Al Sharpton is Not the Don King of Race Relations

This week there has been much brouhaha about a cartoon published in the New York Post after the stimulus package was passed and signed into law by President Obama. The cartoon in question linked the signing of the stimulus bill with that of an incident in Connecticut wherein a woman's several hundred pound pet chimpanzee, Travis, brutally attacked a guest visiting her home after going "ape" and eventually had to be shot by police officers after he was unable to be contained. In the cartoon, apparently it depicted the dead chimpanzee being "mourned" by the officers with the caption, "I guess next time they'll have to get someone else to sign the stimulus," apparently using this analogy of the chimp to that of President Obama after the signing.

I actually had a different take on the article, in that I believed it was a slam more against the American people than President Obama since so many Americans, myself included, have fundamental difficulties with the passage of this bill on Constitutional grounds, and also economic ones. It appeared to me to be an attack on the critics, not President Obama at all. Either that, or on Congress itself since it wrote the legislation, with both Congress and Obama failing the Constitutional tests on many of those included provisions many of which were quite obviously corporate paybacks of both Congress and Obama for the last election cycle, since other than appropriations for new computer technology and federal building refurbishings, the only real jobs actually created were within the public sector. Even the state monies are temporary appropriations, meaning that eventually all those project's costs will eventually have to be picked up by the state residents sometime in the future.

This "appropriations bill with "kickers" can be likened to the grandmother who spoils the grandkids and then sends them back to their parents, the citizens, when the inevitable happens, the kids always expect the same generosity and more since no one is there to stop them or protect the kids from themselves and their outrageous demands. The federal government is now "parenting" the states in the same manner it now "parents" the citizenry in much of their legislation. Sometimes even withholding it's legal obligations unless the states or citizenry kowtow to their wishes, or punishing them when they don't . The 16th Amendment and federal income tax is responsible in this out of balance centralized granddaddy which made the state's no more than lobbyists at the federal trough even in lesser status now than many foreign governments.

This strategy even was apparent during the presidential debates when foreign policy was discussed. Obama's solution was to impose stricter sanctions until these foreign governments "behaved," not recognizing their sovereignty in some instances over their own countries in some of their differing forms of government than our own. If civil wars break out in other nations, it appears Switzerland has it nailed in their non-interventionist policies which have in the long run protected both their citizenry, and their economy.

However, now the "race" card is being played due to the chimp/Obama comparison. Although, of course, many Americans and journalists also are pointing out that during the Bush Administration, there were a truckload of cartoon depicting him in less than a favorable light, and actually also comparing his actions and facial features to that of a chimpanzee. Especially with respect to the rather Svengali influence it appears Mr. Cheney had over President Bush at critical times during this last Administration with respect to the War in Iraq.

However, not surprisingly the "Don King" yang of race relations has arrived on the scene in order to play up the racial aspects of the cartoon. Whether or not it was intentional does not seem to be the issue. Just the fact that Mr. Obama as only half African American, mind you, could have been so depicted due to stereotypical bigotry in past generations has stoked the fire of Mr. Sharpton's vigilantism. It would appear to me that the vehemence and manner in which he is making his now public appearances is doing nothing for the cause of race relations in this country but harm rather than help. The showman that he is accepts no hint of pre-Civil War or pre-Civil Rights America, nor reality checks in a somewhat hypocritical stand since Mr. Sharpton made some unflattering analogies and comments himself during the Bush Administration and a great many others. There is even now talk in New York of citizen's "boycotting" the New York Post. I can think of many reasons many Americans should boycott most of the mainstream media publications at this time with respect to the accuracy of their reporting as a watchdog on our government rather than as PR reps for the mainstream political parties and their spins, but canceling a subscription over from what appears to be an unwarranted witch hunt is not one of them.

It does appear with the liberal element in this country that their definition of "freedom of speech," as with their stands on "freedom of religion," bears no similarity to the beliefs of the founding fathers or even those who fought those causes and won a great many of those battles. Dr. King was an ordained minister and pastor, if you recall. I doubt that Dr. King would approach such a situation in a like manner today in view of the nature now of the changes which have occurred, and the fact that the majority of Americans, across party lines and racial complement, are none too happy with the provisions in this bill, nor the manner in which it was sped through Congress in the same manner that 700 Billion Bank Bailout fiasco was.

In fact, Dr. King identified himself as an "American," and not an "African American" at all, since his drive was to erase racial differences, labels and origins from the inalienable rights of all lawful American citizens. He actually used the term "Negro" throughout his "I Have a Dream" speech when he used any racial designations at all, and I'm sure would be quite amazed at the progress that has occurred predominantly with "white" people as referenced in his speech to using "black" instead if using racial descriptions for any purpose which might infrequently now occur. The term "African American" now used seems more of a separatist label than the former "black American" ever was.

So, please, Mr. Sharpton. "Curious George" Bush is gone, and it is now Mr. Obama's turn to be fair game if he, too, does not live up to his promises or continues to violate our Constitution in the same manner Mr. Bush did post election. Right now, the direction which he is leading this country does not appear to be the change many Americans were seeking, but seems to be more of the same. A great many promises, but at the cost of even more loss of individual liberties again for corporate America's and U.S.A., Inc.'s gain, a war which appears there is still no end in sight, and creation of a national health care databased within that appropriations bill violating even more American's civil liberties than even the Bush Administration under their "Patriot Act."

Which is actually worse, since he is and held himself out to be a Constitutional lawyer, who may have come up through the trenches but appears just as entrenched in the power and money game of the big leaguers in Washington as the rest, who have lost touch with their constituency and in the executive "privilege" and immunity bubble just as his predecessor was, for all the claims of "transparency" in an accountable federal government.