Paula beats out Dr. King.

I have a lot of friends who live in the Atlanta area. It's a nice city with some good people. But then you think about the state that it is in and you have to step back a little bit. Not the Pistolvania is much better, but as bad as some of the folks are here, I am pretty sure that you would not have the following kind of poll numbers in the Keystone state:

"Paula Deen may have lost support from her sponsors, the Food Network, and much of the public but, according to a recent poll, there’s one area in which she’s still going strong: among Georgia Republicans.

According to Public Policy Polling, the embattled Southern cooking mogul has a whopping 73% favorability rating with Georgia Republicans, even following her recent and well-publicized “fall from grace” involving her past use of racist language.

Deen previously admitted to using the “n-word” during a suit filed by a former employee alleging “violent, sexist, and racist” behavior from both the chef and her brother “Bubba.” She also received strong criticism for her expressed desire to have a “Southern plantation-style” theme wedding for her brother complete with all-black waitstaff, apparently harkening back to the days of slavery in the American South. Following this admission, and the ensuing controversy, the Food Network (which airs her show Paula’s Home Cooking) and numerous other businesses have ceased relations with the chef.

The real kicker here is that, according to the PPP, her favorability is markedly higher than another famous southerner –Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. He garnered 59% favorability among self-identified Republicans in the state." [Source]

Hmmm, 73% for the racist Queen of fried chicken and 59% for Dr. King. Kind of why I am keeping as far away from that republican tent as possible. No wonder their minority outreach isn't going too well.

Finally, I am glad to see Eric Holder's Justice Department reviewing the Ramarley Graham case up in New York. What happened to that young man was just wrong. Shot in his own home by a New York police officer who claims that he feared for his own life. Of course the young man was unarmed, and the officers kicked in his door and initiated the confrontation.

A Judge in New York dismissed manslaughter charges against the officer and he is now free to go back to the streets and do his thing.

"There was something haunting about the moment in the Bronx courtroom when the decision was announced regarding the charges against the police officer who shot and killed Ramarley Graham. As the judge dismissed the manslaughter charges against the officer, Constance Malcolm, the mother of the dead 18-year-old, shrieked in grief and shouted so heatedly at the judge that she was removed from the courtroom.

“I am angry and cannot express my feelings alone,” she said, speaking to reporters afterward. “I am ready to take it to the streets and the highest of the highest. Please be prepared for a major protest.” She was later hospitalized after the emotion of the experience.

Acting Justice Steven Barrett, of the State Supreme Court of New York, said in his ruling that the prosecution failed to give precise instructions to the grand jury that indicted Richard Haste, the police officer who faced manslaughter charges.

The judge further explained that the members of the grand jury were not provided sufficient information that Haste had been told that the teenage Graham might have been carrying a weapon. “With not great pleasure, I’m obliged in this case to dismiss the charges.”

There remains a huge problem here. An 18-year-old young man is now dead, killed by an overzealous police officer who soon discovered that Graham was unarmed. With the justice’s decision, no one has yet been held accountable for the death of this young man." [Source]

Sound familiar?

This was not a part of his dream.

Every year around this time I have to say this: LITTLE GIRL SCOUT PLEASE LEAVE ME ALONE! I DO NOT WANT YOUR DAMN COOKIE!

So anyway, as we approach MLK day here in America, let us not forget, my American friends, that it is also Gun Appreciation Day, tomorrow.

Calm down Negroes, I know that MLK lost his life because of a gun, but the leader of this grand exercise says that MLK would have approved and that he is just honoring his legacy.

 

Now clearly this is one hell of a stretch, and yet, I am willing to let it slide. Consider the source.

 

But sorry my wingnut friends, I cannot let the latest news about one of the sponsors of Gun Appreciation Day go without commenting.

 

"It’s Gun Appreciation Day Eve, the day before some Americans will mark the Martin Luther King Day/Obama inaugural weekend by visiting gun ranges, gun stores, and gun shows armed with copies of the U.S. Constitution, American flags, and “Hands Off My Guns” signs “to send a loud and clear message to Congress and President Obama.”

 

Although Gun Appreciation Day chairman Larry Ward assures people that Martin Luther King would have approved of his demonstration, the group’s sponsors include a White Nationalist party called The American Third Position, which “believes that government policy in the United States discriminates against white Americans, the majority population, and that white Americans need their own political party to fight this discrimination.”

The Southern Poverty Law Center has designated A3P a “white nationalist hate group,” and the Anti-Defamation League calls them a “white supremacist political party.”

Also from the Anti-Defamation League:

Publicly identified leaders of the A3P are its chairman William D. Johnson, a California lawyer who has run for office in Wyoming, Arizona and California; and four directors: Kevin MacDonald, an anti-Semitic professor of psychology at California State University-Long Beach; James Edwards, a Tennessee-based white supremacist who runs the Political Cesspool radio show; Tomislav Sunic, a white supremacist author and radio show host and Don Wassall, a white supremacist who founded the racist and anti-Semitic American Nationalist Union.

American Third Position is one of dozens of Gun Appreciation Day sponsors, and although there is no fee to become a sponsor, Gun Appreciation Day’s approval is required:

Obama, Feinstein and the rest gun grabbing, opportuniists are dead set on passing Gun Control Legislation this Month.

This is the ‘line in the sand’ moment for those of us that love the Constitution. Americans need to make a powerful statement that will put the fear of God in our politicians that are thinking about infringing upon our Second Amendment Rights.

If you have an Political or Member Organzation, Non-Profit, For Profit, PAC, Blog, Newsletter and/or Facebook Fan Pageand want to help spread the message of the first ever national Gun Apprecation Day we want to add your group to our website as a sponsor.

No cash required (we will accept contributions to help us buy ads Online and On Air) , we just ask that you spread the word to your memebers, fans and followers every day until and including January 19, 2013...
 

Most of the Gun Appreciation Day sponsors are gun retailers, or other firearms-related businesses, along with gun advocate groups. Oddly, GAD was able to snag the sponsorship of Men Who Support Women Against Gun Control, but haven’t yet landed Women Against Gun Control. The Angry Pepper, a Connecticut-based food company, is also a sponsor, as is Puerto Rico Armed Citizen, which appears to have signed up before American Third Position did." [Source]

Show me your friends and I will show you who you are.

Finally, this racism chasing is getting out of hand. First Colin Powell and now the folks at West Point.

"A study for the Combatting Terrorism Center, a think tank associated with the United States Military Academy at West Point, warns of the threat posed by rightwing extremists. It identifies the potential for violence in groups defined a “far-right,” and provides a “[C]onceptual foundation for understanding different far-right groups and then presents the empirical analysis of violent incidents to identify those perpetrating attacks.”

“In the last few years, and especially since 2007, there has been a dramatic rise in the number of attacks and violent plots originating from individuals and groups who self-identify with the far-right of American politics,” the report’s executive summary reads. “These incidents cause many to wonder whether these are isolated attacks, an increasing trend, part of increasing societal violence, or attributable to some other condition.”

The report warns of three categories of rightwing extremists that represent terroristic threats: “[T]he Racist/White Supremacy Movement, the Anti-Federalist Movement, and the Christian Fundamentalist Movement.”
The report notes that it focuses only on those groups that have perpetrated violence and not political causes which are deemed extremist but have no violent incidents attributed to them.
 
The federal government has been wary of coordinated rightwing violence since early in President Barack Obama’s first term. In April, 2009, the Department of Homeland Security authored an unclassified 9 page report entailed “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.” [Source]

Oh lawd! I don't know what to tell you Negroes. These extremist are serious. Maybe you all need to be loading up on some automatic weapons as well.
MLK wouldn't be pleased, but desperate times ...

 

The republican candidates and the three letters you will never hear them say. (MLK)

Tomorrow is the day we celebrate Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's life here in A-merry-ca. I will wait to hear all the republican candidates for president give us a nice speech about King's contribution to our great republic while they are on the campaign trail. I will wait, but I doubt if I will hear it.

Republicans are running against Barack Obama, and contrary to what you might hear them say in thirty second sound bites, they are not trying to unite the country; they are trying to unite their base. They cannot do that by acknowledging those other people who have voted by a huge majority for the man their base despises and fears.

Sometimes it's subtle, and sometimes it's not. And, sometimes, as in the case of Flipper, the silence speaks volumes.

"In the last few months, the Republican Party has spoken to many ideas. Many of them very important to the GOP. They speak freely on the economy, foreign policy, education and government spending. What they do not talk about very often, is their plan on how to unify an America so much more diverse than what the founding fathers created. They steadily evade any deep discussions on race (unless it is in direct proportion to a cost they don’t approve of).
For many this is frustrating. For others it is proof of their bigotry. But as one New York Times article says, it may be all by design. Especially for Mitt Romney:

Of course, I’m not talking about a strict count of melanin density. I’m referring to the countless subtle and not-so-subtle ways he telegraphs to a certain type of voter that he is the cultural alternative to America’s first black president. It is a whiteness grounded in a retro vision of the country, one of white picket fences and stay-at-home moms and fathers unashamed of working hard for corporate America." [Source]

Mitt Romney knows what he is doing. His constant talk of making A-merry-ca great again, and going back to what it used to be pushes all the right buttons on all the right people.

"In this way, whether he means to or not, Mr. Romney connects with a central evangelic fantasy: that the Barack Obama years, far from being the way forward, are in fact a historical aberration, a tear in the white space-time continuum. And let’s be clear: Mr. Obama’s election was not destiny, but a fluke."

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. would have been 83 today, and I am pretty sure that if he were alive the republican candidates for president and the folks who support them would be spinning history to put him in quite a different light than we see him in now. (Martyrdom will do that to you.)

I give the American Civil Liberties Union credit for monitoring how we deal with the issue of race in the upcoming elections, and of course there are no surprises in their study:

Many of the candidates invoke the concept of “states’ rights” in the 10th Amendment to support efforts to undermine Constitutional rights, such as access to the ballot, as well as contraception and reproductive rights.

Paul has not adequately answered deeply disturbing questions about racist comments in newsletters published under his name in the ‘80s and ‘90s.

Gingrich continues to make veiled racist references to “food stamp recipients” and ending poverty by putting kids to work in poor “urban” areas. And Santorum said he didn’t want to “make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money.”

Martin Luther King Jr. said “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” For too many of the presidential candidates, the arc is broken."

"And the church said, 'Amen!'"




  






     

 

"Tricky" people.

Not many people in these divided states are talking about the Jackie O tapes. She was the wife of Camelot, A-merry-can royalty, and we all loved her. (Yes, even you Negroes.) Girlfriend was Lady Diana before there was Lady Diana.

But sadly, now we know how Jackie O really felt about one of A-merry-ca's icons, and a hero to you Negroes. 

"The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. is a “phony” because of his skirt-chasing ways"

Oh my! Poor Jackie O, maybe she saw too much of her husband in brother Martin. Because, make no mistake, to paraphrase Tupac; my man got around.

"Mrs Kennedy said her view of King was formed after being told of secret FBI wiretaps which showed him trying to organise a sex party before he attended the March on Washington in August 1963, at which he delivered his ‘I Have a Dream’ speech. She said her brother-in-law Robert told her that King made disparaging remarks about JFK at the funeral and about Cardinal Richard Cushing, who delivered the eulogy. I just can’t see a picture of Martin Luther King without thinking, you know, that man’s terrible,’ she said.

He made fun of Cardinal Cushing and said that he was drunk at it [the funeral] – and things about they almost dropped the coffin. I mean Martin Luther King is really a tricky person." [Source]

Yes Jackie, those Negroes can be tricky. Kind of like former First Ladies. 

Finally, I see that the republicans, as promised, found it in their big hearts to block disaster aid to flood stricken states:

"Republicans blocked an effort Monday by Senate Democrats to quickly pass a $7 billion aid package for victims of recent natural disasters like Hurricane Irene, tornadoes in the Midwest and the South and floods along the Mississippi, Missouri and other rivers.

On a 53-33 vote, the Senate rejected an attempt by Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., to bring up a bill that Democrats had hoped to use to replenish the Federal Emergency Management Agency's depleted disaster fund. Democrats needed 60 votes to advance the measure.

Reid said FEMA has spent almost $400 million in the past two weeks on emergency help like food and shelter following Irene and has only about $300 million left.

President Barack Obama on Friday asked Congress for $500 million to make sure the disaster fund doesn't run out of cash before the end of the month. He also officially asked for $4.6 billion for the upcoming budget year that starts Oct. 1.

Earlier Monday, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., said Republicans will attach a disaster aid package to must-pass legislation for keeping the government fully running past Sept. 30. That stopgap spending bill is likely to advance next week.

They're playing around the edges of what really needs to be done," Reid complained, saying hundreds of millions of dollars is needed to rebuild places like Joplin, Mo., where a tornado in May destroyed more than 7,000 homes and 10 school buildings and killed 159 people." [Source]

Oh come on now Mr. Reid, these are just people. It's not like they are corporations or anything.

IT'S OVER.

Today is a sad day for the field, and I will tell you why: When I started this blog I decided that I would continue blogging until I found Lark Voorhies. Well, I am both happy and sad to announce that I have found her. Yes my friends, my hunt for the elusive Lark Voorhies is over; so now,unfortunately, I must stop blogging. Why? Because there is nothing left to blog for. This whole blogging thing was just a desperate and pathetic attempt to try and get Lark's attention.

One of her people found out about the blog, told Lark about the field, and thankfully, she has reached out.

So sorry folks, it's been real, and I enjoyed every minute with you. But I must move on to bigger and better things; Lark calls.....

Okay can I say April Fools now? APRIL FOOLS!!!

Now that I got that out of the way, let me get serious for a minute: We are just a couple of days away from the 41st Anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King, and I saw an interesting essay about King and his movement over at TPM. The author, Clay Risen, seemed to be suggesting that King only included poor whites in his fight against injustice for tactical reasons. In other words, white A-merry-ca would not have accepted his movement if it did not include poor whites.

"Now, it is true that this position does not preclude the idea that poor whites also deserved something. But the debt America owed to poor whites was, in his view, clearly of a lesser magnitude. And as the quotes Rick presents make clear, his belief that the poor of all colors should be helped was in part a tactical, political move: Whites will block significant assistance to blacks unless that assistance can be explained in color-blind terms. "

Interesting. I can't help but think of his O ness and his quest for "change" and a new "post racial" A-merry-ca. Is this just a political strategy as well? And if it is, did it work? It sure looks like it. But who did it work for? Is his O ness and his political soul-mates the only ones who will benefit from his vision, or does he have a grand scheme to uplift black and poor people as King did? I know I know, lots of questions, and I hate to break up the spirit of the day, but they are serious ones.

April Fools is only one day; we have 364 where we have to get real.

I can't suspend my disbelief

“I stood in line for a very long time that night to shake his hand. And he was gracious, and he was kind to lean over to shake the hand of a 14-year-old girl ... from the suburbs of Chicago, who went to an all-white church and an all-white school, and lived in an all-white suburb. But he didn’t ask me, as I reached out my hand, ‘Where do you live, what is your experience?’ He just took it and looked in my face and thanked me for coming.”
"He even laughed uproariously when I confessed that I was, nevertheless, a staunch Republican and a Goldwater supporter."

I hate piling on, but Hillary and these convenient recollections are starting to get to me. Why do politricksters do that? Why do they have to personalize every tragedy and event to find a connection to it? Does Hillary, for instance, think that black folks are all of a sudden going to vote for her because she shook MLK's hand when she was a little girl? What the fuck is that all about?

"But he didn't ask me, as I reached out my hand..." Huh? Like what the hell was he going to ask you? Assuming this story is true-- and there is a very strong possibility that it might not be-- , are we to believe that King was wondering where this little 14 year old girl lived, and whether she was from an all white neighborhood and went to an all white school? Are you fucking kidding me Hillary? Here is a little newsflash for you my former "Goldwater Girl": damn near every little 14 year old white girl went to an all white school and lived in an all white neighborhood back then. So assuming again it's true, what made your situation so special?

I keep saying assuming it's true, because something about Hillary's account just bugs the hell out of me. Has anyone ever heard Hillary tell this story before? Anybody?........ yeah I didn't think so. You would think she would have mentioned this story somewhere to somebody. To a friend, a colleague, at a previous King event. Somewhere.

Again, I don't want to pile on, Hillary has been having a tough few days and the last thing I want to do is add to her misery. Honestly, I don't dislike the Ice Queen as much as some of you Obamaholics, but it seems that the Ice Queen has been stretching the truth just a little bit lately.

"I walked into my dorm room and took my book bag and hurled it across the room."

Okay Hillary, those were rough times for all of us. But did they even have "book bags" in 1968?

I am just sayin :)

Obama like King? No such thing.

**

I received a wonderful e-mail from my man Mel Reeves about MLK and Barack which is cut and paste worthy. My man usually writes over at the web site blackagenda report, and he is always on point. Now I don't agree with everything he says in this essay, but I do agree with his point about King's speech and how it has been misinterpreted by most A-merry-cans.

**This picture of King was taken while he was announcing in 1967, that he wouldn't be seeking the presidency of these "Divided States". Mmmm, if he did run, I wonder how many votes he would have gotten? **

"The presidential candidacy of Barack Obama has spawned lots of banter about Martin Luther King Jr, whose birthday the country recently observed. Obama has been mentioned in the same breath as King, as the fulfillment and embodiment of the civil rights leaders’ dream. Obama’s supposed symbolism is misleading and represent gross misrepresentations of the truth.

So let me take a moment to set the record straight.

Now when we consider the idea of Obama as the fulfillment of Kings’ dream we should refer to the great one himself. In his now popular, “I have a dream,” speech delivered from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial at the 1963 March on Washington, King elucidated his vision of things to come.

“I have a dream,” proclaimed King; “that this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed, ‘We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal,’”… that, “sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood,”… that, “even the state of Mississippi, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice”… and that, “my four children will live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

The fulfillment of Kings vision has yet to come to pass. Even Obama admitted as much last Sunday in a speech at King’s former church, Ebenezer Baptist in Atlanta . Obama, explained that, “for most of this country’s history, we in the African-American community have been at the receiving end of man’s inhumanity to man. And all of us understand intimately the insidious role that race still sometimes plays – on the job, in the schools, in our health care system, and in our criminal justice system.”

However, the talk about the Senator’s possible election as president of the US as culmination of the civil rights movement reveals a popular misconception about King and a misreading of his most popular speech. It exposes how few people actually read the entire text. (If they had it wouldn’t be so popular) Because within it lies a radical critique of US society and a clarion call to continue the struggle. It is not the innocuous pablum, which the revisionists have assigned to it.

In actuality, King’s vision was about collective progress, not individual progress. Obama rightly pointed out during the South Carolina debate that MLK would probably not have endorsed either candidate including Obama. Obama is right King would not endorse anyone who was tied to the power structure, which he saw as the source of our problems as people (black, white, Latin, Asian, Native, women, etc.).

Obama --no matter how folks want to see him-- is still indeed tied to this social/economic/ political system and does not represent a break from the power structure. This is true despite his misleading and disingenuous mantra of “change” and “hope.” Recognizing this, the human rights leader would have viewed the idea of Obama winning the presidency not as a sign of the advancement of the race, but as nothing more than tokenism.

King enlightened us on the problem of tokenism in his essay “The Sword that Heals.”

“Still another technique had begun to replace the old methods for thwarting the Negroes’ dreams and aspirations. This is the method known as tokenism…Tokenism is a promise to pay. Democracy in its finest sense is payment. The Negro wanted to feel pride in his race. With tokenism the solution was simple. If all twenty million Negroes would keep looking at Ralph Bunche [insert Obama] the one man in so exalted a post would generate such a volume of pride that it could be cut into portions and served to everyone. A judge here and a judge there, an executive behind a polished desk, a high government administrator all these were tokens used to obscure the persisting reality, and discrimination.

Those who argue in favor of tokenism point out that we must begin somewhere; that it is unwise to spurn any breakthrough, no matter how limited. There is a critical distinction, however, between a modest start and tokenism. Its [tokenism] purpose is not to begin a process, but instead to end the process of protest and pressure. It is a hypocritical gesture not a constructive first step.”

Enough said!

Ironically, Obama’s race is merely a smoke screen making it harder for folks to see who and what he really represents. But in the process of fooling folks he is also standing the history and intent of the Civil Rights movement on its head. He is accomplishing this through revision and inference. "

OK Mel, I hear you, now be prepared to back up your musings. Because I just know that these folks in the fields will have something to say as well.

Just a dream?

I have been thinking about this post for awhile now. Unfortunately, knowing how sensitive some of you folks can get, I held back. But since tomorrow is the day we choose to recognize Dr. King's birthday, I think it is a good time to share it with you.

It has to do with Dr. King's speech. In that famous speech at the Lincoln Memorial on a hot day in August, he spoke of "having a dream." In his dream King envisioned a lot of great things happening in A-merry-ca when it comes to race relations and racial harmony. He dreamt of a country where "little black boys and little black girls could join hands with little white boys and little white girls as sisters and brothers..." He dreamt of a country where his four children would be judged "not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." (White conservatives love that one, and they use it every chance they get. "Why should we give you affirmative action just because you are black? Shouldn't you be judged by the content of your character and not the color of your skin?")

In my humble opinion the brilliance of King's speech was that he never really expected his dream to be realized. He understood how truly fucked up the human condition was, and what he was dealing with in A-merry-ca. -"So we have come here today to dramatize a shameful condition."- All he could do was make A-merry-cans confront their unjust reality and at least try to implement laws to make things better. But King never really thought all the things he talked about in his speech would ever come to fruition. I mean let's face it, it was a dream. And the last time I checked, the odds of a dream becoming reality are very slim. Hell, if that wasn't the case, Lark Voorhies would have moved to Philly a long time ago.

If King really thought that the things he spoke about could become reality, he would have written his speech in a different way. He would have said something like; "one day in the not too distant future, my four little children will be judged, not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character". He would not have prefaced the words "one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'we hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal.' with that now now famous phrase, "I have a dream". By saying it was a dream he was telling us that the possibility of all of this happening was more remote. "The state of Mississippi transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice"? I don't think so.

No one could argue that given the climate of the country at the time of his speech (1963) all he could have done was dream. No one could have envisioned how far we would have come in A-merry-ca. And this is where the cynical field Negro comes in. I don't think we have come that far in A-merry-ca at all. I think in terms of attitudes we might as well be in a time capsule which reads August 28, 1963. Sure laws have changed, but little else has. People are just more sophisticated about how they hide their ignorance now.

And don't even get me started about us black folks. I think if King were around today, seeing how we have self destructed as a race would be his biggest disappointment. He would know that white folks don't give a damn about us. But he would have expected that much. He was a preacher, I am sure he was quite aware of all the shortcomings that come with the human condition. But he would have been taken by surprise with all the shit he saw with us black folks. I am sure of it.

So I will be at an MLK breakfast tomorrow morning, and I will be volunteering my time to do some cleaning up at a local high school. I will be doing these things because I understand the significance of the King holiday and what it is suppose to represent. But sorry, I am not as optimistic about the future of race relations in this country. King's speech and the words in it were nice. But remember, he was dreaming.

I told you this would happen.

I have a confession to make, I haven't watched BET in almost five years. And please believe me when I tell you that I am proud of that shit. In fact, I suspect that there are quite a few black folks out there who feel the same way that I do about A-merry-ca's minstrel network. - Bob, looks like you sold it to the white man just in time-

But now comes word that A-merry-ca's first black billionaire and founder of minstrel T.V. has actually come out and slammed the "O" man for having the audacity to think that his peeps, the Clintons, aren't down with MLK and the civil rights movement. Boy I swear the hits just keep coming from these folks, and I suspect that they will be trotting out quite a few more surrogates and house Negroes to tell us black folks how we should be thinking before this is over. But I told you all this was going to happen, so you shouldn't be surprised.

Now I understand that politics is a blood sport, and that the stakes are high . Believe me, I come from a country where that shit is literal, and where people kill motherfuckers who are their political opponents on a regular basis. But something about this slimy kind of back door dealing and nefarious plotting is very unseemly to me. I think it's the hypocrisy that bothers me. Just the thought of you sending out your surrogates and henchmen to do your dirty work, and then appearing with the main stream media and declaring that you are above that sort of dirty politics. I mean if you run your election that way how will you lead when you are the president? I would respect you more if you just came out and said: "yes I said all that shit, and I believe every fucking word of it. Hell I am trying to become president of this bitch. I will be damned if some half and half mother fucker whose father wasn't even born here is going to take away my rightful place in history." I still wouldn't vote for your triangulating ass, but at least I would respect you.

So Bob Johnson has decided to come out and lead the house Negro parade. And why not, he made quite a lot of his billions when his benefactor, blow job Bill, was in office. So it seems only natural that blow job Bill would call in some chips now. And not a moment too soon for Hillary's campaign. She needs the boost. That uppity Negra is acting like he really wants to win this bitch.

What, he didn't get the memo? Nope, it seems that uppity Negra is starting to believe his own damn press clippings. But those press clippings are starting to change: "Obama smoothly,strategically and subtly mines the well of white guilt. In his acceptance speech after his Iowa sweep-Which sounded an awful lot like the speech of a president, or at least a nominee, rather than the pick of a few sturdy Iowans-Obama liberated his inner Martin Luther King. Launching into the singsong cadences of King's 'I have a dream' speech, Obama crooned: They saaaad. They saaad...Obama's speech was grandiose prose and inspiring rhetoric. But what does it mean?It means nothing..."

~~Kathleen Parker~~Washington Post.

I told you "O" man. I told you the shit wouldn't be easy. But just wait, you ain't seen nothing yet.

There are quite a few more Bob Johnson types to come.