2008-04-30

Hillary supporter presents Rev. Wright "Live"

The below article by Errol Louis of the NY Daily News is a bit disturbing. Disturbing in a sense that I know Barbara Reynolds. Barbara has been a talk show host for heritage radio station WOL in Washington DC for a number of years. From 1996 to 2001, I was the Creative Services Director at WOL when Barbare worked there. Barbara Reynolds also hosted a talk show on the Power channel 169 on XM Satellite when Radio One programmed that channel from 2001 to 2007. Again I worked with Barbara in the same capacity from January 2006 to December 2007, when Radio One disbanded the XM channel. I now find out that Barbara Reynolds is the Hilary supporter that put together the National Press Club speaking engagement for Reverend Jeremiah Wright in Washington DC. The disturbance is that Hilary supporter Barbara Reynolds knows fully well that Rev. Wright has been a thorn in side of Senator Barack Obama with his now infamous "God Damn America" and "Chickens coming home to roost" soundbites circulating on national media outlets from ABC to CNN. And yes Barbara Reynolds is an African-American woman.

I find it difficult to comprehend African-American women (African-American men too) not supporting a Black man's valid quest for the Presidency considering the simular repressive and victorious history that Black men and women share in the United States. Following Jeremiah's National Press Club controversial speech along with the predicatable antics that the press covered most -- as we knew would be the case -- Senator Obama finally denounced Jeremiah Wright, claiming that "this is not the man he knew for during our near 20-year friendship." Senator Obama probably felt that Rev. Wright teamed up with Hillary to set him up a week before the last two big delegate primaries in Indiana and North Carolina. And the evidence is crystal clear that is the case considering that a staunch Hilary supporter Barbara Reynolds has DIRECT ties to the Hilary campaign. I will not insult Rev. Wright's intelligence. Wright knew that the Hilary campaign was behind his appearance. And Barbara also knew perfectly well that she was doing the Hillary campaign a favor by fanning the media flames with gasoline to spark up the negativity forest fire for the media to repetitively show voters more and more Rev. Wright in an effort to create campaigning problems for Senator Obama by keeping Obama on the defensive. Hillary frankly set the whole thing up in her consistent dirty efforts to -- as Ralph Nader stated of the Hillary campaign tactic -- "Take that Boy (Obama) Down."

Hilary will do nothing for you as President of the United States and has done nothing for the people of New York. For example the main topic of discussion recently in New York is the Sean Bell case. Hillary and her supporters refuse to speak about nor do anything about the injustice with the Sean Bell case. The Sean Bell case concerns New York policemen shotting and killing Bell and his three surviving bullet-ridden un-armed friends "fifty-one times". Thats' 51 rounds or 51 shots, whatever you wish to call it. On Friday April 25th in a New York courtroom the Judge acquitted the three NYPD policemen on trial that shot Bell and his friends of all charges. Again New York Senator Hillary remains silent on the issue and has no intention to request that Capitol Hill nor the Justice Department do anything about the judge's decision. If Hillary is silent about these four UN-ARMED men being shot 51-times by the NYPD then what about you? Can you trust Hillary to help you when she won't help grieving parents of a son executed by the NYPD for no reason? The Clinton legacy is more important to Hillary than the injustice in her very own state she swore to represent.

Hillary staging Rev. Wright's speaking engagement via granting Barbara Reynolds unspoken permission, one week before the last two big delegate States in Indiana and North Carolina is gutter politics at its absolute lowest. What do I mean by "Unspoken permission"? Attorney Hillary routinely pulls negative video clips or stops events misrepresenting the Hilary campaign. Hillary did just that this past Friday pulling a youtube.com link from the drudgereport.com, and the youtube.com clip as well. The video clip in question was of an advisor to Bill Clinton's Presidential campaign and Hillary's informal advisor named Mickey Kantor. Kantor was perceived to be swearing against Indianians. The Hilary campaign disagrees. Judge for yourself. The transcript of the clip from the documentary film "The War Room" also includes Bill Clinton staffers Democratic Strategist James Carville and now ABC talk show host George Steponopolous, and it goes as follows:

CARVILLE: Tied in Texas. It looks good. Now let's just say that. I like the text here.
GEORGE: Can you beep Wendy please? Looks pretty good. Looks pretty good.
MICKEY KANTOR: Look at Indiana. Wait, wait. Look at Indiana. Forty-two, forty. It doesn't matter if we win. Those people are sh-- (oh, excuse me)...

What people are sh-- ? That's the queston. I also have the video clip here from a link on HuffintonPost.com. The above transcript is at the 4:40 mark, part nine of the "War Room" documentary (We hope it is still there, link below pulled from huffingtonpost.com on 5-4-08): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_wKOgMNs0U

The paychecks for both Rev. Wright and Barbara Reynolds must have been nice. If Rev. Wright was a thoughtful supporter of Senator Obama's Presidency, then Rev. Wright would have declined Hillary campaign's offer to speak very publicly at the National Press Club. As an Obama supporter, Rev. Wright would have declined offers from any media outlet as his very appearance unobjectedly takes votes away from Senator Obama. Wright can explain his position on November 5th, which is that day after the general election. Now I am one that believes other forces should not dictate whether anyone, including Senator Obama, denounces a friend. But it is now obvious, considering that Rev. Wright was speaking at the National Press Club for Hillary Clinton, that Rev. Wright is no friend of Senator Obama.

Prior to Rev. Wright's National Press Club address, Senator Obama did everything he could do to make sure that Reverend Wright was not denounced by Obama. Unfortunately that was not good enough for Rev. Wright and apparently a huge Rev. Wright ego. Obama has every right to disagree with Rev. Wright sermons, which is everyone's right. Up to this point, disagreeing with two sermons was all that Obama publicly disagreed with Rev. Wright about. Rev. Wright may also consider not being invited to speak at Obama's Springfield, Illinois announcement to run for President. But that is it! The announcement was political and not a Church Picnic. These three instances seem quite trivial to me for the Rev. Wright to befriend Obama, placing Senator Obama heavily on the defensive for yet another few weeks -- especially the week before major primaries in Indiana and North Carolina.

What is also becoming more apparent to me is that the South Carolina primary campaign where Hilary and Bill made purposeful tactics to marginalize Senator Obama as a Black candidate for Black people only. In South Carolina Hilary made the statement that it was President Johnson that signed the civil rights bill, as if Dr. Martin Luther King strategy and the many sacrifices made the King lead civil rights movement had nothing to do with Johnson signing the bill. Secondly the Jesse Jackson comment ("Jesse won South Carolina too") and the fairy tale ("Obama's campaign is a fairy tale) comments by Bill Clinton are also pervasive amongst the media. The media -- inclusive of the Clinton News Network (CNN) and American Broadcasting Clintons (ABC) -- have heard that very public call and are spreading code words, not to vote for a Black man. Whether their scare tactics work remain to be seen. Reminds me of the refereeing favoring the Larry Bird-led Boston Celtics over Magic Johnson-led Los Angeles Lakers in the 1980's. Despite the unfavorable refereeing, the Lakers won anyway. Senator Obama should follow suit despite the entrapments by the Clinton inspired media and Hilary supporters.

In essense, we do not need to hear Rev. Wright's teachings put on by Hilary 'live' on the Clinton News Network (CNN) and then re-run, plus continued on Anderson Cooper's conflict driven program and his like-minded colleagues. Those of us in broadcasting understand that media consolidators fear Hillary and Bill. I am quite sure that media executives are constantly reminded by the Clintons that they are mega-wealthy and highly influencial today because Bill Clinton signed the Telecommunications Bill of 1996 allowing Wall Street Corporations to become the super-mega corporate media owners that they are now. News Reporters are commonly suspended, fired, and made to apologize, if these News Reporters say anything offensive to Hillary. And on top of that, Hilary is crab-barreling Obama in the most horrific ways imaginable. My concern for Senator Obama is what will Hillary and Bill do if the Clintons lose the Democratic Nomination to a Black man? I frankly put nothing past Hillary. Hillary will be the by-product if anything happens to Obama as Farrakhan was when Malcolm X was killed; or J. Edgar Hoover was when President Kennedy was assassinated; or President Lyndon Johnson was implicated when Dr. Martin Luther King was shot.

Hillary cannot stand the thought of African-American Candidate in Senator Obama. Hillary would rather team up with the enemy Republican candidate McCain than fellow Democrat Senator Barack "Barry" Obama. Today teaming up with McCain on a temporary gas tax issue, and before it was her and Bill's statement that "amongst the remaining candidates only Hillary and McCain are qualified for President." A Democrat and a Republican against a fellow Democrat sounds fishy. Fact: Senator Barack Obama has more elected experience than Hillary.

Here is another fact that you may or may not know or remember. As adults both Hilary and Bill supported Republican Arizona Governor Barry Goldwater ("Mr. Anti-Civil Rights Bill") and Arkansas "Segregationist" Senator J. William Fulbright respectively http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=33772760&postID=2404683840697956151. The Clintons made it absolutely clear then, and now it is even more clear, that voters cannot TRUST Hilary. Hillary is only doing what is best for Hillary, and that high in the sky 'wanna-be' Clinton legacy.

More below from NY Daily News reporter Errol Louis.




Written by NY Daily News columist Errol Louis
Is Jeremiah Wright a colossal disaster for Barack Obama or a press trick?
Tuesday, April 29th 2008, 4:00 AM
Somodevilla/Getty




The Rev. Dr. Barbara Reynolds and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright at the National Press Club event Monday, which was organized by Reynolds.
The Rev. Jeremiah Wright couldn't have done more damage to Barack Obama's campaign if he had tried. And you have to wonder if that's just what one friend of Wright wanted.
Shortly before he rose to deliver his rambling, angry, sarcastic remarks at the National Press Club Monday, Wright sat next to, and chatted with, Barbara Reynolds.
A former editorial board member at USA Today, she runs something called Reynolds News Services and teaches ministry at the Howard University School of Divinity. (She is an ordained minister).
It also turns out that Reynolds - introduced Monday as a member of the National Press Club "who organized" the event - is an enthusiastic Hillary Clinton supporter.
On a blog linked to her Web site- www.reynoldsnews.com- Reynolds said in a February post: "My vote for Hillary in the Maryland primary was my way of saying thank you" to Clinton and her husband for the successes of Bill Clinton's presidency.
The same post criticized Obama's "Audacity of Hope" theme: "Hope by definition is not based on facts," wrote Reynolds. It is an emotional expectation. Things hoped for may or may not come. But help based on experience trumps hope every time."
In another blog entry, Reynolds gives an ever-sharper critique of Obama: "It is a sad testimony that to protect his credentials as a unifier above the fray, the senator is fueling the media characterization that Rev. Dr. Wright is some retiring old uncle in the church basement."
I don't know if Reynolds' eagerness to help Wright stage a disastrous news conference with the national media was a way of trying to help Clinton - my queries to Reynolds by phone and e-mail weren't returned yesterday - but it's safe to say she didn't see any conflict between promoting Wright and supporting Clinton.
It's hard to exaggerate how bad the actual news conference was. Wright, steeped in an honorable, fiery tradition of Bible-based social criticism, cheapened his arguments and his movement by mugging for the cameras, rolling his eyes, heaping scorn on his critics and acting as if nobody in the room was learned enough to ask him a question.
Wright has, unquestionably, been caricatured and vilified unfairly. The feeding programs, prison outreach and other social services he has built over more than 30 years are commendable, and his reading of the Judeo-Christian tradition as an epic story of people trying to escape slavery is far more right than wrong - and not something to be caricatured or compressed into a 10-second sound bite.
But Wright should have known - and his friend and ally Reynolds, a media professional, surely knew - that bickering with the press can only harm Wright and, by extension, Obama.
I hope that wasn't their goal.
elouis@nydailynews.com

2008-04-28

Is Rev. Wright Right?

The burning question today: Is the Rev. Wright coming out party il-timed? With the Indiana and North Carolina primaries looming next Tuesday, will the new distorted soundbites from Rev. Wright hurt Obama next week? Will the playing of Rev. Wright's old clips mixed with the new clips hurt Obama in the Fall campaign? I do not know, but most folks I speak with think that Rev. Wright should the day after the general elections on November 5th, after every vote is counted.

2008-04-27

News Reporters scared to confront 'The Clintons'

Hilary, groups that support Hilary, and Hilary's husband Bill, are witch-hunting News Reporters and Political Analyst. Clintonites are polarizing the media to not contend Hilary on any issue, especially those viewed un-favorable and controversial by the Clintons. Evidence of the Clintonites taken formidable action against decenting journalist are the suspension of an MSNBC News Reporter; NBC's Chris Matthews forced to apologize; Ms. Randi Rhodes was fired for expressing her feelings about Hilary off air; Hilary's polarizing complaints to NBC's Tim Russert and Brian Williams about always being asked questions first instead of Senator Obama "all the time"; and Bill Clinton continues to wag his finger at News Reporters for asking simple clarifying questions. Hey Clintons, you are not legacy nor can you steal this election by intimidation. News Reporters and Political Analysts need to get a new set of balls and challenge all the candidates again, including Hilary, Hilary supporters, and Bill. If not, then these weak-ass reporters and political analyst should be immediately replaced for failure to do their jobs. Remember reporters silence during the Bush-usurping power days, taking it all from a weak Congress. Reporters failed to question Bush nor Congress and would castrate communicators for expressing dissenting opinions against Bush like the Dixie Chicks and Congresswoman Barbara Lee. The same thing is happening "once again" and these wimpy reporters and political analyst need to be called to the table -- and their Wall Street employers should also encourage their reporters to ask the tough question without fear of the Clintons and Clintonites suing them.

Instead of fairly questioning Hilary though, the media now cowardly chooses to attack the easy-going Senator Barack Obama for weeks about the same 'resolved' issues. Questions were already answered, 'but you don't hear me though'. In fact Senator Obama has expressed that he is a Christian a year ago, but Obama-haters continue to call Obama a muslim. You can sit there and remind them that Senator Obama is a Christian, but they will continue to say that he is a Muslim one minute later. Senator Obama is being hammered with fumes spewing from the dripping lips from both the Democratic and Republican news reporters and political analyst, while Hilary continues her negative attacks on Obama, refusing to discuss the important issues that Obama spanks her on consistently. Majority Whip Congressman Jim Clyburn was correct in bringing up that Hilary is not representing the Democratic party as she continues to state that 'a Republican candidate is better for America than her fellow Democratic candidate.' Who knows why Hilary prefers a Republican over a Democratic? We know that Hilary campaigned for an anti-civil rights Arizona Republican Govenor named Barry Goldwater, while Bill worked for an Arkansas segregationist Senator named Fulbright. Details of questionable Clintons allegiance posted here: http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=33772760&postID=2404683840697956151

What about Hilary's association with the Black Panthers, or Hilary associated with a law firm represented Communists? You never hear about this. Hilary gets a pass on this, while Senator Obama would have gotten smashed, if he was associated with the Black Panthers or Communist. Hilary can lie about Bosnia and get a slap on the wrist, but Obama would have been thrown under the bus if he would have lied in 'multiple speeches' about snipper fire over his head when landing in Bosnia. Hilary also gets a pass when her financial supporters Geraldine Ferraro and Bob Johnson making racial comments against Senator Obama. Hilary does not denounce Geraldine nor Bob, nor refuses their contributions, as Obama would have had to do if Ferraro or Bob spoke negatively against Hilary's gender if they had supported Senator Obama. Hilary does not remove Mark Penn from her campaign either for talking with Columbian representative about NAFTA-like negotiations. What is considered fair game when white candidates face off against one another, Senator Obama would be viewed as an un-electable arrogant white woman hater if he brought up Hilary's high negatives and questionable affiliations.

What Hilary cannot take is the fact that she is not the electable woman that was supposed to march to the Presidency un-challenged. And the Clinton name nor Clinton-assumed legacy was not enough to step into the Presidency against formidable opponents. Hilary was going to have to gain trust -- and eventual votes -- from the American people and Super-Delegates, and Hilary has herself proven that she is not worthy of neither trust nor votes. Hilary's face-value lies, deceit, breaking rules, intimidating the media, and hating her OWN Democratic Party, while at the same time respecting the opposition Republican Party's candidate is unforgivable. She did this before as an adult campaigning for Barry Goldwater.

If Hilary loses, will she leave the Democratic Party astray by polarizing Democrats to not support Obama? If Hilary wins, can we trust her to represent the American people or will she resolve to support issues important to her supporting lobbiest and the Republican Party? Have Hilary and Bill decided to side with racist supporters and campaign against the race of Obama versus on the issues that will improve Americans lives? Has Hilary decided she must not be the candidate that loses to a Black man? Has Hilary's pride overturned the issues important to the Democratic Party and the American people?

Voting for Hilary seems waaay toooo risky for the Democrat Party.

2008-04-19

Clinton-Obama Debate and the Demise of Broadcast Journalism

Hilary: "Good Job George, just like we discussed before the debate, How ya been since our 90's daze?"

While the above Hilary quote under the picture of the Democratic candidates and the ABC Pennsylvania Debate moderators is as ficticious as the cartoon captions in the New Yorker magazine, the sentament is that this Debate was made for Hilary. Maybe the two moderators did not wish to be given the distinction of always giving Hilary the first question as she remarked in a previous debate moderated by NBC's Brian Williams and Tim Russert.
Columinist for the Washington Post Colbert King in the April 19th editorial section described the attacks against Senator Barack Obama in three simple points:
1. Democrat Hilary and Republican McCain are a tag team against Senator Obama labeling him "Out of Touch" and "Elilist". These are two qualities that have categorized Hilary and McCain throughout their respectively brief and extensive political careers.
2. Discredit the front runner by associating him as with someone who is strongly disliked.
3. Cast the front-runner as uppity, but inexperienced, as a Black man has never been here before.
With the Pennsylvania Democratic debate behind us, the 'debate' also looms about the swift demise of Broadcast Journalism. Critiques -- from reporters and viewers -- about the first hour of the debate were a high negative, where absolutely nothing about issues about the American people were discussed. ABC moderators dumbed down to the level of cable news channels hosts. The non-Journalist George Stephanopoulos (former Clintonite) thought that his questions were "tough". May be 'Tough' in another setting, but not a Presidential debate. Shows you how il-trained that George really is, believing that the "all things go" news environment here in the 21st. century is Broadcast Journalism. According to fellow blogger Jason Linkins of the Huffington Post, Linkins writes that the Philadelphia debate, prior to the Pennsylvania primary, was the absolute worst debate ever! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/16/worst-debate-ieveri_n_97125.html
Hilary Clinton looked quite comfortable with the conflict-ridden debate and took her sweet time responding slap-handedly to the many bashing questions addressed to Senator Obama by George and Charles. It is unfortunate that now the major free TV network news programs have joined the cable news channels by supporting Hilary for fear of being singled out by the Clintons and the Clintons' croonies. If news hosts criticize the Clintons not to the satisfaction of the Clinton campaign, then news reporters and hosts livlihood are threatened by either the Clintons themselves or Clinton support groups. Suspensions, forced apologies, or outright firings are normally the result of going over the Clintons line. So what do they instead do, they choose to bash-Obama.
We are now in a Broadcast Journalism environment where "conflict" stories, far surpass "substance and fairness" issues. Today you would think that Sean Hannity, Lou Dobbs, Nancy Grace, Anderson Cooper, Chris Matthews, and George Stephanopoulos are the news show's guests and not the host. These cable news commentator/editorialist preach their own agenda and go as far as disagreeing angrily to get a rise out of the listerer. They routinely cut-off, and dismiss the specialty guests' opinions as mutepoints, overshadowed by their own attention deflecting versions, hostily presented as the moral truth.

"You know over the last several weeks since she fell behind, she's resorted to what's called 'kitchen sink' strategies," Obama said, per ABC News' Sunlen Miller. "She's got the kitchen sink flying, and the china flying, and the, you know, the buffet is coming at me.
"And, you know, look, I come from Chicago, I know politics is hard, you know, it's not for the feint of heart, I understand that," Obama continued. "But when we end up involved in these constant distractions, these petty, trivial slash-and-burn, back-and-forth, tit-for-tat politics so that we no longer talk about the things that the American people care about, that may be good for the television ratings, but it's not good for you."

The Philly debate was a tag team performance between Hilary http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/john-mccain-should-go-on_b_96577.html, her former employee George Stephenopoulus, and ABC's evening news anchor Charles Gibson. But even with Hilary advantaged format bashing-Obama party in the debate, that is not good enough for Hilary. Hilary also believes that people are stealing her rightful Presidential crown away from her. While Hilary brags of winning big states, Hilary condemns organizations like moveon.org for losing "all" of her caucuses...including Texas. In Texas, because of Obama winning the caucus portion of the unique Texas's Caucus-Primary, Senator Obama was the overall delegate victor in Texas. Hilary went accused moveon.org of being against the invasion of Afghanistan. But again, Hilary was caught up in another lie by somehow thinking that no one would check her statements as in the Bosnia lie. It was the Republicans that made the same claim against moveon.org 'years' ago. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/celeste-fremon/clinton-slams-democratic_b_97484.html.
Hilary's right to the presidency continues to be marred by lies; Hilary attempts to persuade the American voters with a nasty character assassination campaign against Senator Barack Obama; flip-flopping; and Hilary's witch-hunting campaign against all Broadcast Journalists that criticize Ms. Hilary. She flip floped her viewpoint again following the Philadelphia by cruelly stating that if "Senator Obama can't take the heat then he should get out of the kitchen, a place that I am comfortable in". Again, many do recall that Hilary stated that she is not a "kitchen person that bake cookies", when the question was asked to her directly early in the campaign. Again Hilary which one is it? Are you a kitchen person or not?
The Clintons seem to think a Kennedy-like legacy is theirs to behold. No way! Everyone -- but the Clintons -- knows that Hilary and Bill are no where near the Kennedy legacy. In fact, Bill Clinton came on the scene after twelve years of a failed Reagon-Bush1 regime. The Green Party or Ralph Nadar could have beaten the next Republican Presidential candidate in 1992. Bill Clinton's 'triangulation' campaign strategy was not even necessary. Bill Clinton (centrist, closer to the right -- Dixiecrat) continued the Republican-Big Business sentiments with Bill's continuation of Reagon's deregulation strategies signing major bill after bill that have placed American labor movements, Women, and Children between a rock and a hard plate. Homeless, unable to afford health care, more Americans in prison than any other time in history, borders opened up wider, outsourcing factories/jobs, and costs have gone up while wages have gone down.

*The Telecommunications Bill signed by Clinton removed power from the people and into mega-corporations hands.
*Clintons' Maximum-Minimum bill -- a predecessor to the three strikes propositions -- placed more Americans in jail than in anytime in the history of our country. USA is now the world leader in this respect. The further privatizing of the prison system allows investors to 'own shares' of Wall Street companies that built and operate the 'modern' prisons.
*The stringent welfare reform bill that Clinton signed was pre-mature leading to an epidemic in homeless women and children with an increase in babies without health care.
*The dreaded NAFTA signed by Bill Clinton that the north are all too familiar. NAFTA has eliminated both jobs and factories complete with company tax breaks.

What you really need to research is why both Hilary and Bill supported segregationist campaigns in the 1960's (Segregationist Arkansas Senator Fulbright and Arizona Senator Goldwater - against the civil rights bill) illustated in a previous blog http://kirktanter.blogspot.com/2008_01_21_archive.html. Are the Clintons claim that Senator Barack Obama is "unelectable" against John McCain in the general election a code word for 'a Black man can't win the Presidency?' The Clintons have already used other direct code words and phrases. Just off the top my head we heard from Bill in South Carolina after a sound defeat by Hilary to Senator Obama that "Jesse Jackson also won South Carolina" -- twenty years ago. Another Bill Clinton blast from the recent past is: "Barack Obama's campaign is the biggest Fairy Tale I've ever seen." And it was Hilary that stated "It was a President in Lyndon Johnson that made the Civil Rights Bill possible" disrespecting all civil rights leaders and their constituency. In a recent debate Hilary pressured "Obama to denounce and reject Minister Louis Farrakhan and Reveverd Jeremiah Wright."
Funny that Hilary should demand denounciation by Obama yet she belongs to an extreme right-wing religion with mostly conservatives members commonly known as "Family". Google that one. Hilary is also back by Ann Coulter, and Geraldine Ferraro, but will not denounce nor reject their support.http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=33772760&postID=1922334751763361234 http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=33772760&postID=5440926606989602986. Have the Clinton changed over to the Democratic party because they could not win if they remained Republicans? Are they true Democrats or Democrats for conveinence? The Clintons have made race-baiting comments against Senator Obama since January. I would not be surprised if Hilary's 'unelectable' comments against Obama's chances in the general Presidential election is also a "race-baiting" statement to steer the white vote away from the Illinois Senator then and now.

The Democratic Party, Howard Dean, and Nancy Pelosi must be flabbergasted that Hilary would state that Hilary and a Republican John McCain are the only ones in the race ready to be President. McCain? The Clintons here speak more highly of a dreaded competitor than the Black man within the same party. Howard Dean and his DNC committee had all the candidates sign an agreement that Michigan and Florida delegates would not count due to the two states not following the rules of the DNC. You would have to think that Dean is pissed at the Clinton challenge after Hilary signed the paperwork, when she thought that the Democratic nomination was just a formality for her. Hilary did not expect to outclass, out raise her in money, and have more delegates now than she. Now that she is losing bad, she is doing anything to get power back, inclusive of legal threats to seat delegates from Florida and Michigan. I think this is why Howard Dean is pushing for the super-delegates to decide whom they support before July 1st.. Dean wants to get the Clintons out of here quickly, with fears of a divided party at the Convention.

In closing, despite the Clintons multiple attempts to scare White voters from Senator Barack Obama, the last time I checked, Senator Obama is waxing both Hilary's and Bill's collective asses in an 'elite' manner. If that Presidential chair was fitted for Hilary's bubble butt, I think it is high time for the oak-velvet diamond trimmed recliner be re-sized for a slimmer buttock. In accordance to the Clintons' supposed legacy, whomever can beat them wins. In essense, how can the Clintons have the nerve to think that the current leader of the pack Senator Obama is not electable? Obama has more delegates, more votes, after 40 of the 50 States have had their say. Most able Democratic Party minds are begging Hilary Clinton to resign and forward her delegates to Senator Barack Obama, especially if she loses or barely wins in Pennsylvania. Hilary should get on the bus with the African-American Senator from Illinois to begin the tough campaign against the Republicans. The Republicans are coming together and uniting behing McCain right now. Please stop the bleeding Hilary and the end your failed Democratic nomination campaign. Hilary has done a good job at proving to the voter that she is not worthy of becoming the first woman President of the United States. She is not alone in this distinction, as Gerraldine Ferraro also proved that she was not worthy of being the first female Vice-President. Women have finally come to realize that Hilary does not properly represent them.

2008-04-15

Tavis Smiley Commentary on the Tom Joyner Morning Show





The Tavis Smiley Commentary

Date: Tuesday 04-15-07
Time: 8:20a edt
Arbitron Ratings Season: The Coveted ‘Spring Book’

______________________________________

*J. Anthony Brown did return to the Tom Joyner Morning show today after “walking off” the TJMS Monday, supposedly upset at Tom Joyner. J. Anthony Brown was surprisingly $joyful$ throughout the show.
______________________________________

Commentary SetUp

*The Commentary’s Preceding Song: “What about your Friends” by TLC

*The Commentary’s Preceding Skit: A Son is highly upset over his Father using the Son’s name for the Mortgage & Water Bill. Father’s excuse: "Boy I have been paying child support for the last 12 Years!" -- Interesting that 12 years was scripted in the skit considering that Tavis Smiley has been with Tom Joyner for 12 years.


Tavis Smiley’s Opening Statement - highlighted:

A. Tavis Smiley expressed so much love for the opportunity that Tom Joyner gave him, even mentioning that her would take a bullet for Tom Joyner...in his left arm. Tavis excepted TOM'S apology for leaking the story earlier than planned.
B. Tavis Smiley stated that he was has been on the TJMS from age 31 to 43 -- 1996 to 2008.
C. Tavis Smiley also stated that at age 43: Tavis feels that most of his life is now behind him
D. Tavis Smiley mentioned his Grandfather often stated: “Answers are found in the graveyard”

Tavis Smiley's Reason for Leaving: Busy Schedule

1. Three Documentaries coming up, with one of them putting a telescope on why the large number of hospitals closing down in Black communities, and another being a feature film.

2. Exhibit: Traveling 15,000 square foot exhibit titled “American I Am”. Tells the story of African-Americans imprint on the United States.

3. Tavis's Publishing Company: Two notable books to come --

a. “Hope on a Tightrope” by Dr. Cornel West
b. Iyanla Van Zant’s new book

4. Covenant Book series continues, including **final installment:
a. Covenant
b. Covenant in Action
c. ** ”Covenant Accountable” - Released in February 2009 (probably at “State of the Black Union” television special on C-Span).

5. 10th Anniversary of the "State of the Black Union" symposium in February 2009
*Most watched C-Span program annually
*Most requested C-Span DVD

6. Two Political Conventions Back to Back
a. Democratic in August
b. Republican in September

7. Current Day Jobs:
a. Public Service Radio
b. Public Service Television

8. TV Series forthcoming:
a. Another America

9. Tom Joyner with Tavis’s input will help select a successor on the TJMS.

In Closing
Tom Joyner and Tavis Smiley closed the commentary with much love for one another. For some reason though, Tavis Smiley was not even mentioned on TJMS following Tavis Smiley's commentary nor were any callers taken to discuss Tavis' resignation commentary. The closing show highlights at 9:55a was the only mention of Tavis Smiley's commentary.

2008-04-11

Forgive Tavis Smiley

Today some surprising news occured. Broadcast Journalist Tavis Smiley, weekly Political and Social commentator on the Tom Joyner Morning Show, quit the TJMS Show. Tavis has held that position since 1996. It was around that time Black Entertainment Television fired Tavis Smiley as their television news anchor on the since dissolved evening BET newscast and subsequest BET interview program Tavis hosted.

It was in early February when upset callers began to 'voice their opinions' about their discourse on talk radio shows aired on the Syndication One News/Talk network after hearing that Tavis Smiley -- upset that Presidential Candidate Senator Barack Obama turned down his invitation to Smiley's 9th Annual State of the Black Union special that aired on C-Span February 23rd., 2008 -- decided to comment about Obama refusing Tavis's invite on his weekly commentary. Senator Obama's reasoning for declining Tavis's invitation was because of his previous fast-approaching campaign commitments in Ohio and Texas. Obama did win in Texas and lost in Ohio. Senator Obama's wife Michele -- quite possibly the next African-American First Lady, was however free for the February 23rd date and would have gladly represented the Obama campaign at Tavis' 2008 State of the Black Union. However Tavis Smiley refused to accept Michele Obama as guest on his annual program. Hilary though did accept Tavis's invitation. Tavis is a Hilary Clinton supporter. Because of Tavis's commentary threatening to call Obama out, a multitude of reactions came from news-talk radio hosts and their listeners. Many comments towards Tavis's commentary centered around the fact that if Hilary would have refused the invite and Bill Clinton was available to attend in Hilary's place, Smiley would have accepted Bill Clinton. "So why not Michele Obama?"

I am unsure if Tavis allegiance are now with Senator Barack Obama or not. Congressman John Lewis recently changed his super-delegate vote and support over to Obama and so did former President Clinton staffer New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson. I think that you would agree that Tavis Smiley has a seat at the 21 century African-American leadership table, but so 'did' Bill Clinton before the South Carolina primary where Bill made numerous attempts to sway white voters away from Obama. Bill Clinton does have experience campaigning for segreationist before, indicated in a previous blog http://kirktanter.blogspot.com/2008/01/clintons-versus-barack-obama.html.

The fall from grace is the very real dilemma that Tavis is now facing. Another Hilary Clinton supporter, columnist Earl Ofari Hutcherson in his recent blog found on the Huffington Post blogsite 'labeled' African-Americans that intelligently (or not so intelligently) answer those that criticize Senator Barack Obama: "The Black Obama Thought Police". Hutcherson encourages Tavis Smiley in the blog to "Hang Tough and Don't Let 'the Black Obama Thought Police' run you out." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchinson/hang-in-there-tavis-smile_b_96253.html.

Please remember folks that a very short time ago more than fifty percent of now Obama African-American supporters that currently criticize reporters that question the Illinois Senator, did not support Obama in the initial months following Obama's announcement to run for President in Springfield, Illinois. It wasn't until Senator Obama won the Iowa caucus that the vast majority of African-Americans overwhelmingly supported Obama in the form of casted votes. You and Ofari remember the common question back: "Is Obama Black enough?" Senator Obama made a number of speeches addressing the ridiculous question using sentiments of the Civil Rights era pedalstaling Dr. King as the basis for his "I am Black enough" argument. Obama had African-American Congressman and community leaders introducing him at campaign rallys echoing that Obama is Black enough with additional evidence from his community activist days on the Southside of Chicago - a predominant Black area. But since the impressive Iowa victory, Obama now has near ninety-percent voter support from registered African-Americans.

The much-overstated illusion is that Obama supporters will not hear from any African-American that supports Hilary Clinton or McCain. The prevailing notion from news reporters is that African-American Obama supporters pigeon-hole Black Hilary supporters as 'Uncle Toms" and "Oreos", a basic anti-Black African-American. Another stereotyped notion is that Obama supporters feel Congressional representatives should cast their super-delegate vote as their constituent district voters voted in the primaries. The prevailing viewpoint from Hilary supporters is that the "Obama Black Thought Police" are not fairly allowing the Congressional Representatives "freedom of choice" to cast their super-delegate vote as they damn well please. This is untrue. These Representatives can go to the poll and vote 'individually' the way they wish. A valid question to submit is why don't these US Representatives cast their 'added' super-delegate vote as their district's predominant and collective majorite vote. And yes there are a number of DNC members that are superdelegates, also professors and other non-Congressional people. It is my opinion that there should be no super-delegates. However, Congressional Representatives and Governors are elected to serve their voting constituentcy and should at least "consider" casting an important super-delegate vote as their district voted. If their district voted for Obama then they should also "consider" casting their super-delegate vote for Obama. But we all understand that it is their sole decision. The closeness of this Democratic race has simply heightened the importance of those Super-Delegate votes that has placed a microscope on these elected Politicians. The Democratic race is tight and have Representative's constituents aware of the total process, including what the hell is a super-delegate. Many believe that their voted delegates are taken away by the vote of super-delegates, which is not the case. District delegates are totally seperate from a super-delegates vote.

Competitively though every vote counts and the super-delegate votes are now more important than the popular and normal delegate votes. Hilary was supposed to be the nominee by now and the Hilary supporters are highly upset that the Hilary Presidential coronation has switched over to Obama. The Clintons arrogance, lies, and failed campaign strategy has cast a suspicous shadow over voting Democrats. However when folks attempt to villify the Illinois Senator and Obama supporters, Hilary suppoters get pissed off when they are questioned about anti-Obama statements. Last I checked Hilary supporters...this is a free country.

Now since the Tavis Smiley commentary on Obama, Smiley has been questioned by Obama supporters. I would anticipate that questions would arise from a forum that has a majority percentage of Obama supporters as is the Tom Joyner listening audience. Tavis should expect that forum to disagree with him. Tom Joyner reaches close to ten million mostly African-American 'weekly' listeners or two-million a day. Tom Joyner's radio show airs on over 100 radio stations. With that in mind, read Tom Joyner's comments about Tavis Smiley's resignation that will close out this blog.

'Prior to' Smiley's 9th Annual State of the Black Union Television event on February 23rd., and 'post-Obama commentary' aired on the Tom Joyner show (Joyner is an Obama supporter) a few weeks before the C-Span television show, not only were the emails filling up both Joyner and Smiley email addresses but Black Talk radio shows throughout the country were busy with callers expressing their disdain for Smiley's critical comments about Senator Obama denying Tavis's invitation. Black Newspaper Columnist, Web-Bloggers, TV-Radio commentators, and Professors also had their say, along with the comments from their readers, viewers, and listeners that followed. The point is that the complaints about Tavis Smiley's commentary was widespread from prominent African-American communicators. Tom Joyner, an Obama supporter, stated that the Tavis-bashing was just too much for Tavis to take, as you will read in Tom Joyner's full comments, which again closes out this blog.

I think that Tavis Smiley may have just retired from being a commentator period, but why should he. Tavis Smiley is a visionary and due to his information gathering stature, we need to hear revelations along with his opinion and problem-solving tactics Tavis is now famous for. Doing nterrviews is nice, hosting Presidential debates is admirable, and succeeding as an author shows off investigative skills. A problem solving commentary is much more important than that three combined. We have serious problems in our high school drop-out rate, underresourced communities with too many potholes, and crime infested Black communities with little hope for improvement soon. The over 10,000 Black elected officials, the clergy, and the many so-called Civil right leaders have failed us in this sense. What greater task to take on than to bring up the issues and then challenge us along with Tavis to quickly solve these problems. The agendas of both Senator Obama and Hilary address these infrastructure issues, which means Tavis will not walk alone. Quiting Tom Joyner is one thing, but to quit as a revealing commentator is not warrented.

I know and worked with Tavis Smiley at KGFJ in Los Angeles prior to his ascension to celebrity status. Tavis held down the hour-long Sunday public service show in late 80' through the early 90's at KGFJ. Tavis was a major part of the successful truce between the Los Angeles Gangs to stop the killing. The killings and drive-by shootings rate have not return to the high late 80's level ever since. Tavis Smiley used his communication pulpit to make a differnce. Leaders of the LA gangs along with Jim Brown were guests of Tavis' on many occasions up until the truce was complete. Streets were safer. A big part of the LA infrastructure was changed for the better.

Back to the Tavis-Obama commentary, I personally thought that Tavis's statement criticizing and threatening to blast Senator Obama for not coming on Tavis's annual show, in the midst of a serious campaign fight with Hilary Clinton in the closing high delegate battle in Ohio and Texas -- was a bit too much. Now if the date of the State of the Black union would have been during the beginning of this six week primary/caucus break before the Pennsylvania primary, then I would expect Obama to be there, but it was not. I do have a theory on why Tavis was so harsh toward Senator Obama not accepting Tavis's invitation. Me having covered the Republican Debate for the Syndication One News-Talk network hosted by Tavis Smiley at Morgan State University in Baltimore, Tavis Smiley got most of the limelight. Tavis received more attention than the participating Republican candidates themselves. You recall the main Republican candidates also declined Tavis's invitation to partake in Smiley's Republican Debate aired on PBS stations nationally. What was different than the Democratic Debate hosted by Tavis at Howard University in Washington DC was Tavis Smiley uniquely staged a large corner for himself in the media room following the Republican debate at Morgan State. Tavis Smiley's name was visibly posted, moreso then the candidates selected areas. After the debate the media flocked to that designated Tavis corner. When Tavis walked into the room, he was immediately swamped with reporters asking Tavis to comment on the absent Republican candidates. My theory is that due to the attention that Smiley received in the media room at Morgan State, plus the subsequent major interviews that followed on TV and Cable TV news programs the day after, I think that went to Tavis's head. Tavis's attempts to equally juxtapose the two events (Tavis's comments about Obama declining his invitation to the State of the Black Union with the Republican leading candidates declining Tavis's invitation to his debate) are totally two different things. Smiley did not recognize the difference between the two scenarios and the two nationally televised events. Tavis quickly found out.

My view now of Tavis's not to well received commentary about Obama declining his invitation has changed. I should re-phrase that to mean that I forgive Tavis Smiley. I forgave Tavis when I viewed the 9th Annual State of the Black Union broadcast on C-Span on February 23rd. Instead of blasting Senator Obama as Tavis promised, Smiley made a conscience decision not to do so during the broadcast. Smiley was respectful in mentioning that the "invitations went out to all three of the candidates and Hilary Clinton accepted, she will speak near the end of the program." That was it! Nothing more as expected and nothing less. Tavis refused to chastise Senator Obama as Tavis chastised the Republicans in that Baltimore Republican Debate. Tavis verbally assaulted the absent Republican candidates at Morgan State during the Republican debate, and further, Tavis symbolically placed podiums on stage with the names of the absent Republican candidates. In the legal field that is called Grandstanding. But at the 2008 State of the Black Union program Tavis instead respectfully and calmly stated that the absent Presidential candidates (Obama and McCain) declined the invitation. By handling the moment in such a manner Tavis Smiley showed me that while he was miffed that Senator Obama declined his offer, Tavis Smiley changed his stance. Tavis silently admitted that he overreacted in his commentary. Forgiveness granted by me, and should be granted by all of those that wrote and/or complained about the original commentary, but that is not the case.

We all know that Tavis will state on the Tom Joyner show Tuesday morning that he is resigning because of the busy schedule with upcoming major events and his PBS program. Face value Tavis's schedule is a lot to juggle. Maybe Tavis now has a special lady now that request more of his time, which is totally understandable. Tom Joyner disagrees and many other do as well. The very announcement by Tavis Smiley to officially answer why he is resigning during the highly contested Spring book temporarily benefits the show and sponsors. We all cannot wait to hear that. A bit dramatic but good radio nonetheless. A written statement would have been sufficient, or a statement on that night's Tavis Smiley television broadcast. I am quite sure that Tavis decided to personally make the statement on the show where he made his controversial commentary against Obama. Tavis could be taking a chance though with a pro-Obama audience versus quietly making a statement and moving on to the coming projects. Staying on the program for 8 more weeks could also be counter productive. Tom Joyner does not think that Tavis will remain through the end of June -- Joyner states this in his written comment about the Tavis resignation below.

Sometimes we 'do not' adequately think of the reprecussions 'before we speak'. We all do this. Not thinking of the viewpoint of others before we open our big fat mouths happens throughout our life. We simply put our foot in our mouths. Sometimes we need to keep our mouths shut instead of offending people with our controversial or negative forethoughts. We just slip sometimes and it is obvious that Tavis slipped on that early February day on the Tom Joyner show. Tavis realized this immediately with the bombardment of disagreeable comments that came his way. Tavis must have thought "oops I should not have sad that" or "if I knew what the reaction was going to be this tough, I would have shut my mouth."

I sensed that something was going on in the Tom Joyner camp when during the 40th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King's death in Memphis on April 4th in an interview with CNN, Tom Joyner was asked if Obama should be in Memphis to commemorate King's assasignation. Tom reluctantly stated: "Well I think Obama should be here, but with all the upheavel over saying anything honest about Obama. My weekly listerners, mostly African-American, frankly we are not allowed to make 'perceptual negative statements' against Obama in any form or fashion." We all know that Joyner was referring to the Smiley statement and backlash that the Joyner and Smiley camps negatively received.

Below is one of the first articles from Journal-isms announcing Tavis Smiley's resignaton. Following the Journal-isms article is the news release by Tavis Smiley announcing his resignation with a full explanation to air on Tuesday's Tom Joyner show. The third and last piece below is Tom Joyner's statement about Tavis Smiley's resignation from the daily Joyner radio show.



Journal-isms
Tavis Smiley Quits Tom Joyner Show
April 11, 2008


Activist Said to Be Hurt by "Hate" Over Obama StanceAfter 12 years as a fixture on radio's syndicated "Tom Joyner Morning Show," activist, commentator and broadcast personality Tavis Smiley has quit the show, Joyner told listeners on Friday.
Tavis Smiley"He called me yesterday and said, 'I quit,'" Joyner said on the air.


Joyner said Smiley told him he was working on too many projects, but believed the real reason was that "he can't take the hate. "He can't take the hate he's taken over Barack Obama. He's always busting Barack Obama's chops. They call. They e-mail. They joke. You know Tavis like I do. He needs to feel loved. "We're so emotional about this Barack Obama candidacy. If you don't say anything for Barack Obama, you're considered to be a hater. . . . It's just that it hurts so deep when the people you love don't agree with you.

"He loves black America and black America has been very critical of him," Joyner said of Smiley. "It hurts. It hurt me to hear black Americans criticize him." Joyner said Smiley's resignation was not effective immediately, but Joyner considered it to be so. "I asked him to reconsider," Joyner said, and although Smiley agreed to do so, "he had pretty much made up his mind." Smiley had been critical of Obama for not attending Smiley's annual "State of the Black Union" symposium on Feb. 23. Of the presidential candidates, only Sen. Hillary Clinton accepted the invitation. Obama said he would send his wife, Michelle, but Smiley insisted that was not good enough.
"I'm catching hell," Smiley
acknowledged in an interview then with Michael H. Cottman of BlackAmericaWeb.com.

"Who Died and Made Tavis King?" asked a headline on theRoot.com over a column by Melissa Harris-Lacewell. "Does Tavis realize that Obama is trying to win an election?" Not only have Joyner and Smiley been friends and allies, but Smiley's twice-weekly commentaries brought political analysis to the Joyner program, which also serves up music and comedy.

Joyner's "decision in 1996, to hire former Black Entertainment Television host Tavis Smiley to provide daily political commentary on The Tom Joyner Morning Show, was pivotal in raising political activism and awareness among blacks via the airwaves," Chandra R. Thomas wrote on Time.com last Saturday, in a story called "How Black Radio Found Its Voice."

Joyner urged listeners to call or e-mail Smiley or even their friend, professor Cornel West, who has been a part of Smiley's forums. "I think we should all let him know that black America still loves him." Smiley addressed the controversy in a Feb. 14 commentary on the Joyner show, but it apparently failed to persuade listeners. Among the projects Smiley is working on are a documentary, a bus tour and a book publishing company. But Joyner said both he and Smiley have always been multi-taskers.

Joyner asked one of the show's comedians, Huggie Lowdown, to make Smiley the "'Bama of the Week" for resigning.



Tavis's statement regarding TJMS
Date: Tuesday, April 15th 2008


Friends and Supporters:

There is no way to put into words the love and respect that Tom Joyner and I have for each other, or the love affair that I’ve had with TJMS listeners for almost 12 years now.

Due to the overwhelming amount of phone calls and e-mails I have received from listeners and other media, I wanted to briefly clarify a few issues that I will address more fully in my regular TJMS commentary on Tuesday morning, April 15, at 8:20 a.m. ET.

I did not "quit" the Tom Joyner Morning Show effective immediately. In July, I will celebrate my 12th anniversary with the show, and as I discussed with Tom, it is my intention to take on the issues of the day in my commentary twice every week with the same energy, passion and commitment until the end of June. Contrary to what has been suggested, I have decided to clear some things off my plate so that I can devote my time and attention to some exciting and empowering projects that The Smiley Group, Inc. and other divisions of my company have underway this summer, this fall, and beyond.

I look forward to continuing the dialogue on Tuesday and in the coming months.


Tavis Smiley Quits the TJMS
Date: Friday, April 11, 2008
By: Tom Joyner

Well, you did it. This isn't the way you wanted it to happen, but it happened anyway. Just like I knew it would. I got a call from Tavis on yesterday. And he told me he was quitting the show. He told me the reason was that he was tired and has a lot of things going on, and he feels that now is a good time to leave the show. We all know that isn't the real reason he's leaving the show. The real reason is that he can't take the hate he's been getting regarding the Barack issue. The hate from the black people that he loves so much. He needed to feel the love. We all do, whether it's from our radio audience or from people we know personally. He wasn't feeling any love, so he quit.

A while back, he told us that I don't speak for him. But this morning, since he isn't here to speak for himself, I think it's my job as a colleague and a friend. And maybe this time, you'll really listen to me. Tavis truly loves black people. I tried to tell you that. The hate he's been getting hurts. He'll never admit that, but it's true. And here's something you may not want to admit: Black people need Tavis. You may not agree with what he has said, but he said it because he has love for black people. I'll admit that sometimes listening to him was like trying to figure out the DaVinci Codes. I'll also admit that I wanted Tavis to show a little more love to Barack Obama, and I was frustrated over his failure to do so.

But what Tavis was saying made us think. It had us talking, it had us listening to a different point of view, and it was damn good radio. Tavis on the radio not saying everything that we want him to say is a lot better than not having Tavis on the radio at all. The Tom Joyner Morning Show without Tavis gives our listeners one less reason to tune in, and in case you don't know, all of us in radio -- and in black radio especially -- are in a battle for our lives. We need good, controversial, compelling radio, and Tavis brought that.

When Tavis put the first Covenant book together, he was on a mission to hold whoever led this nation accountable to black people and to things that were critical to us. At the time, he had no idea that Barack Obama was going to run for president. His goal was for EVERY presidential candidate to answer to every covenant in the book during this campaign. He has said all along that he is holding Barack and all candidates accountable. Dr. King would have done the same thing. When asked what Dr. King would want him to do on this campaign, Barack has said Dr. King would want him to address the issues. That's all Tavis was asking of him, and I think Dr. King would have been proud of Tavis.

But because Tavis has not come out and said, I am for Barack Obama, everybody has started hating on him and threatening him and clowning him, and he cant take it. Those of us who know him well know that. If you read his autobiography, What I Know for Sure, you know that no matter how deep his love is, if he feels that he's right or that you're wrong, he doesn't back down.
When his mom made him step down from being class president because his grades were slipping, he didn't speak to her for two years. His own mama, a single parent of eight! He lived in her house, ate her food while he sat at her table and didn't say a word to her for two years. All because he didn't feel the love that his mom was trying to give him. Tavis said the things he said about Barack because he wants the black people that he loves so much to think -- but to most of you, it sounded like hate, and it sounded like that to me too. Love or hate, real or perceived, none of it matters now.

What matters is that Tavis wants to quit the TJMS -- and that's real.I want you to call him, e-mail him, text him, hug him, kiss him, get him in a corner and wrestle him and tell him how much you love him and appreciate his love for black people. Everyone needs that sometimes. And Tavis needs it right now

2008-04-09

The War in Iraq?

Why are we in Iraq? Who are we fighting in Iraq? What is the motivation? Did we eventually find W.M.D.'s? How long will it take to form a competent Government? Will the Sunni, Shites, and Kurds allow a central Government to formulate? Is the Iraqi Oil Has the Bush Oil Bill yet been signed by the Iraqi Parliament? If the Bush Oil Bill is signed by Iraq's Parliament, will the Iraqis allow the major American and English Oil companies to fish out 20 trillion dollars worth of Iraq's Oil? What will it take to protect the new Oil drillings? Will Iraq's oil no longer be nationalized? Is the real purpose for America's involvement in the Iraq War about control of Iraq's Oil and not about WMD's or Iraqi Freedom? How has the war affected the children of Iraq? Will the millions of refugees that fled Iraq coming back? Why is there a problem with electricity in Iraq when the US taxpayers are spending billions? Where is the money going? Wasn't one of the objectives for the Iraq War to cheapen our gas prices? Why is gas now near four dollars a gallon? Aren't we friends with the new government of Iraq? Why can't the US friendly government in Iraq cut the United States a special oil deal? Does the President of the United States have any negotiating power with Iraq? Since Iraq's oil is nationalized, meaning the oil industry is owned by the government, why can't a government to government deal be made today? Does the United States Government have any problem with countries that nationize their Oil? How many governments nationalized their oil in the 1960's and 1970's? Before the 1960's, which entities owned these now nationalized oil industry? What about the Natural Gas industry in Iraq? What is the average salary that a soldier makes for fighting in Iraq? What about fully insuring a soldier in Iraq? Are the VA hospitals as bad as they are projected to be on behalf of soldiers that fought in Wars? Is a college education fully paid for by the US Government for every soldier now stationed in Iraq? Is a single family home paid for by the US Government for soldiers's families? Where has the trillion taxpaying dollars gone? Are contractors making more money than US soldiers? If so, how much more? How many contracted companies are there? Where is Osama Bin Laden? Is Osama Bin Laden dead as Benazir Bhutto stated? Wouldn't Bhutto have inside information? Why would Bhutto make up the death of Osama Bin Laden? Is this why Bhutto was killed? Or did America's involvement in restating Benazir Bhutto to her native country have anything to do with her death? Has the assassin been interogated yet? Will the "surfboard" be used as an interrogation device? Is the American Government allowed to interrogate the assasin of the former Pakistani Prime Minister? Are the Pakistanis harboring Osama Bin Laden? Are the Sunnis and Shiites negotiating? What are they negotiating? Will the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds get an equitable share of the Oil? With the Shiites being the majority of the population, will they rule Iraq's monetary system? Whom will the new Iraqi government hire to oversea the Oil? What role with the Shiites in Iran play? Will Iran businesses trade freely with Iraq? The Shiites in Syria and Lebanon import and export their products and services with Iraq? Question for the John McCain: Are people from Al-Queda members of Shiite, Sunni, or Kurds? Another question for John McCain: Are Iranians mostly Shiites, Sunnis, or Kurds? A pop question for John McCain: Are the Saudi Arabian people members of Kurds, Sunni, or Shiite?

2008-04-07

Hilary refuses to eliminate Mark Penn

Mark Penn pictured above

Penn continues Polling and Advicing Hilary's campaign

According to Hilary Clinton's Campaign Manager Maggie Williams, Mark Penn will continue to do work for the Hilary Clinton campaign. Williams states: "Mark Penn" and his consultant company - Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates, Inc. -- "will continue to provide polling and advice to the Hilary Clinton campaign."

My, my, my, my, my my my...sho looks good to Hilary!

Mark Penn, the man that resigned from the campaign yesterday after he was found guilty of meeting with the Columbian government to help promote a Columbia-US free trade agreement, is STILL on board with Hilary Clinton. Mark Penn associated with labor union-busting operations was a big reason why major labor unions questioned Penn's involvement and then moved over to the American Labor-friendly Senator Obama campaign. The same chief strategist Mark Penn, that was successful with Bill Clinton's second Presidential campaign and Hilary's first New York Senatorial campaign, has failed Hilary in her Presidential bid miserably against Senator Obama's 'voter preferred' grassroots Pro-Labor Pro-Education campaign machine. Last year, according to Justice Department filings, Columbia paid 300-thousand to help educate members of Congress and other folks on the Columbian trade deal and secured continued US funding for Plan Columbia. I think Mark Penn knew about these facts?

But Hilary Clinton's campaign will continue to accept "Advice and Poll information" from Mark Penn, which is the very area that Mark Penn specializes in. The Penn consultancy service will continue doing exactly what Penn has done for the Clintons for over a decade. Only the Clintons think they can get away with this, while voter trust continues to erode. Will the Mark Penn poll people on whether or not we should pursue the Columbian Trade agreement with the American Government? On Hilary's behalf, will Mark Penn advice Corporations to close down factories in Pennsylvania, Indiana, and the tobacco giants in North Carolinam in order to open up multiple factories in Columbia? While Columbia has broken off negotiations with Mark Penn related firms, will Penn advice the Clintons to re-negotiate "labor trade" talks with Columbia at a later time? Or finally will Hilary Clinton continue to step on her own feet?

2008-04-06

Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's "Letter from Birmingham Jail"

The White Church and the Black Church have long been divided in the USA. Long ago in America the church became segregated when Southern Whites would not allow Blacks in their church during slavery and also in times of segregation. Blacks formed their own and to this day most White and Black families do not worship together. The seperation of people, in a church-setting is not what God intended clearly stated in all of God's scriptures. Unfortunately man-made religious interpretations of "Church in America" still designate the 11am hour (normal late service) each Sunday as "the most segregated hour in the United States," which is a quote Dr. King made on both "Meet the Press" -- in the early 1960's, and in the Letter from Birmingham Jail. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King's "Letter from Birmingham Jail" sends a powerful message to the clergy of 'both' sects and the new Birmingham, Alabama adminstration.

Below is the full text of Dr. King's insightful words in the "Letter from Birmingham Jail", written forty-five years ago in April 1963.


Letter From Birmingham Jail
Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
April 16, 1963

MY DEAR FELLOW CLERGYMEN:
While confined here in the Birmingham city jail, I came across your recent statement calling my present activities "unwise and untimely." Seldom do I pause to answer criticism of my work and ideas. If I sought to answer all the criticisms that cross my desk, my secretaries would have little time for anything other than such correspondence in the course of the day, and I would have no time for constructive work. But since I feel that you are men of genuine good will and that your criticisms are sincerely set forth, I want to try to answer your statements in what I hope will be patient and reasonable terms.

I think I should indicate why I am here In Birmingham, since you have been influenced by the view which argues against "outsiders coming in." I have the honor of serving as president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, an organization operating in every southern state, with headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia. We have some eighty-five affiliated organizations across the South, and one of them is the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights. Frequently we share staff, educational and financial resources with our affiliates. Several months ago the affiliate here in Birmingham asked us to be on call to engage in a nonviolent direct-action program if such were deemed necessary. We readily consented, and when the hour came we lived up to our promise. So I, along with several members of my staff, am here because I was invited here I am here because I have organizational ties here.

But more basically, I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. Just as the prophets of the eighth century B.C. left their villages and carried their "thus saith the Lord" far beyond the boundaries of their home towns, and just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco-Roman world, so am I. compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town. Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid.

Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.

You deplore the demonstrations taking place In Brimingham. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations. I am sure that none of you would want to rest content with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple with underlying causes. It is unfortunate that demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham, but it is even more unfortunate that the city's white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative.

In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self-purification; and direct action. We have gone through an these steps in Birmingham. There can be no gainsaying the fact that racial injustice engulfs this community. Birmingham is probably the most thoroughly segregated city in the United States. Its ugly record of brutality is widely known. Negroes have experienced grossly unjust treatment in the courts. There have been more unsolved bombings of Negro homes and churches in Birmingham than in any other city in the nation. These are the hard, brutal facts of the case. On the basis of these conditions, Negro .leaders sought to negotiate with the city fathers. But the latter consistently refused to engage in good-faith negotiation.

Then, last September, came the opportunity to talk with leaders of Birmingham's economic community. In the course of the negotiations, certain promises were made by the merchants --- for example, to remove the stores humiliating racial signs. On the basis of these promises, the Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth and the leaders of the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights agreed to a moratorium on all demonstrations. As the weeks and months went by, we realized that we were the victims of a broken promise. A few signs, briefly removed, returned; the others remained.

As in so many past experiences, our hopes bad been blasted, and the shadow of deep disappointment settled upon us. We had no alternative except to prepare for direct action, whereby we would present our very bodies as a means of laying our case before the conscience of the local and the national community. Mindful of the difficulties involved, we decided to undertake a process of self-purification. We began a series of workshops on nonviolence, and we repeatedly asked ourselves : "Are you able to accept blows without retaliating?" "Are you able to endure the ordeal of jail?" We decided to schedule our direct-action program for the Easter season, realizing that except for Christmas, this is the main shopping period of the year. Knowing that a strong economic with withdrawal program would be the by-product of direct action, we felt that this would be the best time to bring pressure to bear on the merchants for the needed change.

Then it occurred to us that Birmingham's mayoralty election was coming up in March, and we speedily decided to postpone action until after election day. When we discovered that the Commissioner of Public Safety, Eugene "Bull" Connor, had piled up enough votes to be in the run-oat we decided again to postpone action until the day after the run-off so that the demonstrations could not be used to cloud the issues. Like many others, we waited to see Mr. Connor defeated, and to this end we endured postponement after postponement. Having aided in this community need, we felt that our direct-action program could be delayed no longer.

You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit-ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling, for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent-resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, we must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.
The purpose of our direct-action program is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue.

One of the basic points in your statement is that the action that I and my associates have taken .in Birmingham is untimely. Some have asked: "Why didn't you give the new city administration time to act?" The only answer that I can give to this query is that the new Birmingham administration must be prodded about as much as the outgoing one, before it will act. We are sadly mistaken if we feel that the election of Albert Boutwell as mayor. will bring the millennium to Birmingham. While Mr. Boutwell is a much more gentle person than Mr. Connor, they are both segregationists, dedicated to maintenance of the status quo. I have hope that Mr. Boutwell will be reasonable enough to see the futility of massive resistance to desegregation. But he will not see this without pressure from devotees of civil rights. My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure. Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals.

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct-action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant 'Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."

We have waited .for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God-given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jet like speed toward gaining political independence, but we stiff creep at horse-and-buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging dark of segregation to say, "Wait." But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate-filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six-year-old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five-year-old son who is asking: "Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?"; when you take a cross-county drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading "white" and "colored"; when your first name becomes "nigger," your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are) and your last name becomes "John," and your wife and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you no forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness" then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience.

You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may won ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there fire two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the Brat to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all"

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal .law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distort the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I-it" relationship for an "I-thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and awful. Paul Tillich said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression 'of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.

Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal.
Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that state's segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured?

Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.

I hope you are able to ace the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.

We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws.

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fan in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with an its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.

In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus because his unique God-consciousness and never-ceasing devotion to God's will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber.

I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth concerning time in relation to the struggle for freedom. I have just received a letter from a white brother in Texas. He writes: "An Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth." Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely rational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co-workers with God, and without this 'hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right. Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. Now is the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of human dignity.

You speak of our activity in Birmingham as extreme. At first I was rather disappointed that fellow clergymen would see my nonviolent efforts as those of an extremist. I began thinking about the fact that stand in the middle of two opposing forces in the Negro community. One is a force of complacency, made up in part of Negroes who, as a result of long years of oppression, are so drained of self-respect and a sense of "somebodiness" that they have adjusted to segregation; and in part of a few middle class Negroes who, because of a degree of academic and economic security and because in some ways they profit by segregation, have become insensitive to the problems of the masses. The other force is one of bitterness and hatred, and it comes perilously close to advocating violence. It is expressed in the various black nationalist groups that are springing up across the nation, the largest and best-known being Elijah Muhammad's Muslim movement. Nourished by the Negro's frustration over the continued existence of racial discrimination, this movement is made up of people who have lost faith in America, who have absolutely repudiated Christianity, and who have concluded that the white man is an incorrigible "devil."

I have tried to stand between these two forces, saying that we need emulate neither the "do-
nothingism" of the complacent nor the hatred and despair of the black nationalist. For there is the more excellent way of love and nonviolent protest. I am grateful to God that, through the influence of the Negro church, the way of nonviolence became an integral part of our struggle.

If this philosophy had not emerged, by now many streets of the South would, I am convinced, be flowing with blood. And I am further convinced that if our white brothers dismiss as "rabble-rousers" and "outside agitators" those of us who employ nonviolent direct action, and if they refuse to support our nonviolent efforts, millions of Negroes will, out of frustration and despair, seek solace and security in black-nationalist ideologies a development that would inevitably lead to a frightening racial nightmare.

Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The yearning for freedom eventually manifests itself, and that is what has happened to the American Negro. Something within has reminded him of his birthright of freedom, and something without has reminded him that it can be gained. Consciously or unconsciously, he has been caught up by the Zeitgeist, and with his black brothers of Africa and his brown and yellow brothers of Asia, South America and the Caribbean, the United States Negro is moving with a sense of great urgency toward the promised land of racial justice. If one recognizes this vital urge that has engulfed the Negro community, one should readily understand why public demonstrations are taking place. The Negro has many pent-up resentments and latent frustrations, and he must release them. So let him march; let him make prayer pilgrimages to the city hall; let him go on freedom rides-and try to understand why he must do so. If his repressed emotions are not released in nonviolent ways, they will seek expression through violence; this is not a threat but a fact of history. So I have not said to my people: "Get rid of your discontent." Rather, I have tried to say that this normal and healthy discontent can be channeled into the creative outlet of nonviolent direct action. And now this approach is being termed extremist.

But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." Was not Amos an extremist for justice: "Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream." Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel: "I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." Was not Martin Luther an extremist: "Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God." And John Bunyan: "I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience." And Abraham Lincoln: "This nation cannot survive half slave and half free." And Thomas Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that an men are created equal ..." So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremist for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice? In that dramatic scene on Calvary's hill three men were crucified. We must never forget that all three were crucified for the same crime---the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for immorality, and thus fell below their environment. The other, Jeans Christ, was an extremist for love, truth and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment. Perhaps the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.

I had hoped that the white moderate would see this need. Perhaps I was too optimistic; perhaps I expected too much. I suppose I should have realized that few members of the oppressor race can understand the deep groans and passionate yearnings of the oppressed race, and still fewer have the vision to see that injustice must be rooted out by strong, persistent and determined action. I am thankful, however, that some of our white brothers in the South have grasped the meaning of this social revolution and committed themselves to it. They are still too few in quantity, but they are big in quality. Some-such as Ralph McGill, Lillian Smith, Harry Golden, James McBride Dabbs, Ann Braden and Sarah Patton Boyle---have written about our struggle in eloquent and prophetic terms. Others have marched with us down nameless streets of the South. They have languished in filthy, roach-infested jails, suffering the abuse and brutality of policemen who view them as "dirty nigger lovers." Unlike so many of their moderate brothers and sisters, they have recognized the urgency of the moment and sensed the need for powerful "action" antidotes to combat the disease of segregation.

Let me take note of my other major disappointment. I have been so greatly disappointed with the white church and its leadership. Of course, there are some notable exceptions. I am not unmindful of the fact that each of you has taken some significant stands on this issue. I commend you, Reverend Stallings, for your Christian stand on this past Sunday, in welcoming Negroes to your worship service on a non segregated basis. I commend the Catholic leaders of this state for integrating Spring Hill College several years ago.

But despite these notable exceptions, I must honestly reiterate that I have been disappointed with the church. I do not say this as one of those negative. critics who can always find. something wrong with the church. I say this as a minister of the gospel, who loves the church; who was nurtured in its bosom; who 'has been sustained by its spiritual blessings and who will remain true to it as long as the cord of Rio shall lengthen.


When I was suddenly catapulted into the leadership of the bus protest in Montgomery, Alabama, a few years ago, I felt we would be supported by the white church felt that the white ministers, priests and rabbis of the South would be among our strongest allies. Instead, some have been outright opponents, refusing to understand the freedom movement and misrepresenting its leader era; an too many others have been more cautious than courageous and have remained silent behind the anesthetizing security of stained-glass windows.

In spite of my shattered dreams, I came to Birmingham with the hope that the white religious leadership of this community would see the justice of our cause and, with deep moral concern, would serve as the channel through which our just grievances could reach the power structure. I had hoped that each of you would understand. But again I have been disappointed.

I have heard numerous southern religious leaders admonish their worshipers to comply with a desegregation decision because it is the law, but I have longed to hear white ministers declare: "Follow this decree because integration is morally right and because the Negro is your brother." In the midst of blatant injustices inflicted upon the Negro, I have watched white churchmen stand on the sideline and mouth pious. irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities. In the midst of a mighty struggle to rid our nation of racial and economic injustice, I have heard many ministers say: "Those are social issues, with which the gospel has no real concern." And I have watched many churches commit themselves to a completely other worldly religion which makes a strange, on Biblical distinction between body and soul, between the sacred and the secular.

I have traveled the length and breadth of Alabama, Mississippi and all the other southern states. On sweltering summer days and crisp autumn mornings I have looked at the South's beautiful churches with their lofty spires pointing heavenward. I have beheld the impressive outlines of her massive religious-education buildings. Over and over I have found myself asking: "What kind of people worship here? Who is their God? Where were their voices when the lips of Governor Barnett dripped with words of interposition and nullification? Where were they when Governor Walleye gave a clarion call for defiance and .hatred? Where were their voices of support when bruised and weary Negro men and women decided to rise from the dark dungeons of complacency to the bright hills of creative protest?"

Yes, these questions are still in my mind. In deep disappointment I have wept over the laxity of the church. But be assured that my tears have been tears of love. There can be no deep disappointment where there is not deep love. Yes, I love the church. How could I do otherwise? l am in the rather unique position of being the son, the grandson and the great-grandson of preachers. Yes, I see the church as the body of Christ. But, oh! How we have blemished and scarred that body through social neglect and through fear of being nonconformists.

There was a time when the church was very powerful in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Whenever the early Christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being "disturbers of the peace" and "outside agitators"' But the Christians pressed on, in the conviction that they were "a colony of heaven," called to obey God rather than man. Small in number, they were big in commitment. They were too God intoxicated to be "astronomically intimidated." By their effort and example they brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide. and gladiatorial contests.

Things are different now. So often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So often it is an archdefender of the status quo. Par from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church's silent and often even vocal sanction of things as they are.

But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If today's church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it vi lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century. Every day I meet young people whose disappointment with the church has turned into outright disgust.

Perhaps I have once again been too optimistic. Is organized religion too inextricably bound to the status quo to save our nation and the world? Perhaps I must turn my faith to the inner spiritual church, the church within the church, as the true ekklesia and the hope of the world. But again I am thankful to God that some noble souls from the ranks of organized religion have broken loose from the paralyzing chains of conformity and joined us as active partners in the struggle for freedom, They have left their secure congregations and walked the streets of Albany, Georgia, with us. They have gone down the highways of the South on tortuous rides for freedom. Yes, they have gone to jai with us. Some have been dismissed from their churches, have lost the support of their bishops and fellow ministers. But they have acted in the faith that right defeated is stronger than evil triumphant. Their witness has been the spiritual salt that has preserved the true meaning of the gospel in these troubled times. They have carved a tunnel of hope through the dark mountain of disappointment. I hope the church as a whole will meet the challenge of this decisive hour. But even if the church does not come to the aid of justice, I have no despair about the future. I have no fear about the outcome of our struggle in Birmingham, even if our motives are at present misunderstood. We will reach the goal of freedom in Birmingham, ham and all over the nation, because the goal of America k freedom. Abused and scorned though we may be, our destiny is tied up with America's destiny. Before the pilgrims landed at Plymouth, we were here. Before the pen of Jefferson etched the majestic words of the Declaration of Independence across the pages of history, we were here. For more than two centuries our forebears labored in this country without wages; they made cotton king; they built the homes of their masters while suffering gross injustice and shameful humiliation-and yet out of a bottomless vitality they continued to thrive and develop. If the inexpressible cruelties of slavery could not stop us, the opposition we now face will surely fail. We will win our freedom because the sacred heritage of our nation and the eternal will of God are embodied in our echoing demands.

Before closing I feel impelled to mention one other point in your statement that has troubled me profoundly. You warmly commended the Birmingham police force for keeping "order" and "preventing violence." I doubt that you would have so warmly commended the police force if you had seen its dogs sinking their teeth into unarmed, nonviolent Negroes. I doubt that you would so quickly commend the policemen if .you were to observe their ugly and inhumane treatment of Negroes here in the city jail; if you were to watch them push and curse old Negro women and young Negro girls; if you were to see them slap and kick old Negro men and young boys; if you were to observe them, as they did on two occasions, refuse to give us food because we wanted to sing our grace together. I cannot join you in your praise of the Birmingham police department.
It is true that the police have exercised a .degree of discipline in handing the demonstrators. In this sense they have conducted themselves rather "nonviolently" in pubic. But for what purpose? To preserve the evil system of segregation. Over the past few years I have consistently preached that nonviolence demands that the means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek. I have tried to make clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends. But now I must affirm that it is just as wrong, or perhaps even more so, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends. Perhaps Mr. Connor and his policemen have been rather nonviolent in public, as was Chief Pritchett in Albany, Georgia but they have used the moral means of nonviolence to maintain the immoral end of racial injustice. As T. S. Eliot has said: "The last temptation is the greatest treason: To do the right deed for the wrong reason."

I wish you had commended the Negro sit-inners and demonstrators of Birmingham for their sublime courage, their willingness to suffer and their amazing discipline in the midst of great provocation. One day the South will recognize its real heroes. They will be the James Merediths, with the noble sense of purpose that enables them to face Jeering, and hostile mobs, and with the agonizing loneliness that characterizes the life of the pioneer. They will be old, oppressed, battered Negro women, symbolized in a seventy-two-year-old woman in Montgomery, Alabama, who rose up with a sense of dignity and with her people decided not to ride segregated buses, and who responded with ungrammatical profundity to one who inquired about her weariness: "My fleets is tired, but my soul is at rest." They viii be the young high school and college students, the young ministers of the gospel and a host of their elders, courageously and nonviolently sitting in at lunch counters and willingly going to jail for conscience' sake. One day the South will know that when these disinherited children of God sat down at lunch counters, they were in reality standing up for what is best in the American dream and for the most sacred values in our Judaeo-Christian heritage, thereby bringing our nation back to those great wells of democracy which were dug deep by the founding fathers in their formulation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

Never before have I written so long a letter. I'm afraid it is much too long to take your precious time. I can assure you that it would have been much shorter if I had been writing from a comfortable desk, but what else can one do when he is alone in a narrow jail cell, other than write long letters, think long thoughts and pray long prayers?

If I have said anything in this letter that overstates the truth and indicates an unreasonable impatience, I beg you to forgive me. If I have said anything that understates the truth and indicates my having a patience that allows me to settle for anything less than brotherhood, I beg God to forgive me.

I hope this letter finds you strong in the faith. I also hope that circumstances will soon make it possible for me to meet each of you, not as an integrationist or a civil rights leader but as a fellow clergyman and a Christian brother. Let us. all hope that the dark clouds of racial prejudice will soon pass away and the deep fog of misunderstanding will be lifted from our fear-drenched communities, and in some not too distant tomorrow the radiant stars of love and brotherhood will shine over our great nation with all their scintillating beauty.


Yours for the cause of Peace and Brotherhood,
Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.