Friday, October 21, 2011
Monday, October 17, 2011
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Friday, October 14, 2011
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Monday, October 3, 2011
Sunday, October 2, 2011
Saturday, October 1, 2011
Dr. Marc Lamont Hill Says Democrats Should Apologize to Blacks
Black Liberal Academic Says Democrats Should Apologize to Blacks for its Racist History
by Robert Oliver
In a spirited debate on the Sean Hannity Radio Show on Friday, September 30, Marc Lamont Hill, Ph.D. (www.marclamonthill.com), Associate Professor at Columbia University, ultimately agreed with Seattle-area Church of God in Christ Minister Rev. Wayne Perryman (www.wayneperryman.com), a plaintiff in lawsuit recently filed against President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party, saying that the Party should apologize to Black Americans for the Party’s history of support of slavery, Jim Crow, Ku Klux Klan terror, Black Codes, lynchings segregation, etc.
The subject of the debate was current American race issues. Commenting on the subject of what group plays the race card the most:
PERRYMAN: When you look at the Democrat's racist background from slavery, Jim Crow, Black Codes, Dred Scott, Plessy vs. Ferguson,civil rights cases of 1881, when you look at their history, their connection with the (Ku Klux) Klan being their terrorist organization, I mean, when you look at their history, how do they have the audacity to sit down and evaluate and determine who else is racist when they refuse to apologize for what they did to African Americans? Through slavery and Jim Crow, they destroyed the lives of millions of Blacks. But when we ask them to apologize, they have consistently refused to apologize to Blacks for slavery, Jim Crow, and all the other racist policies that they had, and yet they want to sit down and call other people racist. That's worse than the pot calling the kettle black!
HILL: Well I disagree that Democrats are the only people who play a race card. I think again that is just factually untrue. I think you can find people on every side of the aisle. There isn't a month that goes by, much less a week, where someone on some side of the aisle makes some comment that's deemed racially provocative, and it's not Democrats. It's everyone.
PERRYMAN: I would like to know an example. The only ones I have ever heard that play the race card are the people on the left...
HILL: Let me respond cause I was still talking. One example might be (presidential candidate) Michelle Bachmann talking about how Obama failed Black America, right? When you make a comment like that...
PERRYMAN: Well, he has...
HILL: When you say that Blacks are better off under slavery than under Obama, but surely you can see that is a racially provocative comment. You can defend it because that's (unintelligble). But if you were honest with yourself, I think you can say that is a racially provocative comment. And I'm not saying that Democrats don't ever make them. But to say that no Republican ever makes one sounds borderline absurd. I mean to say that no Republican ever makes them.
Later on in the course of the debate Sean Hannity comments:
HANNITY: But there is a narrative that it's the Democratic Party, Reverend, that has been the party that has helped African Americans. You take issue with that.
PERRYMAN: Well, even Dr. Hill knows this that historically the Democratic Party was called the party of white supremacy. The Republican Party was called the party of nigger lovers. And we know that consistently the Democrats have fought against every piece of, as a party, fought against every piece of civil rights legislation, and they were behind Jim Crow, they were behind the Klan, Black Codes, Dred Scott, Plessy vs. Ferguson, they were opposition to Brown vs. the Board of Education, just consistently on and on and on. And we mention all of this in our 40-page lawsuit against the Democratic Party and Barack Obama. They can't deny history. That is history. That's what took place! The question of it is, are they ashamed of that history? I say yes because in the last 3 weeks after we filed this lawsuit, they removed 138 years of history off of their website. If you click on history on the Democrat's website now, the earliest date they refer to their history is 1930.
HANNITY: Dr. Hill?
HILL: I don't think anyone is in denial that there's a long and deep legacy of racism and white supremacy and active opposition to equality from the Democratic Party. I don't think anybody denies that. I would hope that the Democratic Party itself doesn't deny that. But I would also hope we could understand that the Democratic Party and its politics and its ideology in 2010 aren't the same as in 1950 or certainly not...
PERRYMAN: Well Dr. Hill, why won't they apologize? I mean from 2004...
HILL: Let me finish. Let me finish, please! I promise, I never cut you off. I think they should apologize. I think they should. I agree. They should apologize. They should do a public statement. They should have a telethon apologizing. And I don't have a problem saying that publicly, and I think I have been consistent.
Robert Oliver is a former newspaper editor and a writer in Southern California. Twitter www.twitter.com/interactionswst.
by Robert Oliver
In a spirited debate on the Sean Hannity Radio Show on Friday, September 30, Marc Lamont Hill, Ph.D. (www.marclamonthill.com), Associate Professor at Columbia University, ultimately agreed with Seattle-area Church of God in Christ Minister Rev. Wayne Perryman (www.wayneperryman.com), a plaintiff in lawsuit recently filed against President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party, saying that the Party should apologize to Black Americans for the Party’s history of support of slavery, Jim Crow, Ku Klux Klan terror, Black Codes, lynchings segregation, etc.
The subject of the debate was current American race issues. Commenting on the subject of what group plays the race card the most:
PERRYMAN: When you look at the Democrat's racist background from slavery, Jim Crow, Black Codes, Dred Scott, Plessy vs. Ferguson,civil rights cases of 1881, when you look at their history, their connection with the (Ku Klux) Klan being their terrorist organization, I mean, when you look at their history, how do they have the audacity to sit down and evaluate and determine who else is racist when they refuse to apologize for what they did to African Americans? Through slavery and Jim Crow, they destroyed the lives of millions of Blacks. But when we ask them to apologize, they have consistently refused to apologize to Blacks for slavery, Jim Crow, and all the other racist policies that they had, and yet they want to sit down and call other people racist. That's worse than the pot calling the kettle black!
HILL: Well I disagree that Democrats are the only people who play a race card. I think again that is just factually untrue. I think you can find people on every side of the aisle. There isn't a month that goes by, much less a week, where someone on some side of the aisle makes some comment that's deemed racially provocative, and it's not Democrats. It's everyone.
PERRYMAN: I would like to know an example. The only ones I have ever heard that play the race card are the people on the left...
HILL: Let me respond cause I was still talking. One example might be (presidential candidate) Michelle Bachmann talking about how Obama failed Black America, right? When you make a comment like that...
PERRYMAN: Well, he has...
HILL: When you say that Blacks are better off under slavery than under Obama, but surely you can see that is a racially provocative comment. You can defend it because that's (unintelligble). But if you were honest with yourself, I think you can say that is a racially provocative comment. And I'm not saying that Democrats don't ever make them. But to say that no Republican ever makes one sounds borderline absurd. I mean to say that no Republican ever makes them.
Later on in the course of the debate Sean Hannity comments:
HANNITY: But there is a narrative that it's the Democratic Party, Reverend, that has been the party that has helped African Americans. You take issue with that.
PERRYMAN: Well, even Dr. Hill knows this that historically the Democratic Party was called the party of white supremacy. The Republican Party was called the party of nigger lovers. And we know that consistently the Democrats have fought against every piece of, as a party, fought against every piece of civil rights legislation, and they were behind Jim Crow, they were behind the Klan, Black Codes, Dred Scott, Plessy vs. Ferguson, they were opposition to Brown vs. the Board of Education, just consistently on and on and on. And we mention all of this in our 40-page lawsuit against the Democratic Party and Barack Obama. They can't deny history. That is history. That's what took place! The question of it is, are they ashamed of that history? I say yes because in the last 3 weeks after we filed this lawsuit, they removed 138 years of history off of their website. If you click on history on the Democrat's website now, the earliest date they refer to their history is 1930.
HANNITY: Dr. Hill?
HILL: I don't think anyone is in denial that there's a long and deep legacy of racism and white supremacy and active opposition to equality from the Democratic Party. I don't think anybody denies that. I would hope that the Democratic Party itself doesn't deny that. But I would also hope we could understand that the Democratic Party and its politics and its ideology in 2010 aren't the same as in 1950 or certainly not...
PERRYMAN: Well Dr. Hill, why won't they apologize? I mean from 2004...
HILL: Let me finish. Let me finish, please! I promise, I never cut you off. I think they should apologize. I think they should. I agree. They should apologize. They should do a public statement. They should have a telethon apologizing. And I don't have a problem saying that publicly, and I think I have been consistent.
Robert Oliver is a former newspaper editor and a writer in Southern California. Twitter www.twitter.com/interactionswst.
Friday, September 30, 2011
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Monday, September 26, 2011
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Saturday, September 24, 2011
The Other Side of the Pyramid: A Book Review
By Robert Oliver
Homeless Activist Ted Hayes of Los Angeles asks a compelling question in his newest book The Other Side of the Pyramid. His question: If the proverbial Black man is indeed the original (man) who laid the foundations from which all civilizations are built, fell, and will fall, and being the first ruler over all peoples, looking at his present disastrous state and trending fate to total annihilation, the profound question must be asked…what happened?”
How did people of African origin go from the top to the bottom?
Of his backround, Hayes writes of himself:
“As one who willingly chose to live with the folks (the homeless) to whom I am charged, that being the weakest and most vulnerable human beings in any society, the experience has gifted me with a unique understanding which no other American in US history has been granted by our Creator GOD.”
Hayes asks Black Americans or those who call themselves African Americans to re-examine themselves and their history, not only in North America from the 1600’s to the present day but also in Africa. He also asks them to question the ‘politics of pigmentation’ that has exploited “White Guilt” for Black Power. In no way does he minimize the horrors of chattel slavery, segregation, Jim Crow, Ku Klux Klan terrorism, etc. However Hayes eschews the one-sidedness of the racial debate that blames European (White) people for the entire sum of Black American racial woes.
Hayes writes:
“It is evident such a perverse interpretation of the history of the Transatlantic Slave Trade has not improved the state and the fate of Blacks, but has instead made it even more dire, even worse than pre-1964 Civil Rights Acts.
“Blaming the proverbial White man has not and is not working, because such is not the full truth, and most importantly, GOD does not approve of it, therefore HE does not bless us Blacks as we desire.”
The Other Side of the Pyramid is the nexus between past Black history and the present Black condition. Hayes says that the idea of the “White man” being totally responsible for the enslavement of Black Africans is a myth and “an outright, self-destructive lie.” He writes:
“No matter what Whites do to rectify their standing with Blacks, nothing will benefit, not even a Reparations, until the former slaves admit with we are just as responsible, if not more for the slave-race ‘wound’ in America.”
According to conventional Black history taught in some quarters, savage White Europeans, with nets, invaded the peaceful, Edenic continent of Africa, must like what was portrayed in the 1970’s television mini-series Roots. These few Europeans used their nets to overpower the native Africans and to kidnap them to take them to the Americas. When he says “we,” Hayes writes:
“[I]t was actually Blacks in conjunction with certain Arab and converted African Muslims who captures and sold West Africans as slaves off their mother continent, thereby making them an exiled homeless, lost people to this day.”
Because of the “blame-the-White-man-only” mentality, Hayes says there is a wound within the psyche of the Black American community. He believes the wound can be healed when Black people embrace the historical truth of themselves, embracing the good elements of their history with the ugly elements. He quotes Jesus Christ who said:
“You shall know the truth and the truth will set you free.”
Hayes hopes that through his book that Black people will be set free and never see themselves the same way again. He writes in Chapter 2 – “Mia Culpa, ‘My Fault’?”:
“Instead of progressive, based on the mad ideals of the Black scholars and policy makers, the state of the various Black peoples of the earth has steadily grown more disastrous.
“It appears that historical discovery of our ancestors’ times seems more inclined to drive them/us, to further resentment, hatred, madness in a frenzied struggle for so-called liberation from the proverbial ‘White Man,’ instead of justice, peace, and prosperity...Look about! What is seen, heard, and felt among Blacks? Where has the resentment of the White man gotten us?..In reality, Blacks are literally scared to death of each other! More so than of the White man. Why?”
Hayes admits that in the past he, with feelings self-inferiority, also had resentments toward American Whites. But he feels when he saw the truth in Black history, ascending up the “bright side of the Pyramid,” he was set free to accept the Hamitic history of Africa, which was a history that laid the foundations of civilizations.
In Chapter 4 – “A Neo Form Racism,” Hayes writes that the Neo-form racism is “more insidious to us than that which the White oppressors have perpetrated upon Blacks, as evident in our subsequent inordinate, mad, self-genocidal rate and other destructive behaviors.” He addresses the contention that Black people cannot be “racist.” Presumably, this philosophy is based in the idea that since Whites have power to oppress, they can be racist. But since Blacks have no power to oppress, they cannot be racist.
Hayes writes:
“Despite one’s skills color, race, ethnicity, etc. , if that person thinks and acts upon the idea of genetic superiority over others by a so-called divine right, that person or persons is/are still racist, anti-himan, therefore anti-GOD-Christ who created and Loves all equally. Any people who foolishly fall into that mindset of genetic superiority are due a horrible awakening in identity confusion.”
Hayes also touches on the non-scientific “Melanin Theory,” which says that the pigmentation, melanin, in the skin of non-White people, makes them superior to those who lack melanin. Did inferior White Europeans discover some form of “White Kryptonite” that made the superior Melanin-rich Black people weak?
Hayes writes:
“The doctrine of Melanin is no different than that of the Nordic, Anglo-Aryan supremacist philosophy of racial purity being, ‘Whiteness is god-like and (has) civility’ while Blackness is diabolical and barbaric.’...According to this doctrine of racial supremacy, the Whiter a person, (the) closer to God (he is). The Blacker a person, the closer to the Devil (he is)…The Black version is simply the opposite…’Blackness is divinity and ‘Whiteness is diabolism.’”
Since many Black Americans hold to that Melanin Theory, Hayes compels the reader to use critical thinking and to follow that theory to its logical conclusion Since the original man, the Black African, has had an abundance of Melanin, he had to be closer to the divine element, closer to God. He was the zenith of superiority on this planet. But yet in time the superior Black man became dominated the inferior White man through slavery, colonization, etc. The evil non-melanites (White people) who have been disconnected with the divine element through melanin (therefore inferior) were able to dominate Black people who were connected with the divine element. How it is that possible inferior Weak people dominated superior Strong people?
Hayes makes the point:
“Strangely, the powerful GOD-given, good substance of Melanin so abundant in Blacks, indeed the very element that gave sudden rise to civilization and civil behavior even child-likeness in our peoples, was impotent to protect us from the inferior, White devils...the Melanists say, that Blacks are a pure, good, and innocent people, who were set upon by clever, deceitful Whites, therefore they, not us, are the sole reason for our demeaning fate and daunting fate. Interestingly, Melanin on one hand is all-powerful, yet on the other, it made Blacks so naturally good that we became weak and susceptible to foreign conquest and enslaved by those who are inferior to us...It is as though, we the ‘innocent’ were/are being unjustly exploited by sub-human beings.”
In the remainder of the book, Hayes proposes three theories of how the weak European dominated the strong African in which only one theory could be the correct one. He also expounds upon the very rarely-taught history of the Black-on-Black and Arab-on-Black slave trade in Africa which pre-dates the European slave trade in Africa. Hayes believes that this lack of acknowledgement of this “swept-under-the-rug” piece of Black history only causes the painful wound of the collective Black soul to fester. This wound of bitterness, resentment, lack of self-esteem, self-hatred, etc. cannot be solved with a monetary settlement of “reparations.” It can be solved by looking directly into all of Black history with all its flaws and embracing it. An understanding of the correct theory of how Europeans dominated Africans will bring Blacks to the “Table of Brotherhood” according to Hayes. That understanding will heal that festering wound of the soul in Black Americans.
Hayes, while explaining why people of African origin went from the top to the bottom, hopes to impress upon the reader:
“This brief book is not written to castigate, nor exonerate any race, ethnicity, nationality for human sufferings ‘today,’ but rather it offers some healing prescriptions that will ultimately shield our descendants ‘tomorrow’ from the devastations of their ancestors’ ‘yesterday.’”
The Other Side of the Pyramid can be purchased online from http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/detail/2449938. Ted Hayes can be contacted at ted (at) tedhayes (dot) us. His website is http://www.tedhayes.us. His phone number is 424-222-6010.
Robert Oliver is a writer and former newspaper editor. He can be contacted at interactionswest (at) gmail (dot) com.
Friday, September 23, 2011
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Monday, September 19, 2011
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Friday, September 16, 2011
Questions for Bush Haters
I did not vote for George W. Bush in both elections. However I have questions for Bush haters:
If George W. Bush had doubled the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had criticized a state law that he admitted he never even read would you think that he is just an ignorant hot head?
If George W. Bush joined the country of Mexico and sued a state in the United States to force that state to continue to allow illegal immigration, would you question his patriotism and wonder whose side he was on?
If George W. Bush had put 87000 workers out of work by arbitrarily placing a moratorium on offshore oil drilling on companies that have one of the best safety records of any industry because one company had an accident would you have agreed?
If George W. Bush had used a forged document as the basis of the moratorium that would render 87000 American workers unemployed would you support him?
If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a TelePrompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?
If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan’s holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?
If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia , would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the nonexistent “Austrian language,” would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?
If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had stated that there were 57 states in the United States , would you have said that he is clueless.
If George W. Bush would have flown all the way to Denmark to make a five minute speech about how the Olympics would benefit him walking out his front door in Texas , would you have thought he was a self important, conceited, egotistical jerk?
If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to “Cinco de Cuatro” in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?
If George W. Bush had misspelled the word “advice” would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoes as proof of what a dunce he is?
If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he’s a hypocrite?
If George W. Bush’s administration had OK’d Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?
If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?
If George W. Bush had created the position of 32 Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in America, would you have approved.
If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?
http://ireporters.wordpress.com/2011/05/13/the-delusions-of-barack-obama/
If George W. Bush had doubled the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had criticized a state law that he admitted he never even read would you think that he is just an ignorant hot head?
If George W. Bush joined the country of Mexico and sued a state in the United States to force that state to continue to allow illegal immigration, would you question his patriotism and wonder whose side he was on?
If George W. Bush had put 87000 workers out of work by arbitrarily placing a moratorium on offshore oil drilling on companies that have one of the best safety records of any industry because one company had an accident would you have agreed?
If George W. Bush had used a forged document as the basis of the moratorium that would render 87000 American workers unemployed would you support him?
If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a TelePrompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?
If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan’s holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?
If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia , would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the nonexistent “Austrian language,” would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?
If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had stated that there were 57 states in the United States , would you have said that he is clueless.
If George W. Bush would have flown all the way to Denmark to make a five minute speech about how the Olympics would benefit him walking out his front door in Texas , would you have thought he was a self important, conceited, egotistical jerk?
If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to “Cinco de Cuatro” in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?
If George W. Bush had misspelled the word “advice” would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoes as proof of what a dunce he is?
If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he’s a hypocrite?
If George W. Bush’s administration had OK’d Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?
If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?
If George W. Bush had created the position of 32 Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in America, would you have approved.
If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?
http://ireporters.wordpress.com/2011/05/13/the-delusions-of-barack-obama/
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Try and Guess WHO I AM?
Try and Guess WHO I AM?
I was born in one country, raised in another. My father was born in another country.
I was not his only child. He fathered several children with numerous women.
I became very close to my mother, as my father showed no interest in me. My mother died at an early age from cancer.
Later in life, questions arose over my real name.
My birth records were sketchy and no one was able to produce a legitimate, reliable birth certificate.
I grew up practicing one faith but converted to Christianity, as it was widely accepted in my country, but I practiced non-traditional beliefs and didn't follow Christianity, except in the public eye under scrutiny.
I worked and lived among lower-class people as a young adult, disguising myself as someone who really cared about them.
That was before I decided it was time to get serious about my life and I embarked on a new career.
I wrote a book about my struggles growing up. It was clear to those who read my memoirs that I had difficulties accepting that my father abandoned me as a child.
I became active in local politics in my 30's then with help behind the scenes, I literally burst onto the scene as a candidate for national office in my 40's. They said I had a golden tongue and could talk anyone into anything. That reinforced my conceit.
I had a virtually non-existent resume, little work history, and no experience in leading a single organization. Yet I was a powerful speaker and citizens were drawn to me as though I were a magnet and they were small roofing tacks.
I drew incredibly large crowds during my public appearances. This bolstered my ego.
At first, my political campaign focused on my country's foreign policy. I was very critical of my country in the last war and seized every opportunity to bash my country.
But what launched my rise to national prominence were my views on the country's economy. I pretended to have a really good plan on how we could do better and every poor person would be fed and housed for free.
I knew which group was responsible for getting us into this mess. It was the free market, banks and corporations. I decided to start making citizens hate them and if they were envious of others who did well, the plan was clinched tight.
I called mine "A People's Campaign" and that sounded good to all people.
I was the surprise candidate because I emerged from outside the traditional path of politics and was able to gain widespread popular support.
I knew that, if I merely offered the people 'hope' , together we could change our country and the world.
So, I started to make my speeches sound like they were on behalf of the downtrodden, poor, ignorant to include "persecuted minorities". My true views were not widely known and I needed to keep them unknown, until after I became my nation's leader.
I had to carefully guard reality, as anybody could have easily found out what I really believed, if they had simply read my writings and examined those people I associated with.
I'm glad they didn't. Then I became the most powerful man in the world. And the world learned the truth.
Who am I?
I am ADOLF HITLER
WHO WERE YOU THINKING OF?
I was born in one country, raised in another. My father was born in another country.
I was not his only child. He fathered several children with numerous women.
I became very close to my mother, as my father showed no interest in me. My mother died at an early age from cancer.
Later in life, questions arose over my real name.
My birth records were sketchy and no one was able to produce a legitimate, reliable birth certificate.
I grew up practicing one faith but converted to Christianity, as it was widely accepted in my country, but I practiced non-traditional beliefs and didn't follow Christianity, except in the public eye under scrutiny.
I worked and lived among lower-class people as a young adult, disguising myself as someone who really cared about them.
That was before I decided it was time to get serious about my life and I embarked on a new career.
I wrote a book about my struggles growing up. It was clear to those who read my memoirs that I had difficulties accepting that my father abandoned me as a child.
I became active in local politics in my 30's then with help behind the scenes, I literally burst onto the scene as a candidate for national office in my 40's. They said I had a golden tongue and could talk anyone into anything. That reinforced my conceit.
I had a virtually non-existent resume, little work history, and no experience in leading a single organization. Yet I was a powerful speaker and citizens were drawn to me as though I were a magnet and they were small roofing tacks.
I drew incredibly large crowds during my public appearances. This bolstered my ego.
At first, my political campaign focused on my country's foreign policy. I was very critical of my country in the last war and seized every opportunity to bash my country.
But what launched my rise to national prominence were my views on the country's economy. I pretended to have a really good plan on how we could do better and every poor person would be fed and housed for free.
I knew which group was responsible for getting us into this mess. It was the free market, banks and corporations. I decided to start making citizens hate them and if they were envious of others who did well, the plan was clinched tight.
I called mine "A People's Campaign" and that sounded good to all people.
I was the surprise candidate because I emerged from outside the traditional path of politics and was able to gain widespread popular support.
I knew that, if I merely offered the people 'hope' , together we could change our country and the world.
So, I started to make my speeches sound like they were on behalf of the downtrodden, poor, ignorant to include "persecuted minorities". My true views were not widely known and I needed to keep them unknown, until after I became my nation's leader.
I had to carefully guard reality, as anybody could have easily found out what I really believed, if they had simply read my writings and examined those people I associated with.
I'm glad they didn't. Then I became the most powerful man in the world. And the world learned the truth.
Who am I?
I am ADOLF HITLER
WHO WERE YOU THINKING OF?
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Monday, September 12, 2011
'Minuteman' Ted Hayes protests with Radicals in Los Angeles
Why is the "Tea Party" activist who uploaded this video slamming Ted Hayes? Does SoNSanDiego represent the Tea Party?
Black Minister Sues Democratic Party
SEATTLE, WA -- On September 11, 2011, blacks from the West Coast and the East Coast joined together and signed one of the most comprehensive legal briefs ever prepared on racial discrimination, then filed their brief today, September 12th, at 9:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time in US District Court in Seattle (Case No. C11 - 1503). The plaintiffs, who refer to the defendants as “Father of Racism,” allege that as an organization, the Democratic Party has consistently refused to apologize for the role they played in slavery and Jim Crow laws and for other subsequent racist practices from 1792 to 2011. Rev. Wayne Perryman, a former Democrat himself and the lead plaintiff in this class action lawsuit, said he was inspired to file this action after seeing the recent movie The Help. The movie takes place in the region that was exclusively controlled by Democrats for more than 150 years (the South). Mrs. Frances P. Rice, the Chair of the National Black Republican Association is also a plaintiff in the lawsuit. Mrs. Rice is a resident of Sarasota, Florida and has lived in the the South most of her life.
The case cites the collective work of over 350 legal scholars and includes Congressional records, case law, research from our nation's top history professors, racist statements from Democratic elected officials, citations from the Democrat's National Platforms regarding their support of slavery, excepts of speeches from Senator Obama, individual testimonies from blacks who lived in the Jim Crow South and opinions from the NAACP.
Perryman said President Obama was named as a defendant not only because he is the official leader of the Democratic Party, but because of certain statements he made about his own party in his book, Dreams from My Father. In 2009, the President was asked to issue an apology to blacks on behalf of his party, but he refused. Unlike other reparations lawsuits, this lawsuit merely asks for a public apology but no monetary damages.
In the 40-page brief, Rev. Perryman tells the court that the Democratic Party, (the party that is quick to call the Tea Party and Republicans racist), is the same party that refuses to confess and/or acknowledge (in public and on their website) that they are the party that supported the institution that packed millions of black men, women and children in the deep dark hulls of slave ships with just barely enough food and water to keep them alive, and forced them to lie in their own urine, feces, and vomit for the duration of a long trip across the Atlantic. And after arriving in America, it was the members of their party that forced these poor souls to work from sunup to sundown for the next 70 years and never paid them one dime. And when the black victims were fortunate enough to escape, it was the Democratic Party that passed Fugitive Slave laws to return them to their brutal slave masters. When their inhumane institution of slavery was challenged by the opposing party, Democrats countered by placing threats in their political platforms (1844-1856), - threatening anyone who dared to interfere with what they called, “the sectional issue of Domestic Slavery.” On May 21, 1856, they carried out their threats when they attacked their opposition, Senator Charles Sumner with a walking cane on the Senate floor and when they attacked with guns, freed blacks and abolitionists on the streets of Lawrence, Kansas. Six years later, Democrats called themselves 'Confederates” and went to war killing thousands to defend and protect their racist institution of slavery. After losing the war, they fought against constitutional amendments and civil rights legislation for blacks, and chose instead to form terrorist organizations, legislate Black Codes and Jim Crow Laws and support every landmark case that was designed to deny blacks their constitutional rights including the Slaughterhouse Case,Plessy v Ferguson, the Civil Rights Cases of 1881 to overturn the 1875 Civil Rights Act, and Brown v. the Board of Education. While many of these cases were pending, Democrats proudly adopted the name “The Party of White Supremacy” and committed every inhumane violent act known to mankind (from 1867 to 1977) to keep blacks in “their place.” And to add insult to injury, after killing millions of blacks through their racist institutions, they hired powerful attorneys to keep this information from blacks and to avoid apologizing to blacks.
Perryman said, “Any organization that has such a racist history and receives 97% of the African American vote (after doing all they could to deny blacks the right to vote), should willingly apologize without being forced do so through a lawsuit. He said, “I guess they feel they have nothing to apologize for.” Perryman went on to say that he is “convinced that Democrats will only apologize if the media, or the courts (with public pressure) will force them to do so. The man who authored the book: The Audacity of Hope, now has the “audacity” to refuse to apologize forhis political party and their racist institutions, that took the lives of millions of his own people.
Apologies for Racism – Precedent Set
In the 40-page brief covering a period from 1792 to 2011, Perryman makes the following claims regarding past apologies for racism and racial injustices. Perryman said history reveals that an apology or reparation for blacks would not be an issue today had the Democratic President Andrew Johnson chosen to sign Senate Bill 60. Since Johnson’s veto of Senate Bill 60, the door for reparations involving racial injustices remained closed for over 120 years. In 1988, Congress opened that door with the passage of the Civil Liberties Act of 1988. Under that new bill, Japanese internment victims received an apology plus $20,000 each in reparation pay. In 1993, the victims of the Rosewood, Florida Massacre received an apology and reparations from the State of Florida. On May 16, 1997, President Clinton issued an apology to the victims of the Tuskegee Experiment and paid the African American victims a total of $10,000,000 in reparations. On February 7, 2005, the 109th Congress issued Senate Resolution 39and apologized for not enacting lynching laws to protect those who were victims of lynching. In that resolution, Congress stopped short of acknowledging that all of the lynchings took place in regions controlled by Democrats. And finally on January 20, 2007, the Executive Committee of the Democratic Party of North Carolina apologized for the 1898 riot and massacre that killed several black Republicans and drove them out of office.
Who is Rev. Wayne Perryman?
Rev. Wayne Perryman is the same Seattle-area minister who used his biblical research in 1994 to persuaded the world's two largest Christian publishers and the Encyclopedia Britannica to apologize and remove the “Curse of Ham” theory from all of their publications. The curse theory had existed for over 500 years and was used by Southern Christians and Democrats to justify slavery and their mistreatment of blacks.
Addendum
Obama's References to His Party's Racist Past
President Barack Obama is one of the only black elected officials and one of the only black leaders in modern-day history - who has openly discussed how badly Democrats have treated black voters and he does so in his book: Dreams From My Father. The book highlights a conversation where black Democrats referred to their relationship with the Democratic Party as “Plantation Politics.” (p. 147). Obama reports that during this conversation blacks in the barber shop asked themselves, why do they keep voting Democrat when blacks have “the worst jobs, the worst housing, Police brutality rampant, … and we all line up and vote the straight Democratic ticket. Sell our soul for a Christmas Turkey. White folks spitting in our faces and we'd reward them with the vote.”Obama also states in his book that some white Democrats said they would “vote Republican before voting for a black [Democrat] to be mayor” of Chicago. (p. 148)
During Obama's Victory Speech on November 5, 2008 he talked about Ann Nixon Cooper, a black woman who could not vote because of his party's voting policies in the South and during that same speech he referred to “the buses in Montgomery, the hoses in Birmingham, the bridge in Selma and the preacher from Atlanta,” - all racist situations that occurred in areas where Democrat elected officials were in control.He also talked about his party's racist past during his March 18, 2008 speech regarding Rev.Wright. The then Senator Obama said, “…so many of the disparities that exist in the African American community today can be traced directly to the inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the [Democrat's] brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.”Obama, a student of history knew that his party made the following statements in several of their national platforms:DEMOCRATS' 1844 PLATFORM for SLAVERY“All efforts by the abolitionist and others made to induce Congress to interfere withquestions of slavery... are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerousconsequences....”
DEMOCRATS' 1852 PLATFORM for SLAVERY
“The Democratic Party standing on this national platform will abide by and adhere to a faithful execution of the acts [meaning Fugitive Slave Laws]... for reclaiming fugitives.... The Democratic Party will resist all attempts at renewing in Congress or out of it, the agitation of the slavery question, under whatever shape or color the attempt is made.” Not one Democrat voted for the 13th Amendment to end slavery and as a party, Democrats did not vote to pass the 14th Amendment to make blacks citizens nor did they support the 15th Amendment to give blacks the right to vote.Obama is one of the only black leaders who have acknowledge these wrongs by his party. so with this lawsuit we are simply asking: based on what he knows about his party's racist past and how they have treated black folks, why is he and the leaders of his party reluctant to issue a public apology?
Rev. Wayne Perryman
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)