The Race War in America





Holder Race Relations SC

Racism:  poor treatment of or violence against people because of their race; the belief that some races of people are better than others.

Have you noticed we’ve stopped talking about ways to overcome racism?  We appear to have allowed the problem to overwhelm any consideration of solutions.   Most of our talk these days focuses on making accusations, on race-baiting, and on using race as a way to control or demonize or manipulate others.  Moron talk in the NFL consumes the air waves, not as a basis for exploring remedies, but merely for entertainment value.  Racism is no longer a social ill.  It’s a political weapon.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. never pulled a punch speaking about injustice; but he didn’t leave it there, like so many do today.  No, instead, he moved the discussion forward, emphasizing two parallel subjects: non-violent activism and racial reconciliation.

Why did he do that?  Moved by the Spirit, he was an agent of true progress, a patriot and a man of God, interested in everyone’s betterment regardless of race.  He urged us to live up to our ideals and form a more perfect union, saying that character was far more important that skin pigment. That’s where our focus should remain.

Do we have that kind of leadership today?

In 2008, there was a glimmer of hope.  Even though I knew Barack Obama was a dyed-in-the-wool communist and radical community organizer hostile to America and Christianity, when he spoke about race back then, I was inspired.   He spoke about having the tough conversations.  He challenged black men to take responsibility.  He asked that we all engage in a new conversation about our prejudices and honestly work out our differences for the sake of future generations.  He sang the glories of our Constitution and our Founding principles.

Now we know it was all smoke and mirrors, just another head fake.  Now we understand that his only purpose was to salvage his campaign because his prospects had dimmed given revelations about Jeremiah “Goddamn America” Wright.  Now we realize that Obama sat under Wright’s authority for 20 years applauding teaching that encouraged fear, bigotry, division, and hatred.  Now we perceive that Wright and Obama are people willing to aggravate racial tensions to achieve political goals.

Today. we understand that Obama’s hostility toward whites, planted in him at an early age, was brought to full flower by the likes of Saul Alinsky and Jeremiah Wright; that Obama’s hostility and prejudicial thinking toward whites is as racist as any hostility directed toward blacks by white racists.  And never forget, Obama called his own grandmother a racist, calling her a ‘typical white person’ when she expressed fear of blacks. (Read Obama’s books.  He tells you flat out what he thinks about whites.)

His tragedy is this: he is so steeped in this rancorous thinking that it imprisons him.  Notice how he never takes responsibility and never acknowledges fault; yet he is quick to demonize all opposition.  He cannot change his mind or truly apologize because he believes he is thoroughly correct.  His distinct lack of humility is what makes him especially dangerous.  Worse, he displays a lack of conscience. People are just pawns.

As to his attitudes toward blacks . . .

In the wake of Obama’s 2008 speech on race, Jesse Jackson was caught making an astounding remark.  In an unguarded moment, not realizing a hot microphone was nearby, Jackson said that Obama “talks down to black people.”  Jackson was so angered by this, he said “I’d like to cut his nuts off.”  (Threatening this kind of violence is a crime.  You can be sure, had a white man threatened to cut Obama, he would have been arrested.)

Referencing the definition of racism at the beginning of this commentary, and in light of Jackson’s remarks, it is not a stretch to say that Obama considers himself superior to most black people; for only one harboring an attitude of superiority ‘talks down’ to others.   That attitude of superiority pegs Obama as one harboring racist attitudes toward blacks in America, people with whom he has no real affinity (raised as he was in Hawaii attending private school, provided all the advantages, and suffering few of the experiences personally that blacks have encountered for decades.)

But there is more.  Please notice that Obama’s comments about race these last five years have rarely if ever addressed the lofty goals and ideals he expressed in 2008, expressions akin to those of Dr. King. Rather, his remarks have tended to aggravate tensions.  From the Trayvon Martin tragedy to the incident involving the Cambridge Police Department, or in endorsing Eric Holder’s prejudicial enforcement policies involving the Black Panthers, Obama has jumped in with words and deeds that separate people, turning them against one another.

Waves of black-on-black violence have gone unattended by this administration.  The vast increase in black-on-white violence seen in the wake of the Trayvon Martin verdict has been all but ignored by this President and his people.  Obama has not said one word about the excesses of an Al Sharpton or a Louis Farrakhan.  He has done nothing to solve problems.  He has done many things to aggravate them.

And why?

There can only be one reasonable explanation, and it is found in the dark thoughts germinated in Obama’s mind by adults who used him and prepared him to fulfill their grand communist vision.  From Obama’s mother to his grandparents to his ‘mentor’ to his teachers and fellow students, to radical Jihadists introduced to him early on and communists like Saul Alinsky and Bill Ayers, Obama has been inculcated with the attitude that America is evil, and capitalism is only an enslavement tool of the oppressors.  Based on those presuppositions, the ‘fundamental transformation’ of America involves the destruction of America and capitalism to make way for a socialist state leading to a communist utopia.

Those have been and always will be the goals of the Obamas and all their cohorts.  They truly believe by sheer human will and intelligence that they will create a central government so benevolent and so steep in social justice that all will have the same income and the same outcomes, except the elites of course.  All the great dictators have shared these same beliefs.  Saul Alinsky merely translated them into application as coaching points for community organizers.

The strategy is: conquer from within.  The tactics: infiltrate to divide and conquer; any means are justified to achieve the end.

Obama is the greatest infiltrator of all time.  Remarkably, given his bigotry toward whites and indigenous blacks, he is perfectly situated to pit one group against another.  Divide and conquer.  Who better to foment a race war than a racist cutting both ways, especially if armed with 60 million voters and a vast war chest?

As Stalin said, you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet. In Stalin’s case, that meant starving 10 million Ukrainians and lining up tens of thousands more in front of firing squads.

In Obama’s case, it means taking his teachers’ advice seriously—any means to achieve the end—-even if it means starting a race war.   And despite the fact that blacks in America are far worse off economically thanks to Obamanomics, the vast majority of them continue to support him only because of the color of his skin, no matter how many times he ‘talks down’ to them, issues false promises, and encourages them to ignore Dr. King (to everyone’s injury.)

The best conclusion to the matter:  Klansman & the Preacher.

 

Allan Erickson enjoyed an 11-year career in radio, television and print journalism as a reporter, talk show host, and operations manager. He then turned to sales and marketing for a decade. Twelve years ago he started a training and recruitment company. Allan & wife Jodi have four children and live in Oregon.

He is the author of the book “The Cross & the Constitution in the Age of Incoherence,” Tate Publishing, 2012.

He is available to speak in churches addressing the topics of faith and freedom.  To contact him, email:  allanlerickson@gmail.com

Allan Erickson, Part 1 – SYV Presbyterian Church, Oct. 2012

 





Video: Lone Black Senator Banned From MLK 50th Anniversary

Martin Luther King’s dream was for us to look at one another, not by the color of our skin, but by the content of our character.

Unfortunately, some characters, like Jesse Jackson, have hijacked King’s dream.

They have utterly reversed it into judging one another by the color of their skin rather than by the content of their character.

Such is the case of the only black U.S. Senator NOT being invited to the 50th anniversary celebration of the famous Martin Luther King march on Washington.

Republican Senator Tim Scott was not invited.

Why? He’s a conservative who espouses Martin Luther King’s values.

He wants us to be judged by the content of our character and not by the color of our skin.

The problem is a lack of character of the current liberal leaders who have hijacked King’s dream.

It is an American travesty that the values of the most dominant modern black leaders are virtually the antithesis of the heart of Martin Luther King.

 

Video: Exposed: Obama’s Race War Agenda For America

In light of several high profile black-on-white murders in recent days, the invective has been noticeably less verbose. The most anger Jesse Jackson could muster over the gang-initiation hate crime slaying of Australian student Chris Lane was a tepid tweet stating that the incident should be “frowned upon.”

Obama Can’t Trust ANYBODY To Lie For Him

King Obama SC Obama can’t trust ANYBODY to lie for him

Pity poor King Barack.

All he wants to do is strip us of our guns, like any other dictator would; but he can’t get his most loyal subjects in academia and his own government to fabricate his argument. Instead, they keep telling the truth!

The King’s media is doing its best to help him lie. The King’s Democrats are doing their best – they look directly into cameras and lie. Even the King’s shock troops like the NAACP and the “Justice Brothers” Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson do their bit at every opportunity, but he can’t get the right subjects to go along with the program!

Since January, the results of two major “show” studies on private ownership of guns in America have surfaced in spite of determined indifference from the King’s media. The studies were delivered by Harvard University and the Centers for Disease Control. Both should have “proved the danger” of private ownership of guns in the King’s realm. Nevertheless, neither did. In fact, they not only failed to support the Ministry of Truth and Justice Department’s war on guns in private hands; they actually provided tangible facts to defeat the King’s gun confiscation efforts while America still has a semblance of democratic government.

Because the King has such direct control over its funding, the CDC’s report (launched immediately after the terrible school shootings in Sandy Hook, Connecticut) should have been filled with emotion and useful lies. But alas, it wasn’t. Instead, it was filled with facts like: between 2000 and 2010, more than 6 in 10 gun related deaths were suicides; accidental deaths from firearms has fallen to less than 1% of firearms deaths in 2010; and perhaps worst of all, firearms “turn-in” programs “are ineffective” in reducing crime.

The Harvard study may have been still worse for the King. It reported: while gun ownership has soared since 1991, firearms-related crimes have dropped by 69%; on average, each year, 200,000 American women save themselves from sexual assaults by use of a gun; by an 80:1 ratio, Americans use guns to stop crimes rather than commit crimes; and Kennesaw, Georgia (right under the nose of CDC headquarters), which REQUIRES its home owners to have a gun, has seen an 89% drop in burglaries since passing its ordinance.

If poor King Barack can’t get a college faculty or a government-funded agency to lie for him, what is he to do in his quest to take our guns?

Photo credit: terrellaftermath

The Death Of Trayvon Martin Has Unleashed A Wave Of Demogoguery

Trayvon Martin Protest 6 SC The Death of Trayvon Martin Has Unleashed A Wave of Demogoguery

ALEXANDRIA, VA — The death of Trayvon Martin is, of course, a devastating event for his family. That a 17-year-old boy returning from a visit to a nearby store for a snack should have his life taken is difficult to understand and accept. On many levels, the incident was, as President Obama has said, “tragic.”

Still, this event has provoked demagoguery that ignores the complex facts of the case itself and has provided an opportunity for provocateurs to proclaim that race relations in America are similar to those of the segregated Old South, as if the notable progress we have made in recent years had never happened.

The Deceptions
Consider some of the things we have heard.

* Jesse Jackson referred to the trial as “Old South Justice.” NAACP President Benjamin Jealous declared, “This will confirm for many that the only problem with the New South is it occupies the same time and space as the Old South.” He invoked the memory of 14-year-old Emmett Till, who was killed in 1955 after supposedly whistling at a white woman “and whose murderers were acquitted.” An article in The Washington Post drew parallels between this case and that of Emmett Till, as well as the bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama, in 1963, and the 1933 case of the Scottsboro Boys, nine young black men accused of raping two white girls.

* “Trayvon Benjamin Martin is dead because he and other black boys and men like him are seen not as a person but a problem,” the Rev. Dr. Raphael Warnick, the senior pastor at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, told a congregation once led by the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

* In Sanford, Florida, the Rev. Valerie J. Houston drew shouts of support and outrage at Allen Chapel A.M.E. as she denounced, “the racism and the injustice that pollute the air in America. Lord, I thank you for sending Trayvon to reveal the injustice, God, that lives in Sanford.”

* One of those who organized demonstrations against the verdict and promoted the idea that our society is little better than it was in the years of segregation is the Rev. Al Sharpton, always ready to pour fuel on a fire, and now provided by MSNBC with a nationwide pulpit. How many today remember Sharpton’s history of stirring racial strife? In 1987, he created a media frenzy in the case of Tawana Brawley, a black teenager who claimed she was raped by a group of white police officers. A grand jury found that Brawley had lied about the event in Wappingers Falls, New York, and the case was dropped. The event that Sharpton used to indict our society for widespread racism never happened.

* In 1991, Sharpton exacerbated tensions between blacks and Orthodox Jews in the Crown Heights neighborhood of Brooklyn. A three-day riot, fueled by Sharpton’s inflammatory statements, erupted when a Guyanese boy died after being struck by a car driven by a Jewish man. At the boy’s funeral, Sharpton complained about “diamond cutters” in the neighborhood in what a Brandeis University historian described as the most anti-Semitic incident in U.S. history. Two men died and three were critically injured before order was restored. Clearly, Al Sharpton does not come to a discussion of the Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman case with clean hands.
The Testimony and Evidence
Few of those urging demonstrations against the alleged “racism” in the jury verdict finding Mr. Zimmerman not guilty have spent very much time examining the law and the trial itself.

Mr. Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer, claimed that he shot Mr. Martin only after the teenager knocked him to the ground, punched him, straddled him, and slammed his head into the concrete. The murder charge required a showing that Zimmerman was full of “ill will, hatred, spite or evil intent” when he shot Martin. But prosecutors had little evidence to back up that claim, according to most legal experts. They could point only to his words during his call to the police dispatcher the night he spotted Martin walking in the rain with his sweatshirt’s hood up and grew suspicious. Zimmerman appeared calm during the call and did not describe Martin’s race until he was asked.

Lawyers point to what they said were errors by the prosecution. The testimony of Officer Chris Serino, the Sanford Police Department’s chief investigator on the case, for example, told the jury he believed Zimmerman’s account was truthful. Dr. Shiping Bao, the medical examiner who performed the autopsy on Martin, came across, legal experts report, befuddled, shuffling through his notes because he could remember very little. “It was horrific,” said Richard Sharpstein, a prominent Miami criminal defense lawyer. “It was a deadly blow to this case because the case depended on forensic evidence to contradict or disprove George Zimmerman’s story.”

The performance was the opposite of that by Dr. Vincent Di Maio, a nationally recognized forensic pathologist, who took the stand for the defense. Dr. Di Maio said the evidence and injuries to Zimmerman were consistent with the defense’s account that Trayvon Martin was leaning over the defendant when he was shot. The evidence of Zimmerman’s injuries may have helped his case, but it was not legally necessary. He needed to show only that he feared great bodily harm or death when he pulled out his gun, which he was carrying legally. “Classic self-defense,” said his attorney.

Voices of Reason
It is quite different to have sympathy for the Martin family — to regret the incident, or to be critical of Florida’s laws about concealed weapons or its “Stand Your Ground” law, which never entered the legal proceeding — than to argue that the law was not properly applied in this case. The prosecution failed to prove Zimmerman guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Hence, the not-guilty verdict.

Many black commentators regret that Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Ben Jealous, and others have made this case about race. Columnist Armstrong Williams declares, “… the Zimmerman case was not about race. Mr. Zimmerman is Hispanic, normally one of the protected minorities in America. In order to make the story about race, the New York Times and some other media outlets called him a ‘white’ Hispanic (his father is white and his mother is of Peruvian heritage).

“When was the last time anybody in America heard a Hispanic called a ‘white Hispanic?’ Calling Zimmerman a ‘white Hispanic’ is like calling Adam Clayton Powell or Barack Obama a ‘white black.’ But the media needed to create hysterics and so injected race into the equation to make it more salable to the American people as a political circus. After all, who cares about two white men or two black men in a fight that results in death.”

In Williams’ view, “A young man was killed by another young man under circumstances where there is so much racial static in the background that it’s difficult for many to be remotely objective…. Compare the reaction of the O.J. Simpson verdict by many American blacks to the reaction to the Zimmerman acquittal. In both cases, the prosecution did not make its case beyond a reasonable doubt to convict the defendant. Yet blacks generally cheered the result in the Simpson case, while viewing the Zimmerman verdict as a travesty of justice. In our court system of trial by jury, you can’t have it both ways. There cannot be a different standard for a white man killing a black man than for a black man killing a white man and a white woman.”
Liberal columnist Richard Cohen writes, “I don’t like what George Zimmerman did, and I hate that Trayvon Martin is dead. But I also can understand why Zimmerman was suspicious and why he thought Martin was wearing a uniform we all recognize. I don’t know whether Zimmerman is a racist. But I’m tired of politicians and others who have donned hoodies in solidarity with Martin and who essentially suggest that, for recognizing the reality of urban crime in the U.S., I am a racist.”

Cohen argues that, “What Zimmerman did was wrong. It was not, by a verdict of his peers, a crime. Where is the politician who will own up to the painful complexity of the problem and acknowledge the widespread fear of crime committed by young black males? This does not mean that racism has disappeared, and some judgments are not the product of individual stereotyping. It does mean, though, that the public knows young black males commit a disproportionate amount of crime. In New York City, blacks make up a quarter of the population, yet they represent 78 percent of the shooting suspects — almost all of them young men. We know them from the nightly news.”

New York City’s Program
Those statistics represent the justification for New York’s controversial stop-and-frisk program, which amounts to a kind of racial profiling. “After all,” writes Cohen, “if young black male are your shooters, then it ought to be young black males whom the police stop and frisk. Still, common sense and common decency, not to mention the law, insist on other variables, such as suspicious behavior. Even still, race is a factor without a doubt. It would be senseless for the police to be stopping Danish tourists in Times Square just to make the statistics look good.”

Last year, the New York City Police Department recorded 419 homicides, nearly a 20 percent decrease from the year before and the lowest rate per 100,000 residents since the department began keeping statistics. If New York had the same homicide rate as Washington, D.C., it would be investigating 800 more murder cases for the year. If it had Detroit’s statistics, nearly 4,000 more New Yorkers would be murdered every year.

Editorially, The Washington Post states, “Without question, the Big Apple is doing something right.” Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Police Chief Raymond Kelley say the stop-and-frisk policy has saved 5,000 lives in the past 10 years. “New York has never been safer in its modern era,” the mayor says.

The policy, of course, is controversial and is the subject of a federal action lawsuit because the vast majority of those stopped are young men of color. Mayor Bloomberg responds: “They keep saying, ‘Oh, it’s a disproportionate percentage of a particular ethnic group.’ That may be, but it’s not a disproportionate percentage of those who witnesses and victims describe as committing the murder. In that case, incidentally, I think we disproportionately stop whites too much and minorities too little.”

Expressing the anguish of many who hate all forms of racism but are not prepared to turn a blind eye to the reality of urban crime, Richard Cohen concludes: “I wish I had a solution to this problem. If I were a young black male and were stopped just on account of my appearance, I would feel violated. If the police are abusing their authority and using race as the only reason, that has got to stop. But if they ignore race, then they are fools and ought to go into another line of work.”

Another liberal commentator, columnist Ruth Marcus, was particularly critical of those who compared Trayvon Martin with Emmett Till: “The comparison is unfair. No doubt race played a part in Martin’s death…. But there is no evidence that race played a role in Zimmerman’s acquittal. If anything, the racial undertones worked against Zimmerman, increasing public pressure on prosecutors to bring the most serious — and, in hindsight the most difficult to support — charges against him. Contrast the Zimmerman trial with that of Till’s murderers. The courtroom was segregated. No hotel would rent rooms to black observers. The local sheriff welcomed black spectators to the courtroom with what was described as a cheerful use of the vilest racial epithets. The New South is not perfect, but it is not the Old.”

The Greater Tragedy
What is rarely noted is the fact that vast majority of the victims of young black men who kill are other young black men and women. Those engaged in calling for marches and vigils to express outrage over the verdict in the Zimmerman case say hardly a word about the black-on-black crime that plagues the nation’s inner cities. In an interview with black journalist Juan Williams, comedian Bill Cosby noted that the NAACP’s headquarters is in Baltimore, a city with one of the highest murder rates in the nation. “I’ve never once heard the NAACP say, ‘Let’s do something about this,’” said Cosby, adding “They never marched or organized or even criticized the criminals.”

The over-heated declarations that our current society is similar to that in which Emmett Till was murdered in 1955 — or in which the Scottsboro Boys were convicted in 1933 — turns reality on its head. Al Sharpton doesn’t really believe it. Jesse Jackson knows it is untrue. Ben Jealous is unwilling to give up the public spotlight he receives by portraying such a false picture.

Those of us old enough to have lived through the years of segregation remember an era of segregated schools, segregated bus and train stations, “white” and “black” restrooms (visit the Pentagon and see the proliferation of rest rooms that were constructed in the years when it was illegal in Virginia for men and women of different races to use the same facilities), and water fountains reserved for “whites” and “colored.” In many parts of the country, blacks could not vote or sit on juries. Black travelers never knew when they would be able to stop for meals. There was no pretense that racial equality of any kind existed.

The Future Waits
Today, we live in an imperfect society, but one in which all citizens, regardless of race, have equal rights. It is against the law to discriminate on the basis of race. Men and women can go as far as their individual abilities can take them. Black Americans hold every conceivable position in our society — from CEO of major corporations to chief of police in major cities to university president to governor — to President of the United States.

None of this would be true if ours were indeed a “racist” society. This is not to say that in a society of more than 300 million people, examples of racism cannot sometimes be found. Using the trial of George Zimmerman to say that it is still 1933 or 1955, as some are now doing, is to paint a picture of contemporary society that cannot be recognized.

When it comes to the status of race relations in America today, who are we going to believe, shrill voices such as Al Sharpton, or our own eyes? The Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman case has brought out the worst in some. The rest of us must move resolutely forward, continuing on the path of creating a genuinely color-blind society, which has long been the goal of men and women of good will of all races.

 

The Conservative Curmudgeon is copyright (c) 2013 by Allan C. Brownfeld and the Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation, http://www.fgfbooks.com. All rights reserved. This column may be forwarded or re-posted if credit is given to the author and fgfBooks.com.

 

Allan C. Brownfeld is the author of five books, the latest of which is THE REVOLUTION LOBBY (Council for Inter-American Security). He has been a staff aide to a U.S. Vice President, Members of Congress, and the U.S. Senate Internal Security Subcommittee.

See his biographical sketch and photo at: http://www.fgfbooks.com/AllanBrownfeld/aBrownfeld-bio.html