If Only Obama Were Shirley Sherrod….

July 22, 2010

Obama campaign poster

Did the NAACP give cover to Obama on the Shirley Sherrod firing?  Did Obama want her fired to appease the great white, black-baiting lunatic media fringe, but wanted to blame someone else so as not to piss-off his black base?  Surely, if one needs more proof that Black political leadership is held hostage to the Obama Stockholm Syndrome, one need look no further than this deplorable incident.
There must have been collusion between Obama and the NAACP because the “White House” wanted her fired and the NAACP wanted her hung out to dry. The NAACP, after all, had the full tape of the 40 minute speech Sherrod gave to the organization and the hall was full of witnesses to Ms. Sherrod’s comments. Anyone amongst that group of attendees could have stood up for Sherrod against the false reverse “racism” charges the lunatic TEA party advocates perpetuate.  Yet no one did; that is, until the sh*t hit the fan.  Benjamin Todd Jealous, president and CEO of the NAACP was pretty unequivocal in his condemnation of Ms. Sherrod.  The pussyfooting of Mr. Jealous, on the defensive about black racism, resulted in an accusation against Ms. Sherrod that she was, at one point, a racist cut of the same cloth as former klansman Senator Robert Byrd or the “segregation forever” king, George Wallace:

The NAACP also has long championed and embraced transformation by people who have moved beyond racial bias. Most notably, we have done so for late Alabama Governor George Wallace and late US Senator Robert Byrd — each a man who had associated with and supported white supremacists and their cause before embracing civil rights for all.

Shirley Sherrod fired by USDA

Has the NAACP so lost its collective mind under the influence  Obama’s post-racial campaign fantasies that they would forget the history of their own struggle for racial justice by equating the victims of historic American racism with its perpetrators?  As a Mr. Welch said to Senator McCarthy during questioning from the House Un-American Activities Committee:

Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?

Mr. Jealous’ open letter made another surprisingly pusillanimous statement:

Having reviewed the full tape, spoken to Ms. Sherrod, and most importantly heard the testimony of the white farmers mentioned in this story, we now believe the organization that edited the documents did so with the intention of deceiving millions of Americans.  I apologized to Ms. Sherrod, clearly a committed and selfless public servant, who had been unfairly maligned

So, the most important evidence of Ms. Sherrod’s innocence was the testimony of the white farmers? Not the fully available TAPE? Not the response of Ms. Sherrod or the full spectrum of her history and reputation? Sad. Obama’s “victory” has sliced the gonads off Black “leadership”.

Duh.  FOX News and Breitbart, Beck and Limbaugh make a mint fomenting race hate in America.  That the NAACP claims it was “snookered” by these troglodytes is what’s surprising.  It seems the NAACP is using its moral currency and justice advocacy to cover for Obama instead of pressing forward with a plan of action to better the lives of the “colored” (multi-racial) downtrodden regardless of who occupies the white house.

Andrew Breitbart

Andrew Breitbart

The NAACP’s gambit of calling on the TEA party movement and right-wing freak-o-sphere to stop being racist is beyond laughable. Never gonna happen.  That’s their bread and butter. It’s really about defending Obama and re-focusing progressives and moderates on poor Mr. President’s raw deal at the hands of dead-ender bigots just at the outset of the 2010 congressional campaign and in the face of Obama’s falling poll numbers.  Calling out the TEA party on its race baiting will not end the race baiting but it may rally Obama’s disgruntled erstwhile supporters.  Throwing Ms. Sherrod to the wolves would have been a sop for Mr. Obama’s “centrist” sell-out.  But the entire episode has blown up in both the president’s and the NAACP’s face, leaving them looking cynical, pathetically weak and out-of-touch.

How about Shirley Sherrod for president?


Miranda Rights v. Barack H. Obama

July 2, 2010

What the hell is Barack Obama thinking?  Not so long ago he was perfidiously quick to file an Amicus brief supporting the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) while professing a fierce support for LGBT equality. LGBT voters under the bus.

Nothing has changed.  The White House has produced another perplexing Amicus brief in the Supreme Court’s Miranda warnings appeal, Berghuis v. Thompkins. The White House has thrown its support to  limits on criminal suspects remaining silent during police interrogations.  A whole host of protections against self-incrimination and right to counsel have been swept aside in this decision.  Blacks and Hispanics, far over-represented in the populations of the unfairly arrested, convicted, and imprisoned, will bear the brunt of this outcome.  For Obama, this assault on Miranda was simply collateral damage within the larger context of his political ambition.   SC Justice Sotomayor, who has not forgotten her roots, wrote a powerful dissent to the Thompkins decision.  Was Obama too afraid to challenge the pro-cop faction of the Faux News “nation” after last year’s racist onslaught  accompanying the arrest of  Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates?

Right wing activists have long sought to undo Miranda, never accepting it as settled law.  The  conservative Supreme Court has worked assiduously to narrow the rights of criminal suspects and defendants.  “Terror” scares, or so-called Miranda rights for terrorists, has finally given them the justification they needed.  They have chosen a fine time , under the auspices of one of the weakest and most non-ideological administrations in history, to pull off a heist of civil liberties.  Poor Obama doesn’t want to seem “soft” on terror or miss an opportunity to mollify his “enemies”. So, our president is making a change that will satisfy his critics.

presidential adviser David Axelrod told CNN that the (president’s) focus is on expanding the “public safety exception” that allows a delay in administering” Miranda rights.

Why, if “terror” suspects can be legally or extra-legally TORTURED, HELD INDEFINITELY WITHOUT CHARGE or TRIAL, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE  TO THE RAGING RIGHT WING NUTS IF THESE “SUSPECTS” RECEIVE MIRANDA WARNINGS OR NOT?  Isn’t this terror concern just a red herring for curtailing domestic rights?

Most of the TEA Party crowd doesn’t give a hoot about any suspect’s constitutional rights, or any other constitutional protection that doesn’t involve bearing arms.

But Obama, Mr. progressive constitutional lawyer, caved to the neo-cons.  Natch.

Obama’s capitulations, just the most  recent being Miranda rights, will not endear him to the lunatic fringe of the erstwhile Republican party. The more his proto-fascist ideas resemble theirs the more they will refer to him as the vilest “leftist” politician America has yet produced. By the end of President Obama’s “progressive” administration, who knows how far America will have moved toward the Orwellian national security state that neo-cons have so long desired.

Now, that’s change we can believe in.