Saturday, July 10, 2010

The Mombosan Son: Chapter 3

Chapter 3 - Vintage America

“…He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored; He hath loosed the fateful lightening of his terrible swift sword; His truth is marching on.”

Battle Hymn of the Republic

In 1944, America unanimously justified the sacrifice of my grandfathers’ blood, being shot and captured on the sands of Europe by Aryan-fascists who did not attack us, while they fought to free Europeans from an evil dictator, after suicide pilots from Japan murdered 3000 military personnel in a place that was not yet even a part of the United States.

Yet, now, in 2008, many in America refuse to honor my brothers’ blood, being blown up upon the sands of the Middle East by Islamo-fascists who did not attack us, while they are fighting to free Middle Eastern people from an evil dictator after suicide pilots from Saudi Arabia murdered 3000 civilians a place that is the iconic symbol of freedom and sanctuary in the United States.
Liberals and those opposing the 2003 military action against Saddam Hussein fail to understand the reasons for it. America engaged a three-fold campaign in response to repeated violations of 17 United Nations Security Council Resolutions beginning as far back as 1990. President of the Horowitz Freedom Center, David Horowitz wrote in June of 2004:

“Saddam Hussein was in violation of UN Resolution 1441 and 16 UN resolutions before that. Resolution 1441 authorized the use of force as of December 7, 2002, the deadline that had been set by the Security Council on November 8, 2002.”109

Coalition forces, led by the U.S. were warranted by the rules of international law to depose an insidious scourge of humanity and establish opportunity for an oppressed people to be free, while anchoring a military presence in a strategically optimal geopolitical region allowing for future action against nations of terrorists’ origins. We did not pick a fight with a nation, as proven by the response of a foreign, not domestic, insurgency in Iraq. We took an offensive position to destroy a rogue, murderous despot deserving far worse than the fair trial and merciful gallows he deprived his victims of for a quarter century.

America did not invade Iraq, as liberals ignorantly allege. A coalition of international forces engaged an enforcement campaign against a dictator who had broken international law and violated human rights for more than 25 years. When the final resolution (UNSCR 1441) ordering Hussein to disarm and comply with international investigators was violated, it was stated in the resolution that such a violation warranted immediate response, an option of which would come in the form of military force. Hussein was nothing more than a fugitive hiding from international justice. He just happened to choose to hide in Iraq.

Moreover, if the nation of Iraq was so opposed to the U.N.’s legal precedence prompting the destruction of Hussein’s regime and our subsequent international military presence there, they would have rejected subsequent democratic elections and the establishment of a government of their own choosing. But, they did not. The people of Iraq defied death threats from Islamic radicals and overwhelmingly engaged the electoral process in December, 2005 electing the most multi-representational parliament in the middle east seating 275 representatives from 15 different political parties. The election turned out nearly 80% of eligible voters in Iraq, far exceeding the highest turnout in America in modern history.115

The insurgency opposing foreign military presence in the Middle East did not come from inside Iraq. It originated from adjacent nations. Syrians, Iranians and Afghani Taliban, not Iraqis, are waging attacks on our military because they understand future acts of terrorism will be more difficult to prepare and implement if we have a military force in the region. Also, it has been forgotten that Saddam Hussein had previously used weapons of mass destruction on Kurdish villages in the late 1980’s. Hussein’s nerve gas attack on Halabja in March, 1988 left more than 5000 dead. But, interestingly, anti-Bush antagonists refuse to acknowledge such inconvenient facts.

James Terry, Chairman of the Board of Veteran’s Affairs wrote in the Naval War College Review:

“The determination by the Bush administration to enter Iraq and remove the regime of Saddam Hussein from power in early 2003 followed twelve years of Iraqi violations of United Nations Security Council resolutions. Prior to the decision by the United States and its coalition partners to intervene in Iraq with military force, Saddam Hussein had done everything possible to avoid complying with the will of the international community.”110

On October 2, 2002 Congressional Democrats passed a joint resolution authorizing the use of “all means, including military force”, to force Saddam Hussein to comply with international law. This was merely one of several actions taken by U.S. legislators to address Hussein’s repeated violations of United Nations Security Council Resolutions 678, 687 and 1441. Previously, Congress approved a similar resolution during the Clinton administration declaring that Hussein’s ongoing “…weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital U.S. interests as well as international peace and security”110 As a result, Congress declared Hussein, with overwhelming bipartisan support, to be "in material breach of international obligations" urging President Clinton "to take all appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States…” to force Hussein’s compliance with its international obligations."110

These legislative actions were not the only demands for immediate action against Saddam Hussein. Law makers also approved the Iraq Liberation Act, also during the Clinton administration in 1998, which states that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the Iraqi regime from power and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.

Terry continues this theme in his analysis:

“…The reasons for this strong congressional reaction to the Hussein regime rested not solely on defiance of United Nations resolutions but also on Saddam Hussein's repression of the Iraqi people, his support for international terrorism, his refusal to account for Gulf War prisoners and his refusal to return stolen property to Kuwait following the 1990-91 conflict, as well as the Baathist regime's efforts to circumvent economic sanctions.”110


Obama liberals have forgotten that America did not start this war. They believe that Muslim violence against America is justified because of America’s status as a prosperous superpower. They parse events to fit their political ideology while ignoring the facts for America’s justifiable reaction to our enemies. America’s decision to invade Saddam Hussein was warranted and correct. It achieved the primary objectives by ridding the world of a despot, freeing an oppressed people, providing an opportunity for a democratic government, and establishing a proactive terrorism reactionary force in the heart of the worlds terrorist incubator.

There is an ironic interconnection of relevance between Obama’s covert identity and the origins of our war on Muslim terrorism. One of the difficulties American society, as a whole, seems to have is coming to a decisive conclusion about the identity and our enemies based on the characteristics of their motivation. In earlier eras of human history, cultures battle over the right to live in a particular geographic region. However, modern war is fought over the right to believe particular religious doctrine.

As we proceed through this fight for our existence, we are failing to see that our enemies are Muslim. They are no longer defined only by the geography of their origins, they are defined by a system of beliefs and the diligence by which they practice those religious beliefs. Our enemies are defined by characteristics found in radical ideology, not their geographic location on earth. Our enemies can now come from Saudi Arabia or Australia. They can come from France or Canada. They can come from Africa or Japan. So, if America is to survive in this time of global terrorism, it must stop defining its enemies through the demography of geopolitical boundaries. Radical Islam only recognizes the borders which separate ideologies, not nations. Muslim jihadists do not respect each other’s boundaries in their unified hate against America, why would they respect our boundaries in their attempt to mingle in our midst and kill us?
America’s greatest impedance to victory is a lack of ability and willingness to disregard political correctness. America has disarmed itself through self deprecation. If America is to prevail in this fight, it must meet Muslim aggression with the same insidious tactic of obscuring our identity and feigning friendliness for our enemies as a means to gain the same psychological advantage over them that they use to gain over us. Our enemies understand that one of the primary strategies available to them is our mindless ineptitude to conceive that the Muslim world is not defined by national borders, first. The peoples of the Middle East respect national borders far less than they uphold unity in their religious doctrines.

Muslims laugh at liberals when they use terms like “right to invade” and “another nation” in reference to the Iraq liberation. They understand that as long as we anchor our security to an archaic myth of geography, terrorists will have a strategic advantage over us. Given the openness of American society combined with invisibility of Middle Eastern borders, terrorists are free to infest and attack their targets at will. The governments of Muslim cultures permit permeable migration for religious reasons, therefore, it is completely ignorant to believe they would prevent it during war. And, since we do not even have the will to prevent illegal immigration from our neighbors, how will we ever protect ourselves from terrorist invasion. Or, do Americans actually believe that Iran is not funding terrorism in every location possible, all over the world?

Political and military strategists call this an "asymmetrical conflict." In other words, we are allowing it to be unfair for ourselves by trying to stay within arbitrary boundaries of decency and by respecting rules that our enemy does not respect. Until America implements autonomous policies promoting global fluidity and self-declared rights to determine the measures of its own security, globally, the struggle against terrorism will be hindered by our reverence for geopolitical regions without a greater contempt for radicalized hostility rooted in the beliefs of the people within them. All Americans must accept the reality that, somewhere on planet earth, right now, at this very moment, while you read these words, radical Muslims are actively planning and preparing for the next opportunity to kill Americans. But most importantly, many liberal Americans fail to understand that America is not actively seeking to attack Muslims. Perhaps only when someone valued by liberals is murdered by a radical Muslim will they abandon their politically correct degeneracy and take the threat seriously with more vigorous prejudice.

At the time of Obama’s election in 2008, America’s homeland had been kept safe from terrorism for 7 years, 1 month, and 23 days. As many waited hours in line at polling stations on November 4, 2008, they had all but forgotten that tragic September day, when evil descended upon on us, murdering thousands and changing the identity of America forever. For vintage America, though, the death and blood and fight raged on, 6000 miles away.

As Obama took the place of George W. Bush, ideology had taken the place of unity. Derision had taken the place of unanimity. Domestic interests had taken the place of concerns over international threats. And, the memories of September 11th, 2001 were fading from the minds of the liberal establishment. For the lives of the common Democrat, all things had returned to the way they were on September 10, 2001.

On November 4, 2008, those who lost touch with reasons to fear terrorism, received into themselves a hatred for those responsible for providing the security they enjoyed this election day. They gathered in masses, ironically, just as the innocent targets of terrorists had on 9-11. However, unlike the murdered co-workers seven years earlier, or the dutiful U.S. warriors laboring in desert heat, these people took time off. Only, on this occasion, they all survived to exercise their rights of suffrage that day, unlike the heroes who gave them shelter and the victims who prompted better protection for them.

Unlike the loved ones caught in the World Trade Center who were forced to make a ghastly choice between burning alive or jumping to their death, the voters of November 4, 2008 made the much easier choice between Presidential candidates. Unlike those sentenced to the hellish descent of a lonely eternity, to comprehend their violent end, Obama’s supporters were afforded hours of uplifting hope to comprehend their ideologically bent future.

After Obama was elected, Oprah and Jesse were allowed to cry openly and unafraid, without a plummeting wind wiping their tears dry and smothering the desperate whisper of a final prayer before fatally colliding with a sidewalk at 140 miles an hour. Unlike voters on November 4, 2008, victims of September 11, 2001 surrendered their lives, forced reluctantly into a courageous choice that we might bear witness to their murder by a blood-thirsty, hate-filled, evil enemy. Upon impact, there was no pain except ours. They never cried out and they never expected anyone to catch them, but hoping the angels might greet them before the earth did.

Unlike the voters of November 4, 2008, victims of September 11, 2001 were overwhelmed by a resolve to accept their own murder without recourse, having no opportunity to prevent it before hand like we are failing to do now with the election of an apologetic pacifist. Instead, victims of 9/11 sent a message of hope, campaigning for mercy, vying to plunge their fragile bodies mercilessly against the unforgiving urbanity beneath without any advocacy from a liberal community protestor or union representative. They were not concerned with free medical care, racial equality, quota based opportunity or affirmative action. They proceeded downward toward the ultimate destiny of infamy without embracing the fantasy of an elegant arrival.
Unlike voters on November 4, 2008, the victims of September 11, 2001 no longer had use for race or gender politics.
Where was ACORN in their time of need? Where was the ACLU to defend their rights? Where was the SEIU to file a protest for the unsafe work environment on their behalf? Does being murdered by Islamic terrorist-driven airliners in a 1000-foot tall building qualify as discrimination for ACLU representation? The murdered victims of terrorists had no illusions about making it home to their family that day, let alone finding advocacy to defend their constitutional rights. They were forced precariously over the mortal edge into a mythic end. Contrary to their cowardice murderers, they became listless warriors of God almighty, choosing to eviscerate their own vessels upon the hard, grey shadows of heroism, resigning the future of their legacy into the hands of grace. They put the redemption of their earthly lives into your hands! And, the best reply we can muster for their example of courage is…..Barack Obama.

The vision of 9/11 victim’s nightmarish fatality dances on the fringes of our mind’s capacity to conceive it. We desperately try to hold their helplessness at bay behind protective deniability, concealed by the bustle of our delusional existence, as it impedes upon our inability to digest the vividness of its actual revulsion. Unlike our lack of knowledge about Obama, we knew these people. They were our neighbors, our friends, our families, our coworkers and our champions of life. We saw their birth, knew their spouses, and mentored their children. Their final message was sent down from the highest place to show you what true courage is. They sent a commission for you to live the long life they were deprived of and for you to see with great clarity the face of wickedness that murdered them in such a hellish manner.

When you ask Obama to disclose his identity, remember the lonely death of innocents jumping from flame filled windows who all had to prove their identity to have a job so tragically high up in that serene, blue autumn sky. Unlike their demonic murderers, the end of their lives was imminent, not chosen because of an adherence to evil religious doctrine or radical political ideology. Know they fell in silence onto debris covered New York streets, because crying was futile and the street was the only thing available once salvation had abandoned them. Foremost, know that every warrior dying under the ravages of a foreign sun enlisted to their duty with a certificate of blood-right to natural born renown. If they can make their decision in death, we have no excuse not to make ours in life.


Though we should respect everyone’s right to a political opinion, we should also invoke our right to violate the conscience of anyone defending the criminality and ambiguity of a leader when far worthier vintage Americans are dying for our protection and security. We should indict such indecency with violent accusations and unrepentant hostility. If it was worth it to heroes, shouldn’t we be redeemed by it? This was the hope of their entire lives concentrated in a final supernova of sacrifice.

Stop allowing yourself to be shamed into agreeing with your own destruction. This should not steal your resolve to declare what is right in your heart and mind, for the sake of those you love and treasure. When you grow tired of fighting the invisible enemies, remember the brave young men and women fighting the physical enemies in this war so far from home. Compare your fight to theirs and this will impassion your progress. Take within you their physical strength and make it the strength of your mind. Take their bravery and make it your courage. Take their wounds and make them your healing. Take their murder and make their lives your redemption. Engage the battle!!

Are You a Vintage American?

1. A vintage American believes that America is a place of advanced citizenship for humanity. A vintage American loves and appreciates the sacrifice made by others before them to secure the future of America for all.

2. A vintage American cherishes its founders, its defenders and the origins of its birth and recognizes the U.S. Constitution as a sacred document written by history’s chosen natal witnesses. A vintage American is not ashamed of America, nor do they regret the existence of America based on opposing historical perspectives.

3. A vintage America understands that America was founded on the principles of Christian faith and that it is blessed as a nation of exception for the betterment of humanity. Being a Christian is not a prerequisite to being a vintage American, but recognition and respect that America was founded on Christian principles is.

4. A vintage American understands that the Constitution makes no prescription for a separation of church from the state, but instead that the first amendment is a prohibition of government infringement upon the church, or acts by the government in respect to favoring any religion over any other when determining the allocation of public resources, legal protections or municipal services.

5. A vintage American believes the world’s people have a right to seek legal residence in America and pursue their dreams of freedom, peace, security and prosperity while adhering to and respecting the laws, sovereignty and borders of the United States.

6. A vintage American has served in the armed forces or civil service work to the benefit and security of others. All wounded veterans, possessing a Purple Heart, are vintage Americans. A vintage American has a sibling, parent or grandparent who has served America in the armed forces or civil service work to the benefit and security of others.

7. A vintage American believes in individualism, personal sovereignty, accountability and the right to personal security through the 2nd Amendment afforded by the Constitution. Vintage Americans understand that the government has no legal right or lesser cause to deprive any American from owning and bearing firearms.

8. A vintage American supports the opportunity of all Americans to pursue the highest privileges of our society based on a competitive capacity and decency of character in a capitalist, free-market system. Vintage Americans understand that the value in any transaction is determined only by the two parties involved.

9. Vintage Americans are not racists. They respect the value of their own cultural identity and are proud of the history of their heritage. Vintage Americans honor their families and the lives of those who are honorable, and those who came before them who were honorable.

10. A vintage American understands that members of our government operate in service of the people who elect them. The authority of government does not originate in the ideology of political preservation but in the will of the people to see the preservation of sovereignty, strength, security, moral authority and liberty. Vintage Americans oppose the pursuit of political service as a career.

11. Vintage Americans are compassionate people with a fierce willingness to physically fight for the future of their children and the security of their family.

Fight against the propensity to simply plod dim-eyed and capitulatory through your days, one lethargic breath after the next, in acceptance of everything you are told by radicals. Destroy the liars by first seeking the truth yourself. The days of silent dissent have passed. It is time to kill liberal radicalism with a constitutional potency and the weaponry of decent character. Write that book. Teach that child. Help that person in need. Comfort the truly fallen. Help the helpless, but reject the willfully clueless. Do something right in the names of heroes. Ask the important questions and demand the essential answers. If you don’t, the consequences will steal away that life you lead and you will be enslaved by the demands of its invasive purveyors.

When you find yourself in moments of doubt, when the weight of ridicule seems to be driving you away from your course, seek the words of truth from the One true source. Remember those who came before you. Do not forget your dying heroes. Seek your answers in them first, and it will lead you to redemption in a truth that sets you free.

You are a vintage American. You understand the price that was paid for America to exist. You know how this works. You just need to be reminded that the determination of whether or not you have a right to exist is not made by those seeking to kill you. It is determined by the One who created you. Because of this, in the absence of others willing to declare righteousness, you are qualified to declare what is right based on these truths. Most importantly, you alone are the only one qualified to determine the clear and present danger threatening your life. You alone have a right to identify your enemies and fight them, on your terms.


On November 5, 2009, in the second terrorist attack on American soil since Obama was elected, radical Islamic jihadist, Nidal Malik Hasan, walked into a crowded Army enlistment processing center at Fort Hood, Texas, shouted, ‘Allahu Ackbar!’, and opened fire on the unarmed people within. Hasan murdered 13 Americans, and wounded another 29.

Hasan held the rank of Major and worked as a psychiatrist with the Army’s Medical Corp counseling soldiers. Aside from his rank and occupation, however, Hasan’s true identity is something far more horrific. He is one of millions of possible terrorists living in America who hold within them the brazened psychological and ideological prerequisites for mass murder permitted under the doctrines of their radical religion. More frightening, however, is that shadow terrorists, like Hasan are embedded and protected by America’s own lack of willingness to identify terrorist enemies based on the characteristics exhibited through radicalization by the Islamic religion. There were many opportunities for authorities to neutralize Hasan before his rampage, but they refused to execute the security measures because they feared legal and political consequences.

Hasan was able to take advantage insidious political correctness while exploiting America’s First Amendment and liberal pacifications to gain leverage over national security measures. Then, he infiltrated the inner realm of our national defenses and used his status as a medical professional and a military officer to pretend to be the friend of Americans who, in turn, grew to trust him, allowing him access to the most vulnerable parts of their lives. Then, once he was strategically positioned, in true radical Islamic form, he killed them.

Hasan’s murderous rampage was not stopped by politeness, political correctness or diplomacy. It was stopped when someone finally identified him as the enemy he actually was and used deadly force in an attempt to eradicate him from humanity. Hasan represents a disturbing reality in America. He is an enemy within.

Likewise, in politics, as in the constructs of terrorism, by successfully diminishing initial sources of information exposing one’s true identity, the enemy within knows it can gain leverage over the trust of the American public. Then, when more powerful incriminating evidence might be produced in the future, it will be too late to stop the rampage, no matter how confirmed and factual the evidence is.

Hasan’s assault was foreshadowed on many occasions prior to November 5, 2009. However, the authorities assigned to neutralize threats like Hasan were prevented from acting by nonsensical social values and politically correct idiocy. This pacifism is how the fascist enemies of the past sought to gain bowing acceptance of their desire to murder us. This is the insidious method used to convince decent people that our oppressor has a right to either control us, or destroy us. This is how the liberal culture of death seeks to make you believe that you don’t have a right to be alive if you refuse to live the existence they mandate for you. This is how you are manipulated into believing that you don’t have the right to offend, let alone oppose, those seeking to kill you. This is how the executioner not only seeks to remove your head, but desires to see you walk the gallows willingly and make it more convenient for him. How long will you wait? How near in proximity will you allow the blood thirsty adversaries of your children to come before you mount the intellectual armament and assume the battle array?

The politically correct liberal understands that it doesn’t need to fight every piece of evidence discovered against Obama. It has access to media resources which only need to cast as wide and as deep as possible a net of ridicule and doubt over the entire Obama legitimacy investigation, in general. Like the ideologies which protected Hasan from the security measures of our military before he murdered innocent people, the liberal media creates ridicule and hate-based propaganda to protect Obama and disarm the most qualified people assigned to protect America. Specifically, the liberal establishment will try to marginalize anyone resisting Obama’s liberal onslaught by accusing his opposition of racism.

Our government wields the most corrupt methods in its lust to gain power over the minds and able bodies of free people. Our beautiful lives are simultaneously coveted and despised by the reprobates of the world who, finding themselves in a position of destructive power inside our vulnerable places. The government will reduce your existence to little more than a generator of tax revenue to fund their ideology, if you simply do not fight back. If you remain permissive, the government will confiscate the value of who you are and make that value serve its insidious purpose. Our government will use any method, no matter how evil, to achieve this. These methods include deception, misinformation, and intimidation and, at its worst, personal destruction…even covert murder.

Let’s never forget, Barack Obama was merely selected for the team that November day. He had not yet won anything, as he proclaimed to have. While Jesse and Oprah cried tears of joy for their heritage, did they remember those who had already sacrificed themselves on behalf of all races, before Obama even showed up? Do they even care? While they upheld the results of an afforded election as a victory for their own culture, did they reserve honor for that very same right which was taken from others before? So when Obama stands on the 200 year old lawn of the White House and proclaims, “I won,” let these perspectives answer your questions about vintage America’s regard for Barack Obama, and know the permission and endowment for his current position does not rest with him or those who voted for him. It rests with those who, in sacrifice of everything, did not get to.

Offering irrelevant tokens intended to cancel the Bush Administration’s effective security measures, Barack Obama intends to rescind, not only policy, but even official terminology previously used to accurately describe our murderous enemies. The remodel of terms used to describe accused terror suspects held at Guantanamo prison, and Islamic murderers like Hasan, should have been a call to revolution. In the first six months of his initial term, Obama decreed that terrorists heretofore be referred to as “manmade disasterists” rather than “terrorists”.

The Obama administration is more willing to change how we label evil, without the resolve to actually prevent it from happening. He made the decree in concert with a decision to shut down the detention facility at Guantanamo without offering any alternative how the detainees will be classified, or where they will be held in the future. Then again, what else might we expect from such a talented word-smith? By implementing the ornamental directive, Obama continued to diminish America’s aversion to destruction at the hands of terrorists, this time, by prohibiting the use of the terms “enemy combatants” within his administration. These terms were created by the Bush Administration to describe unarraigned detainees arrested on the battle field, not to pander to a national fetish to not offend our enemies.

In an attempt to cosmetically enhance American opinion about alleged terrorist prisoners, Obama engaged a massive public relations campaign to “redistribute” America’s prevailing support for the theory that since terrorists want to kill us, they indeed must actually be bad. Describing terrorists as "enemies" and "combative" apparently opposed Obama's insidious policy against violating the rights of murderers to not be offended. In doing so, he hoped to undermine the effective asceticism of the Bush Administration while gaining global support for his rendition of a softer, more legally friendly, anti-terror stratagem. Unfortunately, Obama’s bark is less effective than the bite of those who want to kill us. Throwing adjectives and superlatives at terrorist enemies until they run out of bullets and strap-on bombs is not an acceptable strategy. Disregarding the fact that the Bush Administration provided eight years of safety and zero domestic casualties since 9/11, Obama demonstrated to the world that we were less willing to heed the tragic requiem of fallen towers than we are to afford inalienable rights to murderous aliens. We do this in betrayal of our battlefield heroes. We receive into ourselves a redefinition of terrorism that alleviates liberal guilt for having the audacity to not want to be killed by those who invoke our own constitutional mandate to allow their right to murder us as their freedom of religious expression, while our president and pathological liberals give them the guided tour. It is sick. It is despicable and it is insidious against the human right to preserve one’s own existence. Most frightening, however, the Obama Administration is still implementing a strategy against terrorism by putting the interests and sentiments of foreign nations before our own. Liberals refer to this as “diplomacy”. However, really it’s just apologizing to the rest of the world for America’s exceptionalism. By merely overhauling public relations as his primary weapon to combat religionist murderers, it appears he is more concerned about not offending Islamic radicals than he is about protecting Americans in the future. Meanwhile, thousands of terrorists all over the world take account of Obama's decisions and conclude their tactics must actually be working.

Rather than remembering the reasons 8000 heroes, including 3000 victims on 9/11, and their families have given us to remain vigilant and unrelenting, the liberal establishment is choosing to give respect to terrorists who communicate with the world through the language of homicidal annihilation. Unfortunately, the terrorists Obama hopes to accommodate through extraneous “redefinitive” gestures are not even in Guantanamo prison and have no concern for his politics, or his anti-Bush laments. The suspects captured thus far are not diplomatic, they are not reasonable, and the only relations they desire to have with us are ones in which we act like docile, unprotected targets submitting to their murderous destruction.
Radical Muslims did not start out as terrorists. They became terrorists by first being Muslim. Not all Muslims become terrorists, but the lack of liberal’s willingness to use the harshest terms possible in reference to Islamic radicals reveals a startling weakness in the Obama Administration’s priority to uphold American security ahead of offending foreign governments. It makes one question whether or not Mr. Obama would have the substance of character to respond in the harshest way to another cataclysmic event at the hands of Islamic murderers.


The Neo-liberal, fueled by hysteria over the election of Obama, is one who has taken vigorous pains to disguise the intended purpose of America's originators by mystifying their pristine message, mixing it with half truths, while disseminating the blatant lie that the American Constitution, when held in the benefit of its creators, is a meaningless document haphazardly concocted by racists and expatriated, old, white men. The strain of our society that blindly supports Obama hates vintage America. They despise America's creators and the heirs of our history for their righteous audacity to create a nation for advanced, accountable people with little interest in the empowerment of domestic government or the placation of foreign ones.
However, when liberals distort the meaning of the Constitution to serve their destructive cause, it conveniently becomes the lionized champion of human doctrine affording Obama and the liberal government with power against vintage America. Liberals employ delusional values to morph the standards of their behavior because so little governs against it in their own system of social values. Under liberal rules, suddenly, all things that have been commonly understood to be right become wrong, and vice versa. As such, it cannot be stated too harshly that the liberal's offense upon the memory and honor of vintage America in this matter works to discount the priceless bloodshed of our ancestors who gave everything to see us through to peace and endow us with the rights we now enjoy.

Oppose liberalism and government expansion. Confront them with these questions. Why is the blood of your grandfather then worth more than the blood of your brother now? What innocent victims were worth fighting for then that you no longer believe are worth fighting for now? Your freedom was paid for by those more worthy of it than you, yet you desecrate their memory by hijacking the freedom they gave you and using it to protest the manner in which they provided it. Your security was bought with the blood of others and the peace you have now is the exception, not the rule. Your sovereignty is the result of it being achieved by someone else, not the result of it being passively allowed by you.

Liberals thrive on the failure others and seek to keep their failure alive for their purposes of maintaining poverty entitlements, increasing government dependence, spreading social illness and exploiting ignorance on a massive scale. When analyzing Obama’s history with radical liberalism and community incivility, it becomes apparent that our current government is entirely intent upon expanding its command over the American people. For, it is upon these desolate human conditions that liberals find their value and purpose. Whether through the exploitation of the sick and impoverished, or through theft of resources earned by others, the modern liberal hates vintage America because vintage America is none of these things. Instead, Vintage Americans possess the ransomed blessing endowed by the recognized, honored sacrifice made by others. Liberals hate Vintage Americans because they are the possessors of authentic honor, courage, reason, purpose and right. Where liberals enable depravity, Vintage America is generous to those who are deprived. Where liberals exploit poverty, vintage America provides opportunity for prosperity.

Vintage Americans believe in a power greater than themselves, not the myth of liberal puppet leaders. Whether by epiphany or by spiritual affirmation, they understand that there truly is a God. Even if the name of an ultimate authority were something more arbitrary, it would still be derided by the political left because the authority of it lies not with them. Vintage Americans seek to know God more through research of the attainable literature not inconclusive illusion of scientific theory. Liberals hate the idea that anything is a greater power than them so they endow the fields of human-based science and knowledge with the limits of truth. They hate God. They hate His generosity, His selflessness, His intelligence and His mercy for the fallen. God is little more than competition to the liberal establishment. His gift of salvation to mankind is an inconvenient nuisance in the liberal mind, challenging the liberal agenda to keep people sick, impoverished, fallen and lost so ‘social engineers’ can exploit them as a reason to tax decent people to fund corrupt liberal entitlements.


The value of money in rooted in the abilities and ingenuity of humanity, not race and demography. Obama fails to grasp this fact, and as a result of his race-centered ideology, he hates the prosperity of Vintage America. We already know his ideology about individual wealth and the need to “spread it around”, but what social specifications does he use to determine who the spreaders are and who the spreadees are? When Obama speaks of redistribution of wealth, what he is actually doing is redefining the value of every American based on liberal standards. Basically, he is reestablishing the line between what he feels is wealthy and poor. He is making a determination of how much money is too much for one person to make in comparison to the lesser amount made by another. This is an audacious and dangerous precedent for any leader to set. By declaring ideologically based limitations to the value of work and production in our society, Obama is setting a standard by which an overwhelming proportion of achievers will no longer have an incentive to achieve. People who have worked hard their entire lives to achieve wealth and financial independence will now be told that their decades of toil and sacrifice have diminished in value.

Having seen the poverty and debased economic existence of his father's culture, and the culture of his Indonesian schoolmates, Obama was confronted with a choice. The genesis of Obama's hatred for American prosperity began when his belief system was corrupted by liberal radicalization. It began when truth destroyed his delusion that being poor was normal after being confronted with the reality of American affluence upon returning to America from abroad as a boy. In Obama’s own book, “Audacity Of Hope”, he writes:

“Without the money to go to the international school that most expatriate children attended, I went to local Indonesian schools and ran the streets with the children of farmers, servants, tailors, and clerks.”16

Upon coming to America, when Obama saw that we had sidewalks, plumbing and cable T.V., he heard the imagined voices of his childhood calling to him, "We are poor because they are rich. We have nothing because the evil Americans have taken it from us."

In a March 17, 2007 New York Times story about Obama’s Hawaiian origins, columnist Jennifer Steinhauer wrote:

“He started out disoriented, unaccustomed to skateboards, wearing his sandals from Jakarta, ill at ease at his classmates' homes with swimming pools and large rooms.”29

Since then, Obama has fostered the delusion that a redistribution of wealth, driven by resentment, is a viable method for bringing about equality within humanity. He believes a government, in taking from one according to his ability and giving to another according to his perceived need, can create equality. He is mistaken. Government only creates war, famine, hate, and disease when they attempt to artificially manipulate the economic structure of a society. Unfortunately, Obama has never had to face the actual truth about the reasons why rich people are rich, and poor people are poor. In his world, people become affluent by either confiscating money from other rich people through legal means, or by engaging in corruption. Obama has no understanding of how a person becomes prosperous through hard work and self definition of value. Obama has never created anything in his life that encouraged hard working, independent people to buy what he had to offer. His affluence was attained at the expense of others, not through a transaction of services or products agreed upon by those possessing items equal in value. Instead, the unwanted products of liberal doctrine are forced upon a reluctant nation now forced to pay for things they do not want. Enforced by executive power, Obama has enacted policies using baseless ideological coercion against half of the nation to enable legalized enslavement of the other half.

Prosperity is directly related to one's command of life and the humility to accept the occasional failure. Prosperity is directly related to personal accountability and an embrace of the idea that independence from helplessness is not demographically predetermined. Tragically, Barack Obama is unable to separate the causes of poverty from his malignant vestiges of attributing failure to demographic identities. He is deeply deceived. He is so deeply vested in the theory of the symbiotic relationship between race and affluence that he will never see the truth that a man's worth is determined by what others are willing to pay for it, not what others are forced to pay for it.

This is why liberals hate vintage American prosperity. Vintage America understands the need for promoting personal accountability and independence. In doing so, they have made themselves valuable to humanity in ways that cause demand for their ingenuity and skill. Demand for their work. Demand for what they create. Demand for their service. Demand for their ideas. Demand for their innovation. Demand for their brilliance. Demand for their strength.

The idea that a person is entitled to something based on their perceived need is a quintessential liberal delusion. It is formulated on the premise that only liberals have the authority to determine what needs are and how severe they must be to justify the confiscation of other people’s worth. From the first moment we saw the newly embedded Barrack Hussein Obama, we knew he was trying to get away with this ideology. His elevated demeanor and extravagant language was contrived. His polished delivery was compensation for intrinsic deficiencies of character and a marked absence of honesty. In reality, Barack Obama is a politician, and only interested in preserving his dream of worldwide liberal indoctrination while playing the victim of the “evil conservative horde”.

Obama seeks epic economic equality through a massive social justice agenda. At the end of this Administration’s historical failure, Obama, and the liberal establishment’s true motivating factor will be exposed as a grudgeful hate. They will be forced to accept they were not successful in exploiting vintage America. And, they will be cast into political orphanry with the rest of history's moral indigents. After 200 days of the most liberal presidency in American history, there was little outrage that Obama was selling out America to bailout malfeasant entities whose only reason for existing was to supply politicians with financial backing for re-election. Not only are corporations not being allowed to fail by our government, the government is sacrificing us to save them. In effect, the tax money of vintage America is being confiscated by the liberal establishment’s leaders to pay for the losses caused by the liberal establishment. Obama didn’t pay premiums on the policy he is now filing a claim on, we did.

It is widely held that that the office of the president is greater than the individual who serves in it. This applies to anyone desiring to become more important than the position. It is, however, possible for an individual to diminish the effectiveness and credibility of the position. When the office is not sought for honorable reasons, and is not served in an honorable way, then it diminishes the honorability of the office. The office of the President is diminished by the individual who cheats to achieve it. If a lawbreaker is elected while he conceals his criminality from those who elect him, the election process itself is not held in contempt, the man is. If he assumes the position for which he was mis-elected, and is allowed to serve as president even after those who supported him have knowledge of his wrongdoing, the ramifications of his offense will have tragic consequences to the identity and integrity of national public service policy. Not to mention, the credibility of the office of the President is compromised an international scale.

We suddenly find ourselves amidst a leadership conglomeration of the politically and morally desolate. It is a desolation driven by the highest echelons of monetary interests and desire for power over the economy of the world. It is a desolation that has wrought itself so discriminately from the despotic left, that we scarcely recognize any characteristics of decency in their modern purpose. Their derelict offenses on vintage American society are the result of politically driven, hysterical blindness and ideological hate for anything or anyone contending against their dissonant ignorance. Liberals in America today don’t have the first clue about how or what to prioritize as a matter of national interests and security. Their servitude to their own politics over common decency and true alleviation of real suffering will always take precedence upon the liberal docket.

We are imposed upon by the liberal’s anointed deceiver. The only evidence of his qualifications and intentions come to us after it has been strained and contrived through a chain of possession and manipulators of interpretation. We only see the shiny, jewel-laden cloak, as the reprobation is subdued, and the vile cause is hastened that they might assume jurisdiction over the minds and bodies of a bowing consensus while seeking to destroy those with the power to oppose them. Against decent people their leader now stands as a requisite tool possessing the characteristics endowed to him by invisible forces, constructing doctrinal architecture with insidious justifications, lost in ideology, and implementing damnable, desolate politics which will eventually serve the destruction of everything our father's suffered to realize.

The Mombosan Son: Chapter 4

CHAPTER 4 - Caucafrican?

“Nothing blinds you to reality greater than loyalty to radical ideology.”
William J. Bennett

Obama, and the entitlement-minded liberal establishment see your success as the result of your selfish dominance over lesser people, not as a result of your mastery of the world and over the natural forces opposing you. They see your success as evil and racist, not admirable and inclusive. Thus, they hate the free-market and love communism because they believe that equality is only achieved by diminishing the greater man, not elevating the lesser man. They see fairness as a fulfillment of requirements based on demographics and socialism, not as the natural expression of the harmony between compensation and aptitude that it is.

Obama fails to understand that affluence is not defined by the possession of money. It is defined by the possession of character and ability, whereby these characteristics create relationships based on honesty, decency, and reliability, which, in turn, draw demand and compensation in the form of money. Obama’s greatest failure as a leader is that he simply does not understand that affluence cannot be achieved by confiscating money from those who earn it and redistributing it to those who he thinks are simply entitled to it based on his desire to pervert American value systems. Attempting to do so will only alienate the earners of society and cause them to seek prosperity in ways which completely abandon all charity and generosity, which are the foundations of employment and paid labor. Then, the money which was confiscated will simply either find its way right back into the hands of those Obama confiscated it from or be squandered by the receiver with transactions unvalued by society. This is a universal rule of economics which socialism can never accommodate because affluence gravitates to those who possess the skills, abilities and character by which the laws of economic physics are proven in the first place.

Affluent people have money because they have brokered transactions which humanity finds valuable, not because they possess arbitrary, involuntary demographic characteristics.
As such, race-mongering has become a despicable industry. Radical liberal activists have hijacked the involuntary demographic characteristics of millions of people and exploited them to justify monetary compensation for what they perceive are the punitive offenses by affluent people with different demographic characteristics. Social activists have assumed a self righteous jurisdiction over race while exercising autonomous proclamations over its significance in American society. Behold, the result of this social activism. ACORN, The New Black Panther Party, Affirmative Action, the NWRO, Cloward-Piven Strategy and Barack Obama. Next, the end of vintage America.

We act unconstitutionally against the inalienable rights of all men and women when we exploit the demographic of race for any reason. Whether it is for the purposes of promoting pseudo-equality or for preference in opportunity, the very awareness and recognition of race in lieu of consideration for the skill and character of the individual is the prerequisite for unfairly discriminating against the racial characteristics of that individual. It is in the awareness of race, not hatred for a race, that we find the prerequisites of racism. Liberals use race for financial profit.

Doesn’t it behoove America's liberal consensus, if their aspiration is to promote the value of black heritage through the election of the “first black president”, to elect him for being more than just black? Martin Luther King would be ashamed of the political representatives of his heritage today had he witnessed the election of Barack Obama. King’s dream was that America would someday validate all people based on the content of their character, not the color of their skin. Tragically, Obama’s election occurred more because of his race than approval of his character. Opposition to Obama’s ideology is still confronted by liberal hatred, intimidation, fraud and misinformation based on a defense of his race, not defense of his character. This was no more evident in the criminality of ACORN which has committed voter registration fraud in at least 20 states. More than 30 members of ACORN’s canvassing staff have pled guilty to voter registration fraud.

Ironically, but not surprisingly, on Election Day, 2008, it was racist activist groups like the Black Panther Party who violated the civil rights of Americans with intimidation and threats of violence. They took offensive positions at various polling sites against anyone not voting for the “first black President.” Members of the Black Panther Party were video taped obstructing the entrance of polling stations with weapons, targeting white voters.

The message from the liberal establishment is meant to bring awareness to the populous that equality should be achieved by implementing social change on the basis of race, demonstrated through the election of Barack Obama. But, their radical agenda is exposed by their endorsement of a figure as ambiguously legitimate, as racially misidentified, as historically migrant, as professionally inexperienced, and as ideologically radical, as Obama. Combined with a blatant denial of his mother’s white heritage by the liberal media and his racist constituency, the false portrayal of this man is a disgrace and an insult to those who have actually suffered actual racism. How is this supposed to edify the black race and demonstrate equality?

This particular black man was, apparently, so “qualified”, he needed the help of an ashamed, white liberal establishment and racist black community organizations, like ACORN, to win an election during one of the weakest points in the history his opponent’s political party. If Obama was the authentic man we want him to be, he would have been easily elected to office by many more conservatives, not opposed by them.

There are other black men with far better qualifications for the office the president than Barack Obama. Even men like Michael Anderson or Dr. Ron McNair, Ph.D. in death, fulfill the worthiness of this honor better. McNair and Anderson are two heroic Americans who gave their lives in the course of service to our nation, as astronauts during the Columbia and Challenger NASA Shuttle missions, respectively. These heroic men, who also happened to be of black heritage, served America far better with their example of leadership, life application and selfless sacrifice than that of a coat-tail riding, politician and lifelong, radical idea peddler.

On the disdainful question of race, completely contrary to what the mainstream media lusts for us to believe, it remains a teeth-gnashing reality that Obama’s success is not the result of his black heritage. Rather, it is the result of being rejected by it. If he had remained lashed in the chains to his African heritage so far from the freedoms of America, he would have been obligated to a third world existence. This is a tough pill to swallow for the radical leftists because it remains the demographic qualities afforded by race which fuel their compulsion for wielding, not just one card, but the entire race deck when pushing Obama’s reparative social justice. They want Obama to be able to have an “African” father, an “African” birth and an “African” race…….and still be allowed to be president of America. Yet, curiously, we still do not know conclusively what race Obama actually is. We have never been told. The natal documentation he provided does not give his official race.


Where liberals manipulate race, vintage America acknowledges the substance of character. Vintage American's thrive in faith and divine purpose without the standards of a political world to determine their success. They are generous, loving, gracious, and hopeful of all things good. Liberals are chronically deficient and blameful, possessing little tolerance, and are quick to show rage and hate. Liberals are the actual racists of humanity. It’s not just a hatred for vintage Americans, though. The liberal nature is to work toward a delusional end through hate-driven reneging of policy previously constructed on traditional Judeo-Christian principles and conservatism. They are simply motivated to act in accordance with their wretched politics for the benefit, attainment and maintenance of power over the people of America, who are the true advanced citizenry of humanity.

According to the World Fact Book (April, 2009), the population of the earth is approximately 6.8 Billion, of that number nearly 3.8 billion are Asian, 1 billion are African, 580 million are Latin and only 360 million are North American white.2 (See Appendix, Exhibit 1). Yet, the Obama administration would have everyone believe that, in terms of minority status, all the non-Anglo peoples of the world are outnumbered by whites. This is a lie. White Americans are the smallest minority in the world next to Oceanic peoples who make up only 50 million of the world’s population. This is an inconvenient fact for supporters of reparative social justice.

Obama has contempt for vintage Americans because he believes they are responsible for the maligning of his father's race throughout history. He, in turn, justifies his maligning of all members of Vintage America with unfair discrimination. He plucks the historically bad behavior of an obscure white culture from 150 years ago, as do most minorities, and uses it to empower activism for race based justice. He secretly blames Caucasian humanity for everything from poverty to slavery, from disease to economic oppression, without ever seeing that he is the constitute racist of our time.

If liberals can’t label their enemy an outright “racist” they will twist morality and use a repackaged version called, “intolerant.” They seek to accomplish this by infiltrating the weakest points of ashamed American society and through the exploitation of ignorance. America’s children and young people are particularly vulnerable at this time.

Hating is sometimes warranted, especially when it is directed at oppressive debt and the destruction of the financial well being of our future. When hate is rooted in legitimate facts, supported by the rights of decent Americans to preserve their lives, liberals take great liberty in exploiting a double standard. Rather than addressing valid questions directly, the primal, involuntary hostility of liberals ends all normal approach toward reconciliation. Instead, defaming rightful dissenters by calling them “tea baggers”, “racists” and “nuts” is a desperate tactic used in lieu of rational answers for legitimate questions. The baseless insults have become so expected from the mindless left that conservatives are adopting the terminology as complimentary when it comes from Obama’s sycophants. To be called a “racist” by a liberal means you are doing something very right and you are winning the argument. Conservatives are figuring out that being accused of racism by liberals is a badge of political honor and an indication of being on the right side of an issue.

If you are called a racist while engaged in a debate with a liberal, consider yourself the winner of the debate. At this point in the arguement, the liberal can offer nothing more right, more logical, more true, more factual than what you have declared. As a matter of fact, the left’s reaction is only fueling an awareness of Obama’s natal ambiguity. The ridicule from the liberal media only causes the questions to get louder, more frequent and more intense. Angry citizens are lashing out at Obama’s deranged socialist ideology in lieu of asking the most important, but persistently ignored, questions about his identity. The anger is fundamentally rooted in a fear over the absence of truth. Mainstream Americans do not trust Barack Obama because they do not know him and he does not have the capacity to connect with them. The trouble with this liberal mentality is that it knows no bounds in seeking its own justification. Obama is aware that 600,000 white people died in the American civil war fighting to end slavery. In his February 2007 announcement to run for president, he said, “As Lincoln organized the forces arrayed against slavery, he was heard to say: ‘Of strange, discordant, and even hostile elements, we gathered from the four winds, and formed and fought to battle through.’” 114

The man is a Harvard law graduate with a degree in Constitutional Law. He has more college hours in U.S. history than most teachers of the subject. He is aware that the abolishment of slavery was achieved by federal legislation framed explicitly for that purpose by a predominantly white government. And he knows it was created and passed under a white, Republican, conservative president whose policies ultimately enabled the modern civil rights movement 100 years later. But he also knows that ignorant white people are easy to shame and that an “evil” America is conveniently exploited in the hateful lies it will believe. Obama is keenly aware of the advantages in being a community activist in this respect.

Obama also has a strong, but artificially created, social resentment towards the history of American prosperity. However, the roots of his divisive social views about America are merely rooted in the brainwashing he fell victim to at the hands of the exiled, criminal, fringe radicals who infected his mind when he was young. It is well within a reasonable conclusion that Obama’s ideological upbringing bordered on child abuse. His prejudiced response to the arrest of his friend, Harvard professor, Henry Gates in July, 2009 revealed this. Obama’s corrupted perspective on race makes him say stupid things that convey an astonishingly uncharacteristic ignorance far below his intellectual league. It’s tragic to watch a man as intelligent as Obama abandon his best possible effort to declare the truth in lieu of the divisive race politics preached at him by the hate-mongering, leftist wackos who invaded his early life.

For Obama, it’s not just a matter of skin color. It is also his perceived disparity of socioeconomics based on demography. Obama is an equal opportunity discriminator. After all, it’s been 500 years since the Anglo-European migration west and the establishment of America’s advanced human citizenry. Obama believes half of his heritage was intentionally left out it by some genealogical conspiracy implemented by the white race. In his fantasy, the fact that America was created by white people, instead of dark people, seeking refuge from oppression and tyranny, warrants resentment and should be allowed to evade the conscience of the liberal establishment. This is the essential social component of Obama’s agenda. He must have the blind support of the black race of the world, not just America. It is his self associated legitimacy to the black race which fuels his justification for the redistribution of wealth, or put more accurately, the confiscation of white affluence.

With regard to the matter of his own mixed race, though, the documents he has provided do not address the matter with honesty and truth. Obama released a Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’’, (not to be confused with a U.S. Department of Health issued ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ template), through a website in June 2008 which clearly uses terminology for race that was not recognized by the U.S. Department of Health, National Center for Health Statistics, in 1961. (The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) was created in 1979.) This is the federal agency the Hawaiian Department of Health has a responsibility to report vital statistics to. The Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ provided by Obama shows his father’s race as neither black nor Negro, but “African” and his mother’s race as, neither white nor foreign-born white, but “Caucasian”.

So, is a child of an African father and a Caucasian mother referred to as an Africasian? Or, perhaps a Caucafrican? “African” is not a classification of race, it is a geographic description. It is certainly not a demographic classification used to record natality in America. Even though the Hawaii Department of Health has a history of putting the term “Caucasian” on its Certificates of Live Birth, the National Vital Statistics office applies the terms ‘white’, ‘foreign born white’ and ‘native born white’. “Caucasian” is a legal description of race used to describe all white skinned people. ‘African’ is certainly not a racial description according to the 1961 requirements of the U.S. Department of Health. What does ‘African’ mean in terms of genetic characteristics? Though Africa is a predominantly melanic continent, it has a large population of whites and Indians, as well.

Would white’s living in South Africa also use ‘African’ to describe their race on a Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’? As stated in its 1961 National Report, the National Vital Statistics Division of the U.S. Department of Health only recognized race based on the following classifications:

“Births in the United States in 1961 are classified for vital statistics into white, Negro, American Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Aleut, Eskimo, Hawaiian and Part-Hawaiian (combined), and ‘other nonwhite’. The category ‘white’ includes, in addition to persons reported as ‘white,’ those reported as ‘Mexican’ or ‘Puerto Rican’. With one exception, a reported mixture of ‘Negro’ with any other race is included in the ‘Negro’ group: other mixed percentage is classified according to the race of the ‘nonwhite’ parent and mixtures of ‘nonwhite’ races to the race of the father. The exception refers to a mixture of ‘Hawaiian’ and any other race, which is classified as ‘part-Hawaiian’.”55

When questions about the unclassified racial terminology appearing on Obama’s Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ began to be asked of the State of Hawaii’s Department of Health, Office of Vital Statistics, the following response was provided to on August 26th, 2008 as posted on the website by Jess Henig and Joe Miller. The Department of Health:

“…did answer another frequently-raised question: Why is Obama's father's race listed as ‘African’?
Kurt Tsue at the (Hawaiian) DOH told us that the father's race and mother's race are supplied by the parents, and that ‘we accept what the parents self identify themselves to be.’ We consider it reasonable to believe that Barack Obama, Sr., would have thought of and reported himself as "African."

Excerpts from Obama’s Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ showing the name and “race” of his alleged parents, courtesy:

As stated in Hawaii Revised Statute 338-1, the Hawaii Department of Health is responsible for the ”…registration, preparation, transcription, collection, compilation, and preservation of data pertaining to births…” It is not given the responsibility for interpreting the ambiguous use of terms misused to describe race within its vital records.50

It is the responsibility of the Director of the Department of Health to provide vital statistics in a manner consistent with the policies and formats of the U.S. Department of Health, Office of Vital Statistics. By authenticating a birth certificate with the terms “African” used to describe the race of the parents, the Hawaii Department of Health is derelict in its duty to serve the requirements of the U.S. Department of Health. This term does not afford the agency an opportunity to appropriately categorize the race of Barack Obama or his parents. And, conveniently, it offers little more than another chasm in the disintegrating identity of a man who has yet to be fully vetted by the American government, to the satisfaction of the people he serves.

The State of Hawaii may accept the parent’s terminology for race, but the United States government, in 1961, did not. And, it appears the American people are having a hard time with it as well, in 2008. If the Department of Hawaii accepts what the “parents self identify themselves to be”, then what is the race they attribute on the hidden birth certificate for Obama Jr.? Is he “Caucasian” or is he “African”? He must be one of these. Obama can’t be some classification of race that neither of his parents is, and he can’t be some classification of race that the government does not recognize…correct?

Both of these terms are politically aversive to Obama if either one is attached to him. If his race is classified as “African”, like his father stated, it undermines a mountain of propaganda over the past several years to distance himself from the suspicions of a geographic birth as an “African”. The details would not matter. That word is poison to him, and it provides one possible political motivation for his reluctance to release the ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’. If that document were to disclose that his origins are associated with being “African”, it would undermine him, politically. The ramifications would create chaos in the media and it would only add one more point of support to the arguments of the “birther nuts” that he is not a natural born citizen. Remember, politics is perception, not reality based in rational facts and detail, and Obama is highly conscious of any political message that would compromise his claim to constitutional legitimacy to be president. The word 'African' would have that affect and it doesn’t matter that it is a classification of his race by way of his alleged father. He simply cannot allow the term ‘African’ to be associated with him, personally. All is well with Obama as long as his father is lead-blocking for his African heritage, but he can’t politically afford to have the geographic term associated with him in the minds of his opponents.

Likewise, if the ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’ states Obama’s race as “Caucasian”, like his mother’s, it would destroy him politically within his own “pro-social justice” support base and the black community. Being another white male President would damage the liberal attempt to recognize him as the “first black” president of the United States and prevent them from driving their political agenda along lines of demography. After all, if the state of Hawaii and the U.S. government’s Department of Health must interpret from the term ‘Caucasian’ that his race is ‘white’, then how can he have the political justification for being called the first ‘black’ president? If Obama’s race is classified by his mother’s, he is just another ‘Caucasian’ president like the previous 43 men before him. And, this would be monumentally destructive to him politically, and to the liberal establishment. Being associated in any way with the “white male” establishment by way of the documented authority of his natal origins would destroy the social value of his presidency politically.

The only other option is that his race was classified as something other than his parents on the ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’. This would then indicate that an official at the Department of Health, or the Hospital has falsified a vital records document by interpreting the race of a child born to parents who had clearly provided demographic information, as presented in Obama’s Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’. In defiance of his own prescriptions for transparency, Barack Obama’s race does not appear on the Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ he submitted through his website.

When an applicant for a Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ uses terms to describe their race which are not recognized by the U.S. Department of Health, in coordination with Hawaii’s Director of the Department of Health providing vital statistics to the U.S. Department of Health, whose responsibility is it to interpret the race of the parents? And, from that information, who then decides what race to assign to the child if the terms are not clear? Based on the statement from the National Vital Statistics Division in 1961 stating that the U.S. Health Department classifies race based on the terms previously mentioned


Hawaiian Natal Statistics Relating To Barack Obama 196151

Total Live Births In State of Hawaii (Inc. Plural Births) 1961
Hawaiian Male “African” Live Births in 1961
Hawaiian Male “Caucasian” Live Births in 1961
Hawaiian Live Births In August, 1961
Hawaiian Non-white Live Births in August 1961
Hawaiian Male Other Races Live Births in 1961
Hawaiian Plural Births (Twins or more) in 1961
Hawaiian White Live Births to White Mothers having their first child between the ages of 15-19 in 1961
Hawaiian Non-white Live Births To Mothers 15-19 Years Old Born in Honolulu County in 1961 1366
Hawaiian Non-white Live Births To Mothers 15-19 years Old Born in City of Honolulu in 1961
Hawaiian Non-white, Live Births in Honolulu to Mothers having their First Child in 1961
Hawaiian Male, Non-white Births to Fathers age 20 -24 in 1961
Hawaiian Male, Non-white Births to Fathers age 25 -29 in 1961
Hawaiian Male, Non-white Births to Fathers age not stated in 1961
Hawaiian Illegitimate Births Total
Hawaiian Non-white Illegitimate Births To Mothers 18 years old in Honolulu
Hawaiian Non-white Illegitimate Births to Mothers having first child
Hawaiian Non-white Live Births with Attending Physician in the City of Honolulu in 1961

{‘White’ includes Mexican & Puerto Rican}
{‘Non-White’ is classified as any of Negro, Indian, Chinese,Japanese, Aluet, and Eskimo}
{"Other Races" are classified as Hawaiian, Part Hawaiian for U.S. in 1961}
{‘White Mother’ means not foreign-born white and not native-Hawaiian white}

how do they then classify the race of Obama? Obama’s ‘African’ father would obviously be classified by the NVSD as a “negro” in 1961, but that is not the term used on the documents provided by the state of Hawaii. This is a problem for Obama. He has no recourse to remedy it. If his race is classified by the example of his parents, the U.S. Department of Health would not recognize the statistics of his race, and therefore his racial identity as they are published in the annual report. If his race was “interpreted” by an official without adhering to the information provided by the parents, a law, though remedial, has been violated by falsification of a vital record.

In order for Obama to have any standing politically, his ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’ would have to state his race as ‘Negro’, as so mandated by the U.S. federal government in 1961. But, no source information provided by his parents allows him to do this. The option for Obama in this matter is to either continue to hide his true identity or commit a political sin in the eyes of one half of America, and, at worst, possibly 95% of the world who are non-white.

To allow the issue to be consumed by the subject of race alone is ignorant. Much of the ambiguity surrounding the identity of Barack Obama originates from a lack of understanding about the decisions of those responsible for his wellbeing not those responsible for the assignment of his demography. To assign any promotional value whatsoever to Obama’s race is the lowest possible depth of ignorance and meaninglessness.


Liberal’s also mock alternative theories about Obama’s Natural Born Status by playing an ignorant satire that crazy right wingers think his mother faked his birth records so he could become president some day. This only exposes liberal ignorance and a desperation to deny facts. Ironically, Obama’s mother gave Obama the right to his life. Let’s make sure this is understood. Here was a teenage girl, uprooted and pregnant, trying to get through school. The 1960’s were the most unfavorable time for white women, let alone white girls, to have mixed race children. And, still, abortion was not an option in Ms. Dunham’s mind. Why then is it beyond reason to imagine that Obama’s mother would only make the most beneficial decision possible to make life as good as possible for her bi-racial son? Or, does anyone believe that, after seeing the quality of life in Kenya, Ms. Dunham would have ever submitted to allowing her child to remain in such an underdeveloped part of the world? She had the simple option and empowerment of providing something better. Even more rationally, was she driven by her own heritage to provide a real option for raising Obama, to secure his welfare in what she professionally understood would be a better culture? Would any mother do less if given the choice? Ms. Dunham was not a conspirator, she was just a mother acting pragmatically and courageously. She was courageous not to have an abortion and still pursue the aspirations of her life. She was courageous in her illegitimate pregnancy to stay rooted in her academic pursuits. She was courageous in her decision to move away from the oppression of a doomed, inter-racial, distant relationship with the libertine father of her child. Despite her mistakes, Ms. Dunham still had the characteristics of a middle American upbringing. Her compass still worked. Obama can be thankful for that, because it probably helped his current situation more than he probably understands today.

Intelligent questioners are more discerning in a belief that Ms. Dunham was probably acting pragmatically, within the limits of available opportunity, as an oft traveled, wise-to-the-world, mother. She possibly found the motives and opportunity to manipulate circumstances to ensure her son’s future in America as a matter of provision, not ambition. It is unreasonable to think that Ms. Dunham had a direct understanding of the difference between Natural Born Status and U.S. citizenship and any impact her actions would have in determining the constitutional eligibility of her son to be President. She just wanted to provide him with Saturday morning cartoons and a bug-free place to sleep. But, the dissonant left loves to defend their delusion by conjuring fantastic arguments of rightwing craziness.

The willingness of his black father to abandon him actually afforded the opportunity for Obama to pursue two of the three stanchions of advanced human citizenship. In seeking the destination of advanced citizenship for humanity, people desire an American existence, American citizenship and if privileged enough by birth, Natural born American citizenship.

To achieve American existence is to gain access to our quality of life. To achieve American citizenship is to have access to our quality of life and the rights of legal protection and privilege under our constitution. To have Natural Born citizenship affords us with all the privileges of being American, but it also qualifies us, in concert with constitutional requirements, as a candidate for the highest positions of leadership and influence in America. Unfortunately for Obama, only the first two of these stanchions are pursuable. Natural Born citizenship is not earnable. It is inherent and absolute. This is why it must be verified to the full satisfaction of all Americans.

It takes wisdom to understand the greater reasons why God created demographic separation between people of the earth. The actual reasons behind a variation of language, race, religion, are a mystery. But, only a fool would believe that racial disparity is a license to hate. Hate should be reserved for something more qualified than the inherited characteristics of humanity. If we are going to hate something, hate indecency, criminality, deceit and brazened hypocrisy. Hate raw asparagus, but don’t hate someone because of race.

Embrace the fact that we are different and that it is appropriate to restrain our culture along respected boundaries of agreeable divergence. We should find peace with the reality that we need not find conciliation along racial boundaries, within the meager strength of our own perspective, in order to cultivate a better society. The improvement of our society along racial lines will not be achieved at the behest of liberal social engineering. It will only be achieved through the reestablishment of the epic commandments to love God, and love one another. These laws are not found in government policy because they cannot be legislated or taxed.

Photo Of Obama Sr and Stanley Ann Dunham, circa 1971
Courtesy: World Net Daily

No one should be hated for something as insignificant as their race. But, no one should be exclusively loved for it either. Imposing the latter only creates resentment. Imposing legislation to punish the former creates disdain. Hate crime legislation is a liberal fantasy implemented for rewarding preferred demographics rather than for punishing bad behavior. If someone is murdered, it was not because they were loved in the first place, no matter what their skin color. To say they were killed because they were hated is just another justification for spending more tax money and undermining the better mission of instilling faith based, life affirming, love commissioning values in our children at the beginning of their lives.

Yet, liberals love to believe that race is a choice and that if you make the “right” choice to be a certain race, you are more deserving of consideration than those who have chosen to be another race. Liberals have forgotten that God himself created the idea of race and the dissemination of it.

Every law passed, whether Affirmative Action or Acts of Naturalization, in an attempt to provide consideration for racial difference is an offense to the Constitution. This is no more evident than in the repeal of acts meant to deprive immigrants entry to American based on their race. Eventually, we are confronted with the fact that, if we exploit race for the purpose of affording what we believe is a benefit for one, how can we defend our hypocrisy when the benefit is deprived for another, or us, based on race.

Or, how can we justify intentions for creating equality when the liberal media exploits race for their own prosperity and job security, inflaming the passions of otherwise colorblind Americans, just to create revenue from social chaos and community destruction for the security of their reprobate industry.

America has become so black and white, many are being crushed in the marginless region between. There is no grey area for someone like Barack Obama. America has forgotten the right of each man to take joy in his own true identity without being legally culled into liberal distinction of race, gender, class or sexual orientation. American society has become a tool box for the liberal establishment to implement indecency. We have become a shame driven nation more fearful of being called racists by liberal mongers than we are of punishing murderers. The O.J. Simpson trial was a perfect example of this. It has become perceived a greater offense to be a racist, ideologically, than a cold blooded murderer. We have begun to justify murder as a defense for racism. Any sector of a society with priorities so afoul is not worth the blood of the victims they create, let alone heroes.

On July 23, 2009, America got a true glimpse into the mind of Barack Obama and his perspective on race. He had scheduled a prime time press conference in an effort to resuscitate dying support for his massive healthcare reform plan. The presser was scheduled, primarily, to address America’s concerns about spending 1/6th of the entire economy on a plan to allow government intrusion into the private healthcare system. But, instead, we learned some other interesting things about Barack Hussein Obama. Near the end of the session, Chicago Sun-Times Bureau Chief, Lynn Sweet asked a question about the arrest of black Harvard Professor, Henry Louise Gates, a friend of Obama’s, by a white, Cambridge police officer. Sweet’s question concluded with, “What does this say about race relations in America?”

Obama’s 430-plus word response was shocking. The final portion of it went as follows:

“Now, I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts what role race played in that, but I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry. Number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home and, number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. And that's just a fact."

He continued, "As you know, Lynn, when I was in the state legislature in Illinois we worked on a racial profiling bill because there was indisputable evidence that blacks and hispanics were being stopped disproportionately. And that is a sign, an example of how, you know, race remains a factor in this society. That doesn't lessen the incredible progress that has been made. I am standing here as testimony to the progress that's been made. And yet, the fact of the matter is that, you know, this still haunts us. And even when there are honest misunderstandings, the fact that blacks and hispanics are picked up more frequently and often time for no cause cast suspicion even when there is good cause, and that's why I think the more that we're working with local law enforcement to improve policing techniques so that we're eliminating potential bias, the safer everybody's going to be.”

Unfortunately, Obama’s answer to Sweet’s question was the clearest thing he said all night. He actually exposed the preeminent reason for his vigor to effect social change through healthcare reform. He’s racially biased.


The interesting dichotomy in Obama’s misspokeness is that his father, Barack Obama, Sr., is not even be a descendent of the African heritage to which we commonly attribute ancestry of slave ownership in America. Research by ancestral websites, like, shows that Obama Sr. may only, in small part, be a blood descendant of the Kenyan-based Luo tribe founded only in his mother’s heritage of the family. Given his mother’s natality and family history, Obama’s family was probably never integrated into the slave trade in America. Obama Sr.’s father’s ancestry, on the other hand, is allegedly Arabic. If this is correct, Obama is more “Arab-American” than he is “African-American”.

The names “Barack”, “Hussein” and “Obama” have etymologically deeper origins in middle eastern Arab culture, than African Swahili-Luo culture by more than a thousand years.
Blogger James I. Nienhuis writes:

“Barak (Barack) means “thunder” in ancient Hebrew, and “blessed one” in Arabic, the meaning…in Swahili too, which was learned from the Arabic Muslim slave traders…”77

The name “Hussein” is irrefutably of Arabic origin, regardless of attempts by the political left to discount this. Many liberal pundits are only versed in a biased response designed to favor an all-American image for Obama while countering their own delusion that anyone uttering Obama’s middle name must be a bigot. Their argument is loosely based on research of African cultures which were historically dominated, and enslaved, by more advanced middle eastern Muslim cultures. The name “Hussein” means “good” or “handsome” in an English translation, and has been passed from dominant Middle Eastern Persian and Hebraic cultures originating around 1200 B.C.

The last name “Obama” has Arabic origins as well, meaning “crooked” or “bent” or, in some dialects, it has origins in describing someone who is “leaning” or “not proceeding in a direct manner”.

The detraction of his statement on July 23, 2009 then comes by the fact that President Obama is actually not a descendant of slaves owned by white slave-owners in America, as we have been led to behold. In fact, if he is indeed more Arab than African, he is probably a descendant of slave owners, not enslaved Africans. Arabs have for many centuries traditionally owned slaves and been active slave traders.

Choosing to conveniently ignore the fact that a disproportionate amount of crime is committed by African-American and/or Latinos in communities where they make up the highest percentage of the demographics, Obama is remiss in his ideology. And, he seems to avoid the reality that communities that are often served by regionally assigned, rather than community based, police agencies. These agencies tend to station themselves strategically in areas with higher crime statistics and are staffed by officials reflective of the demographic majority of the region, not the community. The president said that it is “just a fact" that African-Americans and Latinos are disproportionately stopped by police,” and that this was "evidence that race remains a factor in our society. But, he completely disregards the facts of the matter.

This was simply an ignorant statement by Obama. His "cherry picking" on this matter, and his blind partiality for blacks and Latinos when they are confronted by white police officers, is a direct consequence of his narrow experience within urban community activism. If he had spent as much time looking at crime statistics in rural areas and suburbs, he would have realized how stupid this statement was. In an American Law Library’s, Encyclopedia of American Law and Legal Information, Crime & Justice, Vol. 4, Robert Crutchfield and Charis Kubrin write in a report called, “Urban Crime: Are Crime Rates Higher In Urban Areas?” ,the following:

“Violent and property crime rates in our largest cities (Metropolitan Statistical Areas) are three to four times as high as the rates in rural communities (Barkan). 3 These statistics hold for nearly all types of crime. According to 1995 statistics from the Uniform Crime Reports, in U.S. metropolitan areas, homicide claims 11 victims per 100,000 inhabitants and more than 25 per 100,000 in some of the largest cities. In small cities and in rural counties, homicide claims only 5 victims per 100,000, and fewer than 2 per 100,000 in our most rural states (Federal Bureau of Investigation). 3

Continuing in, “Urban Crime: Explaining Variation In Urban Crime”, Crutchfield and Kubrin write:

”Studies that analyze racial composition and crime clearly find that there is a strong positive relationship between criminal violence and an area's racial composition. This has been shown to be true across all levels of aggregation, including states (Huff-Corzine et al.), SMSAs (Balkwell), cities (Sampson), and neighborhoods (Warner and Rountree), as well as for all types of crime, including both violent (Messner, 1982) and property (Kubrin). In many of these studies, racial composition is defined in terms of the percentage of the population that is black. More recently, however, there have been attempts to incorporate additional racial groups outside of blacks and whites into measures of racial composition. These measures more accurately represent racial heterogeneity or levels of racial diversity within an area. Interestingly, race effects have been documented in both studies that use percent black and white heterogeneity as their measure of racial composition.”4

Aside from any opinions about the appropriateness of Barack Obama’s choice to comment on the benign matter about Professor Gates, his ignorance about this subject is astonishing. His law degree from Harvard is not serving him well as a knowledgeable, fair minded diplomat if the only perspective he was able to garner from the Gates incident was that the police ‘acted stupidly’. However, it is his inability to restrain his startling predisposition that reveals an ominous underworld of internal substance and motivations regarding race. The evidence of this extends deeply into his adolescence through his college years and into his years in the Illinois state senate. Most people do not know that Obama was the chief sponsor on more than 40 racially focused bills while a member of the Illinois senate.62

If it has no other effect, his prejudicial response against the Cambridge police department should have alarmed Vintage America and shaken the foundations of confidence normal people have in the traditional, evenhanded image of the Office of The President. Many watching the press conference on July 23rd might have concluded that the matter was completely irrelevant to the previous hour during which Obama spoke ineffectively in resolving significant questions about his cataclysmic healthcare reform measure. Upon further examination, it told the entire country, if not the world, that our president is racially biased and that Barack Obama, the man, is angry at America.

When it comes to appeasing the idea that America is racist, his actions abroad provide adequate insight into his perspective that apologies are required for what he believes are the mistakes of every previous generation of Vintage American since, in his mind, America was established by Anglo-Europeans. Interestingly, Obama seems quite at ease in his role as an apologizer for others when he believes they are at fault, but he seems somewhat impudent when the situation demands recourse from his own error. His overt response to a single question about social values, following his mindless rambling around his derisive liberal economic policies, should have told America everything it needs to know about Obama’s authentic motives.

Regardless of the realities of our economy, Obama is possessed by zealotry to redistribute all the components of vintage American life, through the entitlements of healthcare, education and racial preference, to those who he believes are disadvantaged, oppressed victims of injustice. “Victims”, like his friend, Harvard scholar, affluent “black man in America”, Dr. Henry Louis Gates.

Only when America puts away the foolishness of race-based, minority-coddling in its municipal process will it find sanctuary from the edicts of racism and an end to the liberal dissemination of race based politics for its own benefit. Leftist activists are just going to have to find a way to make a living without the punitive rewards of accusing every affluent white person of being a racist. Ironically, it is within the “good intentions” of liberalism by which minorities are discounted, oppressed and forever relegated to the needful regard of white America. People like Dr. Gates are the reason minorities remain in their desolate place. Even after the 2008 election exalted his black heritage, Gates still fails to see beyond his mind limiting ideology and biased social indignation. Barack Obama is a black man in America too, and he became president. What’s Gates’ excuse? The only message Gates has promoted is one proving that minorities serve the liberal establishment better when they are victims and slaves than when they are accountable, independent and prosperous. In reality, liberals, NOT conservatives, are the actual offense to blacks and minorities because only liberals have a self serving interest in keeping them offended and dependent on entitlement politics. Without the insidious sociopolitical value provided for liberals by the disseminations of demography and race, blacks actually have no purpose or value to the liberal establishment. The greatest enemy to a liberal politician is a prosperous, successful, educated, intelligent, decent, black citizen.

Bill Cosby should be upheld as a heroic voice for black America. In his May 17, 2004 NAACP 50th Anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education address he said:

“Ladies and gentlemen, the lower economic and lower middle economic people are not holding their end in this deal. In the neighborhood that most of us grew up in, parenting is not going on. In the old days, you couldn’t hooky school because every drawn shade was an eye. And before your mother got off the bus and to the house, she knew exactly where you had gone, who had gone into the house, and where you got on whatever you had one and where you got it from. Parents don’t know that today."

Cosby continued, "I’m talking about these people who cry when their son is standing there in an orange suit. Where were you when he was two? Where were you when he was twelve? Where were you when he was eighteen, and how come you don’t know he had a pistol? And where is his father, and why don’t you know where he is? And why doesn’t the father show up to talk to this boy?"

"The church is only open on Sunday. And you can’t keep asking Jesus to ask doing things for you. You can’t keep asking that God will find a way. God is tired of you. God was there when they won all those cases -- fifty in a row. That’s where God was because these people were doing something. And God said, “I’m going to find a way.” I wasn’t there when God said it -- I’m making this up. But it sounds like what God would do.

We cannot blame white people. White people don’t live over there. They close up the shop early.”18"

Cosby is a “black man in America” too, and one of few actualized America citizens who speak the truth to his heritage. Being an educated man, Gates should listen to Bill Cosby. We don’t expect ideologically corrupt, liberal politicians to make a statement encouraging the personal accountability of minorities. Why would they. Impoverished black people are their meal ticket while they demonize white people as "devils" of humanity. Without the demonization of whites in America, what do liberals have to propel the scapegoat logic of their desolate ideology? How can they motivate their minions without the false doctrines promoting hate for whites? Not having the white race to blame for the problems minorities face is the worst thing that could happen for the liberal establishment. The liberal establishment has a vested interest in keeping minorities poor and needful so they can be exploited by activism used against affluent America which is designed to shame people into surrendering their money, freedom and power.

In December, 2009, Fox news reported on a story in which the Twin City’s campus of the University of Minnesota, School of Education is discussing the formation of a Race, Culture, Class & Gender 2011 task force which would promote curriculum in education based on theories of “white privilege”, “institutional racism” and “white meritocracy”. This type of radical, far-left, abnormal mind-set is nothing more than an attempt by radical liberals to preach hate for white American society while shaming white liberals into believing that they are the cause of all the pain and suffering of dark skinned people.

-image- Signing of the Declaration of Independence

The race monger will see the picture above as an indication of a lack of diversity in America’s founding without ever realizing that the U.S. Constitution was inspired by the word of God for all mankind. To force upon anyone that the establishment of America resulted as a byproduct of racial discrimination, under the guise of promoting equality, is like taking this original artwork from Constitution Hall and painting a ‘quota’ of various ethnicities into it. To promote hate for America, through race based politics, is malfeasance which inaccurately conveys the story about the greatest nation in human history.

For generations since the Emancipation Proclamation, insidious ideologues, manifested in modern racist liberals like Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson, Malik Shabazz, and Addis Daniel have sought opportunities to capitalize on and profit from the hate generated out of racial difference. By selectively denying the 5000 years of slavery prior to the creation of any white society on earth, they have a monetary interest in disseminating the lie that slavery began in America, and therefore America should feel bad enough about what happened then that it wants to pay for it now. Their horrifically dishonest rendition of this part of human history actually excludes the most important facts that slavery ended in America after the bloodiest, longest civil war over slavery in human history, and that it was white society, not some other more melanic nation, who enacted the first federal, nation-wide legislation abolishing slavery after a war over it. Radical activists, like Sharpton and Farrakhan, consciously avoid the subject matter of the Emancipation Proclamation because it was created and implemented under a white, republican president.

Abraham Lincoln, circa 1860

Slavery didn’t begin here…it ended here! The rest of world had been enslaving peoples for generations before the Declaration of Independence but slavery began its suitable worldwide decline with the advent America’s emancipation proclamation. But, you won’t hear anything about that from the New York Times or NBC. Modern day liberals in America seek to create an entire generation of ashamed lamenters who willingly forfeit their rights to a pursuit of happiness and prosperity under the pressure to feel guilty for things our ancestors did before our great, great, great grandparents were even conceived.

The election of Barack Obama is just another evolution of the liberal agenda to see epic, unwarranted social reengineering based on the exploitation of racial difference. Black activists, acting in the interests of race based politics, are the actual racists of our time. They rely on media driven race mongering to enhance their argument for the legislation of racial preference into every aspect of American society.

For generations, liberals have constructed a system of beliefs preventing them from receiving these truths. Their monstrous dissonance has consumed the principals of decency in exchange for the financial benefit and power available through demographically based politics. Contempt for whites is so fundamental within the liberal establishment that, to lose that ability, threatens the cognitive structures of the delusion they have strived for so long to erect in convincing themselves of their justifications.

With regard for the champions of the black community, what excuse do they have now? The race card died with the election of Barack Obama. America has become a sanctuary for the evolution of racial equality. Now that we have our first ‘black’ president, it presses against the celebrators that minorities no longer have the same reasons to remain uneducated and poor. Yet, blacks are still dropping out of school in ever increasing numbers, other minorities toil in the depravity of their own doing, whites are still being called racists, and the apologists for social engineering can find no consolation in their desire for race-based social justice against Vintage America.

As America focuses on a president for the sake of his skin color, rather than his character, it has forgotten to ask the essential question. What about legitimacy? What about the reasons which lay firm and rightly by the sacrifice of our noble predecessors who fought to establish equality based on one’s capacity for making decisions rather than being relegated by those things they have no decision about?