Unfortunately, most Americans consider slavery and the treatment of black Americans historically unique. As part of this, all “white people” are taught “white guilt” by the media and by schools. The fact is that while blacks were mistreated in this country, many other ethnicities suffered more horrible fates during that same era (say from 1600 to 1980). Even slavery itself is hardly unique.

It is simply a fact that North Africans (who admittedly are not “black”) enslaved perhaps millions of Europeans. The Irish were common victims of this practice. 

In one well known example, in 1631 the entire Irish village of Baltimore was captured and sold into slavery by African Barbary Pirates.

America does not have lots of Irish people simply because the Irish wanted a “better life” like other immigrants, many came to escape systematic starvation and murder. Ireland is a unique country in that the vast majority of Irish people do not live in Ireland – that is not true of the French, Swedes, Japanese or Germans.

Here is a easily understood example, Germany has a population roughly 15 times that of Ireland – yet the number of German Americans and Irish Americans is roughly similar.

Irish oppression began to take its most serious stake in the years of Cromwell rule – from 1641 to 1653. One historian Sir William Petty, estimated that more than half of all Irish died during that 12 year span. 

Some historians claim that about 600,000 died – which would have constituted perhaps 1/3+ of the Irish. 

Another historian claims that Ireland’s population decreased from as much as about 2,000,000 people down to about 850,000 – roughly a loss of perhaps 60%.

Putting this in perspective, historians estimate that at most about 1/3 of all Jews were killed by the Germans during WWII.

Unfortunately, nobody seems to care about what happened under Cromwell. However, when “whites” are universally charged with oppression it is an insult to the memory of these people who suffered.

Of course, Irish were also taken into slavery during that era – slavery that happened in the Colonies and the Caribbean.

Here are some of the estimates of that horrible situation.

A common estimate is that in excess of 50,000 Irish were transported to Barbados and Virginia from 1652 until 1659 – this meant that perhaps as many as 10% or all Irish were shipped to slavery.

First, many Irish were forcibly sent to the poorest part of Ireland for farming – the province of Connaught. These people paid a heavy price – a price that repeated itself 200 years later. Perhaps 50% of my ancestors are from that part of Ireland – so the story of suffering needs to be remembered and told by me to honor my ancestors memory.

The writer Sean O’Callaghan wrote a detailed referenced book called “To Hell or Barbados: the ethnic cleansing of Ireland” – the records and stories are what they are – and they should not be ignored or dismissed.

Here are some of the noteworthy examples:

Almost from the earliest days of the settlement of Barbados, the (Irish) indentured servants were treated as little more than slaves.

When captured, the Irish were branded (like animals) with the initials of the ship that would take them across the ocean.

The Irish being put on slave ships was described as being given tattered rags to wear, being flogged with rods and being branded like sheep on their skin and flesh – this was observed by a Roman Catholic Italian Cardinal, Cardinal Rinuccini, when he was in Ireland.

The general assumption is that they were treated exactly the same as African Slaves since in many cases they were sent on the same ships as those who took slaves from Africa. Upon arrival to Barbados, Irish slaves were again branded with their owner’s initials in either the forearm (women) or buttocks (men). The Irish worked usually under the whip of mixed race slaves in Barbados.

Black historian and editor of Ebony Lerone Bennett magazine wrote the following of the Irish slave trade:

They came, these Christian demi-slaves, the same way blacks came…there were striking similarities between the Irish slave trade and the black slave trade.

Even to this day there are a few descendants of Irish slaves that live on Barbados called red legs – some still remain in Jamaica as well.

Certainly, the Irish slave trade involved fewer people – but how was it different? It really was not. Also, keep in mind that it involved a high percent of the total number of Irish people.

Whenever people say that “white people” exploited the “black people” it is no better than spitting in the face of these people who suffered.

In England as recently as 40 years ago it was commonplace for people to have signs in their shops that said “No Irish, no blacks, no dogs.”

Due to systematic murder and discrimination, the Irish have largely lost their native language. All people of significant Irish ancestry owe it to our ancestors to try to learn some Irish and pass it on to your children.

On behalf of my Irish ancestors, I am not looking for reparations – nor do I wish to subject the English living today to similar treatment. Nevertheless, any University professor who engages in the willful omission of this history by accusing all “white people” as being guilty of racism should be permanently unemployed.

Obama has chosen to ally himself to many people who push for a “white guilt” agenda – which is why he does not deserve to be elevated to President. Obama does not have the excuse of “ignorance” – he went to Harvard Law School.

Obama also believes he has the right to lecture us about the racism of his “white grandmother” and Geraldine Ferraro. There is no question that Obama believes “white people” and “black people” should be governed by different standards and rules. Unfortunately, most Americans agree – which is precisely why no white politician would have any shot at the presidency if they attended a radical church for 20 years where the preacher commonly would attack America (God Damn America) and would make up historical points like the U.S. government created AIDS to kill “people of color.”

To Obama and his cohorts history does not matter – so if Mars had two different types of people – white and black-- if those people came to America the “black people” would be entitled to preferential treatment and the “white people” would need to be lectured about “white guilt.”

Government will mandate more racist diversity training; companies doing business with the government (almost any midsize or large business) will be mandated to have similar programs.

All federally funded educational institutions will have more mandated diversity training (focusing on all the evil deeds that “whites” have historically done).

We will have large scale immigration, and little if no immigration enforcement. The crime caused by these immigrants will not be able to be fought – money will not be available. People will not be able to protect themselves as more gun control policy will be mandated (maybe even mandatory gun control for states wanting federal funding). Handguns are about the only effective weapon against a violent burglar – a shotgun or a rifle is too large and cannot effectively be put in reach of a victim. A stronger and quicker perpetrator can more easily grab a pointed rifle than an handgun. Obama stated 12 years ago in a voters guide that he supported banning of handguns – there is no reason to think he will not continue this policy.

Because we will have no ability to control our borders, we will not be able to fight many forms of terrorism.

Gay marriage will be mandated by the U.S. Supreme Court – there is a high chance that Kennedy and Scalia will no longer be on the Court in an Obama second term.

Even though any open signs of Christianity will not be tolerated, we will cater to Muslims with public bathing facilities and prayer rooms (we already do that – this will simply increase).

Political racial prosecutions will increase. Innocent whites will be prosecuted (like the Duke lacrosse case) because it fits political correctness. The excuse will always come down to the Scottsboro boys and to Kill a Mockingbird – in other words – historical bad prosecutions justifies current bad prosecutions.  "Hatespeech" like many of my postings will be illegal.

Obama will likely not focus money on needed weapons in order to sort out terrorism and fight biological and nuclear devices.

We will have more energy dependence on foreign oil. Without drilling and refining, we will be more dependent.  We are not going to develop electric cars for universal purchase until at least 10 years from now.  I could see Obama mandating stricter rules for cars rendering many of them not being able to be licensed due to emissions or environmental reasons -- car pooling will in essence be mandatory.

We know that Obama will have many of these agendas – we know it from his books and his Wright relationship. 

After the Reverend Wright story broke in the Spring, Hillary Clinton’s candidacy was resurrected. In the last several states, she did better than Obama. As it turned out, it was too late.

McCain’s choice to not go after the Wright issue will cause him to lose the race. McCain, going along with the media, decided it was racist to expose Wright. Apparently, the basis for it being racist is that it is wrong to expose someone for saying things such as the U.S. government created aids to kill people of color, U.S. of KKK, constantly revile “whites” for “their” treatment of blacks in America the week after 9/11 constantly state at the pulpit God Da** America.

Why should this be off-limits. Those who claim that Obama only joined this church to be elected to public office have incorrect views of black churches – they are not “all the same” and they do not all focus on radical political agendas in church.

The Wright issue is the most important issue for me. Obama’s longest close relationship in his life is with Wright and his church. The relationship existed for 20 years, pre-dated his relationship with his wife and inspired him to write one of his books.

As much as I might also disagree with Jesse Jackson – I do not recall him ever acting the way Wright acted in his church. Apparently, the issue goes beyond Wright as the guests who speak in that church also say and do similar things (Father Fleiger).

Obama said that Wright was as close to him as a family member. Obama was indignant that people had the nerve to bring up the issue – and basically he equated Wright to his grandmother. His grandmother was harassed by a black man who was a panhandler. How was her view racist? Self preservation is the most basic feeling – it is why many whites do not go to ghetto areas – especially at night. Likewise, blacks were rightfully in fear of traveling down South in a car in the 1960s. Jesse Jackson admitted his own fear of black youths in urban areas. There is a crime problem, and the statistics show that it often can be a black on white crimes.

Obama and Wright are simply just bigoted. Bigots cannot accept facts or the truth – they believe what they believe irrespective of the truth. 

Obama himself admits in his books that he considers himself “black” rather than white – when he is equally both. He stated that he would not date or marry a white woman – again that is bigoted.

No truth matters to either Wright or Obama. Even if you have no connection to any racism, simply by having white skin you are guilty. The rationale of that point is that all whites benefit from the “racist” system. Try telling that to a poor white person, or a white person in prison who is victimized – or try telling that to the Duke Lacrosse team.

The rationale to any clear examples of racial mistreatment of whites is, in essence, the idea that because bad things happened to blacks at the hands of whites in the past, it excuses blacks for mistreatment of whites today. With that mindset, when will violence ever end? Doesn’t that justify future mistreatment of blacks – simply cite the Duke lacrosse incidence or Tawana Brawley or O.J. Simpson or Colin Ferguson and that should be a “get out of jail free” card.

Let’s be honest here. View history for what it is – it is replete with examples of murder of ethnic groups, bombings and rape. Slavery in the Americas only happened with the cooperation with blacks in Africa who “captured” the slaves. The oldest and youngest and sickest were largely exempt from slavery – for the simple reason that such a person would likely not survive a sailing from Africa to America.

During the age of slavery, thousands of Irish were shipped much further – to Australia – with no desire to keep those on the ship alive. In the Ukraine of the 1930s, Stalin’s policies (which were excused by none other than the New York Times) caused perhaps millions to starve – there were even documented incidents of cannibalism. We forget so easily that the Japanese performed scientific operations on American POWs – and few lived through their capture.

What about the people who lived in Rwanda in the 1990s – or Sudan now.

America’s immigration possibly saved the lives of more than 1,000,000 Irish people – who otherwise would have died of starvation and disease.

No country is perfect – America’s treatment of Abu Ghareb prisoners was certainly worse than segregated water fountains. 

Today, lives are regularly ruined due to political correctness in prosecutions and on college campuses. The Duke lacrosse prosecutions are what they are – but they are hardly unique. People like Obama and Wright not only push for that different treatment – when in power they mandate it.

Separate treatment is mandatory already in the law – government hiring, contracting, scholarships is what it is. The policies have been in place for about 40 years.

College campuses mandate lecturing like the idea that all whites are racists, and non-whites cannot be racist. 

It is not racist to merely want to be treated the same as others. Stressing that two wrongs make a right is racist. Focusing on what people who “look like me” did in the past is evil – and it is insulting to the memory of my family – and the family of people who tolerate this bigotry. 

Obama’s bigotry is what it is – he feels that he has the right to tell “whites” about their evil history even though he himself is the descendant of white slaveholders (most of us “whites” are not).

No white candidate who attended any radical church where a preacher acted the way Wright did would have any chance – and their political career would be over.

Clearly, it would be easy to describe me as being obsessed with this issue – but it is because of my legitimate fears and my reasonable desire to not be subjected to government lecturing about my criminal racist ancestry.

For pretty good reasons, the Ayers “connections” to Obama are falling on deaf ears. Ayers was not like a family member to Obama. Ayers did not inspire one of Obama’s books. Obama did not regularly see Ayers every week (church services).

The multitude of Wright sermons and press conferences are what they are. Apparently, Wright is off limits to McCain because it is somehow “racist” to criticize Wright – but it is alright to attack Ayers. Actually, McCain and others who feel a compulsion to have a “hands off” attitude about Wright are racists.

What is the rationale for Wright to not be responsible for his statements? I agree that both Ayers and Wright would have equal significance if Obama regularly went to two churches – one where Ayers was the pastor, the other where Wright was. Also, if Obama had written 3 books rather than just two, with the third being inspired by Ayers it could be claimed that they had equal influence.

Obama called Wright as close as a “family member” – someone he can no more disown than his “white grandmother.”

Obama cannot blame his family for his Wright relationship. For example, if Wright happened to be a minister in a particular uncommon branch of Christianity that Obama was raised in, Obama could sort of have an excuse (and really only “sort of”) that he was loyal to the church he was raised in, and that Wright had good parts to him as well as bad parts.

Wright brought Obama to “religion” (if you can call Wright’s church a religion). I mention “religion” because Wright’s church hosts speakers of all different kinds of backgrounds (like Catholic Priests like Father Fleiger or Muslims like Louis Farrakhan). Apparently, the only connection that matters in this "church" is a committment to a radical political agenda.

I do believe Obama when he states that he was an agnostic/atheist before he found religion in Wright’s church. Despite the fact that Obama may have had a Muslim father and stepfather, and apparently was registered as a Muslim in the Catholic school he attended in Indonesia – there is little evidence that he has ever had Muslim beliefs.

To me, it says a lot when a particular person brings you to a particular religion – and if you refer to that person as close to your only living ancestor (who took years out of her life actually providing companionship and support to you) by definition that person is among the few closest people in your life.

Remember what Wright’s sermons have focused on – God da*n America, U.S. of KKK, Hillary ain’t never been called a ni****, America’s chickens are coming home to roost -- right after 9/11, Bill (Clinton) was doing the nasty (with gesturing) in the Whitehouse.” 

Of course, the main focus of the Wright and Obama connection is the fixation on the evils of "whites" and race and racism. Has everyone forgotten that Obama implied that both his grandmother and Geraldine Ferraro are racists. Bill Clinton also got tagged as a racist. Aside from criticizing Obama, how exactly are these people racists?

Obama and Wright are also fixated on the bad things about America. America was never about wholesale genocide like has happened in many countries that we now consider civilized (Britain, Germany and Japan are some examples). 

American Indians lost lands, and died in fighting, but America never had a plan to kill all American Indians. Jefferson wanted whites and Indians to intermarry. Many of the early Indian Chiefs of the 18^th Century were actually descended from white pioneer fathers and grandfathers. In the 1920s, we had an American Indian Vice President (Charles Curtis) and an American Indian as perhaps America’s favorite entertainer (Will Rogers).  American Indians could play in the major leagues decades before blacks could.

There is no doublt that blacks had a raw deal in this country for a long time. The mistreatment of talented people like Paul Robeson and Jack Johnson are but two examples.

Nevertheless, black slaves were treated as valuable property – not as disposable beings destined for predetermined death. 

How soon do we forget the deliberate killings of Jews during WWII and of Gypsies only 65 years ago? After WWII, perhaps millions of innocent Germans were killed by the Soviet military – many of these were children and the elderly.

How about Armenians wholesale murder by the Ottomans? That was less than 100 years ago. During the 17 century most Irish were killed by deliberate genocidal means.  In the 19th Century most Irish either died of starvation or fled their native land -- its population today still is less that it was 170 years ago (I doubt any other country can say that).

In the 1990s, Rwanda had ethnic genocide. Today in Sudan we have the same thing.

Today, we do have a form of institutionalized racism against blacks that is harmful and ought to be stopped.

Obama himself singled out Clarence Thomas as being unqualified for the Supreme Court. Thomas was a very good college student at a very good college (Holy Cross). His credentials make Biden look like a joke – and may be better than Obama’s (since he conceals his college transcripts).

Those who single out Thomas as being unqualified ignore that he was head of a large agency for a decade and had been a judge – many other Supreme Court candidates had little or no judicial experience and were not stellar academics.

The assumption that blacks cannot academically excel without “help” is racist – and it is a slur to the memory of people like Paul Robeson who succeeded despite incredible odds.

Excusing black dysfunctional behavior is similarly racist. Inherently, doing that implies that blacks are inferior – that “they” cannot help themselves. Jewish acts of violence are not excused, Irish acts of violence are not excused – but people explain away black conduct. It is similar to the idea that blacks will benefit from “midnight basketball” – the assumption is that blacks have no discipline and would rather play basketball than engage in some other non-destructive behavior.

Many “black studies” professors are given free reign to attack “whites” for evils – when such attacks are no different than KKK members attributing all blacks with certain characteristics.  Allowing such blatant racists on a college campus hurts all blacks -- it implies that all blacks are bigoted people who possess no interest other than obsession over discrimination.

History tells us what slavery was (and is). Slavery was practiced all over the world (as genocide similarly was and is practiced).

Would we tolerate a Jewish youth attacking a random white non-Jew because of Hitler? Perhaps that white kid might not even be of German ancestry.

Many “whites” (like me, and many others) had most of their family come to the U.S. after we had slavery. Even when America had slavery, as a percentage of Americans few whites had slaves (some American Indians had them too).

About a year or so ago, when watching Coundown with Keith Olbermann (who I did admire for his legitimate attacks on GWB for mismanagement of the Iraq war) I heard him make the blanket statement that Rush Limbaugh was a racist for saying that Obama’s family had slaves, and were not slaves.

I knew only a little bit about Obama then – but I did know that his father was an African from Kenya – and Kenya is not where American slaves came from. As it turned out, Obama also has two separate white slaveholding family members. So, Rush was a racist here because he stated the truth.

Here is the problem. Stating the truth about Wright’s strong connection to Obama is racist. As long as we cannot simply state the truth about people – our society will have severe problems.

The manifestation of those problems can result in violence against whites (because of slavery). Also, politically correct acts of official government oppression are encouraged – just read about the Duke Lacrosse case sometime.

Unlike most white Americans, Obama should possibly feel guilty for his white slaveholding ancestors. While Obama had multiple white slaveholding ancestors in the mid 19^th Century, about half of my ancestors were literally starving in the poorest part of Ireland – the West Coast.  Oops, I suppose that factual statement is probably "racist."

Obama possesses such a degree of white hatred that he ignores the good that his “white grandmother” did for him – and compared his ranting former preacher, Jeremiah Wright. Like Obama, it is pretty clear that Wright possesses significant European blood – his skin is as light as many “white” people’s skin.  Once again, merely stating this point is "racist."

What basis does Wright and Obama have to ridicule America? Has America participated in a directed act of genocide (American Ind? Did America starve a majority of its citizens? Did we ever have mass executions?

While John Lewis points to the “atmosphere” that caused four in the mid-1960s black girls to die in a church bombing – how does that compare with the 1972 mass shootings of Irish in Derry for non-violent protests? 14 died in that action – brought about by the British government – not rogue actors like those in Birmingham.

Was Jim Crow worse than WWII concentration camps? Was it worse than the Japanese POW camps?

Was it worse to be a slave in America than to be in the Ukraine in the 1930s? Was it worse being a slave than being in Ireland under the reign of Cromwell (well, actually some of these people were sold into Slavery in the Americas – but most died via mass killings).

The hostility and lies (and exaggerations) that pass for history on television and schools is shameful. The guilt that it engenders is as shameful as urinating on the graves of my (and many others) ancestors.

Obama’s world view is what it is. It is the same view as Jeremiah Wright’s. Otherwise, Obama simply would have attended another church the first time he heard a sermon. Wright’s sermons are basically all the same – white people did this, white people did that, the U.S. government created AIDS to kill blacks, God Da** America! The US of KKK.  History is ignored, and a slap of a black person is the equivalent of an execution someone white.

Despite the fact that the Klan killed many Catholic whites including Priests and tried to invade and take over the Notre Dame Campus – all of us whites are to blame for the Klan.

Wright and Obama are bigots – perhaps because of their own white blood – perhaps because Hitler may have been part Jewish – whatever the reason – such beliefs should disqualify a candidate.  We need to move away from this fixation -- it is a false reality.  Also, clearly there is a racial problem with targeted violence against whites in cities and in prisons -- the numbers are what they are.  But these acts are excused -- or explained away with comments like "you shouldn't have gone in that bad neighborhood" or "serves you right for getting in trouble leading to prison."  What on earth has triggered these bigoted beliefs?

Keep in mind, this mindset possessed by Obama and his cohorts have successfully tagged both Bill Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro as “racists.” In the mass media, those attacks have largely stuck.  Of course, simply stating a fact has become "racist."

What is the real danger of Obama? Mid-level appointees. Obama will appoint perhaps thousands of people in positions of power with viewpoints which mirror Ayers and Wright. Nobody pays much attention to these appointees, but they carry lots of individual power.  They determine who is prosecuted, what companies get sued for "discrimination," what government contracting quotas ought to be, who gets promoted in government, what numbers of "minority" hires a company must have to do business with the government, the "racial sensitivity training" that people must go through, what beliefs are tolerated in school, working for government or doing business with government.

Under Obama, we will be subject to more racist lies about “white” history. Do not be surprised if hate speech (of course only certain types) will be a prosecutable offense. 

Another example would be racially motivated prosecutions like the one that happened at Duke University. No evidence is needed – lives can easily be ruined.  However, if it fits some politically correct paradigm -- prosecute first -- forget the consequences.  The Agenda is what matters, not the truth.  According to these politically correct people "people must pay" based upon what "they" look like.  It matters not what historical connection one has (or does not have) to slavery -- if it did Obama would be attacked for his slaveholding ancestors.  Apparently, the connection that matters is that "someone looks like a slaveholder."

Under Obama, more strict racial quotas will be put in effect, and public education will mandate more volatile hatred for America and the evil “white people” who started America.

At this point, it is now quite clear that McCain will not win. This is his fault – nobody else is to blame. McCain took Wright and Obama’s church off the table – and the comments about Obama's “racist” grandma. The Ayers connection is nowhere near as strong as Wright. Ultimately, it will not work.

Other likely policies will include firm quotas in education and in contracting (they are pretty firm already). Also, being very supportive of public prayer for Muslims in public schools and government buildings – but all Christian accommodations would be barred.

Don’t count on being able to keep your guns. Obama will likely use some “militia group” as an excuse to go after all “assault weapons” and handguns. Obama stated in a questionnaire that he believed handguns should be banned in 1996 – I would be surprised if he personally felt differently from this.

Sure, if crime happens you can call the police – they certainly will have the coroner come to pick up your dead body and perhaps do a “work up” of the crime scene.

No Presidential Candidate even comes close to the radical nature of Obama. While Bill Clinton may have been a leftwing youth – he was protesting against the Vietnam War (which did have a lot of negatives) and protesting for civil rights (which were needed). Many of the ideas that Clinton had in the 1960s are pretty mainstream today.

Obama grew up in the late 1970s and early 1980s when Civil Rights had already been adopted (and quotas were already in place) – we no longer had a draft. Yet, Obama associated with left-wing students who supported the Soviet Union over the United States. I remember these people quite well – they would deny the Soviet atrocities under Stalin, deny the East block Soviet controlled empire and would say that we should have let North Korea win the Korean war (you could make the case that war saved more people than almost any war other than WWII in American history – just think how a unified Communist Korea would be – starving, no political rights, no innovation and economic success).

Obama has chosen his associates. His church is the longest affiliation – 20 years. It is also the most direct connection – Obama was not nearly as close with Ayers as he was with Wright. Remember, Wright was like a family member who he wrote a book that was inspired by him. But since McCain is “afraid” of the race issue, McCain will only raise the Ayers issue.

It is ironic, but it is clear that ignoring Wright is a matter of race – and the emphasis on Ayers is the same thing -- fear because of Wright's race.

Unfortunately, it is probably too late for McCain – the media is calling it desperate and (ironically enough) racist.

This idea is often at the core of “hate crimes” legislation where the only people allegedly who can be bigoted are whites. It matters not if a non-white seriously injures a white person – no additional concern is noted.

The truth for Obama, and his cohorts is irrelevant. That is, it does not matter that Obama had white family members who held slaves and has no connection to those blacks in America who are descended from slaves.

It is incredible that Obama is treated with any expertise on issues involving race since he has such a biased built in viewpoint.

History makes no difference to the politically correct bureaucrats who will form the foundation of an Obama administration. Whites must be punished since they allegedly benefit from a racist system and because they “look like” what slave holders used to look like.

No similar unfair treatment is routinely offered by Jews against the millions of German Americans, or the English by the Irish or Turks by Armenians.

Another sickening thing about Obama and the politically correct peoples who run much of academia and the Democratic party is that they feel free to distort and lie about history. Thus, someone whose father came to the United States from Kenya in the 1960s to study for a doctorate, should be given some preferential treatment in applying for a school above and beyond the poor kid from West Virginia.

It has become completely acceptable on college campuses, in popular magazines and on televisions for whites to be “lectured” with the paraphrased attacks of things like “you put us in slavery” you tried to commit genocide against us.

Michelle Obama is less careful to disguise her true feelings about “whites” and Americans. An interesting read is her college thesis.   Of course, without even fully reading the entire thesis, it is easy to understand a basic point – that some blacks (about 25 years ago) did not really feel part of the Princeton community.

Without quickly asserting that it is due to “racism” it probably is best to just understand who the rich people at Princeton are – basically “snobs.” If you do not have the same vacation plans, a pedigree from a top-notch private high school, and do not speak the same way these people speak – you simply are not going to be fully accepted. Not only blacks face that kind of challenge, poor whites and working class people in general all face that fact.

When I was younger, I grew up in a very wealthy town with parents who moved between economic middle class and economic lower middle class. With some people, I really did not fit in – I did not regularly go to the Caribbean or Europe – nor did my parents belong to a country club.

When these people “know” what you are really like, they sometimes will make attacks on those less wealthy people. Those people will simply not usually “make it” in the elite circles. Still receiving a Princeton degree, no matter what your skin color, is a certain door opener.

Michelle Obama had the added negative matter to deal with in that she was assumed to have lower test scores than white students. Of course, if you get special treatment to gain admission (but maybe a good friend with much greater academics does not) some of those admitted on merits will resent your special treatment.

To the extent that Obama is governed by different standards, that is an example of preferential racism. McCain and the Republicans are somewhat responsible for this because of the fear of being labeled as a racist for merely pointing out a true fact about Obama.

Certain Obama admissions in the past would probably destroy any serious attempt at high office. Only 20 years ago, Judge Douglas Ginsburg’s admission to frequent marijuana use (approximately 15 years before) scuttled his chances of being appointed to the High Court (Jon Lovitz did a fairly amusing parody of Ginsburg at the time making him out to be a total pot-head). Obama frequently used cocaine in his teens and 20s (GW Bush may or may not have done this as well – but the case is not so clear).

A connection like the Bill Ayers relationship should be very troubling. It is undisputed that one of Obama’s first political fundraising events was at the Ayers’ household (which also included Ayers wife who was a convicted terrorist). Obama was about 35 years old at the time and was a Harvard Law graduate – he had to know that Ayers was a terrorist and his wife was a convicted terrorist (who went to federal prison for that act). Of course, aside from being terrorists, according to Ayers himself (admittedly later than his fundraiser) that he regretted not doing more terrorism. It is doubtful that he held that belief in secret, since he was willingly to openly state that to the New York Times.

Chicago politics is notoriously full of corruption. The Rezko connection is an example of corruption – much more significant and recent than the Keating 5 McCain issues. Rezko pretty clearly gave Obama property worth perhaps $1,000,000 (at a time when Obama was not as well off as he is now).

The most clear cut troubling example is that of his church. Simply put, there is no excuse for his close connection with Rev. Wright. Obama wrote a book based upon a Wright sermon. Repeatedly he had explained Wright’s mentoring relationship. According to Obama, Wright specifically brought him to religion. Too many forget that not only did Obama defend Wright when the scandal initially broke – he called him as close as a family member. In the process, he attacked his own “white grandmother” – with a very unfair accusation of racism.

Obama also attended the million man march held by the Nation of Islam and other radical groups.

Ask yourself this question, what kinds of mid-level appointees would Obama make? These “under the radar” appointments are more important than high level cabinet secretaries and Supreme Court Justices because they actually have much more hands on decision making.

What kind of racist propaganda would Americans have to be subjected to (ie – only whites can be guilty of racism, “white” culture is evil, “whites” exploit people of color)? The starkest examples of this being manifested have historically been the Duke Lacrosse Case, the Tawana Brawley debacle and the Jena Six happenings.

History simply makes no difference to these people. People have argued on this Board and elsewhere that since Obama was a black man – he knows what it is to suffer. While there is no doubt that some people do not like blacks, I have not heard of any story that he was ever beaten because of his skin color (something that frequently occurs to whites). Many groups have experienced real suffering (Jews and Gypsies during WW2, Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, the Irish – particularly in the mid 19^th century and mid 17^th century, all people who lived in the Soviet Union during the 1930s, Germans at the end of WW2 particularly in the East, people in Zimbabwe over the past 25 years). 

Make no mistake, blacks were treated worse in the America than any other group – but their treatment was nothing like systematic efforts of genocide (of which there are many historical examples).

Because of discrimination, the “race card” trumps all reason. The fact that Obama can use the “race card” makes even less sense than the white author of “Black Like Me” being able to make that case. 

There is no doubt that Obama had to deal with the fact that some people do not like blacks, but he never had to use separate eating and bathing facilities, was not subject to segregated schools and was never terrorized by the KKK.

If Obama had a long record in public life (like in 8 years from now) where he did things like voluntarily quit his church, showing some more moderate positions, and rejecting political correctness, his election would not be as troubling to me.

Anyone who associated himself with the Reverend Wrights and Bill Ayers’ of the world, should have to at least wait 5 or 10 years of having no connection to those people (or repudiating them) to have the qualifications to govern all of Americans.

To me, it really is utterly stunning that these issues do not matter much. Judgment in selecting close associates (to which Wright especially was for Obama) might show more about someone’s the ability to fix problems than anything else.

It is also a shame that we Americans could not have elected a better black candidate as its first black President. Colin Powell and Douglas Wilder would have both been good moderate candidates. Wilder particularly having grown up subjected to the segregated south as the Grandson of Slaves would have been a particularly inspiring example.

As it is now, Obama is able to trade in on skin color (rather than experience) as a badge of overcoming odds – when Obama has benefited from skin color more than perhaps any American in history. No white candidate was ever selected because he or she was white (since whites have always been the majority in this country). 

It is more than Ironic to me that Obama has no American slaves as ancestors, is about as related to black Americans as much as someone in Spain is related to someone from the Ukraine, never lived anywhere where segregation was official policy, and even had slaveholding ancestors.

Why should Obama get to jump ahead of people with more experience? How is it that his experience and his associates do not matter to most Americans? Why would a white candidate have no chance of being elected President if he were associated with Timothy McVeigh and if he attended a radical church (be it snake-handling, Jimmy Swaggart’s or some other non-mainstream place).

It is deeply disturbing that Obama has a pretty good chance of being elected – it shows that the public has no judgment and that your connections and associations do not matter (if Obama had a long track record of accomplishments, I admit that even to me this might not be as important).

Those who say that Obama only joined Wright’s church for political reasons are lying. Obama began to attend that church nearly 10 years before he ran for office. That church is not the largest black church in Chicago. Obama could have equally joined many more mainstream large black congregations.

Why does it not matter to people that Jeremiah Wright makes Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton seem almost mainstream?

It is not believable that Wright only made a few remarks that were bad choices in the past 20 years. That church is so radical that it allows people outside of that specific religion (like Roman Catholics and Muslims) preach as long as they are radicals (like Farrakhan and Father Fleiger).

I would hope that in the next few weeks this message can get out – even if there is a risk of being accused of racism. It actually is not racism – it is merely telling the truth. If people are too afraid to say this due to political correctness – then they do not deserve to be elected.

Even if McCain wins this election, if this election is close it does not bode well for our future.

If the election were held today the polls say:

Obama: 273
McCain: 265

Only four states are leaning states:

VA (13), OH (20) and NV (5) lean McCain.  McCain cannot be President unless he wins both Ohio and VA.  NV is much less important.

NH (4) leans Obama.  But, there is no point in trying to win that state since it is so small and is surrounded by states that McCain has no chance with.

The four closest states that are not "leaning states" are PA, MN, Mich and Wisconsin (McCain is behind by 3 to 5 points). 

I think that the only way McCain can win is to win one of those four states.  He does have a shot since he has been virtually tied at times with Obama in all of these states.  Even if Obama wins NV, if McCain wins any of PA, MN, Mich or Wis -- he will be President.  (assuming McCain loses no current lean states except NV).

Colorado and New Mexico are not as close as these states -- neither is Iowa. (both about 8 or 9 points).  Even though Colorado has gone Republican most of the last 40 years and Iowa and NM both went once for Bush in the past 8 years.

Again Colorado (10) and NM (5) have less electoral votes than any of PA (21), MN (10), Wis (10) and Mich (17).

Assuming nothing very dramatically happens in the next 5 to 6 weeks, I think it comes down to winning one of those four states for McCain.

Previously I have written that Biden’s claims to a working class background are not supported by the reality of someone being elected to the U.S. Senate at age 29 (one must be 30 to serve, Biden turned 30 after his election but prior to being sworn in). Consider that Biden was less than 5 years out of school when he began his U.S. Senate campaign.

Biden has quite a record of lies and outright thefts of intellectual property (in particular plagiarism). 

However, this posting is not about those points. It is about his arrogance and bigotry.

First, Biden was a poor student. The relevance of this point will be obvious as this posting continues.

Biden graduated from the University of Delaware (a decent school, but by no means a great school). I also was accepted to that school. I chose to go to a school that was slightly more prestigious.

Biden was a terrible student in college. In fact, he was in the bottom 20% of his class. I was not a terrific student – but I was in the top 1/3 or so in my class and had very good grades my last year.

Biden was able to gain acceptance to Syracuse University’s law school (a decent school, but by no means a great school).  Once again, he graduated in the bottom 20% of his class. On top of that, Biden was caught cheating. I had post undergraduate education – and had decent grades.

After being elected to the Senate at age 29, Biden eventually obtained a seat on the Judiciary Committee of the Senate. While on that committee Biden met with Clarence Thomas when he was tapped to become a federal appeals judge.

By that point, Clarence Thomas had been an attorney with various public and private sector positions including nearly a decade at the helm of the EEOC.

Biden told Thomas when he met privately with him as part of the confirmation process that he would be an acceptable candidate for the federal court of appeals, but the Supreme Court is a different story.

The reason that Biden saying this is both arrogant and bigoted is because Clarence Thomas (unlike Biden) had a distinctive academic and legal career.

Clarence Thomas graduated from Holy Cross – and excellent university – much more competitive than the University of Delaware (personally, I would not have been admitted had I applied to that school).

Clarence Thomas, unlike Biden, was an excellent university student. He graduated at the top of his class at Holy Cross.

Clarence Thomas was admitted to both Yale and Harvard law schools (in my opinion, the two best law schools in the country). Of course, because of affirmative action his admission carries a stigma (an unfair one as it seems at least possible that he merited acceptance based upon his high grades at a very good university).

Clarence Thomas chose to go to Yale.

With Biden’s limited academic achievement it is at least questionable whether he can actually determine whether someone with a vastly superior academic background is qualified for the Supreme Court or not.

Biden was not talking about Clarence Thomas being “too conservative” for the Supreme Court. Biden voted for Scalia when he was up for the Supreme Court.

It is true that Clarence Thomas was a relatively young Supreme Court appointee – but his academic and real world legal experience was certainly fairly similar to many Supreme Court Justices (and clearly superior to some).

What kind of person would deign to say something like what Biden said when he had (1) very little legal experience (2) the scant amount of experience was at best mediocre and at worst embarrassing?

Could anyone seriously make the point that Biden has even remotely an intellect as high as Clarence Thomas? Clarence Thomas actually came from a real working class family – one that was raised in the segregated south.

Despite his difficult upbringing, Clarence Thomas was able to (1) get into Holy Cross and (2) graduate at the top of his class.

Law School is more competitive than it used to be – and it is at least somewhat questionable that someone in the bottom 20% of his class would get into any accredited law school (such a person would not get into Syracuse today).

If the election were held today, I am afraid that McCain would likely slightly win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote. It seems that McCain might cut margins of victory in several states – but at the same time he could lose some of the Bush 2000 and/or 2004 states.

Here is McCain’s problem.

Right now, it appears McCain will lose New Hampshire, Iowa, Colorado and New Mexico. If that plays out, Obama gets 284 electoral votes – that is it.

Here is what I would do if I were McCain:

Have a 3 pronged strategy (1) a West strategy, (2) and East strategy and (3) a Florida strategy. On economics, he needs to push energy independence hard.

West strategy

Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico. McCain probably has to win 2 of these 3 states if he is to be elected President.

Fortunately, these states all border his Arizona home state. So, he has connections in those places. His weak immigration stance may help him in those states (where Mexican Americans might at least 1/3 vote for him). Also, those states have limited access to public transportation – so pushing energy independence will help in those places (it will help everywhere – but in non-urban places where people often have to drive great distances it will especially help).

I think that he has a decent shot of holding on to these states. McCain especially needs not to lose Nevada and win back Colorado (NM has the least electoral votes of these 3 battleground states).

However, he needs to concentrate on those states.

East strategy

Call this, if you will, the Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia strategy.

Here is where McCain is helped in those states – older people. Putting this another way, McCain will probably not be president if he loses either Virginia or Ohio – but if he wins either Michigan or Pennsylvania that could be enough to put him over the top.

Michigan and Pennsylvania are within reach. They have older “Hillary Clinton” democratic voters. Also, there are many people in these states that cling to guns and religion.

McCain is hurt in these places because of manufacturing job losses. However, McCain can promise these people good jobs in the energy industry. That is, if he says that he promises that we will be building more and refining more – those good blue collar jobs could actually replace other lost blue collar jobs. The key to energy independence is constructing more nuclear power plants, getting more coal, exploring for natural gas – all of which will benefit these people with (1) lower energy prices and (2) a potential expansion of good blue collar jobs.

Many Democrats in these states care about pro-life issues. McCain needs to push this in a smart way – Obama’s comment about his daughters being punished with a baby and his opposition to the late term abortion law is where he should concentrate. Of course, he needs to do this in a way that suburban women will not be turned off. 

Obama being in favor of banning all handguns effectively (as per a 1996 candidate guide) also needs to be exploited.

If Obama succeeds in knocking off both New Mexico and Colorado winning either Michigan or Pennsylvania will offset such a loss.

Virginia is a different issue (though geographically close – so it makes sense to put this state in the East strategy). Democrats have done well recently in Virginia (Jim Webb and the last two governors). The turnout for black voters is critical in that state (they compose a large amount of the electorate in that state).

McCain cannot afford to lose Virginia – the same is true of Ohio.

So, in summary on the East Strategy, McCain needs to hold Virginia and Ohio (and if he holds them, he will likely keep West VA) and to try to win one of PA or Michigan.

Lastly, McCain needs to shore up Florida. It looks like McCain will win Florida because of the combination of (1) older voters, (2) military issues and (3) religion issues.

If McCain really concentrated on NH he might win it – but it is surrounded by states McCain simply will not win no matter what. So, it makes little sense to dedicate any resources to that 4 electoral vote state.

However, NH does pose one big problem.

Should McCain hold Colorado and Nevada out West, and hold Ohio, VA and West VA in the East – at this rate he may end up with 269 electoral votes (he actually WOULD assuming the current status of the states remains what it is in 6 weeks).

So, what can McCain do? It is a conundrum. In essence it stems from the fact that Bush one year got New Hampshire and the other year got New Mexico. 

If McCain starts to lose a national hold of things, it really will not matter. I don’t anticipate Obama suffering a big crash – I cannot imagine much worse stuff coming out (he will not have any more typical white people, bitter or Wright/Ayers issues – those issues are terrible – yet they have not had any real traction – if they actually did Hillary Clinton would be the nominee). 

Some suburban whites could (with the help of the media and the fact that they are often moderates with more than a touch of political correctness) be turned off by McCain bringing this issue up. The media will be very quick to call McCain a racist (after all – it happened to Bill Clinton).

Putting it a different way, if McCain cannot win at least one of the following states: New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Michigan or New Mexico – it looks like the most amount of electoral college votes that he will get will be 269 – with Obama getting 271.

Maine and Nebraska do things differently than any other state. Is it possible that McCain can win one of the Maine electors? That is not clear. Could Obama win a Nebraska one – maybe since he is doing well in Iowa (well enough that I am not sure McCain should use his resources there).

To me, it simply makes no sense when the media attacks Palin’s lack of qualifications. Factually, Obama has debatably less experience.

Obama was sworn into the U.S. Senate in 2005. Keep in mind he has been running for President since 2007 – so in essence he has had perhaps 2 years in the U.S. Senate.

Being a U.S. Senator, while a prestigious job, does not really equate to experience running anything (other than the Senate office – which is no larger than many small businesses). In reality, mayors run the lives of more people and often have many more job responsibilities. I admit that I am not that familiar with the specifics of Sarah Palin’s number of town employees – but it probably is fairly comparable to employees of a U.S. Senator. 

Of course, being only 1 of 100 Senators also means that, at least in the beginning of a Senate career, a person really has that much direct responsibility. Many more senior Senators Chair large committees with important oversight functions – Obama does not (and would not be expected to). Besides, since he has been running for President for a while his Senate role has been curtailed.

Interestingly, the vast majority of U.S. Presidents of recent years had executive experience.

LBJ – Vice President for nearly 3 years. 

Nixon – VP for 8 years/

Ford – VP for about 1 ½ years.

Carter – Georgia Governor

Reagan – California Governor

Bush – VP 8 years

Clinton – Arkansas Governor

Bush – Texas Governor

The last time we had a President with no executive experience was with JFK. But, with JFK one could argue that he did command a small ship in a war (which does entail some real world direct supervisory experience). He also had been in the U.S. Congress, as both a Member of the House and U.S. Senate for a total of 14 years – a fairly decent amount of Washington experience.   Of course, life with his father – who had many important government appointments did actually probably provide JFK with more experience to consider.

Like JFK, McCain has had significant Washington experience (dating about 25 years). However, his executive experience in the military – as a Navy Captain with about 25 years of service in the military – which included being commanders of various flight units for a few years of his later Navy career should count for something.

Over the past 56 years, we have had many other Vice Presidential candidates who were  either younger than Palin and arguably less experienced.

Nixon when chosen as Vice President was only 39 and he had been in the U.S. House and Senate for a combined period of only 5 years. He had two young daughters at the time.

Agnew had been governor of Maryland for less than 2 years – and had limited prior experience in political affairs.

Quayle was only 41 – and had Congressional but no executive level experience.

Ferarro was 49 and had been in the U.S. House of Reps for 6 years when elected.

Obama, for whatever reason, is claimed to have experience by virtue of running for president (which sounds more like having experience for a job because you are trying to get a certain job – which makes no sense).

What exactly would have made someone like Mitt Romney that much more qualified than Palin? He was a governor for 4 years – that’s it. He also was governor of Massachusetts – which meant that he had to hold multiple positions that are totally opposite to the positions of many Republicans (pro-choice, gun control, gay rights and government health care).

Romney did go to very good schools (Harvard Grad School) and did very well academically – but that is not really “experience.” Romney inherited a great deal of money – and while he may have some business talent it is not anything like that of Bill Gates or Ross Perot – who really built a business.

What actual foreign policy experience did Nixon in 1952, Agnew or Romney have? 

Palin, just by being governor of Alaska had to deal with all sorts of international affairs issues with both Canada and Russia.

Also, isn’t it obvious that the U.S. has some energy issues now? Doesn’t she have a lot more real world energy experience than almost any national politician?

The attacks on Palin for “family issues” are clearly sexist. Just compare her with two of the most popular Democratic politicians over the past 50 years. Ask about their family situations.

John F. Kennedy ran for President with a pregnant wife and two toddlers. His special needs child died shortly after he was elected. JFK, while he ran, was 43.

Robert Kennedy ran for President with 10 children and 1 child on the way. Four of the children were 5 or under. Robert Kennedy was only 42. Of course, had he lived longer he would have possibly had another two or three young children.