Saturday, July 10, 2010

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?

No comments:

Post a Comment