Friends and allies of Baroness Thatcher expressed ‘surprise and disappointment’ last night as it emerged President Obama is not planning to send any serving member of his administration to her funeral.
Whitehall sources have revealed that the US delegation at tomorrow’s service in St Paul’s Cathedral will be led by two Reagan era secretaries of state: James Baker and George Shultz.
Though President Obama himself had not been expected to attend, there had been speculation that he would be represented either by Vice President Joe Biden or wife Michelle. However, the Obama administration had said it would not be attending Thatcher’s funeral before the Boston bombings.
The Queen’s decision to attend Lady Thatcher’s funeral has effectively elevated it to a state occasion unprecedented for a political figure in Britain since the death of Sir Winston Churchill in 1965.
Other world leaders, including Canada’s Stephen Harper, Mario Monti of Italy and Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, are attending the service in person.
What is the White House so busy with? A spokesman from our UK embassy clarified the matter, saying that both the First Lady and the Vice President were 'the President's point people on gun control', adding: 'This is a week when there is a lot of movement on Capitol Hill on gun control issues.'
Joe Biden is riding shotgun? Heaven help us.
One correction. The phrase 'U.S. delegation ' implies some kind of official status. Baker and Shultz were going to attend as private citizens. So are former Vice President Dick Cheney and former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. And House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) announced that the House will send a delegation to London this week to represent the U.S. House of Representatives at the funeral, led by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN).
We all know by now that out president is not exactly a class act,and that this is a calculated and deliberate insult, and while the Brits are phrasing their 'disappointment' in diplomatic language, they understand.
After all, President Barack Obama has already let it be known on a number of occasions that he has little regard for any special relationship between America and Britain.
But that brings something to mind.
When Mitt Romney traveled to the UK as a presidential candidate, he received a rude, foul and totally unjustified reception from the British,being criticized and insulted for things he never even said.The Obama media here made a huge deal out of it, and I recall the Obama worship in the British press.
But had Romney gotten elected, I guarantee you he would have come to Britain to pay his respects to America's great ally in spite of that.
That might just be something for our cousins across the Pond to consider.
CBS Scot Paulsen on "2016: The Movie": “This past week, "2016: The Movie" about President Barack Obama opened in the Chicago area, and I chose to get more of an education about Obama by seeing the movie. After the inundation of canned hype for the movie on conservative talk shows across the Chicago radio dial that sounded more like commercials than honest endorsements of the movie, I was skeptical of what I was going to see.”
CBS Scot Paulsen on "2016: The Movie"
This past week, "2016: The Movie" about President Barack Obama opened in the Chicago area, and I chose to get more of an education about Obama by seeing the movie. After the inundation of canned hype for the movie on conservative talk shows across the Chicago radio dial that sounded more like commercials than honest endorsements of the movie, I was skeptical of what I was going to see.
While some talk show hosts sounded like they were genuinely impressed with the documentary and honestly endorsing the film, there were those who were obviously reading a commercial script which was not coming across as sincere to the regular listener - at least not to this often-skeptical listener. Perhaps, in future promotions of the film, it would be wise to have pre-recorded commercials done by the professional commercial-makers rather than having the likes of Mark Levin and Sean Hannity doing script after script to promote the movie. After all, the listeners aren't stupid and resent any attempt at being conned. After many reads by the talk show hosts, the readings of the commercial script were no more enthusiastic than another Life-Lock commercial read - another commercial that ought to be professionally done.
Yet, I'm glad I saw the hyped-film because it was more informative than I had thought it would be and included less propaganda than I had predicted. If anything, it was nearly too informative as there was an enormous amount of information condensed into the nearly one-hour-and-a-half documentary. Fact after fact is put forth which shows that President Obama definitely has many skeletons in the closet that have not been released prior to the nation's trust in him with the Oval Office.
To watch this movie and realize - or simply be reminded of - all that is unknown about President Obama is of concern. Much of the information has been ignored by the American media totally. When appropriately reminded as to what is still unknown about Obama to date, one has to ask: How can any logical-thinking person give a damn about Romney's taxes while not asking any questions regarding our current President's past? The man influences the entire globe, but liberal Americans want to know how much Mitt Romney paid in taxes in the past rather than learn about the man who they have entrusted with the country. Unbelievable.
The movie undeniably links Obama to persons of suspicious-interest due to their past actions and statements, such as former radical activist and Chicago educator Bill Ayers. While the media and blinded-liberals cast such facts aside, the movie does not. No, this portion of the movie is not propaganda - it is the display of factual information about relationships between people that cannot be denied. Yet, the "left" does deny the facts that are right in front of them.
Quite disturbing is the talk of the United States economy in the film. The current national debt which has increased two-fold during Obama's presidency and the horrendous economy is suggested to be part of the plan to strip the nation of democracy - reasonable cause to make citizens totally dependent on the government. The "left" is aghast at this suggestion of the current economy. They actually believe that Obama is unintelligent enough to let this economy just happen. Ironically, it's many of the people on the "right" who know Obama's not stupid, and much of what has happened to the United States in the past four years is part of Obama's plan.
How could one so-highly educated and intelligent as Obama not know what he was doing when he incurred such debt? I left the movie thinking more strongly than I had in the past that the current debt and this economy was part of Obama's plan all along. Increasingly making Americans dependent on the government is the plan. What's more, he knew his blind followers would believe it was not the plan and, of course, was all Bush's fault.
He must be laughing at his blind followers all the way to the "new America " they're allowing him to create. My belief is that Obama continues to prey on his die-hard followers' stupidity to accomplish his personal goals for America .
The most disturbing part of the film to me was the interview with President Obama's half-brother George Obama from Nairobi , Kenya . How can Obama claim to want to help people when he has done absolutely nothing for his own family? It makes me wonder if he really cares about anybody if he can't find it in his heart to help his own family.
As the closing credits started to role upward across the screen, the audience applauded. Me, I just walked out - reasonably upset.
Those who have already decided to vote for Obama will probably not even see the movie. It's sad but they probably don't want to know the truth when it is laid out so clearly for them in this documentary. The independents who are still deciding who they are going to vote for ought to see this film. I'm quite confident that any undecided voter who sees this film will know who to vote for after viewing this documentary. If you know you're not going to support the "left" in this coming election, see the film out of interest if you like. But, fair warning, it's disturbing - and quite frightening - to say the least.
“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.”
…Marcus Tullius Cicero [ancient Roman scholar, lawyer, statesman and orator 106BC - 43BC]
------------
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting an inexperienced man like him with the presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.The Republic can survive an Obama.It is less likely to survive a multitude of Idiots such as those who made him their president."
“I am new enough on the national political scene that I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
Interesting how Obama purposely gave the voters as little information about himself, his background and his relationships or about his plans as president as possible, if he were to be elected, yet now Team Obama is hounding Mitt Romney for full disclosure on everything, over and above requirements, and for details on his future plans after being elected. A little odd and a lot hypocritical wouldn’t you say?!?
Please watch all of the video clips below, and the story below that. Once you've done that, spread the word!
Redacted from a speech by Dinesh D'Souza, President King's College, NYC, NY and author of The Roots of Obama's Rage By Jerome S. Kaufman
On March 15, 2011, the Heritage Foundation sponsored a telecast featuring Dinesh D'Souza, President of King's College New York and author of the best selling book, Roots of Obama's Rage. After introducing himself, D'Souza got right into an in-depth analysis of current US President Barack Obama. Obama is the product of an unusual family history, far different from most Americans or people anywhere, for that matter. To say Obama is the product of his parentage and previous environment is a gross understatement.
D'Souza first described his own difficulty understanding Obama. Who did Obama represent, what were his ambitions, his goals, his mind set, etc.? D'Souza concluded that Obama was a different leader from previous Democrats - especially different from so-called liberals like Jimmy Carter, Michael Dukakis, Bill Clinton.
There are a host of theories trying to explain Obama. By the Right he has many different designations - a Progressive, a conventional Liberal, a Socialist, a Muslim, not born an American, an alien. But, all of these javelins bounce off Obama with no effect or just glancing blows. He continues to act in apparently mysterious ways - not easily explained. If he were truly a Socialist he would have tried to command the means of production. But, Obama did not nationalize banks but rather infused capital to them. Another inconsistency: Recently banks wanted to pay back their government loan and get off the hook with the Obama administration. But, Obama did not want to take their money. Rather he insisted that the bank undergo some sort of stress test before allowing them off the hook? Why?
There are claims that he is an environmentalist and simply acting out that role - banning vital oil drilling in America, limiting the production of coal, introducing and pouring billions into hair brain solutions like wind mills and sun energy which are far more expensive and will not supply anywhere near the energy required besides, requiring years to develop properly.
Others say he has been motivated by Al Gore's global warming theory. Gore asks for the use of less energy and a smaller carbon footprint to solve this debatable problem. However, Gore wants everyone in the world to cut back, not just the US. Obama does not care who conforms or not. Faster growing economies like China and India, far more responsible for future theoretical global warming, are ignored. Obama's thinking is thus, not that of a true environmentalist.
In addition, Obama is blocking oil drilling all over America and its coastline while, at the same time, encouraging oil drilling in Mexico. To add salt to our wounds, The US Export Import bank has given a two billion dollar loan guarantee to Brazil to do their own off shore drilling. But, the oil is not to go to us but to the Chinese!
Then, there is his inconsistent and apparently illogical approach to all our problems in the Middle East - one minute he is siding with the dictators of Egypt, Libya, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the next minute, making obligatory gestures of compassion to their long suffering populations. (Not to mention his dissing and enthusiastic participation in the dismantling of our only reliable ally in the Middle East, Israel jsk)
Other inane gestures: He somehow made the Muslims party to our space program praising them for their great contributions to its development - huh? He returned a bust of Winston Churchill given to us by the Brits that had been gratefully placed by us in the White House because of Churchill's crucial contribution to the defeat of Adolph Hitler in WWII.
D'Souza ended up concluding it was difficult accounting for all of Obama's apparent weirdness until D'Souza came to his own epiphany that Obama is not weird, foolish, inexperienced naive or any of the above. He knows exactly what he is doing and we had better stop misinterpreting and underestimating the man.
D'Sousa presented his conclusion combining these disparate facts in one impossible to refute hypothesis which negates all the previous theories we might have had. Obama is not Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton or just another American Black shake down artist. Obama has not really been raised American. His early years were in Kenya and then Indonesia. He was first thrust into American culture by his mother when he was already 10-12 years old.
Then, D'Sousa read Obama's book, Dreams from my Father. D'Sousa discovered that indeed, Obama has nothing to do with Black America. He never sat at a segregated lunch counter nor was he descended from slaves. His Dad was an educated immigrant from Kenya and his Mom was white from Kansas. His is not an American dream. He has no understanding or sympathy for American exceptionalism. In fact, he resents the concept.
So, what is Obama's dream? He tells us very explicitly that his dream is his father's dream. Obama Sr. was raised in Kenya. In his 20`s, he married a Black woman in Kezia, had two children by her, and while she was pregnant with the second, he left his family and went to Hawaii as a student. He there met Obama's Mom - Stanley Ann, married her and before Obama Jr. was age two also left her. He then went to Harvard where he took up with a third woman, took her back to Africa and had two children by her. At the same time he reunited with his first wife, from Kezia, and had two more children with her. In total he had four wives, usually two at the same time, and 8 children and with no sense of obligation and nor did he supply care for any of them.
Obama Sr. was a chronic alcoholic who had multiple driving accidents. He kills a man in one, in another hurts himself so badly his two legs have to be cut off and replaced with iron rods. Nevertheless, his courtship style remains intact. He takes up with another woman who bears his eighth child, George Obama.
In summary - he was quite an unusual role model for President Obama! Later, Obama Jr's sister took him to task and demanded how could he admire this despicable man who had abandoned all his wives and children, never gave them a dime or even paid them a visit. Obama Jr., in fact, barely knew him since his Dad had visited him only once, when he was about 10 years old. Consequently, Sr. had no direct influence upon Jr.
That influence was wielded by Obama Sr.'s first convert - Jr's mother, Stanley Ann Obama. Obama's mother was an only child. She grew up in Kansas and somehow became a bohemian rebel against her parents and her country. Despite her marriage and rapid abandonment by Obama's father, she refused to learn from her experience. She finds and marries another third world, anti-American guy, Lolo Satora, He was Indonesian and grew up under the colonial Dutch. Satora wooed Stanley Ann Obama with stories of Indonesian colonialism, married her and took her and her son, Jr. to live in Indonesia.
By a quirk of fate and bad luck for the American people, the Indonesian husband becomes more pro Western, pro American, and anti Communist. He signs up with an oil company and fights against Indonesian rebels in his own countryside. Ann then attacks him as a traitor to the greater cause and quickly sends Jr. back to Kansas to be raised by her parents and escape the pro-American thinking of the Indonesian husband. She remains in Indonesia the rest of her life.
Obama's father, Obama Sr.. was basically an anti-Colonialist - the dominant idea in the third world of the 20th Century. The simple core of this idea was that the world is divided into two - the colonizers or oppressors and the colonized or victims. The colonizers used to be Europe, Britain, France and now it is America in this line of thought. Furthermore, the rich got rich only by looting the colonized and even when they left, powerful economic forces remained in a position of exploitation. Banks, insurance and pharmaceutical companies, oil companies and anyone else that happens to make money are simply now the economic wing of colonialism still into exploitation. And, who to Barack Obama, Jr. is the lead elephant and current exploiter? Why we are, of course. How is Obama to deal with us, the problem? First, bring us under the rod of the Federal government. Obama's father in 1965 wrote an article in an East African journal saying how this should be done. Bring down all the rich guys by the power of the state, confiscate their land, property, raise taxes as high as you want - 100% if necessary, and obtain their wealth through fiat and legislative piracy. The rationale is that the wealth is not rightfully theirs, in the first place, but had been ripped off from the poor.
That is Dinesh D'Souza's basic hypothesis. So, Obama far from being a multi-culture guy, far from being the first African American president, is actually the first anti-American, anti-colonialism president and driven by that mind-set!
Obama, like the naive would like to believe, is no buffoon, not inexperienced, not unworldly, not apolitical and not a mediocrity. He is a very clever but misdirected guy and out to do us all in. He is the most effective Democratic President since Lyndon Johnson. He has gotten more programs passed in the shortest time, by Democrat or Republican, since Reagan.
If he is to be voted out of office in 2012, Republicans will have to take the full measure of the man. They need a strong guy, perhaps a father figure, a person that appeals to the American public. It will be a very difficult election made more so by mindless, irresponsible media genuflections and the Obama useful idiots that may never see the awful danger that this man represents.
Had Americans been able to stop obsessing over the color of Barack Obama's skin and instead paid more attention to his cultural identity, maybe he would not be in the White House today. The key to understanding him lies with his identification with his father, and his adoption of a cultural and political mindset rooted in postcolonial Africa.
Like many educated intellectuals in postcolonial Africa, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. was enraged at the transformation of his native land by its colonial conqueror. But instead of embracing the traditional values of his own tribal cultural past, he embraced an imported Western ideology, Marxism. I call such frustrated and angry modern Africans who embrace various foreign "isms", instead of looking homeward for repair of societies that are broken, African Colonials. They are Africans who serve foreign ideas.
The tropes of America's racial history as a way of understanding all things black are useless in understanding the man who got his dreams from his father, a Kenyan exemplar of the African Colonial.
Before I continue, I need to say this: I am a first generation born West African-American woman whose parents emigrated to the U.S. in the 1970's from the country now called Nigeria. I travel to Nigeria frequently. I see myself as both a proud American and as a proud Igbo (the tribe that we come from -- also sometimes spelled Ibo). Politically, I have always been conservative (though it took this past election for me to commit to this once and for all!); my conservative values come from my Igbo heritage and my place of birth. Of course, none of this qualifies me to say what I am about to -- but at the same time it does.
My friends, despite what CNN and the rest are telling you, Barack Obama is nothing more than an old school African Colonial who is on his way to turning this country into one of the developing nations that you learn about on the National Geographic Channel. Many conservative (East, West, South, North) African-Americans like myself -- those of us who know our history -- have seen this movie before. Here are two main reasons why many Americans allowed Obama to slip through the cracks despite all of his glaring inconsistencies:
First, Obama has been living on American soil for most of his adult life. Therefore, he has been able to masquerade as one who understands and believes in American democratic ideals. But he does not. Barack Obama is intrinsically undemocratic and as his presidency plays out, this will become more obvious. Second, and most importantly, too many Americans know very little about Africa. The one-size-fits-all understanding that many Americans (both black and white) continue to have of Africa might end up bringing dire consequences for this country.
Contrary to the way it continues to be portrayed in mainstream Western culture, Africa is not a continent that can be solely defined by AIDS, ethnic rivalries, poverty and safaris. Africa, like any other continent, has an immense history defined by much diversity and complexity. Africa's long-standing relationship with Europe speaks especially to some of these complexities -- particularly the relationship that has existed between the two continents over the past two centuries. Europe's complete colonization of Africa during the nineteenth century, also known as the Scramble for Africa, produced many unfortunate consequences, the African colonial being one of them.
The African colonial (AC) is a person who by means of their birth or lineage has a direct connection with Africa. However, unlike Africans like me, their worldviews have been largely shaped not by the indigenous beliefs of a specific African tribe but by the ideals of the European imperialism that overwhelmed and dominated Africa during the colonial period. AC's have no real regard for their specific African traditions or histories. AC's use aspects of their African culture as one would use pieces of costume jewelry: things of little or no value that can be thoughtlessly discarded when they become a negative distraction, or used on a whim to decorate oneself in order to seem exotic. (Hint: Obama's Muslim heritage).
On the other hand, AC's strive to be the best at the culture that they inherited from Europe. Throughout the West, they are tops in their professions as lawyers, doctors, engineers, Ivy League professors and business moguls; this is all well and good. It's when they decide to engage us as politicians that things become messy and convoluted.
The African colonial politician (ACP) feigns repulsion towards the hegemonic paradigms of Western civilization. But at the same time, he is completely enamored of the trappings of its aristocracy or elite culture. The ACP blames and caricatures whitey to no end for all that has gone wrong in the world. He convinces the masses that various forms of African socialism are the best way for redressing the problems that European colonialism motivated in Africa. However, as opposed to really being a hard-core African Leftist who actually believes in something, the ACP uses socialist themes as a way to disguise his true ambitions: a complete power grab whereby the "will of the people" becomes completely irrelevant.
Barack Obama is all of the above. The only difference is that he is here playing (colonial) African politics as usual.
In his 1995 memoir, Dreams From My Father -- an eloquent piece of political propaganda -- Obama styles himself as a misunderstood intellectual who is deeply affected by the sufferings of black people, especially in America and Africa. In the book, Obama clearly sees himself as an African, not as a black American. And to prove this, he goes on a quest to understand his Kenyan roots. He is extremely thoughtful of his deceased father's legacy; this provides the main clue for understanding Barack Obama.
Barack Obama Sr. was an African colonial to the core; in his case, the apple did not fall far from the tree. All of the telltale signs of Obama's African colonialist attitudes are on full display in the book -- from his feigned antipathy towards Europeans to his view of African tribal associations as distracting elements that get in the way of "progress". (On p. 308 of Dreams From My Father, Obama says that African tribes should be viewed as an "ancient loyalties".)
Like imperialists of Old World Europe, the ACP sees their constituents not as free thinking individuals who best know how to go about achieving and creating their own means for success. Instead, the ACP sees his constituents as a flock of ignorant sheep that need to be led -- oftentimes to their own slaughter.
Like the European imperialist who spawned him, the ACP is a destroyer of all forms of democracy.
Here are a few examples of what the British did in order to create (in 1914) what is now called Nigeria and what Obama is doing to you:
Convince the people that "clinging" to any aspect of their cultural (tribal) identity or history is bad and regresses the process of "unity". British Imperialists deeply feared people who were loyal to anything other than the state. "Tribalism" made the imperialists have to work harder to get people to just fall in line. Imperialists pitted tribes against each other in order to createchaos that they then blamed on ethnic rivalry. Today many "educated" Nigerians, having believed that their traditions were irrelevant, remain completely ignorant of their ancestry and the history of their own tribes.
Confiscate the wealth and resources of the area that you govern by any means necessary in order to redistribute wealth. The British used this tactic to present themselves as empathetic and benevolent leaders who wanted everyone to have a "fair shake". Imperialists are not interested in equality for all. They are interested in controlling all.
Convince the masses that your upper-crust university education naturally puts you on an intellectual plane from which to understand everything even when you understand nothing.Imperialists were able to convince the people that their elite university educations allowed them to understand what Africa needed. Many of today's Nigerians-having followed that lead-hold all sorts of degrees and certificates-but what good are they if you can't find a job?
Lie to the people and tell them that progress is being made even though things are clearly becoming worse. One thing that the British forgot to mention to their Nigerian constituents was that one day, the resources that were being used to engineer "progress" (which the British had confiscated from the Africans to begin with!) would eventually run out. After WWII, Western Europe could no longer afford to hold on to their African colonies. So all of the counterfeit countries that the Europeans created were then left high-and-dry to fend for themselves. This was the main reason behind the African independence movements of the1950 and 60's. What will a post-Obama America look like?
Use every available media outlet to perpetuate the belief that you and your followers are the enlightened ones-and that those who refuse to support you are just barbaric, uncivilized, ignorant curmudgeons. This speaks for itself.
America, don't be fooled. The Igbos were once made up of a confederacy of clans that ascribed to various forms of democratic government. They took their eyes off the ball and before they knew it, the British were upon them. Also, understand this: the African colonial who is given too much political power can only become one thing: a despot.
“The liberal idea of "diversity" is 2 white guys, 3 white women, 2 black guys, 2 Hispanic women, and an Asian transsexual all having the exact same left-wing ideas on every issue. The conservative idea of diversity could be that exact same group of people or even just 10, straight, white males or 10 Hispanic women -- but all having diverse opinions on the issues.” …John Hawkins
Human Diversity Wheel
Spotlight on Diversity
This week’s Back Stage
magazine’s spotlight, for
performers, explored diversity
and tackled the questions of whether actors should submit
for roles of ethnicities other
than there own, risking
annoying casting directors, and how actors can escape being
pigeon-holed.
“We all live with the objective of being happy; our lives are all different and yet the same.” …Anne Frank
Dinesh D’Souza, author of The End of Racism says, “The solutions for ending racism are obvious. If you want to get rid of racial obsession, stop talking and thinking about race so much. If you want to remove race as the basis of decision-making in America, let's eliminate America's policies that make race the basis of decision-making. And if you want a party that stands for color-blindness and equal opportunity, you might consider voting for the Republicans.”
Who could not be moved at the sight of a major political party naming Barack Obama, an African American, as its presidential candidate? To me, there could not be a better sign that America has left behind its racist past. We are now approaching what may be termed "the end of racism." The End of Racism was the title of my 1995 bestseller, hugely controversial when it was published, but now it seems to have been a decade ahead of its time. If we appreciate the significance of our current moment, we are driven to an ironic but rational conclusion: perhaps the best way to recognize Obama's historic achievement is to vote for John McCain this November.
Consider this: for the past several years we have been hearing liberal Democrats emphasize how racism still defines America, how things haven't really changed all that much, how racism has gone underground and is now more covert and more dangerous than ever. It may seem strange that a racist country would adopt legal policies that discriminate against the majority and in favor of minorities. Even so, liberal activists and civil rights activists continue to browbeat white America in the schools, in the universities, in politics and in the media if there is the slightest dissent from civil rights orthodoxy.
Well, I don't know how many people have been drinking the liberal Kool-Aid, but these people must be utterly shocked at the success of Barack Obama. Here is a guy who could not possibly have made it as far as he has with only black votes. He has attracted not only white votes but the votes of some of the most affluent and successful segments of the white community. Obama, not Hillary, is the pillar of the white establishment.
Moreover, Obama's own campaign is based on the premise that America is no longer racist. Far from making race-based appeals, to blacks on the basis of solidarity, and to whites on the basis of guilt, Obama campaigns on the expectation that whites share his economic values and foreign policy positions and view of America. In other words, Obama's public message is that race doesn't matter and that transracial alliances should be built on shared political and cultural values. It's a good message, and how it must dismay professional civil rights activists to hear it. I wouldn't be surprised if Jesse Jackson is telling family members, "If race relations keep improving like this, I may have to get a real job."
Clearly there are many in the liberal Democratic camp who are made profoundly uncomfortable by the recognition that racism is no more a defining feature of American life or even African American life. Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that racism does not exist. This is a big country, and surely one can find several examples of it. But racism, which used to be systematic, is now only episodic. In fact, when I ask young blacks on the campus today whether America is racist, many say yes. But if I ask them to give me examples of how that racism affects their lives, they are hard pressed to give a single one. The best they can do is to mention "Rodney King" or provide some well-known, recycled horror story.
Recently someone told me that McCain is still winning the white vote by a substantial majority and that shows "we have a long way to go" in overcoming white bigotry. By this logic, blacks are have even longer way to go in overcoming their bigotry since Obama is winning almost 98 percent of the black vote. When your logic leads to an absurd conclusion, go back and re-examine the premise.
Even though Obama's candidacy signals that America is overcoming its racial past, neither Obama nor his wife recognize that. Their personal statements, as seen for example in Obama's books, are suffused with race-consciousness, race-obsession and even racial resentment. The more privileges they have received on the basis of race, the more embittered they seem to become. The source of these pathologies is the very liberalism that the Obamas have embraced: a liberalism that declares them equal while treating them as inferiors who need preferential treatment. (Liberals hate to have this pointed out; hence the irrational invective of the early responses to this post.)
The solutions are obvious. If you want to get rid of racial obsession, stop talking and thinking about race so much. If you want to remove race as the basis of decision-making in America, let's eliminate America's policies that make race the basis of decision-making. And if you want a party that stands for color-blindess and equal opportunity, you might consider voting for the Republicans.
