There’s no need to fault the adorable Barack for his confusion. He’s the son of an exceptionally intelligent, conscientious mother (and superbly competent grandmothers, from what I read). Lucky and bright kid though he is, he cannot escape unfortunate rites of passage in finding out exactly what it is to be a racist chauvinist if one aspires to be a national leader par excellent — that is, a most successful Male among most successful Sons of a one and only Almighty God. Not unreasonably, men rely on this exploitable social set up, seeing as how they have unconditional support from hosts of intelligent women who religiously support their, er… religion.

Nature does not produce females and males as equals, physically or in mental capacity. It’s difficult to argue that every person born is human, since it takes a mentally competent human mother to humanize her animal child. Man is woman’s son and it’s up to mothers and wives to keep sons civilized (fathers are woman’s sons, I urge everyone to keep in mind).

Only mothers can and do — fortunately for everyone — make a profound and lasting difference in the human body politic and our human ship of state, religious belief being the essence of both. I admire you all for listening attentively to the notions of leadership of Wright and Obama. This is real human stuff! Sons can’t get any finer than those two.

God is great and god is good. Yet everyone’s godly beliefs cannot exactly conform to my (or your) godly beliefs for the simple reason that we all have different mothers. Sure, mothers are all identical in biological function; it’s the intellectual reasoning of mothers that matters most in our human case.

So long as we mothers do our duty to our species, to wit, civilize our sons, the testosterone-driven passions of competitive males might just possibly be kept appropriately domesticated. The most civilized and hopeful governance of men is never by the most powerful big brothers but by the most competent, conscientious, and hardworking mammas. Vote for Hillary! She understands the nation’s crying need for civilizing, female governance, plus she’s shown the grace to suffer fools charitably if not gladly.
Rebecca Boone (my birth certificate name, born in North Carolina, A. D. 1921)

To me the point goes back to the central issue of ‘change,’ which is fundamental to Obama’s campaign. This had been a problem in the Democratic Party for a long time not spending with minority media. Obama comes along and says he’s offering a new kind of vision and not the ’same old politics.’ To me this comes under that heading.

But you know what? Had he just gone on and spent the chump change with these small black presses, we wouldn’t be having this conversation and most white people wouldn’t have even thought about it one way or the other. It’s not like you all are reading these newspatpers? Or are you?

Obama had nothing to lose, his campaign could well afford it, and everything to gain. It would have flown under the radar. Which is why I’m glad it’s been brought out front and center.

You know, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t malign blacks for not working and looking for hand-outs and at the same time not support the ones who are heavily invested in entrepreneurship. Obama blew a golden opportunity to prove that work pays off. But then again I guess it doesn’t if it means that Obama’s campaign would have been marginalized by placing an ad in these obscure newspapers.

Thanks Blob!

This definitely needs to change. It might be better for the AA community to split up their votes. It might put an end to racial politics and the distrust that a black candidate generates among white voters.

But yes I agree. If you give your vote away, then expect nothing in return. But the only way the AA community will learn that is for Obama to get elected. And I realy don’t want him to be POTUS.

His statement may be available on his website.