Dr. Aikins Political Commentary

Do Black People Really Believe They Are Apes?

2009-02-18T18:58:00.000-08:00

I often criticize Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson for their non-leadership antics. They have no program, no plan, no strategy, except to wait for some white idiot to give them a platform. The New York Post just obliged.

The Post printed a cartoon of the Chimp, Travis, that had to be shot by Stamford Connecticut police when he attacked and damned near literally tore the face off of a friend of the chimp’s owner. The caption of the cartoon referred to the stimulus plan just past. The exact cartoon caption reads:

“They’ll Have to Find Someone Else to Write the Next Stimulus Bill.”

Now, Rev. Al Sharpton has been given an issue! Many blacks, and white whose support could be better used to support a race-specific full-employment act for blacks, support Sharpton and his non-sense antics--marching to protest this “insult.” With blacks being shot down like stray dogs in the inner cities, you’d think that Sharpton with his one or two member organization, National Action Network, might consider the randon murder of blacks by other blacks and Hispanics in places like South Los Angeles at least as important as the killing of a mad chimp. Apparently not.

More disturbing to me is the fact that American blacks would give such a non-sense cartoon, which is not even funny, any consideration at all. The question that comes to my mind is this: “Do black people subconsciously believe that they are apes?”

Comedians and others repeatedly referred to Former President George W. Bush as an ape for at least six of his eight years in the White House. So, did Rev. Sharpton protest? No! Then it must be because the good Reverend did not believe that George Bush was an ape? Do Sharpton and any pitiful followers believe that black people are apes?

When are we as a people going to grow up? We have an American black President in the White House and we are hyperventilating about a cartoon depicting some white cop shooting an ape!

Al, his black coterie and white sympathizers, will be marching in New York City Tomorrow! How stupid!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
©All Rights Reserved. Reproduction is permitted provided credit is given. Lenton Aikins, Ph.D., J.D. Dr. Aikins has traveled widely, lived abroad in Europe and Latin America, recently spending three years in Costa Rica as Director of a Spanish Language school. He holds a Ph. D. in Political Science from University of Southern California, a Juris Doctor in Law from Western State University, College of Law. He is the author of many articles and of While African Americans Slept: Leadership by Parasites, now available at: http://zitpub.com, and available in all bookstores July 1, 2008. To read his blog, Dr. Aikins Political Commentary, go to: http://lentonaikins.com and click on blog.

STALKING AND HANDICAPP PARKING

2009-01-25T22:37:00.000-08:00

I oppose stalking. I support handicap parking.

What I do not support is defining laws or privileges so widely as to make them meaningless. I use handicap parking to illustrate the point.

Our federal government just released a 12-month report which states that 3.4 million persons age 18 or older were victims of stalking. The government defines stalking with a pinch of specificity, “Stalking Victimization in the United States,” (Bureau of Justice Statistics, Special Report, January 2009) as “a course of conduct directed at a specific person that would cause a reasonable person to feel fear.” As definitions got, this sounds like a reasonable definition to me.

Then, the report veers into a definitional quagmire, listing no fewer than seven measurements of stalking behaviors, and states that none of these individual acts is criminal (fudging its categories with “may not be criminal”). It is this definitional quagmire that would let almost any real stalker off the hook if he or she has the money to hire a competent lawyer.

Most of these “victimizing” acts could be readily stopped if the person being “stalked” just had a normal backbone. These acts include:

Unwanted e-mails (now this encompasses about half of Americans!);
Unwanted phone calls (well, now we include robo-calls, unsolicited advertising?);
Following/spying on a person (the report uses the word victim instead of person);
Showing up at a place without a legitimate reason;
Waiting at a place for a person (the report uses the word “victim” So I guess it’s ok to wait for a person just so long as the person does not consider him or herself a victim!)
Leaving unwanted items, presents, or flowers (well, now, guys and gals can no longer leave roses for their pissed-off lovers!);
Posting information or spreading rumors on the internet, in a public place, or by word of mouth. (No more freedom of speech, guys and gals, the truth is no longer a defense if it includes “posting information” on the internet, in a public place or even by word of mouth!)

This is not about stalking; it’s about feminizing conduct. Say what you may, there is a real difference between men and women. Boys like to play with different toys than girls and no amount of “socializing” is going to change this.

The report states that about half of stalking victims experienced at least one unwanted contact per week and about ten percent of victims said that they had been stalked for 5 years or more. The report reveals to us a fact that even an idiot should know: highest incidence of stalking occurred with persons divorced or separated. (Wow! Now a guy or gal pursuing a girl with flowers is put in the same category as a stalker!)

Trying to put an economic face on stalking, the report states that more than half of stalking victims lost 5 or more days from work because of stalking. Well, we should now brace ourselves for a Federal Law outlawing all meaningful contacts between men and women. The federal government has already enacted a statute addressing interstate stalking, 18 U.S.C. §2261A.

Although stalking is a serious matter and should be treated as such, the gross exaggeration of stalking as being widespread, especially when a little common sense by the persons being stalked would put a stop to it, is just another example of the hyper feminization of conduct in United States. Indeed, there are a sizeable number of women (and men too) who want to destroy all conduct that in any way differentiates between men and women. These folks want to criminalize any aggressiveness in men, apparently leaving women free to kill with words while men—who are verbally inferior to women, generally—is left to bear the burden of silence.

Comparing stalking to handicap parking, while both are serious matters, is no exaggeration:

Every mall or strip mall I visit, I cannot help but to marvel at the misuse of parking spaces by over allocation by a factor of three or four to one parking spaces to the handicap. I do not begrudge handicap persons parking spaces. What I am indignant about is the over allocation of vacant parking spaces as “handicap parking.”

Now, see the analogy of handicap parking spaces with defining stalking to as virtually all contacts in our modern world? When stalking is defined to mean almost anything that makes people, particularly women, uncomfortable, that’s when the ugly sin of political correctness rears its hydra head, and criminal prosecution for stalking is rendered a shadowy apparition.

Stalking is not a definitional flip of a coin; stalking is not a nuisance; stalking is a crime. Turning it into a nuisance by having it embrace political correctness and feminization (who hasn’t receive an unwanted phone calls, e-mails, etc.?) makes it harder to effectively combat it.

Why don’t we criminalize telemarketing stalking?

_____________________________________________________________________
© 2008 by Lenton Aikins
All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction is permitted provided credit is given.
Lenton Aikins, Ph.D., J.D.
Attorney at Law, Author
Dr. Aikins has travelled widely, lived abroad in Europe and Latin America, recently spending three years in Costa Rica as Director of a Spanish Language school. He holds a Ph. D. in Political Science from University of Southern California, a Juris Doctor in Law from Western State University, College of Law. His book, While African Americans Slept: Leadership by Parasites, is available at: http://zitpub.com or go to http://lentonaikins.com

Get Read 4 a Post-Racial Obama, Part II

2009-01-14T18:05:00.000-08:00

Race is a very slippery slope for both blacks and whites in our country, especially since the end of official segregation. Frankly, we are blinded by race.

Note the fetish of some very educated blacks chanting for Reparations for Slavery! You’d think that they are blind to reality or they just want to grasp onto an issue that they can forever pursue without winning.

The more practical pursuits, and potential for success, would be to sue as a class for segregation and discrimination reparations because many victims of official segregation are still alive today. Within two generations, most, if not all, victims of official segregation and discrimination (which ended in the 1960’s) will be dead and gone. Perhaps then those with the fetish to dream will “come alive” and pursue Reparations for segregation and discrimination. Again, it will be too late.

Parasitic black leadership again has failed to pursue a strategy that might result in some tangible results. Once blacks achieved full legal citizenship (ending official segregation, effective voting rights, etc.) black American leaders were as lost for what to do as a blind salamander in the Sahara. With no agenda and no concrete goals, black leadership and leadership organizations are left to beg for crumbs from the public trough, largely, and to wait for some white fool to thrust upon them an opportunity to protest, e.g., Imus….

Despite unheard of opportunities now open to blacks, the black American leadership class (which includes entertainment moguls, activists, black academics who feed the elite black youngsters in colleges and the universities and black publications) have utterly failed to develop ONE, ONE industrial entertainment and convention complex where black folks could go and spend the billion plus dollars that they spend at white owned complexes. Where does the NAACP hold its 5000 plus convention attendees every year?

---------------------------------------------------
©All Rights Reserved.Reproduction is permitted provided credit is given.Lenton Aikins, Ph.D., J.D.Dr. Aikins has traveled widely, lived abroad in Europe and Latin America, recently spending three years in Costa Rica as Director of a Spanish Language school. He holds a Ph. D. in Political Science from University of Southern California, a Juris Doctor in Law from Western State University, College of Law. He is the author of many articles and of While African Americans Slept: Leadership by Parasites, now available at: http://lentonaikins.com, and available in all bookstores July 1,
2008. You can read his blog: Go to: http://lentonaikins.com and click on blog.

Get Read 4 Whitewashing of Barack Obama

2009-01-12T14:30:00.000-08:00

Part I of a Two Part Series

Frederick Douglas noted that the white man will make it as difficult as he can for a black man to succeed and then when he does, the white man will no longer consider him black! (I am paraphrasing here)

Douglas was writing in reference to Benjamin Banniker (if you don’t know who he was, consider yourself ignorant of American history) and Benjamin Franklin.

Tragically, the same ugly history rears its head in many conversations that I have heard by whites referencing Obama.

After over 350 years of classifying any person with from one drop (the “one drop theory” the “1/16th theory”) of African American blood as black, all of a sudden when a black man succeeds to the White House, he is no longer black! As many whites have commented, “Obama is just as white as he is black.” This represents over 350 years of continued rank hypocracy.

Now I know what I have to do for my mixed ancestry to be recognized: I gotta run for President and win, or perhaps governor of California would suffice.

Black Americans have been “mixed” for centuries (quadroons, octoroons, half-breeds, zombies, mulattos, etc.) and they have been uniformly referred to as “black” by whites without a blink of the eye, until now.

Suddenly a black man earns the most powerful office in the world and he is no longer black! My, how far we have come! John McCain did not run as a “white” candidate. Obama did not run as a “black” candidate, but that label was place on the latter—at least until now. Nobody in his right mind would ever think that Obama would govern as a “black” (whatever that means) President. But, what does reality have to do with it anyway?

I say, keep him black, black, black! For by doing so, it assuages white guilt that a black man has won the highest office in the land. If we can assuage white guilt, maybe we can get rid of black victimology. As for me, it does not matter how we get rid of black victimology, just as long as we do so. Black victimology is the bane of black progress. There is no intention here to deny the tremendous harm that slavery, segregation and discrimination have wrought on black folks. But, if it “ain’t” working, we have to fix it; victimology is not working, except for the black parasitic leadership class.

Next, Part Two, focuses on race & leadership

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

©All Rights Reserved. Reproduction is permitted provided credit is given. Lenton Aikins, Ph.D., J.D. Dr. Aikins has traveled widely, lived abroad in Europe and Latin America, recently spending three years in Costa Rica as Director of a Spanish Language school. He holds a Ph. D. in Political Science from University of Southern California, a Juris Doctor in Law from Western State University, College of Law. He is the author of many articles and of While African Americans Slept: Leadership by Parasites, now available at: http://zitpub.com, and available in all bookstores July 1, 2008. To read his blog, Dr. Aikins Political Commentary, go to: http://lentonaikins.com and click on blog.

2008-11-19T19:53:00.000-08:00

A black man will take the oath of office blocks from where slaves were once housed in pens and sold for profit. He and his black wife will sleep in a house built by slave labor, nearby where Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This moment makes me cry with joy. This moment makes me cringe with shame. I am not gay. I have two grown sons who are not gay. You don’t have to like or approve of the lifestyle of gays; but, as a matter of principle, they are entitled to all of the fundamental rights that other Americans enjoy. Marriage is one of these fundamental rights. The irony in California is that on the same day that blacks were voting 95% to install a black man in the White House, they were voting 70% to deny a group of citizen the fundamental right to get married—a right which the blacks themselves were denied less than fifty years ago.

To deny gays the right to marry is to deny a fundamental right to individuals who possess characteristic that they cannot change—immutable characteristics. This is the very definition of denial of fundamental civil rights. I am old enough to remember when it was a crime in many states for a black to marry a white person. “Christians” and organized religion now make the same argument against gay marriage as they made against interracial marriage in 1961—with only slight variations. When I was growing up as a boy in Texas, these same Christians did not permit me to worship in their white churches—all done in the name of Christianity and religion.

I am old enough to remember Proposition 14, which was on the ballot in good old liberal California, which had as its purpose the denial of blacks to rent and buy property like other citizens. This was in 1964! The same “Christians” and Mormons argued that it wasn’t a question of denying blacks the right to buy property, but rather it was a question of property rights—as if property owners had unfettered freedom regarding their property. Every county in California except Marin approved Proposition 14. The Supreme Court saw through this charade and overruled it. I hope the Court will do the same with Proposition 8. Blacks voted overwhelmingly against Proposition 14; yet they now appear to be deaf, dumb, and blind to the denial to a large group of even a more pernicious discrimination.

Mormons led the Proposition 8 “Yes” appeal and financed it more heavily than any other group. This same group denied black Americans the right to become Elders in their church until the late 1970’s. If my memory is correct, their leader, suffered a revelation” and changed this racist policy when it became obvious that Mormons were increasingly running the risk of loosing their tax exemption status.

Let me be clear: Black Americans are hypocritical; they seem to think that the only discrimination important to oppose is racial discrimination. They are wrong. They mouth Dr. King's "I have a Dream" speech and then proceed to vote to deny a fundamental right to gays Americans, largely on religious grounds. Are not gays all God's children, too? I don’t remember a gay persons ever asking anything other than to be judged by the content of his character and not by his or her sexual preference.

Serial monogamy appears to be more a threat to traditional marriage in California than gay marriage. Over the years, marriage has changed fundamentally. We no longer marry to have children, to adopt or to live together. If the purpose of marriage is to promote family stability, to advance society’s interest in rearing children and to promote respect for each and one another, then it is hypocritical for Christian and religious leaders, especially blacks whose family structure is in ruins, to oppose gay marriage.

Many white gay couples adopt black children and provide them with a far better life and environment than their own people care to. Approximately two third of all foster kids today in America are black. There is hardly a white left to be adopted, but there are many, many black kids who are warehoused in foster homes while blacks oppose, on Christian or religions grounds, gay marriages and gay adoptions.

I am profoundly disappointed with black Americans’, who are just over one generation out of virtual slavery and rabid segregation, voting 70% to deny a fundamental right to such an outstanding group of Americans, who contribute so much to our country in many professions.

Where are the civil rights leaders who have remained silent in this assault on these loyal American citizens?

I will call all of them out by name: To the NAACP, the Reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, Julian Bond, the Urban League and assorted other black parasitic leaders, why have you remained silent in this unprovoked assault on the fundamental rights of the American gay community?

They and we ought to be ashamed to have voted to deny another group of Americans the very right that we fought so hard to attain.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------©All Rights Reserved. Reproduction is permitted provided credit is given. Lenton Aikins, Ph.D., J.D. Dr. Aikins has traveled widely, lived abroad in Europe and Latin America, recently spending three years in Costa Rica as Director of a Spanish Language school. He holds a Ph. D. in Political Science from University of Southern California, a Juris Doctor in Law from Western State University, College of Law. He is the author of many articles and of While African Americans Slept: Leadership by Parasites, now available at: http://zitpub.com, and available in all bookstores July 1, 2008. To read his blog, Dr. Aikins Political Commentary, go to: http://lentonaikins.com and click on blog.

Tell Me What to Do Now That I've Won!!!

2008-11-05T20:26:00.000-08:00

Listening to the Republican Party strategists and “talking heads” you’d think all along they had Barack Obama’s interest at heart. Every "psuedo-independent” talking head from Amy Holmes to Dowd now express the opinion that Obama must “govern from the middle.” They, of course, wish him “success,” as long as he follows their direction. His win now suddenly has noting to do with his agenda!

The republicans having suffered a veritable drumming in the November 4th election, now resort to offering their “crocodile tears” advice on what President-Elect Obama is to do to succeed!

It’s as if to say, “ you beat me, now let’s govern together.”

This reminds me of the American Idol winner, Jordon Sparks, whose nearest competitor, sensing that he’d lost, whispered in her ear, “ if I win, I’ll ask you to sing the final song with me and if you win, you do the same.”

Although only 17 years old, the young lady instantly declined his “kind” offer.

Obama should do likewise.

You win, you get the challenges, benefits, fruits and disappointment of the winner.

You lose, you “come to Jesus” and assess just why you lost.

Republicans, come to Jesus.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
©All Rights Reserved. Reproduction is permitted provided credit is given. Lenton Aikins, Ph.D., J.D. Dr. Aikins has traveled widely, lived abroad in Europe and Latin America, recently spending three years in Costa Rica as Director of a Spanish Language school. He holds a Ph. D. in Political Science from University of Southern California, a Juris Doctor in Law from Western State University, College of Law. He is the author of many articles and of While African Americans Slept: Leadership by Parasites, now available at: http://zitpub.com, and available in all bookstores July 1, 2008. To read his blog, Dr. Aikins Political Commentary, go to: http://lentonaikins.com and click on blog.

General Colin Powell Gets His Revenge

2008-10-20T13:04:00.000-07:00

By endorsing Obama General Powell finally got his revenge. Many narrow-minded old washed up white men will immediately say the endorsement was a “race thing.” They are wrong. Powell has always publicly stated that he’s an American first and foremost. Shame any American has to say that. It should be obvious, but with the likes of the Congressperson from Minnesota calling for an investigation of members of the congress to determine who is pro and who is anti-American, what can you expect?

The very old white men who made the wrong decisions in their youth and early ages that have landed themselves in virtual poverty now during their declining age, (and consequently they are unable to earn 25%, or less in minimum wages, of what they used to earn) are now opting for “conservatism.” Powell, whom they once held out as an example of the “black” that they would vote for, now has suddenly become a “race man.” These very down-and-outers will now turn on a dime and denounce Powell. These down-and-outers have found an easy way to spend the rest of their lives: They let the likes of Savage and Lambaugh (these very rich demagogues) do all of their thinking.

McCain’s campaign represents a bunch of angry white men, not the least of which is the candidate himself, who have been so persuaded by angry white men talk shows who now see their preferences slipping away that they have become rampant racist and misogynists, succumbing to the most vile anti-intellectual thought processes.

“Joe, the Plumber” represents these folks with his simplistic mentality: he makes less than $40 thousand a year; he is against social security (I bet most of these angry white men won’t think of giving up their monthly social security pittance check); he is against welfare for minorities; he blames the current economic problems on minorities, diversity, affirmative action—without s single thought about Palin being the very poster-child for everything wrong with affirmative action, e.g. appointing rabidly unqualified, ignorant, audacious, blabber-mouth liars to positions for which they are not just unqualified but nonqualified.

Three is nothing racial about General Powell’s endorsement of Obama—the General just got his revenge and now perhaps he can sleep a little better knowing that his legacy may be enhanced since Obama represents diplomacy first as Powell tried to do before he was drowned out by W’s neo-cons.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

©All Rights Reserved. Reproduction is permitted provided credit is given. Lenton Aikins, Ph.D., J.D. Dr. Aikins has traveled widely, lived abroad in Europe and Latin America, recently spending three years in Costa Rica as Director of a Spanish Language school. He holds a Ph. D. in Political Science from University of Southern California, a Juris Doctor in Law from Western State University, College of Law. He is the author of many articles and of While African Americans Slept: Leadership by Parasites, now available at: http://zitpub.com, and available in all bookstores July 1, 2008. To read his blog, Dr. Aikins Political Commentary, go to: http://lentonaikins.com and click on blog.

Illegal Immigrant is Not a Protected Class nor a Minority Class

2008-10-01T18:21:00.000-07:00

A while ago, I sent to my cousin, who lives in Atlanta, an e-mail on urine tests (following the decision by our California Supreme Court upholding the right of an employer to fire a person who failed a urine test even though he was allegedly using it marijuana for medical purposes). That case, Ross v RagingWire, brought the ire of the California State Legislature and it voted to overrule the Supreme Court. The gist of the e-mail was that if citizens have to pass urine tests to get or hold jobs, why should not everybody on welfare have to pass a urine test to receive welfare? My cousin apparently forwarded the e-mail and received a counter argument (I do not know the facts because I just received a cc from my cousin.) Here is what my cousin said in his response. I thought it merited a blog, since I am preoccupied with other matters momentarily and have been unable to blog weekly as I like to do. This is not an endorsement of the comments, but don’t they merit an air? I reprint the e-mail in its entirety:

“Dick,You mentioned that you were surprised that I took this position on illegal immigration and felt that it was an affront to minorities. An illegal immigrant is not a minority class. First of all, illegal immigrants are Hispanics, Europeans, Africans, etc. that gain entry into the US illegally. My position on this stems from the fact that Marline (my wife) and her family had to apply for American citizenship, wait in line, take the necessary exams, learn English, etc. to gain American citizenship. We have a number of friends that have been waiting for years to gain American citizenship or residency. These are educated people. They all value American citizenship enough to learn English and follow the process. I can understand why people would come here illegally to gain the benefits of the American lifestyle, but that does not make it legal. I saw a black man loitering around a restaurant (with many other day laborers) hoping someone would drive by and offer him a job to apply his trade as a brick mason. Fifteen years ago a brick mason would command an hourly wage that could sustain a family. However, this is not the case today because a contractor can hire a day laborer with brick mason skills for $10 pesos. A significant number of jobs that were once done by skilled and unskilled laborers for wages that could sustain families have gone to an underclass of workers made up primarily of illegal immigrants. In Georgia a major carpet manufacturer was uncovered with the majority of its work force made up of illegal immigrants. In this particular case, a lady applied for a job there and was turned down because she could not speak Spanish. A major chicken or poultry producer was also uncovered to have the Lion's share of its work force made up of illegal immigrants. It was noted that the hourly wages paid for these jobs had plummeted significantly over the years because illegal immigrants accept a lower wage and do not complain since they do not want to be deported. Dick, this bothers me a lot, because my father was a laborer and raised 4 boys on his meager wages. These jobs are now considered "jobs that Americans want do." They are really jobs businesses can shift to someone that is willing to do them for substantially less to increase their profits without any obligations to the worker. The cost of these workers that the businesses profit from become an expense of JOHN Q PUBLIC (the tax payer) or you and me and not the business that profited. This also significantly impacts the black neighborhoods (made up of American citizens) because of the unfair labor practices. We have allowed the gay rights movement to hijack and ride the coat tails of the civil rights movement. * We are now letting the illegal immigration movement hijack the civil rights movement. This has nothing to do with minorities or discrimination. Let's call it what it is.....illegal immigration. Samuel Aikin” *This is my cousin’s view, not mine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Lenton Aikins, Ph.D., J.D. Dr. Aikins has traveled widely, lived abroad in Europe and Latin America, recently spending three years in Costa Rica as Director of a Spanish Language school. He holds a Ph. D. in Political Science from University of Southern California, a Juris Doctor in Law from Western State University, College of Law. He is the author of many articles and of While African Americans Slept: Leadership by Parasites, now available at: http://zitpub.com, and available in all bookstores July 1, 2008. To read his blog, Dr. Aikins Political Commentary, go to: http://lentonaikins.com and click on blog.

IS THIS SEXIST OR RACIST?*

2008-09-18T18:08:00.000-07:00

I'm a little confused. Let me see if I have this straight... **

If you grow up in Hawaii, raised by your grandparents, you're exotic, different.'* Grow up in Alaska eating mooseburgers, you’re a quintessential American story.

* If your name is Barack you're a radical, unpatriotic Muslim.

* Name your kids Willow, Trig and Track, you're a maverick “who wants to ban books from your local library.”

* Graduate from Harvard law School and you are unstable.

* Attend 5 different small colleges before graduating, you're well grounded or are you male professor shopping?(Beauty queens have done worst things!)

* If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer, become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, and spend 8 years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, (As opposed to a small town mayor running a homogeneous little town) become chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human Services, committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran's Affairs committees, you don't have any real leadership Experience—you’re not qualified to be President

* If your total resume is: local weather girl, 4 years on the city council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people, 20 months as the governor of a state with only 650,000 people, then you're qualified to become the country's second highest ranking executive and ready to assume the commander-in-chief role.

* If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while raising 2 beautiful daughters, all within Protestant churches, you're not a real Christian.

*If you believe that creationism is the key to man’s history—and not evolution, you’re a good Christian*If you believe that God has called our nation to defeat evil Islam, you’re a good Christian.

* If, while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with no other option in sex education in your state's school system while your unwed teen daughter ends up pregnant, you're very responsible. (If SP were black, what would the republicans say about that!)

*If you believe that it’s ok for you to use “lipstick” jokes, but when Barack compares what he’s for vs McCain and the says you can “put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig,” then he’s being disrespectful of you—you the very person who used lipstick.

*—now let’s take a look at the other maverick:

*Why do you say “lipstick on a pig” is sexist when your former press secretary wrote the book entitled “lipstick on a Pig,”??? You yourself, Senator McCain, has repeatedly used the very words to describe Senator Hillary Clinton’s proposed health plan!

*If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, who you picked up in a bar, and left your disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you're a Christian.

*But if you teach responsible, age appropriate sex education, including the proper use of birth control, you are eroding the fiber of society.

* If your wife is a Harvard graduate lawyer who gave up a position in a prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner city community, then gave that up to raise a family, your family’s values don't represent America's.

* But if you're husband is nicknamed 'First Dude', with at least one DWI conviction and no college education, who didn't register to vote until age 25 and once was a member of a group that advocated the secession of Alaska from the USA, your family is extremely admirable.

**My cousin sent this to me. I modified it somewhat.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
©All Rights Reserved. Reproduction is permitted provided credit is given. Lenton Aikins, Ph.D., J.D. Dr. Aikins has traveled widely, lived abroad in Europe and Latin America, recently spending three years in Costa Rica as Director of a Spanish Language school. He holds a Ph. D. in Political Science from University of Southern California, a Juris Doctor in Law from Western State University, College of Law. He is the author of many articles and of While African Americans Slept: Leadership by Parasites, now available at: http://zitpub.com, and available in all bookstores July 1, 2008. To read his blog, Dr. Aikins Political Commentary, go to: http://lentonaikins.com and click on blog.

Governor Sarah Palin: The Portrait of Affirmative Action

2008-09-02T09:47:00.001-07:00

Senator McCain’s selection of Governor Palin should forever put to rest neo-con, conservatives, right-wingers and all Republicans’ opposition to affirmative action. Her selection is the Portrait of Affirmative Action gone awry.

She only served as part-time mayor of a city smaller than the size (7000) of a few precincts in a major city like Chicago. She has been governor for twenty months of a state that has a population smaller than Columbus, Ohio. Yet McCain picks her to be a heart beat away from the off ice of President of the United States.

Let’s call this decision by McCain what it actually is: reckless.

Selection of the Vice President running mate is the most important decision that a nominee makes prior to becoming President. McCain not only failed in this respect—he committed a reckless act against the country he loves, I love, and Americans love.

McCain talks about the awesome responsibility of the President, but doesn’t do anything much about it, to paraphrase Mark Twain’s comment about the weather.

The Republicans want to equate Ms. Palin’s experience with Senator Obama’s. This is disingenuous and stupid—which pretty much guarantees that many voters will buy into it. Let’s compare them:

First, Obama is the nominee of his party by the way of MERIT. He won over 18 million votes, (many more if the caucuses were extrapolated into votes and counted) over 30 states primaries and caucuses and the District of Columbia.

Obama put together the best organized political machine in the history of the world, a machine that shredded the most powerful democratic machine (Clinton’s) that existed since modern politics came on the scene in 1901 with the first political primary.
Obama’s machine raised more money in the primary contests than all of the other seven democratic candidates--combined!

Obama participated over 18 months in fierce debates with senators, former governors, former ambassadors and former presidential cabinet members. In all, he not only survived, but also conquered his adversaries in 20 debates—he won the nomination fair and square based on the rules that every candidate knew and agreed to follow. That’s called merit and democracy—neither of which the Palin’s pick has the faintest resemblance.

Obama proved his ability to attract alliances when he traveled to Europe.

Obama has served for 4 years on the Foreign Relations Committee, Veterans Committee and others, traveled in all 48 states, met with all of the players on Iraq, Afghanistan and our European Allies.
For over 18 months, under intense scrutiny, America has come to know Obama. He survived a long, grueling, contentious slanderous campaign.

Obama has stood the test of time. For all of those who cherish merit, Obama is your man. For those who cherish blind affirmative action and empty feminism, Sarah Palin is your woman. Where are the neo-cons, conservatives and Republicans who oppose affirmative action?

Governor Palin has not been vetted; McCain had only met her once briefly before calling her to offer her his VP running mate.

Palin has no, NO, NONE, national experience.

Palin has no, NO, NONE, national security experience.

Palin has no, NO, NONE, foreign policy experience, except she traveled to Iraq once, I believe.

Palin apparently never had a passport until 2007.

Palin has not met with any of our Allies in Europe.

Palin was a former runner-up in some spot for Miss Alaska Beauty Contest.

Palin has been active in the PTA.

Palin is a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association.

Palin eats Moose Burgers, apparently after killing and skinning them herself, which is, I would guess, no small accomplishment!

Palin may very well be a heart beat away from the most powerful position in the world: Our President.

Palin is said to have not been afraid to confront Senator Stevens in Alaska and because she’s close to Russia she can handle Russia, so say the Republicans. Senator Stevens does not have nuclear weapons.

Palin thinks creationism should be taught in public schools.

Palin opposes abortion even in the cases of rape or incest.

Palin supported right-wing extremist Pat Buchanan for president in 2000.
(If you have listened to Pat Buchanan’s comments on CNN and MSNBC, perhaps you do not know just how rabidly racist, and I don’t use this term often, and jingoistic, and anti-feminist he is, just go to his website and read some of his writings.)

She's doesn't think humans have anything to do with climate change!
Let’s take a look at what this 44 year-old mother of 5, with no creditable experience to be President, may be asked to do. Remember, John McCain is 72 and has had cancer 4 times:

The President is the Commander-in-Chief with power to order the most powerful military in the world to attack real or perceived enemies. The President controls all National Guards in the 50 states when they are called to serve.

In addition to the formable power behind our armada of ships, nuclear submarines, air force second to none, marines the envy of the world, this Neophyte, 44 year old mother of 5 will have at her disposal over 9,000 nuclear weapons, not 1, not 2, not 5—over 9,000, with the capacity to deliver them to any part of the world in about 30 minutes to a maximum of two hours.

The President is the Chief Diplomat. In this role he controls our Foreign Service, Ambassadors, CIA, FBI, and all other intelligence units operating outside of the U.S.
The President makes peace or war based on diplomatic skills. The President controls the atomic power of all but three of the nine atomic powers in the world: Russia, China and Pakistan.

The President is the Chief Economic Czar and Chief Executive Not only does the President appoint the Cabinet ministers who control the economy, he/she appoints commissioners from everything from the EEOC to the FDA—from our jobs to our food. The President “jawbones” union leaders, the military, the Chamber of Commerce and other powerful entities to persuade (and more) them to do or not do something.

The President is the Chief Legislator—functionally equivalent to 33 Senators and 145 Congresspersons. No legislation can be passed by a Veto unless there is a 2/3 override by both Houses. In addition, the President exercises enormous influence over the judiciary—he nominates all federal judges, and other judges that enforce legislation and executive orders, and the President nominates every Supreme Court Justice—a Court poised to overrule Roe v. Wade (a woman’s right to chose), to modify laws that affect blacks and other out groups, poised to base its rulings on the most conservative political reading of the Constitution: Witness the recent total misreading of the Second Amendment Right to bear arms. (I happen to agree with the ruling, because I think all sane citizens should be allowed to carry even concealed weapons, but it was a monstrous political misreading of the entire Constitution, which mentions the people right to bear arms only in relation to a militia.)

The President is the Leader of the free world; with Iran’s obtaining a nuclear weapon (which it certainly will long before our intelligence predicts it will) and North Korea restarting its Nuclear Program, and it already knows how to build nukes, the world is a very different place than Alaska, where some 626,000 souls reside, including Eskimos, and take pride in packing and selling moose shit as a souvenir!

These, ladies and gentlemen, are just a few of the powers and responsibilities that we are one potential heart beat away from entrusting a former beauty queen with less than two years of any meaningful experience.

On top of that, her education is woefully pitiful for the job, having only a BS in journalism from some college or university in Idaho. She has no advance education.

It is one thing to be a maverick; it is quite another to be a reckless baffoon, engaging in gimmickry, playing with our security and well being for shock value. This was not a bold act by McCain; it was a reckless act.

I agree with David Gergen, who served Presidents from Nixon, to Ford, to Reagan, to the first Bush and to Clinton, who declared, “this was a reckless act by John McCain. “

Finally, the scariest thing about McCain’s pick for VP is that we only have a few days to get to know her and that is not long enough, especially in light of the fact that she was not vetted by McCain’s campaign.

Governor Sarah Palin: The Portrait of Affirmative Action

Senator McCain’s selection of Governor Palin should forever put to rest neo-con, conservatives, right-wingers and all Republicans’ opposition to affirmative action. Her selection is the Portrait of Affirmative Action gone awry.

She only served as part-time mayor of a city smaller than the size (7000) of a couple precincts in a major city like Chicago. She has been governor for twenty months of a state that has a population smaller than Columbus, Ohio. Yet McCain picks her to be a heart beat away from the off ice of President of the United States.

Let’s call this decision by McCain what it actually is: reckless.

Selection of the Vice President running mate is the most important decision that a nominee makes prior to becoming President. McCain not only failed in this respect—he committed a reckless act against the country he loves, I love, and Americans love.

McCain talks about the awesome responsibility of the President, but doesn’t do anything much about it, to paraphrase Mark Twain’s comment about the weather.

The Republicans want to equate Ms. Palin’s experience with Senator Obama’s. This is disingenuous and stupid—which pretty much guarantees that many voters will buy into it. Let’s compare them:

First, Obama is the nominee of his party by the way of MERIT. He won over 18 million votes, (many more if the caucuses were extrapolated into votes and counted) over 30 states primaries and caucuses and the District of Columbia.

Obama put together the best organized political machine in the history of the world, a machine that shredded the most powerful democratic machine (Clinton’s) that existed since modern politics came on the scene in 1901 with the first political primary.
Obama’s machine raised more money in the primary contests than all of the other seven democratic candidates--combined!

Obama participated over 18 months in fierce debates with senators, former governors, former ambassadors and former presidential cabinet members. In all, he not only survived, but also conquered his adversaries in 20 debates—he won the nomination fair and square based on the rules that every candidate knew and agreed to follow. That’s called merit and democracy—neither of which the Palin’s pick has the faintest resemblance.

Obama proved his ability to attract alliances when he traveled to Europe.

Obama has served for 4 years on the Foreign Relations Committee, Veterans Committee and others, traveled in all 48 states, met with all of the players on Iraq, Afghanistan and our European Allies.
For over 18 months, under intense scrutiny, America has come to know Obama. He survived a long, grueling, contentious slanderous campaign.

Obama has stood the test of time. For all of those who cherish merit, Obama is your man. For those who cherish blind affirmative action and empty feminism, Sarah Palin is your woman. Where are the neo-cons, conservatives and Republicans who oppose affirmative action?

Governor Palin has not been vetted; McCain had only met her once briefly before calling her to offer her his VP running mate.

Palin has no, NO, NONE, national experience.

Palin has no, NO, NONE, national security experience.

Palin has no, NO, NONE, foreign policy experience, except she traveled to Iraq once, I believe.

Palin apparently never had a passport until 2007.

Palin has not met with any of our Allies in Europe.

Palin was a former runner-up in some spot for Miss Alaska Beauty Contest.

Palin has been active in the PTA.

Palin is a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association.

Palin eats Moose Burgers, apparently after killing and skinning them herself, which is, I would guess, no small accomplishment!

Palin may very well be a heart beat away from the most powerful position in the world: Our President.

Palin is said to have not been afraid to confront Senator Stevens in Alaska and because she’s close to Russia she can handle Russia, so say the Republicans. Senator Stevens does not have nuclear weapons.

Palin thinks creationism should be taught in public schools.

Palin opposes abortion even in the cases of rape or incest.

Palin supported right-wing extremist Pat Buchanan for president in 2000.
(If you have listened to Pat Buchanan’s comments on CNN and MSNBC, perhaps you do not know just how rabidly racist, and I don’t use this term often, and jingoistic, and anti-feminist he is, just go to his website and read some of his writings.)

She's doesn't think humans have anything to do with climate change!
Let’s take a look at what this 44 year-old mother of 5, with no creditable experience to be President, may be asked to do. Remember, John McCain is 72 and has had cancer 4 times:

The President is the Commander-in-Chief with power to order the most powerful military in the world to attack real or perceived enemies. The President controls all National Guards in the 50 states when they are called to serve.

In addition to the formable power behind our armada of ships, nuclear submarines, air force second to none, marines the envy of the world, this Neophyte, 44 year old mother of 5 will have at her disposal over 9,000 nuclear weapons, not 1, not 2, not 5—over 9,000, with the capacity to deliver them to any part of the world in about 30 minutes to a maximum of two hours.

The President is the Chief Diplomat. In this role he controls our Foreign Service, Ambassadors, CIA, FBI, and all other intelligence units operating outside of the U.S.
The President makes peace or war based on diplomatic skills. The President controls the atomic power of all but three of the nine atomic powers in the world: Russia, China and Pakistan.

The President is the Chief Economic Czar and Chief Executive Not only does the President appoint the Cabinet ministers who control the economy, he/she appoints commissioners from everything from the EEOC to the FDA—from our jobs to our food. The President “jawbones” union leaders, the military, the Chamber of Commerce and other powerful entities to persuade (and more) them to do or not do something.

The President is the Chief Legislator—functionally equivalent to 33 Senators and 145 Congresspersons. No legislation can be passed by a Veto unless there is a 2/3 override by both Houses. In addition, the President exercises enormous influence over the judiciary—he nominates all federal judges, and other judges that enforce legislation and executive orders, and the President nominates every Supreme Court Justice—a Court poised to overrule Roe v. Wade (a woman’s right to chose), to modify laws that affect blacks and other out groups, poised to base its rulings on the most conservative political reading of the Constitution: Witness the recent total misreading of the Second Amendment Right to bear arms. (I happen to agree with the ruling, because I think all sane citizens should be allowed to carry even concealed weapons, but it was a monstrous political misreading of the entire Constitution, which mentions the people right to bear arms only in relation to a militia.)

The President is the Leader of the free world; with Iran’s obtaining a nuclear weapon (which it certainly will long before our intelligence predicts it will) and North Korea restarting its Nuclear Program, and it already knows how to build nukes, the world is a very different place than Alaska, where some 626,000 souls reside, including Eskimos, and take pride in packing and selling moose shit as a souvenir!

These, ladies and gentlemen, are just a few of the powers and responsibilities that we are one potential heart beat away from entrusting a former beauty queen with less than two years of any meaningful experience.

On top of that, her education is woefully pitiful for the job, having only a BS in journalism from some college or university in Idaho. She has no advance education.

It is one thing to be a maverick; it is quite another to be a reckless baffoon, engaging in gimmickry, playing with our security and well being for shock value. This was not a bold act by McCain; it was a reckless act.

I agree with David Gergen, who served Presidents from Nixon, to Ford, to Reagan, to the first Bush and to Clinton, who declared, “this was a reckless act by John McCain. “

Finally, the scariest thing about McCain’s pick for VP is that we only have a few days to get to know her and that is not long enough, especially in light of the fact that she was not vetted by McCain’s campaign.

---------------------------------------------------
©All Rights Reserved.Reproduction is permitted provided credit is given.Lenton Aikins, Ph.D., J.D.Dr. Aikins has traveled widely, lived abroad in Europe and Latin America, recently spending three years in Costa Rica as Director of a Spanish Language school. He holds a Ph. D. in Political Science from University of Southern California, a Juris Doctor in Law from Western State University, College of Law. He is the author of many articles and of While African Americans Slept: Leadership by Parasites, now available at: http://lentonaikins.com, and available in all bookstores July 1, 2008. You can read his blog: Go to: http://lentonaikins.com and click on blog.

Pastor Rick Warren Civil Forum--Saddleback Church

2008-08-17T20:56:00.000-07:00

Pastor Rick Warren held a civil forum at his mega-church in Mission Viejo, California yesterday where he invited Senators Obama and McCain to share their views on subjects of religion and on subject way beyond religion.

We got to witness two very different versions of leadership and what America will be like under one of these two fellows administration. The major difference was in the way each would conduct himself—if their answers were true reflections of what they really believed.
Senator Obama gave by far the most nuanced, thought out, intelligent responses. I am not just saying that because I am an Obama supporter. I am saying that because it’s true.
Senator McCain gave his stump answers and they were direct, simple and to the point.

There are two points that I would make from the onset about McCain:

#1. He is a very dangerous man in many ways quite similar to George W. Bush, the present occupant of the White House—McCain is quite the simpleton;

#2. The second point that I would make is that McCain is a far better candidate, and a far more serious challenger than I thought he’d be.

Let’s look at how each man answered three of the identical questions:

#1. Questions: How do you confront evil?

Obama gave a nuanced response, explaining how evil presents itself and how to combat it via international coalitions, cooperation and the like. He also explained that we have to be careful that we don’t do harm while combating evil—and he clearly believes that this presents a great danger.

McCain simply stated, “defeat it! And launched into a diatribe about chasing Osama to the gates of hell!

McCain clearly outfoxed Obama because the latter came to answer questions in a thoughtful way. McCain came to appeal to the crowd, rather than addressing the questions. McCain appealed to the crowd by specifically mentioning his capture—and the suffering he endured—no fewer than three times and once more by reference. Clearly, McCain believes that his suffering while in captivity prepared him to be President!

Obama was outfoxed because he was under the mistaken illusion, apparently, that he and McCain were attending the Forum to have a discussion! McCain knew better and this indicates just how politically wired McCain is, despite the media’s painting him as a maverick. He is a consummate politician quite full of his own rectitude about issues.

#2. Another question was about abortion:

McCain’s response was “I am prolife.” He does not believe in abortion. Period.

Obama’s response: “I support Roe v Wade,” nuanced the question, engaging in such obscure comments as the “trimester,” of pregnancy which might limit a woman’s right of choice. Obama further nuanced the issue by talking about how hard women took the decision before deciding to abort. The question was not about what women thought, but was about what Obama thought. I thought his response nuanced the question as best any candidate could who is prochoice. There is, however, always a danger in fiddling when answering a question, but Obama had no choice since he was walking on eggshells.

McCain’s answers showed no uncertainty about anything—except whether or not U.S. should intervene in Darfur to stop the genocide. His responses to the situation in Georgia showed no such nuance, which made me question his sincerity about genocide in Africa.

#3. Another question involved the Supreme Court:

Pastor Warren asked: “What Supreme Court justice would you not have appointed?”

Senator Obama responded, “Justice Thomas,” and then he proceeded to explain exactly why, basically he did not feel that Justice Thomas possessed the legal intellectual acumen to sit on the Supreme Court Bench; and Obama proceeded to explain why he would not have appointed Roberts or Alito, the two other justices appointed by Bush

Senator McCain’s responses were about as nuanced as a Wilder beast in heat:
He responded “Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens and Souter!”

In other words, McCain wants to skew the Supreme Court with radical conservatives that would overturn Roe v. Wade, approve all sorts of torture, which he opposed, then flopped and support torture!

Finally, I could not help to notice just how much McCain is relying on his capture by the North Vietnamese to bolster his campaign.

I wonder if the public, not necessarily the Orange County, California public, was perceptible enough to harbor any thought on how does being captured by the enemy qualifies one to be President of the United States? If being captured confers Presidential statute upon one, I eagerly await, and hope, that the two women captured by Iraqis will qualify in the future to be President.

With McCain, we will certainly get a Bush III Term. That just may be the self-
righteous, arrogant certainty that the Americans desire.

Unless the Obama launches a sustained attack to expose McCain’ record, he might wake up on the first Wednesday following the first Tuesday in November to learn that John McCain’s audacity has slain Obama’s hope.
---------------------------------------------------
©All Rights Reserved.Reproduction is permitted provided credit is given.Lenton Aikins, Ph.D., J.D.Dr. Aikins has traveled widely, lived abroad in Europe and Latin America, recently spending three years in Costa Rica as Director of a Spanish Language school. He holds a Ph. D. in Political Science from University of Southern California, a Juris Doctor in Law from Western State University, College of Law. He is the author of many articles and of While African Americans Slept: Leadership by Parasites, now available at: http://lentonaikins.com, and available in all bookstores July 1,2008. You can read his blog: Go to: http://lentonaikins.com and click on blog.

MIDWEST BOOK REVIEW OF MY BOOK

2008-07-13T23:23:00.000-07:00

I am happy to report that my book, published June 28, 2008, just received a book review by the prestigious Midwest Book Review. The review is repeated in its entirety below. This is a very important objective review of my book and I appreciate it that the Midwest Book Review has chosen my book to feature. The Midwest Book Review is a totally professional online book reviewer and is not based on any fees or any consideration whatsoever paid to Midwest Book Review. To me, this makes the review all the more important.

To order the book, go to my website: http://lentonaikins.com and click on Products.

MIDWEST BOOK REVIEW
JULY 2008
VOLUME 7, NUMBER 7
TOP PICK
The Black Studies Shelf
While African Americans Slept
Dr. Lenton Aikins
Zit Publishers
16654 Soledad Canyon Road #265, Canyon Country, CA 91387-3217
9780980159400, $14.95, www.zitpub.com

The rap culture, hip hop – meaningless things in the bleak overall picture of the black race in America. "While African Americans Slept: Leadership by Parasites" is an examination of the modern cultural elements in America through several chapters on a topic by topic basis, speaking on such topics as Diversity, Parenting, Assimilation, Racism, and the main topic – the failure of leadership in Black America after the death of Martin Luther King Jr. A deft examination of the American culture, "While African Americans Slept: Leadership by Parasites" is a top pick for community library black studies collections.

Senator Obama, Good Judgment?

2008-07-09T20:18:00.000-07:00

There has been much talk, mostly coming from Obama himself, about judgment—touting his and disparaging the judgment of his opponents. Senator Obama uses the judgment to support or oppose the American War in Iraq as a litmus test of good-bad judgment. Those who supported the war showed bad judgment and those who opposed it showed good judgment. Senator Obama opposed the war; therefore, he has good judgment.

His various opponents, from Senator Clinton to Senator McCain, principally, have tried to turn the tables on the Senator and accuse him of flip-flopping and not having good judgment on a number of issues. None of these efforts by Obama’s opponents have stuck.
Up until now, I have disregarded Obama’s opponents efforts to question his judgment.

However Senator Obama’s recent action of permitting his children to be interviewed by Access Hollywood and his subsequent statement that he regretted doing so now places his judgment in question—at least in my mind.

Consider this: here’s a virtual nominee for his party stating that he regrets something that a sophomore in a political science would have known not to do.

Doesn’t Senator Obama know he’s running for President of the United States?

Doesn’t he know that every thing he does is going to call his good judgment into question?

Doesn’t he know that there are no dead (cold) mikes when you’re giving an interview? A candidate for a public office should know that and should conduct himself or herself accordingly.

Allowing your young children to be interviewed shows a lack of good judgment. Having the courage to admit such a mistake does not sanitize the mistake or reduce the gravity of the mistake—it just makes it worse.

Not even Chelsea Clinton (who is about 28 years old) was allowed to be interviewed during her mother’s (and father’s) campaign. That showed good judgment on the part of the Clintons—although I did not approve of the press giving adult Chelsea a free pass. I am a supporter of Senator Obama and always have been, but can't give him a pass on this one.

His permitting his just turned 7 year old and his 10 year old to be interviewed did not show openness; it showed a lack of judgment. Period. End of story!

###

Guess Blog Book Review: While African Americans Slept

2008-07-08T20:31:00.000-07:00

The following is a book review of While African Americans Slept: Leadership by Parasites.
The Book was officially published on June 28, 2008. For more information Go to: http://lentonaikins.com/. I requested permission to publish this blog because I believe that criticism is a prerequisite to improvement and progress. I thank Mr. Livine for permission to publish this blog.

GUESS BLOG BY STEPHEN RICHARD LIVINE

PUBLISHED ON HIS BLOG ONECITIZENSPEAKING.COM ON JULY 1, 2008. The entire blog follows without edding or further comments:

July 01, 2008

The African-American Disorder: Failed Leadership

How does a white man of a certain age review a book by a black author commenting about the black experience? One wonders if my own racial identity and life experiences will cause me to overlook the ingrained sense of suffering or misfortune of others merely because I lack a common cultural framework? Or as a friend told me, you may sympathize with the author’s position, but surely you cannot empathize with the conditions he describes. Which made me question the reason that I wanted to mention the book in the first place.

The book is titled “While African Americans Slept” and carries a subtitle “Leadership By Parasites.”

Which piqued my curiosity as I have often harbored ill-will for certain black leaders like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton who seem to mount never-ending and often self-serving media campaigns; loudly proclaiming the perils of being black in a white society and the need of society to redress historic racial wrongs. And then doing absolutely nothing of lasting value to elevate the very people they are seeking to help. All the while pocketing money from unknown sources for honorariums, consulting and expenses and then jetting off to the next media-covered protest. In many cases their advice can be summarized simply by repeating: “do as I say, don’t do as I do.” Or in some cases, by an implicit mantra of “pay me or there will be big trouble.”

As a technologist who deals with a great variety of people who work in a binary world, knowledge, whether obtained by formal schooling or self-teaching, and accomplishment are a given. As with society in general, people are valued for what they produce and what they contribute to the team. There is a minimum of racial animosity as everybody is treated exactly the same: like crap, especially as they fight unrealistic deadlines based on idealistic, impractical expectations and woefully inadequate budgets. People who do not perform under pressure are weeded from the group and from our consciousness as we strive to complete our mission. You are either productive or you are gone!

So with some inherent bias against those who are not motivated to achieve and better their own condition, I will attempt to describe this painfully honest book and why I believe that the book is important to the discussion of race in America.

In the here and now …

I do not understand how anyone can point to historical transgressions against a class or race of people and use that as a basis for personal behavior and action, or should I say inaction, in today’s modern world. In short, I do not understand the concept of victimhood and a person’s sense of entitlement based on indignities encountered by one’s ancestors. Encountering such attitudes makes me want to scream “get on with your own life – you are responsible for you, not society and not the state!” Perhaps that’s just the result of an entrepreneurial streak within my character or the product of two loving parents who encouraged me to find my own way.
In one way, Dr. Aikins points out a critical difference between my experience and that of someone growing up in a black environment. That is, I had a built-in support mechanism in place – whether it was my parents, my relatives, our neighbors or our community. I had the innate knowledge that people were rooting for me to succeed where many blacks encounter no support, familial or otherwise, and others are, at best, indifferent to their efforts. My accomplishments did not come at the expense of others and I did not require any critical commodity which was hotly contested by others seeking the same thing. Again, possibly because I was entrepreneurial at a young age.

Segregation and balkanization by design …

But I do understand that America has been balkanized by its political and social leaders for the sole purpose of creating dependent individual constituencies that can be more easily manipulated into ceding power to so-called community leaders as well as contributing time, effort and money to their cause. By creating entitlements which sap one’s self-esteem and productivity and create a need to keep those political parties and politicians who hand out the goodies in power, lest the money cease to flow. The very same politicians who have seemingly corrupted many black leaders with “walking around money” and appointments to minor positions of community power.

The painful truth …

The book’s author, Dr. Lenton Aikins is a well-credentialed professional with a wealth of subject matter experience. However, in writing this particular book, I fear that his message may be greatly overshadowed by the propensity of those in positions of leadership and power to denigrate the author or disregard the message; especially since it seems to run counter to what I perceive is the accepted wisdom within the greater community. A message that is simultaneously truthful and painful. Especially to the black community which has suffered the indignity of having leaders who are more interested in their personal prestige, power and profits than they are leading others to a more fruitful existence.

A challenge to fellow blacks …

Dr. Aikins dedicates this book to his fellow black men and calls upon them to stand up and act like men when it comes to traditional family and social values. At the same time, he decries a lack of personal responsibility on the part of parents who have essentially allowed their children to run wild; without the significant nurturing or guidance that will prevent them from perpetuating the past and resulting in a life that may not be considered to be well-lived. A life of personal anguish, strife and mounting discontent with an enemy that can only be seen in a mirror.

Multiculturalism and diversity …

Like most people who have never considered the matter, I have often confused the concepts of diversity with that of multiculturalism. However, Dr. Aikins makes an important distinction.

“Diversity does not require everybody to see things the same way; just that everybody looks in the same direction and the same goals.”

“Multiculturalism holds that all cultures, all people and all languages are equal and deserve to be given equal treatment in our society.”

An important distinction which I had never considered before reading Aikins’ work. Therefore, reflecting upon these concepts, I can see where the United States is treading a dangerous path. By adopting a position of diversity one can be inclusive of all peoples; whereas the adoption of multiculturalism may lead to the destruction of our current society as we know it. Mostly by treating everyone and everything as beige, by accepting wrong or harmful practices merely because some particular sect may support them. By ignoring that illegal aliens and others still bear allegiance to their homeland or culture while proclaiming false allegiance to ours.

Aikins’ loudest criticism seems reserved for those who dare consider the plight of illegal aliens as being equal to the historical plight of Africans who were forcibly removed from their world and brought here as slaves. And for those elected leaders who are allocating attention and resources to others while ignoring our legal citizens who should have a prior well-established claim.

The bane of illegal immigration …

Dr. Aikins rails against illegal immigration. But where I note that the overwhelming numbers of illegal aliens are destroying our healthcare, educational, judicial, social, cultural and retirement infrastructure, Aikins points the further devastating effects that the tide of illegal aliens has wreaked on the black community. Especially in the areas of illegally confiscating lower wage positions and the severely crippling the ability of government agencies to offer additional support required for subsistence to its legal citizens.

Aikins believes it is both unfair and unwarranted of the government to take this mass of recently-arrived illegal aliens and raise their wants and needs above those of legal, law-abiding citizens, especially the indigenous blacks who are disproportionately affected. With this I strongly agree. I look at a depressed area such as South Central Los Angeles and wonder why we are pouring billions into foreign aid while our own people fight for jobs and the basic necessities of life. I imagine that the situation is much the same in Detroit and other areas where mainstream industry and commerce has left a decaying morass of shuttered buildings and discarded trash.

There are any number of solid social observations and prescriptions in this book which I wholeheartedly recommend to those who want a rational perspective on racial issues in America. Amazingly, at least to me, Aikins’ make a case for the draft, where young men are exposed to a variety of racial and ethnic situations, an environment in which discipline reigns supreme and rank and privileges are bestowed mostly on merit. (And above all, begins to understand the concept of loyalty to ones’ country. – my words)

I believe Dr. Aikins has made an extremely strong case for his position there has been a massive failure on the part of black leaders to come to the aid of a people in desperate need of appropriate leadership. A position, if sincerely considered, may point they way out of the self-imposed ghetto mentality that impedes black progress today.

The N-word …

However, not all is sweetness and light as I strongly disagree with Dr. Aikins about the use of the dreaded and despised N-word. He believes that the word should never be spoken; by blacks, whites or any other person as its hateful connotation sends the wrong message both to the user and those that hear the word spoken. Here I disagree. Not that I advocate using the N-word, but that I do not see the point of investing any word or symbol with such power that human nature almost demands that it be used to provoke a reaction in another person. By empowering either words or symbols with devastatingly hateful meaning, I believe that you have granted another person a measure of control over your emotions. Possibly to the extent of causing one to lose focus, all sense of reason and embark on an ultimately self-destructive path as one seeks to further escalate the confrontation.

Assimilation or acculturation?

After reading Aikins’ book, I also find myself reconsidering the path by which one is accepted as an equal member of society. Dr. Aikins apparently believes that assimilation applies more to people who arrived in the United States by voluntary choice.

“The assimilation model has not worked for African Americans. But who can argue that it was ever intended to work for African Americans? It has only worked for groups that came here voluntarily, because they have been and are able to hold on to their language, religion and trust among themselves at the same time they are developing social, educational, economic, and political ties with the majority community.”

Then Dr. Aikins goes on to point out a major difference between these ethnic groups and blacks.

“The immigrant groups see their immigrant communities as positive and identify with them. They do not refer to themselves with negative stereotypes and hateful words coined to refer to them as African Americans do.”

He goes further to note that these immigrants take pride in their group whereas African Americans seem to take pride in escaping from their group.

And with the fervor of an academic sociologist or political scientist, Aikins goes on to describe the process of acculturation which continues to work for immigrant communities but seems to be ineffective in moving blacks toward social acceptance.

The parasites: the failure of black leadership …

While Dr. Aikins’ notes the corrupt nature of many black leaders, it appears that his greatest angst is related to the failure of today’s so-called black leadership to demonstrate true leadership, to set the high moral standards required to elevate black self-esteem, to support broader economic initiatives for devastated black communities and, most of all, to stand up for the black community which is being pervasively overrun and disadvantaged by the onslaught of illegal immigrants.

Why you should buy the book …

I cannot begin to understand the plight of a single black working mother whose life is a series of tradeoffs – none of which are pleasant to contemplate. Or that of a young black man who suffers emotionally at the thought of being stopped by a police officer. Therefore, I do not and can not appreciate all that Dr. Aikins explains. I get the broad strokes, but not the nuance that comes from a common experience. So I can hardly do justice to this book with a short review.
I have read this book three times. And each time I see something new, something that makes me challenge my assumptions … and causes me to rewrite this review. I see any number of places where I disagree with Dr. Aikins’ conclusions, but that is what makes for a healthy discussion within the community and between people seeking solutions to social problems.
But I need to say, in the final analysis, there is much in this book that makes it necessary and worthwhile reading for black leaders, black citizens – and anyone else concerned with returning America to a productive society. A society where contributions are valued for their inherent worth rather than judged by the skin color of the contributor. A society which features an equality of opportunities rather than legislatively mandating an equality of outcomes.
-- steve

While African Americans Slept: Leadership By Parasites
Author: Dr. Lenton Aikins
ISBN: 978-0-9801594-0-0
LCCN: 2007942418
© 2008
ZIT PUBLISHERS
July 01, 2008 at 12:04 AM Permalink
Digg This Save to del.icio.us

A Synopsis of While African Americans Slept

2008-07-01T19:32:00.000-07:00

This blog contains a Synopsis of my book: While African Americans Slept: Leadership by Parasites (2008) by Zit Publishers, Inc. The book may be ordered by going to my website at:
http://lentonaikins.com

While African Americans Slept: Leadership by Parasites
A Synopsis

Chapter One Introduction:

A synopsis of each chapter begins with a verbatim quote of the first paragraph of that chapter or a significant portion of the first paragraph.

“Our kids have been allowed to butcher the English language, allowed to worship a trinity of hip hop, a prison culture, a culture of violence, allowed to grow up in an environment where problems are solved by violence and murder, allowed to grow up harboring disrespect for their own children, women and men, allowed to grow up without inculcating in them a civilized value system, allowed to grow up worshiping material wealth and threats and admiring the fast buck artist, allowed to grow up in an environment where survival too often is based on brute, nihilistic values, where the good student is accused of `being, thinking, and acting white,’ where single mothers try to control their children based on “time out” theories of white suburban psychologists, and allowed to grow up living in an environment where life is nasty, cruel, brutish and short.”
(p. 7)

In this introductory chapter, I explain the problems facing black Americans, what the goal of education should be and then discuss what the philosophical goals of African American leadership should be. I end the chapter with a call for accountability of African American leadership.

Chapter Two: Diversity vs Multiculturalism:

“Want to destroy a great country? Here’s the way to do it:
Adopt multiculturalism as a mantra, require the government to place every language, every custom of every immigrant on equal footing with America’s and every language on equal footing with the English language, sanctify every group that speaks a different language or has a different culture, custom, and mores and award them with a Certificate of Multiculturalism Equality, require every state to adopt bilingualism, biculturalism, and multiculturalism as state policy, adopt dual citizenship as a national policy, declare anyone a `racist’ who thinks there is such a thing as an illegal immigrant, force every grade school student to shout—after saluting the flag--`nadie es illegal’ [nothing is illegal] and declare multiculturalism as the official government policy in relationship to non-English speaking people.” (p-12)

In this chapter, I explain the distinction and difference between the concept of diversity of groups within a polity, where each group is permitted to maintain its customs while maintaining sole loyalty to America and multiculturalism where loyalty is to the group, not the nation. Diversity has been our national policy, albeit not without conflicts, since the Civil War Amendments to the Constitution. Multiculturalism on the other hand places loyalty, language, and custom above loyalty to America first. I explain that diversity not division is and should be the goal of America, but that multiculturalism inevitably forces division because it posits primary loyalty to one’s tribe, group, culture, language, and traditions above putting America first. Our universities have confused, contorted, and conflated these two terms. I explain that we must embrace diversity without division while eschewing multiculturalism. It is important to note that multicultural is not the same as multiculturalism. The former is a reality, e.g. diversity, while the latter is a nationalism of fools by domestic, internal groups.

Finally, I provide a personal example of the destructiveness of multiculturalism.

Chapter 3: From Assimilation to Acculturation:

“The model for success in America has always been racial assimilation. All groups that have come here voluntarily have been and are being assimilated. The assimilation model has been praised, and understandingly so, because it has worked well for those for whom it was intended. It was never intended to apply to African Americans: The Thirteenth Amendment was passed to free the slaves and end involuntary servitude; the Fourteenth Amendment was passed to grant the former slaves citizenship and to forever bury the monstrous Dred Scot v. Sanford 60 U.S. (How.. 19) 393 (1857) case which held that `Negroes free or slaves could never become citizens of the United States’; and, the Fifteenth Amendment was passed to politically acculturate the former slaves, but not to racially assimilate them….” (p-29)

Chapter three discusses the traditional model of and for acceptance in the United States for all Europeans who came to our shores voluntarily. The difference between traditional assimilation (racial) and modern acculturation is explained and contrasted. I posit that the traditional racial assimilation model has been replaced by the acculturation model which basis acceptance on education, money, attitude, and lifestyle. I explain that this does not mean that racism is a thing of the pass but that it is not determinative of success of black Americans as in the past. I provide examples of this fact.

Chapter Four: Child Rearing, Acculturation, and Freedom:

“Proper child rearing is the cornerstone upon which love is built, discipline born and respect based. Proper child rearing is the key to African Americans’ cultural acculturation. Improper child rearing begets self-centered, selfish, violent, mentally deformed children who grow up unable and incapable to conform their conduct to the basic requirements of civilized society—and unable to delay immediate gratification….” (p-46)

Chapter 4 expands on the thesis that child rearing is the key to helping black Americans advance. It discusses the many past barriers, explains how slavery, Jim Crow, segregation and discrimination affected African Americans, especially black men, and their present lack of respect for the law even though the law now helps them more than it hurts them. I explain that there is no time for excuses and that black leadership has lost its way in its failure to help black Americans extricate themselves from their problems.

Chapter Five: Missing: Proper Training and Taming Needed:

“I never thought I’d see a movie that demonstrated precisely how African Americans might end the failure of two generations of parasitic black leadership, take responsibility for their own youth, their upbringing, discipline, comfort, assistance and love. That movie is Madea’s Family
Reunion. …” (p-80)

Chapter Five further develops and explains Chapters 3 and 4 by discussing the connection between proper training, proper discipline, proper love for one’s children, and proper attitude toward self, the government and the community.
As the reader will soon figure out, this book is part social science, part social critics, part political analysis, and part autographical. These themes are weaved into the discussion in virtually every chapter in this book.

Chapter Six: Leadership by Parasites:

“What is the Responsibility of Real Black Leadership?
The responsibility of black leadership is to lead by providing vision, strategies
and tactics that will enable African Americans to maintain, prosper, and achieve the objectives of full acceptance and rough equality. These objectives must include not losing the gains made and forging forward with only one thought in mind: no permanent enemies and no permanent friends, only permanent interests of the African American people.” (103)

The stark reality of the failure of black leadership, post Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., is explored in this chapter. It focuses on the harm that over dependency by black Americans on the government has caused them. It discusses the failure of black leadership and leadership groups to discuss the harm that illegal immigration has caused blacks in general and in particular the harm wrought upon black communities in inner cities. An extended discussion is undertaken of the historical position of black leadership in the face of even legal immigration—uniformly opposed to it for economic reasons. The chapter laments the fact that blacks are the losers in all standards when it comes to affirmative action and calls for the either the abolition of affirmative action or the return to the original intent of it. I attempt to point out the insanity of applying the remedy of affirmative action to wrongs that do not even exist. I place the blame on black parasitic leadership for not confronting these issues.

Chapter 7: The `N-Word’ While African Americans Slept: Group Denigration:

“I came from a world where we were taught that the `n-word’ was an abomination, a curse put on us by white racists. The use of this word was frowned upon by most blacks. Even those who used it never used it in the presence or earshot of whites. Not so today. The defamers and denigrators of the African American people now come from within, not without.” (p-147)

As I point out in this final chapter, black parasitic leadership did nothing to oppose, reject, and renounce the widespread denigration and defamation of their race, their women, and children. It took two white men (Imus, “nappy head `hoes’” comment and Richards, “n-word” use) to shame-up black leadership to even comment at all publicly about black thugs’ denigrating, defiling, and defaming black Americans in general and black women in particular. As I point out these thugs have, with the approval (silence) of black parasitic leadership and pusillanimous African American intellectuals, have sold out their entire race for a fast buck. The one saving grace of these thugs is that they showed black Americans that the capitalistic system works if you know how to use it.

Little did these black pimps, thugs, and fellow-traveling intellectuals realize or care about the fact that this irresponsible, disrespectful, thuggish behavior gave “cover” and “approval” to whites to use the most despicable word in the English language in reference to black Americans—insulting even from the grave leaders who fought and died to protest the type of treatment that the thugs and their fellow travelers now embrace.

###

Note: I am available for speaking engagements, participation in social and political analysis on panels, radio and television venues.

Lenton Aikins, Ph.D., J.D.
Contact me at:
http://lentonaikins.com or
E-mail me at: lentonaikins@wildblue.net
Do you know of someone who has a website or an E-mail who may be interested in this book or interested in booking Dr. Aikins as a speaker? If so, please feel free to forward this Synopsis to him or her. Thanks

Midyear 2007 Report of Jail and Prison Inmates

2008-06-21T16:23:00.000-07:00

Three or four time each year I review the U.S. Justice Department Bureau of Criminal Statistics. There are several reasons for this. First, I am simply research oriented and like to be grounded in facts about issues. Next, these statistics actually tell how the powers that be really define our view of criminality and how the systems is changing, or staying the same, at any given time. Hence, I try not to become too jaded and try always to remain skeptical of government statistics.

For example, our government does not regularly emphasize crimes that are committed by white ethnic groups, but really emphasizes the types of crimes committed by the minority ethnic groups, particularly black Americans. Take for example the crime of arson, which I refer to as “white boys rioting,” does not get emphasized by our government. Arson takes lives and destroys billion of dollars of property every year. Another example is embezzlement, the name we use when whites steal, is not widely reported by our government. Still another example is rape that occurs on college and university campuses. Whites commit a good deal more rapes on college and university campuses per capita than blacks, but you won’t hear very much about these statistics. When I receive the updates on these “white-collar crimes,” I’ll let you know.

At first blush, one might think that it is the violent crimes that society is concerned about and therefore robbery, murder, car jacking, etc., will naturally get reported more than non-violent crimes. Not really. Rape is just about as violent of a crime that one can imagine and so is arson. However, since I am a political scientist and a lawyer, I usually report on violent crime. A sociologist would certainly take a different approach and explain the social nature of crime, how “crime” changes as society develops or changes, whereas a psychologist might explain crime in terms of deviancy. So, you see, there are different ways of looking at (or feeling if you’re blind) the elephant’s parts Now, to the subject matter.
…

Each year our government tells us what we already know: we are paying too much to jail folks and too little to rehabilitate them, especially the vast majority who are sentenced for non-violent crimes. Every year we re-learn that the vast increase in inmates is due to putting folks in jail for non-violent acts. This does not excuse crime; it just recognizes the nature of the beast. President Dwight Eisenhower warned us of the danger of the military-industrial complex (which we now have with a vengeance), but few politicians have the guts to warn us of another industrial complex: the prison-industrial complex. Every time the prison population drops below 95% capacity, the prison-industrial complex takes action to protect its interest. I watched this phenomenon for my first three years in the practice of law—criminal law. I did mostly criminal misdemeanor. When the jail population would shrink, you’d see defendants being arrested for spitting on the sidewalk! (Yes, I do mean spitting here. I am not writing poetry, spitting!) I have no evidence of this, except my observation. Strangely, I know of no studies on this phenomenon. Now, I said that I’m no sociologist—so to work!

Jail Inmates at end of Midyear, June 2007.*

Each year we are told just how skewed the criminal statistics are against blacks. As of June 2007, blacks were almost three times more likely than Hispanics and six times more likely than whites to be in jail.

Thirteen million persons were admitted to jails the 12-month period ending June 29, 2007. The number of in custody persons in smaller jails decreased, while the number of in custody in larger jails increased significantly. This tells us that the increase at large facilities is probably “minority laden,” e.g. blacks and Hispanics. About six in ten inmates were racial minorities, blacks and Hispanics, but blacks were by far the most numerous: an estimated 300,000 plus thousand to an estimated 125,000 Hispanics.

It must be emphasized that these statistics are rough, very rough. For example, many “white” Hispanics escape because of color and name misidentification by jailers. Also, many multiracial inmates escape classification. But on the whole, the statistics give an indication of the reality of the jail inmate population. Statistics are a little like stereotypes; they bear some truth just as long as they do not become a religion.

At midyear 2007, our jails were 96% full. On any given day, the land of liberty incarcerates about 800,000 folks. Why do our jail population hover at about 96% full on a daily basis?

Prison Inmates at Midyear, June 2007:*

As of end of June 2007, U.S. held 1, 595,034 prisoners, 87.5% were under state jurisdiction and 12.5% were under federal jurisdiction, not counting inmates in jail, which would bring the total to approximately 2,300,000. There is no overall good news here. From the end of 2000 until 2006, admission to prison grew by 3.1% while releases from prison during this same period was down to 2.8%. The net effect is to increase the in custody population.

Statistics don’t tell the whole story because any given year parole violations and violations, which are violations by persons on supervised release, account for roughly one-third of “admissions.”

California is the largest state by population and had the largest absolute number and percentage increase of “admissions” for parole violations. For example, in 2006, 64.9%

of all “admissions” were for parole violations. (I use “admission” because technically being on parole is merely being in prison, but on a leash).

_______________
*All statistics are from Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, “Jail Inmates at Midyear 2007,” and “Prison Inmates at Midyear 2007” For a more detail look at statistics cited herein, you can go to: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/.
It is obvious what incarceration means to individuals. What does it mean to the three largest ethnic groups in America, whites Americans, black Americans and Hispanics?
First the largest increase in the custody population goes to Hispanic men. Blacks and whites held fairly stable and black women custody declined during this period. Again, statistics can be easily taken out of context. The best way to understand the cost of imprisonment of each of the major ethnic groups is to look at the number per 100,000 of each group that is incarcerated.

If you are a black male in American at the end of June 2007, you were imprisoned at the rate of 4,618 per 100,000, (down from 4,777 midyear 2000) ; if a white male, you were imprisoned at a rate of 773 per 100,000, (up from 683 at midyear 2000).
So, as of the end of June 2007, a black male was 6 times more likely to be in custody than a white male, (down from 7 times more likely at midyear 2000.)

For the black man’s sister, there is little to smile about. As of June 2000, black women were incarcerated at the rate of 380 per 100,000 in comparison to only 63 per 100,000 for white women. Thus black women were incarcerated at a rate of approximately 6 times that of white women as of end of June 2000.

However, it looks like black women are getting a bit wiser because as of June 30, 2007, the rate had dropped to 348 per 100,000 but for white women it rose to 95 per 100,000. This represented an 8.4% decline in incarceration rate for black women and a whopping 51% increase in the rate for white women. There can be no question that white women are becoming much more violent and more inclined to commit crimes. Among other things, this means that white women are becoming more anti-social and less caring about family values. People who commit a lot of crime tend to have less respect or care about others. It should be noticed that, while a 32 per 100,000 decrease in imprisonment is commendable for black women and hopefully that decline will continue, the narrowing of the gap between black and white women was due primarily to the increase in white women criminality. As of midyear 2006, black women were 3.7 times more likely to have been in prison than white women, down from 6 times more likely.

Summary and Conclusion:

Overall, whites and Hispanic jail inmates increased at about the same average during the period from 2000 to 2007. Black jail inmates increased at a slower rate. This does not take into consideration illegals that are detained or arrested when caught in violation of United States Laws, Title 8, Section 1325, that makes it a crime to illegally enter into the country. Also, I have not discussed the known fact that black men’s incarceration takes place overwhelmingly during what should have been their most productive part of life, between ages of 19-34 years of age.

---------------------------------------------------©All Rights Reserved.
By Lenton Aikins, Ph.D., J.D. Dr. Aikins holds a Ph. D. in Political Science from University of Southern California, a Juris Doctor in Law from Western State University, College of Law. He practiced employment law for fourteen years. He is the author of many articles and of a new book: While African Americans Slept: Leadership by Parasites, now available at: www.zitpub.com, bookstores and at Amazon.com To read his blog, Dr. Aikins Political Commentary, go to: http://lentonaikins.com and click on blog.

Sistercide: The Limits of Feminism

2008-06-17T22:01:00.000-07:00

The success of Hillary Clinton may well turn out to be a curse for black-white feminism and the murder of any black-white female solidarity. It all hinges on how far white women want to engage in racial revenge. Yes, racial revenge!

White women have voted for white male presidential candidates from time immemorial in America. The only variation has been which of the lesser evils—democratic or republican candidate. Now, 22% of the ones who voted for Hillary say they would rather vote for McCain rather than for Barack Obama. Why? (I believe the leader in Ohio was one of Thomas Jefferson’s descendents who wanted to drum Thomas Jefferson’s black descendants out of the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Organization. What does that tell you about this opposition?)

To be sure, some of the resentment is taken out on Senator Obama because he deflated the hopes of white women, and not a few black women, by defeating Senator Clinton.
Rather than seeing her as a competent competitor who was out strategized by Obama, white women prefer to see Clinton’s defeat as a manifestation of a widespread venomous anti-feminine conspiracy denying Clinton to a nomination which white women felt entitled. It was not.

Had Obama made as many mistakes, missteps, and miscues as Clinton made in her campaign, these women would have been attributing his mistakes to his inexperience and as such dismissed his candidacy as a good run for a novice—and a black. Obama did not make a single significant mistake during the entire primary campaign. His problems were delivered to him from outside of his campaign, principally by his former pastor.

Still, white women are angry. Their anger is a manifestation of two significant problems that plague black people:

1. The propensity for a group discriminated against to see themselves as the victim, e.g. engage in a victim hood philosophy; and,
2. Racism disguised and rationalized; for any of the facile excuses; this is white racism, pure and simple. Blacks are known to have engaged in these two reactions time and time again when the root of the problem had nothing to do with racism.

The cry of victim hood or self-pity is a well-entrenched practice by groups who have oppressed or discriminated against. This cry is all the more voluminous when the group has a little confirming history on it side. Certainly, white women have both history and denial of opportunity on their side. Perhaps they can now better understand the cries of victim hood by black Americans, perhaps. If white women carry through on their threats to vote for McCain instead of Obama, they will commit “sistercide”-- killing off future significant cooperation between white and black women for a generation to come. The sisterhood between black and white women has always been laden with tension and this tension goes back to the abolitionist-suffragettes movement.

If white women voters carry out their threat and vote for McCain, it will mark the end of substantial cooperation between black and white women for decades—even among those black women who supported Clinton. This would generate a movement in the black bloggersphere to denounce any future sistercide by white women as false and as racism, even if the mainstream media tries to ignore it—especially if Barack loses.

This brings me to the racial element.

Blacks know that white women’s reactions are not simply based on disappointment with the defeat of Hillary by Barack. Blacks understand that much of this bitterness by white women is based on racism—pure and simple. White women have from time immemorial voted for white men in the United States. Now, suddenly white women declare that they are going to take out their bitterness on the black guy—a man who has their interests at heart and whose platform is almost identical to Clinton’s. Why would white women take such a harsh stance against their own interest? The answer is they do so because of latent and blatant racism, the sin quo non of irrationality.

We now live in the You Tube generation and in the bloggersphere era and there is no way that black women will forget or forgive white women if they vote against Obama and he loses.

The question is will white women commit sistercide by supporting McCain, a man who opposes a woman’s right to choose, opposes universal health care, opposes health care for children and supports a hundred-year occupation in Iraq?

Freedom means the right to be stupid and vengeful and even to commit suicide. It also means the obligation to accept the rules of the game and live with them. Will the real white women democrats stand up?

###
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------©All Rights Reserved. Reproduction is permitted provided credit is given. Lenton Aikins, Ph.D., J.D. Dr. Aikins has traveled widely, lived abroad in Europe and Latin America, recently spending three years in Costa Rica as Director of a Spanish Language school. He holds a Ph. D. in Political Science from University of Southern California, a Juris Doctor in Law from Western State University, College of Law. He is the author of many articles and of While African Americans Slept: Leadership by Parasites, now available at: http://zitpub.com, and available in all bookstores July 1, 2008. To read his blog, Dr. Aikins Political Commentary, go to: http://lentonaikins.com and click on blog.

Hillary Shows Her True Colors--A Classless Person

2008-06-03T20:57:00.000-07:00

At the onset of this political campaign, Hilary Clinton has done everything in her powers to show contempt, not just disrespect, for Senator Obama. Consider her actions and her statements:

#1. He’s too nice to be president;
#2. I am inevitable;
#3. Refusing to congratulate him when he won in Iowa;
#4. Trying to belittle his accomplishments in winning most of the states and particularly his wins of most of the caucuses;
#5. Changing the metrics: Back in October 2007, she clearly stated that the votes in Michigan would not count and everybody knew it;
#6. She “offered” him the Vice-President spot on the ticket when she was behind and losing in the race!
#7. She stated that Senator McCain had experience to be “commander-in-chief” and that she had the requisite experience too, but all “Senator Obama had was a speech.”
#8. When her “metrics” changed, she stated that Senator Obama had “high jacked” her delegates in Michigan;
#9. And tonight, she arranged to hold her speech three floors below ground, with no monitors in the room and out of bounds for cell phones in order to avoid acknowledging that Obama had clinched the democratic nomination!
#10. She refused to congratulate him on his winning the nomination;
#11. All she could do was to muster acknowledging that he had run a good race;
#12. Her campaign let word out that she needed time to come to grips with the situation and she stated that she wasn’t conceding—which is either a bold-face lie or a statement of a chaotic campaign since even a fool could have seen this lost coming since early March;
#13. She refused to concede either the loss in Montana or the nomination to Obama;
#14. Finally, she and Bill have arrogated to themselves the right to be on the ticket as vice-president—thus a slap at Obama’s right to select his own vice-president.

I used to admire Hillary, but I am thoroughly sick of her now. If Obama puts her on the ticket, I would have a real problem voting for them. She has shown herself to be without class.
Does America want or need such a person as our President?

Now, contrast this with Senator Obama’s speech…

To make matters worse, many commentators have gone along time-after-time with this clap trap of the Clintons. If the “shoe were on the other foot,” how many commentators would have been so generous? Oh, excuse me, the press is anti-Clinton…What a crock!

---------------------------------------------------
©All Rights Reserved.Reproduction is permitted provided credit is given.Lenton Aikins, Ph.D., J.D.Dr. Aikins has traveled widely, lived abroad in Europe and Latin America, recently spending three years in Costa Rica as Director of a Spanish Language school. He holds a Ph. D. in Political Science from University of Southern California, a Juris Doctor in Law from Western State University, College of Law. He is the author of many articles and of While African Americans Slept: Leadership by Parasites, now available at: http://lentonaikins.com, and available in all bookstores July 1,
2008. To read his blog, Dr. Aikins Political Commentary, go to: http://lentonaikins.com and click on blog.

The Media's Bias: McCain vs. Obama's Church

2008-05-31T19:38:00.000-07:00

The Media’s Bias: McCain vs. Obama’s Church

First, does anybody know where McCain goes to church—if he goes at all?

Second, has the news media sent reporters to camp out at McCain’s church, if he has one?

Yet, the media has sent television reporters to “camp out” at Trinity Church of Christ every Sunday to film whatever preacher is preaching his or her sermons. Has the media sent television crews to Hillary’s church, if she has one?

Senator Obama has rejected and renounced his minister of long standing. The white priest that dissed Senator Clinton is not the pastor of Senator Obama. He merely preached a sermon at Obama’s church. Now, what is the media doing encroaching upon the private sanctuary of one candidate’s church? More to the point is why is the media encroaching on the private sanctuary of one’s candidate’s church while at the same time totally ignoring the others? Reverend Wright is no longer the pastor of Obama’s church and Obama has rejected and renounced him. There is absolutely no further justification for the media to violate the sanctity of church, except to try to tag Senator Obama with any and all future sermons preached at the church. Furthermore, the Senator was not attending church on the Sunday of the sermon by this white priest.

The news media, particularly Fox News, has set forth its private mission to film and distribute each and every sermon of Trinity Church of Christ. It might be time for churches to bar the media from its sanctuary. After all, McCain bars the media from his private fund-raising efforts and the church is at least as private as a fund-raising for a political office. This extreme scrunity is going to drive Obama out of that Church in violation of the First Amendment--the right to assembly and worship.

My recommendation is that all news media in the future be barred from all candidates’ churches since they are not attending for moral and spiritual guidance and uplifting, e.g. the purpose of attending the church.

---------------------------------------------------
©All Rights Reserved.Reproduction is permitted provided credit is given.Lenton Aikins, Ph.D., J.D.Dr. Aikins has traveled widely, lived abroad in Europe and Latin America, recently spending three years in Costa Rica as Director of a Spanish Language school. He holds a Ph. D. in Political Science from University of Southern California, a Juris Doctor in Law from Western State University, College of Law. He is the author of many articles and of While African Americans Slept: Leadership by Parasites, now available at: http://lentonaikins.com, and available in all bookstores July 1,
2008. You can read his blog: Go to: http://lentonaikins.com and click on blog.

Appeasement: Fools, Knaves & Commentators

2008-05-19T19:55:00.000-07:00

Appeasement is making political concessions to an adversary at the expense of a third party or country in an effort to avoid a confrontation with the appeased party. The concessions are generally at the expense of a weaker third party and thus considered to be unprincipled act or action by the appeaser.

It all began when President Bush labeled those in disagreement with him on foreign policy as “appeasers.”

First anybody who does not know the distinction or difference between the different positions on foreign policy between presidential candidates Senators Obama and McCain is a fool, that simple!

Next, anybody who saw Chris Matthews on Hardball make a fool and a knave out of Kevin, the conservative talk show blowhard ought to be careful when speaking about appeasement while in the presence of knowledgeable people.

Finally, I heard at least two commentators on CNN who obviously knew nothing about appeasement as used in politics since Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler forever changed the meaning of this rather benign word: Prior to Chamberlain’s misguided attempt to appease Hitler, the word appeasement had a positive image and was the policy of the British Government. In the instant case, Chamberlain sought to appease Hitler by agreeing to turn a deaf ear and a blind eye to the latter’s seizure of a chunk of Czechoslovakia. It turned out to be more than a mistake—it was a blunder, permitting Hitler to gain not just more territory, but more resources to then order his goose steppers to march through Poland.

Ever since Chamberlain’s blunder, the word has taken on a cynical connotation, and rightly so.

But it sure would be helpful if CNN and MSNBC would better vet their commentators so that these folks know the difference between calling Bush’s action “fair political game” and labeling his action for what it really was: an unprecedented attack on the domestic opposition while in a foreign country and before a foreign delegation—in this case the Israeli Parliament.

---------------------------------------------------
©All Rights Reserved.Reproduction is permitted provided credit is given.Lenton Aikins, Ph.D., J.D.Dr. Aikins has traveled widely, lived abroad in Europe and Latin America, recently spending three years in Costa Rica as Director of a Spanish Language school. He holds a Ph. D. in Political Science from University of Southern California, a Juris Doctor in Law from Western State University, College of Law. He is the author of many articles and of While African Americans Slept: Leadership by Parasites, now available at: http://lentonaikins.com, and available in all bookstores July 1,
2008. You can read his blog: Go to: http://lentonaikins.com and click on blog.

Clinton, McCain and Obama on Mother's Day

2008-05-11T21:58:00.000-07:00

Today the above referenced politicians were asked what Mother’s Day meant to them.
Here are their responses:

Clinton: Chelsea talked about how great a President her mother would make and how proud she was of her mother.

McCain’s mother talked about what a great President he’d make.

Obama did not mention one single word about being President. He talked about how he was influenced by his mother, how she instilled in him a values system that informs his outlook on life and he ended by complimenting Michelle, his wife, on what a wonderful mother she is.

What does that tell you about these folks?

In my opinion, it tells you that the Clintons and the McCains think only in political terms about everything. To Clinton and McCain everything seems to be political—even Mother’s Day. To Obama it’s all about his mother and wife—not a single political word about his being able to make a good President was uttered.

Among the three candidates, only Obama came off authentic. The other two apparently saw the photo op strictly in political terms. Beside the fact that he was the only one who answered the question what Mother’s Day means to him.

I wonder how long he will be in Washington before it grinds all of the authenticity out of him?

---------------------------------------------------
©All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction is permitted provided credit is given.
Lenton Aikins, Ph.D., J.D.
Dr. Aikins has traveled widely, lived abroad in Europe and Latin America, recently spending three years in Costa Rica as Director of a Spanish Language school. He holds a Ph. D. in Political Science from University of Southern California, a Juris Doctor in Law from Western State University, College of Law. He is the author of many articles and of While African Americans Slept: Leadership by Parasites, now available at: http://lentonaikins.com, and available in all bookstores July 1,
2008. You can read his blog: Go to: http://lentonaikins.com and click on blog.

Is Barack Obama Held To a Different Standard?

2008-05-07T21:47:00.000-07:00

At the onset of this long political season I thought that the media was fairly balanced in its coverage of each political candidate. This was until the “flag pin” idiocy came up. I have noticed that only Senator Obama is asked why he is not wearing a flag pin. Senators McCain and Clinton are never asked why they do not wear a flag pin. In fact, at the debates, Senator Obama was asked why he was not wearing a flag pin and nobody raised a hair about Senator Clinton’s not wearing a flag pin. In fact, NONE of the reporters asking the question were wearing a flag pin!

What are the reporters insinuating here? It can’t be that they are insinuating that a flag pin is proper attire for Mr. Obama, but not for them, not for Clinton and not for the very reporters asking the questions. In fact, they’re questioning Senator Obama’s patriotism because he does not wear a flag pin. The subject has been discussed ad nauseam on the right-wing radio programs and the mainstream media seems to be taking its clue from the right-fringe groups.

Then, there is the situation with Reverend Wright. Obama is somehow held to answer for every outrageous statements of this preacher who is simply full of himself. Yet, Senator McCain has not been required by the media to atone personally for every inane comment by the preachers who supports him.

The press applies the same double standard when it harps on the fact that Obama just can’t seem to appeal to the “blue collar” working class—code word for white uneducated former core democratic constituency. In fact, President Clinton only won forty-one percent of this very “blue collar” group-the exact percentage of this group that Obama won in Indiana. Yet, the press—and the commentator on CNN and MSNBC political talk programs—has now raised this “blue-collar test” to gospel. There have been predictions that Obama is in trouble if he can’t do something to win these folks over. The folks have been lost to the Democratic Party for at least a generation. Suddenly, Obama cannot win unless he does something that even President Clinton could not do in 1992—but he was elected.

Finally, I admire Senator Clinton, but could you imagine the howls that would be constant for him to quit the race were the math against him that Senator Clinton now has against her?

Double standard?

---------------------------------------------------
©All Rights Reserved.Reproduction is permitted provided credit is given.Lenton Aikins, Ph.D., J.D.Dr. Aikins has traveled widely, lived abroad in Europe and Latin America, recently spending three years in Costa Rica as Director of a Spanish Language school. He holds a Ph. D. in Political Science from University of Southern California, a Juris Doctor in Law from Western State University, College of Law. He is the author of many articles and of While African Americans Slept: Leadership by Parasites, now available at: http://lentonaikins.com, and available in all bookstores July 1,
2008. You can read his blog: Go to: http://lentonaikins.com and click on blog.

Reverend Wright--There We Go Again

2008-04-28T10:18:00.000-07:00

Reverend. Wright—There We Go Again

My daddy who was a minister used to say to me “son, it’s better to be silent and appear a fool than to speak up and remove the doubt.” Now that Rev. Wright has spoken out, it is easy to see how a learned man can be both a fool, an actor, and a politician all wrapped in one clothe.

Reverend Wright refuses to apologize for his despicable remarks about “God damn America.” Rather, he “goes off” on this all-purpose victim hood rant. It’s as if we’re watching an unsolved murder show on television—up pops the all-purpose black guy as suspect. Victim hood claims work the same way for many black Americans who commit acts or say things that are dead wrong, but they blame it on “racism.”

Reverend Wright is a very intelligent man. He had the ability to curse America for its wrongs by using pre-1970 rhetoric. He is stuck in his own time zone. As a black American of roughly his generation and as a Southerner, I fully understand how difficult it is to put behind the feelings of victim hood and to blame one’s faults and failings on the historical (and in all too many cases present) lack of opportunities. But this is not the whole story.

Reverend Wright has traveled to Africa and presumably to other parts of the world. He surely has seen the salutary affects and benefits that America has had on black Americans. Nowhere in his “God damn America” sermon did I hear him say how very proud he is (or should be) to be an American. You can’t have it both ways.

Correspondingly, he wants to have his religious and political cake...but retreat to his fanciful separation of religion and politics and cloak the press’s criticism of him in an attack on the “black church.” This is better than victim hood politics—it’s Carl Rove right wing political savvy rhetoric in action. Perhaps I’ve been deaf during the political firestorm that the good Reverend has stirred up but I simply do not remember the media’s attacking the black church.

Finally, what we see here is an egotistical man’s trying to protect and promote his own legacy and agenda by throwing his most politically successful parishioner “under the bus.”

Senator Obama has not thrown his former pastor under the bus. This says a lot about the character of the two men.
------------------------------------------

©All Rights Reserved.Reproduction is permitted provided credit is given.Lenton Aikins, Ph.D., J.D.Dr. Aikins has traveled widely, lived abroad in Europe and Latin America, recently spending three years in Costa Rica as Director of a Spanish Language school. He holds a Ph. D. in Political Science from University of Southern California, a Juris Doctor in Law from Western State University, College of Law. He is the author of many articles and of While African Americans Slept: Leadership by Parasites, now available at: http://lentonaikins.com, and available in all bookstores July 1,
2008. You can read his blog: Go to: http://lentonaikins.com and click on blog.

Who Won Pennyslvania?--One Word: McCain

2008-04-23T11:18:00.000-07:00

Senator McCain won because the results in Pennsylvania does not change the nature of the race—it’s still Senator Obama’s to lose.

What Pennsylvania did was to legitimize the republicans “kitchen sink” attacks on Obama because Senator Clinton has given the republicans “cover” to make these negative attacks: scare tactics, attacks upon Obama’s leadership and his distaste for confrontation, e.g. politics as usual.

After the dust settles in Indiana and especially in North Carolina, where Senator Obama will hand Senator Clinton a worst drubbing than he took in Pennsylvania, the race will be right back where it was pre-Pennsylvania. Moreover, Clinton will have gone more negative, forcing Obama to retaliate—and McCain will win again.

More and more this race on the democratic side is presenting the Super delegates with the choice that they do not want to make: settle the nomination. But the sooner they do so the sooner democrats can define Senator McCain—including his off-color smiles, his age, his “let them eat cake” real belief, etc. She can't catch him in pledged delegates or the popular vote because even she agreed that Florida and Michigan would not count--oh, that was when she was the inevitable nominee.

The one hot-button issue that the republicans could have had, illegal immigration, does not exist because there is not a dime’s worth of difference on this issue between Obama and McCain.

So, the November election will pit an old man who has many lapses in memory against a middle-age man (he’s only seen as young because McCain is so old) who is so in love with his own rhetoric that he sometimes forget that it is a political campaign that he is in and not an intellectual pursuit. Obama too frequently lapses and forgets that he is a politician not an analysis.

If the old man wins, the country might go to hell in a hand basket since he wants to bomb Iran and to continue the American War in Iraq indefinitely. If the middle-age man wins, the youth, the intellectuals, and the blacks will hold their breath to see if any politician in American can truly make a difference.

Houston…we have a problem.

Stand by….

--------------------------------------------
©All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction is permitted provided credit is given.
Lenton Aikins, Ph.D., J.D.
Dr. Aikins has traveled widely, lived abroad in Europe and Latin America, recently spending three years in Costa Rica as Director of a Spanish Language school. He holds a Ph. D. in Political Science from University of Southern California, a Juris Doctor in Law from Western State University, College of Law. He is the author of many articles and of While African Americans Slept: Leadership by Parasites, now available at: http://lentonaikins.com, and available in all bookstores July 1, 2008. You can read his blog: Go to: http://lentonaikins.com and click on blog.

They All Lost: Senators Clinton, Obama & ABC

2008-04-17T11:44:00.000-07:00

Last night in Philadelphia there wasn’t much love in this city of Brotherly Love.
Two things struck me:

The way the media keeps the Rev. Wright comments alive as if these folks expect that Senator Obama to explain more, to denounce more--again and again; and;
The way Senator Clinton is never asked to denounce Geraldine Ferraro’s comments, again and again and again.

Now, the media is questioning Obama about a 40-year old Weatherman Radical’s sitting on a charitable organization board where Obama also sat. Yet, the Clintons and others are forever busy harping on the media’s favoring Obama. The media did not question Clinton about the pardoning of two criminals of the Weatherman Radical group.

True, the media may favor Obama in the overall general reporting, but the truth is that the media does not have much negative to report on him, whereas the basket of bad apples of Clinton’s past is filled to the brim. However, where the “gut” issues—or hot-button issues—are concerned, there is no doubt that Hillary gets a pass. The only exception has been the media’s treatment of the Bosnia landing-under fire issue.

What did we learn from the 21st Debate between these two?

First, despite the hounding that both the George Stephanopoulos, a former employee of the Clinton Whitehouse, and Senator Clinton subjecting Barack to, it was Clinton, who I believe committed the major gaffes. Consider this:

1) Clinton committed grave political error by saying “yes, yes, yes,” Obama can win in the Fall against Senator McCain. This will undercut her “secret” argument to the super delegates that he can’t win. Gone now is her chief argument that she is more electable than Obama. (After all, she’s lost to him on the number of pledged delegates that have been won in the primaries, she’s lost twice as many states and she’s lost in the number of popular votes.) Polls now show her trailing almost two-to-one in such important areas as trustworthiness, truthfulness and electability. Her refusal to bite the bullet and be honest about what she has been telling the super delegates is still another example her lack of truthfulness.

2) The second gaffe was her apparent tone deftness when it comes to withdrawing from Iraq. She actually stated that she would totally ignore the generals’ advice on tactics—even if her withdrawal schedule created chaos and placed in greater danger the lives of Americans.

There is no doubt why she took the apparent foolhearted position of stating she’d totally ignore the advice of the generals: she was trying to outflank Obama. She has been outflanked by Obama on this issue since the campaign began and she thought, apparently, “I’ll be damned if I will be outflanked now before the whole nation.”
This was a big mistake. Obama immediately recognized it and took the opportunity—despite Clinton’s vaulted experience—to show her up.

Senator Obama stated that he would listen to the generals (as he must and as Clinton would have to were she elected) regarding tactics of withdrawal, but made it clear that it is up to the president to define the mission and up to the generals to execute it.

If positions were reversed, the press would have had a field day lamenting how naïve and inexperienced Obama was.

Yet, the Monday Morning Quarterbacking (pundits) said not a word about this serious gaffe of Senator Clinton. So, why do we hear this ongoing cacophony about the press’s being anti-Clinton? This is the real power of Clintonion Speak—Freud had a label for it: reaction formation.

This was a debate that nobody won: Obama lost because he permitted ABC and Clinton to keep him on the defensive; Clinton lost because she keep dishing the negative; and, ABC lost because it did not ask any questions but stooped to the sensational tidbits.
MSNBC and CNN never looked so good!
--------------------------------------------
©All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction is permitted provided credit is given.
Lenton Aikins, Ph.D., J.D.
Dr. Aikins has traveled widely, lived abroad in Europe and Latin America, recently spending three years in Costa Rica as Director of a Spanish Language school. He holds a Ph. D. in Political Science from University of Southern California, a Juris Doctor in Law from Western State University, College of Law. He is the author of many articles and of While African Americans Slept: Leadership by Parasites, now available at: http://lentonaikins.com, and available in all bookstores July 1, 2008. You can read his daily blog: Go to: http://lentonaikins.com and click on blog.

SPEAKING OF BRANDING

2008-04-14T08:21:00.000-07:00

I watch and listen to the political campaigning now in full swing. It is common knowledge among the pundits that the democrats have won the battle of branding. But this win may turn out to be a pyrrhic victory since Senator McCain is the republican candidate. McCain is both a blessing and a curse for the Republican Party.

He is a blessing because he has successfully done his own branding: he is considered as a maverick, though he is not, but perception is not just a game in politics--perception is about the only game in politics. Having branded himself in the minds of the public and the pundits as a maverick, he is now free to court the right wing of his party. No republican can court the right wing of his party as unabashedly as McCain because the press is not going to paint him as a neo-con a la Bush, Cheney and Rice. Basically, Senator McCain so far has got a free ride from the press.

McCain’s branding himself as a maverick while at the same time participating in the biggest expansion of the federal government is in stark contrast to what the republican party is supposed to stand for: less government and fewer taxes. Indeed, less government and fewer taxes is the mantra of the modern Republican Party. But this party seems to have totally lost its way under President Bush: we have experienced a massive expansion (even if we discount the American War in Iraq) of the roll of the federal government, which indirectly undermines the core republican party’s principles of less government and fewer taxes; the massive expansion of the federal government will inexorably result in higher taxes on us and on future generations.

This conflict will play out in odd ways if Senator McCain is elected as our next President:
The American War on Iraq will continue to result in more and more spending, present and future tax increases, a continued expansion of the federal government and fewer programs to attack our crumbling infer structure, especially our educational system.

The “rubber will hit the road” if McCain is elected because his maverick persona will collide with the reality of a continued $12 billion dollars monthly expenditure just to maintain the American War in Iraq and this does not take into consideration the absolute necessity to refurbish our depleting and depleted military equipment or our lack of solders to maintain military readiness in other parts of the world where we have commitments—and enemies. For example, what would happen if China (after the Olympics) should decide to take back its rebel province, Taiwan? What would (could) we do?

For all of McCain’s vaulted independence, he will hew to the neo con’s agenda of throwing money at Iraq while telling his fellow citizens through his action to “eat cake” and enjoy it. Shackled by the American War in Iraq, his policies will not be different from the most rigid neo-con, except possibly on the environment. Perhaps the Sierra Club will consider endorsing him!

Twenty-five years from now we may look back upon Ron Paul’s solution of ending our foreign evolvement of maintaining over seven hundred basis in over a hundred and thirty foreign countries around the world as the wisest advice despite being derided during this political campaign.

--------------------------------------------
©All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction is permitted provided credit is given.
Lenton Aikins, Ph.D., J.D.
Dr. Aikins has traveled widely, lived abroad in Europe and Latin America, recently spending three years in Costa Rica as Director of a Spanish Language school. He holds a Ph. D. in Political Science from University of Southern California, a Juris Doctor in Law from Western State University, College of Law. He is the author of many articles and of While African Americans Slept: Leadership by Parasites, now available at: http://lentonaikins.com, and available in all bookstores July 1, 2008. You can read his daily blog: Go to: http://lentonaikins.com and click on blog.

The American War on Iraq: Two Realities

2008-04-09T18:39:00.000-07:00

News! News! News!!! No change in our Iraq Policy! The Congressional Hearings on Iraq or the Charade of Congressional Hearings on Iraq?

A note at the onset about my use of terminology. Readers of my blog have commented on the fact that I do not use the words, “Iraq War.” That’s true, because it is not an Iraq War; it is the American War against Iraq.

We have been attacked only once in our history that resulted in a real war: Pearl Harbor. Yet, our citizens have been fed a constant lie about wars: The Mexican-American War was America’s War on Mexico, but we through a psychological need for war and an enemy, labeled it the Mexican-American War. The same for the Spanish-American War, we also started that war. By the time we get around to really dominating the world, we are so dishonest about our psychological need to commit aggression against other countries, some country, any country—just so long as we can call them the enemy—we no longer even consider our wars as having anything to do with us, e.g. Americans, just the other folks, the enemy: Like the Korean War, though the Koreans never attacked us; like the Viet Nam War, though the Vietnamese never attacked us, and now; like the Iraq War; we must hold our nose for the biggest fairy tale of all: the Iraq War, though the Iraqi never attacked us—we invaded them, remember?!

So, stop giving me grief about calling, excuse me, a spade a spade.

Supporters of America’s War on Iraq say, predictably, the following:

· The surge is working;
· Violence is down, meaning our boys are not dying as much as before (and frankly, we don’t give a damn about the Iraqis dying); and
· To pull out of Iraq would be irresponsible because we can’t leave Iraq as a failed state. Apparently they can’t govern themselves, which leaves any thinking person to ask, “how in the hell did the Iraqis govern themselves before we came to their “rescue”?
Anybody who has ever followed this debate will recognize the above as the “republican position."

Now, the “democats.”

· The surge has not worked as envisioned because it has not achieved it’s political objective; (Whose political objectives—ours or the Iraqis?)
· Iraqi troops have not stood up, so we can’t stand down. (Well, why should they? At least they seem to have enough sense to realize that they don’t have to run the risk of getting blown to bits by IED’s or sniper fire as long as they have the dumb, but aggressive, Americans to die for them! After all, they did not ask to be invaded, did they?)
· Political goals of the surge have not and will not be met as long as we are there—time to get out!
Anybody who has ever followed this debate will recognize the above as the “democratic position.”

The democrats say they can do nothing—they need 60 senators to cut off debate to enable them to get a law through to end the war. This is the lowest form of political blather because the democrats are playing games, just like the republicans, with American’s lives. The democrats don’t need 60 votes to cut off the funding. Yet, they are asking the American people to give them 60 senators so they will have the votes to end the American War in Iraq.

Of course, we Americans don’t have enough sense to ask the democrats this:
“If you and yours don’t have enough courage to cut off the funding and most assuredly thereby end our war, why should we believe that if we give you 60 senators, you would then (magically!) have the courage to end the American War in Iraq?

©All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction is permitted provided credit is given.
Lenton Aikins, Ph.D., J.D.
Dr. Aikins has traveled widely, lived abroad in Europe and Latin America, recently spending three years in Costa Rica as Director of a Spanish Language school. He holds a Ph. D. in Political Science from University of Southern California, a Juris Doctor in Law from Western State University, College of Law. He is the author of many articles and of While African Americans Slept: Leadership by Parasites, now available at: http://lentonaikins.com, and available in all bookstores July 1, 2008. You can read his daily blog: Go to: http://lentonaikins.com and click on blog.

Senator Hillary Clinton: At it Again?

2008-04-07T20:59:00.000-07:00

When I first heard Senator Clinton tell the story of that poor woman in Ohio who lost her baby and her own life because she did not have insurance and $100 to pay the hospital before it would admit, I had to hold back tears. This was a very compelling story for Senator Clinton’s universal health care proposal. According to Senator Clinton, the woman went back to the hospital again and the hospital told the woman the same thing—no $100, no insurance=no treatment. Hillary claimed that the woman worked at a pizza parlor and did not have insurance. She admitted that a deputy sheriff told the story to her. As it turned out, the story was not true.
Now, there are two points to make at the onset:
· The Senator did not have first hand information regarding the veracity of the story; and,
· She did not have her staff check the story out before adopting it and repeating it in her campaign stump speech four times a day since March 20th .
In the instant case, Senator Clinton cannot blame the deputy because by repeating the false story several times, she adopted it. It’s like hearing a libelous story and then adopting it as your own by repeating it several times to others. The law interprets repeating the libelous statement as adopting the statement itself and the law makes the person who repeats such a libelous statement legally liable for slander, also.
Then, I heard the story about the Clintons’ release of their income tax. “Bravo,” I thought, she deserves credit for doing so!.
Not so fast: I then learned that the Clintons had tricked me again—no 2007 release! The Clintons were getting an extension in which to file their 2007 taxes!
Tricked again!
Then again, when I heard the news that the Clintons had given over ten million dollars to charity since leaving the White House, I thought “Bravo,” you gotta give them credit for being charitable because many couples or people who make that kind of money contribute far less to charity.
Tricked again!
Now, it has come out that the Clintons’ charitable contributions were to the CLINTON FOUNDATION!
Tricked again!
To say that the Clintons gave over ten million to charity is like their saying they were going to release their income taxes by April 15th or shortly thereafter, then obtaining an extension and releasing 2000- to 2006 returns. Hell, they had these returns all along. So, I was Tricked again!
The Clintons are simplely unbelievable. Since last October 2007 Senator Clinton has lied at least on four separate occasions about her plane making a corkscrew landing in Bosnia to avoid being fired up and then having to keep her head down and run for cover when landing on the tarmac—lied until caught red handed by a video of the allegedly dangerous under-fire landing.
Now, we have her saying she was against the American War in Iraq before Senator Obama!
Now, we have her saying that Mark Penn had been fired as her chief political strategist for his lobbying activities on behalf of the Colombian government and the trade treaty that Bush wants while at the same time receiving million of dollars from Hillary’s campaign as the Senator makes apparent resolute statements of her opposition to the treaty.
Tricked again!
We’ve just learned today that Penn is still on her staff; he is still participating in the morning strategy sessions—and apparently still getting paid.
Americans must ask themselves this: If they elect Mrs. Clinton, what will be the difference between her lying to us and President Bush’s lying to us?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
©All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction is permitted provided credit is given.
Lenton Aikins, Ph.D., J.D.
Dr. Aikins has traveled widely, lived abroad in Europe and Latin America, recently spending three years in Costa Rica as Director of a Spanish Language school. He holds a Ph. D. in Political Science from University of Southern California, a Juris Doctor in Law from Western State University, College of Law. He is the author of many articles and of While African Americans Slept: Leadership by Parasites, now available at: http://lentonaikins.com, and available in all bookstores July 1, 2008. You can read his daily blog: Go to: http://lentonaikins.com and click on blog.

Speaking of Martyrs: The 40th Anniversary of the Assassination of Dr. King

2008-04-05T15:18:00.000-07:00

To be a martyr requires three things:

1. You have to actually achieve something against all apparent odds;
2. You must then set your sights on a daunting goal that will not be achieved during your lifetime but will be achieved after your death; and,
3. You must get yourself killed in a timely fashion.

This is the stuff of martyrdom. Take two post WWII examples:
JFK and King.

John F. Kennedy was a war hero, a senator, but these are not the qualities that he achieved against great odds.

What he achieved against great odds was overcoming the barriers of his religion (Catholic) to become the first President of Catholic faith. He also had to overcome the debacle of Al Smith, the first Catholic nominated for President by a major political party, the Democratic Party in 1928.

Next, Kennedy set his sights on the moon. This goal was not achieved during his lifetime, but it was achieved following the President’s assassination.

Next, the President was assassinated.

The King story is not different: Dr. King achieved a great deal before his untimely death: He ended segregated transportation, the Montgomery Boycott, he obtained the actual right (as opposed to the Constitutional right of the Fifteenth Amendment, passed specifically in 1870 to give black Americans the right to vote) by getting the Voting Rights Act of 1965 passed, and he was able to force white America to give blacks their citizenship right in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Next, King espoused kicking out the last leg of the table of legal segregation by the passing of a national fair housing act. This was partly due to the fact that JFK had refused to immediately sign an executive order, as he had promised during his campaign for President, to outlaw segregated housing in federal housing projects. The fair housing act was not passed during King’s lifetime-but President Johnson used King’s assassination to drum up political support to get the 1968 Fair Housing Law passed.

Next, prior to the passage of the 1968 Fair Housing Law, Dr. King was assassinated.

So, I guess the question is this: Why do we humans have to kill the prophet to realize the prophet’s dream?

© 2008 by Lenton Aikins
©All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction is permitted provided credit is given.
Lenton Aikins, Ph.D., J.D.Dr. Aikins has traveled widely, lived abroad in Europe and Latin America, recently spending three years in Costa Rica as Director of a Spanish Language school. He holds a Ph. D. in Political Science from University of Southern California, a Juris Doctor in Law from Western State University, College of Law. He is the author of many articles and of While African Americans Slept: Leadership by Parasites, now available at: http://lentonaikins.com, and available in all bookstores July 1, 2008. You can read his daily blog: Go to: http://lentonaikins.com and click on blog.

The Fuss Over Judge Marvin Arrington's Action

2008-04-03T17:12:00.000-07:00

Cable Television has again gone wild over Judge Arrington’s asking whites to leave his court while he lectured black defendants. On the surface this is understandable because we look to our courts to provide equal justice under the law. As a lawyer who have practiced criminal law and subsequently specialized in employment law, I can testify under oath that there is not equal justice under the law. As we used to say jokingly in criminal court, there is no justice—it’s all about “just us.” As in most jokes, this phrase contains a great deal of truth.

The exclusion of whites from the courtroom to lecture blacks, ostensibly because the Judge did not want whites to feel embarrassed and to feel as if he was talking down to them, is indefensible and Judge Arrington has apologized profusely for this blunder.
As a lawyer who practiced criminal law, I fully understand and appreciate Judge Arrington’s disgust at seeing blacks, particularly black men, go in and out of the courthouse’s revolving door. I used to be ashamed every time the calendar was called to see nineteen black men and one white man led into the courtroom, chained, by young white deputies who appeared to be no older than 21 years old. Many of these defendants shackled on the chain were broken, old, gray men. At first I wondered if these black men were embarrassed to be ordered around by men young enough to be their grandchildren. I soon realized those broken souls had long ago abandoned—spiritually, mentally, and physically any concepts of dignity, embarrassment, and humiliation….

However, what Judge Arrington said (and there are plenty news reports of that) should be music to the black and white community’s ears. He basically scolded black leadership and the black middle class for not doing more to help the lost people in their ghettoes.

As in the case of Reverend Wright, his action—but not his words—made whites uncomfortable. Whites have had their absolute way so long in this country that they take it for granted that they are not to be made uncomfortable. So, any black or white person—and particularly a black man—who says or does something that makes white people uncomfortable can expect to be excoriated by the white press. This is a fact that is not in dispute.

It is also an indication that the vast majority of whites in our country want to comfortably pass their entire life without hearing the raw and bitter truth.

I say, “get over it.”

Lenton Aikins, Ph.D., J.D.
Dr. Aikins has traveled widely, lived abroad in Europe and Latin America, recently spending three years in Costa Rica as Director of a Spanish Language school. He holds a Ph. D. in Political Science from University of Southern California, a Juris Doctor in Law from Western State University, College of Law. He is the author of many articles and of While African Americans Slept: Leadership by Parasites, now available at: http://lentonaikins.com, and available in all bookstores July 1, 2008. You can read his daily blog at: http://lentonaikins.com

Is Senator Clinton Illusional?

2008-04-02T20:37:00.000-07:00

Senator Clinton offered Senator Obama the golden opportunity to be her Vice President!

Senator Clinton has never immediately congratulated Senator Obama upon beating her in a primary or caucus election!

Senator Clinton arrogated to herself to set up a “threshold” to be crossed by Senator Obama before he is ready for President!

Senator Clinton maintained since at least last October 2007 that when she went to Bosnia her plane had to make a corkscrew landing and upon deplaning the crew was told to keep their heads down and run for cover!

Video of the so-called dangerous landing showed just the opposite, the little girl Ms. Clinton stopped to hug and listen to a poem the child had written for Ms. Clinton has stated that there was no such danger and troops present have been a little bit less kind to the good Senator.

Senator Clinton today, April 2, 2008, ran the well-known 3 a.m. ad but changed the subject to the economy and aimed it at Senator McCain as if she is the Democratic Party Nominee!

There are many other statements by her and her campaign that raise the point, neglected by the media, as to Mrs. Clinton’s grasp of reality.

For example, Senator Obama is ahead of her in popular votes, in pledged delegates and in states won. Yet she offers him the Vice President spot on her ticket! Her statements about Bosnia are clearly illusional; her “threshold” that Obama has to cross before he is ready to be President all point to a person deeply separated from reality.

The final straw, which compels me to write this, is her ad against Senator McCain as if she is her party's nominee.

Finally, the news media fail to see that Mrs. Clinton is almost totally separated from reality and rushes forward to give her kudos for having huevos or chutzpah. The facts are closer to an illusional person than to a person who has chutzpah!

Lenton Aikins, Ph.D., J.D.Dr. Aikins has traveled widely, lived abroad in Europe and Latin America, recently spending three years in Costa Rica as Director of a Spanish Language school. He holds a Ph. D. in Political Science from University of Southern California, a Juris Doctor in Law from Western State University, College of Law. He is the author of many articles and of While African Americans Slept: Leadership by Parasites, now available at: http://lentonaikins.com, and available in all bookstores July 1, 2008

The Reverend Wright vs. Geraldine Ferraro Comments

2008-04-01T21:50:00.000-07:00

The purpose of this blog is not to compare Rev. Wright’s comments with those of Geraldine Ferraro’s. Rather, it is to note how differently the news media has treated these despicable comments.

Today, the news media (CNN, MSNBC) repeatedly brings up Rev. Wright. The Ferraro’s comments seemed to have long been forgotten. Yet, both of these old folk’s comments are indicative of beliefs that existed in another time zone.

Rev. Wright’s comments while uttered during one of his many “hell-fire-damnation sermons” were typical of black preachers who have long been at liberty to say anything they want to without any consequences. Proof of this fact is not hard to come by. Just today, Congressman Cleaver, a black minister who supports Senator Clinton, stated that Obama was going to win the nomination and the Presidency! He’s a Clinton supporter! Black ministers have acted like this every since they burst upon the national scene, witness Congressman and Rev. Adam Clayton Powell. Black ministers are the only blacks that can say and do pretty much what they want to because they are not beholden to white folks. Black people like this fact because their ministers can say and do things that they themselves cannot do—and keep a job!

Black people go to church to be put in a “feel-good,” to dress up, as most cannot do in their daily jobs, and to socialize far more than to simply worship. If the reader does not believe this simple statement, it can be empirically verified by attending any black church. Black parishioners dress far better than white parishioners to go to church. Black also “cut-up,” making more noise and shout-outs, “Amens,” more than white folks do. So, Rev. Wright’s inflammatory remarks should be—but they were not because white folks generally do not have a clue of what goes on in black churches—taken in a different context than Geraldine Ferraro’s remarks. Yet, the news media is still as of today showing Rev. Wright’s speaking and acting in a crazed manner.

Geraldine Ferraro’s comments that Barack Obama is where he is because he is a black man were not made—and indeed she staunchly defended them—in the heat of a shouting sermon with ridiculous references pitched in about “it’s in the Bible!” Geraldine Ferraro made her comments and defended them in a coldly calculating manner, without shouting and ranting. This makes her comments all the more reprehensible. Her comments were made with an uncharacteristic coldness of a person set within her time warped historical mentality. Rev. Wright is so used to engaging in such non-sensical, objectable, crazed hurtful comments (to whites) that he was probably surprised that anybody would have taken him seriously.

He only meant to shock his audience, get an “Amen” and then call it a day. In fact, I would not label him as a racist knowing him only from the few sound bites the media has exposed us to. This may sound strange to whites, but look at his subsequent actions: he went on a cruise with practically all whites, he then returned to Chicago and purchased a home in an exclusive white, guarded-gate community. In other words, his actions are diametrically opposed to his flamboyant rhetoric. Rhetoric and disparate action is another characteristic of black ministers. A significant number of black ministers have affairs with women in their congregation and retain their positions.

Ms. Ferraro’s subsequent actions have been scrupulously in line with her expressions and apparent feelings: she defended her statements, became hostile and bitter at the media and apparently everybody else, calling those disagreeing with her “racist,” and otherwise behaving as if the news media and blacks forced her to say what she said. Rev. Wright served his country honorably in the Marines—a much tougher assignment than being given the preferential treatment given to Ms. Ferraro of being selected the first woman to run as Vice President of the democrat party.

The media, however, quickly forgot her comments while even Clinton’s campaign is yet trying to woe super delegates by invoking the Rev. Wright controversy and justifying this Machiavellian crassness by asserting that the republicans are going to do so if Senator Obama gets the nomination! There is no evidence that the Obama campaign is exploiting Geraldine Ferraro’s comments for its advantage. But the news media has failed to mention that fact.

Lenton Aikins, Ph.D., J.D.Dr. Aikins has traveled widely, lived abroad in Europe and Latin America, recently spending three years in Costa Rica as Director of a Spanish Language school. He holds a Ph. D. in Political Science from University of Southern California, a Juris Doctor in Law from Western State University, College of Law. He is the author of many articles and of While African Americans Slept: Leadership by Parasites, now available at: http://lentonaikins.com, and available in all bookstores July 1, 2008

McCain's Path to Victory in November 2008

2008-03-31T18:26:00.000-07:00

March 31, 2008

Senator McCain’s path to victory is not his war record. The vast majority of voters were born after the American War in Vietnam. Furthermore, we Americans are devoid of almost any knowledge of history. Young Americans who will be a large part of the electorate in November, especially if Senator Obama is nominated, are not as glued to old folks’ brand of patriotism, e.g., never say anything bad about America, never oppose our military, never address elders by title, Sir, Mr., always now by first names, John, Barack, Hillary.

McCain’s path to victory is to emphasize our success in Iraq, the surge, and to forge a new republican economic policy that promises to help the middle class as much as the present administration has and is helping the rich--a la the Bear Stern Bailout.

This new republican extrication of the middle-class can and should be couched in individualism terms but in fact structured so as to help middle-class suffering Americans. It could be as simple as setting up a temporary federal sunset agency (an agency with a definite expiration date), designed just for this purpose. This will somewhat ally the republican’s distaste for big government.

McCain certainly has the statute and the creditability to pull this off. He could add to his cross-the-political-party-aisle, maverick appeal (which is not so much cross the aisle as it is poking his fellow rebublicans in the eye) by launching such a proposal. An additional advantage of this strategy would be to throw off democrats while at the same time remaining unassailable as a war hero and patriot. No democratic nominee will be able to match him in this regard.

This would be a successful strategy, providing the cover is kept on the lid of the American War casualties in Iraq. There is, however, nothing McCain can do if the lid blows off of the American War in Iraq. If that happens, he will simple be upended by events beyond his control. This strategy is his only hope for victory in November.

© 2008 by Lenton Aikins
All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction is permitted provided credit is given.

Lenton Aikins, Ph.D., J.D.
Dr. Aikins has traveled widely, lived abroad in Europe and Latin America, recently spending three years in Costa Rica as Director of a Spanish Language school. He holds a Ph. D. in Political Science from University of Southern California, a Juris Doctor in Law from Western State University, College of Law. He is the author of many articles and of While African Americans Slept: Leadership by Parasites, now available at: http://lentonaikins.com, and available in all bookstores July 1, 2008.

THE OBAMA CHALLENGE TO AMERICA

2008-03-30T16:37:00.000-07:00

Senator Obama has challenged us to face our collective history, to look it in the eye, to step up to the plate, to change our collective thinking about to race relations. As it turns out to hardly anyone’s surprise, whites do not want to be made uncomfortable. They prefer to focus on Reverend Wright sound bites to systematically deflect away from the real issues—even of this political campaign. The good Senator, who represents the Land of Lincoln, has confronted an issue (race) as implacable as the one Lincoln faced, slavery, except the current issue is white privileges, camouflaged by whites concealed in a cocoon of willful ignorance. Willful ignorance is the refusal to face the truth, a lie and the desire to not know, pretty much like the child’s willful ignorance about his or her dead father’s horrendous transgressions.
White privilege is all about things kept quiet, subsumed under merit and the claim of having achieved everything in one’s possession through hard work, merit, and “nobody gave me anything I earned everything I have” fairy tale fiction. When in fact white privilege is about 350 years of entitlements, (GI Bill or Rights, FHA financing of homes Post WWII, resulting in the widest expansion of white middle class privileges, while blacks were systematically denied these entitlements) about affirmative action of admission to West Point, Annapolis and the Air Force Academies (free elite education, followed by white privilege of rank in the military), discriminatory admission to the elite universities (Harvard, Columbia, Brown, and the Seven Sisters Colleges, etc.—one such elite College was attended by Hillary Rodman Clinton!) where kids of graduates were and are given affirmative action admission, and about systematic discrimination in lending practices--just to mention a few examples.
Buried underneath the “let’s all come together,” Kumbayah, Senator Obama told whites what they did not want to hear: that they have been the beneficiaries of government generated wealth—FHA, VA loans, etc., that enabled them to gain wealth when blacks were denied these same government benefits. He told white America that much of the bitterness among blacks stems from the fact that they are mired in a historical time zone, racially speaking, due to the harsh treatment they had to live with during the entire 350 years of American history, except the last 40 years. But he also told black Americans that many, if not most, of whites feel insecure about bussing for integration purposes, affirmative action and other government programs that whites feel benefit blacks at whites’ expense.
Going even further, Obama discussed the “two-sided” issue of race, using both his minister’s words and his own white grandmother as personal examples. Many whites resented hearing about Obama’s grandmother’s racial views. This is not a surprise: Whites want blacks to think that the problem of racism is “that other white person’s problem.” If racism is only "that other white person’s problem," then why are blacks in the position that they are?

Looking at things from this white perspective, there can be only one of three explanations:

(1) Blacks are stupid;
(2) Blacks are lazy; and,/or
(3) Blacks are stupid and lazy!

Isn’t it nice that this white thinking has three equally appealing “justifications” for the pathology of black Americans? This is not to say black Americans are blameless in this American saga. They complain about discrimination far too much while studiously making excuses and ignoring the constructive roll that self-discipline would have in helping them extricate themselves from the pathology of violence, self-denigration, and dependency on the government.

Presently, white privileges, not blatant racism, is the challenge to America. Senator Obama put his foot on it, albeit very, very lightly, when mentioning how whites have been benefitted by affirmative action and government hand-outs.

© 2008 by Lenton Aikins
All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction is permitted provided credit is given.

Lenton Aikins, Ph.D., J.D.
Dr. Aikins has traveled widely, lived abroad in Europe and Latin America, recently spending three years in Costa Rica as Director of a Spanish Language school. He holds a Ph. D. in Political Science from University of Southern California, a Juris Doctor in Law from Western State University, College of Law. He is the author of many articles and of While African Americans Slept: Leadership by Parasites, now available at: http://lentonaikins.com, and available in all bookstores July 1, 2008.