affirmative (7)

4063787009?profile=original     Are White UCLA Professors racist for correcting minority

students grammar mistakes?  - Photo Credit  Advance the Struggle

If you are a college student in Obama’s America then you are wondering if the protest at UCLA is a throwback to the 1960’s civil rights era or is it  just Affirmative Action 2013.  Whether or not racism is alive and well on the left coast at UCLA, it appears that a white professor who has been targeted by some minority students is certainly not engaged in discrimination.

What is his alleged sin?  He is accused of correcting the grammar of some minority students who did not conform to graduate level standards, reported the Young Conservatives.  Is it a crime?  Maybe it is a crime, but Professor Val Rust of the Graduate School of Education & Information Studies did not commit it.  That most onerous crime was committed by teachers of these minority students in K-12 and perhaps even undergraduate studies.

This is tragic because all too often, minority students who are not working at the graduate level standards which are expected are far too easily drawn to the post-Obama era “Somebody did this to me…and they are probably white,” sloganeering.  In a hot minute you can expect the civil rights Calvary headed to the UCLA campus in the guise of General Incompetent Al Sharpton and Colonel Rhyme-a-Lot Jesse Jackson.

Former President George W. Bush would have labeled the problems these minority students face as the soft discrimination of low expectations. After all, Rust was quite clear about his alleged issues with the student’s performances. Professor Rust explained in a letter to the department that,   ”I have attempted to be rather thorough on the papers and am particularly concerned that they do a good job with their bibliographies and citations, and these students apparently don’t feel that is appropriate.”

So what exactly are these students expecting the result to be by engaging in an endless series of 60’s era sit-ins and protests?  Are standards in graduate schools supposed to be lowered and lesser levels of achievement supposed to be acceptable?

(click to read more)

Read more…

4063683733?profile=original      Will White Students be denied entrance to College Admissions Office

If you are a white student walking into a Michigan college admissions office, you have to be wondering whether you are going to be admitted based on your grades or denied because of your ethnicity. This may soon become the reality for a countless number of white college students across the wolverine state, or America if the U.S. Supreme Court rules to invalidate state voters that voted against using race to determine college admittance in 2006.

Of course racial discrimination is unfair, repugnant and dangerous to the social viability of a nation when it is used to deny the rights of its citizens. The problem which voters in Michigan thought had been corrected was to toss out race-conscious affirmative action admission plans with a fairer race-neutral approach.

At the core of the case is the notion that fifty-eight percent of Michigan voters were seriously in error in amending the Michigan constitution to prohibit discrimination in admission to state colleges on the basis of national origin, sex, race or ethnicity.

To most voters in Michigan this seemed like a relative no-brainer. How could anyone oppose not using discriminatory practices to deny a prospective student entry to college?

It seems that the liberals and race baiters who thrive on erecting barriers to race neutrality and color blind solutions wanted a different result. Instead of desiring to work to determine real solutions to any potential problems minorities might be experiencing in matriculating from high school to college admittance, they took the more convenient route to cry racism!

This approach taken by the civil rights organizations in the state and nationally have determined without much effort, to use a formula that strips sanity from the law and replaces it with fear and racist scare tactics. The goal is to scare the judicial community and moderates who are lukewarm on everything, to abandon common sense and support a fraud which has no foundation in law or on recent facts.

Where is the proof that there is continued discrimination against minorities since the voters in Michigan decided that reverse discrimination is unjustified and beneath the dignity of a state that wants equal treatment for all of its citizens? What about a state’s sovereignty under the 10th Amendment, where the state and its citizens have a right to determine its own course in order to balance justice and equality under the law?

Another key question of law which the court must grapple with is whether or not a state amendment that bars discrimination in its constitution can be found to be unconstitutional because it does not allow discriminatory practices and remedies.

Are you confused now?

You should be, because in effect, what the advocates of affirmative action are arguing is that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment should allow a state to openly and intentionally discriminate against a race or ethnic group as a means to remedy previous discriminatory practices.

( click to read more )

Read more…

4063669574?profile=originalBlack Conservatives  rally against Section 5 reverse discriminatory Voting Rights Act current use

The images of vicious bombings that once littered the landscape of the civil rights movement in the 1950’s and 1960’s in America are now a distant memory. Cities like Birmingham, Alabama which were at the epicenter and caught the brunt force of the segregationist fury to deprive black voters of their voting rights have been replaced by a vast number of local and federal minority public officials throughout states and in congress. And of course we cannot forget the two times elected Barack Obama, as president!

So this week, Shelby County, Alabama made the case before the U.S. Supreme Court that the federal Voting Rights Act has seen its day and that Section Five should be overturned. Conservatives have long held that in states and localities like Shelby County where voting rights suppression no longer exists, it makes little legal or moral sense to continue to list a community as being engaged in racist voting practices where none exist.

In reality this case has much deeper significance for the other communities across the country which are also similarly weighted down with this federal mandate. The purpose of the bill is well intended and was needed in its day to protect the rights of minority voters who were systematically deprived of their constitutional right to vote. Now, according to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, without the presence of racism this law seems to favor racial entitlement, reports Fox News

Yet, in the 21st century, where those same states which bore the mark of racism in their practices regarding minority voting rights, no longer practice those tactics. So should they continue to be marred with the title and legal penalty?

That is essentially what Shelby County has presented in its legal arguments before the justices of the Supreme Court. It is an argument which can be cross-tied with the similar Affirmative Action inequality which has burdened America more recently with imbalanced racial favoritism where racism may no longer exist.

There are many detractors on the left and in civil rights communities who have made a living off of crying falsely crying racism. Their behavior can be likened to the famous fictional Chicken Little character, who claimed, “The sky is falling, the sky is falling!” Well if you remember the rest of the story, Chicken Little finally meets Foxey Loxey, who welcomes Chicken Little and Henny Penny into his den, and, “They never, never come out again.”

Well, this is what is happening to America with this law as well as with continued use of Affirmative Action application and enforcement. Much like Chicken Little, there are those liberal leaders like Al Sharpton and Rev. Jesse Jackson and President Obama and even the NAACP who insists the sky is still falling. Unfortunately they still continue to lead America into the fox den, where justice and equality under the law for all Americans will never emerge again.

A central question that the court must answer, is when does justice arrive for all Americans if institutional injustice does not exist any longer? If racism in voting practices no longer exists, then what is being monitored?

(click to read more )

Read more…

     4063662454?profile=original           Is Black History Month still necessary with Barack Obama Election

Has Black History Month met its end with the re-election of Barack Obama? One could make a solid case for calling a halt to the month of February as an official celebration of the achievements of Black Americans, since many of the injustices of the past have died away along with the perpetrators. In the 21st Century should not the focus be on a unified America that celebrates and acknowledges the achievements of all Americans throughout the year?

The advent of Black History month began in 1926 as the second week in February, and was known as Negro History Week. Its creator, black historian Carter G. Woodson was clear about its purpose and eventual end. He insisted at the time that the holiday be eliminated, when “black history became fundamental to American history.”

Last year, noted international author Maya Angelou appeared to agree when she explained in an interview, "We want to reach a time when there won't be Black History Month, when black history will be so integrated into American history that we study it along with every other history," according to Fox News.

Well, it appears apparent that the jury is in and the verdict is clear, the need for Black History Month has met it original purpose. Woodson’s edict was that the need for the month to continue into perpetuity was not its purpose. Black history has been mainstreamed into what it always has been, and that is; part of America’s history. Even Academy Award winning actor Morgan Freeman strongly asserted in a Sixty Minutes interview, "Black History Month is ridiculous… Black History is American History!"

Well it seems that Barack Obama’s election has sealed the deal on that, considering that February was chosen as the official month to honor Abraham Lincoln’s birthday. Lincoln freed the black slaves and, is it not fitting that the end of this holiday has indeed run its natural course with the election and re-election of the first black president of the United States?

Americans have an opportunity to move on and stop reliving the practices and outrages of racism which once permeated every aspect of the nation’s culture. Blacks have been elected governors, and congress has growing numbers of black elected leaders. Now with a president who is black, where again is the need for Black History Month?

It is unnecessary to keep track of black achievement in areas of professionalism and other fields of achievement. These achievements are American achievements, and should not continue to be segregated or celebrated by racial designation.

The nation should be focused on celebrating the future of a united nation where racial designations have no purpose or place. If America is to truly become one nation, indivisible with justice for all, then it must do away with the categories and the special designations which continue to keep Americans separate and apart. Is this not now the spirit and practice of reverse racism?

( Click to read more )

Read more…

4063598476?profile=originalIf a lie is said often enough, it will become the truth when left unchallenged. Affirmative action is the new slavery. It is the new second-tier of citizenship, Abigail Fisher, in Texas does not keep your child from excelling in school. So why are black supporters of Affirmative Action letting Affirmative Action and its discriminatory use block Abigail Fisher’s opportunity at the American Dream?

Black mothers and fathers should seriously consider this. When was the last time you saw a white person stand in front of your child in school to keep him from learning? When was the last time you saw a white person stand in front of your child and told him to commit a crime? When was the last time that you saw a white person stand in front of your child and told him not to study, not to get good grades, not to try harder, not to do better, not to be better and not to succeed?

Race based affirmative action may come to a screeching halt and finally put an end to decades of reverse discriminatory policies utilized in higher educational institutions.

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court took up arguments concerning a case brought by Abigail Fisher, a white applicant who was denied admission to the University of Texas (UT) at Austin in 2008. Fisher is challenging UT-Austin’s decision to use a race-conscious admission plan which considers race as a factor in admitting students to its incoming freshman class.

Instead of using a fairer race-neutral plan, which Texas law already guarantees the top 10 percent of high school students in their graduating class admission to the university, UT-Austin, went a step further. It used an unnecessary and highly unfair reverse discrimination practice of considering race as a factor for admittance, thus making the purpose for the race neutral Texas law meaningless.

The problem which Miss Fisher and any other high school applicant in Texas and in any other community in America has to consider, is will they be admitted based upon their academic ability, content of their character or any other measurable qualities? ( Read More )

Read more…


            “Mr. Obama has shown an undeniable pattern of associating preferentially with left-wing radicals and outright anti-American sorts  (Van Jones has called for the Revolution NOW and he’s just one of the President’s friends making similar pleas: Trumka for example has called for union violence) and he needs to be judged on that every bit as much as he’s judged on his incompetence.



Obama Preacher Refers to “3/5 of a Human

Being” and Slavery from 148 Years Ago

in Easter Sunday Sermon



             Feeling the need to attend an Easter Sunday service to remove the heat incurred after the President pointedly refused to utter the word “Easter” altogether, Barack Obama found himself back in Jeremiah Wright’s church – well, sort of. If your thesis about Barack Obama is that he is a race-baiting Black nationalist (which is not the thesis or hypothesis of Rajjpuut) this Easter Sunday would have cemented that notion as a highly probable explanation for all things Obama. This time the race-baiting Black victimization sermon came not from Reverend Jeremiah Wright but from Dr. Wallace Charles Smith, a Baptist minister in Washington, D.C. like Rev. Wright a master at driving iron wedges between the races.

             President Obama choice of spending Easter Sunday at the Shiloh Baptist Church, led by its controversial pastor Reverend Wallace Charles Smith . . . at the minimum showed that the poor judgment which got him in Dutch with the American people (incensed by his former pastor, Jeremy Wright saying “Not God bless America but God Damn America”) is still a part of the Obama psyche. Just as Wright when he blamed America for the 9/11 attacks saying “America’s chickens have come home to roost” based his sermons in the era of slavery, Wallace Charles Smith also has a well-recorded history of constantly reminding people of color that they were victims way back when and therefore they MUST now feel victimized and outside of contemporary American culture. Before looking at that history of Reverend Smith, however, which presumably Obama had NOT shared via videotape prior to attending the church, let’s see what Wallace’s Easter sermon was for the Obama family and the rest of his flock on April, 24, 2011.

            Reverend Wallace Smith talked about his own grandson and then somehow segued into a litany of references to “3/5 of a human being” referring to the census status of the slave on December 31, 1862 on the eve of President Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation . . . that is, he was bemoaning a great wrong that had begun to be corrected over 168 years ago. Tie that into the Easter spirit of uplift and rebirth and renewal if you can!

So we have Washington, D.C. with perhaps 800 Black congregations led by Black pastors all clamoring for the President of the United States to visit them and Mr. Obama winds up front and center at this guy’s church. But perhaps the pastor was just having a bad Sunday? Unfortunately, Reverend Wallace Smith has nothing but bad Sundays it seems. He spends a lot of time talking about White Robes and Jim Crow and a truly surprising lot of the time calling Talk Radio and FoxNews racists almost as if he had a vested interest in his flock only listening to certain media modalities. Mr. Obama, of course, just as he did for twenty years in the church of Reverend Jeremiah Wright was legitimizing this radical pastor . . . ah, but you say, “Reverend Smith doesn’t sound that radical . . .”

             Reverend Smith, unlike Reverend Wright, is not a bombastic fire-eater. He speaks in far more muted tones and in a less pointedly anti-White fashion . . . but that’s merely a difference in style NOT in content. The predominant message at Shiloh Baptist is RACE OPPRESSION. Black victimhood is Smith’s credo and Black grievance perpetuation is his undeniable purpose. A thousand years from now and a couple dozen generations of Reverend Smiths we can expect the man or woman in the pulpit to still be Black-grievance mongering because Black victimhood, damnit should never be allowed to end. Whitey MUST pay!

             Reverend Smith is appalled at Blacks who make it on their own without once resorting to Affirmative Action. Segregation, he insists, has never gone away just become a more subtle societal pressure felt most strongly from talk radio and FoxNews and other monsters who insist that Affirmative Action actually hurts Black and fosters Black dependency upon the Federal Government for non-ending handouts. He blames “the plight of the Black citizen” upon continuing White oppression for hundreds of years  -- an oppression now less easily pinpointed (“Jim Crow has set aside his white sheet and now wears blue pinstripes and carries a briefcase . . . Jim Crow**, Esquire.”).  Smith compared Rush Limbaugh to the Ku Klux Klan and the White Citizens’ Council. In other words, conservatives -  a.k.a. Mr. Obama’s critics – can’t be opposed to his actions because of policy differences but are dyed-in-the-wool racists seeking to perpetuate an Amercan apartheid. For Mr. Smith and many others on the left, disagreeing with progressivism is not only wrong, but evil-deep-seated intolerance and bigotry. Let us remind you, of Rajjpuut’s outlook on this matter in no uncertain terms:

            a)    Barack Obama was elected President of the United States receiving more White votes and a higher percentage of White votes in 2008 than Kerry in 2004 or Gore in 2000 received . . . roughly 48% of the White votes, high for a Democrat.

            b)    John McCain received roughly 4.5% of the Black vote less than 1/10 of that 48%. Since Racism obviously does exist, the questions here are: “Which group is the most racist?”  “Does harping on an unchangeable past and emphasizing unchangeable ills  from almost fourteen decades ago as carried out by Black Separationists like Wright, Farrakhan and Smith help or hurt the Black community in its efforts to gain the American Dream?”

            c)    It is entirely likely that folks like Barack Obama, Reverend Wright, the Democratic Party as a whole, and you, Reverend Smith, have a vested interest in keeping the Black citizen in victim-mode and helplessly dependent upon the government . . . .

            d)   It is entirely probable that the vilification that self-made heroic Blacks like Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and Florida freshman Representative Allen West constantly receive from people like Louis Farrakhan, Reverend Wright, the Democratic Party as a whole, and from you, Reverend Smith, has done more to hurt today’s Black Community than all the vile acts of the Ku Klux Klan put together.

            e)    President Obama’s judgment is clearly the topic of discussion here: his long relationship with Wright; and then showing up in a church dominated by another like-spirited and like-minded radical hate-mongered (Smith) tends to push three possible conclusions upon us: 

                     1)              This is where President Obama is comfortable because this is what President Obama believes in his heart of hearts . . . or

                     2)             President Obama makes very poor decisions about who he associates with and who he puts into positions of responsibility around him (Van Jones, Eric Holder, Anita Dunn,  John Holdren, Bill Ayers, and even Michelle Obama (“This is the first time I’ve been proud of America”) are all radicals seemingly twenty times more likely to criticize this country than to stand up for her or to seek to advance her traditional goodness.

                     3)             Mr. Obama is comfortable only among the people mentioned because he does not believe that America is good. Van Jones recently joined an organization seeking legal rights on a par with humans for Mother Nature and everything within her.

                     4)             Guilt by REPEATED association is NOT the same as “guilt by association.” As much as Obama defenders like Alan Colmes like to point at every similar criticism of the Anointed One Barack as unfair and resorting to “guilt by association,” the fact is that singular acts are one thing and constant, continual and brazenly repeated acts are quite another. Mr. Obama has shown an undeniable pattern of associating preferentially with left-wing radicals and outright anti-American sorts (Van Jones has called for the Revolution NOW and he’s just one of the President’s friends making similar pleas: Trumka for example has called for union violence) and he needs to be judged on that every bit as much as he’s judged on his incompetence.


       In a related story, Obama’s former Green Jobs Czar Van Jones who resigned when his radical past, his vile insults against Republicans and his 9/11 Truther membership came to light is now pushing for a “new global architecture of environmental law” that would give Mother Nature the same legal rights in our courts as human beings.

      Rajjpuut would certainly like to be able to sue Mother Nature for the loss of my mother to mosquito-borne encephalitis almost forty years ago; and then there’s all those times I got sunburned and the cat’s scratching up our carpet  . . . . Oh, sorry, Van Jones isn’t joking. 

      Self-admitted communist, Van Jones is now a spokesman and one of the newer board members of the “Pachamama Alliance” in Nancy Pelosi’s Land (San Francisco) of Nuts . . . seeking to extend human rights (complete with enforceable laws) to nature itself on the international scene, ah me . . . these are the kinds of radicals the President has surrounded himself with (all the while declaiming the “extremism” of the TEA Party, FoxNews, and talk radio?) and it definitely appears that these radicals are NOT loyal Americans . . . by extension, the President’s own patriotism comes under question. Question their loyalties  . . . and you again, by extension, question the President’s loyalties, his greater agenda . . . .

      Just by coincidence, another “spokesman” lost his cushy job the other day . . . The AFLAC Duck got fired, long live the new AFLAC Duck. “Why?” one might wonder did the AFLAC Duck get fired and what has that got to do with the price of Chinese Tea or with Obama and Reverend Smith?  Or with “loyalty” for that matter?

      In essence, the AFLAC Duck, or more accurately the long-time voice of the AFLAC Duck is gone because he knew nothing of common sense and nothing of loyalty. AFLAC’s reinsurance business is well-known in this country but their biggest customer by far is Japan.  Actor Gilbert Gottfried lost his position for making controversial remarks highly critical of Japan. Apparently Mr. Gottfried didn’t realize that he was working for two separate entities: AFLAC itself and AFLAC’s customers. Mr. Obama would do well to learn a lesson from the AFLAC Duck, for he too is working for two separate entities: the American people and more especially the American Taxpayer who pays his check (reduced now to only 53% of Americans). It’s almost as if you’re President of a left-wing Black nation and uninterested in the other 84% of America that is neither Black nor left-wing progressive. You work for us, Mr. Obama, all of us; but it sure looks like you’re enthusiastically at work for those who hate this country and the rest of be damned. 


Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,



** Allow us to nitpick.   Rev. Smith's characterization of Jim Crow above is very, very strange. It’s as if he's got present-day Whites becoming Jim Crow and White-favoring actions and White-favoring laws becoming Jim Crow laws. In point of fact, “Jim Crow” and “Jim Crow laws” has always referred to Blacks themselves and to the segregationist laws originally designed to keep Blacks “in their place” and subservient to the White Supremacist Segregationists.  In Rajjpuut’s not so-humble opinion, Affirmative Action so treasured by the Black Community and the preachings of you, Smith, as well as Wright and Farrakhan are the real Jim Crow laws in this day and age.  We must protest the deliberate pretense by the mainstream media that this Sunday's sermon never happened just as the "God damn America" speech by Reverend Wright never happened . . . Mr. Obama has repeatedly put his character (or lack thereof) on the line for all to see, and the left-leaning media, continues protecting his image as always. 


Read more…

Obama and NAACP Deliberately

Counter-Productive to Race Harmony?

Let’s get one thing straight, when it comes to Andrew Breitbart’s recently released video: Shirley Sherrod was never the story although a lot of people assumed she was. The real story was, and still is the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). Three things are very clear here . . . recently . . . .

A) The NAACP had just held a meeting in which a key speaker was allowed to praise a preacher and his thug friends who had just been arrested for beating up a Black entrepreneur selling “The audacity of DOPE” buttons. The man had made a fortune selling Obama buttons in 2008, but misjudged his audience when he began selling buttons showing Obama smoking a joint (marijuana cigarette, if you’ve been off the planet for half a century). The speaker was cheered loudly as he repeatedly called the victim “an Uncle Tom” and praised his assailants.

B) Without one iota of proof, the NAACP has once again

joined the Democrats and Obama for the umpteenth time in calling the TEA Party a “racist” group. The NAACP has made its career over the last half century calling Whites “racists devils” and this latest charge happened despite the fact that in the face of claims that the “N-word” was used by TEA Partiers “up to twenty-three times” against Black congressmen on the day that the Obamacare bill passed, it never happened. Breitbart has offered $100,000 to anyone who can show up with indisputable video proof that the N-word was used at all, even once that day. So far despite all the cameras and video devices on site, no one has come forward to prove the event happened. Of course, supposedly one Black congressman said he was “spat upon” but no video of that footage has occurred either, making critical minds think that spitting incident never happened either. Breitbart’s money is still in his bank account.

C) Now to the video itself, Sherrod herself was apparently a terrible victim in her youth when her father was, she said, killed by a White southern man and justice was never done. That was left out. Then later (in the 43-minute speech which the NAACP had recorded in its entirety) she talks about her epiphany that it “wasn’t about black and white at all” or at least not mainly about black and white but rather about helping the poor regardless of race. In other words her epiphany was that she learned how to do her job. Part of that was left out. What was actually left in the video segment? What was left in was while she was talking, the NAACP membership (which did NOT know where the speech and her story were going) was tittering and laughing and giving virtual “Hallelujah, Girl!” treatment to the speech as she was talking about a very uneasy interracial contact in her job with a White man who “thought he was superior to me.” That in a nutshell was the story, the NAACP reaction to the apparently racist story (early in her talk) was uniquely racist for an organization that claims to be seeking equal footing for all races. Notice the parallels between the NAACP reaction in paragraph A above and this paragraph. In the rest of the 43-minute speech, not revealed by Breitbart, were ten minutes of rants against Bush, Republicans and TEA Party members for racism without giving any evidence to back up her charges revealed Ms. Sherrod and her NAACP audience to be absolute reverse-racists.

The most clear and obvious statistics about racism in this country are that 1) Democrat Barack Obama received more White votes and a larger percentage of White votes in 2008 than John Kerry did in 2004 or Al Gore did in 2000, roughly 48%, meanwhile 2) John Mc Cain, the Republican nominee, received only around 4.4 % of Black votes. Those single facts more than any other propelled Barack Obama into office with a 7% edge in the popular vote. In other words, 3) Whites in 2008 were roughly eleven times more likely to cross racial lines in casting their votes then Blacks were.

Rajjpuut suggests that presumably 90-95% of the Whites who voted against Obama and 100% of the Blacks who voted for Mc Cain in 2008 did so for objective dislike of socialism, big spending and high taxes rather than for racial reasons. Today, 55% of Americans now label Obama a “socialist,” yet despite his miserable performance as president, 84% of Blacks still support Barack Obama. Without that support from Blacks, Obama’s overall positive job performance would stand around 36%. Who then are the racists?

To clear the air, here are some side-facts you might be interested in: Rajjpuut, a Libertarian, did NOT vote for Barack Obama because after reading “Dreams from My Father,” and listening to his speeches and going deep into research into his past voting; into the character of his mother Stanley Ann Dunham; grandfather Stanley Armour Dunham; and Barak (no ‘c’) Hussein Obama, Sr. his Kenyan birth-father . . . after that research, Rajjpuut rightly decided that Obama was at least a highly-exuberant socialist but far more likely an abject communist.

The word “prejudice” refers to pre-judging a situation, person, etc. without having all the facts (without doing your homework or research). When that prejudice is along the lines of race or color then the word “racist” is applicable. When the so-called “prevailing direction” of race hatred is breached then “reverse-racism” occurs.

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) has today become what it says it fears: a group of racists, or more properly a group of reverse-racists. While some liberated Blacks talk about the NAACP as “becoming increasingly irrelevant,” the truth is that the NAACP has for several years now has become a monstrous impediment on the road to better race relations. The biggest impediment on that road, however, is Barack Obama. Our “post-racial” president is either personally a racist or impersonally (for political advantage) the most highly visible race-baiter in America’s history . . . or most likely both.

Emphasizing specifics, the NAACP is a racist organization because unlike the great Martin Luther King, Jr., the NAACP judges Whites on their skin color not by the content of their character; and Barack Obama who seems to be doing the same thing is most likely judging voters on their stance for him or against him and using that prejudice as motivation for calling them “racists” to weaken, he hopes, the strength of their political opposition to him and the will of others to unite against him.

While Rajjpuut throws brickbats around, Shirley Sherrod is also a huge impediment to better race relations . . . a politically-incorrect fact that no one seems to be mentioning since the public-hijinks the other day by Shirley’s former employer the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Ms. Sherrod, is also, outside of her being a reverse-racist (she has labeled all Republicans and the TEA Party as racists much like Obama has, something called a ‘sewer’ or perhaps ‘suer,’ someone who likes to sue in the hopes of achieving monetary gain . . . she will be most likely suing the USDA for unlawful termination (her second big suit) and has called Breitbart “someone I’d like to get even with.” She should, if justice prevails, lose the suits, because her former employer has apologized publicly and publicly offered her a better job than she had earlier, but this is somewhat beside the point.

Ms. Sherrod, the NAACP and President Obama can all be lumped into the same boat, they are prejudiced against Whites who are not prejudiced for forced Black equality. Read that again, if necessary, for it is a key truth, no one except a few Black TEA Party members seems to be talking about. Democrats as a whole (and the NAACP as a subset of perhaps 95% of Democrats) seem to come at the world of race seeing the Black as a victim and someone the government needs to throw money at . . . . hence programs such as “Affirmative Action” which are merely institutionalized reverse-discrimination. As Martin Luther King, Jr. emphasized, equality of opportunity is the only opportunity that matters. Equality of everything (socialism, Marxism) such as Mr. Obama wants to force down our throats might actually work, to put all Blacks and all Whites and all others into uniform poverty at a level much, much lower than the average American Black now faces. Mr. Obama knows this for a fact and admitted as much several times.

During one of the candidate debates, the moderator gave an example of an economic fact and then asked Obama. “Since it’s been proved that anytime personal and business taxes on the highest earners goes above 28%, the nation is then threatened with recession, should we raise these taxes above 28%?”

Without hesitating, Mr. Obama said, “I’m interested in ‘fairness.’” There’s your blessed socialistic equality for you: everybody in the same leaky boat . . . this is why Mr. Obama has been working at cross-purposes to the economic best-interests of the American people . . . so that he can put everybody in the same leaky boat when we all know that the ‘rising tide lifts all boats’ and that’s where to put one’s economic emphasis: on making the country more prosperous as a whole. America’s poorest are wealthier than roughly 86% of the world’s people. Americans, Black or White, living below the poverty line are wealthier than 93% of the world’s people . . . the key, then is to lift the poverty line by say 60% rather than dropping more Americans into much-ballyhooed equality below that old poverty line. Racism used as a political tool by the NAACP and Mr. Obama for political ends is counter-productive of all worthy goals along those lines and a divisive factor preventing Americans from working together.

Martin Luther King, Jr. led the breakthrough for Blacks and all minorities back in the early 60’s, risking his very life and the lives of his followers to do so. It’s time for Blacks to stop playing the racism cards and the victim cards. It’s time for Whites to stop playing the guilt card against other Whites. It’s time for folks to follow that old Chinese encouragement and gung ho . . . “work together” for the betterment of themselves and their families and their country. Folks like Clarence Thomas and the TEA Party's Blacks and Hispanics are doing far more for race relations than virtually anyone since Martin Luther King, Jr.

Ya’ll live long, strong and ornery,


Read more…