel (D-NY), Waters (D-CA), Richardson (D-CA), Carolyn Kilpatrick (D-MI) and others, have or have not done any thing wrong, only the proceedings will determine that. What is interesting is how the allegations of ethics violations brought against White congressional members such as Reps., Pete Visclosky (D-IN), Alan Mollohan (D-W.VA), Jim Moran (D-VA), Eric Cantor (R-VA), or Senator Jane Harmon (D-CA) have been disposed of differently with the case against Sam Graves (R-MO) being thrown out. Right may be right, but wrong appears to be questionable.

In this so-called “post-racial” America, the same discretion being used by the OEC to actively investigate members of the CBC and not actively investigate White members of congress is playing itself out through out the entire judicial system. According to Michelle Alexander in The New Jim Crow, “But the Supreme Court has indicated that in policing, race can be used as a factor in discretionary decision making…Studies of racial profiling have shown that police do, in fact, exercise their discretion regarding whom to stop and search…” The OEC is exercising its discretion regarding whom to actively investigate and charge and as importantly, not investigate and charge.

So, what do the latest cases of Rangel (D-NY) and Waters (D-CA) (and possibly others) tell us about alleged unethical behavior by members of the CBC compared to their White counterparts? Is their something rotten in the CBC? Not at all. Some members of the CBC may have been involved in questionable behavior like their White counterparts but the OEC has used its discretion to dispose of the cases of the White members differently.

What does this mean going forward for African Americans and their constituents? The battle for equality continues. This is another example of power, who has it, and how it’s used. According to Dr. Walters, “…if you have the money of Senator Jane Harmon or the power of (the late) John Murtha, very little will happen to you.” Conservatives are using every angle possible to attack the base of the Democratic Party, the African American community. The race-based attack of Mrs. Shirley Sherrod, attacking voter education/registration programs such as ACORN, cartoons depicting the President as a monkey, terrorist, or Hitler are all tied to discrediting and disenfranchising the African American voter.

If Rangel (D-NY), Waters (D-CA), and other members of the CBC are worthy of active investigations and ethics charges then so are White congressional members such as Reps.Cantor (R-VA), Ensign (R-NV), and Senator Jane Harmon (D-CA). Right may be right but wrong should never be discretionary.

Petraeus for McChrystal, Lipstick on a Pig

The Senate voted unanimously to confirm Gen. David Petraeus to replace fired Gen. Stanley McChrystal to lead the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. General Petraeus stepped down as the head of U.S. Central Command and will continue with General McChrystal's counter-insurgency strategy in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Many view President Obama’s decision to replace McChrystal with Petraeus as a bold and brilliant political strategy. President Obama was able to shift the focus away from McCrystal and the Rolling Stone article by demonstrating a level of leadership that up to this point many wondered if he had.

If the issue were simply a political one, all would be better at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, but it’s not. In his June 23^rd statement in the Rose Garden introducing General Petraeus President Obama said, “…this is a change in personnel but it is not a change in policy.” Mr. President, the policy is the problem. Replacing McChrystal with Petraeus is a new face on a failed strategy. Without a clear and substantive change in policy a change in leadership is simply rearranging the deck chairs on Titanic or putting lipstick on a pig.

In the June 23^rd statement President Obama also said, “We have a clear goal. We are going to break the Taliban’s momentum. We are going to build Afghan capacity. We are going to relentlessly apply pressure on al-Qaeda and its leadership, strengthening the ability of both Afghanistan and Pakistan to do the same.” To further this effort President Obama has earmarked $33B in the Appropriation Act of 2010. This is no more than throwing good money after bad. It’s a bankrupt policy that’s bankrupting America.

The Obama administration should learn the lessons of the past and look at the collapse of the former Soviet Union as an indication of where America could be headed. Contrary to popular belief, the Soviet Union did not collapse solely due to America’s increases in defense spending and the Soviet’s inability to maintain or surpass similar spending levels. It was due in large part to the demands that significant increases in defense spending placed on an already fragile Soviet economic structure. The Soviet economy stagnated during the Cold War and later collapsed because of an inability of the Kremlin to meet basic social and market needs as military spending consumed a disproportionate share of resources.

The war in Afghanistan is not winnable in a traditional American military context. Conventional U.S. forces and strategy will not be able to establish a central controlling government in this region of the world. Afghanistan has never been defeated militarily. It is where empires go to die. The Greeks, Indians, Persians, Mongolians, British, and Russians have tried to hold Afghanistan but never succeeded.

According to historians, Alexander the Great in 330 B.C. lost more men and more animals crossing the Hindu Kush than all his subsequent campaigns in Central Asia. In 1839 the British invaded Afghanistan; in 1841 after an Afghan revolt, 4,500 British troops withdrew. In most recent history, the Russians invaded Afghanistan on August 7, 1978. After nine years of fighting a US, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistani backed mujahideen resistance, the Soviet troop withdrawal began on May 15, 1988 and ended on February 15,1989.

As Americans struggle to deal with the most recent financial collapse and an economy in deep recession there are few if any financial resources left to commit to this “fools errand” in Central Asia. As states cut back on police forces, teachers, and basic social services, Americans need the financial support of their national government to bolster and rebuild failing state economies. Unfortunately, like the former Soviet Union, the American national government is finding it increasingly more difficult to meet the basic social and market needs of its states as military spending consumes a disproportionate share of already limited resources. America can ill afford increased military spending to continue Bush's folly.

What Dr. King said in 1963 about Vietnam is true today in Iraq and Afghanistan, "There were experiments, hopes, new beginnings (with the election of President Obama). Then came the buildup in Vietnam (Afghanistan) and I watched the (social) program(s) broken and eviscerated as if it were some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war, and I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam (Afghanistan) continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic destructive suction tube.

The US and its allies could “disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations, and attack the military capability of the Taliban regime…” if more of this effort and money were spent on winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan and Pakistani people through real humanitarian assistance such as water, food, medicine, blankets, and building supplies.

The problem with this solution is that those who fuel and promote the military industrial complex in America do not profit from the sale of humanitarian assistance. They profit from war. So change McChrystal with Petraeus or MacArthur, Marshall or George Armstrong Custer if you wish. Without a clear and substantive change in policy a change in leadership is simply rearranging the deck chairs on Titanic or putting lipstick on a pig.

Health Care Insurance Reform, Politics and Prejudice

In the wake of last weeks summit on health-care insurance reform President Obama is expected to demonstrate his willingness to compromise by making some incremental concessions to Republicans in a speech from the White House on Wednesday. President Obama may propose strengthening efforts to limit waste and abuse, expand efforts to close the Medicare Part-D prescription drug “Donut Hole” for seniors, and improve choice and portability of insurance coverage for individuals. He may also consider a plan to rework the way malpractice claims are adjudicated.

These efforts will not win over any new Republican converts but should provide cover for some conservative “Blue Dog” Democrats who have found it difficult to support the Presidents health-care reform efforts. Unfortunately, instead of working towards a solution, both sides have remained firm in their respective positions.

There are philosophical as well as practical issues at play here. Philosophically, the key issue in the health-care debate is the same issue that has divided this country for 223 years. How much power should be given to the national government? Should the national government play a role in ensuring that all American’s have access to health-care and if so to what degree. Practically, at the heart of this debate are partisan politics, inept democratic leadership and to some degree, racial prejudice.

In 1787 it became clear to the leaders in this country that the Articles of Confederation were no longer effective and a new form of government would have to be developed. One of the first issues to be resolved was government structure. Would there be a weak national government with strong states or a strong national government with weak states? Patrick Henry of Virginia feared that a strong national government would result in monarchy taking the American people back into the type of government they had fought to overthrow. Alexander Hamilton of NY saw the need for a strong national government.

What the framers of the Constitution quickly came to understand was that in order to move forward in the best interest of the nation (Africans in America excluded); compromise would rule the day. As a result, a Constitution was written and a stronger, enduring, and prosperous government was formed.

Today the opponents of the Obama administration’s plan for health care insurance reform are using distortions and partisan politics to control the debate. By injecting abortion, coverage for illegal immigrants and other wedge issues into the debate, they are diverting attention away from what’s best for the majority of the American people.

This is evidenced by the statements of Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) who according to McClatchy newspapers, has vowed to make health care Obama's "Waterloo." DeMint has compared the United States under Obama to 1930's Nazi Germany under Hitler; and cast the heated health care fight as "a real showdown between socialism and freedom...” Comparing President Obama to Hitler adds nothing to the debate. Calling the effort to provide affordable health care to more Americans a threat to our freedom and labeling government involvement in the process “socialism” is a deliberate distortion of reality intended to undermine the process and frighten Americans.

At the Health Care Summit Congressman Boehner (R-OH), Senators McConnell (R-KY), McCain (R-AZ) and others failed to offer one viable recommendation to move the dialogue forward. Instead they continued to parrot prepared talking points and urged the President to "start over" with a "clean sheet of paper" and take a "step-by-step approach."

The democratic leadership has been unable or unwilling to take charge and champion the issues of this debate that the American people elected them to accomplish. If not correct on the facts, Senator McCain (R-AZ) was correct on the perception of “unsavory deal making” with states and special interests. These deals resulting in geography dictating the type of health care Americans will receive and their inability to purchase lower cost pharmaceuticals from Canada.

Finally, one can not ignore the impact that racial prejudice has in this debate. As former President Carter stated, “an overwhelming portion” of animosity towards President Obama is “based on the fact that he is a black man.” Former Republican congressman Tom Tancredo opened the Tea Party convention by calling for a reinstatement of Jim Crow type literacy tests for voters and saying, "This is our country,…Let's take it back." Take it back from whom? Researchers from Stanford University and the University of California at Irvine have found that negative views of the president do correlate to racial bias and this racial bias correlates to negative reactions to his health-care reform efforts.

This is not politics; interested parties, honestly debating the distribution of limited public resources. This is ideology, ignorance, ineptitude, partisanship, and bigotry getting in the way of best interest of the American people.

Running from Race Leaves You Mired in its Middle

On August 10, 2008 The New York Times published an article by Matt Bai entitled Is Obama the End of Black Politics? The premise of the article was that as the Democratic party was poised to deliver its nomination for the nation’s highest office to an African-American, this some how signaled the end of Black politics. As candidate Obama won primary after primary, NPR Senior News Analyst Daniel Schorr saw these victories as an indication that America had moved into a “post-racial era”. He defined it as an “era where civil rights veterans of the past century are consigned to history and Americans begin to make race-free judgments on who should lead them.”

On Saturday, March 20 as Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) was leaving the Cannon office building he encountered members of the Tea Party protesting the health care reform bill. As the protesters exchanged words with the Congressman, some of them called him a “nigger”. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO), who was a few yards behind Lewis was also called a “nigger” and was spit on. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) was called a “faggot”.

Forty-five years after civil rights activist John Lewis was assaulted and battered to within an inch of his life on the Edmund Pettis Bridge, Congressman Lewis is verbally assaulted by protesters as he walks towards the capitol to do “the peoples” work. Rep.’s Cleaver and Frank, both of whom have been engaged in the battle for equality in America were insulted as they attempted to engage in the democratic process.

Both Lewis and Cleaver have chosen to not make an issue of this and to not press charges against the perpetrators. Cleaver’s spokesman Danny Robert said, “He didn’t want to draw attention to the whole thing. We did not want to make a big deal about it. The bigger issue that day was the health-care debate.”

For as much as I admire the work and sacrifices of these three men, I take issue with their decision to “…not want to make a big deal about it…” It is not a big deal; it’s a huge deal! Those bigoted, prejudice, and ignorant protestors were doing more than assaulting and insulting three individuals. They were attacking every African American and homosexual in America. In terms of Lewis and Cleaver, this is racism (white supremacy) at its core. For Frank, it’s out right hatred and they and those in main stream media need to connect the dots and expose it for what it is.

Today, too many of the opponents of the Obama administration’s plans for health care insurance reform are using code language, distortions, violence, and partisan politics to control the debate and much of their ire is racially motivated. Former Republican congressman Tom Tancredo opened the Tea Party convention by calling for a reinstatement of Jim Crow type literacy tests for voters and saying, "This is our country,…Let's take it back." During President Obama’s speech to a joint session of Congress on health care, Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) shouted at the President “you lie”. Wilson would have never thought to do that to any of the former Presidents. Numerous cartoons have featured President Obama and/or First Lady Michelle as monkeys, terrorists, or Muslim suicide bombers.

Others have decided to remove themselves from the debate and turn to violent direct action and/or the threat of such. A sense of very dangerous “group think” is beginning to manifest itself with people throwing bricks and rocks and talking more and more about using guns to defend their “positions”.

According to the Washington Post the FBI and other law enforcement authorities are investigating who smashed windows at the headquarters of the Monroe County Democratic Committee in Rochester, NY and the district office in Niagara Falls of Rep. Louise Slaughter's (D-NY). Rep. Slaughter also received a message threatening to assassinate the children of law makers who support health care reform.

In Wichita, Kansas a brick was thrown through a window at the Sedgwick County Democratic headquarters. Attached to that brick was a note bearing anti-health care and anti-President Obama messages.

Former GOP VP nominee and former Alaska Governor, Sarah Palin has posted a map on her Facebook page. This map uses gun sights to indicate congressional seats that her PAC is “targeting” for the mid-term elections. At the Tea Party “code red” rally against health care reform this past weekend Reps. Steve King (IA), Michele Bachmann (MN), and Mike Pence (IN) were featured speakers. At this rally, signs stating “Warning: If Brown can’t stop it, a Browning can,” referring to Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) and a Browning firearm were being carried. This is very dangerous and irresponsible rhetoric for any one use, especially a former VP nominee of a major political party and rallies where Republican members of congress are featured speakers. The Republican Party can not court, encourage, and support such irrational, irresponsible, terrorist behavior on the one hand and try to disassociate themselves from it on the other.

Even though the president wants to stay as far away from the race issue as possible, Representatives Lewis and Cleaver should not give those Tea Party racists a pass. They should be giving interviews and engaging in dialogue to expose these people for the dangers that they are. The members of main stream media should be reporting on the Lewis, Cleaver, and Frank attack in the larger context of the hatred being espoused by some of the Tea Party movement and other conservatives. They should be asking the likes of Reps. such as King, Bachman, and Pence to explain their connections to such fringe elements of the American electorate. By running from race, America remains mired in the middle of it.

Unemployment Statistics: A Tale of Two Cities

The Bureau of Labor Statistics recently released employment data for April. According to the Labor Department U.S. employers added more jobs in April that at any time in the past four years. Nonfarm payroll employment increased by 290,000 but the unemployment rate ticked up to 9.9 percent as 805,000 formerly long-term unemployed jumped back into the labor market According to Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Analytics, “The U.S. economy has "turned the corner," but it will still take up to five years to regain all the jobs lost since the economic collapse…”

This is encouraging news on a number of fronts. However, a closer look reveals some frightening realities that lay behind the positive indicators. For African Americans in many regions of this country the numbers reflect a tale of two cites, "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times; … it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair.” In March 2010 while the unemployment rate for the country was 9.7 percent; the national unemployment rate for African Americans was almost double at 16.6 percent. On the state level, according to the Economic Policy Institute’s 4Q 2009 numbers, the unemployment rate in Michigan for African Americans was 22.3 percent, California 15.5, and New York 14.6.

As disturbing as the unemployment numbers are for African Americans, they don’t begin to tell the whole story. When these numbers are viewed in the context of other factors such as the disparity in median family income, wealth accumulation, and poverty levels they indicate that an entrenched systemic social policy problem exists for African Americans that a jobs recovery will not address.

According to 2007 U.S. Census Data, White families made 62% more than Black families. The median family income for White families was $54,920 while the median income for Black families was $33,916. Based on data from the 2002 Survey of Income and Program Participation, White median household net worth was about $90,000, compared to a mere $6,000 for the median Black household. 8.2% of White families were (this is data from 2007) living in poverty compared to 24.5% of Black families. As Dr. Ronald Walters explains in White Nationalism Black Interests, these indicators of greater social instability loom large for a substantial portion of the Black community that has not benefitted from the economic system.

Some members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) are expressing concern that they are not receiving a significant level of support from President Obama and his staff, claiming that the administration has not done enough for African Americans. According to POLITICO, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) said that White House officials are “not listening” to black lawmakers and Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) said “there’s not enough attention to poor people.”

According to the Washington Post, other members of the CBC such as Emanuel Cleaver II (D-MO) and Donald Payne (D-NJ) are expressing their frustration regarding how to address these issues. “How can you express criticism of the administration without eventually confronting the man at the top?” The article continues, “Some (CBC members) say that any public airing of their disagreements with Obama runs the risk of politically damaging the president and ultimately slowing the advancement of other African Americans.”

Why is holding the president accountable a problem? What are members of the CBC afraid of? With 24.5% of African American families living in poverty, a median household net worth of $6,000, and a national unemployment rate for African Americans almost double the national average, how much slower can African American’s advance? Are the same figures that were unacceptable for a white president somehow acceptable under an African American president?

Why should they be concerned about political damage to a president who by their own admission feels that key members of the Obama administration, “have taken them for granted, in the belief that Black members of Congress have no stomach for a fight with the country's first Black president.” According to POLITICO, A CBC aide said that senior aid Valerie Jarrett has “canceled lunch plans with the caucus eight times and that her office is slow to return calls and pays more attention to longtime supporters than to senior CBC members.”

Since the CBC is so frustrated and confused, here are a few suggestions for them to consider proposing to President Obama:

1) Work with the SBA and insurers such as AIG to back African American owned business that are having difficulty meeting bonding requirements as they pursue government contracts (stimulus package projects) as prime and subcontrators.

2) Resurrect the '98 Clinton Administration SBA plan to enhance access to debt/equity capital via SBA guaranteed loans for African American owned businesses.

3) The Senate and House Small Business Committees should mandate that the SBA enforce federal agency subcontracting plans. Liquidated damages have rarely if ever been enforced against a non compliant government contractor. CBC members probably have numerous African American owned firms in their districts that would benefit from enforcement efforts in federal contracting.

Members of the CBC chair four committees and 18 subcommittees. If they can not leverage their power and effectively develop legislation and social policy that address the systemic ills impacting African American progress, an increasing number will continue to experience the worst of times in a season of darkness.

Now State Reaction to Illegal Immigration Should Matter to African Americans

On April 23, 2101 Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed into law Arizona Senate Bill 1070 (SB 1070) the “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act”. SB 1070’s stated intent is “…to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States.” This will be accomplished by making it a misdemeanor for a person to lack proper immigration paperwork. It also requires police officers; if they form a 'reasonable suspicion' that someone is an illegal immigrant, to determine the person's immigration status. Individuals unable to produce documents showing they are allowed to be in the United States could be arrested, jailed for up to six months and fined $2,500.

Organizations such as the National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and the National Immigration Law Center are challenging SB 1070 on constitutional grounds as well as fears that it will lead to the racial profiling of Hispanics. In Mexico City, Mayor Marcelo Ebrard announced he would try to join lawsuits seeking to overturn the law, with a statement from his office calling the measure "a planned Apartheid against Mexicans." It is not only Hispanics but the historic victims of racial profiling, African Americans, that should also be concerned.

Historically, immigration has fallen under the jurisdiction of the national government, not the states. Supreme Court precedent supports the position that the role of controlling immigration and enforcing immigration law is reserved for the national government. State laws seeking to regulate immigration status are always subject to preemption challenges given the federal government's plenary power (full, absolute authority as broad as is required in a given case) over immigration and nationality.

Unfortunately, as the Supreme Court has become more conservative, it has demonstrated an interest in ignoring precedent in order to further the ideological objectives of its majority. This new direction has become a source of concern to those groups that have historically looked to the court and government to protect their civil rights. The court's five conservative members recently overruled two important precedents about the First Amendment rights of corporations by allowing corporations and unions to spend freely to influence elections. The court also recently intervened in a gay-marriage trial in San Francisco after conservative lawyers complained of a judge's plan to permit a limited public viewing of the courtroom testimony.

According to President Obama, conservative judges are cloaking their activism in legal theories like "original intent". What should be of utmost concern to members of the African American community is the question of how will conservative courts address the age old questions of “states rights”? Will the state of Arizona be allowed to enact laws usurping national government authority? If so, will other states be allowed to enact laws that target ethnic and/or religious groups that are perceived to be disproportionately engaged in undesirable activities? A courts ruling in favor of SB 1070 could bring the issue of “state rights” back into play at the expense of African Americans and other groups.

If SB 1070 is found to be constitutional, what will happen in Chicago as that city struggles to get a handle on the recent explosion of murder and mayhem and the alarming levels of violence among its schoolchildren? Will the state of Illinois be allowed to “stop and frisk” and detain individuals simply because law enforcement believes a particular individual fits a certain profile? Will New York City be allowed to restrict citizen’s access to public transportation and public spaces based on appearance and profile as it struggles with a spate of high school stabbings, deadly subway brawls and “wilding” in Times Square?

As President Obama considers his next Supreme Court nominee, it is issues such as immigration law in Arizona and how the court will decide issues such as “states rights” that should factor into who he nominates. American’s can ill afford a president who will yield to the threats of the conservative agenda such as The National Review’s assertion that “the question for conservatives will be not whether but how to oppose Obama’s nominee,” and Senator Lamar Alexander’s confirmation that he is refusing to rule out a filibuster. As a former constitutional law professor, Obama, the “professor-in-chief” must take the lead in educating American’s on judicial temperament, the importance of precedent, and clearly define judicial activism. Conservatives do not have the monopoly on American values and broader interpretations of constitutional constructs do not necessarily equate to “judicial activism”.

Americans can not allow conservative fear-mongering, fears of terrorism, the loss of jobs and xenophobia to direct them towards simplistic misguided remedies to very complex social problems. Benjamin Franklin once said, “Those willing to give up essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both”.

African Americans need to stand up and take notice. A national backlash against illegal immigrants could have a disastrous ripple effect on everyone’s civil rights and liberties.

In the President’s “Teachable Moment” What Should We Learn?

This afternoon, President Obama, Sgt. James Crowley, and Dr. Henry Louis Gates Jr. will sit down at the White House to “clear the air.” The President’s objective is to bring the parties together and through their personal interaction move the national dialogue on race forward. In the President’s “Teachable Moment” what should we learn? We should learn how one’s perceptions can color their reality. We should also learn the danger of trying to contort a non-race based issue into a dialog or valuable lesson on race.

In all of the accounts of Dr. Gates’ arrest there has never been any indication that Sgt. Crowley used racial slurs, epithets, gestures or any other means to inject “race” into the arrest. Even Dr. Gates’ attorney, Charles Ogletree, when asked about racial profiling during a CNN interview said, “I’ve never said anything about racial profiling; you’ve never heard those words from me, it’s a case of bad judgment…we won’t know about the race element until all of the facts are in.”

How did the element of race enter into the equation of Dr. Gates’ arrest? He injected it! In a July 21, 2009 interview in The Root, Dr. Gates said, “I can’t believe that an individual policeman on the Cambridge police force would treat any African-American male this way…and more importantly I’m astonished that it could happen to any citizen of the United States…” Dr. Gates’ turned an investigation of a breaking and entering and his subsequent arrest for disorderly conduct into a case of racial profiling.

While Sgt. Crowley is looking at Dr. Gates’ Harvard ID, Dr. says in The Root interview, “Now it’s clear that he had a narrative in his head: A black man was inside someone’s house, probably a white person’s house, and this black man had broken and entered, and this black man was me.” How could Dr. Gates read Sgt. Crowley’s mind? Dr. Gates perceptions were beginning to color his sense of reality and turning an investigation of a breaking and entering into a case of racial profiling.

In 2005 the ACLU provided a definition of what racial is and is not. The definition reads as follows, "Racial Profiling" refers to the discriminatory practice by law enforcement officials of targeting individuals for suspicion of crime based on the individual's race, ethnicity, religion or national origin… Racial profiling does not refer to the act of a law enforcement agent pursuing a suspect in which the specific description of the suspect includes race or ethnicity in combination with other identifying factors.” Dr. Gates was not targeted based upon his race or any other characteristic. He was simply the individual in the home where a breaking and entering had been reported.

Sgt. Crowley was not passing by Dr. Gates’ home and upon seeing (profiling) a Black man in a White neighborhood decided to investigate this seemingly strange occurrence. Sgt. Crowley was responding to a reported breaking and entering at Dr. Gate’s residence. Most police officers will tell you, “safety first; better to be tried by twelve than carried by six.”

What should we learn from the President’s “Teachable Moment?” We should learn that contrary to popular belief, President Obama’s election in no way signaled a move into a “post-racial” America. Racial profiling is a reality for African Americans, Latino’s, and Muslims and the election of a Black President can not make that go away.

When Sgt. Crowley appeared on Dr. Gates’ porch and asked Dr. Gates to step outside, Dr. Gates said, “All the hairs stood up on the back of my neck, and I realized that I was in danger. And I said to him no, out of instinct. I said, ‘No, I will not.’” Dr. Gates’ instinct was real. His fear was based on a history of lynching’s, cross-burnings, and black men disappearing into the night at the hands of the Klan.

Dr. Gates’ instinct was a reaction to a recent history of police perceptions of threat resulting in the shooting deaths of people of color. On January 1, 2009 Oscar Grant, an African American, was killed by a white BART police officer while hand-cuffed and face down; May 28, 2009, NYPD off-duty officer Omar Edwards, an African American, was killed by a white fellow officer who mistook him for a perpetrator; November 27, 2006, Sean Bell, an African American was mistakenly killed by NYPD; January 12, 2001 plain clothes officer with the Oakland, CA Police Department, Willie Wilkins, an African American was killed by a fellow officer who mistook him for a perpetrator; January 28, 2000 plainclothes police officer Cornel Young was killed in Rhode Island by a white fellow officer and academy classmate who mistook him for a perpetrator; March 15, 2000 Patrick Dorismond, a Haitian immigrant was mistakenly killed by the NYPD; February 4, 1999, Amadou Diallo, a Guinean immigrant was mistakenly killed by the NYPD.

In spite of the reality of racial profiling, lynchings, cross burnings, and the more recent history of police shootings, Dr. Gates allowed his fear and instincts to color his reality. By his own account, he injected race into the circumstance.

What should we learn from the President’s “Teachable Moment?” We should learn that contrary to Matt Bai’s 2008 article in The New York Times, President Obama is not the end of Black Politics. As long as unemployment among African American’s is more than twice the rate of White Americans (four times in New York) and as long as studies show that a Black family's income is a little more than half that of a similar White family's income, Black politics will be alive and well.

There’s a lot that can be learned about race and racial profiling in America from President Obama’s “Teachable Moment”. When a person views a problem as a nail, their solution will probably be a hammer, even if the problem is a screw. It’s good that Dr. Gates’ arrest has become the catalyst for the dialog on race. Unfortunately, it’s the wrong example to use.

So Much Progress and Yet So Far to Go

On February 12, 2009, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) marked its 100th anniversary. The NAACP is America’s oldest,
largest and most widely recognized grassroots–based civil rights organization.

The NAACP is an organization with a unique vision and mission. As stated on their website, its vision is to ensure a society in which all individuals have equal rights and there is no racial hatred or racial discrimination. Its mission is to ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of rights of all persons and to eliminate racial hatred and racial discrimination.

With the election of an African American President there are those who are asking if the NAACP is still relevant. In a “New America” a so-called “post racial” America, is the NAACP still needed? Since the founding of the NAACP on February 12, 1909, so much progress has been made and yet, there is so far to go.

Their literature states that in 1905, the NAACP's stated goal was to secure for all people the rights guaranteed in the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the United States Constitution, which promised an end to slavery, the equal protection of the law, and universal adult male suffrage, respectively.

Yes, slavery has ended in America, people of color can secure equal protection of the law, and vote, but there are miles to go before we sleep. The main barrier for African Americans politically and otherwise has always been and continues to be race and the manner in which race is used to define and diffuse issues. Yes, class is a factor as well but race is still the dominant variable in the equation.

The most recent evidence of this played itself out on June 29, at The Valley Swim Club, a private swim club in Huntington Valley, PA. Creative Steps Day Camp, a Northeast Philadelphia children’s day camp that services primarily the African American and Latino communities signed a contract with and paid The Valley Swim Club more than $1900 for one day of swimming a week for the summer session.

When the children arrived for their first day of swimming they were not well received. According to news reports, camper Dymire Baylor stated, "I heard one lady saying 'Why's there so many black kids here' cause she said she was afraid that we might do something to her child." NBC Philadelphia.com reported, "When the minority children got in the pool all of the Caucasian children immediately exited the pool," Horace Gibson, parent of a day camp child, wrote in an email. "The pool attendants came and told the black children that they did not allow minorities in the club and needed the children to leave immediately."

Another camper, Jabriel Brown said the he felt the tension all afternoon. He began to feel better when he recognized a familiar face – a teacher from his middle school. His sense of security was quickly dashed when he tried to say hello and the teacher just ignored him. Brown said, “It made me feel bad…she used to be my math teacher.”

After the first day, Creative Steps money was quickly refunded and the campers were told not to return. Several campers said they heard pool members making racial remarks during their time inside the club.

In response to these events Club president John Duesler told a Philadelphia television station that several club members complained because the children fundamentally changed the “complexion” and “atmosphere" at the pool but that the complaints didn't involve race. If not race than what? Duesler later claimed that the campers were removed for safety reasons. It is also important to note that the representatives of the swim club have not disputed the facts as stated, merely the reasons for the actions.

The NAACP has requested the Human Relations Commission to investigate. The Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission will immediately open an investigation into the actions of The Valley Swim Club, chairman Stephen A. Glassman has said, "The rule of law in Pennsylvania is equal opportunity for all, regardless of race."

W.E.B. DuBois, founder and general secretary of the Niagara movement and was among the founders of the NAACP wrote in 1952, "The problem of the twentieth century is the problem of the colour line." He was right then and is correct today. Who would have thought that in 2009, a swim club in the City of Brotherly Love would revert to the Jim Crow practices of the 30’s, 40’s and 50’s simply because some White parents are misguided and afraid of what some Black and Latino swimmers might do to their children?

Do we need the NAACP? Is the NAACP still relevant?

As long as African American men are incarcerated at a rate of more than six times the rate of White men and the incarceration of Black women continues to grow at record numbers the answer is yes! As long as unemployment among African American’s is more than twice the rate of White Americans (four times in NY) and as long as studies show that a Black family's income is a little more than half that of a similar White family's income, the answer is yes! As long as African Americans continue to deal with Driving While Black, excessive high school dropout rates, and imbalances in health care, the answer is yes!

Have we made racial progress in America? Yes, we have; but even with so much progress we have yet so far to go. We still have miles to go before we sleep. Dr. Dubois, the problem of the twenty-first century is the problem of the color line.

Empathy vs. Ideology on the Court?

On Tuesday May 26^th, President Obama nominated federal judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter. Before the President announced his selection he stated he was not just looking for someone with just “ivory tower learning”; he wanted “intellectual firepower” as well as a “common touch” and a “practical sense of how the world works”. He also used the word “empathy” several times. It did not take long for the critics to weigh in and challenge the nomination.

What is troubling about the criticism is that most of it is intentionally not directed at judge Sotomayor’s record as a jurist and opinions that she has rendered. Most of the criticism is deliberately based upon select statements made in speeches or lectures, as was the case with Rev. Jeremiah Wright. They have been contextualized in the most inflammatory way possible in order to scare white people.

In 2001 judge Sotomayor gave a lecture focusing on Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary entitled A Latina Judge's Voice. The focus of her lecture was on the tensions or conflicts between the cultural diversity that America professes to appreciate vs. what American’s are willing to tolerate. She states: “America has a deeply confused image of itself that is in perpetual tension. We are a nation that takes pride in our ethnic diversity, recognizing its importance in shaping our society and in adding richness to its existence. Yet, we simultaneously insist that we can and must function and live in a race and color-blind way that ignore these very differences that in other contexts we laud.” Judge Sotomayor is absolutely correct. She is describing the hypocrisy of America’s ideals visa vi American’s realities.

In this lecture judge Sotomayor goes on to describe her background and life experiences and how those experiences have shaped her existence and perceptions of reality. From there she goes on to say, in the context of a discussion regarding how, “…seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white male” that “…I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.” How can a court consisting of a majority of jurists who have never been exposed to the realities of the people that come before it, reach a better, more informed conclusion than someone who has lived and understands those realities? Theoretical constructs vs. practical realities.

She is not saying that she is better than anyone else or that others are beneath her, as Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) continues to say. She is merely recognizing that we are all products of our environment and as human beings, “Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see.” This is a reality that too many people, particularly men like Sen. Graham refuse to appreciate.

Other conservative spokespeople are calling judge Sotomayor a racist. Former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo charged, “I’m telling you she appears to be a racist. She said things that are racist in any other context.” Tancredo described La Raza as a "Latino KKK without the hoods or the nooses...” Rush Limbaugh has said, “Here you have a racist — you might want to soften that, and you might want to say a reverse racist…Obama is the greatest living example of a reverse racist, and now he's appointed one,… she brings a form of bigotry and racism to the court akin to that embraced by former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke.”

Inherent in the arguments of Graham, Limbaugh, Tancredo, and others is the misplaced assertion that the Supreme Court has been a bastion of unbiased, non-ideological, race neutral jurisprudence. Nothing could be further from the truth. All they and others like them are trying to do is retain the protections and privilege that they have been able to enjoy for centuries in America. Their arguments are specious at best.

It is important to understand some things about the Supreme Court. The first Justices were appointed in 1789. In the two hundred and twenty year history of the Court there have been 110 Justices to serve. Of those 110, 98% of the justices have been male and 98% of the justices have been white. If, as stated in the Constitution, “judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court…” can justice truly be served when the Constitution has primarily been interpreted by white men for the interests of white men?

It was Chief Justice Roger Taney who wrote in 1857 in the Dread Scott ruling:

"They (African’s in America) had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far unfit that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect."

In 1896 the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of racial segregation in public accommodations under the doctrine of “separate but equal.” Justice Henry B. Brown declared,

"We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff's argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it."

This decision was handed down by a 7 to 1 vote and remained the standard doctrine in U.S. law until it was repudiated in the1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision.

These cases are just two examples of how the Court has been used to support, codify, and institutionalize the ideology of white supremacy in America. The battle continues to this day. If the Court is as unbiased, non-ideological, and race neutral as many would lead people to believe, why did America need a 13^th Amendment to the Constitution to abolish slavery; a 14^th Amendment to grant African’s in America citizenship, and a 15^th Amendment to provide African American’s the right to vote?

Much ado is also being made of judge Sotomayor’s comment that the "court of appeals is where policy is made." When you take into account the court’s interpretive powers as well as judicial review, the court can and does influence and make policy. By interpreting the provisions of the Constitution, laws, and policies, the court in effect can change them.

Beginning in the 1870s, intensifying in the 1890s, and through the 1900s, the Court invalidated laws that regulated child labor, maximum hours of work, and minimum wages for work. In 1935 and 1936 the Court struck down 12 congressional laws, nearly nullifying Roosevelt’s New Deal program. The Court has limited anti-trust laws and the ability of workers to join unions. These are clear examples of how the court can legislate through their decisions and not violate the concept of separation of powers.

Wendy E. Long of the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network described judge Sotomayor as a "liberal judicial activist of the first order." Many will agree that this term is a political assessment used to inflame public sentiment not a legal one. It is often times used by individuals and groups to describe a jurist who renders decisions that they perceive to be against their limited interests. For example, a judge who finds in favor of a woman’s right to choose may be viewed by pro-life groups as activist. This is why many of the groups in opposition to judge Sotomayor are not opposing her based upon her judicial decisions. In the one case that conservatives reference, the Kyl case, judge Sotomayor was a part of three-judge appellate panel that unanimously upheld established precedent. She was not legislating from the bench, she was following established law.

President Obama said he was looking for an empathetic jurist. Conservatives are using this word to demonstrate that judge Sotomayor can not be trusted to be impartial and will interpret the circumstance to fit the law, not the law to the circumstance.

Empathy is a quality that contributes to our ability to be human. One’s ability to use their own experiences as a basis for understanding the similar experiences of others assists a person in making fair, just, and rational decisions. As part of the ruling class and a beneficiary of the ideology of white supremacy in America it is easy for the Graham’s, Limbaugh’s, and Tancredo’s to scoff at a reference to empathy. Those in power, those with the voice don’t need it.

Those who really know the history of the Constitution understand that having been subjected to the injustices of a brutal King, the framers of the Constitution were empathetic to the concerns of those who understood the need to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. That’s why the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution. Empathy vs. ideology on the Court? Give me empathy.

Afghanistan/Pakistan Where Empires Go to Die

Under the pretext of responding to the September 11, 2001 attacks in America, the United and States and Great Britain invaded Afghanistan on October 7, 2001 under the banner of operation Enduring Freedom. President Bush 41’ told the American people that the US strikes were,

“…designed to disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations, and to attack the military capability of the Taliban regime…we will make it more difficult for the terror network to train new recruits and coordinate their evil plans. Initially, the terrorists may burrow deeper into caves and other entrenched hiding places…At the same time, the oppressed people of Afghanistan will know the generosity of America and our allies. As we strike military targets, we will also drop food, medicine and supplies to the starving and suffering men and women and children of Afghanistan… ”

During the 2008 presidential campaign, candidate Obama promised to immediately withdraw troops from Iraq in order to bolster the forces in Afghanistan in order to defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda. “It’s time to refocus our attention on the war we have to win in Afghanistan.” I believe that this tactic was taken by the Obama team in order to placate the anti-Iraq contingent in the American electorate while not leaving himself vulnerable to the “soft on defense” hawkish critics on the other side. As a campaign tactic this approach proved to be successful. In reality, this may prove to be one of the greatest miscalculations President Obama could make.

After the historic election of President Obama, many historians and others placed this event in the context of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Some mistakenly saw this election as the fulfillment of “The Dream”; others mistakenly compared candidate Obama’s “race neutral” approach and stellar oratory with Dr. King’s.

Today, critics are asking the question “is the Obama administrations approach to the problems in Afghanistan/Pakistan going to be their Vietnam?” As America faces its most difficult economic challenges in recent history, compare President Obama’s Afghanistan/Pakistan with President Johnson’s Vietnam. Are the same mistakes that were based on arrogance, hubris, and a misplaced sense of empire being made again? Here’s what the Rev. Dr. King had to say about US involvement in Vietnam in his speech Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence,

“There is at the outset a very obvious and almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam and the struggle I, and others, have been waging in America. A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor -- both black and white -- through the poverty program. There were experiments, hopes, new beginnings. Then came the buildup in Vietnam and I watched the program broken and eviscerated as if it were some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war, and I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic destructive suction tube. So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such.”

Today, President Obama is planning to send an additional 4,000 troops and other support personnel into Afghanistan. Like his predecessor, President Obama says, "If the Afghanistan government falls to the Taliban or allows al-Qaida to go unchallenged, that country will again be a base for terrorists." The additional 4,000 troops will bring the total US force up to 30,000 by the end of 2009.

President Obama is also ratcheting up the rhetoric and activity in Pakistan. In his announcement on March 27th, President Obama referred to the border region of Afghanistan/Pakistan as,

"the most dangerous place in the world... This is not simply an American problem - far from it. It is, instead, an international security challenge of the highest order. Terrorist attacks in London and Bali were tied to al-Qaida and its allies in Pakistan, as were attacks in North Africa and the Middle East, in Islamabad and Kabul. If there is a major attack on an Asian, European, or African city, it, too, is likely to have ties to al-Qaida's leadership in Pakistan. The safety of people around the world is at stake."

President Obama and his advisors should learn from history, some ancient some modern, and not repeat it. This is the region of the world that has never been defeated militarily. It is where empires go to die. The Greeks, Indians, Persians, Mongolians, British, and Russians have tried to hold Afghanistan but never succeeded.

According to historians, Alexander the Great in 330 B.C. lost more men and more animals crossing the Hindu Kush than all his subsequent campaigns in central Asia. In 1839 the British invaded Afghanistan; in 1841 after an Afghan revolt, 4,500 British troops withdrew. According to a description published in the North American Review in 1842,

On the 6th of January, 1842, the Caboul forces commenced their retreat through the dismal pass, destined to be their grave. On the third day they were attacked by the mountaineers from all points, and a fearful slaughter ensued…

In most recent history, the Russians invaded Afghanistan. The initial deployment of the Soviet 40^th Army began in Afghanistan on August 7, 1978. After nine years of fighting a US, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistani backed mujahideen resistance, the Soviet troop withdrawal began on May 15, 1988 and ended on February 15,1989.

Since 2001, in spite of President Bush and now President Obama’s noble speeches and military tactics, the US and its allies have not “disrupt(ed) the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations”. The US has not been able to successfully “attack the military capability of the Taliban regime”.

What the US has done is lost 1147 coalition forces; US Air Force data shows that Munitions dropped in Afghanistan have risen 1,100 percent, from 2004 to 2007 tonnage figures jumped from 163 tons to 1,956 tons. According to the United Nations, bombs have killed over 2000 Afghan civilians in 2008, up 40% from 2007. The Associated Press reports the direct correlation between the rise in Afghan civilian deaths and anti-American sentiment.

In terms of dollars, according to recently released pentagon reports, the price tag for running the war in Afghanistan/Pakistan will outstrip the cost of the conflict in Iraq next year. America can not afford this folly. As the Rev. Dr. King would say, then came the buildup in Afghanistan/Pakistan and I watched the program broken and eviscerated as if it were some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war…

The US and its allies could “disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations, and attack the military capability of the Taliban regime…” if more of this effort and money were spent on winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan and Pakistani people through real humanitarian assistance such as water, food, medicine, blankets, and building supplies.

President Obama's New Approach to a New World Order?

On September 11, 1990, President George H.W. Bush (Bush 41’) addressed a joint session of Congress with a speech entitled “Toward a New World Order”. In this speech he articulated the United States' objectives for post Cold War global governance in cooperation with post-Soviet states:

Until now, the world we’ve known has been a world divided – a world of barbed wire and concrete block, conflict and cold war. Now, we can see a new world coming into view. A world in which there is the very real prospect of a new world order. In the words of Winston Churchill, a "world order" in which "the principles of justice and fair play ... protect the weak against the strong ..." A world where the United Nations, freed from cold war stalemate, is poised to fulfill the historic vision of its founders. A world in which freedom and respect for human rights find a home among all nations.

In the 20th and early 21st centuries, a number of world leaders, such as Woodrow Wilson, Winston Churchill, Mikhail Gorbachev, Henry Kissinger, and Gordon Brown, have used the term "new world order" to refer to a new period of history evidencing a dramatic change in world political thought and the balance of power. When President Bush 41’ used the term, his phrasing sent shock waves through the Christian and secular hard right world since for decades the phrase has been used to represent a collectivist One World Government.

Some believe there exists a powerful and secretive group of globalists such as the Trilateral Commission, Carlyle Group, International Monetary Fund (IMF), and World Bank conspiring to eventually rule the world through a autonomous world government. This “New World Order” would replace sovereign states and other checks and balances in international power struggles. Recently, these fears have been supported by many of the actions and policies implemented under President George W. Bush (Bush 43’) and his administration. Actions such as the illegal invasion of Iraq, the increase of private military contractors, warrantless wiretapping, extraordinary renditions, secret prisons, torture, and the suspension of habeas corpus in Guantanamo are seen as evidence supporting the NWO conspiracy in the new globalized economy.

Against the backdrop of this recent historical context and in the wake of the dreaded foreign policy blunders of President Bush 43’, President Barak Obama appeared on the world stage at the G-20 Summit and held subsequent meetings with European leaders. At the Summit and in these meetings President Obama set a new tone for dialogue and diplomacy. He listened, engaged in constructive dialogue, demonstrated an appreciation for and understanding of cultural difference and nuance, and apologized for American arrogance, thereby laying the groundwork for a new diplomatic approach to a new world order. A "world order" in which "the principles of justice and fair play protect the weak against the strong. A world where the U N is poised to fulfill the historic vision of its founders. A world in which freedom and respect for human rights find a home among all nations. A world order based on a truer sense of diplomacy not Bush 43’s unilateral and destructive sense of “American Internationalism”.

While in Europe President Obama said, “…Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.” In Turkey, he called President Bush 43’s failure to sign the Kyoto global warming pact a "mistake." In Germany, he admitted to being "jealous" of Europe's high-speed rail networks and the brevity of its political campaigns. This message was well received by European leaders. France’s President Sarkozy spoke of a new White House occupant who wanted to "change the world" and was not concerned only with narrow American self interest.

In spite of the positive reception that President Obama received throughout Europe, many American neo-conservatives called him the “apologizer-in-chief.” Apologists for President Bush 43’ such as Charles Krauthammer questioned President Obama’s vision and his understanding of international diplomacy by writing, “It is passing strange for a world leader to celebrate his own country’s decline. A few more such overseas tours, and Obama will have a lot more decline to celebrate.” According to the Washington Times, Mary Matlin, a long time political adviser to both President Bush’s stated, "From my perspective as a conservative, feel-good foreign policy is not leadership. It is arrogant and naive at the same time...And from my perspective as an American citizen, it is demoralizing. He is going to pound our sense of exceptionalism out of us if it's the last thing he does."

It was unreasonable if not foolish to attempt to measure the success of this first trip by whether or not European leaders would agree to increase stimulus spending, Russia would agree to help with Iran, or China would agree to assist with North Korea. What these critics fail to understand, appreciate, or admit is the total failure of President Bush 43’s unilateral approach to foreign policy. Diplomacy is based upon relationships and relationships are based upon trust. Ignoring the UN, lying to the world about WMD’s and invading sovereign countries was no way to make friends and influence people. The benefits from President Obamas European trip may not be realized for another year to eighteen months. Rebuilding trust takes time, candor, and humility.

This past week Somali pirates seized an American cargo ship and later took its captain, Richard Phillips hostage. As the Obama administration worked quietly behind the scenes to solve the problem, President Obama was criticized for appearing to be distracted and unconcerned. Others questioned his ability or seeming inability to handle international crisis.

Then out of the blue, U.S. Navy Seals freed Captain Phillips. Instead of sending 28,000 soldiers into Mogadishu as President Bush 41’did in 1992 or chasing warlord Mohamed Farah Aideed as President Clinton did in 1993, the Somali pirates were killed simultaneously by three Navy snipers. This was a well thought out surgical strike, not a heavy handed invasion. According to the New York Daily News, Vice Adm. William Gortney, commander of the Navy's Fifth Fleet stated, “the standoff came to a head when talks with the increasingly agitated buccaneers began to get "heated," sea conditions worsened and one pirate was seen leveling an AK-47 at Phillips' back.” Contrary to the faulty assumptions of President Obamas critics, Vice Adm. Gortney said President Obama gave commanders "very clear guidance and authority" to take action when the captain's life was deemed to be in imminent danger. This sounds more like a President who was actively engaged and involved, not someone who was, “…distracted…praying that the crisis would resolve itself quickly…and who would rather be busy remaking American society than dealing with foreign problems…” as one of his critics wrote.

As a result of this steady hand, level head, and measured approach, according to the Associated Press, Somalia's prime minister Omar Abdirashid Ali Sharmarke says, “his government has identified many pirate leaders and would be willing to share that information with other countries, including the United States, to get the resources needed to go after them.” Somalia’s response would have been quite different had President Bush 43’s unilateral and destructive sense of “American Internationalism” been employed.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez once described President Bush 43’ as being, “as dangerous as a monkey with a razor blade”. If international diplomacy is more akin to brain surgery than rocket science, I prefer to have the surgeon with the level head and steady hand with the scalpel than the monkey with the razor.

President Obamas measured, thoughtful, patient, and reasoned approach in Europe and Somalia indicates a refreshing change in tactic, possibly resulting in a new approach to a “New World Order”.

The RNC and the “Magic Negro”

This past December Republican National chair candidate John “Chip” Saltsman distributed a CD to fellow Republican Party officials entitled “We HATE the USA”. One of the songs on the CD is entitled “Barack the Magic Negro”. It was written by conservative satirist Paul Shanklin and aired on Rush Limbaugh’s radio program.

The title of the song is based on a March 19, 2007 LA Times article entitled Obama the “Magic Negro” written by David Ehrenstein. In the article Ehrenstein makes the argument that then Senator Obama lends himself to white America’s idealized standards of a less-than-real black man. According to Ehrenstein, “For as with all Magic Negroes, the less real he seems; the more desirable he becomes.”

The song is a parody of Rev. Al Sharpton lamenting the fact that much of the national spot light has shifted away from him and now shines bright on President-elect Obama. The song (sung to Puff the Magic Dragon) opens with:

Barack the Magic Negro lives in D.C. The L.A. Times they called him that 'cause he's not authentic like me... See, real black men like Snoop Dogg or me or Farrakhan; have talked-the-talk and walked-the- walk, not come in late and won.

This song is one of forty-one songs on the CD entitled “We Hate America”. Other titles include Bank of Amigo; The Stay-Spanglish Banner; Mister Tan Marine Man; and I am Woman. At a time when the Republican Party is seeking to re-invent itself and expand its base, America is not well served by such futile attempts at humor.

What was it about this CD that Saltsman found so appealing? What is the climate within the Republican Party that made Saltsman feel comfortable enough as one of their candidates for chair that he would openly send such a thing to fellow Party officials? Finally, why do Shanklin and Saltsman feel the groups being satirized hate America? Is this another failed attempt, ala Sarah Palin, to define who is really American?

Saltsman has tried to defend this “satire”. He thinks that RNC members have the good humor and good sense to recognize Shanklin’s songs are light-hearted political parodies. I wonder if Saltsman sent this CD to Gen. Colin Powell, Secretary of State Rice, or former Attorney General Gonzalez. If so, did they find it as light-hearted as Saltsman?

There is so much wrong with Saltsman’s judgment, his thinking that this is acceptable satire, his cry of double standard, and the Republican Party’s failure to condemn this vile attempt at humor that I don’t have enough space in this column to address them all. Let’s start with Saltsman himself.

As a candidate to chair a major American political party, Chip Saltsman should have better sense than to promote bigoted, divisive, and juvenile attempts at humor. At a time when America is facing the challenges of record unemployment and home foreclosures, wars on two fronts, and other crisis, Saltsman should be focused on welcoming all Americans into the party and promoting unity, not division. To mock Rev. Sharpton and insult President-elect Obama does nothing to make me want to change my party affiliation.

For Saltsman to attempt to rationalize his insensitivity by saying “Liberal Democrats and their allies in the media didn’t utter a word about Ehrenstein’s irresponsible column…” could be considered childish but I expect better from most children. Ehrenstein’s column may have been a shallow attempt at analysis and wrong but it was a serious attempt to explain the “Obama phenomenon” and far from irresponsible. Ehrenstein (who is black) was never attempting to smear black men.

What is irresponsible is conservative satirist Paul Shanklin hijacking Ehrenstein’s column to create a parody that forwards the notion that Snoop Dogg, Minister Farrakhan, and Rev. Sharpton are “real black men” while President-elect Obama is less than black. What’s even more irresponsible is Republican National chair candidate Chip Saltsman distributing the CD to party officials and now calling upon them to “stand up” and defend the indefensible.

The response from within the Republican Party has been interesting. Saltsman ran Mike Huckabee’s presidential campaign and his former boss has come to his defense. Huckabee said, "Chip should have been more careful in his selection of Christmas gifts, but no one who knows him would ever suggest that he in any way would purposely disparage other people,…Chip knows how sensitive such issues are. It shouldn’t be the main factor in the RNC race." If this was not purposeful disparagement I don’t know what is. If bigoted attempts at humor should not be a main factor in the RNC race, what should be?

Current Republican National Committee Chairman Mike Duncan who is running against Saltsman and others for his seat issued the following statement, "The 2008 election was a wake-up call for Republicans to reach out and bring more people into our party. I am shocked and appalled that anyone would think this is appropriate as it clearly does not move us in the right direction." For this response, Duncan has been accused by some party loyalists as “pandering to the media” and “throwing a good Republican under the bus.” If Mike Duncan is pandering to the media, good for him. He’s smart enough to know crap when he smells it and stay as far away from it as possible.

One of the things that is very interesting is the response or lack thereof from many African American members of the Republican Party. Republican apologist Armstrong Williams’ silence on this issue has been deafening. Former Maryland Lt. Gov. and current candidate for chair of the RNC Michael Steele gave a very weak and safe response by stating the obvious, "Chip knows better," Steele said. "You've got to be cautious, you've got to be smart, you've got to be appropriate. And unfortunately in this instance Chip was none of those things." Former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell believes that Saltsman is a fine individual and qualified for the RNC leadership position. He is on record as saying, "Unfortunately, there is hypersensitivity in the press regarding matters of race. This is in large measure due to President-elect Obama being the first African-American elected president."

Most people are “hypersensitive” to being insulted and demeaned. As it relates to African Americans and the Republican Party one only has to reflect upon recent history to understand their sensitivity. The Republican Party has a history of using race to create fear and galvanize their base. Examples include, the Southern Strategy, Willie Horton, the attack on affirmative action, tying Harold Ford in Tennessee to relationships with white women, and the constant quoting of President-elect Obama’s middle name in a veiled attempt to make him appear a threat and un-American. With this history one must ask, can the Republican Party ever become a party of inclusion?

As the Republican Party tries to reinvent itself and appeal to a broader cross-section of the electorate, they must come to grips with the reality, words without deeds ring hollow. The Republican Party lost control of the House, Senate, and Executive Branch for a number of reasons. One of which is that over time, reality caught up with their rhetoric and the two were not consistent. For a party that claims to be reaching out, Republican National chair candidate John “Chip” Saltsman’s actions and the party faithful attempts to excuse them only show us more of the same, and the American people have already rejected that.

President-elect Barack Obama -When Wisdom, Honesty, and Judiciousness No Longer Seem to Matter

It has not taken long for the criticism, skepticism, and second guessing to begin. Barack Obama has not even been sworn in as the 44th President of the United States and his critics on the so-called progressive left are angry that his cabinet selections suggest a shift to the center or to the right. Meanwhile, critics on the right claim that his actions in response to disgraced Illinois Gov. Blagojevich are politically motivated.

There are few political realities that Obama’s detractors need to appreciate and respect. There is a difference between campaigning and governing. During the primaries both candidates, McCain and Obama played to their bases in order to win their parties nominations. In the general election both candidates had to move closer to the center than their bases preferred in order to have any chance of winning. Many would argue that McCain’s failure to move closer to the center, i.e. selecting Gov. Palin as his running mate to placate the conservative base, cost him dearly.

Now that Senator Obama is president-elect Obama, he has to focus on governing. He can’t effectively govern from the progressive left. America is not as liberal or progressive as the left would like nor as conservative as the right would claim. These political realities are compounded by the practical realities of the housing crisis, banking crisis, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, auto company crisis, etc., etc., etc.

For the most part, president-elect Obama has chosen to fill his cabinet with competent administrators and not ideologues. He seems to be focused on real solutions not theory, conjecture, or philosophy. He is selecting individuals who understand how Washington works and will be able to help structure legislation, pass legislation, and implement effective policy. Obama decided to retain the services of Robert Gates as defense secretary in order to ensure continuity in defense strategy in these very perilous times. While this does not sit well with the progressive left, no one has greater first hand knowledge of the complex issues that face America today.

Granted, not all of the individuals selected have unblemished records. For example, Senator Clinton or “Billary” voted for the war and brings Bill with her. Much to the dismay of progressives, during the Clinton administration Congressman Rahm Emanuel helped to get NAFTA, the Crime Bill, and welfare reform passed. In private practice Eric Holder has represented some questionable corporate clients. In spite of these issues, if president-elect Obama is as strong willed as a president as he was a candidate, these appointees and others will be implementing his policies and not allowing the interests of others to control him.

During the primaries and general election, Barack Obama was criticized by Senator’s Clinton, Biden, McCain and pilloried in the media for not having the requisite experience to “answer the 3:00 AM call” or respond to a real crisis. Gov. Palin questioned his experience as a “community organizer” by saying, "I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a ‘community organizer,’ except that you have actual responsibilities…" Now that he is selecting experienced and qualified people to serve in his cabinet, including some of his former detractors the criticism has changed from a lack of experience to whether he has abandoned the progressive left. Some progressives are even calling into question his commitment to their issues and his honesty.

As if the attacks from the left are not enough, the right has launched their attack as well. As a result of Illinois Gov. Blagojevich, a fellow Democrat, being charged with conspiring to sell president-elect Obama’s now-vacant Senate seat, political vultures are circling overhead trying to tie him to the scandal.

In spite of the fact that U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald has said prosecutors were making no allegations that Obama was aware of any scheming; Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia is on record as saying, "The serious nature of the crimes listed by federal prosecutors raises questions about the interaction with Gov. Blagojevich, President-elect Obama and other high ranking officials who will be working for the future president,…" Why does this raise questions when no connection, direct or indirect has been made? Just as in a time of war, America is in such dire straights that now is not the time for partisan “gotcha” politics of past.

In spite of the fact that Blagojevich himself, is on record having said, "they're (the Obama team) not willing to give me anything except appreciation," Robert M. "Mike" Duncan, chairman of the Republican National Committee (RNC), states "President-elect Barack Obama's comments on the matter are insufficient at best." President-elect Obama has stated, "I had no contact with the governor or his office, and so I was not aware of what was happening" and the U.S. Attorney has made no allegations to the contrary. What else is Obama to say? The truth is its own defense.

Instead of contributing to the media feeding frenzy, president-elect Obama and his team are being measured, judicious, and practical in their approach to this issue. Obama said on Friday, December 12th that he would release the results of an internal investigation into what conversations his aides and advisers may have had with Blagojevich in a matter of days. "What I want to do is to gather all the facts about any staff contacts that may have taken place between the transition office and the governor's office," Obama said. Instead of allowing Obama time to determine the facts, Duncan levies criticism by saying, “Americans expect the highest degree of transparency from their elected leaders, rather than promises of openness on the campaign trail." As chairman of the RNC Duncan is the spokesperson of the party and speaks for every Republican who does not say otherwise.

According to the Wall Street Journal, “President-elect Barack Obama's transition team said it had completed an internal review of contacts with Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich -- but wouldn't release its findings until Christmas week, at the request of federal investigators.” In a written statement released by his office late Monday, U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald confirmed that he asked for the delay, saying he wanted more time to conduct interviews. Conservative journalist Britt Hume says, “It is curious that Obama has been so cautious about it. He is a cautious man, but you do wonder, don't you? Wonder about what? Even though the Obama team does not have to comply with the request, why would they not?

The one thing that president-elect Obama and his team can not do is get caught up in the conservatives questions or the media’s frenzy and start to put out statements that later prove to be inaccurate. They must remain disciplined and not allow the desire for short-term responses to cause long-term problems.

I am in no way trying to insinuate that president-elect Obama and/or his team are above reproach or should not be questioned. Democracy demands that our representatives be held accountable for what they say and what they do. For the progressive left to question cabinet appointments and claim that they’ve been abandoned or betrayed before the first executive order has been signed or the first piece of legislation proposed is premature, reactionary, and some what naïve.

For the conservative right to try and create a story where there is none is just republican politics as usual. This just demonstrates that they have not learned a lesson from the recent election; the American electorate is tired of their politics as usual.

It is important to understand that many of the causes of the countries problems are grounded in flawed ideology designed to consolidate power and wealth into the hands of a few while the majority in this country are left to suffer. The solutions to these problems will not be grounded in ideology; they will require vision, wisdom, honesty, judiciousness, collaboration, and cooperation. All of these are qualities that president-elect Obama has demonstrated through out his life and career. If they were good enough to get him elected president why can’t people be patient enough to see if they will also help him govern?

Ask not what a President Barack Obama will do for you; ask what you can do to help a President Barack Obama address the tremendous issues that this country is facing.

President-elect Obama – America’s Struggle in Context

With the election of Illinois Senator Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States, American’s have taken a giant leap forward. It has taken this country 219 years to elect its first African American President (George Washington was elected in 1789). It is imperative that this historic moment always be viewed within its proper historic context.

Since the United States of America was established with the signing of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, America has been a country in conflict. American’s have struggled to live up to the fundamental precepts, upon which America was founded,

“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.

People of color have struggled for their self-evident equality and unalienable rights since the first “20 & Odd” Blacks arrived on the shores of Jamestown, VA in August of 1619. Those individuals were traded and or sold into servitude for food and other supplies.

As I think about President-Elect Obama and this historic event, my thoughts go to Mt. Vernon, Virginia, the home of the first President of the United States of America, George Washington. I wonder what it must have been like to live at Mt. Vernon in the 18th century. Not in Mt. Vernon as George or Martha, but at Mt. Vernon as one of their slaves. I don’t think about the owner of Mt. Vernon; I think about the owned.

While the Washington’s lived there they extracted from those enslaved people, those human beings, every ounce of effort and energy that they could. This allowed the Washington’s and those who looked like them to eat a little more, stay a little warmer, and enjoy themselves just a little bit more. Can the tortured souls of those slaves now rest a little easier with the success of a President-Elect Obama?

As I think about President-Elect Obama and this historic event, my thoughts go to the Constitution of this country and three specific provisions, first, Article 1, Section 2 which read:

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

This was better known as the Three Fifths Compromise and was the law of the land until it was removed by the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868.

Second, Article 1, Section 9 which reads,

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

This provision was included in the Constitution as a compromise to the slave holding states. The logic being that after 21 years the slave population would be sustainable by natural birth rates and the importation of slaves would no longer be necessary.

Third, Article 4, Section 2 which read,

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.)

This was better known as the Fugitive Slave Clause and was the law of the land until it was removed by the ratification of the 13th Amendment in 1865.

These Constitutional provisions come to mind since they were the legal and conceptual foundations of the oppression that Africans in America and later African Americans have been subjected to since the founding of this nation.

As I think about President-Elect Obama’s defeat of Senator John McCain and bask in the comfort of this historic event, I must also fear its backlash. History tells us that white supremacy dies hard in America and its proponents will not take America’s victory lying down.

I think back to 1908 and Jack Johnson’s defeat of Tommy Burns to become the first African American boxing Heavy Weight Champion of the world. This led to the search for the “Great White Hope” James Jackson Jeffries. Before Johnson fought Jefferies on July 4, 1910, the crowd chanted “Kill the nigger.” Johnson’s defeat of Jefferies ignited numerous incidents of white violence against African American’s. It set off some of the worst racial violence in American history.

As I think about President-Elect Obama’s victory in these depressed economic times I reflect upon the Red Summer of 1919. There were there were 26 separate riots in communities and cities across the United States where African Americans were the victims of physical attacks. The riots were sparked by postwar tensions of racism, unemployment, inflation, and violence by radical political groups. I think about the Tulsa, Oklahoma Race Riot of 1921, the burning of the Rosewood, FL community in 1923, and so much of the racial violence that was unleashed upon African Americans from 1917 to 1923. America finds itself today in similar circumstances with wars on two fronts, historic housing foreclosures, and record job loss.

As I think about President-Elect Obama and this historic event I remember Dr. King, Medgar Evers, President Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy, and Malcolm X. I reflect upon Emmett Till, Goodman, Schwerner, and Chaney; and Carol Robertson, Cynthia Wesler, Addie Mae Collins, and Denise McNair, the four little girls who were killed September 15, 1963 when the Ku Klux Klan bombed the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama. All martyrs who gave their lives as America struggled to live up to the fundamental precepts, upon which America was founded. All martyrs who gave their lives as America struggled to finally elect its first African American president.

As America celebrates a crowning achievement, the election of its first African American President in 219 years, it is important to recognize that this did not take place in a vacuum. History is very important. It is a branch of knowledge that records and explains past events. We can not loose site of the history as we celebrate this historic event.

On August 10, 2008 The New York Times published an article by Matt Bai entitled Is Obama the End of Black Politics? What a ridiculous question. The popular vote was almost too close to call. In spite of all of the success that America has made in the context of race, Senator Obama ran a deracialized campaign for a reason. There are still miles to go before we sleep.

Is Obama the End of Black Politics? A Ridiculous Question

On August 10, 2008 The New York Times published an article by Matt Bai entitled Is Obama the End of Black Politics? The premise of the article is that in 2008, 60 years after Strom Thurmond left the Democratic Party over the issue of integrating the armed forces and 45 years after Dr. King’s “I Have a Dream Speech” the Democratic party is poised to deliver its nomination for the nation’s highest office to an African-American, and this some how signals the end of Black politics.

To equate Senator Obama’s historic campaign for the highest office in the land and presumed nomination by the Democratic Party with the end of Black politics demonstrates that the author does not understand either issue. The fact that The New York Times would publish such rubbish begs the same questions that were recently asked about The New Yorker magazine, “…are these editors serious….are they paying any attention to what they are publishing?”

All too often writers, journalists, reporters, and analysts, demonstrate their ignorance of African American people and the African American experience by trying to assign simplistic answers to very complex problems, events, and circumstances. This usually results in African Americans and their politics being viewed as devoid of substance, myopic, shallow, and emotional; when in fact, Black politics is policy focused and born out of a people’s historical experience. It’s based upon slavery, oppression, exploitation and the life-long quest for human and civil rights. To think that a major political party nomination or the election of an African American as president can bring an end to Black politics as opposed to being part of its continuum is utterly ridiculous.

Bai writes, “…however, a lot of the old activists stood in the path of an African-American’s advancement rather than blazing it…While Democratic black voters embraced Obama by ratios of 8 or 9 to 1 in a lot of districts, the 42 House members in the Congressional Black Caucus, for a time, split more or less down the middle between Obama and Clinton…” In these perilous times, American’s, particularly African American’s can ill afford to engage in sentimental politics, there’s too much at stake.

“Old activists” have not stood in Senator Obama’s path; they’ve questioned his politics, his position on critical issues and his viability as a candidate. That’s what an intelligent and engaged electorate does. Contrary to Mr. Bai’s data, African American voters did not initially embrace Obama by the margins he referenced. Many African American voters did not know who he was and had no idea of where he stood on their issues. They were not just going to emotionally “vote for the Black guy”. Only over time and by developing a sense of viability did more of the African American community embrace his candidacy. Again, that’s practical politics.

Bai continued, “It is hard for any outsider to fully understand the thinking that led many older black leaders to spurn the candidacy of a man who is now routinely pictured with ‘60s-era revolutionaries like Angela Davis and Malcom-X, on T-shirts sold at the street-corner kiosks of black America.” It’s only hard to understand if one confuses marketing with politics and change with revolution. Just because vendors put Obama’s image on T-shirts does not mean that “old black leaders” or African American voters are confusing Obama’s de-racialized campaign with the true revolutionary politics of Angela Davis and Malcolm-X. Senator Obama has called for change not revolution. He is working within the established structure, not working to overthrow it. African American’s clearly understand the pit-falls of allowing main steam media to select its leaders.

He continues, “On a surface level, those who backed Clinton did so largely out of a combination of familiarity and fatalism.” Again, this is equating Black politics as myopic and emotional and that is incorrect. Some backed Clinton because they respected her politics. Other’s backed her out of loyalty and their long standing relationships with the Clinton’s and the positions that many of them were able to acquire or retain during the Clinton administration. That’s not “familiarity” that’s realpolitik. In these difficult times winning, not sentiment is key. Early in this process Senator Obama was battling the history of racism in America (and still is) and the media created perception that Senator Clinton’s lead was insurmountable. Early in this process practical politics said vote for Clinton.

Bai talks about a “generational transition that is reordering black politics” and how members of the civil rights generation are failing to “embrace the idea that black politics might now be disappearing into American politics in the same way that the Irish and Italian machines long ago joined the political mainstream.” There’s no failure to embrace anything. It is true that some African American politicians from multi-cultural districts have to change or de-racialize their politics in order to appeal to a broader cross- section of the political spectrum. That’s a political reality for African American politicians in a country that is still blinded by color. Obama can not appear to be “too Black” for fear of alienating European American voters who will be threatened by a candidate that champions “Black issues.” Just as the Democratic Party decided in the 90’s that it could no longer be identified with the “historical or traditional issues of the party” (code language for Black issues) and moved its politics to the right for fear of alienating White voters. The fact that Iowa will vote for an African American shows us how far America has come. The fact that Obama has to deracialize his politics in order to stand any chance of being elected shows us how far America has to go.

Don’t get confused. The Irish and Italian machines of long ago were able to integrate into the “political mainstream” for one reason and one reason only, they are White! Race, (even though it’s an artificial construct) was never their problem, labor was. As new immigrants in America who were willing to work for lower wages in order to acquire a piece of the American dream they threatened the labor pool and dominant wage structure.

The main barrier for African Americans politically and otherwise has always been and continues to be race and the manner in which race is used to define and diffuse issues. Yes, class is a factor as well but race is still the dominant variable in the equation.

Historically, issues not individuals or personalities have been the driving force behind Black politics and this will continue in the future. During the 1930s and 1940s a majority of African Americans registered Republican but were beginning to vote Democratic (Roosevelt Republicans) not out of love or loyalty to Roosevelt but due to his New Deal policies. In fact, during his first two terms, Roosevelt did very little if anything for the African American community. The shift from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party was based on a conscious evaluation of policy benefits and gains.

What brought African Americans into the Democratic Party and has kept them there to this day was the enactment of civil rights legislation during the Kennedy-Johnson administrations. According to Katherine Tate in From Protest to Politics, in the summer of 1963 Kennedy announced on national television that he would introduce sweeping civil rights legislation to Congress. During the Johnson administrations the 1964 and 1968 Civil rights Acts were passed and1965 voting rights bill. “He would also initiate the War on Poverty, a set of federal programs aimed at creating new social service structures that would greatly benefit poor Blacks.” It was substantive legislation that brought Blacks into the Democratic Party not empty promises, rhetoric, and symbolism.

During different times in history the focus has shifted. Charles V. Hamilton discusses the shift from the “politics of rights” to the “politics of resources” that has occurred over the past few decades. As the economic and social conditions for African Americans have worsened, the political agenda has had to shift in order to address the immediate reality. This is a natural part of the social and political landscape not race based or personality driven politics.

As long as African American men are incarcerated at a rate of more than six times the rate of White men and the incarceration of Black women continues to grow at record numbers Black politics will be alive and well. As long as unemployment among African American’s is more than twice the rate of White Americans and as long as studies show that a Black family's income is a little more than half that of a similar White family's income, Black politics will be alive and well. As long as African Americans continue to deal with Driving While Black, excessive high school dropout rates, and imbalances in health care, Black politics will be alive and well. The election of Senator Obama can’t change that.

Reality Is No Rehearsal

Governor Sarah Palin did very well in the vice-presidential debate. She was well handled, well rehearsed and well prepared. For a 90 minute, tightly structured quasi-debate she was able to hold her own. She demonstrated a cursory understanding of some very general issues affecting America today. The problem is the real world is unrehearsed; life is live. This was not as her handlers have stated, Sarah Palin "unplugged" or "unfiltered." It was just the opposite. In the few instances where Governor Palin has been "unplugged" and allowed to respond in an unrehearsed fashion, she has failed miserably.

Many conservative Americans fell in love with Governor Palin after she delivered a well-written and well-rehearsed speech at the Republican National Convention. Based upon that performance, a floundering McCain campaign became buoyant and gained the support from the Republican conservative base that it had been seeking since he clinched his party's nomination.

Eight days after her speech at the Republican Convention, Governor Palin sat down for an unscripted and unrehearsed television interview with ABC's Charlie Gibson. She demonstrated to America she has very little if any insight into, or understanding of, the salient issues that are impacting America today. When asked about the Bush Doctrine, Governor Palin had absolutely no clue what Charlie Gibson was referencing. This doctrine is a standing six-year-old policy of military intervention. One would expect the person seeking the second highest office in the land would understand a failed doctrine that totally disrupted the world order and nearly bankrupted this nation.

She believes the war in Iraq is a part of God's plan. Her religious justifications for the invasion in Iraq sound very similar to the Muslim fundamentalists that attacked America; according to them, they were carrying out the will of Allah. This is why religious fundamentalism has no place in foreign or domestic policy.

When asked if America has the right to make cross-border attacks into Pakistan from Afghanistan, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government, Governor Palin's answer was so incoherent that Charlie Gibson had to restate the question by saying, "And let me finish with this. I got lost in a blizzard of words there."

From ABC and Charlie Gibson, Governor Palin went to CBS with Katie Couric. Again, this was an unscripted and unrehearsed television interview. This time, she demonstrated she did not really understand the voting record of her own running mate. When asked to give examples of Senator McCain leading the charge for increased oversight of the financial industry, Governor Palin went into the standard "maverick" line, and then said, "I'll try to find ya some and I'll bring 'em to ya." When asked by Katie Couric in another interview about the newspapers and magazines she reads that impact her worldview, Governor Palin responded, "I've read most of them, again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media." When pressed for specifics, she responded, "Um, all of them, any of them that have been in front of me all these years." She never named one newspaper or magazine. Not even a paper from Alaska like the Anchorage Daily News or the Wasilla Frontiersman.

When asked a question about partisanship in an interview with Sean Hannity, Governor Palin said, "Well, there is a danger in allowing some obsessive partisanship to get into the issue that we're talking about today. And that's something that John McCain, too, his track record, proving that he can work both sides of the aisle, he can surpass the partisanship that must be surpassed to deal with an issue like this." What? "... surpass the partisanship that must be surpassed ..." Can you imagine a Vice President Palin on the world stage representing America with mindless drivel such as this? Has not President George W. Bush been embarrassing enough?

After these interviews, Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric were attacked for being too tough on Governor Palin and engaging in "gotcha" journalism. As responsible journalists, it was not their fault for asking direct and relevant questions. It was Governor Palin's fault for not being able to answer them.

As an informed electorate, we should want to hear from and clearly understand the candidate's views on the economy, health care, international trade etc. What's the basis of Governor Palin's world view? Effective foreign policy is based upon a clear understanding of culture, history, economics, and other geopolitical dynamics that motivate people to act and interact. It is difficult to develop a clear worldview when you have not traveled the world. It is troubling to learn that Governor Palin received her first passport in 2007, and has only taken one trip outside of North America in her entire adult life.

As American voters assess and analyze Governor Palin's performance during the quasi-debate, it is important to understand what they were watching. They were watching a person who was well handled and rehearsed. This was not Sarah Palin "unplugged." She was able to manage fairly simple issues for a 90-minute period in front of a live audience. She did that well. The problem is the real world is unrehearsed; life is live.

Where she fails America terribly is in her obvious lack of command of the subject matter. Where's the gravitas? What is evidenced through her unrehearsed exchanges with the Gibsons, Courics and Hannitys of the world, is a person who has not thought much about world events, their causes and effects. When asked about Iraq, she said, "I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq." Really? Where have you been since March 20, 2003?

Kathleen Parker, conservative writer for the National Review, wrote after the interviews referenced above, "... circumstances have changed since Palin was introduced as just a hockey mom with lipstick - what a difference a financial crisis makes - and a more complicated picture has emerged ... As we've seen and heard more from John McCain's running mate, it is increasingly clear that Palin is a problem ... Palin's recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League."

If, as President Reagan said, "America is a shining city upon a hill whose beacon light guides freedom-loving people everywhere," we must raise the bar, not lower it. After almost eight years of George W. Bush, we can see very clearly the problems that a less-than-knowledgeable leader can cause. If America is going to be a beacon, the lights must at least be on. Unfortunately, with what I've seen from Governor Palin, that light keeps getting dimmer, and dimmer and dimmer...

Senator McCain’s Decision is Pandering with Palin

Senator McCain’s decision to tap Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his Vice Presidential running mate is being hailed by Republicans as visionary, independent, and a break from the politics of the past. Actually, Senator McCain is simply pandering to the Conservative Right, tying to siphon off some of the disgruntled Senator Clinton supporters, and giving America more of the same ole’ politics.

This selection is not the master stroke of a deft politician seeking to build bridges and move the country forward. It is the act of a desperate campaign trying to cater to the politically simplistic desires of its base as Senator McCain attempts to become America’s 44^th President.

Governor Palin seems to be a beautiful person and a wonderful American. This country is full of beautiful people and wonderful Americans but very few of them are capable of serving in the second most important position this country has to offer. This is not about her as a person; it’s about the prima facie contradictions that her selection highlights.

According to Time magazine in May, “McCain wants a thorough process to ensure a running mate who is well prepared.” He has stated on numerous occasions that he was looking for a nationally known political heavyweight with no significant drawbacks who could instantly replace the president if necessary.

The decision to select Gov. Palin was made very late and some parts of the normal vetting process were dispensed with in order to preserve the element of surprise. The Washington Post wrote, “Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was not subjected to a lengthy in-person background interview with the head of Sen. John McCain's vice presidential vetting team until last Wednesday.” According to the Telegraph UK, “Mr. McCain did not find out about the pregnancy of Mrs. Palin's daughter Bristol, 17, until last Wednesday, two days before he announced she was his running mate.” So much for the through selection process, the elements of surprise were more important than the crucial elements that lead to sound judgment.

Gov. Palin, is known for her strong pro-life position on both abortion and bioethics issues and this is very appealing to the pro-life advocates in the Republican Party. The difficult decisions that she and her husband Todd have made to support their young pregnant daughter are commendable. Their circumstance does rekindle the abstinence vs. safe sex debate and demonstrates why children need to be fully informed about the realities of life. Adolescents and young adults need to be armed with as much accurate information about abstinence and safe sex options as possible so that when they fail to abstain they can still be protected.

Senator McCain was supposed to be looking for someone who could instantly replace the president if necessary. Gov. Palin said during an interview on CNBC that she could not speak to the rumors of her being considered for the position, “I still can’t answer that question, until someone answers for me, what is it exactly that the VP does every day?” Well, I hope Senator McCain gave her a job description before she agreed to be his running mate.

One of Senator McCain’s crusades has been against pork-barrel spending projects called “earmarks.” He has said “earmarking deprives federal agencies of scarce resources, at the whim of individual members of Congress…they are wasteful and are often inserted into bills with little oversight, sometimes by a single powerful member of Congress.” He has also said that he would offset his proposed tax cuts by eliminating earmark spending.

According to the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Gov. Sarah Palin employed a lobbying firm to secure almost $27 million in federal earmarks for the town of Wasilla with a population of 6,700 residents. According to the Washington Post, “there was $500,000 for a youth shelter, $1.9 million for a transportation hub, $900,000 for sewer repairs, and $15 million for a rail project.” Senator McCain has introduced Gov. Palin as a compatriot in his battle against wasteful federal spending. This is a clear contradiction between the statements of Senator McCain and the actions of his running mate. The old adage is true, “politics makes strange bedfellows.”

We have yet to hear about Gov. Palin’s perspectives on foreign policy. Effective foreign policy is based upon a clear world view. It is difficult to develop a clear world view when you have not traveled the world. It is troubling to learn that Gov. Palin received her first passport in 2007 and has only taken 1 trip outside of the United States. This does not concern Mrs. Cindy McCain, she said on ABC-TV’s This Week that Sarah Palin understands what's at stake in national security issues in part because she is governor of Alaska, whose borders nearly touch Russia's. A close border with a foreign country does not equate to understanding the complex geopolitical landscape. Well traveled she is not.

Her perspective on the Iraq war is quite troubling. The LA Times writes, “When asked about Iraq, she said, "I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq."” This is her response but Senator McCain touts her experience as “Commander In Chief” of the Alaska National Guard? According to the Associated Press Gov. Sarah Palin told ministry students at her former church that the United States sent troops to fight in the Iraq war on a "task that is from God… there is a plan and that plan is God's plan." She’s ignoring the fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction and the invasion of Iraq was baseless, immoral, and illegal. Her religious justifications for the invasion sound very similar to the Muslim fundamentalists that attacked America; they were carrying out the will of God.” This is why religious fundamentalism has no place in foreign or domestic policy.

After all of this, what is really troubling is the manner in which Gov. Palin’s supporters are trying to stifle any questioning of her as sexist. In watching the media coverage over the past few days, conservatives such as Senator John Bainer, Bay Buchanan, and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson are aghast at questions about Gov. Palin’s experience and qualifications. One problem with their responses is that in their attempts to deflect questions about Gov. Palin’s qualifications with answers that focus on her management skills, they call into question Senator McCain’s lack of executive and management skill. They can’t have it both ways.

This selection was not bold. Senator McCain was not looking for an independent reformer. If Senator McCain really wanted an independent, reform oriented, female, Republican, he could have selected former New Jersey Governor and Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency in the administration of President George W. Bush Christine Todd Whitman. She was the second woman and first Republican woman to defeat an incumbent governor in a general election in the United States. She was removed from her position as Administrator of the EPA for being truly independent and reform minded. That’s why she was not considered.

In July Senator McCain said, “This is a clear choice that the American people have. I had the courage and the judgment to say I would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war. It seems to me that Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign.” It seems to me that Senator McCain is willing to compromise his principles and pander to those whom he referred to in 2000 as purveyors of hatred in order to win an election.

Senator Barack Obama and the Paradox of Dr. King

On August 28, 1963 the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered one of the greatest speeches ever, what has now become known as the I Have a Dream speech. Forty-five years later to the very day, Senator Barack Hussein Obama became the first African American to accept the presidential nomination of a major political party in America.

On this day, many see Senator Obama’s historic accomplishment as evidence of the fulfillment of Dr. King’s dream. “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today!” According to the New York Times, Dr. King’s daughter, Bernice King declared that Senator Obama’s nomination is part of her father’s dream, citing Obama’s nomination as, “the acceptance of a Democratic presidential nominee, decided not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character.” This is in fact evidence that America has made progress on the long and difficult road towards racial tolerance and acceptance. However, there are still many miles left to travel.

The interesting paradox of Senator Obama’s historic nomination and Dr. King’s speech is that while Democratic candidate Obama is the beneficiary and living evidence of the realization of the “dream,” President Obama will have to address the current realities of systemic racism and personal prejudice that have resulted in continued disparity between African Americans and Euro-Americans in much the same way as they did in 1963.

The "dream" reference actually comes towards the end of the speech. As Dr. King was close to ending his nine-minute delivery, the great gospel singer Ms. Mahalia Jackson was standing behind him and said, “…tell them about the dream Martin…tell them about the dream…” With that prompting Dr. King left the prepared text and began, “…so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream.” It’s important to understand that he spoke of the dream in the context of a horrific reality for “Negro’s” and the poor. What makes the “dream” significant is its juxtaposition against America’s reality, failures, and systemic oppression of its own citizens.

Dr. King opened the speech with scathing indictments of America. "…we must face the tragic fact that the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land." That was no dream; that was the reality for Negros in 1963 and a clear indictment of the social conditions in America at that time. Unfortunately, in 2008 those social conditions continue to exist for too many Americans.

Systemic racism manifests itself today as a reality for children who languish in inner-city schools resulting in excessive high school drop out rates, parents who lose their jobs and their homes, and those unjustly incarcerated in American jails and prisons. In 2008, African American men are incarcerated at a rate of more than six times the rate of Euro-American men and the incarceration of African American women continues to grow at record numbers, as well. Unemployment among African American’s is more than twice the rate of Euro-Americans; an African American family's income is little more than half that of a similar Euro-American family's income, and African Americans continue to deal with “Driving While Black” and imbalances in health care.

Personal prejudice and hatred are also still alive and well and living in America. As many marveled and wept during Senator Obama’s historic acceptance speech; three men had been arrested two days before in an alleged plot to kill Senator Obama. According to investigators, they had expressed plans to shoot him from a high sniper position at Invesco Field at Mile High stadium using a “rifle … sighted at 750 yards” simply because they felt that a “Black” man should not hold elected office. Various guns and equipment were seized by the police in the arrest of Tharin Robert Gartrell, 28, Nathan Johnson, 32, and Shawn Robert Adolf, 33. Also, investigators state, the men may have ties to Sons of Silence, an outlaw biker group, and are believed to have connections with white supremacists.

Fortunately, prosecutors insist that Senator Obama was not in any real danger from the three individuals. Senator Obama has been under heightened Secret Service protection since May of last year after a series of credible death threats were received by authorities. These arrests and threats are evidence of the personal hatred that still exists in the hearts and minds of more Americans than we care to count.

In his acceptance speech Senator Obama told America that the time for change is now and, “What the nay-sayers don't understand is that this election has never been about me. It's been about you.” He went on to say, “Change happens because the American people demand it - because they rise up and insist on new ideas and new leadership, a new politics for a new time.”

Senator Obama is correct. The time for change is now and change is not easy. It can make people very uncomfortable, especially when the agent of change is an African American man. Senator Obama is also correct when he says that this election is not about him, it’s about what he represents and unfortunately, that continues to make some people in America very uncomfortable.

According to July’s CBS/New York Times poll, 26 percent of Euro-Americans said they have been victims of discrimination. Twenty-seven percent said too much has been made of the problems facing African American people. Twenty-four percent said the country isn't ready to elect an African American president. Five percent of Euro-American voters acknowledged that they, personally, would not vote for an African American candidate.

These sentiments were reflected in the exit polls in the Pennsylvania, Ohio, and New Jersey Democratic primaries as well. According to Slate, “In the Pennsylvania primary, one in six white voters told exit pollsters race was a factor in his or her decision. Seventy-five percent of those people voted for Clinton. …12 percent of the Pennsylvania primary electorate acknowledged that it didn't vote for Barack Obama in part because he is African-American.”

As America moves forward from its historic night, forty-five years after Dr. King told us about his “dream” we have much to celebrate. Senator Barack Obama is evidence of the fact that progress has been made. He is a powerful symbol of what America can be. However, America must not get lost in the symbolism; the reality is still to stark.

As he closed his speech, Senator Obama said, “America, our work will not be easy. The challenges we face require tough choices, and Democrats as well as Republicans will need to cast off the worn-out ideas and politics of the past.” He’s correct, the work will not be easy and the toughest choice for too many Americans will be a choice based on prejudice, bigotry, and hatred instead of policy, competence, and vision. Can American’s look into the depths of their hearts, search their souls, and come to grips with the worn-out ideas and politics of the past? Can we live up to the very founding principals of this great nation?

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.

If so, Senator Barack Hussein Obama has the same chance as Senator John Sidney McCain III to become the 44^th President of the United States.

Satire at Its Worse

The July 21 cover of The New Yorker magazine has an incredibly insensitive and irresponsible caricature of Senator Obama and his wife Michelle. Spokes people for the magazine have stated that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create. In a statement Monday, the magazine said the cover "combines a number of fantastical images about the Obamas and shows them for the obvious distortions they are."

"The burning flag, the nationalist-radical and Islamic outfits, the fist-bump, the portrait on the wall? All of them echo one attack or another. Satire is part of what we do, and it is meant to bring things out into the open, to hold up a mirror to prejudice, the hateful, and the absurd. And that's the spirit of this cover," the New Yorker statement said.

The spokesperson also points to the two articles on Senator Obama contained inside the magazine, calling them "very serious." I read both of the articles. They were very serious articles and well written. I was expecting to find some explanation and/or correlation between the cover and the magazine content. Not having found either I am left to draw the conclusion that this cover in no way shape of form addresses the stereotypes in any positive manner. It only seems to perpetuate if not validate them.

Usually in satire, human or individual vices or shortcomings are held up to censure by means of ridicule, irony, or other methods, ideally with the intent to bring about improvement. Also, what usually makes satire funny and/or valuable is its basis in reality. In the case of The New Yorker, the Obama’s appear to be the object of the ridicule not those “right-wing critics” who are responsible for the ridiculous and oft times culturally based attacks on them. The Obama’s are not Muslim, they are Christian. They are not radicals who burn the flag; they are honorable American’s who love their country. In fact, in spite of the voluminous death threats they have received, they love their country to the point of being willing to sacrifice their lives for it. In this instance The New Yorker appears to be punishing the victim of the ridicule not the perpetrator, if not perpetuating distortions of their own.

As a person with a very good sense of humor, I have at times stepped over the line. I have come to learn (at times painfully and at the expense of the feelings of the butt of my joke) that just because I think it’s funny does not make it so. A joke, or in this instance satire is only funny or valuable if the audience gets it. In this case, the only ones who got it were the Obama’s, and their not laughing.

The “Willie Hortonization” of Senator Barack Obama and the Audacity of Truth

Over the past few weeks main stream media has turned much of its attention to the fiery sermons of the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright. Rev. Dr. Wright is pastor to Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) and his family. He was also, until recently, the pastor of the Trinity United Church of Christ of Chicago.

Most of the discussion and commentary about Rev. Wright’s sermons have come from a predominantly white media. The points of discussion have centered on what they consider to be the “vial, racist, and un-American things” said by Rev. Wright. Very few, if any of the discussions have focused on the historical basis and accuracy of what Dr. Wright actually said.

The major problem with the discussions is they have been largely one-sided. The media has used the imagery of Dr. Wright, clad in African garb, shouting in the cadence of an old-time fire and brimstone minister and playing to the camera as a scare tactic. Has this become the “Willie Hortonization” of Senator Barack Obama? The reporting and commentary on Rev. Wright’s words have been presented from the perspective of people who either have no appreciation for the African American historical experience or a personal agenda when it comes to presenting these issues.

Rev. Dr. Wright is under attack for saying such things as “…the government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three strikes law, and then wants us (African Americans) to sing God Bless America, no, no, no; not God Bless America, God damn America, …for killing innocent people, God damn America for treating its citizens as less than human…” These are very strong words, delivered at what many are calling a possible turning point in American history with regards to America’s willingness to elect an African-American candidate. While the main stream media has found no merit in any of Rev. Wright’s statements, let’s examine their merit from an historical basis.

When people read the Constitution, the supreme law of the United States, they see the oldest governing constitution in the world. They see a great document that has articulated the precepts of life, liberty, and happiness that all in this country try to follow. What is often overlooked are the parts of the Constitution that laid the foundation for hundreds of years of slavery and oppression for African Americans; the constitutional frame work for human beings to be treated as less than human. It’s these sections of the Constitution that America has never truly atoned for and still refuses to make right.

Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution stated, “Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.” This was known as the Three-Fifths Compromise and laid the ground work for African slaves brought into America as forced labor to be defined as non-persons.

Article I, Section 9 allowed for the importation of slaves to continue in America for twenty-one years after ratification of the Constitution by allowing for, “The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.” This section only outlawed the importation of slaves once the domestic stock of slaves could be replenished by natural birth rates and importation would no longer be needed; again, treating its citizens as less than human.

Article IV, Section 2 stated, “No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.” This was enforced by Congress on September 18, 1850 when the Fugitive Slave Act was passed, allowing Southern states to reclaim slaves that had escaped to the North.

The Three Fifths Compromise and the Fugitive Slave provisions were superseded by Constitutional amendments only after their damage to African Americans had been done and the benefit to America had been served.

It is very easy to wrap oneself in the history and glory that is America and forget that from 1619 – 1868 (249 years) African Americans suffered under the brutality and oppression of government supported chattel slavery. In 1857 as Dred Scott, a slave, petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for his freedom, Chief Justice Roger Taney wrote, “beings of an inferior order (African Americans), and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect."

Even after the 13^th Amendment abolished slavery in 1865, the 14^th Amendment granted their citizenship, and the 15^th Amendment grated them the right to vote, from 1876 – 1965 (89 years) African Americans continued to suffer under state supported Jim Crow oppression in America. This was codified in 1896 by another Supreme Court decision, Plessy v. Ferguson which upheld the constitutionality of racial segregation under the doctrine of separate but equal. These vestiges of slavery and oppression still plague many sectors of the African community and the sense of white privilege this created continues to foster as false sense of white entitlement.

This is just the historical background for Rev. Dr. Wright’s comments. During his lifetime he has dealt with segregated schools, separate and unequal education, discrimination in housing, employment, and lending. Rev. Dr. Wright has witnessed civil rights protesters beaten by the police, ravaged by dogs, brutalized by fire hoses, and COINTELPRO. Since his birth in 1941, an estimated 40 African Americans have been lynched in this country. He was 14 years old when Emmett Till was brutally murdered and 23 years old when Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner were killed. Americans continue to deal with racial profiling, driving while Black, the disproportionate rate of incarceration of African American’s, the suspension of habeas corpus, warrantless wiretapping, and other Constitutional violations.

Regarding Dr. Wright’s comments about drugs and AIDS, let’s not forget the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiments. From 1932 to 1972, the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) conducted an experiment on 399 black men in the late stages of syphilis. These men, for the most part illiterate sharecroppers from one of the poorest counties in Alabama, were never told what disease they were suffering from or of its seriousness. In his May 16, 1997 apology, President Bill Clinton said,

“The United States government did something that was wrong—deeply, profoundly, morally wrong. It was an outrage to our commitment to integrity and equality for all our citizens. . . . clearly racist.”

With this historical understanding, it is not too far fetched to think that the U.S. Government could be involved in similar activity as it relates to AIDS.

What has been conspicuously absent from the discussions about Rev. Dr. Wright’s comments in main stream media is any analysis of the validity of his comments based upon his personal history and life experiences. It is very easy for white commentators such as Bill O’Reilly to dismiss his sermons as racist diatribes since O’Reilly has no interest in trying to understand the plight of people of color in America.

Rev. Dr. Wright has also said, “We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinian’s and Black South African’s and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done over seas is brought right back into our own front yard, America’s chickens are coming home to roost...” Well, let’s examine the record.

The Arms Exports Control Act prohibits the president from furnishing military aid to any country which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights. In spite of all of the evidence supporting claims of the Israeli government’s human rights abuses of the Palestinian people, for FY2005 the United States provided $2.22 billion in military aid. This aid to Israel has a dramatic effect on Israel's policies towards the Palestinians. It is the U.S. funding that pays for the guns and ammunition, F-16 bombers, and Apache helicopters that are used to carry out Israel's occupation of Palestinian land and people.

According to the Boston Globe, in 1984 just after Reagan’s re-election Bishop Desmond Tutu, referred to the Reagan Administrations support for the South African government as "Immoral, evil, and totally un-Christian." Reagan ignored the rising number of Americans who were calling for American companies to stop doing business there.” The president of so-called sunny optimism attempted to blind Americans with his policy of "constructive engagement" with the white minority regime in Pretoria. All constructive engagement did was gave the white minority more time to mow down the black majority in the streets and keep dreamers of democracy, such as Nelson Mandela, behind bars.”

American history is replete with examples of the United States arranging to depose foreign leaders. In 1909 President Taft ordered the overthrow of Nicaraguan president Zelaya. According to Stephen Kinzer, “In Iran, Guatemala, South Vietnam, and Chile, diplomats and intelligence agents replaced generals as the instruments of American intervention.” More recent examples of US intervention would be the invasion of Panama and the illegal invasion of Iraq.

Some may take issue with the earlier statement, “…the government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three strikes law,…” by asking, “is Rev. Wright accusing the U.S. Government of supplying drugs to the Black community?” This story has been well documented in the 1996 San Jose Mercury News expose entitled “Dark Alliance: The CIA Complicity in the Crack Epidemic.”

I can understand people being uncomfortable with the comments made by Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright. White Americans have also been lied to, mis-educated and desensitized about the plight of African Americans. With the help of the social conservative agenda, many have developed a “deaf ear” when it comes to issues regarding race. The truth, especially an ugly truth that forces Americans to examine the precepts of America, “with liberty and justice for all” and compare them with the hypocrisy of the American reality can be troubling. For far too long, American’s have been lulled into a false sense of security. American’s have believed the history as told by the oppressor and failed to understand the reality of the oppressed.

Rev. Dr. Wright is not un-American. He embodies what American was founded upon, the free exchange of ideas in the public space, speaking truth to power, challenging America to be the best that it can be. Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright’s views might not reconcile with many Americans perceptions of America, but they must not be discarded as the ranting of an angry man. His statements were founded in the historical truths that African Americans have and continue to live through.

We Have Met The Enemy and The Enemy Is Us

When read in the context of the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution of the United States of America (The Constitution) is truly one of the most impressive documents of governance ever written. It contains approximately 4,300 words, was completed in 1787, and 220 years later is the oldest operating constitution in the world. Compare this with the proposed Constitution of the European Union, which is approximately 60,000 words and not yet ratified.

The Constitution in its original form was far from perfect. Written into the document were justifications for oppression and slavery such as Article I, Section 2, known as the three-fifths compromise, Article I, Section 9 allowed the slave trade to exist until 1808, and Article IV, Section 2 allowed the rendition or capture and return of escaped slaves to the “…Party to whom such Service or Labor may be due.” In spite of these flaws, at its core are the revolutionary principles of natural law and social contract theory as articulated in the Declaration of Independence. These concepts forever changed how people view themselves in relation to their government. It is not the words that make these documents great; it is America’s reverence for these concepts that make the Constitution what it is.

Natural law states that people possess the God given, or natural right to govern themselves as opposed to the earlier concept of divine justification of a king or monarch. Social contract theory is the idea that people in a civilized society consent to be governed by a set of standards and elect representatives in order to protect these natural rights. Most importantly, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, “…That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…” In other words, the People must always hold their elected representatives accountable for their actions.

Since its inception, the Constitution has been the world standard for liberty, equality, and justice under the law. For example, in 1945 the Vietnamese based their documents of freedom upon our own. The European Union in 2003 and the Iraqi Constitution in 2005 were also based upon our Constitution. According to a June 25, 1996 Wall Street Journal report, only 39 countries (25% of the world's independent nations) were democratic in 1974. By 1996, 66% of the world’s independent nations were implementing democratic processes to choose their top leaders. Those numbers have continued to grow, again, based upon the U.S. model.

Outside of the political realm, as multinational corporations have expanded their reach and influence through globalization, American concepts of fairness and equality as articulated in The Constitution, have been used internationally to address sweat shops, child labor, women’s rights, illegal detention, and ecological racism in many foreign countries. For so many decades, in spite of its imperfections, America, because of The Constitution, has been the stalwart of democracy and the beacon of hope for so many people throughout the world.

Have the actions of the current Bush administration forever tarnished America’s reputation in the minds of those abroad? According to a PEW Research Center survey, an independent research company “…anti-Americanism is deeper and broader now than at any time in modern history… On matters of international security, the rest of the world has become deeply suspicious of U.S. motives and openly skeptical of its word.”

On the domestic front, laws that cut at the core of American democracy have been implemented without public debate. According to the New York Times, “The president can now use military troops as a domestic police force in response to a natural disaster, … terrorist attack or to any “other condition.”” In October of 2006, at the very last minute, the administration slipped into the defense budget bill provisions to undercut posse comitatus and the Insurrection Act of 1807. These two actions now make it easier for the president to declare martial law. It is the undefined “other condition” that should be of greatest concern to the American public. The fact that this was added to the defense bill by the administration and the Democrats did nothing to bring it to the public’s attention is reprehensible.

Also, habeas corpus, a persons right to object to his or another's detention or imprisonment has been weakened. According to the Associated Press, a federal appeals court has held that foreign-born prisoners seized as terrorists by the U.S. government and held off shore may not challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts. It is now left up to military tribunals to police themselves and make this determination according to the Military Commissions Act. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) stated, this is a dangerous and misguided law that undercuts our freedoms and assaults our Constitution by removing vital checks and balances that would restore detainees’ legal rights. This could gravely impact approximately 12 million lawful permanent residents who currently reside in the U.S.

The Bush administration constantly admonishes those who question their motives and challenge the constitutionality of their actions. Members of the administration accuse critics of emboldening the “insurgents” and sending the wrong message to our troops and our enemies. With it now being easier for the president to declare martial law as well as chipping away at the constitutionally guaranteed right of habeas corpus, the U.S. is looking more and more like the dictatorships it went to war to overthrow. What message is that sending? The U.S. will impose democracy upon others at the barrel of a gun but usurp and violate its own constitution when following its precepts proves to be inconvenient. Benjamin Franklin said “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

The U.S. invaded Iraq in order to overthrow an evil dictator who, among other things, imprisoned and tortured his critics in order to silence them. According to the Guardian Unlimited “… at the US detention camp at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba ...According to the Red Cross, the regime at Guantánamo causes psychological suffering that has driven inmates mad, with scores of suicide attempts and three inmates killing themselves last year. Even US officials are shocked...FBI documents revealed that an inmate's head had been wrapped in tape for quoting from the Qur'an. Another was humiliated for his religious beliefs and "baptized" by a soldier posing as a Catholic priest. The documents show FBI agents saw 26 instances of abuse in their time at Guantánamo. The FBI is highly skeptical about alleged confessions gained by its military colleagues.”

The interrogation techniques that were originally employed at Guantánamo were later implemented in Iraq itself at Abu Ghraib. According to The New Yorker, “In the era of Saddam Hussein, Abu Ghraib, … was one of the world’s most notorious prisons, with torture, weekly executions, and vile living conditions.” We are all too familiar with the now infamous Abu Ghraib photographs that document the human rights abuses perpetrated on Iraqi’s by the U.S. Army, and other American agencies and operatives. All the U.S. did was replace Saddam’s torturers with U.S. torturers, all in the name of American democracy. But torture by any entity is still torture. As a rose by any other name…

In a Time magazine interview on January 27, 2005, President Bush stated, “torture is never acceptable, nor do we hand over people to countries that do torture.” I guess no one told him about Maher Arar, a Canadian engineer who was kidnapped by U.S. officials at Kennedy Airport in New York on September 26, 2002, sent to Syria for months and tortured. Eventually, he was released on October 5, 2003 without being charged of any crimes. Again, all of this is done in the name of American democracy.

How does kidnapping and torturing people in the name of democracy make us more democratic? How does violating people’s most sacred beliefs, their religion, in the name of “The War on Terror” endear them to you and your cause? How does this make us safe?

Vice President Cheney has said repeatedly “ To prevail in this fight, we must understand the nature of the enemy...This enemy has no regard for the rules of warfare, and is unconstrained by any standard of decency or morality...They seek to impose a dictatorship of fear, under which every man, woman, and child lives in total obedience to a narrow, hateful ideology. This ideology rejects tolerance, denies freedom of conscience…Such beliefs can be imposed only through force and intimidation, so those who refuse to bow to the tyrants will be brutalized or killed --- and no person or group is exempt.” This sounds more like self-criticism than the condemnation of others.

This administration has violated its own constitution and the Geneva Convention. It has invaded a sovereign country, overseen the beheading of its president, instilled fear in the hearts and minds of its own people through lies and misinformation, and demonized an entire ethnic group of people and their religion. How do we ever expect to win in the court of international public opinion and win over the hearts and minds of those who disagree with U.S. action? Are we not engaged in the very actions and activities, both nationally and internationally that will result in our demise? Based upon the illegal and immoral actions of the current Bush administration, I think Pogo the possum was correct in 1971 when he said, “we have met the enemy, and he is us.”