When I was growing up, I remember my Mom working for the now defunct Piedmont Airlines, which was eventually acquired by USAir.   I’ve always had an affinity for aviation and even today I’m still in awe when I feel the rush of takeoff on my flight.   

I was never really enthralled with the idea of being a pilot but my goal as a young college student and part time Airline worker was to eventually matriculate into sales and/or marketing within the airline industry.    Although I had spent a lot of time around planes and working within the airline industry, I never saw any black executives or marketing professionals who could potentially serve as role models for my career aspirations.   

Racism within the airline industry was not uncommon in the late 80’s and early 90’s; I was the only black Agent and probably the first that the airline had ever hired for my airport.     I can recall the first African-American Mayor of Greenville, NC seeing my face at the ticket counter, he seemed surprised and bewildered at my presence, stating “Oh they let you work at the counter too?”    

When I left college I took a job as a Ramp Agent at the Greensboro, NC airport in an effort to work my way up to achieve my goal of becoming an airline executive.   When I arrived for the interview I could see that the receptionist was amazed and flabbergasted that I was black, I guess I sounded professional and “white” enough on the phone to elude her defenses.     I eventually met with the Manager who liked my experience and my ambition and offered me the job a short time later, where I was the only black Ramp Agent.

I was excited to work around the big 757’s and other jumbo passenger jets and was always intrigued and proud to see an occasional black pilot in the cockpit.    While I was watching the movie Red Tails, I felt that same since of pride, seeing capable black men given an opportunity to fly and to fight.   The most compelling scenes in my opinion were the well orchestrated aerial fight scenes.   I thought the Director Anthony Hemingway did an excellent job of blending the CGI fighting scenes and making the movie- goers feel as if they were in the cockpit, without any cheesy special effects. 

Many of the negative comments that I’ve seen on Facebook about the movie involve the interracial relationship that ‘Lightning’ had with an Italian woman and also the sometimes ‘corny’ dialogue.     While I was surprised to see an interracial relationship develop in this movie, I eventually accepted the premise that they simply loved each other and that the storyline was an homage to how differently black men were treated abroad compared to the discrimination they faced at home. 

I also thought that Terrance Howard and Cuba Gooding did a great job portraying the strong black role models that the fighters needed to maintain their sense of duty and their willingness to fight despite the racism they were subject to.     Terrance Howard did an excellent job of bridging the primary themes of the movie, which were racism, politics and war.   His character represented respect and authority for the black fighters and challenged the idea that black fighters were inept and cowardly.  

The most inspiring aspect of the movie was their patriotism and their ability to compartmentalize the racism and stay focused on completing their mission.   Overall, I thought it was entertaining and occasionally informative, I would definitely pay to see it again.

 Barrington Ross

To most people this would have gone unnoticed, but in retrospect, this premature reporting seems consistent with Fox’s attempt to influence our elections and further control the minds of their minions. Prior to Fox’s emergence as a conservative news network, most people relied upon CNN as their primary source of political news coverage. But over the past 10 years, Fox became a powerhouse by capitalizing on the conservative movement and shrewdly differentiating themselves from CNN and MSNBC and in the process developed a cult like following.

One of the attributes of a cult involves subtle brainwashing and propaganda, which is something that Fox has perfected. I was watching Bill O’Reilly’s show recently and he was delivering his usual dismissive and caustic commentary about the “Liberals, Bill Maher, Obama, etc.”, but I noticed that as he spoke, the background graphics changed like flash cards with every buzzword he delivered. With each point, he would look in the camera and say things like “Socialist Plot” and a picture of Bill Maher would appear. As he continued his buzzword laden rant, whenever he mentioned “Government Takeover” a picture of President Obama would appear.

To the avid Fox News fan, this would have been totally normal, but to a casual observer it was extremely odd to see this kind of blatant brainwashing taking place. I immediately thought of those strange 1960’s Sci-Fi movies where people were kidnapped and brainwashed by constantly bombarding them with mind control videos. Clearly, Fox is employing these types of psychological techniques to further invade the psyche of their already devout viewers. The objective of this type of programming is to create a chasm of ideology between conservatives and “others”.

By creating a cult of ideology, Fox is able to espouse their views and provide a forum for the GOP, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and their constituents to subvert the current President and provide legitimacy to asinine issues such as President Obama’s birth certificate and his faith. Fox News knows that it’s easy to convince believers who are ready to believe, but now their network is facing a backlash.

Fox’s ratings have declined over the past two years and they’ve seen the departure of their premier Right Wing Nut, Glenn Beck. Beck was forced out of his position due to declining ratings and outside pressure from activists on their advertisers to get rid of Beck and his polarizing show. Jon Stewart a frequent critic of Fox News, has surpassed Fox News in his ratings because he appeals to a more centric audience.

At the height of the 2008 Presidential election, Fox enjoyed phenomenal ratings by capitalizing on the anger of the Tea Party and the overall opposition to President Obama’s election. However, they have lost viewership because of their wholesale support of the Tea Party, including organizing events for the nascent party. As support for Sarah Palin and the Tea Party has quelled, Fox’s ratings have also fallen.

Young viewers are more likely to watch Jon Stewart’s tongue-in-cheek political commentary and lampooning of both parties as opposed to Fox’s rabid pontification of GOP ideology. Fox in their attempt to align themselves with the GOP has sealed their fate with the rise and fall of this party and has seriously damaged their credibility as an objective news organization that claims to be “Fair and Balanced”.

Barrington D. Ross

www.yankeepie.wordpress.com

I can remember vividly attending my first hip hop concert when I was in high school, starring Run DMC, Whodini, LL Cool J and an unknown click at the time, called the Beastie Boys.   I recall the pitch black coliseum, buzzing with anticipation for the first act to hit the stage and then all of a sudden, a pulsating bassline began to thump and the crowd went crazy!  

The entire stadium was still completely dark and all you could see were three colorful spotlights rhythmically following three white kids on stage as they surfed around on their skateboards.   At that moment, I realized that hip hop had transcended race and that a new tipping point in race relations had begun.     

The evolution of hip hop from simply being a musical form to a cultural lifestyle is the most compelling aspect of its transformation.   Hip hop, before it was commercialized was defined as the style, the clothing, the dancing, the graffiti and the attitude, which we now refer to as swagger.   Rap was the art form by which hip-hop enthusiasts and musical artists expressed themselves.  The burgeoning popularity of Rap music, catapulted local New York “ghetto superstars” such as Doug E. Fresh, Grandmaster Flash, MC Lyte, Salt and Pepa, and Kid and Play into household names within the African-American community, thanks to urban radio stations and local record stores.   

Many critics in the mainstream media dismissed hip hop and rap music as an urban fad that lacked originality and sustainability.   MTV in its earlier days of broadcast refused to play hip hop artist’s videos, but eventually relented, recognizing the growing presence of the genre and in 1988, created Yo! MTV Raps, hosted by the colorful Ed Lover and Dr. Dre. 

Prior to all of this, Rap music remained a secular music, wildly popular among young African-Americans and had very little crossover into mainstream America.   Many of my white friends from high school rarely listened to hip hop and many of my black friends rarely ever listened to rock and roll or punk rock.   Which meant that the one thing that was supposed to unite us, was actually dividing us.   

Like most high schools, students gravitated towards other people who had similar interest in music.  Which meant that if you were a hard core Rock & Roll dude, you weren’t interested in hearing the new LL Cool J cut and were less likely to befriend someone who didn’t share your taste in music.

But now 25 years later, as a result of the evolution of hip hop, kids no longer separate themselves based upon the type of music they listen to.   The norm in most schools is to have a diverse group of friends from different races and backgrounds who ALL listen to hip-hop, as well as rock and pop.  

 Hip-hop has supplanted Rock and Roll as the biggest selling music genre, with mega-artists like Jay-Z and Lil Wayne easily outselling their musical rivals.   But hip-hop music itself has changed and bears very little resemblance to the classic, heavy bass laden tracks with witty rhymes and clean lyrics that I grew up listening to. However, that’s the beauty of the genre, is that each generation places their own stamp on hip-hop culture and ultimately determines its direction.     

One of the reasons that hip-hop has continued to evolve is the introduction of successful rap artists such as Eminem, the Beastie Boys and the much ridiculed Vanilla Ice.  Each of these artists helped to push hip-hop into the mainstream and demonstrated to suburban white youth with lots of expendable cash, that hip-hop had no boundaries; and it would be this group of eager, hip-hop wannabes that would turn rap music into a multi-billion dollar business. 

No longer were rap concerts a predominately black event, young white hip- hoppers who had spent their allowances on the new Ice Cube tape, were anxious to see him perform on stage as well.  Today, rap music and hip-hop culture have invaded every corner of the world.  It’s not unusual to hear rap music in French or Spanish, or see a Japanese breakdancer.   All of this, makes me wonder if the early New York Rap promoters that staged impromptu concerts in the park—had any idea that they were giving birth to a musical revolution that would help elect our first black President and break down racial barriers around the world.

Barrington Ross

In light of the on-going Egyptian protests against President Mubarak and his administration, it’s clear that social media is playing a key role in the protesters ability to effectively organize; which is why the government terminated internet access for a period of 24 hours, sending ripple effects throughout the world and affecting global financial markets.   In just 18 days, young protesters who are rebelling against a false democracy, high unemployment and a President who has reigned for 30 years, were able to force Mubarak and his cabinet out of power. 

The power of Facebook, YouTube and Twitter was also behind the recent social upheavals in Iran.    The Iranian government was strongly criticized for attacking the young protesters and attempted to block all internet access and text messaging.   However, the anti-government protesters were able to circumvent the blockade by using mobile phones to post videos of the violence on Youtube.  Tehran largely banned international and Iranian media from freely covering the massive wave of protests over alleged fraud in the re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad.

Social media has become the primary outlet for young protesters around the world, which is a stark contrast from the West, where we typically utilize Facebook and Youtube as a convenient means of keeping in touch with friends and posting silly messages or videos online.

Sites like Facebook and Twitter offer many tactical advantages to protesters, including the ability to quickly mobilize without government interference.    They also provide them with a means of stealth communication without fear of reprisal in most cases and the ability to reach a mass audience within seconds of posting.     These are critical advantages because they force the targeted governments into the precarious position of attempting to control free media.  

China recognized the gravity of attempting to control free media many years ago, when they discovered that many young students were visiting Internet cafes and posting messages online that were critical of the Chinese government.     Although China has taken a more proactive stance against free media and routinely snoops on unsuspecting users as a means of attempting to control free speech.  

However, it’s inevitable that in a Communist country the size of China, young clandestine protesters will find a way to make their voices heard, despite the governments staunch efforts to restrain and filter their message.   Just imagine how much more volatile the Tiananmen Square revolt would have been if they had access to social media sites such as Facebook, FourSquare or Twitter.

One of the driving forces behind the Egyptian protesters outrage is the extremely high unemployment rate among people under 30, which is currently 25%.    In Iran the unemployment rate for people under 30 is a staggering 50%, which makes for a volatile atmosphere whereby young people are frustrated and feel compelled to rebel and take to the streets.  

Social media will continue to play a pivotal role in social revolutions around the world.   In many developing countries, youth are harnessing the power of social media and using it in a collective manner to topple oppressive regimes and demand that their grievances be addressed.     I’m sure the founders of Facebook, never imagined that their college social network start up, would one day be a catalyst for change in countries such as Egypt, Iran, Columbia and China.

Power of the People!

Barrington D. Ross

The enormity of the decision was so profound that the Court agreed to televise the debate, the first time it had done so in its’ history.   Each of the well tenured Justices, seated in their elevated perch, took turns weighing in on the salient aspects of the case and occasionally engaging in verbal tennis matches with opposing counsel.  All, except for Justice Thomas, who seemed to be incapable of mustering up an intelligent comment and simply resigned himself to spectator status, while his colleagues meted out the future of our country. 

Thomas, the only African-American Supreme Court Justice, failed to raise one single issue during the entire debate, leaving many to wonder about his capacity to serve as a Justice in the highest court of the land.   By refusing to engage in the proceedings, Thomas cast a curious cloud of doubt over himself, that has followed him throughout his tenure.    Perhaps, he was overwhelmed by the enormity of the decision?  Or maybe he had a major case of stage fright?  Whatever the truth may be, we expect our most exalted arbiters of justice to be capable stewards in the interpretation of the law, regardless of how daunting the task may be.  

Thomas unsurprisingly sided with the conservatives on the court, 5-4 and essentially handed George Bush the Presidency despite Al Gore having over 500,000 more popular votes and ignoring calls for a complete recount.   The political division within the court was also quite noteworthy; conservatives out numbering liberals in a decision that ostensibly favored a Republican candidate.   Thomas was nominated by George H. W. Bush in 1991, amidst a contentious and scandalous debate, involving characters like Anita Hill and unforgettable testimony like, “Who has put pubic hair on my Coke?”, which sounds more like a cheesy line from a cheap porno, than a comment allegedly made by a Judge being considered for a lifetime role on the Supreme Court.

Despite Thomas’s conservative demeanor and questionable ethics, many African-Americans who were initially opposed to his nomination, began to have empathy for him as the public circus surrounding him, revealed an all too familiar theme among African-Americans with regard to constantly proving their credentials and defending their character.    The most confounding aspect of Thomas’s nomination was that he was clearly unprepared to be a Supreme Court Justice and was obviously being used as a token candidate by H.W. Bush in attempt to maintain diversity on the court, in the absence of the great Thurgood Marshall.

Clearly, H.W. Bush was motivated to replace Marshall’s minority presence on the court, but failed miserably in his offering of Thomas as a capable justice.   Replacing an icon like Thurgood Marshall would not be an easy task for any sitting President, considering Marshall’s iconic status as a civil rights pioneer.  However, the proposition of Thomas as a replacement for the first African-American justice is an affront to the legacy of Marshall and a sham that was perpetrated on all citizens.     

 Since assuming his role on the Supreme Court, Thomas has consistently voted in lock step with the conservative justices, gaining him a reputation as Antonin Scalia’s faithful lackey.   Thomas benefited from well established affirmative action initiatives in the 1970′s, allowing him to become head of the EEOC in 1982, and later an Associate Federal Judge, however, Thomas has consistently voted against measures that would reinforce civil rights and protect affirmative action initiatives.    He has cast the deciding vote to make it harder for blacks to prove they were victims of job discrimination and also voted against expanding voting rights for blacks and, in one case, disputed the history of using the 1964 Voting Rights Act to help elect more blacks in the South.   

Thurgood Marshall was a resounding force in the creation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and fought diligently for its passage and on occasion risked his life by traveling alone through parts of the South, to raise awareness of civil rights issues.  Thomas on the other hand, would seem to be content to overturn every piece of civil rights legislation that Marshall fought to implement.     

When Justice Thomas appeared at the University of North Carolina School of Law in 2002, the Black Law Students Association there staged a teach-in protest, and the five African-American law faculty members boycotted his appearances and issued a joint letter which stated in part: “We will not participate in any institutional gesture that honors and endorses what Justice Thomas does.”         

Clearly, Justice Thomas will not be remembered kindly in the annals of African-American history, his tenure on the Supreme Court will be regarded as a farce and an enduring insult to the legacy of Thurgood Marshall.     Furthermore, if the appointment of minorities such as Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor are an attempt to recognize diversity within our country and within our justice system, then African-Americans greatly deserve a much more suitable representative.

 Barrington D. Ross

Despite frustrated attempts by President J.F. Kennedy and the CIA to assassinate him, he has survived 9 U.S. Presidents and continues to rule, albeit in a much less vociferous manner.    In 2006, following an intestinal surgery, Fidel seceded his powers as commander to his brother, Raul Castro, who was officially appointed President of Cuba in 2008.  However, even in poor health, Castro is still involved in the daily operations, and remains the internationally recognized voice of Cuba.

In an effort to neutralize Castro and his growing allegiance with the now defunct Soviet Union, the United States, implemented a strict embargo against the country in 1960, urging foreign countries to immediately cease shipping and trading with the communist country and forbidding Americans to travel to the country.   The impact of the embargo has severely impacted the people of Cuba, but  has greatly enriched it’s enigmatic leader.    In 2006, Forbes magazine estimated Castro’s net worth at $900 million, ranking him as one of the richest men in the world.  Castro is actually rumored to have 1.4 billion dollars securely tucked away in foreign banks, while his people struggle daily to meet their basic needs.

Dealing with the half century old Cuban embargo, seems to be a perpetual albatross that every President has inherited since JFK’s untimely demise.  Many have tried to bolster diplomatic relations with Cuba, only to find themselves being used by Castro as fodder for his once fiery communist rhetoric.    In 2003, the U.S. Senate drafted a bill that would reopen diplomatic relations with Cuba, and lift the travel restrictions, however, Bush threatened a veto of the bill, claiming that reopening relations with Cuba would only further enrich Castro.  

In 2001, the island of Cuba was hit by Hurricane Michelle, devastating their already fragile infrastructure.  The U.S. and many other countries responded with offers of aid, but Castro seizing an opportunity to further needle his longtime nemesis, insisted that he would not accept aid from America.   But apparently, after some back channel negotiations, he relented and placed restrictions on the type of aid that would be accepted, limiting American donations to medical supplies and medical services.  

This catastrophic event would actually be the unlikely catalyst that would quietly jumpstart trading between the two countries in almost 50 years.   Shortly after the Hurricane, Cuba, a country that typically imports 80% of their food supply, was in desperate need of food and supplies.  The U.S. realizing an opportunity to increase exports to Cuba, began to relax restrictions on American companies doing business there, although, with one very important caveat;  that Cuba must pay cash for all American goods sold there.   

Cuba is required to pay cash, because of their history of stiffing countries such as France, Chile, South Africa, Spain and Thailand on payments.  Requiring Cuba to pay with cash, is obviously a boon to U.S. companies that supply goods and services there, because there’s no need to worry about credit or payment.  

U.S. exports and commerce in Cuba have ballooned from just 6 million dollars a year in 2001, to almost 2 billion dollars a year in 2007, making the U.S. ; the largest food supplier of Cuba  and its fifth largest trading partner.   Seeking to protect their resurrected cash cow, the United States in 2006, announced the creation of a task force made up of officials from several US agencies that aggressively pursue violators of the US trade embargo against Cuba, with severe penalties.   The regulations are still in force and are administered by the U.S. Treasury Department, Office of Foreign Assets Control.    Criminal penalties for violating the embargo range up to ten years in prison, $1 million in corporate fines, and $250,000 in individual fines; civil penalties up to $55,000 per violation, according to Wikipedia.

As part of the increased effort to prevent foreign companies from trading with Cuba, the U.S. prevents foreign cargo ships from docking on U.S. territory for a period of 6 months if they’ve recently visited Cuba.   The U.S. also levies stiff penalties on airlines that ship products to Cuba via U.S. airports, further strangling off foreign competition and allowing the U.S. to monopolize trading with the still communist country.  

So why continue to enforce a superficial embargo on a country that currently generates about 2 billion dollars a year in cash payments for U.S. goods and services?   Part of the reason may have to do with ego, no President wants to see a victorious Fidel Castro, parading around on Cuban television, and mocking the U.S., while maintaining strong trade agreements.    Another factor is the influential Cuban ex-patriot community in South Florida, which continuously lobbies against lifting the embargo, despite the continued economic burden that it places on their relatives who still live on the island.   The U.S. also realizes that it can easily continue to monopolize trading with Cuba if it maintains the current embargo, by limiting the number of foreign companies that trade with Cuba.  

In April 2009, President Obama lifted travel restrictions for Cuban-Americans, allowing them to travel freely to the island to visit their relatives.   Lifting the travel restrictions for all Americans may be the next step in dismantling an embargo that’s ironically served to enrich the surly and oppressive dictator, while impoverishing an entire nation of people, who continue to struggle with inadequate sanitation, poor diets and a lack of reliable public transportation.    But the easing of the ban, would put the U.S. in the precarious position of attempting to justify allowing Americans to travel to Cuba, but preventing foreign companies from trading there.

With the lifting of the ban, Cubans could expect Americans to once again flock to their country, bringing much need tourism revenue and expanded job creation to handle the influx of visitors.  Americans have always been intrigued and enchanted by Cuba, even more so because of its proximity and the aura surrounding restrictions on traveling there.   

No country’s future has ever been so closely associated with one man’s impending death than Cuba.  Many see Fidel’s eventual passing as a gateway to new beginnings in Cuba and an opportunity to shape their own destiny, free from his egotistical and oppressive regime.   

Barrington D.  Ross

 It’s been 23 months since President Barack Obama was sworn in as the 44th President of the United States, marking a seminal threshold in most Presidents’ tenure.    With an approval rating south of 50%, which is a precipitous fall from his extraordinary approval rating of 70% in 2008, Obama and his administration are struggling to define their agenda amidst a rising tide of anger and voter apathy.    And with the recent tidal wave of Republican victories, Obama faces a defining moment in his tenure as POTUS. 

Despite Obama’s precarious poll numbers, he’s actually accomplished quite a bit since he took office.    From cash for clunkers, saving the auto industry, healthcare reform, credit card regulation, saving millions of jobs via the stimulus bill and also bringing an end to the Iraq war.    The problem with Obama’s administration is that they miscalculated the amount of vitriol and propaganda that the GOP would deploy in an effort to castigate and defame him as a credible President.

In the early stages of Obama’s administration, he was able to placate the Republicans and win political points by publicly challenging the GOP on issues such as healthcare reform on national television.   Prior to the passage of the healthcare bill, Obama held court with his nemesis, giving them a public opportunity to interject their ideas into the healthcare reform debate.    Most of the Republicans who attended the public forum, simply espoused a well rehearsed party line of, “Stop and start over”, in attempt to portray the President and his advisors as bullies who were unconcerned about non-partisanship.   

 Most Americans had a chance to see their newly elected Commander in action and demonstrate that he was willing to stand up for reform and confront recalcitrant Republicans, who stood steadfast in their opposition to any Obama sponsored bill, and as a result were coined the “Party of NO.”

Most Presidents stumble in the first two years of their administration, Clinton and Reagan both had anemic approval ratings at the same point in their tenure.   Both Clinton and Reagan obviously went on to have remarkable careers, primarily due to economic recoveries during their administrations.    In Clinton’s first year in office, the unemployment rate was 7.5 %, but thanks to an improving economy, he was reelected and left the country with a substantial surplus at the end of his career.   In Reagan’s second year in office, the unemployment rate was 9.5 %, but by the time he was preparing for his reelection, the economy was recovering and the unemployment rate dropped to 7.5 %.

The good news for Obama is that all the economic indicators demonstrate an improving economy since he’s taken office.    The recent jobs report indicates that the American economy added over 150,000 jobs in October, continuing a 10 month trend of job creation.  And according to the OMB, the Great Recession officially ended in June 2009, although most currently unemployed Americans would disagree with that finding.    

 Economic recovery is obviously a vital part of any Presidents approval rating; when Americans are gainfully employed they are less likely to blame the President for their struggles.   However, in Obama’s case, the GOP has consistently used the lagging economy, the anger of the Tea Party and the calculated questioning of his citizenship and his faith as an effective propaganda tool to discredit him as a viable leader.    

 The problem with Obama’s administration has not been a lack of accomplishments on several fronts, but a failure to counterattack the vicious subterfuge being perpetuated by the GOP.     During the early days of his administration when he successfully held serve against the GOP in televised debates about healthcare reform, it was clear that he was in his comfort zone.   Obama was able to articulate every facet of the new reform bill and challenge GOP dissenters on substantive issues related to the bill.  

 However, since the passage of the healthcare reform bill, Republicans have used the new healthcare reform law as a lightning rod to stir up their base and further buttress their claims that Obama and the Democrats were leading our country into unbridled Socialism and also adding to the federal deficit.  

 In recent polls, approximately 48% of Americans support a repeal of the healthcare law, which probably could have been abated if Obama and his administration had aggressively “sold” and informed the American public about the long term benefits of the nascent law.   Obama probably assumed that the immediate benefits of the new law, such as extended coverage for dependents under their parent’s plan until the age of 26 and a reversal in denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions would be enough to quell the outrage against the reforms.  

 Obama’s underestimation of the GOP’s attack and the health insurance lobbyists was a primary reason that the Democrats lost so many seats.    The passage of healthcare reform was one of the most historic landmark events in our country and Obama’s failure to “educate” and defend this new law was a major misstep. 

 In 1935, President Theodore Roosevelt signed into law, the Social Security act, which required mandatory taxes to be withheld from all employees’ wages.   There was considerable opposition and cries of Socialism to the proposed Social Security Act from his opponents.  Sound familiar?   However, Roosevelt was steadfast in his support of the Act and rebuffed any attempts by employers and states to repeal the law.  

 Perhaps Obama could learn from Roosevelt’s unflinching stance and his persistence in the face of detractors.  It’s clear that the right wing forces are unconcerned with bi-partisanship, they simply want to defeat him at all cost.   In order for Obama to restore his poll numbers, he must begin to win the War of Perception.   He must essentially beat the Republicans at their own game, by using the media to challenge the numerous misconceptions about his policies that proliferate the conservative media.  

In a country where more people are concerned about voting on American Idol than they are about voting for our leaders, winning the War of Perception is more vital than ever.

 Barrington Ross

Every since Barack Obama received the Democratic nomination as a candidate for the POTUS, Fox News has dedicated an inordinate amount of attention to racially biased news stories.  It’s obvious that part of Fox’s strategy with regard to the denigration of Obama, involves questioning his birthplace, portraying him as a Socialist, and insinuating that he’s a racist, by constantly broadcasting stories about black racism in America.     This has been their tactic for quite a while; find or create stories about black racism, and then provide ample implications through their broadcasts to white viewers who didn’t vote for Obama, to insinuate that Obama must be a racist as well.

This is further evidenced by Fox News’ continued coverage of the so called New Black Panthers, an organization that most African-Americans had probably never heard of.  Fox, the only news channel to cover this upstart organization, has constantly reported on their activities as if they were a national threat to all white Americans.  This type of race reporting is consistent with their attempt to portray Obama as a racist by proxy.  

It’s highly unlikely that Fox News would be covering the NBP if our current president was white and Republican.  But because our President is African-American and a Democrat, Fox News feels obligated to report on black racism as a means of undermining Obama’s credibility as an objective, non-racist leader of our country.  Essentially, they’re imploring their viewers to “connect the dots”, which is a dangerous situation because it reinforces racist attitudes and further divides our country.     

Last year while discussing the Gates controversy which led to the much lampooned “Beer Summit”, Glenn Beck exclaimed that Obama has “over and over again” exposed himself as “a guy who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture. I don’t know what it is…”

When Fox’s Brian Kilmeadeon pointed out that many people in Obama’s administration are white, so “you can’t say he doesn’t like white people,” Beck pressed on. “I’m not saying he doesn’t like white people, I’m saying he has a problem,” Beck said. “This guy is, I believe, a racist.” (Source: Huffington Post)

The most disturbing aspect of Beck’s vitriolic and racist rant against Obama, is that Fox News fully supported his statement and refused to discipline him or force him to apologize.   Beck’s statement along with Fox’s implied support, created the environment for the Shirley Sherrod situation to happen. 

Well informed people don’t believe that Glenn Beck’s original storyline about Shirley Sherrod was to lambast Obama for “jumping the gun”, and failing to give her due process.  It’s obvious that Obama fired her because of Glenn Beck, everyone knew that Beck was about to excoriate Sherrod and malign her as a racist and impute any modicum of racism onto Obama.    

Once Beck discovered that the tape was edited, he and Fox News quickly changed their cover story from repudiating Sherrod and Obama for being racist; to delivering a nausea inducing, self aggrandizing monologue about her not receiving due process before being fired.   Let’s be honest here, the real racist and number one race baiter in this country is Glenn Beck.

If you believe for one second that Glenn Beck’s original intention was to praise Shirley Sherrod for her honesty and defend her as a victim of the Obama administration’s hasty decision making, I have some beautiful beach front property in Oklahoma that I’d like to sell you.   Beck most likely discovered the truth prior to his intended broadcast, however, Bill O’Reilly was not so lucky and will hopefully be a defendant in her defamation suit against Fox News.  

President Obama has not been shy about voicing his disapproval of Fox’s biased coverage, and with good reason, I’m sure it would be very difficult to gather more than two minutes of “positive” coverage from Fox anchors about Obama in the past three years.   But each time Obama mentions Fox News, he’s maligned by the conservative press for having “rabbit ears”, but in his defense, Obama is no ordinary rabbit and Fox News, whose moniker is “Fair and Balanced” is now the official media sponsor of the Tea Party and the GOP.  Apparently, “Fair and Balanced” only applies to their conservative guests.

Many detractors may say that CNN and MSNBC are just as culpable in this heated and contemptible discussion about race and politics, but it’s Fox News that creates this atmosphere of racist politics.  I’ve watched CNN and MSNBC for many years and I appreciate their willingness to hold both parties, including the President accountable, without becoming a wholly biased news organization dedicated to perpetuating the platform of one political party.   Yes, Olbermann and Maddow are left leaning journalists, but they don’t represent the entirety of MSNBC’s coverage, compared to Fox News which provides round-the-clock negative coverage about our current President.

And this is why Obama was so quick to fire Mrs. Sherrod, because he knew that if the tape was authentic, Glenn Beck and Fox News were ready to pounce on his administration for coveting black racists within his administration.   If the entire truth had not been revealed, Glenn Beck and Fox News would have surely celebrated at the sight of Obama having to fire a black employee for racist comments.

If this had happened under Bush, he would have been afforded the opportunity  for due process, but because Obama is black, he’s forced to respond to issues of race, which is a no win situation for him, because if he acquiesces, people will say he’s soft on racism, but if he responds; he’s a racist who sticks up for black people.

Black people have long carried the burden of forgiving whites for past discrimination, while also dealing with on-going discrimination in their daily lives.    It’s a burden that could be lessened if there were more ”white” Shirley Sherrods who speak honestly about race.   Thankfully, there’s a burgeoning population of young diverse voters who focus less upon race and hopefully they will be the generation that finally puts an end to the lunacy of racism in America.

Every year thousands of poor illegal immigrants risk their lives at a chance to live in the U.S., many of them are women, who hope to either deliver their baby on U.S. soil or have the opportunity to conceive prior to a possible deportation.     These children have been derisively coined “anchor babies” because they provide an anchor for the mother in her attempt to become an U.S. citizen, it also provides a gateway for citizenship for the remainder of her immediate family to legally migrate to the U.S.   The term “anchor babies” has been used for many years as a pejorative to describe Mexican Americans and other Latinos who are descendants of illegal immigrants, but the business of Born in the USA goes far beyond Mexican-Americans.

The Federation for Immigration Reform (FAIR) estimates there are between 287,000 and 363,000 children born to illegal aliens each year.    These numbers are based on the crude birth rate of the total foreign-born population (33 births per 1,000) and official estimates of the size of the illegal alien population–between 8.7 and 11 million.    Although those estimates may actually skew higher due to the unreliability of documenting a group of people who would rather remain anonymous, for obvious reasons.    Some agencies have reported that the number of  ”anchor babies” born in the United States each year could be as high as 726,000.  (Source: Accuracy in Media)

In 2002, the LA Times reported on the booming and yet clandestine business of birthright tourism.  Los Angeles is a popular destination for Koreans, Taiwanese and Hong Kong residents because of its diversity and established Asian communities that cater to women who can afford to travel to the U.S. to give birth.   Asian-American businesses have caught on to this trend, and now provide upscale birthing centers, that may provide amenities such as a private car, advanced medical care, assistance with their passport and citizenship paperwork.  Estimates on the cost of a typical stay are approximately $20,000, including medical cost. 

This practice is believed to be popular among women in Korea, Hong Kong and Taiwan.   According to Edward Chang, a scholar of Asian American Studies at the University of California, Riverside, the practice is popular among the elite of South Korea, since sons of these women can avoid compulsory military service.   Temporary homes for these mothers are often located in residential neighborhoods, which neighbors allege decrease the quality of life in the neighborhood, primarily due to increases in traffic and other business-like effects.  (Source: LA Times)

The South Korean women giving birth in the United States tend to be well educated and upper-class, with big ambitions for their children.   Since many have been to America before and have good jobs in South Korea, they are deemed unlikely to overstay their welcome and thus can easily obtain tourist visas. (Source: LA Times).  

In the 1980s, Britain and Australia altered their birthright laws due to the increasing number of foreigners seeking to take advantage of similar birthing opportunities in their respective countries.   Perhaps it’s time to close that loophole in our Constitution, which perpetuates the commercialization of being born in the USA, and put an end to the process of placing a price tag on the right to be born here.   

The intent of the 14th amendment was to protect those who were most in danger of becoming marginalized and disenfranchised after the Civil War.   Instead, it now serves as a giant loophole that offers hope to many foreigners of potentially cashing in on their golden goose, but at the expense of reducing the privilege of being born here into a price.

The act makes it a state misdemeanor crime for an alien to be in Arizona without carrying registration documents required by federal law, authorizes state and local law enforcement of federal immigration laws, and cracks down on those sheltering, hiring and transporting illegal aliens.  (Source: Wikipedia)

Most Americans agree that the time has come for us as a nation to have a serious debate about immigration and illegal aliens.  Over the past few years the number of illegal aliens entering our country has continued to skyrocket.    

The illegal immigrant population of the United States in 2008 was estimated by the Center for Immigration Studies to be about 11 million people, down from 12.5 million people in 2007.   According to a Pew Hispanic Center report, in 2005, 57% of illegal immigrants were from Mexico; 24% were from other Latin American countries, primarily from Central America; 9% were from Asia; 6% were from Europe; and 4% were from the rest of the world.  (Source: Wikipedia)

Many states such as California, Texas, and Florida, have had to deal with an overwhelming influx of illegal immigrants and its placed a strain on their state and federal resources such as emergency room visits, childcare and in some cases frequent incarceration, all of which is paid for by these respective states. 

So the idea of implementing a stringent immigration policy is a good idea, but Arizona dramatically failed in two key facets of their implementation.   First of all, Hispanics make up 30% of the Arizona population, and many of them are Mexican-Americans who are second and third generation citizens.  Most of them support tougher illegal immigration laws, but apparently no one from the Arizona legislature bothered to build consensus among these Mexican-Americans in their efforts to address immigration.

The failure to reach out to this core constituency reflects the arrogance and haste with which their legislature enacted such a controversial law, which basically requires Arizona state police to racially profile suspected illegal aliens.   And this is why the new law has created so much controversy—-imagine African-Americans being randomly asked to provide ID and proof of citizenship in an effort to prove that they’re not illegal African immigrants.

The other facet that Arizona failed to consider is how to actually implement their new immigration law.    Since the burden of enforcing this new law ultimately falls upon their state police, they could have simply increased the number of random DUI and license check stops in the areas where they have the most illegal alien arrests.  This would have helped to serve notice to those communities and businesses that hire illegal aliens that the State was cracking down on illegal immigrants.

However, the real problem that Arizona and many other states face is not the deportation of illegal aliens, but their inevitable return to the U.S.   Many of those Mexicans who are arrested and sent back to their home country typically return within a few days via elaborate underground tunnels and clandestine trucking operations.   

The L.A. Times reported a while back on the discovery of numerous underground smuggling tunnels which are well lit and insulated, and most likely sponsored by the drug gangs.  In some  cases they originate in a Mexican warehouse and culminate into a Mexican affiliated warehouse in many parts of Southern California and Arizona.  These tunnels are the lifeline for notorius drug and people smugglers, known as “coyotes” or “wolves of the border” dating back to 1923.

Recently, Arizona’s request for an additional 250 National Guard to secure their border was denied by the Department of Defense.   This may seem like a knee-jerk denial by the Obama administration, but in reality the Governor has the authority to call in the National Guard at her disposal, except in this instance, she clearly wants the Federal government to pick up the tab. 

Arizona should be working with the Obama administration on a full scale effort to uncover these tunnels and permanently plug them up.  Otherwise, they’re simply spinning their wheels and wasting resources in their attempts to eject illegal aliens.

Until this aspect of immigration is addressed, the U.S. will continue to be inundated by Mexicans and other immigrants who find it easy to not only enter our country, but return on a repeated basis, without hindrance from our government.