Black and White

Trey Smith

In the early 1980s veteran pollster Stan Greenberg, conducted a focus group in Macomb County, a Detroit suburb, of former Democrats who had switched allegiance to the Republican Ronald Reagan. After he read a statement by Robert Kennedy about racial inequality, one participant interjected: "No wonder they killed him."

"That stopped me and led to a whole new analysis of Reagan Democrats," wrote Greenberg in a recent report, Inside the GOP. "I realised that in trying to reach this group of people race is everything," he told me.

While conducting a focus group with Republicans over the summer he had a similar revelation, although it came not from a sole outburst but almost throwaway comments, often left on cards after the session.
~ from Race Is Central to the Fear and Angst of the US Right by Gary Younge ~

It is quite normal for opposing political parties to try to block each other's paths. It is also typical that the minority party will try their darnedest to impede the agenda of the president. What is abnormal this time around is that the rabid right is so bent on thwarting this particular Democratic president that they are more than willing to turn even non-controversial issues into controversial ones.

Though the mainstream media predominantly refuses to state the obvious, anyone paying attention should know what fuels this type of behavior. Those on the far right simply cannot accept the fact that Americans twice elected a black president!

Many of these same sorts of people went after the prior Democratic president (Bill Clinton) too, but they didn't do it with such vitriol. While they may have viewed Clinton as a tax-and-spend liberal -- it is hard for me to fathom how -- he has one thing going for him: he's a white guy. Obama is not and so they have not been constrained in the least.

While I find this sort of attitude despicable, I also understand that these folks are in the minority. This is certainly not to suggest that racism is dead -- far from it -- but, just like with the issues of homosexuality and marijuana, the younger generation appears to be far more accepting than the old guard. And that goes a long way toward explaining WHY the old guard is being so loud and onerous today. They realize this might be their last gasp.

DN - Angela Davis: "Terrorism is Part of Our History"

TRNN - New Orleans Lost Half Its Black Population Since Hurricane Katrina

A Word that Begins with N

Trey Smith

From the Zimmerman trial to an incident involving a professional football player, a certain word that begins with the letter "n" recently has been in the news a lot. It is such an offensive word -- a distinct racial slur -- that reporters and commentators won't even say or write it. When they refer to it, it comes out as the n-word or n*****.

The word that no self-respecting reporter or pundit wants to write or say is nigger.

Look, I don't disagree that nigger is a horrid word, one that has no place in a multiracial society. It is used to denigrate an entire class of people based on nothing more than the color of their skin. It is used to convey hate and loathing. It is not a word that should readily flow from the lips of a caring and compassionate person.

But I have a real problem with those who are quoting what someone else said. The football player, Riley Cooper, who uttered this offensive word did not say "I will jump that fence and fight every n***** here." He said "I will jump that fence and fight every nigger here."

How are we as a society to come face-to-face with the ugliness of that word if we seek to sanitize its usage? N-word or n***** doesn't sound so bad. It doesn't shock the senses. It doesn't spur emotional outrage. It is antiseptic.

In my mind's eye, if you are reporting or commenting on someone who uses the word, then you should specifically note or quote what that word is. If someone says, nigger, then you should say or write nigger. If someone refers to a Muslim as a raghead, then you should say or write raghead. If someone says gook or spic (referring to a person of Asian or Hispanic descent, respectively), quote the deragatory term they used.

It is only by confronting these hateful words head-on that we can overcome them. The effort to sanitize them for public consumption subverts that effort because it makes them appear far less despicable than they truly are.

TYT - 13-Year-Old Black Teen Murdered By 75-Year Old White Neighbor

Forget "Stand Your Ground"

Trey Smith

As reported in The Atlantic, a recent study appears to indicate that race plays a role in the application of "stand you ground" laws. To wit,

The data give credence to claims that such laws introduce bias against black victims and in favor of white shooters, as many have contended. In cases where the shooter was black and the victim white, there was hardly any difference between "Stand Your Ground" and other states: Only 1.4 percent of these homicides were deemed justified in "Stand Your Ground" states, in comparison to 1.1 percent in states without a statute. But, the situation is substantially different when the roles, and races, of shooter and victim are reversed. For murders with a white shooter and a black victim, 16.9 percent were ruled justified in "Stand Your Ground" states. Only 9.5 percent were in states that have no "Stand Your Ground" law on the books.

and

In the wake of the Zimmerman verdict, Roman provided me with his more recent, more fine-grained analysis of the relationships between shooters and victims, including the types of weapons involved. The racial (black-white) divide was strongest in just the kind of shooting that Zimmerman committed: a fatal shooting involving a handgun and two strangers of different races, neither of whom is in law enforcement. Even in states without "Stand Your Ground" laws, the numbers are stark; 29.3 percent of white-on-black shootings are ruled justifiable, while only 2.9 percent of black-on-white shootings are. But in states that have enacted "Stand Your Ground" laws, the situation is worse: 35.9 percent of white-on-black shootings are ultimately deemed to be self-defense. In the reverse situation, black-on-white shootings, only 3.4 percent of cases have ended with the same verdict.

While the author of this article is focusing on the significant disparities in "stand your ground" states, I think the differences in the other states is just as astounding! If nothing else, it underscores that our justice system is anything but colorblind.

To recap the above for states that have not enacted a "stand your ground" type of law, we find the following:

• (Older data) Black shooter/White victim: 1.1 percent justifiable
• (Older data) White Shooter/Black Victim: 9.5 percent justifiable
• (Newer data) Black Shooter/White victim: 2.9 percent justifiable
• (Newer data) White Shooter/Black victim: 29.3 percent justifiable

Something is seriously wrong with the picture derived from this data.  What it basically tells us is that in our society a white life is worth far more than a black life.  While I am confident that class has something to do with this skewed picture, there is no denying that race is the biggest factor.

We do not live in a post-racial society.  Racism is alive and well.  The chief difference between the past and now is that America's racism tends not to be as overt as before, but it is so woven into the structure of our society, that it continues to be almost as pervasive.

What Should He Have Done?

Trey Smith

In the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, Texas Congressman Louie Gohmert, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, Senator Rand Paul, Florida State Representative Dennis Baxley (also sponsor of his state’s Stand Your Ground law), along with a host of other Republicans, argued that had the teachers and administrators been armed, those twenty little kids whose lives Adam Lanza stole would be alive today. Of course, they were parroting the National Rifle Association’s talking points. The NRA and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the conservative lobbying group responsible for drafting and pushing “Stand Your Ground” laws across the country, insist that an armed citizenry is the only effective defense against imminent threats, assailants, and predators.

But when George Zimmerman fatally shot Trayvon Martin, an unarmed, teenage pedestrian returning home one rainy February evening from a neighborhood convenience store, the NRA went mute. Neither NRA officials nor the pro-gun wing of the Republican Party argued that had Trayvon Martin been armed, he would be alive today. The basic facts are indisputable: Martin was on his way home when Zimmerman began to follow him — first in his SUV, and then on foot. Zimmerman told the police he had been following this “suspicious-looking” young man. Martin knew he was being followed and told his friend, Rachel Jeantel, that the man might be some kind of sexual predator. At some point, Martin and Zimmerman confronted each other, a fight ensued, and in the struggle Zimmerman shot and killed Martin.

Zimmerman pursued Martin. This is a fact. Martin could have run, I suppose, but every black man knows that unless you’re on a field, a track, or a basketball court, running is suspicious and could get you a bullet in the back. The other option was to ask this stranger what he was doing, but confrontations can also be dangerous — especially without witnesses and without a weapon besides a cell phone and his fists. Florida law did not require Martin to retreat, though it is not clear if he had tried to retreat. He did know he was in imminent danger.

Where was the NRA on Trayvon Martin’s right to stand his ground? What happened to their principled position? Let’s be clear: the Trayvon Martin’s of the world never had that right because the “ground” was never considered theirs to stand on. Unless black people could magically produce some official documentation proving that they are not burglars, rapists, drug dealers, pimps or prostitutes, intruders, they are assumed to be “up to no good.”
~ from The US v. Trayvon Martin by Robin D.G. Kelley ~

All throughout the televised trial and after the verdict was rendered, my wife kept asking the same question: What should Trayvon Martin have done in the situation that ultimately resulted in his death? Her question is rhetorical because all the Zimmerman supporters basically have blamed Martin for his own death!

As Kelley points out above, running away would have been one of the worst possible ways of handling the situation. Why? Because, in a lot of people's minds, a person of color who runs PROVES that they must have been up to "no good." As this bizarre line of reasoning goes, an innocent person would have no reason to run because they weren't doing anything wrong.

So, if Trayvon couldn't flee, what other option is left?

The only one that I can think of is to confront the creepy unidentified person following him. Unfortunately, by doing that, a good deal of white America believes he brought his own death on himself. And this brings us right back to the salient question: What should he have done?

The answer for a lot of white folks is one they won't say out loud because, to do so, would indicate that they are racists. What I suspect that a lot of my white brethren think is that Martin should have acted like a slave with his master! He should have immediately stopped in his tracks and said, "Yes suh" or "No suh" to any questions posed to him by Zimmerman. He should have allowed Zimmerman to pat him down to prove that he wasn't up to "no good." And, if Zimmerman wanted to hold him until the police arrived, Trayvon should have docilely accepted his "fate."

It is because Trayvon probably didn't prostrate himself before Zimmerman -- he didn't act like the second class citizen that many racist whites believe him and his kind to be -- that Zimmerman was well within his rights as a white person to shoot him. It is because Martin defended himself from this menacing man -- who for all Trayvon knew could have been a pervert -- that Zimmerman was more than justified in pulling the trigger.

So, realistically, what should Trayvon have done?

TYT - Paula Deen's Blatant Racism - 60 Year-Olds Can Use Slurs??

Discrimination Is Back in Vogue

Trey Smith

As if the growing NSA scandal is not enough, the US Supreme Court decided to get into the act yesterday. By a 5 - 4 vote, they struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Now it will be that much easier for states to discriminate against certain voters -- the very thing this Act sought to prevent.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the minority, read out a stinging dissent from the bench: "The sad irony of today's decision lies in its utter failure to grasp why the VRA has proven effective," she said.

"Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet."

In all honesty, I am rather ambivalent about this decision. On the one hand, I am against discrimination based on a whole host of criteria. It is wrong to single out a group of people based on nothing more than the color of their skin or their sexual orientation. However, on the other hand, voting these days is mostly an exercise in futility. The monied interests handpick the candidates for the voters to choose from and the candidates who garner the most votes typically don't live up to the pledges made to those voters. So, all that may be lost here is the illusion of making a difference, instead of the actual ability to make a difference.

There is no question in my mind that this is a bad a decision, but it's a bad decision about a system that already is rotten to its core.

TYT - Tea Partier: Republicans Don't Want Black People to Vote

TYT - Racist War On Weed - New ACLU Report

Badge As a Sledgehammer

Trey Smith

On Memorial Day, in Miami, a 14-year-old black kid named Tremaine McMillan was walking down the beach with his mother – and bottle-feeding his puppy – when cops blocked his path in ATVs. A few minutes before, the kid had been rough-housing in the surf with a friend, and the cops wanted to question him about it.

Moments later, the cops body-slammed the boy — still holding his puppy — onto the beach, got him in a chokehold, and arrested him for resisting arrest.

So far, so sickeningly normal.

But in this case, the police’s cover-story for the body-slam, the chokehold, and the kid’s subsequent arrest — that he was “clenching,” or, in other accounts, “flaring” his fists – was hard to sell, due to one small but troublesome fact: cellphone video showed that the kid never stopped cradling his puppy. So the police spokesman invoked a truly terrifying specter: the teenager, he said, was giving the cops “dehumanizing stares.”

Well, of course you can’t blame battle-toughened Miami cops for starting to panic when a 14-year-old black male–armed with a puppy, mind you – starts to look at them funny.

But the truth is that these so-called “dehumanizing stares” are really “humanizing” stares — stares that forced the cops to realize that they were not successful in terrorizing this kid, and that he was committing that ancient Southern offense of looking a white man in the eye.
~ from Who’s Afraid of Black Men’s Eyes? by John Eskow ~

I realize it's tough being a police officer these days. You never know when a routine situation will turn into a tense and/or deadly one. But our domestic police forces too often resemble trigger-happy war troops -- if anything moves, shoot it!.

No, no one was shot in this instance. No one died. The issue here, however, is the overzealousness of too many police officers to employ over-the-top tactics when it is rampantly obvious that such tactics are not needed! None of the evidence in this instance remotely suggests that the actions of the police officers can be justified. A skinny kid carrying a very young puppy is not an immediate threat to anyone unless, maybe, he was wearing a suicide bombing jacket.

While I agree with the author that this episode smacks of racism, there are many instances where race doesn't appear to be a factor at all (e.g., white officers brutalizing and/or killing unarmed white men with some form of mental illness). In my mind, the tie that binds all the assorted incidents of this nature is the militarization of domestic police departments. Instead of viewing people as the citizens officers are sworn to serve, they now see all of us as potential enemy combatants to be subdued by any means possible.

And the police wonder why their stock has fallen so far in the eyes of the American public!

TYT - Saudi Student Investigated for Pressure Cooker

The Best and the Worst

Trey Smith

Tragedies and calamities tend to bring out the very best in humanity and, unfortunately, the very worst.

On the positive side of the ledger, when people are viewed as individuals, we humans recognize the commonality of life and suffering. When the explosions rocked the crowd near the finish line of the Boston Marathon, rather than run away from the blasts (a very understandable inclination), some people ran towards them. Not concerned with their own health and safety, they went to aid the victims.

In almost every case, I bet the distinctions we usually see did not exist. People going to aid the victims didn't see or care about race, ethnicity, gender, age, disability or sexual orientation. I am betting that not one of these first responders stepped over someone who they thought might be more liberal or conservative than they are and Christians didn't ignore a victim if they thought they were Jewish or an atheist.

What these rescuers found were people in need and they provided what care and comfort they could.

It plays out this same way in scores of other tragedies. When the suffering is real and you meet this suffering face-to-face -- whether you're on the scene or thousands of miles away -- you reach out to strangers. You do whatever you can to try to minimize the pain and agony the victims suffer from. (I should note that the victims aren't always human either. There are many examples of people placing themselves in harm's way to rescue or comfort domestic and even wild animals.)

But for all these positives, there is a dark side as well. When others are viewed not as individuals, but as a faceless group or category, then the distinctions of human life raise their ugly heads.

Over the last three days, columnist David Sirota courageously has written about the big elephant in the room of American society: racism and ethnic bias. He has taken a lot of heat from writing about the deep-seated racism that permeates the US and how it relates to the national reaction to the explosions at the Boston Marathon. (Go here to see one snippet I featured previously.)

He laid the cupboards bare in a column yesterday.

For a country that so often purports to be color blind, that insists too many people of color are overly obsessed with race, and that claims to live up to Dr. King’s dream of not judging people “by the color of their skin but by the content of their character,” the last two days have revealed a much uglier reality. They have revealed that — “doth protest too much” claims to the contrary — America is anything but color blind, that too many white folk are the ones obsessed with race, and that Dr. King’s dream is still just that: a distant dream. And that’s not just a general truism that is irrelevant to this moment of national emergency — it is, on the contrary, a very specific point that must be made, right now, precisely because of that national emergency.

Three seemingly separate events tell this story in all its hideous detail. First came the blatant ethnic/religious profiling of an Arab student injured at the Boston Marathon bombing. In that deplorable episode, he was immediately targeted as a suspect because — like thousands of others — he was running away from the blast, but unlike those others, he happened also to be Saudi. In that case, “probable cause” seemed to be a reflexive judgment exclusively about the color of his skin, not the content of his character — and, as with the Oklahoma City bombing before it, that inaccurate and unsubstantiated judgment was then unceremoniously blared all over the world, quickly becoming fodder for the Islamophobic hate-o-sphere and fueling conservative pundits’ fact-free speculation.

Then came CNN’s declaration that police had arrested a “dark-skinned male” — again, unquestioningly blared all over the world, drowning out a CBS News report alleging that the “man sought as a possible suspect is a white male, wearing a white baseball cap on backwards, a gray hoodie and a black jacket.”

And then this morning came the New York Post’s front cover purporting to show two dark-skinned men that the newspaper claimed police had identified as suspects. As Gawker shows, the Post opted to ignore previous reporting debunking that photo and eagerly published it on its front-page.

Taken together, this is much more than just the journalistic sloppiness of the 2000 Election Night now playing out in the coverage of a horrific terrorist attack. It is a rare spotlight on the prejudiced suppositions baked into our worldview, a commentary on what too much of America wants, and an illustration of the kind of bigotry that people of color in America unfortunately must live with on a daily basis.

White Is Alright

Trey Smith

As we now move into the official Political Aftermath period of the Boston bombing — the period that will determine the long-term legislative fallout of the atrocity — the dynamics of privilege will undoubtedly influence the nation’s collective reaction to the attacks. That’s because privilege tends to determine: 1) which groups are — and are not — collectively denigrated or targeted for the unlawful actions of individuals; and 2) how big and politically game-changing the overall reaction ends up being.

This has been most obvious in the context of recent mass shootings. In those awful episodes, a religious or ethnic minority group lacking such privilege would likely be collectively slandered and/or targeted with surveillance or profiling (or worse) if some of its individuals comprised most of the mass shooters. However, white male privilege means white men are not collectively denigrated/targeted for those shootings — even though most come at the hands of white dudes.

Likewise, in the context of terrorist attacks, such privilege means white non-Islamic terrorists are typically portrayed not as representative of whole groups or ideologies, but as “lone wolf” threats to be dealt with as isolated law enforcement matters. Meanwhile, non-white or developing-world terrorism suspects are often reflexively portrayed as representative of larger conspiracies, ideologies and religions that must be dealt with as systemic threats — the kind potentially requiring everything from law enforcement action to military operations to civil liberties legislation to foreign policy shifts.

“White privilege is knowing that even if the bomber turns out to be white, no one will call for your group to be profiled as terrorists as a result, subjected to special screening or threatened with deportation,” writes author Tim Wise. “White privilege is knowing that if this bomber turns out to be white, the United States government will not bomb whatever corn field or mountain town or stale suburb from which said bomber came, just to ensure that others like him or her don’t get any ideas. And if he turns out to be a member of the Irish Republican Army we won’t bomb Dublin. And if he’s an Italian-American Catholic we won’t bomb the Vatican.”
~ from Let's Hope the Boston Marathon Bomber Is a White American by David Sirota ~

We see this very same dynamic with mass shootings in this country. If the shooter is white -- a good bet since most of them ARE white -- he is a lone wolf suffering from some degree of mental illness. On those few occasions when the shooter is not white, that's a different story. If the shooter is black, then a lot of people will immediately point to the shooter's race as if that provides a definitive explanation (i.e., black males are "prone to violence" and "crime"). If the shooter happens to be Arab and/or Muslim, then too many people simply say, "See, all of 'em are terrorists!"

There is no question that there are blacks and Arabs who are overtly violent and willing to commit crimes against humanity. But the very same is true of whites. In fact, over the past decade or two, I would venture that whites are just as culpable, if not more so, than any other racial group of killing tens of thousands of innocents.

Post-Racial America?

Trey Smith

A lot of people believe that because the US has a black President, this fact alone proves once-and-for-all that our society has moved into a post-racial period. While racial minorities in this country would call such a declaration laughable, many whites cling to it.

For the sake of argument, let's say that we have statistical and anecdotal evidence that the rampant prejudice and racism against this nation's two most historically marginalized groups -- American Indians and blacks -- has abated by 90 percent. Even in the face of such evidence, the post-racial assertion wouldn't mean diddly squat. America remains as racist as it ever was; we could merely surmise that we have found new targets for our (whites) collective racism.

Even if racism against the two groups noted above had vanished -- and it certainly has not! -- Latinos and anyone who looks slightly Arab now bears the brunt of our animus. When people talk about red-blooded or "true" Americans, they generally do not include in that definition Latinos and Arabs. Those sorts of people are wetbacks, wannabes, terrorist sympathizers or...terrorist infiltrators themselves!

Let's face it. The majority of white America looks down at anyone who is not lily white. Those sorts of people -- and some don't even consider them people -- aren't the ones made in God's image. When God was putting his grand plan into action, his vision of the ideal human was someone who is white, Anglo-Saxon and definitely Protestant (a WASP)! Those other "people" were merely put here for WASPs to manipulate, subjugate and play with.

The irony of this perspective is lost on too many WASPs. They worship a man who was not a WASP -- Jesus was a Palestinian. In fact, from the standpoint of race and culture, Jesus was far closer to being an Arab than a white fundamentalist Christian. In the final bit of irony, Jesus didn't discriminate based on race or ethnicity. He exhibited an "open door" policy. And yet, the very people who call him Lord, master and savior are some of the worst racists the world has ever known.

Racial Fear Drives Gun Obsession

Whom To Be Afraid Of

Trey Smith

As long as I can remember, society has been really clear whom most of us should be afraid of. For years, the quintessential potential bad guy was black. As the Latino population has increased, we're now told to be suspicious of any Latino we don't know personally -- he's most likely up to no good -- and, heck, you can't really trust the ones you know. And, of course, over the past two decades, the group we should be most terrified of is ANY male who looks like an Arab and/or Muslim because he just might be a terrorist.

But, as David Sirota points out, when it comes to mass murder, the overwhelming majority of the assailants are white!

Yesterday, during a cable news discussion of gun violence and the Newtown school shooting, I dared mention a taboo truism. During a conversation on MSNBC’s “Up With Chris Hayes,” I said that because most of the mass shootings in America come at the hands of white men, there would likely be political opposition to initiatives that propose to use those facts to profile the demographic group to which these killers belong. I suggested that’s the case because as opposed to people of color or, say, Muslims, white men as a subgroup are in such a privileged position in our society that they are the one group that our political system avoids demographically profiling or analytically aggregating in any real way. Indeed, unlike other demographic, white guys as a group are never thought to be an acceptable topic for any kind of critical discussion whatsoever, even when there is ample reason to open up such a discussion.

I certainly would not want to be profiled, but fair is fair. Since black males driving nice cars in white neighborhoods or Arab-looking men taking photographs of important buildings tend to set off alarms with most police departments, maybe white males like me driving near shopping malls and educational institutions should get the same treatment.

I'm Breathing Easy -- How 'Bout You?

Trey Smith

Tiny particles of air pollution contain more hazardous ingredients in non-white and low-income communities than in affluent white ones, a new study shows.

The greater the concentration of Hispanics, Asians, African Americans or poor residents in an area, the more likely that potentially dangerous compounds such as vanadium, nitrates and zinc are in the mix of fine particles they breathe.

Latinos had the highest exposures to the largest number of these ingredients, while whites generally had the lowest.
~ from People in Poor Neighborhoods Breathe More Hazardous Particles by Cheryl Katz ~

Another way that we can tell that racism is alive and well is illustrated by this study. Simply put, the majority class and race sees to it that environmental degradation doesn't happen in their neighborhoods or communities! They make sure to build and maintain their pollution-spewing factories and plants far away from where they live and play.

It always gets me that -- whenever there is a big debate over whether or not a polluting facility should be sited in a particular location -- the people who tend to scream the loudest in favor are the ones who live the furthest away from it! These people wax eloquently about the jobs it will create or the increased economic benefit to the community, while pooh-poohing any concerns about the health and well-being about the residents who will live in the nearest proximity to it.

When we get down to brass tacks, the company big wigs only care about one thing: making money. Most of the government officials seem to care only with trying to appease those who will make the money. Few seem to be concerned at all about the poor people of color whose lives will be impacted in a detrimental manner.

That, my friends, is a pervasive and insidious form of racism.

A Different Sort of Racism IV

Trey Smith

I said I was going to write three of these, but I realized that the author of the third article cited made a very important point that needs to be addressed.

Mainlining Obama emboldens liberals to express their racism in the socially-acceptable way of hating another “other,” the Muslims, whose women cover up their heads and sometimes aren’t allowed to drive, things that keep white liberal women awake at night. These liberals are righteously certain that head scarves and no learner’s permits are bigger problems for Muslims than racist American goons kicking down Muslim doors at midnight and taking away adult males to be tortured and jailed for years without charge or trial, or Muslim children living in constant terror of America’s flying killer robots that circle the skies above their schools and houses. Enjoy your freedom, ladies, as you drive from your nonpaying job at home to your three/fourths-paying job at work while being carpet-bombed by the messages of “your” society, freedom central, that says you’re either good for sex or good for nothing. But, damn, those head scarves could lead to sharia law — and lawn jockeys replaced by camel jockeys in the coming Allahbama! The horror, the horror…
~ from Your Brain on Obama: Waiting for the Man by Randy Shields ~

Let's face it: Racism exists in us all. It may not be an overt racism, but it appears to be rather natural to favor those who look like we do. We often give the benefit of the doubt to people who believe like we do or wave the same flag as we do, so it shouldn't surprise us that we will behave more compassionately or judiciously to those whose skin color is the same as ours.

Liberals like to believe they have gotten past all that. They like to think they embody the "dream" of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. of judging a person by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin. It is a lie, a damn lie!

They suck up to persons of color who are in power, while living in segregated communities. They salute our black President, but they still cross to the other side of the street when they see an unknown black man at night. They gush about living in a post-racial world, while they allow their racist tendencies to fixate on a new target: Arabs.

It is because white liberals are doing their damnedest not to allow their racist tendencies toward blacks accidentally to bubble to the surface that they need a new outlet for their animus. Muslims become an easy target. By despising Muslims and everything they stand for, they can channel their racism in politically correct ways.

And so, they can embrace the first President of color, a man who regular kills other people of color, and not see the rampant contradiction.