Lives in Idaho and writes for Moscow Daily News

This writer lives in Idaho and writes for Moscow Daily News.
I am proud to have correspondence with him and view his articles as a source of enlightenment and clarity. I hope you enjoy it as much as I do. ~~ The Munz


For those of us occasionally puzzled by the tenor of national political discussion these days, worth noting is a recent comment by Eleanor Holmes Norton, the D.C. congressional delegate and an apparent arbiter of racial purity.

    In a sour interview with thehill.com about President Obama being unlikely to choose a black Supreme Court nominee, Norton said of Justice Clarence Thomas: “We’ve (already) got someone who proposes to be black” on the court.

    There probably can be no lower slur against a man’s self, his family, his history. Imagine if Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele, referring to Obama’s mixed parentage, had said the same thing.

    For that matter imagine if Sarah Palin had, as did Nevada Sen. Harry Reid, described the President as “light-skinned with no Negro dialect.”

    Adding to the disappointment is Norton’s ill-education, her inability to distinguish between “propose” and “purport”. 

    What she purports to be is a civil rights advocate; what she proposes is a return to a kind of reverse Jim Crowism, with blacks like Justice Thomas ostracized and horse-whipped, verbally at least, for straying off the p.c. plantation.

    Of course the tone- and trend-setting comes from the top, with the President as lead practitioner of personal and identity politics. From domestic policy to foreign affairs he argues from individual and cultural precepts rather than toward a national interest.

    Why else spurn (Britain, Poland, Czechoslovakia) or actively undermine (Honduras, Israel) our strongest allies, while deep-bowing and kow-towing (China, Iran, Venezuela, Syria) to the worst thugs and autocrats on earth?

    The administration’s absurd groveling to China and Mexico over Arizona’s border security law only continued the farce, with the President again setting the terms: “We can’t start singling out people depending on who they look like or how they talk or...dress.”

    Yet that very week he ran a campaign ad urging “young people, African-Americans, Latinos and women (to) stand together” supporting him.     Really? No love here for fat 40ish white guys?

    The same impulse is seen in Democrats’ response to terror attacks (“man-caused disasters,” in Obama-speak) at home. From the Fort Hood slaughter to the underpants bomber to the Times Square attempt the immediate, overriding concern was to eliminate any consideration of foreign involvement.

    “A lone wolf,” New York Sen. Charles Schumer called the Times Square bomber. “A one-off,” said Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano, illustrating again just how far off she always is.
     New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg imagined the culprit as possibly “homegrown...someone who doesn’t like the healthcare bill,” while the New York Times’ initial description was of-- guess who!--a fattish 40ish white guy.

    Over at MSNBC, which quite literally channels--and texts and twitters--White House agitprop morning till night, reporter Contessa Brewer dizzily spilled the beans, and dropped the dime: “I get frustrated... There was part of me that was hoping this was not going to be anybody with ties to...any Islamic country.

    “There are a lot of people who want to use terrorist intent,” she continued, “to justify writing off people who believe in a certain way or come from certain countries or whose skin color is a certain way. I mean they use it as justification for really outdated bigotry."

    It’s plain here what is the real bigotry, and exercised by whom. At work is a reflexive animosity to all things established and Western, or “European,” as the lefties say, i.e., imperialist, colonialist, oppressive. It’s also silly, smug and self-defeating, but it’s what they’ve got.

    Of course the peril in a leader’s assailing and degrading his tried-and-true for too long, at home and abroad, is that they just might not be there in a time of need. The call to arms goes out, the peasants fail to rally, the emperor--in this case, the President--is left unclothed.  

    At that point, presumably, the vigilant Norton, Reid and Brewer will be first up to inspect for tan lines.