Some said it was only a matter of time...but really it's only a matter of hate

Authorities with the ATF announced today that they foiled the plot of 2 neo-Nazi skinheads to assassinate Obama and 102 other Black people.

There was just a post today on a blog I found (Kat's Litterbox) about how people are silently and not-so-silently wondering when the racism in this country will threaten Obama's life.

I presume that this is probably not the first plan to assassinate Obama, and it won't be the last. Therein lies the tragedy.

So for those of you who say racism is dead and we're in a post-racial world, I hope you've just had a wake up call regarding the state of racial affairs in the U.S. today. The thing is that racism is here and it's often not this blatant. Usually it comes as attacks to affirmative action or insults to "flashy" Black leaders, rarely does it become so brilliantly clear as this.

To say the color of one's skin should not matter is the truth. To deny that it does is a lie.

A White Guy (not Tim Wise) Talks Race...and he's Working Class Folk

This video speaks volumes about the ability of the American people to learn to recognize and overcome racism. It's a counter for those who were unable to stomach the previous two.

No sooner do I say it, the Republicans prove it

Part One







And Part Two





You really know how to make people's blood boil, don't you GOP??!?!?

He Must Be Un-American....He's Black, His Dad Was a Foreigner and His Middle Name's Hussein

For months, Obama we have subtly and not-so-subtly been beaten over the head with the theme that Obama just isn't "American enough" to be President. This tactic reeks of racism from days gone by and inherent fears and hatred of the unknown "other." It's a sad commentary on America that this has worked with some people.

But it's more than just a tactic. It's a Rovian like strategy that plays on the fear of the different. This fear popped up more than ever after 9/11 and although it's died down in a lot of major ways, it's been pervasive in our foreign and domestic policy ever since. For those who say it hasn't, I need only direct you to the detainees at Gitmo to prove my point.

It still amazes me, I guess because I've yet to become totally cynical, that this strategy works. It does work, though, and it works well. Obama has been labeled a Muslim as if that were a bad thing--as if his religion detered him from doing a good job as president. Obama's been labeled an elite--as if knowing the difference between nuclear and nucular is a bad thing. Obama's been labeled too flashy even though he's probably one of the least flashiest people I can recall. Underneath all of these comments, lies a sickening truth...America is racist.

So the news today that McCain is trying harder than ever to link the word "terrorist" to Obama's campaign is not surprising. In fact, it's sadly reassuring that McCain is going this far because it shows he's strugling badly. Nevertheless, the fact is that certain segments of White America falls for these divisive tactics more often than not.

How does this relate to foreign policy? Well, if America is inherently racist, and we elect a president who plays on those ingrained fears, how does it stand a chance of actually discussing the issues with countries like Iran and North Korea? We don't. That's why McCain won't discuss whether he'll talk to Iranian officials--because he won't. Diplomacy is not a characteristic of a McCain Administration. And if we recall, that's how we got into this quagmire of never-ending wars in the first place.

McCain claims to speak softly and carry a big stick, but if the words and tactics you are using speak louder than words, it makes no difference what you say.

And that, my friends, is just another reason not to vote for McCain.

What does this mean exactly?

Fittingly enough, or ironically enough, I'm wearing a good deal of black today. But will it be appropriate for the funeral for the "n-word"? Because today, in Detroit, the NAACP will be holding a funeral for the N-word in conjunction with it's national convention.

I get the symbolism, I do. It's just...well...is it a waste of time? What will this do? Will rappers stop calling women bitches and hoes? Will it make one racist stop and think about their words or actions? Will it do anything at all?

Color me skeptical.

I * heart * Justice Stevens

Justice Stevens, dissenting.

While I join Justice Breyer’s eloquent and unanswerable dissent in its entirety, it is appropriate to add these words.

There is a cruel irony in The Chief Justice’s reliance on our decision in Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U. S. 294 (1955) . The first sentence in the concluding paragraph of his opinion states: “Before Brown, schoolchildren were told where they could and could not go to school based on the color of their skin.” Ante, at 40. This sentence reminds me of Anatole France’s observation: “[T]he majestic equality of the la[w], forbid[s] rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”¹ The Chief Justice fails to note that it was only black schoolchildren who were so ordered; indeed, the history books do not tell stories of white children struggling to attend black schools.² In this and other ways, The Chief Justice rewrites the history of one of this Court’s most important decisions. Compare ante, at 39 (“history will be heard”), with Brewer v. Quarterman, 550 U. S. ___, ___ (2007) (slip op., at 11) (Roberts, C. J., dissenting) (“It is a familiar adage that history is written by the victors”).

The Chief Justice rejects the conclusion that the racial classifications at issue here should be viewed differently than others, because they do not impose burdens on one race alone and do not stigmatize or exclude.³ The only justification for refusing to acknowledge the obvious importance of that difference is the citation of a few recent opinions—none of which even approached unanimity—grandly proclaiming that all racial classifications must be analyzed under “strict scrutiny.” See, e.g., Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. PeÅ„a, 515 U. S. 200, 227 (1995) . Even today, two of our wisest federal judges have rejected such a wooden reading of the Equal Protection Clause in the context of school integration. See 426 F. 3d 1162, 1193–1196 (CA9 2005) (Kozinski, J., concurring); Comfort v. Lynn School Comm., 418 F. 3d 1, 27–29 (CA1 2005) (Boudin, C. J., concurring). The Court’s misuse of the three-tiered approach to Equal Protection analysis merely reconfirms my own view that there is only one such Clause in the Constitution. See Craig v. Boren, 429 U. S. 190, 211 (1976) (concurring opinion).⁴

If we look at cases decided during the interim between Brown and Adarand, we can see how a rigid adherence to tiers of scrutiny obscures Brown’s clear message. Perhaps the best example is provided by our approval of the decision of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in 1967 upholding a state statute mandating racial integration in that State’s school system. See School Comm. of Boston v. Board of Education, 352 Mass. 693,227 N. E. 2d 729.⁵ Rejecting arguments comparable to those that the plurality accepts today,⁶ that court noted: “It would be the height of irony if the racial imbalance act, enacted as it was with the laudable purpose of achieving equal educational opportunities, should, by prescribing school pupil allocations based on race, founder on unsuspected shoals in the Fourteenth Amendment .” Id., at 698, 227 N. E. 2d, at 733 (footnote omitted).

Invoking our mandatory appellate jurisdiction,⁷ the Boston plaintiffs prosecuted an appeal in this Court. Our ruling on the merits simply stated that the appeal was “dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.” School Comm. of Boston v. Board of Education, 389 U. S. 572 (1968) (per curiam). That decision not only expressed our appraisal of the merits of the appeal, but it constitutes a precedent that the Court overrules today. The subsequent statements by the unanimous Court in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Ed., 402 U. S. 1, 16 (1971) , by then-Justice Rehnquist in chambers in Bustop, Inc. v. Los Angeles Bd. of Ed., 439 U. S. 1380, 1383 (1978) , and by the host of state court decisions cited by Justice Breyer, see post, 25–27,⁸ were fully consistent with that disposition. Unlike today’s decision, they were also entirely loyal to Brown.

The Court has changed significantly since it decided School Comm. of Boston in 1968. It was then more faithful to Brown and more respectful of our precedent than it is today. It is my firm conviction that no Member of the Court that I joined in 1975 would have agreed with today’s decision.

I think I just threw up in my mouth a little

In another blatant attempt to disregard the Constitution, precedent and everything holy, the John Roberts-led Supreme Court has set this country back 50 years again today. In a ruling to be released today, the Court found that a district cannot voluntarily engage in a program of desegregation.

I'm not even making this up. I'm not sure I could. I'm not that creative.

I can't WAIT for this opinion to come out.

I feel like I shouldn't be shocked, but I still am. No matter how bad things get, I always want to believe there's more hope than despair. Then something like this comes around.

Why don't we just bring Jim Crow Laws back because we don't want any "special" treatment for people of color? Why don't we just repeal the nineteenth amendment? Better yet, how about going against forty years of precedent to determine that the Voting Rights Act got it wrong?

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here.

If Ruth Bader Ginsburg has to read from the bench anymore she's going to set up a tent over there so she doesn't have to commute back and forth from the office. I mean, why walk back to chambers when you'll just have to read your entire dissent from the bench again.

A whole bag of scissors is necessary to cut the games up in that Court today.