Stop White Genocide–Swing DancingShare on Facebook
First lady Eleanor Roosevelt (1884-1962), wife of Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882-1945), the U.S. president from 1933 to 1945, was a leader in her own right and involved in numerous humanitarian causes throughout her life. The niece of President Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919), Eleanor was born into a wealthy New York family. She married Franklin Roosevelt, her fifth cousin once removed, in 1905. By the 1920s, Roosevelt, who raised five children, was involved in Democratic Party politics and numerous social reform organizations. In the White House, she was one of the most active first ladies in history and worked for political, racial and social justice. After President Roosevelt’s death, Eleanor was a delegate to the United Nations and continued to serve as an advocate for a wide range of human rights issues. She remained active in Democratic causes and was a prolific writer until her death at age 78.Share on Facebook
In the one week since US President Barack Obama won his bid for re-election, representatives from all 50 states have filed petitions with the White House asking to secede from the United States.
Just seven days after a citizen of Louisiana asked for the state’s peaceful secession from the rest of the country, hundreds of thousands of electronic signatures from around the United States have been submitted to WhiteHouse.gov for review as Americans from all corners of the country ask the president to grant them amicable separation from the union.
According to the White House’s own rules on the ‘We the People’ portal of the Executive Branch’s official website, a staffer from within the walls of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue will respond in a timely manner to any petition that can garner more than 25,000 signatures. As of the morning of Nov. 14, pleads out of Louisiana, Texas, Alabama, Florida, North Carolina, Georgia and Tennessee have all crossed that threshold, with petitions from the rest of the country quickly accumulating enough signatures to soon require a reply as well.
In almost every case, signees say that the time has come to do something about the state of the union.
Using bureaucratic means to “bypass the will of the people” is a complaint that 1,758 people as of this writing say is reason enough to separate Virginia from the current rule of the US in one petition; elsewhere on the site, a separate petition also calling for that state’s secession has received more than triple the signatures, with residents agreeing with an interpretation of the Declaration of Independence that decries, “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another.”
Browsing the more than 100 petitions currently open on WhiteHouse.gov, it’s easy to see that those sentiments expressed by the country’s forefathers are evident with many Americans today: almost all of the petitions from each of the 50 states cite the Revolution War-era doctrine to detail the necessary of separation.
In Texas, over 97,000 signees agree that secession is necessary, especially given what’s described as a rampant mismanagement of the country’s operation by means of the “federal government’s neglect to reform domestic and foreign spending.” Elsewhere in the explanation for their request to “withdraw from the United States of America and create its own new government,” citizens of the Lone Star State say, “The citizens of the US suffer from blatant abuses of their rights,” specifically calling into question the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA). Several states have already repealed on local levels the NDAA and its provision that gives the president the authority to indefinitely detain US citizens without charge or trial, and next year lawmakers in Texas are expected to weigh in on a proposal to ban that legislation and another that will outlaw the procedures regularly used by TSA agents. With more and more Texans demanding secession, though — and hundreds of thousands of Americans from across the country demanding separation from the United States in other petitions — locally-binding legislation might not be enough to keep citizens from standing up and voicing their opposition off the Web.
In an editorial published this week in the Daily Caller, author Bob Smiley says that even if the demands of nearly 100,000 rebels from Texas aren’t being taken seriously in Washington, all that could very well change.
“No doubt Texas’s desire to break free is a source of amusement inside a White House that has mastered the art of belittling the opinions of its challengers, but there is one not-so-small problem here: Texas could pull it off,” Smiley writes. “Texas currently sits on one-quarter of the nation’s oil reserves and one-third of the nation’s natural gas reserves. Even more, fully 95 percent of the country receives its oil and gas courtesy of pipelines that originate within Texas. This is what one might call leverage,” he explains.
As if oil wasn’t enough reason for a civil war to start up, Smiley says there is more than just that though. He cites the Texas’ economy as building up faster than any other state’s, and writes that it is also the only one to have its own power grid. Also, of course, is the fact that historically speaking, Texas has followed through with its threats to secede twice before: once while under Mexican rule and again when it joined the Confederacy during the American Civil War.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry has already issued a statement through his press secretary rejecting the petition to separate from the US, but tens of thousands of new signees have added their names to the plea in only the two days since he was prompted to respond. By Tuesday, Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam was driven to issue a response after a petition aimed at “Helping the people of Tennessee” by seceding crossed the 25,000 threshold as well.
“I don’t think that’s a valid option for Tennessee,” Gov. Haslam (R) said on Tuesday, the Tennessean reports. “I don’t think we’ll be seceding.”
A spokesperson for the top official in Alabama issued a similar statement to AL.com on Tuesday, saying that “While there is frustration with the federal government, Governor Bentley believes that states can be great laboratories of change.”
As signatures pile up though, responses from state leaders and eventually the president might be the only answer that’ll address those grievances as they amount exponentially. By noontime on Wednesday,
703,326 Americans have signed their names to the petitions — a substantial figure but still less than one percent of the country’s populationShare on Facebook
Flyers claiming to be from a non-existent Tea Party in Medina, Ohio were placed in mailboxes on Monday urging Ohio voters to defeat “the n***er” in the White House to “help keep our country strong and white.”
The flyers, obtained by Breitbart News, were found in mailboxes along Rt. 252 in Medina County, Ohio. It is against federal law to place such flyers into mailboxes.
Amy Brighton, Co-founder and Co-coordinator of Medina Tea Party Patriots, told Breitbart News that these “disgusting” flyers were a “desperate attempt to smear the millions of Americans involved in and supportive of the tea party movement on the eve of the election.”
“A person or people claiming to be from a non-existent tea party group targeted voters in Ohio with a vile, racially charged flyer,” Brighton said.
Share on Facebook
When African-Americans go to the polls next week, they are likely to support Barack Obama at a level approaching the 95 percent share of the black vote he received in 2008. As well they should, given the symbolic exceptionalism of his presidency and the modern Republican Party’s utter disregard for economic justice, civil rights and the social safety net.
But for those who had seen in President Obama’s election the culmination of four centuries of black hopes and aspirations and the realization of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s vision of a “beloved community,” the last four years must be reckoned a disappointment. Whether it ends in 2013 or 2017, the Obama presidency has already marked the decline, rather than the pinnacle, of a political vision centered on challenging racial inequality. The tragedy is that black elites—from intellectuals and civil rights leaders to politicians and clergy members—have acquiesced to this decline, seeing it as the necessary price for the pride and satisfaction of having a black family in the White House.
But the triumph of “post-racial” Democratic politics has not been a triumph for African-Americans in the aggregate. It has failed to arrest the growing chasm of income and wealth inequality; to improve prospects for social and economic mobility; to halt the re-segregation of public schools and narrow the black-white achievement gap; and to prevent the Supreme Court from eroding the last vestiges of affirmative action. The once unimaginable successes of black diplomats like Colin L. Powell, Condoleezza Rice and Susan E. Rice and of black chief executives like Ursula M. Burns, Kenneth I. Chenault and Roger W. Ferguson Jr. cannot distract us from facts like these: 28 percent of African-Americans, and 37 percent of black children, are poor (compared with 10 percent of whites and 13 percent of white children); 13 percent of blacks are unemployed (compared with 7 percent of whites); more than 900,000 black men are in prison; blacks experienced a sharper drop in income since 2007 than any other racial group; black household wealth, which had been disproportionately concentrated in housing, has hit its lowest level in decades; blacks accounted, in 2009, for 44 percent of new H.I.V. infections.
Mr. Obama cannot, of course, be blamed for any of these facts. It’s no secret that Republican obstruction has limited his options at every turn. But it’s disturbing that so few black elites have aggressively advocated for those whom the legal scholar Derrick A. Bell called the “faces at the bottom of the well.”
But as president, Mr. Obama has had little to say on concerns specific to blacks.
Early in his presidency, Mr. Obama weighed in after the prominent black Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. was arrested at his home in Cambridge, Mass. The president said the police had “acted stupidly,” was criticized for rushing to judgment, and was mocked when he invited Dr. Gates and the arresting officer to chat over beers at the White House. It wasn’t until earlier this year that Mr. Obama spoke as forcefully on a civil rights matter—the fatal shooting of an unarmed black teenager, Trayvon Martin, in Florida—saying, “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.”
Instead of urging Mr. Obama to be more outspoken on black issues, black elites parrot campaign talking points. They dutifully praise important but minor accomplishments—the settlement of a longstanding class-action lawsuit by black farmers; increased funds for black colleges; the reduction (but not elimination) of the disparities in sentences for possession of crack and powder cocaine—while setting aside their critical acumen.
It wasn’t always so. Though Bill Clinton was wildly popular among blacks, black intellectuals fiercely debated affirmative action, mass incarceration, welfare reform and racial reconciliation during his presidency. In 2001, the Harvard law professor Charles J. Ogletree called the surge in the inmate population “shocking and regrettable” and found it “shameful” that Mr. Clinton “didn’t come out and take a more positive and symbolic approach to the issue of reparations for slavery.” But Mr. Ogletree, a mentor of Mr. Obama’s, now finds “puzzling the idea that a president who happens to be black has to focus on black issues.”
Black politicians, too, have held their fire. “With 14 percent unemployment if we had a white president we’d be marching around the White House,” Representative Emanuel Cleaver II of Missouri, the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, told The Root last month. “The president knows we are going to act in deference to him in a way we wouldn’t to someone white.”
Some argue that de-emphasizing race—and moving to a “colorblind” politics—is an inevitable and beneficial byproduct of societal change. But this ideal is a myth, even if it’s nice to hear. As Frederick Douglass observed, “Power concedes nothing without a demand.”
Mr. Obama deserves the electoral support—but not the uncritical adulation—of African-Americans. If re-elected he might surprise us by explicitly emphasizing economic and racial justice and advocating “targeted universalism”—job-training and housing programs that are open to all, but are concentrated in low-income, minority communities. He would have to do this in the face of fiscal crisis and poisonous partisanship.
To place policy above rhetoric is not to ask what the first black president is doing for blacks; rather, it is to ask what a Democratic president is doing for the most loyal Democratic constituency—who happen to be African-Americans, and who happen to be in dire need of help. Sadly, when it comes to the Obama presidency and black America, symbols and substance have too often been assumed to be one and the same.Share on Facebook
Obama’s schedule shows the president was inside the White House at least during Bell’s visit to the White House residence on Jan. 29 beginning at 9 a.m.
Bell scheduled his Jan. 31 White House appointment on Jan. 27 – the day of Obama’s 2010 State of the Union address.
The White House did not immediately return a request seeking comment.
BuzzFeed.com released a short clip from 1991 of Obama, then a Harvard law student, praising the professor at a protest and asking students to “open your hearts and open your minds to the words of Professor Derrick Bell.”
The event was Bell’s protest demanding Harvard hire a black woman – specifically the visiting professor Regina Austin, who, like Bell, was an adherent of Critical Race Theory.
Bell is largely credited as the originator of the theory, which analyzes the way “white supremacy” and “racial power” are reproduced over time and seeks “racial emancipation” and “anti-subordination” from whites.
WND reported earlier today that Bell endorsed a controversial magazine whose official motto is “treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity.”
Bell signed a credo calling for the abolishment of “the white race as a social category – in other words, eradicate white supremacy entirely.”
He has a long history of racially divisive remarks. He was among the early critics of the June 1991 nomination of Thomas to the Supreme Court, stating, “To place a person who looks black and who, in conservative terms, thinks white, is an insult.”
Bell endorsed a journal called Race Traitor, whose official motto is “Treason to the white race is loyalty to humanity.”
He signed on to a Race Traitor article titled “Renew the legacy of John Brown,” calling for John Brown Day to be declared in the U.S. in 1999.
Brown was an American revolutionary abolitionist who in the 1850s advocated and practiced armed insurrection as a means to abolish slavery.
The article signed by Bell began: “If the task of the nineteenth century was to overthrow slavery, and the task of the twentieth century was to end legal segregation, the key to solving this country’s problems in the twenty-first century is to abolish the white race as a social category – in other words, eradicate white supremacy entirely.”
Discover the Networks presented a list of some of Bell’s notable quotes on race, all from his 1992 book “Faces at the Bottom of the Well”: