Black Racist Al Sharpton claims he briefed Obama, Holder, and Hillary on Supreme Court verdict on Voting Rights Act

Used by permission


From Breitbart News

by Larry O'Connor

 Al Sharpton claims he has briefed Barack Obama, Eric Holder and Hillary Clinton on the Supreme Court's recent Voting Rights Act decision.
The MSNBC host took to the Huffington Post to criticize Bill O'Reilly for speaking out against black on black crime in the wake of the George Zimmerman verdict. In his post, Sharpton draws a contrast between the crime issue and the recent decision rolling back portions of the Voting Rights Act. As Sharpton bragged about his critical insight and influence at the highest levels of power, he revealed that he has briefed the President, the Attorney General and even Hillary Clinton on the issue:

This Monday afternoon I, along with a dozen other civil rights and voting rights leaders, joined President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder as we briefed them on our outrage at the Supreme Court's recent decision gutting Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act...   On my way to Washington, D.C., I happened to be on the same flight as former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. When we landed, she and I had an impromptu conversation on this very issue, and I updated her on the August 24th march that National Action Network (NAN) and Martin Luther King III have planned to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the 'March on Washington' where his father delivered his historic 'I Have a Dream' speech.

 Sharpton even Tweeted a picture of his encounter with Hillary after their shared flight.
-30-

NBC taking the lead as Hillary's Campaign 2016 "PR agency"

Used by Permission

Get Ready for the All-Hail-Hillary Movies

In the run-up to 2016, Hollywood plans to turn out “evenhanded” biopics. Sure.

 

By John Fund

John Fund is national-affairs columnist for NRO. 

I wasn’t surprised to learn that sometime before the 2016 election, NBC will be releasing a four-hour miniseries about Hillary Clinton starring Academy Award nominee Diane Lane. What did surprise me was that the series will cover none of her life before the Monica Lewinsky scandal, which took place five years into her husband’s second term as president and when Hillary was already 51 years old. It’s as if her first half-century will be airbrushed away, along with the many scandals that dogged her in those decades.
 
While the series will still have a lot of ground to cover — impeachment and the “vast right-wing conspiracy” she suspected, her successful 2000 Senate race, her loss to Barack Obama in the 2008 primaries, her time as secretary of state and her role in the Benghazi debacle — it’s striking that so much rich material will be excluded even before footage is discarded on the cutting-room floor.

Just consider what we’ll be missing.

Read the complete article at this link.
-30-

Blacks using Whites to scapegoat their own failures to change their own community

I sent this letter to a journalist at the Detroit Free Press:

I read your article today about the Detroit City Council calling for civil rights charges to be placed against Zimmerman.

I'd like to respectfully suggest to you that the truth of the matter is that all the scapegoating of Whites for the problems in the Black community is to divert attention from this reality: Black leaders are complete failures at improving the lives of Blacks, so they blame their incompetent results on Whites to avoid the blame on themselves.

Consider this: Wright runs one of the largest churches in Chicago. How much difference has he and his church made to shut down the killing field?

Jackson's Rainbow Coalition is HQed in Chicago. What has it done to stop the murders - what is his effectiveness?

Sharpton's NAN is NY-based. What change in the rate of murders in the Black community can be accredited to him?

Farrakhan sent out "The Fruit of Islam" to end the muggings along Chicago's Magnificent Mile. Seen any difference there because of him?

Obama is the president. What difference has he made in the inner cities, and bringing down the murder rates there?

Again, these so-called leaders are bankrupt when it comes to results. I hope journalists will begin to ask the tough questions about why Blacks can't change their own community - because if someone White tries to provide leadership - they are called racist and hustled away post haste.

It's a blame game to divert attention from Black failure to change its own community.
-30-

The Lynching by Bill Whittle - A must see video telling the whole truth about Trayvon Martin that the MSM will only lie about

Please pass this on to as many people as you can. As of this instant, there are nearly a half-million views in just three days!!

Kenneth

From ZeroHedge.com - the truth about White support for Black progress, or, blowing up more Black Racist lies

This was published yesterday on ZeroHedge.com, the best source out there for the truth about what is happening in the world's financial markets.

I am publishing it here because it belies the Black Racists and their Apologists vis a vis the White community and its contribution to Black wealth. If not for Whites, the Black community's pain would be magnitudes worse than it is now.

And it points to another important point about the Black community: They need a scapegoat to blame their own community incompetence on. The truth is that Blacks have totally destroyed the inner cities, and that today's Black Racists and their Apologists have done nothing but enrich themselves throughout this destruction by blaming Whites for the Black community's own self-inflicted disaster.

I urge you to circulate and link to this post with every opportunity you get.

Kenneth

Used by Permission

BUCHANAN TO OBAMA
By Patrick J. Buchanan
Barack says we need to have a conversation about race in America .. Fair enough. But this time, it has to be a two-way conversation.. White America needs to be heard from, not just lectured to.... This time, the Silent Majority needs to have its convictions, grievances and demands heard. And among them are these: 

First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known.. Jeremiah Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American.

Second, no people anywhere has done more to lift up blacks than white Americans. Untold trillions have been spent since the '60s on welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing, Pell grants, student loans, legal services, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits and poverty programs designed to bring the African-American community into the mainstream. Governments, businesses and colleges have engaged in discrimination against white folks -- with affirmative action, contract set-asides and quotas -- to advance black applicants over white applicants. Churches, foundations, civic groups, schools and individuals all over America have donated their time and money to support soup kitchens, adult education, day care, retirement and nursing homes for blacks.

We hear the grievances. Where is the gratitude??

Barack talks about new 'ladders of opportunity' for blacks. Let him go to Altoona ? And Johnstown, and ask the white kids in Catholic schools how many were visited lately by Ivy League recruiters handing out scholarships for 'deserving' white kids...? Is white America really responsible for the fact that the crime and incarceration rates for African-Americans are seven times those of white America ? Is it really white America's fault that illegitimacy in the African-American community has hit 70 percent and the black dropout rate from high schools in some cities has reached 50 percent?

Is that the fault of white America or, first and foremost, a failure of the black community itself?

As for racism, its ugliest manifestation is in interracial crime, and especially interracial crimes of violence. Is Barack Obama aware that while white criminals choose black victims 3 percent of the time, black criminals choose white victims 45 percent of the time?

Is Barack aware that black-on-white rapes are 100 times more common than the reverse, that black-on-white robberies were 139 times as common in the first three years of this decade as the reverse?

We have all heard ad nauseam from the Rev. Al about Tawana Brawley, the Duke rape case and Jena . And all turned out to be hoaxes. But about the epidemic of black assaults on whites that are real, we hear nothing.

Sorry, Barack, some of us have heard it all before, about 40 years and 40 trillion tax dollars ago.
-30-

Obama's - and everyone else's - ethnic ID

This post updates the change in the method used by the federal government to define racial classifications. It comes from the post in the Federal Register by the US Census Bureau. You don't want to miss this . . . it's America's next BIG story about affirmative action.


Kenneth E. Lamb

++++++++++++

As a matter of integrity, I must update my findings by telling you that the US Census Bureau changed the definition of "race" for classification purposes. You'll find it in the Federal Register. The quotes following are from them:

Race is no longer defined by "genealogical or anthropological" characteristics as illustrated in my article. Race is now a matter of "sociopolitical self-identification." The Bureau now allows an individual to classify him- or her- self by as many, and whatever, "sociopolitical self-identification" classification(s) appeals to the individual. You can be African-American today, change your mind and be Native-American tomorrow, add Asian the day following, and toss them all out the next day and classify yourself whatever you please the day after that.

So as it stands now with this change in the law, Sen. Obama is legally anything he wants to be. Any of us are; more on that in a moment.

The effect of this was meant to give minority-gerrymandered districts more foundation by removing requirements that challenges to them rest upon the ability of district residents to "prove their lineage" and thus validate their minority status. In sympathy to the Bureau, it's reasonable to believe that coming up with birth records from say, the former South Viet Nam, or Myanmar, to prove Asian minority status, might prove daunting.

The same is true for America's African-American population. I won't go into it too deeply now, but here is a short explanation how it affects that particular segment of American society:

While there may be some states that do not do what follows, I am not aware of any:

States do not allow the mother of a child to claim a father's name on the birth certificate unless the father acknowledges paternity, either by being married at the time of birth, voluntarily admitting paternity, or through a court order assigning paternity.

The most recent figure on black illegitimacy that I am aware of is about 70%. You can figure this out for yourself; if your lineage is from a series of illegitimate births, as we now have with our multi-generational welfare underclass, with no father named on the certificate, how do you prove your "genealogical or anthropological" characteristics if the father is not listed through multiple generations of birth certificates?

Birth certificates lacking a father at high rates also apply to Hispanics as well, although not yet to that level. The reasoning is not only illegitimacy per se, but also the institution of some immigrants seeking to stay in America by having a child on US soil, thus creating an American citizen through that birth.

Either way, how do you prove your minority status if half your lineage through multiple generations doesn't exist on paper?

Please note especially that this is a "change" in the method of defining racial classification. My research was based on the rules before the Census Bureau changed the rules. For those defiling my work, go research for yourself what was the method the Bureau used before it made its "change" in classification methodology.

As the ignorance of the Obama apologists in this blog and other forums demonstrate, America is now to the point that the truth doesn't matter anymore. Just look at the referenced Chicago Tribune article about Mr. Obama's autobiography, and you see for yourself that "An Inconvenient Truth" is not the sole domain of any one political brand.

The reason there were definite standards defining racial classification was to keep the use of affirmative action programs, set-asides, and racial quotas enforceable by keeping out whites who tried to claim minority status. If you take people to court to deny them a seat in the classroom, you must have a defined set of characteristics in law to explain why those people do not qualify for the set-aside. It's too bad so many of America's so-called "intelligentsia" are too dense to get past that rather obvious legal construct.

If all it takes is a claim of, as one recently said, "a single drop of blood," then you have just set up a legal definition of what it takes to qualify as a member of the minority group.

In my own experience with my research, one after another Obama supporter attacked my work because they didn't like the criteria I cited; too bad, take it up with the courts. How do you think they kept whites out of Harvard who claimed to be blacks? They did it by saying the whites didn't have any black in their lineage. That then raises the question of how much black they needed to be classified as blacks. That is where the 1/8 (12.5%) rule of law came from. And it is that 1/8 rule that the Census Bureau tossed out the window in its "change."

Now the rule of law is "sociopolitical self-identification."

It escapes many Obama supporters that you must have a legal definition if you plan to enforce a law. Apparently, the Obama supporters ranting against my article missed the concept that the law is not allowed to be "arbitrary and capricious" - it must be defined, clearly, so that everyone knows when it does, and when it does not, apply.

It's truly scary to read these people and see they completely fail to grasp the idea that the law consists of definitions, or else you can't enforce the law. How else do you think you determine if an applicant for a set-aside qualifies if you don't have a legal definition of what it takes to meet the set-aside criteria? Yes, they are truly scary spouting off their brain-dead, hate-filled bigotries.

Unfortunately, this new twist to defining race is about to prove a major problem for many sectors of society. Let's start with Federal set-aside programs.

Now that anyone is able to classify him-or her- self by their own, private, "sociopolitical self-identification," anyone can legally cash in on these minority-directed programs. If there is a set-aside for African-Americans, just check the box because you feel that your "sociopolitical self-identification" is African-American that day. It's now all perfectly legal.

Couldn't get into the college of your choice because you didn't get past the minority set-aside hurdle? No problem; if you feel that your personal, private, "sociopolitical self-identification" is one of the targeted minority groups, well, go ahead and check the box. With the legal criteria now "sociopolitical self-identification," the days of Harvard, and the University of Michigan, or any of the other hundreds of institutions of higher education throwing you out when you show up white to fill one of their black set-asides is over. You met the legal definition. What are they going to argue in court now that your "genealogical or anthropological" characteristics aren't legal standards for defining racial classification?

I'll let the brains of America's shrinking cadre of affirmative action advocates work on that for a while. It will be breaking nationally soon enough.

Now a couple of very quick responses:

1) I have to admit I'm amazed at the circulation my research got. However, I often see it with a headline authored by someone other than me, and this causes problems because people reading the picked up article think I wrote the inflammatory headline.

My headline is: "Barack Obama: Washington Post, Chicago Tribune investigations confirm autobiography lies; now asking: Is "African-American" a lie too?" ( http://kennethelamb.blogspot.com/2008/02/barak-obama-questions-about-ethnic.html )

I note that particularly for those posters who did not comprehend that those first-tier news organizations are the source for much of the article. That's why I included their links. Too bad those of you trashing it didn't pick up on that validation of the article's contents. Perhaps you find reading articles that make your prejudices into lies too disconcerting. For you, it's just easier to hate, and run.

2) Many, many, people need a course in African culture before commenting on my work. For example, one poster named Kent Paul Dolan (you can Google him and find out he is a newspaper comics freak) is typical. He, and so many like him need a course in the realities of racial and ethnic segregation as practiced in Africa. Have you yet noticed the fierce tribal identities that cause the bloodbath in Darfur? Perhaps you missed the slaughter along tribal lines in Rwanda? Or the Congo? Or the Ivory Coast?

To Mr. Dolan, and others like him, Arabs do not intermarry with African Negroes in Kenya, or anywhere else in Africa. And neither do African Negroes intermarry with Arabs. Your ignorance of the realities of the African continent is appalling.

Which brings up the New York Times-created legend of Barack Obama's great grandmother. The "black" Obama "great-grandmother" trotted out by the NY Times is his "step" great grandparent. She is therefore not in his bloodline. It's a point the Times didn't dwell upon, just as they didn't bother to go to his father's relatives in the capital and show off their Arab characteristics and family photos.

This brings up another point about the senator’s father. Please note that the Times ran into a serious problem describing his father's relationship with a woman in Kenya that existed when he married "Barry's" mother in Hawaii. It turns out that Mr. Obama was already married to the Kenyan (who was not African Negro either.). That makes Senator Obama the product of a bigamous marriage. And we all know what that means as far as the legality of the marriage and the legitimacy of the marriage's offspring.

I had to laugh watching them wordsmith the relationship with the Kenyan woman as "unclear" and end up calling her his "consort."

And what is the definition of a "consort?" According to the dictionary, it is a spouse. Leave it to the NY Times to be so conflicted about telling the truth about Sen. Obama's situation, that they resort to using their own "unclear" description to paper over it.

-30-

Washington Post, Chicago Tribune: Is Obama really African-American?

I have updated this article at:

http://kennethelamb.blogspot.com/2008/08/update-on-barak-obamas-and-everybody.html

Please take time to read it AFTER you read this so you will understand the relationships discussed in the follow-up.

To get the full list of articles concerning Sen. Obama, go to my main web entry page:

Reading Between the Lines by Kenneth E. Lamb

http://kenenthelamb.blogspot.com/

THANKS!

Kenneth

+++++++++++++++++++

The following article with preface may be distributed. If used, please contact the author before editing and publication. The author has written and researched for the New York Times, the Miami Herald, the St. Petersburg Times, and the Jewish Information Network, among others.

Synopsis: The author opens citing the work of Mr. Richard Cohen of the Washington Post. Mr. Cohen’s columns about the “composites,” rearranged timelines, and complete fabrication of events in Sen. Obama’s autobiography are the basis for a further investigation into Mr. Obama’s claim to be “African-American.”

(NOTE: This IS NOT a rehash of the discredited discussion of either his education in Islamic schools, or any other ties to Islam. His religion, and education, outside of citing his Harvard attendance, play no role whatsoever in this article. THIS ARTICLE PRESENTS NEW, PREVIOUSLY UNPUBLISHED documentation concerning his ethnic identity claims. It is based upon original research that the author openly invites for further inquiry and academic verification in his preface to Mr. Cohen.)

Documentation of his actual ethnic background demonstrates Mr. Obama is not an “African-American” as defined in United States law. This research was initiated by a request from a daily news publication of international reputation in New York City.

The story then moves to documenting his father’s genealogy. This study indicates Sen. Obama is actually Arab-American. The significance of this is that “the soul and substance of Mr. Obama’s claim to fame” rest entirely on his being “the first” African-American to achieve whatever it is that Mr. Obama is claiming at the time. If Mr. Obama is not legally an African-American, then his claims collapse. While there may still be historic firsts, for example, being the first Arab-American to be the president of the Harvard Law Review, those claims are not the star-appeal of his entire political life, and the basis of his current celebrity star status. If he is not African-American, then he is not what has propelled him up the political ladder; he is not, as described by one journalist riding Mr. Obama’s campaign plane, what is currently capturing America’s “cult” attention.

The author includes a section that notes the double-standard Oprah Winfrey applied in her handling of Mr. Obama’s autobiographical fabrications vis a vis her reaction to much less in a book by another author she promoted. It calls upon her to explain her double-standards, and asks, reasonably under the circumstances, if her double-standards are racist.

The article concludes by citing the importance of recognizing that Mr. Obama’s image of himself is built on lies. It challenges the reader to ask if his or her own racist presumptions of ethnic identity tied to physical appearance are at play.

The encapsulation of the final question put to the reader is to ask, “If we elect a person whose entire image is based on lies, and citing again the documentation of Mr. Cohen and the Washington Post to show he continues to lie without conscience as a matter of habit, should the burden fall upon him when we feel the anger of being lied to, or in fact, is it we who should be the object of our anger when it is we who first lied to ourselves when we decided to accept his lies, knowing all along that he was lying to us?”


Monday, Feb. 11, 2008

To: Richard Cohen, Columnist, the Washington Post

From: Kenneth E. Lamb
kenneth@kennthelamb.com


Dear Mr. Cohen:Earlier today, I sent you an email about Sen. Obama. In the course of reviewing it for final draft, I made some changes; for one thing, I upped the number of references to your columns. What follows below is the final draft – it varies significantly from the prior draft by placing more responsibility upon “us” of the American body politic for lying to ourselves, and using racist presumptions to allow Mr. Obama to lie to us as well.

With this amendment, I send to you what I hope will be the first read of the article, and hopefully it may provoke all of us to reexamine ourselves in light of the Obama mania sweeping America.

That said, the rest of the email and article follows with the introduction I sent below for the sake of continuity with my previous communication to you. While similar at first, it is now much more pointed in its condemnation of us for lying to ourselves, again, about whom we elect, and why.


Dear Mr. Cohen:

I’m using my real name for this, even though I’m not a celebrity so you won’t recognize it; I’m doing it because what will follow is a matter I’m serious about, and I believe you are serious about it too.

There is a professional reason that I am emailing this to you as well. I use your name in it and cite your columns in five different places in this article, and so I owe you the professional respect of making you aware of it.

I’ve written for the NY Times, the Miami Herald, the St. Petersburg Times, and the Jewish Information Network. I add this upfront for credibility. I know you are flooded with crackpots, so I admit that as someone whose name you don’t know, I’m trying to establish my credibility at the top of this email to you.

That said, I would be happy to discuss the contents of the article below with you. It was a News Corp. publication that I refer to it in stating the genesis of the research that follows, although I don’t name it for general circulation.

Again, everything in this article is documented, and I can get with your choice of researchers to have them document my documentation.

Let me close this preface with the close I use for my article below:

“Why am I writing this? Maybe I just want a clear conscience, clear that the research I did didn’t get buried because the people who received it are afraid to tell the truth in the face of Sen. Obama’s frenzied celebrity status. I’ve been in the business since 1972 - 35 years - writing and researching for people like the NY Times, the Miami Herald, the St. Petersburg Times, The Jewish Information Network, so I know what it’s like on the newsroom floor right now. Nobody can dare speak against Sen. Obama without generating at least a flickering flame of doubt about his or her own sanity – not to mention the knee-jerk reaction that questioning him is indicative of some deep, dark, racist agenda spurring those questions on.

“And truth? I ask as Pilate asked, ‘What is truth?’ Who cares about truth? This is history; this is the first time ever in America – why let truth get in the way of chronicling history? (. . . I wrote facetiously.)

“Maybe I just want to know that if he gets the presidency, he will get it honestly – if this is general knowledge, and he overcomes it. Maybe I’m just tired of presidents who lie to us; and in this case, I already know Mr. Obama will lie to us, just as he lied in his autobiography, and on so many other occasions documented by Mr. Cohen, by the Washington Post’s fact checker, and so many others.

“And maybe I’m tired of us lying to ourselves. Mr. Obama is what we’ve lied ourselves into believing he is.

“Maybe by saying that I know he lied, and saying that we lied to ourselves, I will say after he is elected that nobody has any right to complain about him lying after he takes the oath of office, when everybody knew he lied about so many other things – when we lied to ourselves about so many other things, so very long before that.”
-30-

Here goes:

By Kenneth E. Lamb

Sen. Obama's autobiography is filled with "composite" characters, rearranged timelines, and fantasy events that never occurred. I read that twice in the Washington Post - read Richard Cohen's columns of Jan. 1, 2008, and March 27, 2007, for yourself.

There are more articles than that, by more authors than just Mr. Cohen, but I wanted to get started by saying that what follows isn't just something I'm pulling out of thin air. What follows is serious, documented, and not at all what those who want to write history about the election of the first so-called "African-American" president, want in the least to admit is true - and why its truth matters more than their desire to ignore the truth for the sake of their desire to write history.

While his shrill wife objects, the truth is that Sen. Obama's life, as he wrote about himself in his autobiography, is, in fact, nothing but a fairy tale. Again, don't take my word for it - read Mr. Cohen's, and others, articles about it.

If what Mr. Cohen writes are truths, then what Mr. Obama wrote are lies. It's just as simple as that.

Yet there is not one word from the "Last Bastions of Accuracy" that comprise our first-tier information enterprises about the complete lack of integrity Sen. Obama shows with his fictional life history. He lies, but his lies are swept under the rug by a groupthink mentality that is so desperate to regain leadership positions - as opposed to actual leadership programs to earn those leadership positions - that it ignores the truth that Sen. Obama lies - about himself, about his life, about his actions - and even about his racial composition.

I researched what follows for a NY daily of international reputation. It wasn't what I thought I'd find. I documented it, presented it to the Washington Bureau Chief, but was hardly surprised that it never saw ink. As you'll see for yourself, this is the political equivalent of a nuclear bomb.

I must pause very briefly to note usage of the word Negro in what follows: In all academic studies of race, the proper scientific word for the ethnic composition I discuss is Negro. For any who scream racist at its mention, I say take it up with the scientific community. It's not my word, it's theirs. I am using it in its proper scientific context.

Why is the fact that Mr. Obama is only 6.25% African Negro not reported?

Because to acknowledge it is to report this devastating truth about him: Mr. Obama is not legally African-American. It is impossible for him to be, in truth, America's first African-American president.

Federal law requires that to claim a minority status, you must be at least 1/8 of the descriptor, but for the sake of this article, I've converted it to a decimal fraction for easier comprehension. You must be at least 12.5% of the racial component you claim for minority status. Mr. Obama, claiming to be African-American, is half the legal threshold.

Again, to let it sink in: Mr. Obama is not legally African-American. It is impossible for him to be, in truth, America's first African-American president.

Yet claiming to be African-American is the soul and substance of his claim to fame. It is what he has used throughout his adult life to distinguish himself from other competitors. It is the ethnic identity he proclaims, and it is the ethnic identity he craves. Without it, he is just another mixed race Caucasian Arab with an African influence playing on his skin’s pigmentation.

But no matter what he craves, no matter what he has used to propel himself through life, no matter the racist presumption of seeing his skin and without question calling him black, the hard, cold, genetically inarguable reality remains: he is not an African-American.

Mr. Obama is 50% Caucasian, that from his mother. What those who want Mr. Obama to write history by becoming "America's first African-American president" ignore is that his father was ethnically Arabic, with only 1 relative ethnically African Negro - a maternal great-grandparent (Sen. Obama's great-great grandparent, thus the 6.25% ethnic contribution to the senator's ethnic composition.).

That means that Mr. Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother's side. He is 43.75% Arabic, and 6.25% African Negro from his father's side.

Put another way, his father could honestly claim African-American ethnic classification. He was the last generation able to do so.

Sen. Obama could honestly say, "My father was African-American." Racist presumptions led an Ivy League admissions committee, and lazy "newspapers of record" fact checkers, to presume that if his father is African-American, then Sen. Obama must be African-American also.

But it doesn't work that way. Racist presumptions coupled with sloppy vetting don't turn a lie into the truth.

Sen. Obama is one generation too far removed from the ethnic African Negro input to make the same claim as his father, Harvard's Admission's stamp of approval notwithstanding.

As you can see for yourself, Sen. Obama's African-American ethnic claim, when properly researched and documented, is a lie.

The question no one wants to answer - particularly Mr. Obama and his supporters, is, "Why do you think he has an Arabic name? Why does his father have an Arabic name? Why does every ancestor on his father's side have an Arabic name?"

The answer is obvious: They have Arabic names because his father's side of the family tree is Arabic.

Need proof? Research the Kenyan records for yourself. You will find that his father was officially classified as "Arab African" by the Kenyan government.

But in America's current political climate, that truth is heresy; that truth is "an inconvenient truth." It is the political equivalent in our time to what Galileo's scientific pronouncements were in his time: it is true, but nobody wants to know the truth because the lie is so much more comforting.

That is why detractors of this truth will do everything to denounce it, except submit to the discipline of actually researching it.

There's a reason for that: it proves he is not sufficiently Negro to earn classification under American law as an African-American.

For Sen. Obama, telling the truth means he will give up all the accolades about being the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, an accolade that relies on a sleight-of-hand in job titling that changed the name of the top job from Editor to President.

If stated in its absolute truth, Mr. Obama was the second person of color to run the Review. He was beat to the Review's top spot by a true African-American about 60 years before Mr. Obama showed up for classes.

Again, a very inconvenient truth.

That is devastating in itself. The further effect is that Mr. Obama would have to convince Americans still reeling from 9/11, Afghanistan, and Iraq, that now is the time for America's first Arab-American president.

We all know what chance that has of succeeding.

Of course, that would only happen if Mr. Obama told the truth about his racial composition. To tell the truth means Mr. Obama will have to admit that which he has never been forced to admit before, even in the face of the massive lies of his autobiography: Mr. Obama's entire projection of who he is, and what he is, is a lie.

Mr. Obama would have to say to the world: "I am not what I've told you I am. I lied to you in my autobiography when I told you I am black. I lied to the Admission Committee at Harvard so I could get in. I lied to my constituents in Chicago so I could get elected to the State Senate. I lied to my constituents in Illinois so I could get elected to the US Senate. I lied to my supporters across America so I could be President.

"I have lied all during my life to play the race card, and use it, cynically, to advance myself by playing upon the racist presumption of Americans to accept, without question, that anyone of color is African-American. I lied to you, and you blindly accepted it, because of your own racist presumptions about color, and ethnic identity. I looked African-American, and your racist presumptions told you to believe it."

Even as you read this, the overwhelming majority of you will continue to believe it. Even as you know the truth, you will block the truth out of your mind, because you are bred to accept the racist presumption of color, and ethnic identity.

And so many of you reading this will create incredible mental gymnastics, telling yourself why the truth doesn't matter. You will lie to yourself because you want to believe the lie, and then curse the American body politic for being built on lies.

You will do this all while failing to tell yourself the truth that it is your lies, as much as any other lies, that are killing the body. You will commit the very action that you curse as the cause of America's demise, because you are jaded beyond recognizing in yourself the very same disease you so freely condemn in others.

Here is the truth about Mr. Obama's name, and his father's ancestors:

True Negro tribal members of western Kenya where his father was born have Christian names, not Arabic. His father's decision to name him with an Arabic name is a matter of his father establishing his ethnic identity in Africa - it is done deliberately to separate him from the African tribes. He may live among them, but he is not one of them. His father's message is that he is Arabic, not Negro.

Many will find these truths unsettling. I'm often asked, "But I thought his father was Kenyan. How could Mr. Obama not be African-American, how could his ethnic composition be so Arabic?"

The definitive clue to that answer is to look at his name, his father's name, and the names of all his ancestors on his father's side. They are all Arabic.

Researching his roots reveal that on his father's side, he is descended from Arab slave traders. They operated under an extended grant from Queen Victoria, who gave them the right to continue the slave trade in exchange for helping the British defeat the Madhi Army in southern Sudan and the Upper Nile region. Funny how circular is history; now the British again face the Madhi Army, albeit this time Shiite, not Sunni, as in nineteenth century Sudan.

But telling America's black community that while their ancestors were breaking the shackles of slavery, Mr. Obama's ancestors were placing those shackles upon their wrists would hardly play as an Oprah Winfrey best-seller.

Being the son of a poor Kenyan goat-herder plays much better than being the son of a highly placed Arab-African who operated at the top of the Kenyan government following his education at Columbia. You see, even the way he portrays his father is a lie.

We need to linger for a moment on Ms. Winfrey, and her support for Mr. Obama. A very serious problem arises with Ms. Winfrey because of her double-standards: Does everyone remember how she went ballistic when a person whose book she endorsed turned out to be dishonest about what he said about his life in his book?

Of course you do. She pulled the plug on him and forced him into a highly publicized "Mea Culpa" of near groveling for her forgiveness. She publicly humiliated him, and would actually twist-up into contorted faces, visibly hot with anger.

Why then does Ms. Winfrey operate with a double standard for Mr. Obama? She knows his so-called autobiography is replete with "composites" - an Orwellian word for fictional characters that never existed but in Mr. Obama's imagination, even though he addresses them in his autobiography as if they are real people. They aren't; they are lies.

So are his timelines, chopped up and rearranged for Mr. Obama's aggrandizement. And there are the complete lies about events he said specifically impacted his life - events that never occurred despite his writing that they did. They too are lies.

As I said, don’t take my word for it; read Mr. Cohen’s columns in the Washington Post for the details.

Why then does she not hold him to the same standards she held another author?

She doesn't say, but the possibility that the reason is race-based is fair to ask. What Mr. Obama did is far beyond what the other author did. Why then, public humiliation for one, but campaign whistle-stops for the other?

Ms. Winfrey needs to tell us why. Her integrity is on the line.

Mr. Obama has struggled all his life trying to prove that he is black enough to be called black.

The truth is that if Mr. Obama is elected, his primary ethnic composition is Caucasian, but of course, that carries no cachet.

So if we look at his next predominant ethnic component, Mr. Obama would be America's first Arab-American president. The truth is that his name says it all.

What amazes me more than anything else about Mr. Obama's heritage is the unwillingness of anyone in the journalism profession to want to know the truth. While all this is easily documentable, it is so radioactive that no one wants to be on the receiving end of the racist charges that will bombard whoever broaches the truth.

It is another example of how America's political system is further degenerating into fairy tales and lies. Torpedo boat attacks in Viet Nam, WMD's in Iraq, Sen. Obama is African-American; we shamelessly lie to ourselves to rationalize whatever we want to believe.

But I wrote this tonight because I'm tired of reading about "integrity" written by those who have none themselves. They know Mr. Obama's autobiography is filled with lies from start to finish, they know he lies about what his operatives do (the Apple advertisement knock-off against Hills immediately comes to mind), and for those who circulated my research, they know he is not legally black.

But for those longing for Camelot, for those who feel a good story trumps the truth, for those who are so jaded about others that they now live as those they profess to hate, for those who are terrorized by the racist attacks these truths bring, the integrity of Sen. Obama doesn't matter.

Because their own integrity doesn't matter to them either.

Why am I writing this? Maybe I just want a clear conscience, clear that the research I did didn’t get buried because the people who received it are afraid to tell the truth in the face of Sen. Obama’s frenzied celebrity status. I’ve been in the business since 1972 - 35 years - writing and researching for people like the NY Times, the Miami Herald, the St. Petersburg Times, The Jewish Information Network, so I know what it’s like on the newsroom floor right now. Nobody can dare speak against Sen. Obama without generating at least a flickering flame of doubt about his or her own sanity – not to mention the knee-jerk reaction that questioning him is indicative of some deep, dark, racist agenda spurring those questions on.

And truth? I ask as Pilate asked, “What is truth?” Who cares about truth? This is history; this is the first time ever in America – why let truth get in the way of chronicling history? (. . . I wrote facetiously.)

Maybe I just want to know that if he gets the presidency, he will get it honestly – if this is general knowledge, and he overcomes it. Maybe I’m just tired of presidents who lie to us; and in this case, I already know Mr. Obama will lie to us, just as he lied in his autobiography, and on so many other occasions documented by Mr. Cohen, by Michael Dobbs, the Washington Post’s factchecker, and so many others.

And maybe I’m tired of us lying to ourselves. Mr. Obama is what we’ve lied ourselves into believing he is.

Maybe by saying that I know he lied, and saying that we lied to ourselves, I will say after he is elected that nobody has any right to complain about him lying after he takes the oath of office, when everybody knew he lied about so many other things – when we lied to ourselves about so many other things, so very long before that.
-30-

It's the end of the line for the Black Racists and their lies

The Black racists are pathological liars when it comes to the Zimmerman case. Here's what the evidence at trial said:

Z was never instructed by an officer to not follow M. Dispatchers aren't LEOs.

Regardless, Z said, "OK," and was going back to his vehicle. He had already lost sight of M and was no longer following him.

M is the only person using racist language in this incident. The FBI has interviewed more than 35 people about Z, and cannot find one single statement that Z has any racial animosity whatsoever.

M was also pumped up by the homophobic Rachel Jantel - unknowingly the greatest witness ever to the total failure of the urban, liberal, union-run, so-called education system - who told him the man was probably a gay rapist.

M doubled back to Z and hid, waiting for him to pass by.

When Z did come by, M came up to Z, and said, "Do you have a problem?"

Z replied, "No."

M then said, "Well you do now!" and sucker punched Z, knocking him to the ground.

M got on top of the downed Z and did a "ground and pound" on Z, breaking his nose, lacerating his face, and finally smashing his skull on the concrete at least six times, which would lead in time to a concussion and possibly death.

Z had more than enough reasonable fear that he would be killed - he already had suffered the other qualifier for self-defense, grave bodily harm - to use the only means available to stop the racist, homophobic, well-known brawler, M.

The Black Racists, and the Black Racist Apologists in the MSM have lied about this from the beginning, starting with CNN pixelating the picture of the back of Z's head to hide the lacerations, to NBC deliberately altering the tape of the 911 call to create a racist quote out of Z's mouth that he never said.

Obama has shown that he too is a Black Racist with his latest remark about how if this had been a White teenager the result would have been different. That assumes that Z would not have shot his murderous assailant just because he was White - what an outrageous Black Racist remark.

In addition, Obama, in the same press conference, condemned racial profiling - when the truth is that he racially profiled his own grandmother in his "Dreams" book by calling her, "a typical White woman."

This is all about old Black Racists - Al, Jesse, Jeremiah, Eric, and Barack - trying desperately to make one last hurrah in the winter of their lives. The NAACP convention this year only drew 200 participants when it used to draw thousands, and the so-called national vigil today hasn't drawn a total of 5,000 nationwide.

The inconvenient truth for these Black Racists and their Apologists is that 1) Blacks don't have the racial walls up against their upward mobility, in fact, they have their own racist laws giving them preference over Whites for employment, education, bank loans, and job promotions, and 2) The standard of living for Blacks in America - except those in the Democrat, liberal hellholes of places like Chicago, Baltimore, DC, Philly, and Detroit - has never been better.

These old Black Racists and their Apologists in the MSM are painting a picture of fantasy when they think these pitiful turnouts represent the advent of a reinvigorated civil rights movement.Their egos are far larger than their reality.

That is why this will all blow over soon enough, and the Black Racists and their Apologists will once again have their hate speech limited to themselves.
-30-

The immoral greed of Atlas Shrugged destroys a community

Since this story is still drawing comments, let me add one more:

This relationship between Clearwire and TeleTech was obviously a scam to avoid paying severance pay, among other benefits. They shuffled employees back and forth in a time-line short enough to comply with the WARN Act and at the same time deny severance to those it knew it would terminate.

The excuse by TeleTech is laughable. In less than one month, they reanalyzed their entire operation and decided that they needed to dump the employees. What a lie.

This was planned from the beginning to avoid the costs associated with severance and whatever other benefits the employees would have earned.

Clearwire and TeleTech are two very sleazy operations.

But on a very human level, what do you have to do to yourself to become the official liar (aka spokesperson) for them? What do you have to tell yourself each day that you know you are going to lie your fanny off, and do it all with a straight face? What a degenerate crew.

OK, add more misery to the problems we face in The Great Depression V. 2.0. Three hundred fifteen lives are being destroyed while the people at the top collect their bonuses and expense out their lifestyle.

Thank the author of Atlas Shrugged for providing the rationale that unlimited, immoral greed is good. You are being destroyed by the Top 1% of households who now pull in 24% of all personal income. It is most likely that you are not in that 1%, and to support them is in your own way signing your economic death warrant.

They aren't creating jobs with their tax breaks, they are hoarding cash, investing in metals and other commodities, making bets in the stock market, and otherwise making sure they continue to get a bigger slice of the pie by destroying the Middle Class - that's you.

Just a thought to keep in mind the next time you think these people are like you, and that your best interests and theirs are identical.

They aren't.
-30-

A local look at 315 lives lost to the Great Depression V. 2.0

I've added this article from the local Pensacola News Journal as an example of how the Great Depression V. 2.0 is killing the life out of our economy, and our society.

It's the story of shuffling 315 people between two companies in order to avoid paying any severances. The master company, Clearwire - an entity that gives every impression of being near-bankrupt - and TeleTech, a sub-contractor who agreed to accept the 315 people Clearwire wanted off the payroll.

TeleTech announced it would take them, but in just one month, announced all 315 would be terminated. An obvious scam to get around the federal WARN Act, a toothless bit of feel-good legislation that some sold-out stooge of the ruling elite bragged about at re-election time.

I took this article as an opportunity to note that we are in The Great Depression Version 2.0, and we need to admit it.

See the article for how people are being destroyed in this economic disaster, and take a look at the following commentary to think about why, and what can be done to fix it.

++++++++++++++++

The Great Depression Version 2.0 - it's time we began to deal with our economic realities admitting the truth about us being in a Depression.

Depressions are long-term events. That's why you hear the foolish talk about this being the upside of the now-ended Great Recession.

But the truth is that if you look at the Great Depression of the '30s, you'll find the same ups and downs. The economy doesn't just hit a certain level and stay there. It varies up and down; what makes it a Depression is that the long-term range of economic activity remains unacceptably low. Recessions are part of the Depression's long-term record.

In our local experience, we see in the Clearwire debacle the reality of the modern internationalism of the economy. The lesson here is simple: No owner is going to pay more for labor than absolutely necessary.

You can't beat the cheap overseas wages.

And if the CEO didn't go for those low-cost jobs, he or she would be unemployed by the Board in short order.

That's the Real World folks.

The real problem with our economy is that people are out of money. They've shut down the credit cards, the homes are being foreclosed, the cars and trucks are being repossessed, and the energy industry is celebrating with the finance industry the cold-blooded looting of our wallets.

When your economy is based on consumerism - 70% of ours is powered by your ability to purchase - then what you better do is figure out how to get money back into our hands.

We can't afford welfare - and we can't afford warfare. We can't shelter the Third World within our borders, and we can't continue to emulate the Roman Empire and bankrupt ourselves with endless wars.

End the "welfare enslavement" of urban America, and end the "foreign aid enslavement" of America's population.

Put the money back into our pockets, and we'll pop right back to prosperity.
-30-

Barack Hussein Obama: Our Political Messiah?

I had to post this column by Kathleen Parker. She writes for the Washington Post Group, so she's as mainstream as you can get.

The column is the most precise explanation of Mr. Obama's unprecedented "American Idol" success as a political candidate. Ms. Parker accurately captures the broader cultural underpinnings of his attraction, and argues that he is the cusp of a new generation's self-expression through the political process.

She is absolutely correct.

If you want to understand how an out-of-nowhere candidate like Mr. Obama can torpedo the decades-long ambitions of Hills, read this article:

By Kathleen Parker

Much has been made of the religious tenor of Barack Obama's presidential campaign. Reports of women weeping and swooning — even of an audience applauding when The One cleared his proboscis (blew his nose for you mortals) — have become frequent events in the heavenly realm of Obi-Wan Obama.

His rhetoric, meanwhile, drips with hints of resurrection, redemption and second comings. "We are the ones we've been waiting for," he said on Super Tuesday night. And his people were glad.

Actually, they were hysterical, the word that best describes what surrounds this young savior, and that may be more apt than we imagine. The word is derived from the Greek hystera, or womb. The ancient Greeks considered hysteria a psychoneurosis peculiar to women caused by disturbances of the uterus.

Well, you don't see any men fainting in Obi's presence.

Barack Obama has many appealing qualities, not least his own reluctance to be swaddled in purple. Nothing quite says "I'm only human" like whipping out a hankie and blowing one's nose in front of 17,000 admirers. The audience's applause was reportedly awkward, as if the crowd was both approving of anything their savior did, but a little disappointed at this rather ungodly behavior.

So what is the source of this infatuation with Obama? How to explain the hysteria? The religious fervor? The devotion? The weeping and fainting and utter euphoria surrounding a candidate who had the audacity to run for leader of the free world on a platform of mere hope?

If anthropologists made predictions the way meteorologists do, they might have anticipated Obama's astronomical rise to supernova status in 2008 of the Common Era. Consider the cultural coordinates, and Obama's intersection with history becomes almost inevitable.

To play weatherman for a moment, he is a perfect storm of the culture of narcissism, the cult of celebrity, and a secular society in which fathers (both the holy and the secular) have been increasingly marginalized from the lives of a generation of young Americans.

All of these trends have been gaining momentum the past few decades. Social critic Christopher Lasch named the culture of narcissism a generation ago and cited addiction to celebrity as one of the disease's symptoms — all tied to the decline of the family.

That culture has merely become more exaggerated as spiritual alienation and fatherlessness have collided with technology (YouTube, Facebook, MySpace, etc.) that enables the self-absorption of the narcissistic personality.

Grown-ups with decades under their double chins may have a variety of reasons for supporting Obama, but the youth who pack convention halls and stadiums as if for a rock concert constitute a tipping point of another order.

One of Obama's TV ads, set to rock 'n' roll, has a Woodstock feel to it. Text alternating with crowd scenes reads: "We Can Change The World" and "We Can Save The Planet."

Those are some kind of campaign promises. The kind no mortal could possibly keep, but never mind. Obi-Wan Obama is about hope — and hope, he'll tell you, knows no limits.

It is thus no surprise that the young are enamored of Obama. He's a rock star. A telegenic, ultra-bright redeemer fluent in the planetary language of a cosmic generation. The force is with him.

But underpinning that popularity is something that transcends mere policy or politics. It is hunger, and that hunger is clearly spiritual. Human beings seem to have a yearning for the transcendent — hence thousands of years of religion — but we have lately shied away from traditional approaches and old gods.

Thus, in post-Judeo-Christian America, the sports club is the new church. Global warming is the new religion. Vegetarianism is the new sacrament. Hooking up, the new prayer. Talk therapy, the new witnessing. Tattooing and piercing, the new sacred symbols and rituals.

And apparently, Barack Obama is the new messiah.

Here's how a 20-year-old woman in Seattle described that Obama feeling, "When he was talking about hope, it actually almost made me cry. Like it really made sense, like, for the first, like, whoa . . ."

This New Age glossolalia may be more sonorous than the guttural emanations from the revival tent, but the emotion is the same. It's all religion by any other name.

Whatever the Church of Obama promises, we should not mistake this movement for a renaissance of reason. It is more like, well, like whoa.

-30-

KATHLEEN PARKER

Write Kathleen Parker, Washington Post Writer's Group, 115015th St. NW, Washington, D.C. 20071.

Sen. Barack Obama: It's time to test the DNA

In reviewing some of the many comments I've received about the ethnic composition of Barack Obama, the range of social intercourse has come from every imaginable angle.

I've had pictures taken from Mr. Obama's so-called "African Tour" purporting to show just how black the people who live in the area of his father's birth are, Ph.D. level dissertations on the Luo tribe and its interaction with the Arab slave trader forefathers of Mr. Obama, to opinions that this controversy shows the madness of trying to run a "Melting Pot" society with ethnic labels pasted on the foreheads of its citizens.

In reading this range of thought, I've come to believe the Big Scoop on this topic will come when someone grabs something with Mr. Obama's DNA smeared on it, then runs it to a lab for analysis.

I'm serious about that. There is no better proof available in our time than a DNA test.

The challenge is, however, who will hang the bell on the cat's tail - when Secret Service agents, local law enforcement, and big-bruiser bodyguards keep everyone but the pre-screened supporters too far away to get something suitable for testing.

DNA analysis is not my field. So I'm stuck with only what I've been told about it; I hope one of you reading this will send in a comment to flesh out the hows, and what the results can tell us.

I'm thinking that the most vulnerable time for Mr. Obama will be when he makes local talk radio and TV appearances.

It's not hard to imagine a resourceful soul getting what the DNA analysts need: "Here you are, Sen. Obama, have a glass of water, and here's a kerchief to wipe your brow to keep the sweat from rolling down your face . . . and I'll be happy to dispose of the glass and kerchief when you're finished."

Of course, now that I've laid out the scenario, it will be interesting to see what his traveling campaign staff does to keep anyone from doing what I just described. I'm not so unaware of the early timeline nature of this ethnic composition problem; right now, I seriously doubt anyone at that level of his campaign knows anything about this fermenting in the blogs.

What that means to our resourceful soul is that there is no better time than now to get a sample. Once his staff gets wind of this, they will lock out everyone else from getting anything that can be tested.

But the irony of it all is that by turning themselves into a cross of Mr. Clean, and Rosie "The Quicker Picker Upper," picking up anything he breathed upon and spraying Lysol on everything he touches, they will actually be telling us all that they know that what we want to prove is the truth.

The bizarre picture of his staff behaving that way will just turn up the heat for someone to get through their lines. I can see some first-tier journalist telling the senator's press secretary, "I just want this dinner napkin to take home to my kids as a souvenir."

Now that will be funny.

If you have the ability to get something that can be analyzed, please do so at your first opportunity. It really does matter. You will be doing a tremendous "good deed" for America, and the world.

Be sure to establish a "chain of custody" from his body to the lab. You know Sen. Obama will lie about everything having to do with getting to the truth about him.

And when he does that, it will bring more attention to it. The goal here is to create such a level of interest that the first-tier information organizations are forced to deal with the issue. Be sure to be nice to them by giving them a loophole big enough for a 747 to explain away why they never thought of this first. They will be incredibly grateful to you for that loophole.

If the test came up as I researched, with a African Negro component less than the federal threshold of 12.5%, then Sen. Obama will have a major problem on his hands.

Unlike his non-votes of "Present" in the Illinois State Senate when bombshell issues arrived at his doorstep and he couldn't take an honest stand one way or the other on them, a DNA test will be published, it will have the necessary scientific gravitas to demand attention from the first-tier information organizations; he can't duck out and hide.

I don't know who will get the sample for testing, but now that the idea is out in the open, it will be only a matter of time until it happens.

And to whomever this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity graces, get yourself a great lawyer when the results come back to you. I can assure you that Sen. Obama will do everything he can to lock you down.

But like little white spots on the front of a dress, this sample of DNA will also bring a political life of lies to a sudden end. "Hell hath no fury" like an ethnic constituency played for fools.
-30-