True Colors: Jesse Jackson

He's been a champion of black Americans for decades. He shows up in the news all the time. He once ran for president himself. Jesse Jackson would seem to be the icon of black Americans everywhere. He purports to call the rest of America to a world of equality with blacks (and other minorities). Mr. Jackson has often tried to play the role of Martin Luther King, Jr. - who stood on a Christian platform and called a racially divided country to reconciliation.

So why hasn't it worked? Why do so many non-black Americans view Mr. Jackson as a divisive bigot, a pain in the butt? If you want to understand why nobody takes him seriously, why he never actually accomplishes anything, why his legacy will die when he stops making news, and why we will never name streets in every city in America after him - one need look no further than how Jesse Jackson behaves when he thinks no one is looking.

We got an opportunity for such a view this week. Jesse Jackson was on a Fox News talk show, and made some remarks that he thought were "off the record," and wouldn't be picked up by a microphone. Sadly, he was wrong. He was sitting in front of a hot microphone and his remarks have now been heard around the world. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7498995.stm)

Speaking about Barack Obama's political platform and the positions he takes, Jesse Jackson took exception. The subject was the fact that Barack Obama calls blacks to a higher level of accountability. He exhorts blacks to step up and be the men they are created and called to be. Jesse Jackson said he thinks Obama "talks down to blacks."

What do you suppose that means? How does one half black man "talk down to blacks." The fact is, Barack Obama is saying many of the same things to blacks in America that comedian Bill Cosby has said. Would Mr. Jackson think that Cosby also "talks down to blacks." Apparently so. Read on.

Expressing his frustration with Obama's penchant for "talking down to blacks," Jesse Jackson said he "would like to cut his (Obama's) nuts off." Let's examine what that means. It's a verbally expressed desire to castrate Obama. Jackson's statement indicates he would like to violently and maliciously wound Obama by removing his testicles, rendering him a eunuch. Nice.

So here's the deal. Jesse Jackson would have you believe he is a Christian preacher. He's educated. He's ordained. He wears the hat of a "man of the cloth." He's always billed himself as "the Reverend Jesse Jackson." But the truth of the matter is that there is very little about this man that's reverent. Indeed, he is quite irreverent.

Another point to note is that Jesse Jackson does not speak like a man who is submitted and surrendered to God. He does not model Christ-like virtues. Just imagine Jesus saying something like, "I'd like to cut his nuts off!" Preposterous. Absolute heresy. Mr. Jackson, God's Word tells us that leaders will be held more accountable than anyone else. What are you teaching your followers? Would you have us believe you are being led by the Holy Spirit?

To his credit, Barack Obama has publicly accepted Jesse Jackson's apology. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080710/ap_on_el_pr/obama_jackson;_ylt=Ahp3GOj.ywaQnrCC7EqS.eys0NUE
I don't suppose he had much choice though. There isn't really anything one could say in the face of such adversity that would be dignified. Perhaps Mr. Obama would have been justified in talking down to this particular black man. What could he have said? How about, "Sit down and be quiet!"

Jesse Jackson, the real problem with blacks in America is that fools like you purport to speak for all of them. And when you do - they all look bad. Shame on you. Sit down, be quiet and let America be reconciled unto itself.

Barack & Hillary?

It would seem that Barack Obama is on an unstoppable march to the White House. There are so many questions though. I read in the New York Times this weekend that some are asking him to define what change means. He says he's for change. He says Americans are ready for change. (Most of us probably agreed on that too!) But what is the definition of change?

And what of change that's not so good? After all, some other notable characters in history were "for change." They did awful things and ended up representing some of the lowest points in humanity. Shouldn't we be a bit more intentional about defining what we mean by change? I think the New York Times writer had a good point. Mr. Obama, did you catch that point?

I still have other questions for Barack too. How is it that you're America's first black presidential nominee? You are as much Caucasian and you are African. So how is it that you're black? Another question is about that nasty old pastor of yours. How could you sit in that church for 20 years and not take a stand against what was being said that was wrong? What was being said was definitely racist. It was hate-mongering. Did it not occur to you to take a stand against it? Simply resigning from your church when it becomes a political hot potato doesn't really make you a leader, Mr. Obama. Great leaders don't just stand for what's right. They also have to stand against what's wrong. Will you do that for our country, Mr. Obama - when you wouldn't do it for your church?

And now there is the debate about a Barack & Hillary ticket for the Democrats. Would Hillary be electable? Would she enhance Barack's chances of winning? Would they make a good team in the White House? Have we ever seen Vice President's wield much power or influence? In recent years, I don't think we did until Dick Cheney came along. He has wielded much power because we had a lame duck president who didn't know what to do. Dick was like the Oz behind the curtain, pulling the strings and making the noise. George Bush has been like the hood ornament on the car, while Dick ran the country. Is that how a Barack & Hillary team would function?

I don't know if Hillary Clinton would be a good VP. I suspect she would though. She is a determined fighter, she takes a stand for what's right, and stands against what she thinks is wrong. Nobody likes her, but then I'm not sure popularity is really necessary for good leadership in this country. You can't please everybody.

Barack Obama named a three-person team to help him decide who to pick as a running mate. I found his choices a bit odd.

Carolyn Schlossberg Kennedy. She has no experience in politics, hasn't been influential or demonstrated any particular wisdom. Her claim to fame has been as John Kennedy's daughter, Jackie Onasis' daughter, John Kennedy Jr.'s sister, Ted Kennedy's niece, Ed Schlossberg's wife. Has she done anything herself to qualify her to help pick the spot for second most powerful person on earth?

Jim Johnson, former CEO of Fannie Mae, the government-sponsored mortgage securitization conduit. He soaked the shareholders for millions of dollars. His colleagues let the company nearly go down in flames. He demonstrated neither a strong leadership gift or a particular savvy for business. He is retired and has been living off the millions he made from being Fannie Mae's former CEO. Has he done anything himself to help him qualify to help pick the spot for second most powerful person on earth?

So who should Barack have chosen? Quite frankly, I'd like to know what Barack Obama thinks about Hillary Clinton. What qualities does he want in a Vice President? What gifts and skills does he think will be important to the success of the position? What temperament does he believe will best position the VP to help him lead this country's strong change agenda?

Finally, of Hillary, I would ask how she can lay aside her view that Barack is inexperienced, unqualified and unelectable? Isn't that a compromise of your integrity, Mrs. Clinton? If you believed you are the best person to run this country, then how could you be loyal and supportive to the person who actually does? Wouldn't you be better positioned as a Senator, to hold Barack accountable? Wouldn't that better enable you to function as a check against his balance? Quite candidly, Mrs. Clinton, me thinks that maybe you should stick to your convictions about who Barack Obama is - and not waffle to get the second place prize out of this thing. If you believe he is unqualified, then let the voters elect him - but don't stand beside him and champion his cause.

I understand that the Clintons are democrats and that the Democratic party is important to them. But is it more important than right and wrong? Is being a democrat more important than moral principle? Perhaps, Mrs. Clinton, you should be answering some questions as well.

Barack Obama's House

I am watching the Obama euphoria and wondering who this man really is. There are many questions, and not a lot of answers. Curiously, I noticed a story on-line a couple of days ago that I have yet to see in the American media.

The Times of London broke a story over the weekend about how Mr. & Mrs. Obama funded their current home --- with a loan from a criminal. To make the irony even more pathetic, the criminal's wife purchased the empty lot next door to the Obama's new home --- the same day. But of course, there is said to be "no connection."

The buyer of the empty lot next door, on the same day, is an Iraqi national of Great Britain. Imagine the odds of them purchasing an empty garden plot adjacent to Mr. Obama's new home --- with no house. Then imagine that the two transactions (theirs and the Obama's) closed on exactly the same day. Then imagine that they had "loaned" Mr. Obama's campaign $3.5 million just before that.

Barack Obama himself is quoted as saying that this was "just a bonehead stupid mistake." But really, one has to wonder why he just didn't call his local mortgage company to get a loan to buy the house --- like the rest of the America he wants to lead.

Check out the story at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3433485.ece.

I'm a registered Republican myself, so don't have a particular bone to pick with Obama. But more and more I am thinking Hillary Clinton was right when she said this man "has not been fully vetted." Sadly, it appears that the American media is so intoxicated with "obamaphoria" that they are incapable fo fully vetting this man. So I guess we'll have to turn to the Times of London to find out more about who this man is.