Freakout At The Big Concert

Freakout At the Big Concert
 
last night at the Gladys Knight
   and Pips concert
an Old Woman got high
sitting next to Wallace and me
she took my hand and
I grabbed Wallace
in a second we were tripping
on the Old Woman's high
 
she gave birth to a
Revolutionary Midget
  that ran center stage

 Declaring:
 

I am The Greatest!
 

why don't somebody tell him about
Muhammad Ali? 
I asked Wallace
  a Black Widow Spider
gave a full fisted power sign 

I'm with you sister

the Militant Midget started
reciting Rap Brown's rap and
Bobby Seals out of date rhetoric
he don't know the revolution
ain't coming cause ain't nobody
militant these days
 
the Four Poets said when
the Revolution come
 it won't be televised
it ain't gonna be heard
on the radio either
AM or FM

  We're not free
 We're not free
 

the Militant Midget proclaimed
stomping his baby feet

the Man lied to you
tell them Ms. Gladys
tell them Mr. Pips

Damn! he's a proper
talking little freak
 

the Militant Midget's
 mama pulled him off  the stage
struggling to cut the
umbilical cord
 liberating herself
and us from her too late son
 
the Black Widow Spider whispered in
the Militant Midget's ear

your Old Lady ain't down
with real freedom like you
somebody told her 
she's already free
she don't know no better

I heard it through the grapevine
the crowd sang
 
Hallelujah! Hallelujah!
the Old Woman agreed

who is that on that
talking bout Freedom
he can't even spell it!
throw rotten tomatoes at

the hotheaded punk
he ain't no son of mine
 
right on, Old Lady 
throw rotten tomatoes at
that Midget
he's the one ain't free

tell him about Georgia, Gladys
 tell him about the midnight train
that's heading down south 
tell him when you leaving 
so he can get on board

(C) by dorothy charles banks

From one plantation owner to another; Willie Lynch outlines a 300-year plan for slavery

Willie Lynch guarantees 300 years of division and control
 
The mysterious Willie Lynch Manifesto has been around for decades. No one knows if the author was Black or White, man or woman, or a mythical character created by someone who wanted to emphasize light skin vs dark skin slaves, pitting them against each other on plantations. Whatever the case, Lynch predicted that his formula for controlling and categorizing slaves would work for 300 years if slave masters followed his strategy.

The Willie Lynch Manifesto ignited some interesting debates and conversations. None of the back and forth are more boisterous and comedic than between customers in community barber shops. In these shops you see and hear Willie Lynch personified. The debaters and conversationalists are both serious and side splitting hilarious when they explain slavery, dark and light skinned slaves, house and field slaves, and White masters who fathered thousands of "mixed" children, the result of raping young slave girls and women.

The mysterious Lynch was spot on in his evaluation of slave life. He was holding a bankable check when he predicted that his blueprint to divide slaves by skin color would work 300 years if slaveholders followed his advice. As of 2013, in African American communities, there is still a color caste system, in which light skin is more desirous than dark skin. If a light complexioned Black woman has long "good hair" that is a bonus for her. She will have Black men vying for her attention. She does not have to be movie star attractive on the scale of a Halle Berry. 

Light skin will suffice for those who tend to shy away from dark skin. Black males tend to fall in love with women's hair before they fall in love with her. It's not unusual to hear a Black man brag about his woman's long hair and light complexion. She is his long-haired trophy on display when they are in public. His friends envy him. This swells his chest. Some African American men say long hair is the reason they like White women, Asian women, Latino women.

A large number of successful Black males, especially those in sports, prefer light complexioned Black women, Latino, White women. It is fairly common to hear African American men make excuses for rejecting dark skinned women. This is puzzling, given the fact that many of their mothers, sisters, cousins and aunts are dark skinned. These Black males, many of whom are dark skinned themselves, find dark skinned women less attractive because they are too bossy, have too much attitude, too controlling.  They say White women do not have these personality flaws. Of course, this not true, but it gives Black males the excuse they need to explain their attraction to White women, and their rejection of dark-skinned Black women.

Thousands of African American parents favor their light skinned children over their darker children. I have read personal stories of parents pouring bleach in their children's bathwater, even rubbing bleaching creams on the bodies of their dark children, getting their young daughters' hair permed. 

I have heard Black women say they prefer having children with a White man, a Latino, a light skinned Black man. Why? Because they want children with "good hair" and light complexions. They say that biracial children are prettier and smarter. Unfortunately, this myth lives on in Black communities today. Realistically, not all biracial children have "good hair" and light complexions. Not all of them are pretty, cute, smarter or beautiful. Some of them are light complexioned but have short kinky hair and "Negroid" features. 

Light skin, dark skin, videos and favored children

More proof of complexion preference is seen in music videos, TV commercials, the modeling industry, employment, magazine covers, the movies. A White music producer said light skinned entertainers are "less threatening than dark skinned entertainers". His reasoning is that White people find light skin more acceptable and pleasing to the eye. Beyonce, Queen Latifah and other African American women in beauty and hair commercials are so light skinned, even the Black community wonders if they have bleached their skins. The secret is that producers of the commercials use special lens and lights to "lightened" skin tones. They utilize specific camera angles to make women look thinner and flawless.

It is not unusual to see dark skinned Black males in commercials, more so than Black women. If they are at a party in the commercials, they are often paired with White women, or a light skinned African American woman. If children are in the commercial, they, too, are light skinned or interracial. The same rule of thumb applies to characters on the big screen. Male characters may be dark skinned, but their female counterparts are light skinned, and sporting long weaves. TV commercials are making it clear that Black women are not desirable.

Producer, director, playwright and filmmaker Tyler Perry is the only filmmaker I have seen who consistently casts actors according to their talent, not skin tones or slim body types. Characters in his plays and his TV shows are reflective of the characters in his movies. They are reflective of a true America. He is only concerned about their talent to get the job done.

Observing musical videos in which a singer or rapper is African American, no matter the gender of the entertainer, you will see light skinned dancers with long weaves. Very seldom are dark skinned dancers seen in their videos. If one or two are in the videos they are usually relegated to the rear of the video. They are never lead dancers interacting with male entertainers, like their light skin counterparts. Being pretty and body perfect does not get on them on the front line. A noted reality show personality said she would never put female dancers in her videos if their skin is lighter than hers. Neither can a female dancer be prettier or skinnier than her.

Highly paid Black athletes lean towards White women as opposed to Black women. If they are married to or dating a Black woman, she is light skinned or fair skinned enough to be classified as "light." I have heard some figures in sports say that they seldom come across Black women in their travel and social life. In other words, African American women do not go to games or socialize in trendy night clubs like White women.

African Americans in deep denial 

Years ago on a popular TV talk show I saw a Black male make clear his preference for White women, because they "are not loud" like Black women. He said they are easier to get along with. He said he would never date a Black woman. He said if he did date a Black woman she would have to look like Halle Berry or prettier. He then said he was not sure if he would date Berry, even if she asked him for a date. He was fixated on White women, and nothing was going to change his mind. The man was not slim, was not a snappy dresser, handsome or attractive. He was unemployed, jobless, overweight and lacked a college education.

On another talk show--where the theme was race and heritage--the guests were African Americans, all of whom claimed to be of mixed heritage. They were adamant that they were not pure African American! However, not one of them could pass for White. One female guest in particular caught my attention, and that of the audience. She was attractive, well groomed, articulate, educated, gainfully employed. As she told of her heritage and bloodline, she named about four nationalities, none of which were African American, despite her mother and father being Black! She said she felt like a White woman trapped in Black skin.

This dark-skinned woman, whose hair was perfectly permed, identified only with White people. When the host asked about the African American side of her family she became mildly incensed, insisting that she is not Black. This confused the host, the audience. Clearly woman was an African American. But there was no confusion in her mind that she was not an African American. She had a teenage son, who she encouraged to date only White girls. He was not allowed to bring a Black girl to her home. The woman's son, who was dark skinned like herself, admitted that he was attracted to White girls. He did not find Black girls attractive. None of the other guests on stage were as extreme as this woman.

The Clark's Doll Experiment

In the early 1940s and 1950s psychologists Kenneth Bancroft Clark and his wife Mamie Phillips Clark, both African Americans, conducted an interesting experiment with Black children. Called the Doll Study, it was designed to measure the psychological effect of segregation on Black children. Their study was the first of its kind to be used by the Supreme Court when determining the unlawfulness of segregation in public schools. 

The Clarks used plastic dolls, a White a doll and a Black doll in the experiment. A select number of Black children between the ages of three and seven participated in the experiment. They were asked questions to determine their racial perception and preference.

According to the Clarks observations Black children preferred the White doll over the Black doll. The children attributed "positive characteristics" to the White doll, negative characteristics to the Black doll. The Clarks concluded that the reason for the color preference was the result of "prejudice, discrimination and segregation."  These three human characteristics in a segregated society caused Black children to develop "a sense of inferiority and self-hatred." 

When I was a kid there were no other dolls but White dolls to play with. My sister and I had no other dolls to compare. It is quite possible we might have selected the White dolls because our sense of self was not fully developed. On TV we only saw White people positively interacting with each other. Their TV lifestyles were depicted as reality, and they all looked superior compared to our common lifestyles.

Intelligence

Ever since there have been studies on intelligence it has been a foregone conclusion that African Americans are inferior to Whites. Blacks grew up with this assumption hanging over their heads. In 2023 there are still Whites who feel they are superior to Blacks. Although the Clarks did not touch intelligence, it cannot not be separated from the doll experiment conclusions. Unfortunately, these were the kinds of Black professionals that equated their social class and skin tones with their intelligence.

This reminds me of an incident that occurred when I worked as a waitress in an upscale restaurant and bar frequented by educated, middle and upper middle-class professionals, politicians, teachers and business owners, all of whom were African Americans. 

One night a customer approached me, asking if I was the one who wrote a weekly column for one the community newspapers. I told him I was. He said with0ut thinking, "I didn't know you were that intelligent . . .  I mean . . . " I laughed and asked him, "How do you tell who is intelligent?" A college student, he couldn't answer the question. I did not expect him to. I assumed he made the assumption because I am dark skinned and a waitress. 

"You must use the dark skin slaves vs. the light skin slaves, and the light skin slaves vs. the dark skin slaves . . ." Willie Lynch

 

The Willie Lynch 300-year plan for skin color division
  
Gentlemen:

I greet you here on the bank of the James River in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and twelve. First, I shall thank you, the gentlemen of the Colony of Virginia, for bringing me here. I am here to help you solve some of your problems with slaves. Your invitation reached me on my modest plantation in the West Indies, where I have experimented with some of the newest and still the oldest methods for control of slaves. Ancient Rome would envy us if my program is implemented.

As our boat sailed south on the James River, named for our illustrious King, whose version of the Bible we cherish, I saw enough to know that your problem is not unique. While Rome used cords of wood as crosses for standing human bodies along its highways in great numbers, you are here using the tree and the rope on occasions. I caught the whiff of a dead slave hanging from a tree a couple miles back. You are not only losing valuable stock by hangings, you are having uprisings, slaves are running away, your crops are sometimes left in the fields too long for maximum profit. You suffer occasional fires, your animals are killed.

Gentlemen, you know what your problems are. I do not need to elaborate. I am not here to enumerate your problems. I am here to introduce you to a method of solving them. In my bag here I have a full proof method for controlling your black slaves. I guarantee every one of you that if installed correctly it will control the slaves for at least 300 years. My method is simple. Any member of your family or your overseer can use it.

I have outlined a number of differences among the slaves, and I take these differences and make them bigger. I use fear, distrust, and envy for control purposes. These methods have worked on my modest plantation in the West Indies, and it will work throughout the South. Take this simple little list of differences and think about them.

On top of my list is "age" but it's there only because it starts with an "A." The second is "color" or shade; there is intelligence, sizes of plantations, status on plantations, attitude of owners; whether the slaves live in the valley, on a hill, East, West, North, South, have fine hair, course hair, or is tall or short.

Now that you have a list of differences, I shall give you an outline of action, but before that, I shall assure you that distrust that is stronger than trust and envy stronger than adulation, respect or admiration.  The black slaves, after receiving this indoctrination shall carry on and will become self-refueling and self-generating for hundreds of years, maybe thousands.

Don't forget you must pitch the old black male vs. the young black male, and the young black female against the old black female. You must use the dark skin slaves vs. the light skin slaves. You must use the female vs. the male. And the male vs. the female. You must also have your white servants and over-seers distrust all blacks. But it is necessary that your slaves trust and depend on us. They must love, respect and trust only us. 

Gentlemen, these kits are your keys to control. Use them. Have your wives and children use them. Never miss an opportunity. If used intensely for one year, the slaves themselves will remain perpetually distrustful. 

Thank you gentlemen.

The mysterious Willie Lynch in his analysis captured everything that I've posted in the article, from skin tones to negative attitudes that are still with us today.

Emailer's plea: 'Everybody knows me knows that I am not a racist . . . it was a joke'

Young Barack Obama and his parents.

Orange County Republican Party Central Committee member, and Tea Party activist Marilyn Davenport has a sense of humor. But she and some of her friends seem to have a tasteless humor when it comes to President Obama and his family.

The picture on the right was sent to a select group of people, presumably answering the Obama birth certificate question. 

Davenport's caption stated: "Now you know why. . . No birth certificate."

The photo depicts a young Obama, his mother and father as a family of chimpanzees. This tasteless display of rubber stamped ignorance by Davenport is nothing new. Republicans, all wannabe comedians, must stay up late at night thinking of these stereotypical gems.

Davenport cited the usual excuse: "I have Black friends" the reason she saw nothing wrong the emailed picture. She said everybody who knows her knows that she is not a racist. I am always leery of a White person who tells me he or she is not racist. Poor Daveport, having Black friends, does not understand what all the brouhaha is about.

She suggested this kind of humor is all over the Internet and YouTube. She said the media did not make a big fuss about similar pictures of prior presidents; therefore, it is unreasonable for the "liberal media" to complain about this depiction of the President. I think she is saying the media are hot under the collar because Obama is African American, and are protective of his image. 
 

Davenport said she will not voluntarily step down from her position, which she has been asked to do. She defended another "joker" who sent a  email depicting a field of watermelons on the front lawn of the White House.

Lena Baker: Collateral damage victim without fighting an undeclared war

Lena Baker's arrest photo

Lena Baker. An African American woman whose name was hidden in the annals of Georgia’s history. You won’t see her name in history books or history books. On the day she was executed, World War ll was in progress. Major newspapers elected not to cover her trial and execution.

Lena Baker. She had the misfortune of being a Negro, an unnumbered victim of collateral damage, even though she never fought in an official war. Her war was private. Her war, like all African Americans living in the early South, was a civil rights war. Baker's conflict was a human war of trying to survive in an extreme state of segregation, racism and discrimination in the United States of America, her natural place of birth, June 8, 1901.

As a child Baker and her family worked as cotton pickers for a farmer named J. A. Cox. By age 20 Baker and a friend discovered they could earn some easy money by entertaining me. She and her friend turned to prostitution.

"This came to the attention of Randolph County Sheriff as their clientele were White and interracial relations were illegal in Georgia. The two were arrested and spend several months in a workhouse. On release she was ostracized by the Black community, leading her to become and alcoholic". (murdrpedia.org)

Roosevelt Curry, grandnephew to Lena Baker, was quoted in a AJC.com story, June 2011: "The townspeople didn't talk about her, and some members of the Black community and her family were scared to even mention her name. Relatives and members of the church, however, later care for it and placed a small marker there", Curry sad of Baker's unmarked grave. 

"What happened to her is historical and we don't people to forget. A lot of people have never heard of Lena Baker".

Baker was officially killed by the State of Georgia in 1945. Death by electrocution. She was a 43 years old mother of three. She was the first and last woman to die in the electric chair in Georgia. Her state sanctioned death was historical but was not treated as such.

It was author Lela Bond Phillips who came along and plucked Lena Baker out of obscurity. It took three years of intense research before she wrote Baker’s life story in a 120-page nonfiction book, titled The Lena Baker Story: Execution in A Small Town. Baker’s family moved from Cuthbert after the execution, which probably made it difficult for the author to write a larger, more detailed book.

“In 1996 while doing some research about 1940s Cuthbert, Georgia, I ran across some information about Lena Baker. At that time the ordeal and execution of Lena Baker was one of the best kept secrets in town. After reading the Superior Court Minutes of her trial, I knew that Lena needed a voice. Almost sixty years after her tragic death, I knew her story cried out to be told and I was going to tell it.

“Lena Baker had a least four strikes against her when she was born at the turn of the century in Randolph County, Georgia. She was from a small rural southern town; she was a woman; she was poor; and she was black. Lena was born in a former slave cabin, about five miles southwest of Cuthbert. At the age of forty-four in 1944, Lena had never known anything except hard work and the pangs of poverty and despair. She chopped cotton, cleaned houses, and took in laundry to help support her mother and her three children", Phillips wrote in Black Commentator, 2003.

In 1944 Baker was put on trial for killing a White man named Ernest B. Knight, owner of a local gristmill.  A gristmill is a mill for grinding grain. After breaking his leg Knight hired Baker to nurse him until his leg healed. Somewhere along the way a sexual liaison entered the picture. Consensual, interracial hanky-panky in the South was a serious no-no. However, it was accepted so as long it was done behind closed doors, where Black women and young girls were raped by White men, who did not fear prosecution even if they were caught in the act. Knight was at least 23 years older than 42-year-old Baker. Besides being older, Phillips says Knight was a heavy drinker. He was known to pack a gun strapped on his shoulder.

“When she attempted to extricate herself from this relationship, Knight locked her in his gristmill several days at a time, and as a nearby newspaper reported after her execution, kept her there as his ‘slave woman,’” writes Phillips.

 In the movie The Lena Baker Story: Execution in A Small Town, Baker managed to slip away, going home to see her mother and three children. Her escape did not last long. Knight went to her mother’s house and demanded that Baker go home with him. She resisted to no avail. That was on a Saturday, April 29, 1944. Phillips writes that the sheriff had warned Baker to stay away from Knight or she was going to jail. She was scared of Knight. He was very abusive. The sheriff did not consider that fact that old man Knight refused stay away from Baker.

In the Lena Baker story Tichina Arnold plays the role of Lena

In the movie Knight’s son severely beats Baker after discovering Baker and his father were sleeping with each other.  He warned her to stay away from his father. In the meanwhile, Knight was deemed blameless; his hands clean of this southern sin. 

After the beating at the hands of Knight’s son, Baker escaped again. This time she did not go home. She slept in the woods near a convict camp.  Again, her escape to freedom did not last long. Knight caught up with her the next morning when she tried to slip back into Cuthbert.

Phillips writes that Knight took her back the mill and went to a “singing” with his son. Phillips writes that a “singing” is a religious celebration in the South. Baker was locked in a hot room, spending the day on an old bed. Upon his return to the mill Baker informed Knight that she was leaving. In the movie Knight drew his pistol, pointing it at Baker. In a panic to save her own life she struggled with Knight to take the gun. It fired, hitting Knight, fatally wounding him. Baker panicked and ran home. She was later captured and charged with murder.

At her trial 12 White men sat on the jury. Getting true justice was stacked against her. Baker did not have a chance in hell of getting a verdict of innocent. For Blacks in the South a trail was the roll of the one-sided dice. Judge William “Two Guns” Worrill presided over the trial. It's said the judge came to court with two pistols that he sat on the bench, putting them on full display in the courtroom.

Baker’s trial lasted less than a full day. Four hours to be exact. In a half hour or less the verdict of guilty was delivered by the all-White male jury. Worrill sentenced Baker to death in the electric chair, better known as “Old Sparky."

Phillips writes that Baker’s lawyer asked that a new trial be scheduled. He said the verdict “was contrary to the evidence and without evidence to support it . . . and the verdict was contrary to law and the principles of justice and equity". Baker’s lawyer resigned. Governor Ellis Arnail granted Baker a 60-day reprieve. However, the Board of Pardons and Paroles denied her clemency when they heard the case. This left no hope for saving her life. March 5, 1945 was the scheduled day of her execution.

“On February 23 she was signed into one of the worst prisons in the United States, Reidsville State Prison, where she was housed in the men’s section until just a few days before her execution, when she was moved to a solitary cell just a few feet from the execution chamber itself", writes Phillips. 

Baker’s last words were, “What I done, I did in self-defense, or I would have been killed myself . . . I am already to meet my God".

It took six minutes and several shocks of electricity to kill Lena Baker. According to Phillips, the Cuthbert Times had a simple headline: “Baker Burns". For many years Baker's grave was unmarked, forgotten behind Mt. Vernon Baptist Church in Randolph County. The church eventually raised $250 in donations to buy a small marker for her grave. On the 58th anniversary of her death a wreath was placed on her grave by family members, who had come together for the anniversary. They are planning a reunion May 11 on Mother’s Day.

Roosevelt Curry, great-nephew to Lena Baker hold the posthumous pardon. Standing behind him is 10-year-old Treonna McElveen.

On August 2005, the State Board of Pardons and Paroles posthumously pardoned Lena Baker, acknowledging that the 1945 decision to deny her clemency was a “grievous error." The Board said she should have been charged with the lesser crime of voluntary manslaughter, which would have eliminated her death sentence.

The deficit has nothing to do with a woman's body or her abortion rights

President Barack Obama

Republicans are handcuffing abortion to a pregnant deficit bill to kill Roe v Wade. They attempted to sneak it through the side door this week but they got caught. Next week they will walk bravely through the front door without fear of burning the midnight oil, or locking horns with Harry Reid and President Obama. Next week there will be bigger fish to fry.

  The media are telling Boehner and his  Tea Party Republicans that they are to be commended for sticking to their agenda, throwing the President off stride. I read a column a few hours ago and gasped for air during the reading. The writer said the President deserves no credit for derailing the economic shutdown left behind! The writer said President Obama stepped into the fray at the last minute! Therefore, he was not a part of the negotiations and final decision making.

Is this the reason Republicans lied to get elected in November? Supporters voted for them with open eyes and closed minds. The empowered regular Republicans and newly elected Tea Party candidates, have not stopped running in the opposite direction yet. They vow to shrink government. They say they are doing what the "American people" expect them to do. They have a “mandate.” They declared with over-the-top certainty.

The “mandate” was self created as were the conditions Republicans follow. They rewrote the script. So far, Republicans and Tea Party elects, have not approached the subject of Jobs ! Jobs!  Jobs! Putting the unemployed back to work is no longer a top priority. They have erased it off their to-do-list. Oddly, I do not hear the Tea Party complaining. The media refuse to attack Republicans with the same vim and vigor they mustered to rip apart President Obama for not creating jobs.

Before the elections the media and pundits incessantly reminded America that the President did not keep his promise to resolve the unemployment dilemma. I looked for headlines in the media about Republican's failure to tackle unemployment. I did not find them. These days unemployment is seldom discussed by pundits and the media. Sideline cheering and blaming President Obama for everything that goes wrong is stronger than ever.

Speaker of the House John Boehner

It's as if President Obama is running Washington all by himself. He writes legislation; signs it into law and then hold  press conferences to announce  the legislation has been signed into law.  That is the image the media are painting of this presidency. The media wants the President to treat America like it's an island unto itself, having no connection to the rest of the world. And then, of course, the media and pundits will blame President Obama was trying to isolate America.

Just as I expected and suspected would happen, Friday night pundits, bloggers, columnists and the media sharpened their tongues and pens to say the President “caved” on the shutdown deal. “Nervous Democrats fear that Obama gave away too much in the last-minute agreement to avert a  shutdown”. (Washington Post)

“Boehner may have been outnumbered by Democrats at the table 2-to-1, but by the way the final deal shaped up, you wouldn't know it. The Speaker got $38.5 billion dollars in cuts ...”  (Politico)

I think Politico is saying Boehner was the only astute wheeler dealer at the table. He was so awesome he was a  negotiating wonder! He forced President Obama to give Republicans every thing they wanted! That made the President look weak and too terrified to engage Republicans in a showdown. So said the media and pundits. Predictions and bets are being made by those who say next week President Obama will give up the ship again. 

I thoroughly believe it takes a stronger person to step outside of his personal needs when other people are involved.  President Obama had no choice but to step outside of  himself when making difficult decisions that none of us will never have to make.  Republicans are short term thinkers and victory grabbers. President Obama thinks long term. Too much was at stake for him not to compromise; a plan of action is a dirty word among Tea Party elects and Republicans.

Compromise is not a suitable negotiating tool for the new thinking Republicans. They are all about catering to the wishes of the rich and retaining political power for themselves, not the people. If seniors, women, children and the poor have to suffer the consequences of their dire decisions, oh, well.  

Speaker Boehner slurred, "So be it."He did not bite his tongue as the trio of words rolled out out of his mouth.

Naive Barack Obama does not understand the complexity of being a president

President Barack Obama

Pundits, bloggers, pollsters, Independents, Republicans, Democrats and media cannot control their personal opinions about President Obama. If he does not immediately resume the knee-jerk posture when making a decision, these “wiser than Obama” critics make a Superman flight to catch a ride on the Obama Delegitimization wagon.

I cannot write the number of times I’ve heard and read opinionated divas of the Internet and print media imply that determinations made by President Obama–no matter the scale of relevance-- are the results of his failure to lead; that he is not knowledgeable about how the government operates. They insist with self-conviction that President Obama is incapable of grasping the presidency. The job is too complex for someone so “inexperienced,” they say. This morning on  the Chris Matthew Show, MSNBC, Matthews led a panel discussion titled Is President Obama failing to lead?

Pundits, who should known better, have gone on TV saying the president does not understand the Constitution. In their analysis they fail to note that Professor Barack Obama taught Constitutional Law for 12 years at a Chicago university. With malice as a single thought, these know-it-all pootbutts pushed falsehoods that Obama has not made any significant achievements since he has been in office. Unfortunately, this is repeated by low information haters, and those who consider themselves highbrows.

So when misinformation and claims of “no leadership” in the White House was accepted as fact, that made it easy to say the President is a malingerer who is afraid to draw a “line in the sand”, a favorite line screamed at viewers by Ed Schultz on MSNBC. My personal opinion is that drawing an imaginary line in imaginary sand is an imaginary show of imaginary strength. Surely, Schultz knows that sand is fickle, free flowing and weak.  Schultz , who could not curry favor enough to run for public office, loves to demand that President Obama "draw a line in the sand."

During the lame-duck session President Obama propositioned Republicans with a red line of compromise. Republicans wanted to continue tax breaks for the rich but he did not. When the President agreed to extend the tax cuts, all of the above, except Republicans-- hit the ceiling. President Obama “caved” under Republicans pressure. The media and pundits said Republicans won over a compromising President. Compromise has become a dirty words since Obama was elected president.

I was waiting for the media and  pundits to tell the straight story. I was waiting for them to broadcast what Republicans relinquished to get the Bush tax cuts extended. For starters, Republicans signed onto a second stimulus bill. They agreed to continue unemployment benefits for the unemployed, which would have been a disaster in waiting had a deal not  worked out. A payroll tax decrease for employees were agreed to for one year. The idea was to bolster the economy. Several other issues-- START, First Responders bill, food safety bill were resolved. All in the president’s favor. 

Attacks have been renewed with Libya. The President has been thrown back into the  nonleader box. He is "leading from behind,"  they are saying. I guess that’s the way the media and pundits roll when an African American is in the White House. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't believe I am.

T-Party Republcans pushing fast legislation to control a woman's womb

Another eyesore of ignorance is showcased by screwball Republicans

     ________________________

If this were the case, every 21 minutes hundreds of potential movers and shakers and laborers are also aborted. Many teachers and doctors are aborted. The list is endless. Right wing screwballs say abortion is genocide. They are overlooking children mills called foster homes, where children live with an assortment of abuses, neglect and death. These are feeling human who are physically aborted by the system and politicians that profess to love them while they are in their mother's wombs.

The above statement is not an indictment against all foster homes. Not all of them are bad. But take time to read news story sometimes. Take time to listen to news stories about children dying at the hands of stepmothers and stepfathers, biological mothers and fathers, boyfriends. Abortions would have relieved these babies and small children of the horrors and pain they suffered before death's mercy claimed them. Some of the babies survived their trauma, but some of them ended up mental cripples for the rest of their lives.

Years ago in my neighborhood a young mother of three stood by, and allowed her boyfriend to kick her two-year-old daughter in her stomach, killing her. Child Protective Services got involved, taking away the woman's other children. She was taken to court and reprimanded by the judge. She was ordered to go to parenting classes for six months, after which her children were returned to her. She moved, getting away from the condemning eyes of parents, namely mothers in the neighborhood. I don't recall what happened to the boyfriend.

Live children are not getting adopted by poster packing, protecting-the-fetus-loving Christians, who shout to the world that no woman has a right to get an abortion. What about the babies that are born and deserted? Born and abused? These protect-the-fetus phonies do not show concern or love for children they can see and touch. I have not seen these fetus lovers staging protests to protect live children who have been abandoned and abused. I have not heard of them adopting children housed in negligent foster care. I have not heard of them adopting children with handicaps or born to drug addicted mothers. 

These neglected children do not make these do-gooders lose one good night's sleep. They would rather keep their heads up a woman's dress to see how pregnant she is. It's all political grandstanding and a hypocritical sideshow for the media and TV cameras. After the kid is born it's baby be damn.

Trump wasn’t the biggest fly in the ointment in the 2009 Gaddafi rent-a-space fiasco

All of America has heard Donald Trump’s schick about “screwing” Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi. Please do not puke on your computer as I repeat Trump’s self-congratulatory “screwing” of Qaddafi. Boasting to Fox and Friends, Trump said, "I rented him a piece of land. He paid me more for one night than the land was worth for two years, and then I didn't let him use the land," Trump boasted. "That's what we should be doing. I don't want to use the word 'screwed', but I screwed him."

 We all know it was pressure that forced Trump to renege on the deal. That was a hoot-and-holler moment for the opinionated kowtows at Fox. Trump got the agreeable snickering that he wanted from his adoring audience on Fox and Friends. Asked why he reneged on the Qaddafi deal, he replied vaingloriously, “. . . because I wanted to.”

As a presidential candidate in 2012, Trump broadcasted to the world how intelligent he is. How business savvy he is. How he knows how to drive negotiations. His present and third wife would make a lovely first lady, he said.

Throwing a hatchet at President Obama, Trump said his classmates still remember him, unlike the school mates of Barack Obama. His regurgitation of the Barack Obama Birther Fairytale was not shocking. Trump may be rich but he is not too lofty and proud to pander for votes, falling in line with Teabegging Republicans.

I am not shocked at Trump’s claim about the Qaddafi rent-a-space deal. I am not surprised at how easily he lied. I remember the brouhaha about the Libyan dictator finding a place to stay in the U.S.  Regarding this situation, Trump has been telling a bald face lie and he knows it. He “screwed” Qaddafi in that he pocketed a great deal of money, but he was not the biggest fly in the ointment. Always the man out front, Trump makes himself the untouchable hero in the art of the deal.

Qaddafi was coming to America to attend the United States General Assembly conference. No hotels were willing to accommodate him. He wanted to pitch his Bedouin style tent on the grounds of the Libyan Embassy in Englewood, New Jersey, but authorities and residents raised the roof by protesting. In steps Donald Trump. He rents Muammar Qaddafi a large parcel of land that he owned in Bedford, New York, 45 miles from New York City.

When the flack caught up with Trump, his spokeswoman explained that Trump and his associates had businesses and associates all over the world. She denied that a deal had been cut with Qaddafi’s people directly. Supposedly Trump was renting land to Middle Eastern partners, and they apparently (unbeknownst to him) transferred their rights to Qaddafi. Go figure that one!

An attorney in Bedford, authorities and residents were having none of this tenting where they lived. A stop order was issued. A city ordinance said it is illegal to build a temporary residence without a permit. The tent was declared an illegal structure.

Americans were still outraged that Qaddafi was responsible for the Pan Am bombing. On the other hand, Trump, the billionaire,  smelled bread in the oven. He was not going to miss getting a slice of it by hook or crook. Apparently he was already predisposed to “screwing” Qaddafi, seeing that no hotels wanted him their establishments; nor was New York city willing to let him to camp on public land.

So Donald Trump, in his egotistical, braggadocios manner, made an easy profit. But he lied through the top of swooped over hair. The media, so far, have neglected to disabuse Trump of this falsehood. Maybe they believe him. Maybe they are amused by him. Maybe they do not want to dirty the water, jumping the gun before Donald Trump officially declares himself a presidential candidate.

Not surprisingly, Trump is boasting that, as president, he will not negotiate with world leaders in an amicable way. He thinks he can shake his finger in their face and simply declare: “I just screwed you! You’re fired! Now get the hell out of here!”

A rubber-nosed woodpecker, Black youth picking farm crops, and no cash money for the poor and disabled in Minnesota

A New York Congressional candidate wants to bus unemployed inner city youth to farms to pick crops. They won't go to school, so bus then to the fields, is his attitude.

It seems that Republicans are more frustrated than a dog trying to bury a bone under a marble floor.  The apoplectic GOP is taking its anger out on welfare recipients and those on Supplemental Security Insurance (SSI). Republicans want folks on welfare to be poorer than they already are. They see no reason for them receiving public assistance. 

Republicans do not want the government to mail poor people those monthly checks. It's factually known that these deadbeats are only going to cash the checks, go shopping to buy expensive Michael Jordan tennis, go to strip clubs, buy cigarettes, marijuana, alcohol, crack cocaine, and top of the line cut steaks. And you  just know, without doubt, they are going to buy hip-hop music!

Republicans are sick and tired of the free give-away, and they are not going to have more of this high living at the expense of hardworking taxpayers! It's time Black folks work for the free government handouts and monthly checks.

These welfare slugs--all of whom are Democrats and Black--have no idea what it’s like to earn a living; no idea what it means to work hard like White folks, none of whom are on welfare. Why no self respecting Republican voter would be caught waiting for a monthly government check! Every worthwhile Republican in this country own homes, have at least two cars, checking and saving accounts, decent jobs. Republicans voters are doing great! That’s the American way. But those Democrats are a different story. They are the reason America is in the economic shape its in! Democrats are going to send America to hell in a bread basket if changes are not forth coming.

In Minnesota lunatic Michele Bachmann, and Republicans are stretching their attacks on the poor. They are stepping on the necks of disabled people. They want to make it illegal for freeloaders to get “emergency cash assistance.” Republicans want to make it a crime for  disabled and welfare recipients to have more than $20.00 in their pocket during any calendar month! After this proposed legislation becomes law, welfare and SSI recipients will be issued debits cards.

"This represents a change from their initial proposal, which banned them from having any money at all", writes reporter Ken Layhe.

My guess is if freeloaders, I mean recipients, have utilities and phone bills to pay they can just scratch them off their “luxury items” list. If the welfare bums, I mean recipients, refuse this deal they can get off the government dole and find jobs. There is plenty of work for anybody who wants to work.  Welfare recipients and the disabled folk just have to get off their backsides, look for work and fill out applications. Abracadabra! They will probably get hired on the spot, within a few days.

That easy, huh?

This is elephantine idea is like sending a rubber-nosed woodpecker into a one tree forest, expecting it to peck its heart out, getting no results. After a while the disadvantaged woodpecker realizes it has no good choices in this one tree forest. No all welfare recipients are able-bodied, capable of being productive employees. These are the rubber-noised woodpeckers in a forest to trees.

“So, the poorest families and the poorest disabled adults would be unable to take any of this money as cash, even though poor people by design are kept from having bank accounts or a checkbook, which is why they usually pay bills and rent in cash,” writes Ken Layhe in a piece titled Minnesota Republicans to Outlaw Poor People Having Money.

“House Bill 171 would make it so that families on MFIP – and disabled single adults on General Assistance and Minnesota Supplemental Aid – could not have their cash grants in cash or put into a checking account. Rather, they could only use a state-issued debit card at special terminals in certain businesses that are set up to accept the card,” Layhe writes.

The Layhe article reminds me of a candidate running for congress in New York. His name is Jack Davis, a tea partier. For their own reasons Republicans have refused to endorse him. They won't touch him with a 10 foot pole. Davis says if he is elected he will put Americans back to work! That sounds as good as tasty meatballs on a plate of spaghetti. It's also a good campaign promise minus the taste.

I was loving Davis's idea about putting people back to work until I read more of his platform. He said Mexican farm workers should be deported. He says they can be replaced with unemployed African American inner city youth, all of whom can be bussed to various farms to pick crops! He said they can expect to earn a fair wage, whatever that means. White kids were not mentioned. I guess it's a Black thing only.

I think all of this "let’s get poor folk legislation" is all about 2012, and getting poor folk so mad at President Obama they will switch parties and vote Republican. Republicans are determined to push the poor and disabled further down the well of poverty. They say, when in front of a media camera, “It’s President Obama’s fault. He’s trying to take away your rights. He works for Wall Street not Main Street. He doesn’t share our values. He wants to keep you poor!”

"Blame it on Obama” is the number one hit song on the Republican’s hit parade of favorite lies and other political mess.

Many fools blindly rush into a situation; but wise men prefer to be cautious and analytical

Presidential candidate Paul Pawlenty

Republican Tim Pawlenty, a potential presidential candidate in 2012, is perturbed by President Obama. He thinks the President should take unilateral action against Libya. He shouldn't pull together an international coalition to resolve the bloody battle Muammar Qaddafi is visiting upon Libyans revolting against him.

Pawlenty said in an interview with Politico: “ I’m not overtly concerned with our popularity in Europe or the Middle East.” As the Church Lady on Saturday Night Live might say: “Isn’t that special!” Realistically, it’s not wonderful and Pawlenty should be concerned. The tough guy image he is cranking up for the media and voters is pure buffoonery.

Neocon Republicans like Pawlenty, many of whom have never fought in a real guns and bullets war, are anxious to send others to fight and die while they stay home, sitting on their cushy asses, offering shopworn lip service to whoever will listen. President Obama is correct in using absolute caution about Libya. Only a chest beating fool would rush into Libya with guns blazing and bombs bombing without a flow chart of choices.

That's what Bush did in Iraq. He had already given orders to bomb Iraq, telling the American people 24 hours later. Americans, out for revenge after 9/11, applauded Bush's actions without knowing the facts. No flow charts. No exit plans on the table. Over a million deaths and human injuries later, the world finally learned the truth. There were never any WMDs in Iraq. The preemptive "Shock and Awe"bombings were personal with Bush. He had a long bone to stick up Saddam Hussein’s tokus. Hussein had threatened his daddy and Bush was angry. 

Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld said the Iraqi people would greet Americans with "roses and chocolates." They would shout with joy for being rescued from the hands of an evil dictator. Bush lied and people died. He made a speech on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln with a large backdrop banner simply stating: “Mission Accomplished.” The mission was nowhere close to being accomplished.

Here it is 10 years later and American soldiers have not received roses and chocolates from the Iraqi people. Instead, they are angry and that anger has turned outward on Americans. All of our memories are connected to televised images of death, destruction and misery in the Middle East. We saw families grieving over their sons and daughters killed in battle. Grieving Iraqi mothers and fathers were no less difficult to watch.

There is no graceful way to withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq. Bush and his gang of neocons have gone on to live their lives, appearing on TV, writing books, hitting the lecture circuit, living large and comfortably. Thousands of American men and women are stuck in a foreign land, unable to realize comfortable lives with their families, unable to make TV appearances, lecture for money or write books. Thousands of them are crippled both mentally and physically for life.

Bush's big lie should not be forgotten by any of us. The wounds of these wars are too deep to push to the back of our minds.

If President Obama go it alone in Libya, America may find itself in another protracted Middle East conflict. The same spineless neocons pushing for an immediate show of American chutzpah, are the same hypocrites who will use it against President Obama in 2012 if a unilateral invasion evolves into a long confrontation. Iraq and Afghanistan are perfect, in-your-face examples of why it is dangerous to kick down a door without knowing what’s waiting behind it.

The night Rodney King made world history in America by getting a cop beat-down

Rodney King is savagely beaten and humiliated by LA police. 

UPDATE: Rodney King made news when several police beat him for speeding 1991. At age 47 King died in an accidental drowning June 7, 2012, in his home swimming pool. He was found at the bottom of the pool. Police could not resuscitate him.

The beating of Rodney King 20 years, March 3, 1991, is remembered by the media. It was the police beating heard around the world; a world that expressed shock about America and its attitude toward African Americans.  The beating produced a memorable video and a memorable event.

King was pulled over in Arcadia, California. He ran a red light and fled he fled from the police. He had been drinking and he was on parole. It was past midnight. George Holiday, who lived at the Lake View Terrace apartments had just purchased a camcorder and was learning how to operate it when he caught the King beating by LA police officers.

Had Holiday not been standing in the right window at the right time, the King beating would have been swept under the carpet, as often the case in Los Angeles. It would have been just another day at the office for the policemen who had solidified their story. The now famous video hit the media two days later. King was beaten within an inch of his life that March 3, 1991. The horrendous beating guaranteed him a page in history books and magazines.

The no guilty verdicts that followed the trials of officers Laurence Powell, Theodore Briseno, Timothy Wind, and Stacey Koon in 1992 launched riots in the streets of Los Angeles. Fifty people were killed, an estimated 2,000 were injured. Property damage due to fires and looting was in the high millions.

Ironically, a grand jury indicted the officers, but an all-White jury in Semi Valley looked at the police officers through different colored lens. King must have been guilty of a crime, otherwise there wouldn't have been reason to chase him, beat him, arrest him.

It was doing the riots that King asked this question in a nervous, quivering voice: “Can we all get along?” This was his attempt to quell the angry rioters. The King beating caused the LA Police Department to look at itself, deciding it had to make changes. Below is a LAPD timeline that led to the savage beating.

The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) Officers' Trials: A Chronology

March 2, 1991--King drinks heavily at the home of Bryant ("Pooh") Allen while watching a basketball game. After the game, King, Allen, and another friend named Freddie Helms drive down the 210 freeway, singing to the radio.

March 3, 1991--About 12:30 A.M., King's Hyundai is spotted speeding on the 210 freeway by two California Highway Patrol officers, Tim and Melanie Singer. The CHP officers pursue King at speeds of over 110 mph. King's vehicle is finally cut off about fifteen minutes later. As the Singers, with guns drawn, attempt to arrest King, Sgt. Stacey Koon and three other LAPD officers (Laurence Powell, Theodore Briseno, and Timothy Wind) intervene. From his nearby apartment, George Holliday videotapes the scene, as three officers strike King over fifty times with metal batons before finally handcuffing him. King is taken to a hospital by ambulance.

March 4, 1991-- Holliday gives his videotape to Los Angeles television station KTLA. KTLA takes the tape to LAPD headquarters, where it is viewed by senior officers. That night, KTLA broadcasts the Holliday videotape on the evening news.

March 5, 1991--CNN obtains a copy of the Holliday videotape and plays it on its nationwide cable news program. The FBI opens an investigation of the King beating.

March 6, 1991--The Holliday videotape is played on the evening news programs of all major networks. Most viewers express shock at what they see. King, meanwhile, is released from jail without charges.

March 7, 1991--Los Angeles Police Chief Daryl Gates announces that the officers involved in the King beating will be prosecuted.

March 8, 1991--District Attorney Ira Reiner announces that he will seek indictments against the officers from a grand jury. Fifteen officers present at the scene of the King arrest are suspended.

March 10, 1991--A Los Angeles Times poll reports that 92% of those who had seen the Holliday videotape thought excessive force had been used against King.

March 11, 1991--A grand jury watches the videotape and begins listening to testimony.

March 14, 1991--The grand jury returns indictments against Stacey Koon, Laurence Powell, Timothy Wind, and Theodore Brisenio.

April 1, 1991--Amidst charges against the LAPD of racism and incompetence, Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley announces that a commission headed by Warren Christopher will evaluate the performance of the LAPD.

April 2, 1991--Mayor Bradley asks for the resignation of Police Chief Gates, but Gates refuses.

May 16, 1991--Judge Bernard Kamins sets June 17 as the opening date for the trial of the four officers. He denies a defense motion for a change of venue out of Los Angeles County. The defense appeals the denial of their motion.

In photo at the top King is asking rioters: 

"Can we all get along?" He is attempting to quell the rioters. Photo at left is King years later.

July 23, 1991--The California Court of Appeals unanimously grants the change of venue motion. The Court also takes the case from Judge Kamins because of a message he sent to prosecutors: "Don't panic. You can trust me." The case is reassigned to Judge Stanley Weisberg.

Nov. 26, 1991--Judge Weisberg transfers the LAPD Officers' case to predominantly white and conservative Simi Valley. He announces that the case will be heard beginning in February.

February 3, 1992--State trial of the four officers begins at the East Ventura County Courthouse in Simi Valley.

March 2, 1992--A jury of ten whites, one Hispanic, and one Filipino American is selected. Six jurors are male, six are female.

April 29, 1992.--At 3:15 P. M., Jury acquits Koon, Wind, and Briseno of all charges. Jury is unable to reach verdict on one charge against Powell. About 5:00 P. M., rioting begins in Los Angeles. When it is over, 53 people are dead, over 7,000 people arrested, and more than $1 billion in property damage is sustained.

April 30, 1992--President George Bush announces that he has ordered the Department of Justice to investigate the possibility of filing charges against the LAPD officers for violating the federal civil rights of Rodney King.

August 4, 1992--A federal grand jury returns indictments against the four officers.

Feb. 25, 1993--Trial begins in the courtroom of Judge Davies on the charge of violating the civil rights of Rodney King.

April 16, 1993--The federal jury convicts Koon and Powell on one charge of violating King's civil rights. Wind and Briseno are found not guilty. No disturbances follow the verdict.

August 4, 1993--Judge Davies sentences Powell and Koon to thirty months in a federal correctional camp. Various civil rights groups complain that the sentences are not harsh enough.

August 27, 1993--The Justice Department announces that it will appeal the sentence of Judge Davies as too light.

Oct. 12-13, 1993--Powell and Koon report one day apart to Camp Parks near San Francisco to begin serving their federal sentences.

April 19, 1994--In a civil suit by King against Los Angeles, a jury awards $3.8 million in damages.

April 22, 1994 --A civil suit against the officers begins before Judge Davies. King asks for $15 million in damages.

June 1, 1994--A civil trial against the officers ends with a jury awarding $0 in damages to King.

Jan. 13, 1995--The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rules that the sentences by Judge Davies was too lenient and sends the case back for re-sentencing.

Sept. 28, 1995--The U. S. Supreme Court agrees to hear Koon's and Powell's appeal of the Ninth Circuit decision sending their case back to Judge Davies for imposition of a harsher sentence.

Oct. 15-16, 1995--Koon is released from the Federal Work Camp in Sheridan, Oregon, to enter a halfway house in California. Powell is released from a Federal Work Camp near Edwards Air Force Base, north of Los Angeles.

Nov. 23, 1995--An armed assailant invades a halfway house in Rubidoux, California in an attempt to kill Koon, but Koon is away for the Thanksgiving holiday. The armed invader in killed by police in a shoot-out. Koon is allowed to serve the remainder of his term in a form of house arrest.

Dec. 13-14, 1995--Powell, then Koon are released.

June 13, 1996--The U. S. Supreme Court reverses the Ninth Circuit and upholds the sentence of Judge Davies on most points but orders re-sentencing on the basis of two errors.

Sept. 26, 1996--Judge Davies refuses to extend the sentences of Koon and Powell. He reimposes the thirty-month sentence, effectively ending the case. From the LAPD Officers' Trials Homepage.

Update: On June 17, 2012, Rodney King was found dead at the bottom of his home swimming pool. He was fund by his live-in girlfriend. His death was ruled an accident.