The Spin of the 'No Spin Zone'

I'm posting this excellent commentary by attorney Star Jones Reynolds, because it strips away the excuses and phony apologies of the likes of Bill O'Reilly and his fellow racists, and reveals them to be the cowards and pathetic creatures that they really are.

"I'm sick to death of people like Fox News host, Bill O'Reilly, and his ilk thinking that he can use a racial slur against a black woman who could be the next First Lady of the United States, give a half-assed apology and not be taken to task and called on his crap.

This week O'Reilly gave the following response to a caller on his radio show who was making unsubstantiated negative charges against presidential candidate Barack Obama's wife, Michelle Obama:

'And I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels. If that's how she really feels -- that is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever -- then that's legit. We'll track it down.'

What the hell? If it's 'legit,' you're going to 'track it down?' And then what do you plan to do?

How dare this white man with a microphone and the trust of the public think that in 2008, he can still put the words 'lynch and party' together in the same sentence with reference to a black woman; in this case, Michelle Obama? I don't care how you 'spin it' in the 'no spin zone,' that statement in and of itself is racist, unacceptable and inappropriate on every level.

O'Reilly claims his comments were taken out of context. Please don't insult my intelligence while you're insulting me. I've read the comments and heard them delivered in O'Reilly's own voice; and there is no right context that exists. So, his insincere apology and "out-of-context" excuse is not going to cut it with me.

And just so we're clear, this has nothing to do with the 2008 presidential election, me being a Democrat, him claiming to be Independent while talking Republican, the liberal media or a conservative point of view. To the contrary, this is about crossing a line in the sand that needs to be drawn based on history, dignity, taste and truth.

Bill, I'm not sure of where you come from, but let me tell you what the phrase 'lynching party' conjures up to me, a black woman born in North Carolina . Those words depict the image of a group of white men who are angry with the state of the own lives getting together, drinking more than they need to drink, lamenting how some black person has moved forward (usually ahead of them in stature or dignity), and had the audacity to think that they are equal. These same men for years, instead of looking at what changes, should and could make in their own lives that might remove that bitterness born of perceived privilege, these white men take all of that resentment and anger and decide to get together and drag the closest black person near them to their death by hanging them from a tree -- usually after violent beating, torturing and violating their human dignity. Check your history books, because you don't need a masters or a law degree from Harvard to know that is what constitutes a 'lynching party.'

Imagine, Michelle and Barack Obama having the audacity to think that they have the right to the American dream, hopes, and ideals. O'Reilly must think to himself: how dare they have the arrogance to think they can stand in a front of this nation, challenge the status quo and express the frustration of millions? When this happens, the first thing that comes to mind for O'Reilly and people like him is: 'it's time for a party.'

Not so fast...don't order the rope just yet.

Would O'Reilly ever in a million years use this phrase with reference to Elizabeth Edwards, Cindy McCain or Judi Nathan? I mean, in all of the statements and criticisms that were made about Judi Nathan, the one-time mistress turned missus, of former presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, I never heard any talk of forming a lynch party because of something she said or did.

So why is it that when you're referring to someone who's African-American you must dig to a historical place of pain, agony and death to symbolize your feelings? Lynching is not a joke to off-handedly throw around and it is not a metaphor that has a place in political commentary; provocative or otherwise. I admit that I come from a place of personal outrage here having buried my 90 year-old grandfather last year. This proud, amazing African-American man raised his family and lived through the time when he had to use separate water fountains, ride in the back of a bus, take his wife on a date to the 'colored section' of a movie theater, and avert his eyes when a white woman walked down the street for fear of what a white man and his cronies might do if they felt the urge to 'party'; don't tell me that the phrase you chose, Mr. O'Reilly, was taken out of context.

To add insult to injury, O'Reilly tried to 'clarify' his statements, by using the excuse that his comments were reminiscent of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' use of the term 'high-tech lynching' during his confirmation hearing. I reject that analogy. You see Justice Thomas did mean to bring up the image of lynching in its racist context. He was saying that politics and the media were using a new technology to do to him what had been done to black men for many years -- hang him. Regardless of if you agreed with Justice Thomas' premise or not, if in fact -- Bill O'Reilly was referencing it -- the context becomes even clearer.

What annoys me more than anything is that I get the feeling that one of the reasons Bill O'Reilly made this statement, thinking he could get away with it in the first place, and then followed it up with a lame apology in a half-hearted attempt to smooth any ruffled feathers, is because he doesn't think that black women will come out and go after him when he goes after us. Well, he's dead wrong. Be clear Bill O'Reilly: there will be no lynch party for that black woman. And this black woman assures you that if you come for her, you come for all of us." -- Star Jones Reynolds

Buckley's Obit

Bill Buckley, the so-called Conservative, but in realty a 'racist' of the highest and purest order - in the mold of Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh, John Wayne and other white supremacists, has gone on to his eternal reward, earlier today. What his reward will be and where he will wind up, is not for me to speculate, but I can assuredly say we are the richer for him moving on and leaving us, finally.

I have to laugh as his admirers work overtime to paint him as a witty, urbane, bright, charming person. I remember him saying, "Negroes should accept their lot without complaint". I also could list hundreds of other racisms that he wrote and uttered with regularity and fluidity, with the silver tongued drollness and the arched eyebrow, which he was famous for.

If he was a Conservative as so many are calling him in their remembrances, then maybe being a Conservative is synonymous with being one of the worst of the pure racists.

Novelist and critic, Gore Vidal, once correctly called him to his face, "a pro-war-crypto-Nazi", to which Buckley could only respond by threatening to beat him to a pulp.

If he is the 'father' of modern conservatism, as others are extolling him, then every negative thing I've always thought of Conservatives, has now been vindicated.

Compare Buckley's legacy with that of Oscar Peterson, the world-class musician and humanitarian, who was born in the same year of 1925, and who passed away just a few weeks ago, at the same age of 82. Oscar brought to this world the ennobling and uplifting beauty and grace of music, while Buckley brought nothing but eloquent, scholarly racist speech and thought.

He, like Reagan, was so contemptible, that I can't even say R.I.P. - so I won't.

McCain's Scandal

Regarding the negative article just published by the NYTimes about McCain and his possible affair with a lobbyist, a few short weeks after endorsing him, seems to me to be very suspicious, particularly the timing.

To me , although the LAT is reputed to be a'liberal' paper, I've always thought it was really a right-wing tool of BushCo and a cheerleader for this war. I believe they wanted to take the focus off Obama's momentum, and give a boost to the repugnant candidate. They have been sitting on the story for months, and could have derailed McCain's candidacy in favor of Romney if they ran it earlier.

They accomplished several things by dropping the story now - they have united their base behind McCain, because although many repugs dislike McCain, they hate the Times even more as a supposed 'liberal' tool. They had to do something to 'rally' their base in sympathy with McCain - this was it. Up to now, the right-wing talking heads have been vocally opposed to McCain, but are now tripping over themselves to defend him and attacking the Times for publishing the story without proof. Further, although McCain denies it, he does not seem to be very enraged and his famous temper has not been activated, which says to me he okay'd the story as a strategic move. As further proof that he is not angry about it, he is using the publishing of the story as a point to raise sorely needed funds for his campaign. The Times is playing the 'bad guy' in this, while dutifully facilitating McCain's fundraising for his campaign.

Although ultimately, I believe either of the three candidates are acceptable to the Elites who really run the show, McCain most closely fits the bill to carry forward the domestic and foreign policies of BushCo. Obama is the least acceptable, which is why I believe he won't get the Dems nod, and if he does get it, he won't win in November.

This is a classic example of the fourth estate working hand in hand with the executive branch and their interests, instead of being the independent, unimpeachable voice that it is supposed to be.

The bigger and more important story they should have put on page 1, is McCain's shameful flip-flop by approving the torture bill, eventhough he was tortured himself. This is the story being buried by the sex scandal.

R U a 'Macro' or 'Micro' Elite?

I've been thinking about and researching the little-known powers that really run this world. They inhabit the wealthy top one-tenth of one percent of the earth's population. They are the true globalists and are not subject to geographical borders nor political ideologies. Their power and wealth has been concentrated in their families for centuries, some are American but most are Europeans with a few Asians sprinkled in - maybe ten families in all.

New billionaires like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet etc., have to get on their knees and defer to these people. Money alone is not the ticket for entry, it's the power conferred by vast land holdings, corporate ownership, family trusts, ownership of the world's banks and currencies, and ownership of the world's natural resources.

As world owners, they have the final say about who will run their world kingdoms, whether they be American, European, Asian, African or Middle Eastern. From an earthly standpoint, their power is absolute and irrevocable. Their surrogates are removed or installed by assassinations, appointments, elections, coups - or by whatever means necessary. As an example, Sadaam was just a caretaker for their interests, and when his usefulness had been exceeded, he was summarily overthrown and executed.

The political systems that operate in different parts of the globe, are for control of the people who live under them, only. The elites don't care if they are labeled Capitalist, Socialist, Communist, Fascist etc., their fortunes and power are never at risk, regardless of war, peace, prosperity, recession or depression.

They operate only at the highest 'macro' level, all others operate at the lesser 'micro' levels, or below.

We at the micro level in America, are consumed with the politics of electioneering, party partisanship etc., but whomever wins the presidency will serve the elite's interests just as well as if the opposing party had won. This applies to all kings and kingdoms in all other parts of the world.

At the macro level, the world is neatly sectioned off by these elites, they are no wars or squabbles at this level. Everything is dependent on their control and cooperation. They use surrogates for all of their public utterances and to carry out their personal wishes. They are amoral, irreligious and conscienceless, even death is no impediment to their control, since everything is perpetually passed on by prior agreement and arrangement.

Theirs is a totally different world from ours, it's absolutely impossible to know or imagine how different their cares and concerns are, from ours.

Only the sovereign God has more power than they, and only He has absolute veto power over everything they do.

This fact alone, is reason enough for our spirits to be at peace, and maybe even optimistic about our world's future.

It's The War Stupid!

I can't believe how many people are missing the most obvious factor in everything that is wrong with our country....

How can $250 million per day being thrown down the war sinkhole, not be the major factor in our downward spiral??

It's affecting everything negatively....from the sputtering economy, to causing drastic cutbacks in social services, record foreclosures, record joblessness, record cost of living increases - including unconscionable increased costs of healthcare and gasoline, unprecedented diminution of our standing in the world, record number of tragic suicides among our overburdened and overextended servicemen and women, record number of outsourced jobs, record increase in homelessness, record increase in those without health insurance, dysfunctional underfunded public schools - virtually ever negative can be traced back to this illegal, ungodly, murderous war, and it's drain on our national economic resources and our collective morality.

And who of the surviving presidential candidates, actually voted for this war and is unrepentant of her votes even when given an opportunity to do so during recent political debates on national TV? Hillary Clinton - who waffled, meandered, equivocated etc, but never disavowed her vote and support for the war...I wonder why????

Could it be the vast campaign dollars coming in bucketfuls from the lobbyists and special interests that she is beholden to and corrupted by....??

Could it be the vast propaganda machine in Israel and in America, that supports the Iraq war and it's expansion into Iran and Syria, because it is seen as good for Israel's security....??

Could it be the Military Industrial Complex and other corporate war profiteers, who profit from the numerous no-bid contracts and other treasonous thefts from the public coffers....??

Congressman Dennis Kucinich was the only candidate who wanted to end this monstrosity of a war immediately, and establish a 'Department of Peace' - this is why he is no longer a candidate for president, but the war supporters still are.

May the Peacemakers and the doves be blessed, and, may the hawks and the traitors be damned.

"..The war in Iraq has bankrupted Americans morally and fiscally, and yet the American public continues to shake the hands of aspiring politicians who ignore Iraq, pretending that the blood which soaks the hands of these political aspirants hasn’t stained their own..."

"..the only policy direction worthy of consideration here in the United States concerning Iraq is the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of American forces continues to hold true. And the fact that this option is given short shrift by all capable of making or influencing such a decision guarantees that this bloody war will go on, inconclusively and incomprehensibly, for many more years..."
- Scott Ritter 2/08

Super Bowl Myths

I have been just watching the pre-game activities and waiting for the Super Bowl to begin. Out of nowhere, they announced that former and present NFL greats, would be reciting the Declaration of Independence, as is the tradition before each Super Bowl. I had no idea this was the tradition, but it gave me an opportunity to listen once again to these words of Independence by the Rebels from the British Crown, which was signed starting on July 4, 1776 through Aug. 2, 1776 by the 55 signatories.

Although this has nothing to do with the Super Bowl, I should note some little known facts about the slave-holding colonies in 1776, that are rarely spoken about.

Right after the signing in August, the biggest battle of the Revolutionary War happened, and the British trounced the Rebel Continental army in Long Island, nearly forcing an American surrender. Those loyal to King George III, surged into New York City and remained under British protection for the rest of the war. These Loyalists had no desire to sever their links with Great Britain, along with one-fifth of other Americans who felt the same way. Those who remained loyal to the King, were called Loyalists or Tories, and at the end of the war, 80,000 of them left the colonies to start new lives in other parts of the British Empire.

Among them were about 3,000 black Loyalists - former slaves who had been granted their freedom in exchange for fighting for the British, who fled north to Canada to escape America's oppressive, peculiar institution of slavery.

The scale and range of this exodus points to a myth and a gap in what is popularly believed about the American revolutionary period. We pride ourselves on the freedom and tolerance embedded in our founding principles, but have rarely acknowledged the discrepancies between the nation’s vaunted commitment to these principles, like “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, and the gross abuse of these principles in practice — glaringly above all, during the subjugation of slavery, followed by 100 years of Jim Crow segregation. Compared with the United States, the British Empire was a good bet if you were an enslaved black or a Native American.

Those black slaves who remained in slavery and were unable to escape to enjoy the 'freedom' that these Rebel American patriots were denying them, had to wait another 90 years before their freedom finally was gained at the end of the civil war.

It should be noted that even today, many of the ideals of the Declaration as applied to blacks and other minorities, are still just that - ideals, rather than realities. So interjecting them inappropriately into a sports event like the Super Bowl, as if they were a reality for all citizens, is as hypocritical as the hypocrisy of the founding fathers, most of whom were slaveholders.