|1 year Subscription to Real Estate Investor's Monthly
|Distressed Real Estate Times
|How to Get Started in Real Estate
|How to Buy Real Estate for at Least 20% Below Market Value
|How to Order|
Copyright by John T. Reed
On August 28, 1963, Martin Luther King, Jr. made his famous “I have a dream” speech. I remember it. I was going through two-a-days for my high school football team. It was my senior year.
I may not have heard the speech live, but it was recognized as a great speech immediately and was widely reported on at the time. Young people who were not around then may assume that it was ignored at the time—which was before the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Those young people would be wrong.
Don’t get me wrong. I did not join the Martin Luther King fan club or put a poster of him on my wall. I just thought, like everyone else did, that the speech was a great one and that he was right.
Obama’s ascendancy to the presidency took place at the opposite end of the National Mall from the Lincoln Memorial where King made his “Dream” speech. The lead on everyone’s inauguration day story has been the juxtaposition of the two locations and the “fact” that Obama’s inauguration is the realization of King’s dream.
The hell it is.
In fact, Obama’s inauguration is the opposite of King’s dream. And I seem to be the only one smart enough and/or courageous enough to call it what it is. What’s up with that?
Unlike today’s weasely politicians who will not allow themselves to be nailed down on anything, Dr. King defined his dream quite precisely. And I quote:
I have a dream that [Americans] will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
Like the little boy who said that the emperor was not wearing any clothes, I say, “Uh, excuse me. Mr. Obama was elected president because of the color of his skin and in spite of the content of his character.”
Geraldine Ferraro has better credentials than I to comment on the matter. She is a Democrat. She was the first woman ever chosen by a major party to run for Vice President of the United States (in 1984 as Walter Mondale’s running mate). Here is what she said about Barack Obama’s candidacy for president in March, 2008 in an interview:
If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.
She was exactly right. Many attacked her for her lack of political correctness, but many pundits also admitted that she was right. To her credit, Ferraro refused to back off the comment when pressured to do so.
On or about November 4, 1960, four days before John F. Kennedy was elected president, a single, 18-year-old University of Hawaii student named Ann Dunham decided it would be a good idea to have unprotected sex with a married student from Kenya. She got pregnant. If it had been an Arab-African student, say from Egypt, or a Caucasian-African student, say from Rhodesia, Ann Dunham’s son would not be president. The same would be true if it had been a red-headed student from Ireland named Barry O’Brien.
Barack Obama is president of the United States of America because of the skin color of his mother’s unprotected sex partner that day in November, 1960. Nothing that happened since would have led him to the presidency if Dunham had used birth control or abstained from sex or had sex with a non-black student. Similarly, if Dunham had gotten pregnant by Lolo Soetoro, her Indonesian second husband, first, and by Barack Obama, Sr., second, Obama would not be president. His name would be Lolo Soetoro, Jr. He would be an Indonesian-American. He would not have ever been a student at Occidental College, Columbia College, or Harvard Law School. He would probably be selling copiers in Honolulu. In that case, his half-black sister with the last name of Obama would not be president either, as Ferraro observed above.
Dr. King’s dream was that race would be irrelevant when it came to making decisions about whom to marry, whom to elect to office, whom to live next door to, and so forth.
Obama’s race was NOT irrelevant to his election to the presidency. On the contrary, his father’s race was crucial. He got 96% of the black vote, a childishly high percentage that blacks should be ashamed of. There is no way 96% of blacks would have voted for an identical candidate—resume, avowed policies, public speaking skills—with a different color skin.
Obama also got some unknown percentage of the white guilt and the white prove-we’re-not-racist vote.
The black vote and because-he’s-black white vote provided his margin of victory. Obama got 52.9% of the vote; McCain, 45.7%. That means only 3.6% had to change from Obama to McCain to change who got the most votes. At least 3.6% of the voters chose Obama because of his skin color.
Dr. King’s dream was that America would become color blind, not racist in favor of blacks and against whites.
America was anything but color blind in 2008. Blacks voted overwhelmingly for Obama because of the color of his skin. Enough whites did the same to give him the victory. The rhapsodic celebration of Obama’s success on election night and inauguration day was anything but color blind. Time and again, everyone said it was such a historic occasion.
Oh, really? And why is that?
First native Hawaiian elected president? First Harvard graduate elected president? First former lawyer to be president? First Democrat? First Illinoisan? First senator?
Other than Hawaii, none of those are true. And the people celebrating and crying for joy in Grant Park and DC were sure as hell not Hawaiians.
There is absolutely, I repeat, absolutely, nothing historic about Barack Obama’s election to the presidency—other than his skin color.
I guess it is historic that we have switched from discriminating in favor of whites and against blacks to in favor of blacks and against whites, but that’s hardly a cause for celebration. Rather, it’s a “Have we learned nothing?” event.
Dr. King’s dream was not to elect blacks. He was not even opposed to the election of whites. His dream was that Americans would elect whomever they thought was the best man or woman, regardless of their skin color, not because of it.
Obama’s election does mark the realization of Dr. King’s dream to one extent. In 2008, enough whites were willing to vote for a black man that he won. Some did so for the dopey reason that he was black and they felt he deserved their vote solely for that reason. But others, maybe most, voted for him because they thought he was the best candidate and because they thought his skin color was irrelevant. Dr. King would be pleased.
There was a time in America when when white men and woman would vote for a white man who was running against a black solely because the white man was white. King hated that. So I am sure he would have hated blacks doing the exact same thing in reverse in 2008.
Furthermore, whites did not abandon their prejudice against black presidents in 2008. They abandoned it probably around 1975. There simply were no viable black candidates to vote for. There never has been, even in 2008. What happened in 2008 was that enough white people just concluded, “We’re tired of waiting for a qualified black. Obama’s close enough and there appears to be no other chance to show how enlightened and broadminded we are in the foreseeable future. Let’s get this behind us once and for all.”
Some black readers may disagree that whites were willing to vote for a black presidential candidate in 1975. To them I say,
Hey! I’m white. I’ve been white my whole life. You’ve never been white. There’s no way you could possibly know what it’s like to be white, so shut up.
That was fun.
But seriously folks, years ago, there was much talk about Colin Powell running for president—as a Republican no less. (He’s whichever way the winds blows.) I think he would have had a very good chance, depending upon who his opponent was and the condition of the economy and such. Like Obama, he’s not black, but mulatto or maybe more white than mulatto. In Jamaica, where Powell’s ancestors are from, they are keenly sensitive to every permutation of white and black blood and have names for most of them. And the less-than-full-blooded black Jamaicans were as discriminatory toward the darker-skinned Jamaicans as the white slave owners had been.
I have a dream myself. My dream is that Dr. King’s dream of a color blind, no-skin-color-discrimination society really gets realized.
I have a dream that a black candidate will run against a white candidate and that only about 50% of blacks will support the black candidate, not 96%. In that dream, about 50% of whites also support the black candidate. Oh, wait. That part of the dream already came true: in 2008.
Whites are now grown-ups when it comes to race. They generally vote for the best candidate, not for candidates with the same skin color. Blacks, on the other hand, or most of them, are still behaving like children—voting a strict skin-color line. “My race right or wrong.” It is immoral racism. It is precisely what they have long claimed to be against. It just makes victims of the other race rather than ending racial discrimination. It is blacks moving from victim to perpetrator, not from discrimination to the end of discrimination.
Many blacks will say, “It’s about time and fair that you suffer like we did.”
Makes my point.
The now out-of-date phrase “yellow-dog Democrat” referred to Southerners who said they would even vote for a yellow dog as long as it was a Democrat. Southern Democrats then were the party of segregation. Yellow-dog Democrats have disappeared into the ash heap of history (except that blacks have been pretty close to that since the Nixon Administration even without Obama).
They have been replaced by black-dog African-Americans, a bigoted voting bloc that will vote for any candidate, no matter how unqualified or corrupt, as long as the candidate has at least some black skin pigment. (See Adam Clayton Powell, Alcee Hastings, Kwame Kilpatrick, Bobby Rush, William J. Jefferson, Willie Herenton, Maxine Waters, Marion Barry, I could go on)
This is not the end of racism Dr. King hoped for. It is blacks turning into 40 million chocolate versions of Bull Connor and David Duke. That is not progress, but it does reveal who really was on the moral high ground back in the civil rights era after all. Dr. King was, but apparently damned few of those who claim to revere him and his principles.
I have a dream that some day a black candidate will run for president and not make comments like, “They’ll tell you I don’t look like the guys whose pictures are on U.S. currency” and “They’ll tell you ‘He’s black’.”
I have a dream that some day a black candidate who graduated from a top state college where they outlawed affirmative action will run for president, and that he will be elected on his merits rather than his race, just as he was admitted to, and graduated from, that college on his merits.
Dr. King was for color blindness and character, and against using skin color to choose. From his college and law school applications to his political career and election to the presidency, Barack Obama has played his skin color for all it was worth. Obama’s father went by the name “Barry” in the U.S. So did Barack, until he became the poster boy for affirmative action and wanted to used his race to get into college and South Side of Chicago politics. If Obama had any respect at all for Dr. King’s dream, he would still be Barry.
Dr. King would be proud of what most whites did in the 2008 election, and ashamed of what Obama and most blacks did. He would be pleased that whites finally got it—and amazed that most blacks still haven’t. They now prefer to be judged by the color of their skin—to get those affirmative action and minority set-aside goodies—rather than by the content of their character.
What happened at one end of the National Mall on 1/20/09 was not the historic realization of what was called for at the other end of the Mall on 8/28/63. It was a grotesque bastardization of King’s “dream.”
A number of readers have said I should have added mention of the racist statements made by Reverend Lowery in his benediction. They’re right.
The pertinent parts of Lowery’s benediction poem are:
... deliver us from the exploitation of the poor or the least of these and from favoritism toward the rich, the elite of these.
Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get back, when brown can stick around (laughter), when yellow will be mellow (laughter), when the red man can get ahead, man (laughter), and when white will embrace what is right.
The “exploitation of the poor” line is Marxism. And when it’s coming out of the mouth of a guy like Lowery, it’s also racist. He sure as hell is not talking about any rich, elite blacks exploiting poor whites.
Tell us again, Barack, how much you oppose Marxism and racism. And explain again why you keep associating with people who seem to love both.
Another point that comes to mind is the fact that Martin Luther King, Jr., who is the most prominent black minister in U.S. history, took great care to speak correct King’s English and to conduct himself in a dignified way. I surmised that he was trying to give lie to the stereotype of blacks as ignorant clowns like Stephen Fetchit.
However, since King was assassinated, he has been replaced in the black minister role by a never-ending stream of men who affect the spoken language of uneducated black slaves and street punks and who seem more interested in attracting attention to themselves by their clown acts and trash talking aimed at whites than any noble cause. There’s Jesse “Up with hope down with dope” Jackson, Jeremiah “U.S. of KKKA” Wright, Father Flager (white but shamelessly imitates Jeremiah Wright et al.), and now another—Lowery. These “reverends” mimic Muhammad Ali or Snoop Dog, not Dr. King. They seek to advance no cause bigger than their own applause and laughter meters.
Lowery asks people to, “work for the day when blacks will not be asked to get back.”
That day arrived around 1965—44 years ago. The only people who have been asked to “get back” since then are whites and asians who have earned admission to selective universities, jobs, and promotions that they are denied because of affirmative action and minority set-asides.
“When yellow will be mellow” appears to be nothing but a cheap slur to achieve a rhyme that would enable Lowery to get a laugh at the expense of billions of asians. As far as class and intelligent debate is concerned, it ranks up there with rhyming “Petraeus” and “betray us.”
“When the red man can get ahead, man” is a baseless bit of racist clowning. I am part Cherokee. I know many others who are Native American as well. We are treated as whites. No one even knows we are part Indian unless they ask. The “red man” is not red, he is white. And he is free to leave the reservation. Some whites, like Ward Churchill, “got ahead, man” namely a six-figure income from a job as head of the ethnic studies department at the University of Colorado—by claiming they were “red” men. The Rocky Mountain News’s and The Denver Post's genealogical investigations found Churchill had no Indian ancestors.
The most egregious part of Lowery’s poem is “when white will embrace what is right.” In my article on Jeremiah Wright, I said that all of his grievances against whites are either ancient or imaginary. Same applies to Lowery, and apparently to the entire troupe of trash-talking, black clowns who call themselves “reverends.”
White embraced what is right when 635,000 whites died or were wounded, and millions more fought, liberating the slaves during the Civil War. They also embraced what is right when they passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and numerous other laws aimed at ending legal discrimination against blacks. They also embraced what is right when they decided the U.S. Supreme Court cases Shelley v. Kraemer, Brown v. Board of Education, Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S., and Loving v. Virginia.
When the subject is embracing what is right in black-white race relations, it is the black supporters of Wright, Lowery, et al. who need to start embracing the truth.
After sitting in Wright’s church listening to anti-semitic and anti-white ranting for twenty years, Obama said he was not aware Wright had these feelings. Indeed, until Wright attacked Obama personally, Obama still did not denounce him. That tells you what Obama’s really about when it comes to Wright and white. As long as Wright was denouncing whites and Jews, Obama could “no more disown him than I can disown the black community.” But when Wright dared to comment adversely about Barack himself, under the bus he went.
Then, after all that happened with Wright and Flager, Obama picks yet another anti-white clown reverend—for the inauguration forchrissake!
Yeah, the Obama inauguration was a real historic occasion. It marked the first time the inauguration ceremony of a president was used to spout anti-white and anti-asian racist slurs, and the ironic, mocking burial of the inspirational dream espoused by another black man at the other end of the Mall 46 years ago.
Change we can believe in.
I appreciate informed, well-thought-out constructive criticism and suggestions. If there are any errors or omissions in my facts or logic, please tell me about them. If you are correct, I will fix the item in question. If you wish, I will give you credit. Where appropriate, I will apologize for the error. To date, I have been surprised at how few such corrections I have had to make.