Marauding gangs of blacks are terrorizing cities across the country, randomly attacking whites and destroying private property. As journalist Colin Flaherty wrote: “Welcome to the new normal: Large-scale black mob violence is busting out in Philadelphia, Chicago, Utica, Jacksonville, St. Louis, Wilmington (Delaware), Greenville (South Carolina), Grand Rapids, Peoria, Springfield (Ohio), Newark, Boston and Brooklyn.” (“Busting out all over: Black mob violence,” WND.com, April 11, 2013)

During the “wilding” days, a group of black youths would randomly target a white person and punch him in the face, often taking time to admire their evil work. There was celebratory recognition for the one who delivered the most devastating assault. Today, 50-100 or more blacks go on wild rampages of unprovoked violence, and the media is mute about it.

There is an understanding in the media that to report on such behavior would be viewed as racist. As my late grandmother was wont to say, “What on earth is this world coming to?” What indeed?

What motivates a people to act out such animalistic behavior?

One obvious answer is that there is no limit to the depths those who do not know the Lord will sink to in their depravity. But the other is raw, unbridled antipathy for whites.

This hatred is fueled by the continued inculcation that white people are not only taking advantage of blacks but that the problems in predominantly black domiciles are inherently attributable to white people in the zeitgeist of today. Whites are viewed as synonymous with all that is unjust and as being unfairly advantaged.

Blacks are constantly reminded – and thus encouraged to be resentful because of past grievances that most today never experienced. Specifically not those involved in flash mobs.

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are easy targets when it comes to pointing out those who foment racial discord – and justifiably so. But what about the message sent by the highest law enforcement officer in the country, Attorney General Eric Holder, who refused my official petition and the petitions of others calling for the New Black Panther Party to be prosecuted for voter intimidation? Does not that send a clear and unambiguous message that if you’re black and terrorize white people there is no penalty? What about the transpicuous message of racial demagoguery by Obama when he claimed if he had a son he would look like Trayvon Martin? What about the message sent by the Obama woman when she stated in effect that she was only proud being in America because her husband was elected president?

Combining messages like those with the inculcation of “if you’re black you’re not equal” fertilizes the seeds of resentment and anger. Mixing that alchemy with the mantra that blacks are poorer and more disadvantaged than whites because the government doesn’t help them enough, adds accelerant to the flames under the caldron of combustible contempt.

Thus, it becomes understandable why those involved in these violent outbursts are given over to same. It is their intention to hurt the people viewed as responsible for their fathers being in jail, their mothers having to work two jobs, their horrid home lives, their brothers and sisters being killed in gang violence, ad nauseum.

They are taught in the classrooms that white privilege is to blame. The government is perceived as a monolith to white imperialism.

The message that is most needed, and that would have the greatest positive impact, is the one that isn’t given nearly enough.

Send the message that getting a good education is paramount, and that doesn’t necessarily imply the need for college – learn a skill or trade. Teach that marketable social skills, marketable linguistic skills, marketable employment skills and proper dress are more important than the number of women males can sleep with. Instead of celebrating the working single mother as worthy of emulation, why not celebrate the woman who respects herself and who abstains from having children (sans abortion) until she is married?

Teach that while America is the greatest country in the world – the reality of life is that it sometimes seems unfair. But that isn’t because a white person is hiding just out of sight making a black man’s life miserable (Democratic race-mongers notwithstanding).

I in no way support the animalistic behavior of flash mobs, but, specific to that point, it must be said that when the message being received on a sensory level every day of their lives is one of “the white man is to blame” what else can we expect?

The answer is nothing. The Appalachian and hillbilly Backyard Oilmen worked to get where they are; they love America; they’re honest, God-fearing men, and they respect one another. None of those attributes describe the Obamas.

Here’s another question for you. Why are these same Appalachian and hillbilly oilmen savvier than the majority of voters? The reason? Because those Backyard Oilmen are savvy enough to know that if a hole comes up dry the first time you drill it – you don’t keep redrilling the same hole expecting to strike oil.

Which brings me to my point. I have been telling voters since 2002 that “the only things politicians want from us are our money and our votes. And the difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats, unlike the Republican hierarchy, do not hide it.”

Last week my friend and I were talking about the tea-party groups and why their brand had been compromised. Saturday afternoon as a guest on a talk show, I was asked the same question.

I explained to the program host, as I had to my friend, that the tea-party brand was compromised because egocentric and nefarious individuals tried to transmogrify the tea parties from a movement of the people into a political party. Individuals driven by their thirst for recognition and misguided belief that a conference call from a politician made them insiders undermined one of the most successful movements of the people in decades.

The success of the tea parties in 2010 was that they belonged to the people. We the People didn’t listen to nor seek the approval of the Republican hierarchy. We didn’t ask for nor accept advice from Karl Rove, et al. Our determined individuality resulted in the most lopsided reclamation of Congress in 70-plus years.

But, it has become apparent, that which is led by one person more often than not falls prey to the ego of said individual. We the People must become resolute in our belief that the same mentality we applied to raise our families, purchase homes, send our children to college, make sound retirement plans, open and operate businesses, save and plan vacations, ad nauseum, will serve us well if we allow it when it comes to voting for the right candidates.

It is appalling to witness otherwise intelligent, self-reliant people who are capable decision-makers abandon all semblance of common sense to blindly go along with whatever the political hierarchy claims is necessary. Democrats, regardless of their professed intentions, are anarchists at best and Neo-Leninists at worst who believe – contrary to the intent of our Founding Fathers – that government is the deity to whom we should turn for our daily bread. And today’s Republican establishment is no different.

The tea party was effective when it was a movement of the people, but the avarice of certain men and the determination of the Republican hierarchy to deny us the right to pick the candidates of our choice quickly eroded the movement. We have witnessed Republican operatives (read Karl Rove) sabotage candidates like Herman Cain. We have witnessed the so-called Republican leadership cast stinging aspersions against Sarah Palin and other candidates We the People supported. We multiple times daily hear so-called conservative pundits blather the hierarchy talking points pursuant to the tea party. These same pundits more often than not play a shell game of pretending to build up one candidate while waiting to tear them down in favor of the likes of McCain and/or Romney.

We the People must come to the realization that we are the power and our votes do count. We cannot continue to reward failed politicians with re-election after they blatantly and repeatedly betray our interests.

They are politicians, not rocket scientists. I know garage mechanics that have more common sense and a better grasp of what the nation needs than politicians. I know persons who own and operate lawn-care businesses who are financially more astute than politicians.

We the People must come to the realization that we are capable of thinking for ourselves. We must also come to the realization that campaigns and the establishment are paying image-makers enormous sums to create a candidate’s public persona.

We need a movement of the people not a party. We must stop abdicating our common sense in favor of those whose only design is to have us do their bidding. Because as every “Backyard Oilman” knows, you can’t get oil from a dry hole.

As Booker T. Washington brilliantly observed, “There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public.” And when there is a verifiable absence of wrongdoing being directed at blacks by whites enter the likes of Rep. Mel Watt, D-N.C., to do all he can to ensure racial strife is stirred up where none exists.

Or perhaps it is better said that Obama is seizing every opportunity to foment racial discord by putting in place rabid racialists, not least of which is Watt whom he has appointed to head the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA).

In 2005, during a Washington hearing held by the National Commission on the Voting Rights Acts, Watt said, “There would be a substantial majority of white voters who would say that under no circumstances would they vote for an African-America.”

In a constitutionally proper United States, the truth is that no American would vote for an “African-American” because African preceding the hyphen in front of American, properly applied, would mean the candidate would have been born in Africa. But let’s not confuse this issue with common sense.

Mel Watt made that claim at a time his own district, which was/is 63 percent white, elected and re-elected him to office. Maybe someone should suggest Watt revisit his earlier diatribe and force him to point out that after a disastrous first term, arguably the worst president in history, thus far, won 51.1 percent of the votes.

Of the 51.1 percent who voted for Obama, the demographics were 56 percent white, 24 percent black, 14 percent Latino, 4 percent Asian and 2 percent other. Interesting numbers, wouldn’t you say? John Lewis, another “colored” who has been successfully re-elected several times, won 80 percent of the white vote in his district in Atlanta, Ga.

Speaking of no white people voting for black candidates, even the notorious race-monger and former Rep. Cynthia McKinney of Atlanta won her last election as a Democrat with 63 percent of the white vote, as I recall.

This isn’t about whether or not Mel Watt is qualified to head the FHFA. He isn’t. This is about Obama placing a rabid racialist in a key position where Watt will be able to manage in ways that are unfair toward a certain demographic based on the color of their skin.

And before the Neo-Leninists start to tear their clothes, call me names and ridicule me, let me point out Eric Holder who is on record telling the Justice Department Civil Rights Division that he wouldn’t prosecute any cases in which the victims weren’t black. This is the same Attorney General Holder who refused to prosecute the New Black Panther Party members for voter intimidation. The same Attorney General Holder who refused to prosecute the New Black Panther Party members for raising money across state lines to offer as a reward to the person or persons who harm George Zimmerman.

Perhaps Watt would have had more ground to stand on if he had said that voters won’t vote for the likes of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, or something that looks like it just stepped off a CD cover from South Central. Which Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., agrees with.

Rangel has stated, “It generally takes a different kind of black politician to win in a majority or largely white district than in a majority black district.” (“America In Black And White,” Stephan Thernstrom, Abigail Thernstrom) Albeit, I suspect Rangel was politely calling certain candidates he disapproves of Uncle Toms.

Watt also said black voters, unlike whites, don’t have “an absolute commitment” to voting for a candidate based on race. “Black people have not had the luxury of being able to say, ‘Under no circumstances will I vote for a white candidate.’” (“Mel Watt: Majority of Whites Won’t Vote For Black Candidate,” Patrick Howley, The Daily Caller, May 1, 2013)

Watt also stated that white voters “need to be factored out of the equation, I’ve got no use for them in the democratic process.”

Watt is a liar because even if he pretends not to know it, the majority of Americans know that most blacks won’t buy a car if it’s white, much less vote for a white candidate.

The Voting Rights Acts was intended to end racial apartheid, not create a new level based on the vision of Obama and Watt. That said, I want a liberal to tell me which white politician could say the same thing and not be run out of Washington on a rail.

Before I get into the blood, bones and dismembered bodies of the babies Gosnell murdered, let me remind you of another fact.

Between 1882 and 1968, there were 3,446 blacks lynched in the United States. That is a span of 86 years. Today in the United States there are 1,876 black babies murdered in the womb every day – which means the total known number of blacks lynched over an 86-year period is surpassed approximately every 45 hours.

Planned Parenthood and its supportive minions are accomplishing what the organization’s progenitor Margaret Sanger could only dream of. As my good friend Harry Stein put it:

“Though the fact is invariably minimized in the hagiographic biographies, or airbrushed out altogether, Sanger was an ardent eugenicist, and especially had it in for black people. Envisaging that birth control would bring about ‘race improvement,’ in 1930 Sanger launched a ‘Negro Project’ via ‘an experimental clinic’ in Harlem, with the express purpose of ridding the general population of a maximum number of those she considered moral and intellectual undesirables, ‘human weeds.’ It would doubtless please her to learn today that in her hometown of New York City, three of every five black [babies] are aborted; the very result, or at least a good part of it, she envisaged all those years ago.” (“No Matter What … They’ll Call This Book Racist”)

But that didn’t stop Obama from giving a speech to Planned Parenthood in which he said: “As long as we’ve got to fight to make sure women have access to quality, affordable health care, and as long as we’ve got to fight to protect a woman’s right to make her own choices about her own health, I want you to know that you’ve also got a president who’s going to be right there with you, fighting every step of the way. Thank you, Planned Parenthood. God bless you.”

Now that’s what I call a guy rubbing it in the face of those who blindly supported his color for election. I don’t view him as a president because the assignation of president infers leadership, and leadership is the least of Obama’s qualities, second only to absence of character. I see him as a two-bit pettifogger in an expensive but ill-fitting suit.

The fact that this has not led to outrage and condemnation by those claiming George Zimmerman ended a beautiful life (even if it was destined to be on a police blotter) by shooting Trayvon Martin in self defense speaks volumes. And, specific to that point, I’m guessing that if Obama had any babies they wouldn’t look like the babies Gosnell slaughtered and Planned Parenthood brags about murdering.

But what does Obama care? As I’ve said elsewhere recently, he’s not black, anyway. He’s half-a-Kenyan whose commie wacko mother’s family owned slaves. And I would support the arguments of those who assert Obama’s forebears on his father’s side were slave traders.

Here’s a statistic that I’m quoting from memory, but, that not withstanding, the only thing I’m admittedly unclear on is whether the year was 1999, 2000, or 2001. The statistic is that in the five-county Philadelphia area that year, there were just under 11,000 black children born while, during the same period, there were nearly 10,000 black children murdered by abortion.

I recall Republican Party and Fox News “maven” Jeanine Pirro calling for NFL superstar Michael Vick to be skewered because of his involvement with dog fighting. Pirro had said, “These [dogs] are innocents.” She opined that the dogs needed love and nurturing. I submit it is unborn children who are innocent, and one would think unborn children need love, nurturing and protecting as much if not more than an animal.

Obama equated abortion with the flu or high blood pressure when he specifically referenced the murder of unborn babies as women’s health care. And then he thanks Planned Parenthood for murdering over one-third of blacks in America today? And, even more egregious, he invokes God to bless them. The silence coming from those who are so quick to leave their racial droppings as fertilizer for racial discord at a moment’s notice is deafening.

I offer two final thoughts. One is that I would bet a good cigar the only reason Obama is with us today is because abortion wasn’t legal when he was born. The other is when he closes his eyes in this life and opens in the next, he and Margaret Sanger can share eternity in the fires of hell discussing what a wonderful job her progeny are doing.

In my Daily Rant, April 19, I revealed that Mark Ivancic, managing editor of the Bradford Era newspaper, was systematically and deliberately trying to censor my conservative opinions. I also revealed that he had been caught changing my copyrighted material without my permission (“Editor Caught Altering Content,” mychal-massie.com).

This is not the first time this has happened. Years ago, I caught a managing editor at a different newspaper changing the quotes of sources I had used in my then-featured op-eds. Not only that but she did it without my permission or that of the person quoted.

There are blind ideologues in every area of the news and information business, and as most know, I condemn them all. The news and information industry is no place for blind ideology. You, the public, entrust us to deliver the news/information factually and truthfully, and that same standard applies to opinion-editorials. People may not agree with my opinions, but the facts contained in same have withstood the test of time. And I am just as critical of Republicans and so-called conservatives as I am of liberal Democrats, perhaps even more so.

Liberals, however, exercise censorship, threats and intimidation juxtaposed to providing truthful, factual, unbiased news. And their minions will go to any extreme to prevent opinions they disagree with from being available to the public for them to make up their own minds.

The aspect of Ivancic’s dishonest machinations (which are most appalling) is that he cheats his readership of factual information, and in his rush to do so he sets the table for racial tension.

If I were given to liberal philosophies, I could scream RACISM at the top of my voice and make a perfect case for it. I could very easily make this about my skin color and not about Ivancic being morally opprobrious. I could accuse the Bradford area of being racist, and, trust me, I could make a darn good argument because Ivancic handed me one. I could have the town turned on its collective head because of his actions.

Instead I see this as a teachable moment. There is absolutely no doubt that if a conservative editor took Ivancic-type action against a liberal black and/or a black person who viewed every insult through a prism of race, it would be salt in an open racial wound.

As I have said before, there is a difference between racism and malicious, morally opprobrious behavior. In the two conversations I’ve had with Ivancic, he comes across as a braggadocio and a narcissist; I found him to be insulting and ideologically contumelious pursuant to the reality of racial issues.

That makes him an insolent bigot, but it doesn’t make him racist as such. His actions make him a questionable source to be in charge of disseminating the news, and it should make readers question what he produces, but it doesn’t necessarily mean he hates me because I’m black. As a matter of fact, I would be inclined to say what upsets him is not my skin color, as such, but my conservative opinion. I would also be inclined to believe Ivancic finds it hard to understand how I can be a conservative and, accordingly, attempts to censor my voice to a community that has enjoyed my work for nearly 10 years.

This is why publishers should demand that their managing editors provide the news in a clear, cogent and unbiased way. Instead, Ivancic has opened the community to potential racial discord if I were inclined to cause same. But that’s one of the many things that separate us. I believe in rising above racial commonality.

The opposite of Ivancic is Fox News Channel and Megyn Kelly et al. who allow the racist race-monger Jehmu Greene to have carte blanche to call other guests vulgar racial epithets with impunity and remain a featured Fox News contributor. Whereas, we all know if a white male even hinted at insulting a black liberal he would never be welcomed back.

I have written many times over the years that the media are in large part responsible for fomenting racial discord and antipathy.

But, as my readership knows, I refuse to stoop to use an easy argument that will drive the racial wedge further between us as Americans. We must rise above that.

I am insulted and offended by Ivancic’s actions, but I’m a better man than he is because I’m looking through a prism of Americanism. He is looking through a prism of bigoted political bias and subterfuge.

We as a people must refuse to allow ourselves to descend to the easiest argument, because, in many instances, it reduces us to the level of the Erebusic liberals who take pride in using race as a divider of men. We are better than that even if they aren’t.

NOTE: Calls to John H. Satterwhite, publisher of the Bradford Era, for comment have not been returned. More to come on this story.

But at one time we expected more from the Republican Party than what it has become today.

Ronald Reagan brought dignity and honor back to the Party of Lincoln. Ronald Reagan had a vision for America that began with We the People, but in the years following President Reagan, many have used his name and memory as a means to get elected (or re-elected) when in reality their goals and objectives are no less self-serving than the most idealistic and heinous Democrat.

President Reagan’s name and memory are today invoked by Republicans whose ideals are antithetical to the very ideals he stood for. They are not unlike race-mongers invoking the name of Dr. Martin Luther King while advocating the very things he fought to end.

I’m not going to win any popularity awards from the leadership of my party, but my goal isn’t to be popular with them – it’s to tell you the unvarnished truth.

And that truth as we speak is that it is not Obama we have to be concerned about. It is the traitorous and feckless Republicans who are led by Karl Rove, Reince Preibus, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, et al.

Obama has been able to do what he has because Boehner and company have not lifted a finger to realistically oppose him and his agenda. The result of their inaction has allowed Obama to ascend to mythical heights of accomplishment that are as real as unicorns.

Specific to that point, the end result has been that the public (specifically the conservative and Republican factions) has given Obama credit for spearheading the transmogrification of America into a social state that is more owing to Republican appeasement and support than Obama’s brilliance.

Boehner’s leadership has led to fiscal agreements the likes of which a 10-year-old with a lemonade stand wouldn’t make. Thanks to Boehner’s behind-the-scenes machinations, Obama’s illegal international gunrunning operation has withered like a blade of grass in the desert and along with it any realistic investigation into the murders of Brian Terry and Jamie Zapata – although there have been reports of a patsy from Mexico being arrested for Terry’s murder.

Obama permitted the murders of the heroic Marines and our ambassador to Libya in Benghazi. Republicans have done nothing more than give lip service in demanding Obama be held accountable. Boehner has referenced Obama as (and I paraphrase) someone he likes and respects. I ask you: How in the name of the fires of hell can an opposing-party leader profess respect and admiration for the very man who is driven to “fundamentally change” America, unless he agrees with the direction Obama is taking the country, in which case Boehner should just switch parties?

Karl Rove has savaged and undermined not just tea-party groups in general but tea-party candidates specifically. Reince Priebus excoriated Michael Steele when the party elements conspired to defeat Michael as chairman of the RNC because, amongst other reasons, he supported tea-party candidates.

Republican Party apparatchiks like Rove were responsible for attacks on Sarah Palin and Herman Cain, and, as I wrote in my Daily Rant last week, those same apparatchiks are now coming after Dr. Ben Carson. (“Are Republican Apparatchiks Coming After Dr. Ben Carson”; April 12, 2013; mychal-massie.com)

As I wrote in 2003, Republicans are politicians, and politicians are interested principally in two things: our money and our votes. I said then and so I am saying now, we must withhold both from them.

Their agenda is not our agenda, and the current talk of how important it is that we expand the tent, etc. is tantamount to saying we must become more like Democrats.

We cannot trust the media. Not when certain newspaper managing editors tell national opinion-editorial writers that opinions are only opinions if same agree with their radical views. We cannot trust media that allow and encourage race-mongering and ignore the trial of the operator of a heinous abortion clinic.

We have a chance to swing the pendulum back in the direction that factually favors We the People in 2014. We can stop Obamacare and render him of little effect the rest of his term. But we cannot do it unless we change the way we view the party operators and take matters into our own hands.

We must keep in mind that the Republican hierarchy not only has a plan but also a candidate whom they want to have win in 2016. And I can tell you if We the People do not stop drinking the Kool-Aid and start standing on conservative principles, we will see a Democrat-little in the White House in 2016. Only this one will have a pachyderm for a mascot.

Dr. Carson had accurately referenced elitist white liberals as being “the most racist people out there.” That was enough to set Beckel off. He objected to Dr. Carson’s assertion and launched into a screed accusing him of being ignorant of history. But, Dr. Carson is not ignorant of history – rather it is Beckel who is attempting to deny history.

Beckel claimed that it was liberals who had gone into the South to march with Dr. King – not least of whom was his father. He claimed that his father was a “liberal who went into the South and was arrested 57 times in the civil rights movement registering blacks.”

The telling moment was when Beckel said, “It was liberals who have been on the forefront of every major” … and then caught himself. He did not finish his statement. And well it was that he didn’t because what he was about to assert was a damnable lie, and he knew it.

He was emphatic that liberals did not just lead the fight to end Jim Crow and advance the cause of the “po-po black folk,” but Beckel intimated that Dr. Carson owed his freedom and quality of life to white liberals because they were responsible for ultimately ending segregation.

The problem with Beckel’s baneful oratory is that his version of things raises the question that if Beckel et al. were liberals leading the charge to end segregation and help the “nigra,” as Jimmy Carter was wont to call blacks, what were the other Democrats doing?

Beckel’s elitist arrogance is as demonstrative and transpicuous as his vulgarity, and his version of the facts differs from the reality of the situation, his father’s involvement notwithstanding.

White liberal Democrats were responsible for Jim Crow; White liberal Democrats were responsible for the Ku Klux Klan; White liberal Democrats fought to preserve slavery. The white Democratic Party was formed to deny civil rights to blacks and to secure slavery.

Perhaps Beckel could explain why, if liberals were responsible, as he aggressively insinuated, for ending Jim Crow, did a white Democratic president have to enlist white Republicans to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If white liberal Democrats played such an important part in the life of blacks during Jim Crow, why was Dr. King a Republican?

Beckel’s arrogance is sickening and contemptible, but not out of character for white elitist liberals. They look down their arrogant noses at Americans of color who do not stay in their place, as worthy of their strongest public denouncement – after all, they “gotta keep dem-dar colored folk on da plantation.”

White elitist liberals are everything Dr. Carson said about them and more. Let us not forget that it was Beckel himself who, as I wrote in a syndicated column, “invoked a ‘Saturday Night Live’ rendition [read: mimicked a Southern black drawl] of scripture references while debating Ann Coulter regarding the hate-filled racist cartoons of [Condoleezza] Rice.” (“Negroes vs. black conservatives,” Nov. 23, 2004) But he never invoked disdain for the degrading cartoons of Dr. Rice.

As I wrote in the afore-referenced op-ed: “From 1876 until 1960, Democrats successfully blocked all progress in civil rights. Prior to that, from 1860 to 1876, Republicans were singularly responsible for all black civil-rights accomplishments despite fierce opposition by Democrats. Much is made of the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision striking down state segregated education. What is never mentioned is that the Supreme Court ruling was a reinstating of what Republicans had done nearly 75 years earlier in their 1875 civil-rights bill, which was overturned by Democrats in 1880.”

Beckel’s comments were intended to tell a man of honor and dignity that he needed to sit down and shut his mouth based on his race. White, elitist, bigoted liberals are quick to do that. We hear it in their comments, and we see it in the way bigoted, white liberals in the media try to suffocate the voices of Americans of color when we, according to them, forget our place.

Carson is right. They are the most racist people around. And equally as egregious are the white liberals who decry even our right to think freely. As I have referenced in newspapers that carry my work around the country, I recently had a white liberal managing editor tell me that I didn’t have an opinion unless he said I did.

Beckel was wrong in another way – it wasn’t liberals who fought for equal rights for all people, it was Americans of good conscience. And there is a demonstrable difference.

Additionally, it’s the “race” references they obsess over that are so insulting. Let me make the following point crystal clear: White liberals are more racially bigoted than Louis Farrakhan or Jeremiah Wright. My position is not mere ipse dixit.

White liberal bigotry is an insidious form of racism that disguises itself as good intentions and sympathy when in reality it is based on a mentality of superiority. The white liberals believe themselves to be the plus ultra pursuant to knowing what is best for blacks, women and children.

White liberals do not hold blacks in any form of esteem in the least – quite the opposite. They begin all associations with blacks, such as they have, viewing them as intellectually and socially malnourished. They hold the mindset that blacks must be angry and aggrieved for past ills perpetrated upon their ancestors and carried on today at the hands of evil conservatives. And believe me when I tell you, one of the greatest affronts to white liberals is for a black person to have better grammatical skills than they have and to not be angry and filled with resentment.

I recall a recent incident in which a white liberal condescendingly told me I had used a word he didn’t know – as if I should feel bad for his ignorance. I recall a white liberal trying to insult my academic accomplishments as inferior to his because I hadn’t attended Lehigh University as he had. A white liberal managing editor told me that my opinions weren’t valid unless he said they were. I should write a short book naming names, dates and instances wherein white liberals have treated me with blatant contempt purely because I reject liberal ideology.

They will, however, readily accept that blacks have that “ancestral jungle thing” going on and that’s why blacks are better athletes. I make that point as one who has seven family members who were and/or are professional athletes, a family member who is a defensive coordinator in pro-football and a family member who is a defensive coach in Division 1 football.

To white liberals, blacks are a means to an end. They want to feel good about themselves. Helping po-po blacks is a form of religion to them. It assuages their “white guilt” and offers a means of repentance for the sins of their fathers and their personal secret feelings of superiority.

But their way of assuaging themselves of said sins is to embrace definitions of racism that are expansive to the point of their viewing verbiage such as “black clouds,” “black or dark moods” and often any other reference that uses the word “black” as a negative as evidence of racism and in some instances hate speech.

You will never hear a white liberal speak well of a black person who believes in meritocracy and who repudiates the idea that whites are guilty of anything more than working for a living like everyone else.

White liberals have with forethought and malice publicly savaged the most erudite and accomplished persons of color in the United States today precisely because they do not ascribe to self-segregation and victimology.

They publicly resent women who do not ascribe to the mentality of the feminist agenda. When have you heard a white liberal speak praisingly of a woman who is pro-family, anti-abortion and who openly advocates that wives treat their husbands with biblical respect?

White liberals are driven by grievances both real and imagined. Their solutions to problems they identify as injustices to blacks and inequality for women is to blame the historically white male establishment. Their solutions are reparations based, i.e., even if there were, in fact, one person injured as they define same, for them that is empirical evidence of a systemic racism and/or gender bias. Ergo, all persons of color and women are entitled to special dispensations based on a pandemic of social injustice.

I am prepared to argue that the only reason white liberals bow before Obama is because he is half-Kenyan with a Muslim name who harbors the deepest of resentment for traditional America. I would further argue that the only reason they embrace his wife is because she behaves in a way that is commensurate with their low opinions of blacks.

The piece begins: “A question that begs answering – now that the legions of darkness have reduced Christmas to a secular holiday – how long is it before Easter suffers the same fate?”

We have our answer, and the answer to my question is – “Now.” Cities, schools and municipalities across the nation are banning the word “Easter” in association with egg hunts. I’m guessing that some secular humanist, anti-God, liberal progressive will demand “Easter” be removed in association with the bunny as well before long.

In my 2004 syndicated piece referenced above, I wrote: “My [late] grandmother used to say, ‘People only hate the truth for two reasons – because it’s true, or they think it’s true.’” To which I add, such is the way of liberal progressives.

They are the very people for whom the word “tolerance” plays a preeminent role in their lexicon. In reality, they are among the most intolerant of all. In fact, I am prepared to argue that when it comes to their vulgar, duplicitous, double standards they are in a league of their own without equals.

I wasn’t being prescient when I penned my 2004 warning, and I’m not being a genius at discernment pursuant to my following observations.

Secular humanist, anti-God, liberal progressives ultimately have no choice but to censor the truth and remove as much of God from public view as possible. Because if they do not, they risk the truth of what they strive to conceal to be revealed.

What is the truth they are so desperate to have hidden from public view? It’s that their philosophy is house of cards based on lies that will lead to the destruction of our society.

The truth they overlook is that their attempts to ban the word Christmas were not any more successful than Herod’s attempt to murder Christ by murdering male children two years and younger. And their attempts to deny the truth of Easter will be no more successful than was the placing of a stone in the front of His tomb to keep him in it.

Removing words recognized for their Christian importance does not help their cause. The truth is, it damns their cause. They deceive themselves by believing that removing words associated with Christendom will lead to a national embracing of their Erebusic agendas.

They can attempt to censor the “Word,” but they cannot censor Christ nor His redeeming work on the cross from the hearts of those who accept Him. That said, neither can they extricate fairness and propriety from the hearts of those who do not necessarily accept a Christian perspective but who fiercely adhere to the spirit of fairness.

It bears noting that just as Christmas is about more than toys and gifts, Easter is about more than egg hunts, bunnies and chocolate. Easter is about the crucifixion and resurrection of the/our Savior Jesus Christ.

I’m inclined to say let the secular humanist, anti-God, liberal progressives who demand tolerance while practicing censorship have their frivolity with eggs and bunnies. We in Christendom will celebrate around the throne of Him whom they have denied.

I’m tempted to say let them reduce what has become traditional “holiday” activities to their level of godless paganism because we know Easter isn’t about colored eggs and marshmallow bunnies. But that would be capitulating to evil by giving place to censorship and encouraging more.

I remind myself that is a mindset I must never allow myself to adopt. Censorship is wrong, and it is evil. We must confront it wherever, whenever and in whatever form it rears its ugly head. We are not here to roll over and permit these mobocratic pagans to attempt to relegate our systems of faith to backrooms, nor must we allow them to redefine our belief systems. We are here to carry on the traditions that made America the great bastion of freedom our Founding Fathers intended it to be, and we are here to fight not just to share truth, but also to defend the truth. And like it or not – that truth is based upon a belief in and a dependence upon God.

The article warns that parents who have children in the Wisconsin public school system should be particularly attentive to what VISTA (Volunteers In Service To America) is teaching them.

Hodges explains, “VISTA is an operation under AmeriCorps that is being used by the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction.”

Hodges indicates that VISTA is being used in “Wisconsin public schools to indoctrinate [children] about their inherent ‘privileges’ if they happen to be white, male, straight or all of the above.”

One of VISTA’s recommendations is for white children to “unlearn” the social evils they were born into by wearing white wristbands as a reminder of their privilege. He writes that VISTA suggests that children also consider “putting a note on [their] mirror or computer to think about privilege.”

To say that I have issues with such indoctrination would be a gross understatement. That said, every American should be outraged at the very thought of such teachings. However, said mindset is not new. I can vividly recall this divisive language being advocated in the 1970s. I argued against such condemnable rhetoric then, and I do so now even more fiercely, albeit from a different perspective.

Today I am prepared to argue that white privilege does indeed exist. I and other conservatives of color encounter it on a near daily basis. But it is a much more insidious and damnable form of white privilege that goes unaddressed and is denied the moment conservatives of color (myself included) make mention of it.

White privilege today is exercised with cruel, censorial efficiency by white liberals who are in positions to control the flow of news and public school curricula.

White liberals covering the news are elated to run stories that paint whites as monstrous and abusive. Consider the number of and nature of the stories and commentaries written that depict George Zimmerman as nothing short of a conniving monster who murdered Trayvon Martin in cold blood. They even invented a new racial identifier. Zimmerman was and is identified as a “White Hispanic.”

But as I pointed out in the on-air interviews I did discussing the incident, there was no such 24/7 coverage on these same news networks and newspapers pursuant to the 12-year-old New Hampshire schoolgirl who was savagely beaten by two black refugee classmates because she refused to be the girlfriend of one of the boys. There was no such coverage of the St. Louis schoolboy who was attacked by two black classmates on the doorsteps of his home and doused with gasoline. There was no around-the-clock coverage by the mainstream media when Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom (a white couple) were kidnapped leaving a restaurant and later raped, tortured and murdered (by five black hoodlums).

I call that the privilege of white liberals in positions to control the news.

There are countless conservatives of color who are stellar essayists. How many do you see on the editorial pages of your newspapers? White liberals who are newspaper managing editors refuse to run opinion pieces by them because they personally resent a black man or woman for daring not to subscribe to the attitudes and opinions of those like Al Sharpton and Clarence Page.

Major networks and cable channels run by white liberals engage in duplicitous racial double standards, allowing black race-mongers to come on their programming and direct vulgar racial epithets at conservative white guests with impunity.

I’ve personally done on-air interviews during which the white liberal hosts have sat passively by as I’ve been called vile racial epithets by black race-mongers – fully knowing they would never tolerate even the hint of such impropriety if the offending guest were white and insulting a black race-monger.

As I said, white privilege does exist, but not as VISTA and the media would have us believe. It exists in the context that white liberals routinely engage in the censorship of conservative black opinion. It exists in the dissemination of news that shows blacks in a bad light.

Tangentially, I would support the idea that children be taught about privilege. I would say they should be taught that it is an abuse of privilege to present news in a way that vilifies one group while absolving another. I would also teach that it is not only an abuse of privilege but, an abrogation of responsibility to sit idly by fully cognizant that same is taking place.

I advocate having the children wear white wristbands to remind themselves that the white privilege liberals are guilty of damning all society to the plantation of low-information and biased misinformation.