On February 26, 2012, Mr. George Zimmerman – identified as a white-Hispanic – shot and killed Trayvon Martin, a black teenager, in what was said to be self-defense. For reasons I have discussed in other columns, the shooting went virtually unreported until late March. Then, with Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, the New Black Panther Party, and the national press, ginning up a national outcry claiming grave racial injustice, Obama stepped to a microphone and injected himself into the situation.

He said: “I can only imagine what these parents are going through, and when I think about this boy, I think about my own kids, and I think every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this, and that everybody pulls together, federal, state and local, to figure out how this tragedy happened.” Ok, fair enough – his comment was appropriate for what it was worth and all things considered.

But on March 1, 2012, a 13 year-old, white East High School student in Kansas City, named Allen Coon, was followed home by two boys from the school he attended just two blocks away, and as he walked up the steps to the front door of his home, they grabbed him, pinned his arms behind him, doused him with gasoline, and set him on fire. As the little boy burned they taunted him with, “This is what you deserve. You get what you deserve, white boy.” (READ: Was Boy in K.C. Fire Attack Burned by His School’s Racist Teaching; 3/7/12; Selwin Duke; Canada Free Press)


This was not just an isolated incident – it was the culmination of a racist atmosphere encouraged by his school’s black faculty and administration. From the start of the school year, Allen Coon was racially harassed by students and teachers alike. Black students routinely called him “honkey” and “cracker,” and Hispanic students called him “guero.” He was pushed into lockers and beaten up in the bathroom.

His mother said that when he raised his hand to answer a question during black history month, Mrs. Karla Dorsey, a black teacher, derisively mocked him in front of his class, saying: “What would you know about it. You’re not our race.”

Duke reported that Mrs. Coon was to find out that her son was not the only white child being subjected to racial abuse by black students and teachers. Karin Wildesen’s twin 14 year-old daughters were also subjected to racial abuse in the classroom. Their advanced English class teacher, Ms. Veda Monday, was teaching her class racial material about civil rights, which Mrs. Wildesen said had nothing to do with advanced English. Monday allegedly attacked her daughters “in front of the class…telling them that ‘everybody from Texas is ignorant rednecks’” and all white people were to blame for a racial atrocity that happened in Jasper, Texas “because [their] skin was white.”

Duke goes on to report unconscionable racist attacks by the faculty, and offered the possibility that Coon’s being set on fire may have been the result of another black teacher showing a graphic film of blacks being lynched.

Even though this horrific scene is being played out right under Obama’s nose, he has had nothing to say about it. Does he not care what “these parents are going through?” What happened to Allen Coon and the other white students in East High School is condemnable on every imaginable level, yet Obama and the Justice Department are silent.

Every word Obama spoke in reference to the Martin case is applicable to the situation at the school Coon attended. But even the media was dutifully silent. I watched Kansas City TV station KMBC’s reporting of the incident. Not once did the reporter or the news anchor mention that the boys who set Allen Coon on fire were black – not one time. They used words like “two teens, the attackers, the suspects,” and they referred to Coon as “the boy.” (http://www.kmbc.com/r/30572405/detail.html)

Allen Coon didn’t have gold teeth. He wasn’t photographed giving the finger to anyone – he wasn’t suspended from school for having an empty bag of marijuana, jewelry that didn’t belong to him, and instruments of crime in his backpack.

Obama and his Justice Department were silent when 25 year-old James Cooper and 24 year-old James Kouzaris were brutally murder by 17 year-old Shawn Tyson, a black thug, as they begged for their lives. They were white tourists who had been out drinking and stumbled into Tyson’s Sarasota, Florida neighborhood. Tyson’s plan was to rob them, but finding they had no money, he murdered them.

Referencing Martin, Obama said: “You know, if I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.” I think it bears noting that if Obama had a son, he would also look like the boys who set Allen Coon on fire and Shawn Tyson. Don’t their families and the American people – Obama took an oath to represent – deserve the same concern he shows for black hoodlums?

With these thoughts in mind, do you believe this is the kind of man people thought they were voting for when he was elected? And the damage his policies have done notwithstanding, is this the kind of man America wants to reelect? Does America want a man in the White House who shows concern for crime based on color of skin?

The left, including the card-carrying socialists who count themselves among the leftist ranks, have a right to their opinions. As much as I disagree with them and condemn their policies, I believe, without hesitation, in their right to hold opinions antithetical to mine. The Constitution was drafted for all Americans, not just those of us who happen to believe in it. Brave men and women gave their lives to guarantee freedom of speech and expression for all (I believe legal) citizens of the United States. I also believe that it is my job to do all within my power to legally minimize the impact of those who hold views antithetical to mine.

The problem is that the opposition doesn’t see it that way. My late grandmother used to say, “Fairness doesn’t stop being fairness just because you don’t like the truth of it.” Which brings me to my point.

The left is well within their right to attack Rush Limbaugh for what he said about Sandra Fluke. But to feign insult about Rush’s comments, while ignoring and/or laughing at the vulgar and base things said about former President George W. Bush and the unrepentant things said about Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, Sarah Palin and President Reagan upon learning he had Alzheimer’s disease, is pure hypocrisy. Paragons of the women’s rights movement, such as Barbara Walters and Joy Behar, saw no offense when MSNBCs Ed Schultz called Laura Ingraham the vilest of pejoratives one can call a woman. To be fair, Schultz later apologized and was suspended by MSNBC.

But the duplicity of the left seems to go unnoticed by the mainstream media, including Fox News, when it comes to doing their jobs fairly. And nowhere is that more evident than with their handling of Obama.

When Anita Hill came forward with testimony during the confirmation hearings of Clarence Thomas, the mainstream media machine went into overdrive trying to corroborate her testimony. They literally left no page unturned in searching for dirt with which to tar Mr. Thomas. For the eight years of George W. Bush’s presidency, the media dredged for information pursuant to what they labeled as the truth of his drug and alcohol usage – even though he was very open and straight forward about his usage and how he had ended same. For eight years the media questioned and sought information on his National Guard service. They refused to accept that it was as he had stated, unlike the way this same media accept the secrecy surrounding Obama with passive silence.

The media have been relentless in investigations of Sarah Palin and her family. They relentlessly probed into former Vice President Dick Cheney’s association with Halliburton. Herman Cain’s presidential bid was destroyed by what many argue was the flimsiest of “she said-he said” accusations.

It can be argued that they were doing their jobs – fair enough. But, and this is a big but – why do they not do their job with those on the left?

If the media declared it their job to find the truth about George Bush, Justice Thomas, Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, ad nauseum, why do they not feel the same way about Obama and his wife? Why are they not applying the same effort, and nearly unlimited resources, to once and for all settle Obama’s birth controversy? Why have they not applied the same determination in uncovering the truth surrounding the Obamas’ surrendering their law licenses? Lawyers I have spoken to tell me that lawyers would literally give up their families before surrendering their law licenses, unless there was a legitimate reason.

Sharon Bialek and Ginger White had a long history of impropriety and sordid pasts, but their accusations against Herman Cain were accepted as gospel truth. Anita Hill offered only disgusting allegations, but they were accepted as gospel truth. Do not the allegations of the late Larry Sinclair deserve the same investigative attention from the media that went into looking into President Bush’s past?

The left and the media can hardly argue that their investigations would bring shame upon the office of president, because that wasn’t a consideration with Bush. Is it not the media’s job to demand that Obama give an account pursuant to why he has spent well over a million dollars to conceal his past?

My point is that fair is fair. They cannot attack Rush and hold Barbara Walters as a patron saint. They cannot attack Rush and say nothing about Bill Maher’s vulgar diatribes against Sarah Palin. To deem it journalistic integrity to pursue the past of George W. Bush, but ignore the secretive past of, and allegations against, Obama, undermines their credibility.

The Constitution gives the left the right to voice their opinions; truth and integrity demand they apply the same standards – to themselves and their own – that they do to those with whom they disagree.

Obama has called for blacks to rally in support of his re-election by launching “African-Americans for Obama.” This race-based call to assembly presses blacks to organize en masse in support of his re-election through volunteer community organizing work to get blacks registered and out to vote.

He used a video promo to tell blacks to pressure churches into supporting his administration by using the so-called faith community. He also instructed voters to become church “congregation captains.”

Cries and assertions that this was an overt act of racism by an overtly racist president – whose wife is the equivalent of Black Panther socialist Angela Davis, only with a taxpayer-paid no-limit credit card – were swift and plentiful.

But I see it a bit differently. I see it as emblematic of Obama’s grotesque narcissism and his eager willingness to elevate himself above God. Telling people to go to church for the purpose of organizing voters is antithetical to the Bible I read. He claims to be a Christian, but nothing about him resembles the walk of a believer, as found in the fourth chapter of Ephesians. He more closely parallels the King of Tyre as found in the 28th chapter of the Old Testament book of Ezekiel. But I digress.

Pastors who allow their churches to be turned into something other than a house of worship and who allow wolves to feed upon their flocks will not be found blameless, either. But, again, I digress.

Nearly 25 years ago, I spoke the following words in a speech I gave. I said: “With pandemic levels of AIDS, abortion, i.e., black genocide, black on black crimes, drugs, disregard for life and personal responsibility, and unparalleled under-achievement – not to mention toxic levels hatred, bitterness and self-serving theology – one would think that black preachers would better serve their congregants by preaching Jesus Christ and factual biblical standards juxtaposed to gathering to figure new ways to extort government, demand handouts and blame whites for every misfortune.”

Which brings me to my point. First of all, churches engaging in community organizing for political purposes are in violation of their federal tax-exempt status. Secondly, I argue that the principle reason so many people (and blacks specifically) give lip service to God, when their lives and actions speak differently, is because the church has become a place for the politics of hatred, wallowing in despair and immiseration. This explains how churches that claim to be Christian can support a man and woman who support the things Obama and his wife do.

Blacks are quick to blame whites for their ills and are applauded by liberal socialists when they do. But I say, if the pastors were preaching Jesus Christ and Him crucified for our sins, there would be no room for the animus and rage that boils within the hearts and bowels of so many persons of color.

The tragedy of tragedies are manifold – not least of which is the lack of sound biblical preaching. Then there is the embracing of those who use blacks and take advantage of them. But at the end of the day, the people are left further behind than when they started.

It’s been nearly 50 years since signing of the Civil Rights Act, and we’ve had nearly 50 years of the Great Society initiatives. It’s been 44 years since President Richard M. Nixon signed race-based affirmative action programs into law, 33 years since the Department of Education was founded and 39 years since abortion on demand became the law of the land.

Everything referenced in the last paragraph came with promises of a better day for blacks, but 50 near years after the fact, blacks are told they’re no better off than before. They are, however, fewer in number thanks to abortion. Now it’s Obama’s turn to use blacks as the stepping stone to another shopping season for his wife and another four years for him to disaffect the nation in a way that further crushes the lungs and backs of urban blacks.

The one thing Obama has fought for is to provide more abortions for low-income women and low-income black women in particular. He has promoted debauchery and fear, and he is the primary reason for fuel prices that make it difficult to put cereal and buttered rice on the table.

Blacks don’t need Obama. They, like so many others, need pastors who will stop leading them astray and stop allowing them to be led astray.

Exclusive: Mychal Massie on historical exploitation of ‘coloreds’ a la Vladimir Lenin

If you’re a black who believes that Republicans are equivalent to the antichrist, that the tea party is the equivalent of the Klu Klux Klan and that American has done nothing but enslave and abuse blacks … if you are a black or white liberal who believes that the ills of blacks are the result of white racism, and that blacks are worse off today and that it’s because of corporate and governmental racism … or if you believe that the various areas of disproportionate black representation (e.g., imprisonment, the poorly educated, the underemployed) are proof positive of a racist, white hierarchy – you might want to sharpen your swords because what I’m about to say in this column is going to upset you more than my comment “Given the choice of saving an unborn child or saving a whale, I would choose the life of the unborn” upset a few of those best described as Josef Mengele’s daughters, masquerading as the enlightened, who see murdering the unborn as the highest act of womanhood.

There’s not much in the way of praise I’m prepared to acknowledge when it comes to the late FBI Director, J. Edgar Hoover. That said, I am today more convinced than at any time before that Hoover was correct to be concerned about the communist influence upon blacks when he learned Vladimir Lenin had said blacks were a revolutionary class people – albeit, I am so convinced for reasons separate from those of Hoover.

I believe Lenin was saying that blacks were ripe for exploitation by being converted into a revolutionary class – through intellectual corruption and a generational inculcation of victimology – that was/is intended to lead them further from the truth of opportunity that exists in America.

Communists prey upon dysfunction and anger, and where none exists, it is created and fomented. Leninism is built upon egalitarianism, class conflict and dialectical materialism, embroidered in a cheap synthetic fabric of social progress. And none have been led further astray and/or suffered more because of same than blacks. Communism was the perfect elixir to exploit downtrodden blacks easily blinded by resentment, ignorance and fear.

Communism took root amongst the black illuminati in the early 1900s, and there has been no more influential black revolutionary-minded orator of socialist dogma than W.E.B. Du Bois. He may not have officially joined the Communist Party until he was 93 years of age, but he embraced and espoused Communism his entire life. It was Du Bois who attended the National Negro Conference in New York, which led to the creation of the National Negro Committee. The NAACP was born out of the second meeting of this Committee. Du Bois, true to his Communist views, insisted upon the use of “Colored” rather than “Black” because “Colored” could be used to include dark-skinned persons everywhere – which was of significant importance if socialism was to reach the greatest number of those intended.

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

While black and white so-called civil rights supporters worked together to found the movement, it was the liberal white socialist-inspired who were the executive officers (i.e., white socialists pulling the strings). The genius of the Communist Party was to adapt itself specific to every environment and region where there were concentrations of blacks, by morphing into the Socialist Party of America. In the South they used civil rights, and I am prepared to argue that they used Dr. King himself. I am not subscribing to the damnable lie that Dr. King was a Communist – he was not. What I am saying is that Communists like Bayard Rustin, used stealth to lay the groundwork that would ultimately corrupt Dr. King’s movement after his assassination.

Rustin, who said that “blacks were ripe for Communists,” was instrumental in the formation of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and out of that group has emerged Joseph Lowery and others, who mouth complaints designed to stir the caldron of anger, victimology and rabid hatred for anyone who dares attempt to share the message of truth and life.

Constraints of space prevent me from sharing the full extent Communism is rooted into the lives and minds of blacks, but suffice it to say that it is staggering even to me. In my research, I have found that the leadership of many black churches has either intentionally or unwittingly been converted to the socialist mindset, as has the leadership of black organizations, schools and civic groups.

There is a palpable resentment and rage infused into every predominantly black city. Anger is a constant companion – it permeates the air like cheap perfume. This anger is important when it comes to the socialist corruption of a people. It is the cup from which black intellectuals, both past and present, drank/drink and use to promote socialism amongst the people under the banner of social progress.

Michelle Obama’s college complaints and thesis are representative of this. Listen to the verbiage that is employed by her, Obama and other of the so-called black illuminati – or, as W.E.B. Du Bois referenced them, the “talented tenth.” Their verbiage is raw socialism, and it is intended to stir the caldron of perceived social immiseration until it either boils over into the streets and/or they are successful in bringing down our form of government from within.

Obama made an appearance at Disney World the other day, a fitting place for him and the fantasy world he lives in. I don’t have a problem with fantasy – I enjoyed the works of J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, Jules Verne and H.G. Wells, but the world of fantasy Obama dreams of is a dark place. That said, I think Tolkien voiced it best when he wrote: “Let him not vow to walk in the dark, who has seen the darkness fall.”

I was reminded just how dark Obama’s fantasy world is when a friend forwarded me an article about companies being fined for not using biofuels. Writing for the New York Times, Matthew Wald, wrote that U.S. companies that supply motor fuel will pay approximately “$6.8 million in penalties to the Treasury because they failed to mix a special type of biofuel into their gasoline and diesel as required by law. But there was none to be had … the ingredient, cellulosic biofuel, does not exist.” (“A Fine for Not Using a Biofuel That Doesn’t Exist,” Jan. 9, 2012)

And it doesn’t stop there. As Wald points out, “In 2012, the oil companies expect to pay even higher penalties for failing to blend in the fuel, which is made from wood chips or the inedible parts of plants like corncobs.”

This is more sinister than just being an advocate for biofuels and green technology – it is Obama using the position of president to shape America into a world based on theorization from socialist classrooms, a world in which government reigns supreme and people and industry exist to serve government by providing for the needs of same.

Obama is a spiteful, venomous being who uses bullying tactics and economic violence to accomplish his agenda. So committed is he to forcing America into subscribing to his green biofuel fantasy world, that he was willing to deny the building of the Keystone pipeline. Not only would the pipeline have created jobs – it would have increased tax revenues, and it would have increased dollars being spent in the communities. Even more importantly, the pipeline would have helped lower fuel prices.

One can argue that by keeping fuel prices artificially inflated, Obama can keep people dependent upon government for their subsistence. And they would be right, but it goes deeper than just to those communist proclivities alone. It goes to the core of his being. He doesn’t have a dream for America – he has a thirst for control/power that has been witnessed in the form of Chavez, Castro, Mao and Lenin. That said, I find it interesting that the mainstream media and others who applauded Obama’s aria of Al Green’s “Let’s Stay Together” were applauding Obama for performing an act that mirrored Hugo Chavez singing in front of the United Nations – right before he ordered the people of Venezuela to stop singing in their showers as a means to save water and cut electricity use – but I digress.

Obama’s intention has never been to govern America – his intention has always been to rule over the fundamental changing of America. That said, the question that begs answering is not what he wants to change the country into, rather, it’s why is the so-called Republican leadership, so craven and feckless, allowing him to get away with it?

How is the best interest of the people, of states directly affected by Obama’s refusal to allow the pipeline to be built, being served? How is the best interest of people who depend on the companies being fined for not using a nonexistent fuel being served? How is the best interest of the American people served when billions of dollars are given to failing companies, like Solyndra, and/or to companies that fail immediately after receiving tax dollars?

Are our representatives to serve us or serve themselves to boundless benefits, based on their passing legislation that enables them to take advantage of their position? Are they elected to stand up for us, as our nation’s prosperity collapses, or stand for those who hand them the means to become millionaires at our expense?

Those in Congress should be replaced right after being indicted for abrogation of their fiduciary responsibility to represent the best interest of the people in the states they are from. They are complicit in what Obama has done and is doing. Pursuant to Obama, I believe there exists ample cause to, at the very least, make every possible effort to impeach and indict him for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Obama was elected to serve, lead and represent the United States and the people of same, not change America into something antithetical to the Constitution. He was not elected to amuse himself at our expense, with the 25-cent version of Hugo Chavez, and have his wife play the role of an Imelda Marcos wannabe.

Exclusive: Mychal Massie targets those who twist Dr. King’s words to foment societal strife

Question: What do a “Gordian knot” and Martin Luther King have in common? Answer: The convoluted logic that has become inextricably tied to those who most frequently pay lip service to his memory. No part of Dr. King’s oratorical legacy is treated with less logic than his emphasis on the character of a person juxtaposed to the color of a person. And not unlike Greek tradition, it will take bold action, i.e., an Alexandrian effort, to rectify same.

Unfortunately, blacks who use race as currency undermine the truth of Dr. King’s efforts, and whites who barter with said racial currency are eager to keep it that way. It is an ignorance of such proportions that the distortion of the logic is defended rather than eschewed.

Sadly, many blacks today are more concerned with being recognized for the color of their skin than they are about getting a solid education and abandoning the animus many harbor toward whites (and toward blacks who do not embrace their heterodoxy of bitterness). And even more egregious, they are blind to the harm done to them by holding said antithetical views. I submit that blacks should pursue the end of abortion as they do the recognition of color. Abortion is the No. 1 killer of blacks, not calls for a colorblind society – but I digress.

Calls for a colorblind society have been misidentified as evidence of not liking oneself. It is seen as creating a zeitgeist that, at best, ignores and, at worst, denies past grievances and rejects cultural heritage. In reality, those claims are nothing more than sophistic justifications for the rejection of modernity.

What is relinquished in a colorblind society is the ability to blame color of skin for any infraction or slight and the right to foment discord based upon inculcated differences. There are those who will attack me, but focusing on character, to the exclusion of skin color, is not a perversion of justice. I argue that we must embrace the equality of Americanism, not the separative mindset of race-based preferences, race-based injustice and race-based inequality, juxtaposed to the conjoined injustices of life that are experienced by all, despite color of skin.
Exclusive: Mychal Massie targets those who twist Dr. King’s words to foment societal strife

I was recently recognized as one of the top 20 most influential “black” Republicans. I admit that it is a good feeling to be recognized for one’s body of work and contributions. I understand that the recognition was made with the utmost respect intended, and I in no way am implying anything else. But, being the best or most whatever of a particular group is being the best of a limited number, and limited numbers are only valuable when you are talking classic automobiles or memorabilia. My point being, one of the 20 most influential Republicans overall would be inclusive and a representative value of the whole – such as in 2008, when I was recognized as the “Conservative Man of Year” (sans color) by the Conservative Party of New York.

I don’t mention said recognitions for the purpose of braggadocio, but rather to make my point. Michael Jordan, Reggie Jackson, Tiger Woods and Lewis Hamilton didn’t/don’t aspire to be the greatest black athlete in their respective fields – they aspired and aspire to be the best of all time. Additionally, nowhere in Scripture have I read God making distinctions of who’s best based on color of skin, even in the Old Testament.

Skin color has been elevated over character. The NAACP in the recent past were prepared to give their Image Award to a man indicted in two states for multiple horrific acts of sexual depravity against young teenage girls because he was black, but they label as racist tea-party groups that are committed to making government adhere to the Constitution, groups comprised of people of all descriptions and from all walks of life.

It is my opinion – and I neither retreat nor apologize for my conviction – that it will not be until we put aside color and lift character (both moral and godly) that we will enjoy the true wealth of America equally. Until we are recognized singularly, as Americans rather than as a color prefix separated by a hyphen, we will continue to be a fragmented and angry citizenry.

[ Get your OWN blog today from the folks who produce Mychal-Massie.com - click here to learn more ]

It is obvious that anger and fragmentation is in the best interest of those who prostitute color as currency, but as I referenced earlier, that is only of benefit to a small, select number who advantage themselves mightily at the expense of the true unity of all. And I believe Dr. King would agree.

Exclusive: Mychal Massie argues for the ‘euthanizing’ of NAACP

There’s a lot of talk about greatness today – but the definition of greatness depends upon who writes the dictionary. And in the case of the NAACP, greatness is analogous to two of the central characters in C.S. Lewis’ book “The Screwtape Letters.”

For those who need refreshing, Screwtape was a senior demon from hell, and Wormwood, his nephew, was a junior “tempter,” charged with leading “The Patient,” i.e., mankind, to hell. It was Screwtape’s job to advise Wormwood on the best ways to bring that about.

That’s precisely the role the NAACP plays in advising their marionettes what to foment discord and malcontent about. The principal issues they support are antithetical to the cohesive family concerns they feign concern about.

They recently called remarks made by Rick Santorum, “inaccurate and outrageous.” When speaking about entitlement reform, Santorum said: “I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money – I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn money.” (See Santorum Was Right.”)

Get Credit Score Manager from LifeLock for FREE for 30 days! Manage and monitor your credit score at LifeLock.com

The plaintive cry is always “more money and more whatever else” is needed to make the lives of blacks more sustainable. But, I argue, they cannot have it both ways. They cannot constantly carp about that which I just referenced and then be upset when someone offers a solution they don’t like and/or someone disagrees with them as they ignore the real problems.

When Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., brought forward the Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, the NAACP opposed it. H.R. 3541 was intended to prohibit discrimination against the unborn on the basis of sex or race, and for other reasons. Sex-selection abortion is very prevalent among those emigrating here from other countries. And, today in America, abortions based on race and ethnicity are much more prevalent that you might realize.

In November 2011, the NAACP issued a statement applauding the State Department’s decision to delay TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline. President and CEO Benjamin Jealous stated that he was pleased and that “there are still many questions that needed to be answered” about the pipeline.

That’s a rather cavalier opinion when one considers that this is the same leader, of the same group, who has been singing the aria to “it’s the white man’s fault the black man ‘can’t get no.” He claims his reasons for the NAACP opposing the immediate building of a pipeline have to do with potential environmental concerns – a pipeline that would create the very jobs they claim blacks need, and that would lower fuel and heating costs. I question how he can say something so patently opprobrious with a straight face.

Just as Screwtape’s job was to make sure Wormwood used every available machination – including love, pride, sex, war, gluttony and avarice – to deceive man here on earth and lure him into an eternal hell, so, too, does the NAACP parallel that purpose in deceiving blacks. The NAACP exists today as a means of employment for Benjamin Jealous – who cowarded out of my calls for him to debate me in a public forum – and as a contrivance to ensure that blacks are in a perpetual state of discontent.

The NAACP has become an abomination before God and man, and it needs to be euthanized. If its only points of consternation are those herein referenced, making what amount to extortion complaints against CNN pursuant to their not having more black on-air personalities and spreading victimology, despair and resentment – I’d say it’s outlived its usefulness

Mychal-Massie.Com is funded solely by donations from readers.Donate here.

I don’t expect everyone to agree with me or understand the point I’m about to make. I can hear the stuttering excuses why it’s different for a black man and references to the Bush family and the Reagans.

Michelle Obama and her family are on a $4 million taxpayer-funded vacation, and between her traipsing around in $2,000 dresses, $1,000 skirts and dining at the most exclusive restaurants – she found time to send an email to an Obama mailing list saying, “I hope you’ll close out this year by donating $3 or more to help make sure we’re ready for the next [election].”

In December 2006, I wrote: “Race is the viscous grease Al Sharpton uses to lubricate his flim-flam machine. Adding the ‘Reverend’ moniker affords him cover by having a credible partner, i.e., God, who doesn’t want a cut of his ill-gotten gains. And not atypical of race-hucksters, he makes his choices based on what will garner him the most cachet.” (“Lights, camera … Sharpton,” WND.com)

Insert the name Obama in place of Sharpton, FLOTUS in place of “Reverend,” and “gullible voters” in place of God, and it’s a perfect fit. I am convinced that Michelle’s email was forwarded to their campaign’s black voters. As I recall writing about it at the time – it was during the 2000 presidential campaign and Al Gore had just finished speaking to a gathering of “well-dressed” blacks (I always find it interesting that, white liberals feel it necessary to say things like that, as if they expect blacks to be dressed like cotton-pickers).

Many of the all-black gathering said they were praying for him to be elected, but Gore’s concern wasn’t their prayers, it was their pocketbooks and wallets. The working-class black person was Gore’s concern, because working-class blacks weren’t inclined to offer much more than the fried chicken and the prayers being offered at that fundraiser.

Get Credit Score Manager from LifeLock for FREE for 30 days! Manage and monitor your credit score at LifeLock.com

In 2000 Gore lost, and donations from working-class blacks were less than negligible. God thankfully didn’t answer their prayers. But with the Obamas, it is different. The two things that endear them to blacks is Michelle Obama’s black face and her impudent behavior – which many in the black community view as sticking it in the face of whites. If it were just a half-white Kenyan with Communist entrails, support for him would be at best tepid in the black community. It is worth noting that the questions surrounding his blackness are well-documented, and it wasn’t a white essayist writing for a conservative newspaper (if such a thing exists); rather, it was a black essayist writing for the liberal Los Angeles Times who identified Obama as the “magic Negro.”

Michelle Obama is a world-class conductor of the race-mongers orchestra. And she conducts the symphony with the adroitness that even the most skilled race-monger can take lessons from. In 2000, Al Gore may have gotten little more than prayers and fried chicken, but in 2011-12, Obama – thanks to his wife has figured out how to get juice from that fruit.

The fundraiser email may have seemed like nothing more than an innocuous request, but what matters is whom it was sent to and the social perspective of same. For those who doubt my opinion, I encourage you to read some of the comments made on black blogs and news sites in reference to Michael Jordan announcing his engagement to his Cuban born fiancée. The vitriol communicated between readers on the referenced sites goes beyond the pale.

Over-the-top expensive vacations, fashions, and dinners – in the view of many blacks – is seen as showing whiteys what it’s all about. It is viewed with applause and admiration because it is viewed through a racial paradigm. Do the math – $3 from even 75 percent of blacks adds up to a hefty amount of money. And since blacks, as Al Gore found out, are not inclined to give, $3 is an amount that those they’re reaching out to can not only afford, but also gladly give.

Identifying it as “needful for voter registration” and “something to get people fired up about” is nothing more than code speak for “it’s going to benefit the black man.” You can call me wrong, but I bet I’m right.

© 2011
I’m not applauding the legislative deal that John Boehner and House Republicans cobbled together to extend the payroll tax cut. Some may say I’m being overly difficult – to which I would reply: “No, I’m not – I’m saying enough is enough. I’m saying that I am sick of Boehner’s ineptness and that I am sick of his feckless charade of leadership.”

I’m sick of the oft-regurgitated bromide that says, “We have to pick our battles.” I’m neither a political neophyte nor a Republican ideologue who blindly accepts the argument that “extending the payroll tax cuts was important, but this is even better because we’ve forced Obama to make a decision on the Keystone XL oil pipeline project.” Those of us who have been around the political block know political speak when we hear it, and we know when politicians are playing us for fools.

First of all, Obama has already decided on the Keystone pipeline. He decided on it when he said he wasn’t going to decide on it. Boehner has accomplished nothing – zip, nada, zero – and giving him a pass and applause for failure is precisely why America stands with her toes extended over the abyss.

In his USA Today article, “Obama unlikely to change mind on oil pipeline,” David Jackson wrote: “Gene Sperling, director of the National Economic Council, noted that [the] proposals only require Obama to make a decision within 60 days. The State Department continues to conduct an environmental review of the Keystone XL oil pipeline project.”

He pointed out that Sperling told CNN: “I just referred back to what the State Department said, [that] it was very unlikely … that 60 days would be enough time for them to be able to guarantee to the American people that an adequate safety and health and environmental review had been done.”

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., echoed same when he said Obama [was] just going to use the option given to him not to let it go forward.”

Charles Krauthammer nailed it when he said, “Congress … reached a compromise on what must be one of the worst pieces of legislation in years.”

The legislation extends unemployment benefits and payroll-tax relief for a whopping two months, but it doesn’t create-encourage-provide one job. Worse, it makes Obama look like the unifier and it allows him to paint tea-party groups as the villains when they reject Boehner’s imbecilic deal making.

I don’t agree with Krauthammer often, but he’s absolutely spot-on when he says: “To begin with, what even minimally rational government enacts payroll-tax relief for just two months? As a matter of practicality alone, it makes no sense. The National Payroll Reporting Consortium, representing those who process paychecks, said of the two-month extension passed … just days before the new year: ‘there is insufficient lead time to accommodate the proposal.”

This summer, I wrote: “I told you Boehner could not be trusted – and once again I’m right. I was right on the budget talks, when not only did he not get a good deal but, as David Stockman, Mark Levin, myself, and others predicted, he caved in and then [misled us] about what he did get” (“I was right not to trust John Boehner,” July 9, 2011).

I continued: “Now he’s back to the same old tactics – bluster, bluff and then fold like a $3 pair of pants.” This drama will now be played out again, supposedly, when Congress returns from its Christmas vacation – at which time we will witness yet another kabuki theater of the absurd production, with Boehner accompanied by Eric Cantor (his stunt double in these dramas) traipsing from camera to camera, giving his best impressions of talking tough.

Get paid to blog and find an instant sponsor for your web site – click here

Boehner had a chance to stand firm in the budget cuts, and he didn’t. He had a chance to stand firm on the debt ceiling issue and, again, he did not. He may have picked up the tough talk heard in taprooms from his days as barroom worker, but he obviously didn’t pick up the part where you back up the tough talk with tough action. We need more real leadership and less empty rhetoric. Boehner and the Republican leadership have disappointed and failed us at every turn, and it is time to put an end to it.

It is misleading and dishonest for conservatives to singularly blame Democrats for the economic condition in which we find ourselves. Democrats may have had Congress for several years, but if we are to be honest, we cannot ignore what Boehner and company did when they were in charge of Congress. Even today, uncontrolled spending has neither subsided nor decreased under Boehner’s leadership. ( See: “How much of this did Republican leadership oppose?,” Dec. 22, 2011.)

I repeat – we cannot and will not have change until we remove the blinders from our eyes. Our nation and way of life are in peril. Our children and grandchildren are in jeopardy of losing everything America has stood for from its inception. Fighting for Boehner and company to do more of the same is not the answer. Congress works for us, and Obama would be less of an enemy if we had Republican leadership that understood guerilla warfare.

© 2011
Those running for the Republican presidential nomination are doing what politicians do – they are promising the old “when I’m elected I’ll blah, blah, blah,” ad nauseam. Their straight-faced, numerous assurances are, or can be, convincing, until people stop to think that these people have been in elected office in some capacity nearly all of their adult lives. But it isn’t until they decide to be president that they suddenly decide they know exactly what needs to be done to solve the nation’s problems.

They’ve spent years and decades in political positions, and their records say all that needs be said, but with the allure of the presidency, they suddenly have all the answers. The question that begs an answer is, why didn’t they have the answers before? Why didn’t they go to the mat for we the people before?

Then there is Obama. After his election, his promises turned out to be the equivalent of a “Feast of Barmecide.” He now no longer promises anything; he behaves as a ruler or, better put, he behaves as a narcissistic, bipolar-schizophrenic, Communist dictator. He no longer promises anything – he now dictates. “Vladimir” Obama now just issues edicts and demands they be followed without question. He doesn’t need Congress, and he couldn’t care less about the American people. His intent is to rule and to separate by class and race.

And then there are the people. Contempt for Obama is at unprecedented levels, and it should be – he deserves the unmitigated scorn and wrath of America for what he has done to our nation and our form of government. But we also cannot absolve the Republicans for their role in the nation’s decline. Yet, it’s election time, and the candidates are lining up to say whatever their handlers tell them to say and promise.

[Both Mark Twain and Desraeli said that there are three kinds of lies:
Little White Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics. Click here to Learn how to Lie.]

Therein lies the problem – people are looking to government instead of looking to themselves. And, thanks specifically to the socialism that came into being with Franklin D. Roosevelt, government has been able to strip the people of their self-reliance more and more, until people become government dependents.

As did the families of other baby boomers, my mothers lived through the Great Depression, and the greatest gift of their generation was self-reliance. They came from a time when people had to fend for themselves, and that’s what’s missing today. Most in the post-baby-boom generation not only forget, but also do not realize that there was a time when many, if not most, built their homes themselves. They don’t realize that, for many, the only way you had steak, chicken, or ham was if you grew the cow, chicken, or pig yourself and then butchered same. And most importantly, what most in the post-baby-boom generation do not realize is that rugged individualism, which Obama recently defined as a failure, is why we have cities, towns and industry west of the Colorado River.

Baby boomers are the progeny of those who believed in themselves, not government. That generation didn’t look for handouts or government subsidies. They joined together, helped one another and created opportunities for themselves and, whenever possible, for one another. It wasn’t easy, but they were free, and what they had belonged to them.

The fight that exists in those of our baby-boom generation was based on examples handed down from our families and others who had lived through the Depression. I submit that government care and dependence have done nothing but breed generations of people who instinctively give up and turn to government instead of creating ways to weather the realities of life.

Specific to my point, that is what politicians prey upon. They breed discontent and animus based on perceptions of what one has that another doesn’t. They spend their lives in offices making things worst, then claim that by being president they can make things better – and people believe them.

I believe we are at the intersection of the end of self-reliance and total government dependence. If we do not make a stand here, it will be necessary to kowtow and submit to every foolish folly demanded by a socialist, politically correct government demanding people comply with its edicts, or those people will not receive that subsistence they have become dependent upon.

Our Founding Fathers created a government to free its citizens from the tyrannical rule of monarchs, but over time – through the insidious use of crisis moments – nefarious individuals and organizations have been able to change government by corrupting both the individuals elected and the way they get elected.

The message we need to hear from candidates is that the system has been broken and cannot be fixed. It must be dismantled, allowing only the Constitution to remain, and be rebuilt based upon that hallowed document. Any candidate today, who currently holds office or has held office, who doesn’t take at least partial credit for the decline of America should not be taken at their word that they’ll make a difference as president.

Speaking at Osawatomie High School, in Osawatomie, Kan., Obama said: “Now, it’s a simple theory. And we have to admit, it’s one that speaks to our rugged individualism and our healthy skepticism of too much government. That’s in America’s DNA. And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker. But here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. It has never worked. It didn’t work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It’s not what led to the incredible postwar booms of the ’50s and ’60s. And it didn’t work when we tried it during the last decade. I mean, understand, it’s not as if we haven’t tried this theory.”

Now, if you’re wondering what it is that Obama believes doesn’t work, Terrence P. Jeffrey, writing for CNSNews, succinctly summed up the president’s remedy for the rugged individualism he decries this way: “Americans must look to a more activist government that taxes more, spends more, and regulates more if they want to preserve the middle class.” (“Obama: Limited Gov’t That Preserves Free Markets ‘Doesn’t Work. It Has Never Worked’”; Dec. 7, 2011)

Obama, without question, voiced the most unambiguous endorsement and affirmation for communism ever made by an American president. It is yet another demonstrative proof that Obama embraces communism and that his primary goal is to turn America into a communist nation. Republicans (and quite frankly, Democrats, too) who are standing by silently allowing this Erebusic megalomaniac to spew his detestable and divisive rhetoric to the impressionable and malleable minds of children, are, in effect, openly supporting a terrorist attack on minds of America’s children. It is enough that public-school teachers teach such messages; the children do not need said message reinforced by the president of the United States.

Words fail to express the contempt I have for Obama as the leader of our nation. He condemns the very thing that made America great – and specific to that point, America was great before there was an Obama. It should be a punishable offense to allow him to undermine that greatness.

America is in denial to believe that he is not a communist doing everything in his power to forcibly and insidiously transform the nation into a communist state. It is misinformation for the media, political pundits and writers of opinion to report his actions in any other way. He is a manifestation of evil that threatens America in a way the KKK and al-Qaida could but hope to.

He condemns and attacks the very thing that allows him to raise a billion dollars for his re-election campaign, i.e., free-market capitalism. He no longer hides his Marxian belief of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” He is the president – he represents an idea, a symbol of integrity and a presumption of knowing what’s right to the children he addresses. What child is going to stand up and say, “Excuse me, Mr. President, but you are wrong”?

Using words like “populist” to describe his speeches are attempts to put expensive perfume on a manure pile in an effort to make it smell and appear pleasant. But even if one were blind, that perfume only masks the smell until the pile is disturbed – then it smells again.

Obama is dividing this nation based on race and economic status. He is preying on ignorance and discontent that he is responsible for creating and fomenting. He condemns those who took the risks to achieve and create that which others also benefit from. He used the word fairness 14 times in his speech, in an attempt to demonize those who have achieved above others. Communism demands that there be income and wealth equality, not based on work or effort, but on a statist philosophy.

- Did you know Mychal Massie uses Constant Contact to deliver his Daily Rant everyday? –

What is never pointed out is that the overwhelming majority of people are not inclined to take the risks inherent with starting a business. He simply chants the mantra that it’s not fair for some to have more than others, and it is his stated intention to change that. He is portraying himself as a champion of the working class who will take from the evil rich – who unfairly prosper – and redistribute their wealth as government sees fit.

There remains another question astute individuals will ask: “Why did Obama choose Osawatomie to deliver such a transpicously Marxist speech – considering that he and his ilk do nothing that isn’t meticulously calculated?” The answer to that question is another question. Could it be because Osawatomie was the Weather Underground newspaper published by Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn in the 1970s, or did it have to do with the abolitionist John Brown whose nickname was Osawatomie – unless you believe it was all just a coincidence?

Then there is the eerie similarity between the Weather Underground organization logo and the Obama 2008 campaign logo. There is also their use of “audacity” to bring about “socialism” in America, in the original newspaper written by Ayers and Dohrn. While it is unknown for a certainty who wrote Obama’s “The Audacity of Hope,” Ayers, himself, referred to it as more of a “political hack book,” suggesting that it was a disingenuous feint to the center written by committee. I reference it because language found in “Audacity of Hope” closely parallels that found in the Ayers-Dohrn communist newspaper.

Maybe the media, especially Fox News, should spend as much time researching and reporting Obama’s background as they did reporting unproven rumors about Herman Cain.

True positive change suffered a setback from which we may not recover. Herman Cain offered real substantive change, not the canned, vacuous, hollow campaign promises typified by politicians.

But to understand what happened, we must go back and look at what has happened before. This isn’t the first time a true champion of the people has been unjustly maligned – not for the sake of retaining the status quo as such, but, in reality, to ensure the overthrow of America from within.

The attacks against Herman Cain came from diabolical apparatchiks in both the Democratic and Republican parties. Both parties hated and feared him – Democrats, because Herman threatens to break the locks used to keep blacks, women and the so-called poor and minorities imprisoned on an invisible plantation where the cash crop was no longer cotton, but rather victimology and blame. Republicans, because he threatened to undo that which they cherish most – graft and a country-club lifestyle achieved by corrupting the financial processes.

But binding both of these Erebusic practices together is the same shadowy cabal that destroyed another great man’s chances of making real and substantive change. That man was Barry Goldwater. But I get ahead of myself.

The best way to limit something or someone’s ability to survive without your constant involvement is to give that something or someone something for nothing. If you feed wild animals long enough, they lose the ability to survive in the wild on their own. If you provide everything for your child, you end up with children like Paris Hilton or any number of other brats with no moral center.

Ergo, I have come to believe that the true intent of Lyndon Johnson’s civil rights legislation was to ensure that all blacks and women were gathered on one reserve. The intent of Johnson’s Great Society initiative was to keep them there.

Barry Goldwater presented the first real threat to the Maoism of the Great Society that Johnson wanted to set in place – and those behind Johnson’s socialist agenda were not about to let that happen. Those behind the destruction of Goldwater were the younger versions of those behind the destruction of Herman Cain.

In his book, Barack Obama and The Enemies Within Trevor Loudon quotes the nation’s premier communist researcher, Herbert Romerstein, and former KGB officer Stanislav Levchenko, who examined Soviet attempts to blacken Goldwater’s name. “The false charge that Goldwater was a racist was one of the smear campaigns used against his candidacy by the Soviets and their surrogates. The American Communists covertly assisted in this ‘active measures’ campaign” (page 425).

The so-called intellectual elite pretends to blanch at the mention of shadowy forces operating from the skyboxes of politics out of sight. Levchenko and Romerstein documented that in a booklet published in 1963, claiming that Goldwater was conspiring with the John Birch Society to spur a violent insurrection to take over the United States in 1964.

I point this out because that mysteriously published booklet, and the false claims of his being a racist, did to Goldwater what Ginger White and the media did to Herman Cain. The booklet was found to have been published, according to the House Un-American Activities Committee, by a publishing company in Chicago that was owned by two members of the Communist Party USA.

The point I’m making is that there is an order of doing things, and under no circumstances are the forces behind the scenes going to permit that order to be threatened. Goldwater threatened it, and Herman Cain threatened it.

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Herman Cain threatened to truly empower the people. He threatened to actually change Washington and strike the final deathblow to the closet bigots – those who feel one black president is enough but are too dishonest to say it publicly. Herman threatened to return government back to the people – something those who manipulate the system were not about to see happen.

The media ran with the unfounded accusations like dogs run to eat their own vomit. There was no story, but they made it one. I argue that the media that set upon Herman should be as aggressive in exposing the secrets of Obama’s background. If exposed, how long would Obama remain president? Why aren’t the media exposing the kabuki theater of Rep. Darrell Issa’s hearings on Fast and Furious?

Herman Cain wasn’t from one of the Ivy League presidential mills, and he didn’t talk in choreographed political speak. He is a plainspoken individual with a vision for America that includes returning America to the people. Herman understands business and what it really takes to return the nation to profitability. But he was mocked from the moment he made his announcement to run. I should here note that Ronald Reagan was mocked and discounted for the very same reasons Herman was.

The bigots referenced him as nice, likable, but not having a chance to win. As he continued to be embraced by the people and surge in the polls, the bigots continued their bray that he couldn’t win.

I have an idea. Let’s put every one of the Fox News program hosts under the same scrutiny and standard applied to Herman, and see how long Fox News remains the equivalent of the “wholesome and fairness” cable channel.

You can never take for granted what’s in a person’s mind until you’ve heard what comes out of his mouth. Take, for instance, Colin Powell; you know the man I’m talking about – general, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, secretary of state for George W. Bush and, more recently, Obama supporter and apologist.

Prior to the election of Obama, it was generally assumed and just taken for granted that Powell was a conservative who saw the world as true conservatives see it. But with the election of Obama, Powell dropped his pretense of same faster than Laura Bush revealed she was pro-abortion and pro-homosexual marriage, after leaving the White House.

In 2008, Powell endorsed Obama as a “transformational figure” and “a generation coming.” Powell’s crowing about Obama was somewhat more tempered when he was asked for his assessment by “State of the Union” host Candy Crowley. He told Crowley on her Sunday CNN program: “I think he’s got a way to go, I mean, he hasn’t achieved all of his purposes, but he’s stabilized the economy. The economy is now starting to rebound, more slowly than we would like to see, but it is rebounding. Whether you approve of health care or not, he took on that issue, which I think is a major challenge for the American people.” (“Colin Powell on Obama: We didn’t elect Superman, we elected a human being”; Jeff Poor; The Daily Caller; Jan. 23, 2011)

When asked by Crowley if he thought the perception of the country had changed under Obama, Powell responded: “I think it’s better. I think the favorability rating of the United States and the administration has gone up. But, you know, we didn’t elect Superman, we elected a human being … who came in with an idea, with energy, and I think with a youthful – a more youthful approach to things.”

Permit me to quickly point out a few things Powell’s cozened attempt at trumpeting “hail to chief Obama” omitted. Pursuant to the economic recovery he referenced: true unemployment was closer to 19 percent; 40 percent of those unemployed were classified as long-term unemployed; 1.5 million, or 10 percent of the total, had been unemployed for more than 99 weeks; there was talk of a double-dip economic downturn; and jobless claims were still north of 400,000. So, just what economic recovery was he speaking of?

Powell’s praise for Obama’s mythical economic recovery also failed to mention that, instead of focusing on jobs, he was focused on destabilizing the Middle East and squandering money on green technology companies that went bankrupt literally weeks after being given billions of dollars in taxpayer bailouts. He also failed to mention that Obama’s was a manic pursuant to seize control of one-sixth of the economy, when the federal government has been unable to run the U.S. Postal Service competently and has mishandled Social Security to the brink of insolvency.

And even more deplorable, his reference to Obama not being “Superman” was code-speak to blacks who could later be told that told Obama hadn’t been given enough time.

This morning, on ABC’s “This Week,” Christiane Amanpour asked Powell about the zeitgeist of the country, which she analogized as divisive, brash and poisonous. As Noel Sheppard wrote for Newsbusters.org: “Not surprisingly, neither the class warfare stoked by [Obama] and his Party nor the resulting Occupy Wall Street movement was mentioned during his seven minute interview.” (“Colin Powell Blames Media and Tea Party for Divisive Tone in Washington”; Nov. 27, 2011)

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Powell immediately launched into a diatribe of blame against the tea party, calling them “the extreme right” and blaming us for our unwillingness to compromise. Before I ask the obvious question – why are we the ones always expected to compromise? – let’s ask Powell the following.

Where would Powell be today, and what are the chances that the black family in the White House today would, at best, be there as servants if Lincoln had decided to compromise and let the South and New Jersey have slaves? What would America be today if our Founding Fathers had worked a compromise on taxes and minerals with King George? Obama claims to be a Christian – where would Christianity and God’s plan of salvation be if Jesus had decided to compromise on sin and the cross? What if Churchill had compromised with Hitler, telling him he could kill all the Jews he wanted if he didn’t advance against England? What if Everett Dirksen had compromised on the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

In every instance above, the groups/persons leading the charge were called extreme right-wing and accused of being unwilling to compromise, but they held their ground and we are better off for it. Compromise has brought us nothing but a downward spiral of society. Compromise has brought us the homosexual agenda and abortion on demand. Compromise has brought to the very brink of destruction of our nation.

Maybe instead of fomenting racial and societal discord, Powell would be better served by remembering there is a reason the military has been inflexible in its training regimens. It’s because the military understands that compromise is the surest way to disorder and defeat.

When America stood on absolutes, faith and propriety, we were a nation envied the world over. Powell might think about that as he blames the tea party.

The question of whether or not Obama, vis-à-vis the federal government, has the constitutional authority to mandate that we buy health insurance under threat of penalty will now presumably be decided by the Supreme Court.

The question that begs an answer is: If the high court rules Obama does not have the constitutional authority to force us to purchase health insurance, will Obama abide by the ruling or will he pull a Franklin D. Roosevelt and attempt to overrule the court’s decision?

Don’t say “not a chance” too quickly. He’s already arbitrarily decided what laws he would not enforce – telling his attorney general not to enforce the law. Moreover, who would have imagined Congress abdicating its responsibility and allowing him to do it?

You can argue he has essentially neutered Congress (with their consent), circumventing its legislative responsibility through the use of executive orders. Nicholas Ballasy, writing for the Daily Caller, captured Obama’s hubris when he told a crowd: “I’m here to say to all of you … [I] can’t wait for … Congress. … I’ve told my administration to keep looking every single day for actions [I] can take without Congress, steps that can … make government more efficient and responsive … and [I'm] going to be announcing these executive actions on a regular basis.” (“Obama says he’ll be taking ‘executive actions’ without Congress on ‘regular basis’ to ‘heal the economy,’” Oct. 24, 2011)

Specific to his belligerent braggadocio that best resembles a spiteful child, angry because he must obey his parents, he devises a method of disobedience, daring them to object. Combining all of the executive orders of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush, the total number spanning their combined 32 years was 315. Obama, in less than three full years of his first term, has signed 99, with two more waiting to be signed that will bring the total to 101. And he has promised to sign more every day, if he so deems, for the express purpose of getting his way.

This from a man with zero business experience, who is singularly responsible for the loss of millions of jobs and who has spent $4.5 trillion in less than three years into his first term. Dick Schoen and Pat Caddell – Democrat strategists of unimpeachable credentials – disgustedly admit that Obama has no clue about how business and the economy works – but I digress.

Obama arbitrarily decided to invade Libya without congressional authority, insisting he didn’t need it. Even when the ACLU pointed out that President George W. Bush had gone before Congress to get authority to go into Iraq – telling him they were prepared to take legal action because he had failed to do so – still Obama pushed back and spitefully dragged his feet until the sword of Damocles was at his throat.

When President George W. Bush proposed to overhaul and privatize Social Security he was met with fierce opposition. Rather than destructively polarize the nation, he sought other recourses. When President Clinton introduced his health-care proposal, he was met with similar fierce opposition. He, too, rather than destroy the cohesiveness of the nation, abandoned it and sought alternatives. Bush, a globalist, and Clinton, a liberal, put the will of the people above their personal desires.

But Obama, in the face of his uncontrolled spending, unparalleled unemployment, a housing market collapse and an economy that demanded attention – decided to respond in the most vulgar ways ever witnessed by a sitting president. He chose to ignore the economy and added trillions more in spending just to have his way.

In my column “Madison must be rolling over,” I wrote: “… on May 27, 1935 ([Roosevelt's] aptly termed Black Monday), the Supreme Court handed down three unanimous opinions that struck down key provisions of the New Deal.” (WND, March 2, 2009)

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

“Roosevelt, however, denounced the court and introduced the ‘court packing bill’ in an attempt to expand Supreme Court membership, by which he planned to nominate justices who would side with him. This resulted in a bitter dispute between the two branches of government, with Roosevelt ultimately prevailing – which resulted in his overstepping the Constitution and ushering in the belief that government is our nanny.”

With his track record, can you honestly be confident of Obama obeying the SCOTUS should they not rule as he wants? Did he not tell lies about the court and berate the justices during his State of the Union speech? He ignored the ruling of the lower court when it ruled the government option was not constitutional.

I say this man’s narcissism will not permit him to simply abide by a ruling he doesn’t like. Roosevelt didn’t and it worked – why should Obama be any different?

© 2011 

We’ve seen Herman Cain accuser Sharon Bialek before – only then she was making references to pubic hairs in Coke cans and “Long Dong Silver.” In that theatrical production she was portrayed as the more comely and much less vivacious Anita Hill, with Supreme Court Justice nominee Clarence Thomas in the role of Herman Cain.

© 2011
I have for many years argued the media don’t report, they sway opinion and polarize. And the more sordid the issue, the more aggressively they go after it.

In my Thursday morning live daily rant with Craig Henne, on WPBR 1340 AM in Palm Beach, Fla., I stated, “[I] was convinced that those responsible for reporting the news – and specific to that point, the news programming conglomerate as a whole – had long ago shed any pretense of reporting – it’s just that the public, in significant numbers, had yet to realize same.” I questioned if, in fact, the media “had ever really produced anything or if they weren’t always about spin, distorting the truth and sensationalizing.”

I offer, as examples for your consideration, the Casey Anthony child-murder trial, Charlie Sheen and that which this media, with a straight face, attempted to do to Herman Cain. They were shamelessly complicit in the attempt to destroy a principled man.

The media set themselves up as judge and jury, and under the pretext of being fair and balanced, they took a man’s sterling reputation and sought to destroy it. It was the equivalent of a truffle oil and white corn reduction sauce, from Miss Elizabeth’s Catering in the East Village, being turned into something that flows through the sewers.

They cast aspersions and invoke judgment when they themselves are guilty of much more. What happened with Bill O’Reilly’s sex scandal? Infidelity, scandal and sexual impropriety are as legion among the media ranks today as drugs, alcohol, anti-Semitism, racial bigotry and sexual impropriety were in their prior history. This is the history and these are the people who are tearing down Herman Cain.

We don’t have a press or media. We have cronyism, politburos and a cabal of T & A with painted faces and coiffured hair, with long legs in designer clothing capable of reading without blinking. And men who give new meaning to the phrase “the kinda guy a feminist would love.” They have turned that which of necessity we should be able to trust into agitprop. And they want us to believe Herman is guilty of being a serial philanderer like Bill Clinton and Al Gore. Well, Herman isn’t like them, and we’re not going to listen to their feckless and dishonest attempts not to just manage the news, but create it as well.

Here’s a question for these so-called news persons: Did they bring up Al Sharpton’s past when he appeared on their shows during his farcical presidential run? Did they question Jesse Jackson per his lying about Martin Luther King dying in his arms? Did they question Jackson about why he switched from pro-life to pro-death? As a matter of fact, why is it that not one news person has asked Jackson or Sharpton why they support a culture of death that, in roughly 40 years, has murdered over one-quarter of American black people.

In their rush to be first, and in their zealousness to destroy, the media have behaved like dogs chasing a female dog that is in season. They are more wretched than those cashing in from human trafficking.

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

In court, judges recuse themselves if they have a case wherein any past behavior or questionable relationship challenges the fairness of their potential ruling. Imagine how much differently the news would be delivered and reporting would be if the person or persons doing the reporting had to declare if the crime or accusation was or wasn’t in their personal background.

The media’s preening smugness, as they discard all pretense of objectivity when discussing Herman, disgusts me. A clip of Herman speaking to the conservative advocacy group Americans for Prosperity was showed on Megyn Kelly’s news show on Fox News. It showed him joking about not needing the teleprompters that were placed by the podium.

You tell me why Kelly thought it was necessary to make a condescending face after airing the clip. Did she think we were amused by her antics? Or did it not occur to her that we were still seething over what I and most others believe was a Republican hatchet attack on Herman, from the elite ranks of their public face?

Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and CNN teeter on the brink of becoming sad footnotes of what not to be in media – and, while the “fair and balanced” team enjoys a certain popularity today, I suggest they remember why they’re there and what it is they are there to do. I suggest that they remember why people watch their programming. We want the news presented in a clear and undiluted way. They cannot say that ‘s what they did in Herman Cain’s case.