President bows to Turkey, breaks campaign promise to acknowledge Armenian Massacre, Fails to Acknowledge National Day of Prayer

  As reported in the Armenian weekly, Despite his 2008 campaign promise that "America deserves a leader who speaks truthfully about the Armenian Genocide and responds forcefully... I intend to be that President," for the third year in a row President Obama completely ignored this first genocide of the 20th Century-- much to the Chagrin of the Armenian community and the attempts by Congress to acknowledge this pivotal and tragic turning point during and just after world war one-- that many say was the forebear and model for the way Hitler would treat the Jews in the 1930's leading up to WWII.   He also failed to issue an official proclamation marking America's National Day of Prayer or even Easter, the traditional national holiday marking resurrection of Christ for millions of Americans of all ethnic backgrounds and historic day of prayer for the victims of the massacre which saw up to 1.5 million Armenians slaughtered, raped and/or marched into exhaustion in the Syrian desert by their Muslim Turkish captors, (the forebears of modern-day Turkey).

  Initially, we should say that while the debate rages in the blogosphere on whether previous Presidents in fact issued "official" proclamations re: Easter and to what extent other comments of the President may have honored this sacred holiday in spite of his lack of official proclamation-- and in spite of his almost unbroken proclamations re: Muslim Holy days, see here-- whether or not Obama issued an 'official' proclamation matters less to us than the Administration's policies vis a vis their impact on matters where faith and public policy intersect and the results therefrom.

  On this score, and regarding the matter of the Armenian massacre, the President's actions seem like a deliberate slap in the face to the Armenian community for purely political purposes in order to appease Nato Ally in the "war on terror" Turkey, (which had protested and mounted a forceful and political public relations effort to defeat the attempts to publicly recognize this black mark of history).

  It is a whole 'nother matter regarding the pro or anti-Christian bias, (although, as above alluded to, we feel there is a connection between the two).  Again, we wish to emphasize that it is not the failure to "proclaim" anything  particular with regard to any specific religion or holiday 'per se' that we find so troubling, but the anti-Christian attitudes and policies that such a lack of proclamation may indicate are at the root of the Administration's actions (or lack thereof).

  Equally troubling, it seems to us to mark a continued pattern of willingness on the part of Obama to avoid having to make a public stand on important policy issues-- recall his voting 129 times "present" in the Illinois Senate from whence he came, see here and here-- and starkly belies Obama's promise to be "the most transparent Administration in history."  

   Moreover, in light of the President's failure to also acknowledge last Thursday's National Day of Prayer-- a practice recently upheld by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, see HERE, and on which no Previous Presidents have demurred-- as well as many of his openly anti-Christian policies, it does not appear to be coincidence.

   So with this post we shall begin a journey of analysis that attempts to explain Obama's obvious reluctance to take the side of the traditional Christian mores in most all matters of public controversy, (whether it be gay marriage or abortion or stem cell research).

   We should say at the outset that the President's overall conduct and/or foreign policy inaction-- a la the President's delayed intervention in Libya, see here-- cannot sufficiently be explained by mere 'political' factors.  If that were the case, we could expect to see more forceful proclamations--  accompanied preferably by active intervention-- of the Obama administration in the case of other genocides around the world such as in Syria or Sudan, see here, which to the world's (and America's) shame have been largely ignored.

   Indeed, in examining the myriad of possible reasons for this "blind eye" of the President's towards hotspots of the world where Christians are being persecuted horribly one answer for the President's inconsistent reaction routinely arises: That he just isn't very sympathetic towards people of the Christian faith due to his lack of devout faith itself.  Indeed, none other than Franklin Graham, the son of world renowned evangelist Billy Graham and current President of non-profit Samaritan's Purse Ministries, have noted the President's seemingly nominal Christianity, see here.

   But while this explanation might go a long way towards explaining the President's attitude towards public expressions of opinion on matters of Christian faith generally-- as could also be said of President Clinton whose 'faith' it is safe to say was also less than devout and who also coincidentally failed to issue proclamations re: Easter along with most other modern President's, although not so the National Day of Prayer--  it still doesn't explain the seeming and persistent outright antithesis towards a pro-Christian, (or Jewish for that matter) perspective in most domestic and foreign affairs.  Indeed, from 'apologizing' to Muslim countries for "America's arrogance" to his domestic pro-abortion policies, it is almost like the President goes out of his way to diss Christian values and traditions, (often in favor of those of Islam).  This is even more evident when one considers that Obama didn't fail to publicly acknowledge the observance of all major Muslim holidays in 2010, Ramadan, Eid-ul-Fidr, Hajj, and Eid-ul-Adha.

  Whether this is due to experiences and influences as a boy growing up in Indonesia-- which included the sound of the Muslim "call to prayers" that Obama described in his book 'Dreams of my Father' as "one of the prettiest sounds on earth at sunset"-- his being a "closet Muslim" as alleged by some, see also here or, as Franklin Graham theorizes, is simply non-devout, the public policy results can hardly be doubted:  There clearly appears to be a distinct, anti-Christian, (and/or anti-American?), bias to the President's foreign (and domestic) policy positions.

  Indeed, from repeal of 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' in the military to his unilateral decision not to defend the Defense Of Marriage Act to his not allowing evangelical Christian groups to pray at the Pentagon, see here, the President Obama's antithesis towards matters of faith and, indeed, the entire Christian 'world view' as expressed in his policies, is obvious, (even if the entire reasons are not).

  In Dinesh D'souza's book "The Roots of Obama's Rage," he theorizes that Obama's anti-Christian/ Anti-American bent is in fact caused by a deep "anti-colonial" hatred for the West passed on to him from his Father and Grandfather before.  Such influences, joined as they are with memories of subjugation often blended with Christian missionary influences-- in the minds if not in reality for many members of the former African colonies-- would certainly explain Obama's reluctance to take the "pro-Christian" view or become involved in foreign affairs and even domestic policies where Christian religion or influences are implicated.

  Of course, the problem with this is that almost all American institutions are-- and for the most part continue to be in spite of liberal progressives' most ardent efforts to the contrary-- infused with our nation's founding Judeo-Christian roots and beliefs; indeed, from the Mayflower Pilgrims to the Declaration of Independence to our nations laws and monuments, the history of America and its abiding principles of freedom, justice, and the dignity and worth of every person made in God's image just don't make sense apart from the Christian faith, (however much a proper understanding of this has been erased in the minds of the present generation, another topic for another day).

  In any case, such an approach as the President exhibits is sure to promote the roots of injustice and genocide generally in the modern era, as it supplies a potent motive for "revenge" and the continuing of barbarism on a whole different set of peoples not responsible for the "sins" of their fathers and denies the dream of equality across racial and/or religious lines.  A Dream hoped for by none other than American visionary and slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King who spoke of the need-- if ever different races and/or religions were to get along in a just society-- for people to no longer be "judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."  NOTE: Yes, we do realize that race and religion are distinct matters and that Dr. King was speaking-- as a Baptist himself-- from a predominantly 'Christian' point of view, (indeed, as his famous "letter from Birmingham" shows, it was his entire impetus for speaking out against racial segregation).  However, as herein shown, (witness Sudan), sometimes, race and religious belief sadly coalesce.  In any event, we are sure Dr. King wouldn't mind as, in his own words from the Birmingham jail, "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

  To that end, we ask that all our readers please pray for President Obama in accord with your religious tradition.  Whatever the devoutness of his Christian faith, (or lack thereof), our country can only be better off for our prayers.  Perhaps it might lead to a badly needed "spiritual rebirth" or awakening in our society generally or on behalf of our President that might move him to a more balanced and helpful view of things to the salvation of many souls, (in the temporal if not the eternal).   Failing that, in the least perhaps our prayers (and accompanying actions) might be successful in removing his administration from power in 2012 if he will not change his evident policies of blocking justice for victims of genocide and Christian values generally for mere political reasons.    jp

Death of a dream?- Part Two

As has been previously mentioned, (See Post "The American Constitution- Propaganda?") the fact that our constitution provides within itself the means for amendment to allow change to fulfill its promise of liberty and equality to match the changing values and needs of society throughout our nation's history, rather than indicate weakness or any inherent malevolence, indicates its inherent goodness and strength. Indeed, while not perfect, the Founder Fathers set out to intentionally fashion a constitutional system which would create a stable and limited government which would most likely over time promote and preserve the maximum freedom and independence of all citizens, (a goal which by any measure has spectacularly been achieved, including by African Americans).


Certainly Abraham Lincoln, our Nation's beloved 16th President responsible for saving the union and the first national candidate of the newly formed Republican Party, clearly formed an unfavorable perspective on the institution of chattel slavery and the racist beliefs which upheld and enabled it; (while it is true as a Senator representing the state and all his constituents he didn't initially didn't wish to upset the applecart and thus was unwilling to make a bold call to abolish slavery, eventually he undoubtedly became one of its staunchest critics and the author of the Emancipation Proclamation).  

Accordingly, and in light of these facts, Abraham Lincoln, as the vast majority of our great nation's Founders, utterly fails as an example of the left for our nation's "racist" history, (unless, of course, one wishes to deride such stances as mere "politics" and engage a favorite tactic of the left to, when people come to greater understanding and change their political opinions on matters of substantial import, instead of being praised for their courage are attacked as insincere hypocrits.  Of course, Abraham Lincoln was not, strictly speaking, a "Founding Father".  Accordingly, and for the views of the Founders, or at least many of them, click here http://american_almanac.tripod.com/ffslave.htm ).

And this is irregardless of the fact that some, or even many of the Founding Fathers, (particularly from more Southern states), may have owned slaves themselves. As any astute observer of political history knows, politics is the art of incremental change towards pre-determined goals, and racially-based chattel slavery at the time of its introduction into the Americas was a British and legally-sanctioned if unfortunate practice of the times, (would that the energy and invective with which modern day reparations activists and those who support the continuance of race-based policies that divide our nation into competing ethnic groups applied themselves equally zealously to eradicating the modern-day and anti-Christian inspired enslavement of fellow blacks by Muslim "conquerers" in modern-day Africa).


Indeed, to simply say the Founders were "racist hypocrits," as many on the progressive left routinely do, not only seriously distorts American history, but violently opposes the truth for partisan and ideologically purposes, (indeed, the political left in our country never misses a chance to blame whatever ills it can in the world on our "imperialistic," "war-mongering," racist and "fascist" state). Such partisans, who I am convinced misunderstand the meaning of the terms they cast around like so much toilet paper on hallow's eve, clearly miss the unanimous testimony of history herself that the rise of dictators and tyrants rarely comes from political pragmatists but almost always from "purists" who insist that theirs is the only possible "correct" perspective of current events as they impose their "purist" solutions by any means they perceive necessary in order to justify the ends they seek. 

A better picture may perhaps be had by taking the example of just one Founder, the predominant writer of our Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, who, in his personal writings scornfully and specifically denounced the British for introducing the practice of slavery to the Americas and being unwilling to consider its abolishment regardless of repeated petition by the colonies, click here and scroll down to "The Virginians"  http://american_almanac.tripod.com/ffslave.htm

But to demand at our Nation's founding that such issues be immediately resolved would have been to plunge our colonies, divided as they were between North and South and different economic interests, into intractable division that would have very likely doomed our united Declaration of Independence and the subsequent U.S. Constitution, (to say nothing of the Revolutionary war effort, indeed, it is doubtful it could have succeeded if undertaken while a national debate re: slavery were then convulsing the colonies).


On the other hand, while certainly a mark on our nation's history, there can be no doubt that the advance of equal rights and liberty for all our citizens, regardless of ancestry, is a testament to the enduring ideals of our Republic and the constitutional framework established by our Founders, (a fact even Dr. King would presumably wholeheartedly concede). Which brings us full circle to the point of my writing.


What, do you suppose, would Dr. King think of the modern-day push to reinstitute, through increasingly coercive institutional or governmental policy, a modern-day system of "officially-sanctioned" prejudice which merely substitutes one disadvantaged group for another? (We are talking here of course about all institutional and governmentally imposed race-centric "programs," i.e. preferences, quotas, or "affirmative action" efforts, which, while undoubtedly well-intentioned, seek to simply impose by rule, system or fiat any or all of the above-mentioned coercive remedies which fail to actually correct and in fact may actually aggravate and increase the prejudiced attitudes and racist beliefs which they proport to redress, more on this later).  

Now I realize I risk being accused of the racially charged "r" word by even broaching this subject.  Indeed, one can hardly have a reasoned discussion about such matters today without being accused, if white, of being "racist," (so much for the "civil" discourse called for by our nation's first black President), or worse, if one happens to have an increased level of melanin in their skin, of being an "uncle Tom," (just ask Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who grew up without running water to become one of the highest jurists in the land serving on the Supreme Court. Indeed, for a perfect example of the "tolerance" and civil discourse of the political left, I cite USA Today columnist and radio talk show host Julianne Malveaux on PBS's show "To the Contrary," who in 1994 said, "You know, I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease."). What's that you say, not exactly the kind of "civil" discourse that cheers your heart and gives you warm fuzzies inside??  Must be a conspiracy by those darn right wingers! 

Nevertheless, as famed (and black) abolishionist Frederick Douglas said 140 years ago:


“[I]n regard to the colored people, there is always more that is benevolent, I perceive, than just, manifested towards us. What I ask for the negro is not benevolence, not pity, not sympathy, but simply justice. The American people have always been anxious to know what they shall do with us… . I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are worm-eaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! … And if the negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone! … [Y]our interference is doing him positive injury.” What the Black Man Wants: An Address Delivered in Boston, Massachusetts, on 26 January 1865, reprinted in 4 The Frederick Douglass Papers 59, 68 (J. Blassingame & J. McKivigan eds. 1991) (emphasis in original).


Sound familiar? It should. At the risk of sending my liberal reader friends into convulsive fits, I remind them this quote was cited by Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas in his dissent to the Grutter v. Bollinger Supreme Court Decision ( ). http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-241.ZX1.html


Needless to say, we wholeheartedly agree with Mssrs. Douglas and Thomas.  While more could certainly be said on this important matter of public policy, (and undoubtedly will in coming days), at least to our perspective, it seems equally clear that in addition to such programs as affirmative action actually harming African Americans ability to compete and get ahead in our society, it is elementary one cannot cure racism by heaping on more racism, (regardless against whom it is targeted, oops, I'm not supposed to use "uncivil" gun language, I meant to say, "aimed," er, I mean, oh well, you know what I mean! More on this politically correct nonsense in future posts).
 
Such an approach as pushed by those on the left, (the most vocal of which more often than not are surprisingly not of African American heritage as one might suspect but rather very rich, white, elitists), rather than bring about racial reconciliation and "equality," can in practice only postpone the day when Dr. King's dream of a color-blind society "where little black boys and girls can play peacefully with little white girls and boys" will be the accepted norm and not the exception to the rule.  Judging from the rate of interace marriage and the  superior coherence and rationality of the approach taken by Justice Thomas in his dissenting opinion above it is surely inevitable.

And about time!  Only a truly race-neutral approach where no one ethnic group is given an advantage over another under the guise of redressing "past" sins can truly keep Dr. King's dream "where a man is judged based not on the color of his skin but on the content of his character" from dying and insure his hopes of racial equality don't become a nightmare of perpetual racism and cultural division based on whatever "flavor of the month" group in our American melting pot at any given moment in time may be economically and socially discriminated against.

Let us do all we can to insure the realization of his dream. jp

The Death of a Dream?- Npr's Injection of Race into the Debate

In what can only be considered a blatant attempt to exploit the tragic Tucson shootings in order to score political points against illegal immigration opponents in the aftermath of this national tragedy, NPR injected the subject of race into the national debate on their program  "All things Considered" Jan 12, 2011 via a guest editorial by Daisy Hernandez.  http://www.npr.org/2011/01/12/132865098/in-tucson-a-sigh-of-relief-from-latino-community   Lest there should be no doubt, let's quote Ms. Hernandez herself.  

"I wasn't the only person on Saturday who rushed to her Android when news came of the Tucson shooting. I wasn't looking however to read about what had happened... What I wanted to know was the killer's surname...  I admit sadly that it was only after I saw the shooter's gringo surname that I was able to go on and read the rest of the news about those who lost their lives on Saturday..."

After explaining her (unfounded) belief that if the lunatic opening fire on innocent people-- due from all accounts to his likely diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia-- had had a hispanic "surname," those on the right would be equally exploiting the tragedy for purposes of urging a "crackdown" on illegal immigration, she concluded:

"...the only reason the nation is taking a few days to reflect on the animosity in politics today is precisely that the shooter was not Latino."

For starters, it is unfortunate Ms. Hernandez, like the majority of the political left in our Republic today, apparently views America as overtly a 'racist' country, (even as she insensitively uses her own racial slur of "gringo" to describe those of Caucasian heritage); indeed, for Ms. Hernandez and the many on the philosophical left which she represents, not only are non-Caucasians the only class that, by definition, can't be racially slurred or be racially discriminated against, but in their race-obsessed view of America every political debate or incident of mention in American life must be at its root related to race.  Indeed, all of American life, in such a view, revolves around racial matters.  We would like to believe that such views are limited to marginal journalists and progressive left activists in our open, free society; sadly we would be mistaken.

Openly promoting this view of America, U.S. Congresswoman Barbera Lee (D-CA, 9th District) recently indicated her belief that race was one, if not the, fundamental issue defining our society in urging on C-Span, "we must make race a part of our political considerations" (C-Span 1, Jan 6, 2011).

We couldn't disagree more.  In our view, it is indeed unfortunate and ironic that Ms. Hernandez should express even worse racially-based sentiments almost immediately preceding the Martin Luther King national holiday, the day set aside for our nation to memorialize the life of a man who fought racial classification and prejudice on every level via peaceful, non-violent means.  Indeed, coming right before a national holiday named after Dr. King, who in practice and quite literally gave his life for the cause of racial healing and equality, we find the timing of Ms. Hernadez' comments especially insensitive.

And while we have no basis to presume that Ms. Hernandez could have known of President Obama's then-imminent intention to call for "civility" in his Tucson Memorial speech-- though she certainly could not, as a journalist, have been unaware of the extremely insensitive and at times inflammatory rhetoric used in our Republic re: matters of race and other "hot potato" political issues in our modern times-- we find it even more unfortunate and ironic that her comments came at a time that should have more properly been dedicated to national healing and unity (as the President openly requested at the Tucson Memorial Wednesday for the victims of Jared Lee Loughner's Jan 8th shooting spree outside a Safeway grocery store that killed or injured 19 people).

Indeed, and at least in our view, this transparent attempt to exploit this national tragedy for political purposes seems a particularly despicable and irresponsible act which can only inflame racial sensitivities and animus in this country at a time we can least afford it.

On substance, Ms. Hernadez' claim to be able to guess the "what if" actions of conservatives and those opposed to illegal immigration is no more accurate (or fair) then, in the words of President Obama, trying to "guess the motives behind this senseless act" of the Jan 8 shootings. (As an aside, if Ms. Hernandez does possess the ability to know the "alternate future" by looking in her political crystal ball, we suggest she pursue a career as a psychic or perhaps bookie rather than the semi-journalist/ activist vocational route she seems to be intent pursuing.  She would probably be much better compensated!)

However, Ms. Hernandez' comments do provide occasion for a much-needed national discussion on the penchant by certain segments of our body politic to inject race into every issue of national import.   More broadly, and rather than the political pot shots Ms. Hernandez seems happy to make regardless of their effect on the unity of our great nation, it is distinctly in the public interest to engage in a discussion of how far our country has come in the struggle for a society where, to quote Dr. King, "a man is judged not by the color of his skin but by the content of his character," and to examine the competing perspectives of just what "racial justice and equality" really is (and/or should be) in modern 21st century America.  Indeed, we can think of no better way to honor Martin Luther King.

Before we begin our discussion however of what "racial equality" is, or, perhaps more descriptively, a non-racially-based society "looks like," (i.e., where race is not the predominant factor to every hiring, economic, or social determination in American life), it is important to note what it is not, and our limitations in that regard.   (Indeed, if we are ever to get to that point of a truly color blind society it is critical we do so).   

First of all, it is not a society free from any objectionable, biased, or even bigoted and prejudiced beliefs, (no matter how repugnant such beliefs may be), nor, upon considering the ramifications of such a society, would we want it so.    

Indeed, in an open and free society where individuals are free to choose and believe as they wish there will always be those with differing, erroneous, or even bigoted and prejudiced views, and such must be the case if we are to continue living in a free society where the individual's right to think and conduct their affairs as seems best to them is protected.  


Nor would we want it otherwise if we could, like the Soviet Gulag or Naziesq "reeducation" camps of old, "stamp out" the views of the prejudiced by using technology to "read" their minds, (such a crazy idea, no device could ever do that! Really? Read here   http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3334963/Mind-reading-device-is-now-a-possibility.html and here http://www.livescience.com/health/090210-mindreading.html ).   
   This is so because, no matter how rife with prejudice or "offensive" views such a system of democratic self-governance may be, ours is a Constitutional Republic with a First Amendment that protects the expression of minority and even "wrong" views no matter how personally distasteful or objectionable they are.  Oh the genius of our Founders who established a system that rather chooses choosing public approbation for noxious opinions and open debate of ideas in the search for truth to rote acceptance of any particular view sanctioned by the government, (no matter how desirable or correct such governmentally-sanctioned or "approved" views may be or the reasons behind government regulation of free speech.  Indeed, there is a name for a system in which the government only allows views it deems "approved" or "inoffensive" to be held and shared by individuals in society, let's spell it together children, it's called d-i-c-t-a-t-o-r-s-h-i-p).  LOL  Ok, excuse my momentary lapse into sarcastic ridicule that was meant for any progressive liberals among us ;)  . 

 Not only is such an open system of idea exchange superior on many levels, (as it allows full consideration of all relevant factors and viewpoints in pursuit of the truth, indeed, as the Supreme Court has noted, even a lie, once exposed to public dispute, plays a critical role as, when examined in light of other opinions more conforming to the truth only all the more starkly appears for the absurd lie that it is), but such an open exchange of ideas is actually much more effective in eradicating prejudice in society.  


Indeed, as the Founders intended it most effectively allows exposure to public shame and accountability those in society who are truly prejudiced as opposed to the much less effective modern equivelent of tar and feathering Ms. Hernadez apparently prefers and in this way allows effective repudiation of such views by the majority.  

Moreover, such principles go back to the very foundations of our Nation's founding, as exemplified in the Constitutions of various New England states and the very reason for our founding as Independent colonies, (i.e., a desire to escape the imposed intolerance of one state sanctioned version of the Christian religion with little tolerance for conscience and differing opinion on the interpretation of sacred text).

Additionally, let us not forget that history is full of examples, particularly in the fields of science and religion, of once derided and non-sanctioned "minority" viewpoints becoming, (in a mere generation or two in some cases), the predominantly accepted view, (Galileo's battle with the Catholic church over the orbit of the planets comes to mind in this regard).   


In sum, racial equality in a free society can never mean the complete stamping out of the beliefs of others, no matter how bigoted or repugnant.  (Indeed, we don't live in a society obsessed with "mind" or "thought" control, nor, as mentioned above, would we want to, as we would cease then to be a truly free society).  So then, mere change of public opinion through "educational" or coercive means can not be what racial equality is.   

Nor can equality of outcome, or financial equality, where everyone has equal means regardless of their abilities or hard work (or absence thereof) be the definiation of "racial equality."   To the contrary, that is the almost quintessential definition of the economic system known as Socialism, (or, in its more dictatorial and virulent form of political expression, Communism).  

Nor is it free enterprise, technically only an "economic" system that, as China has shown us, is not always necessarily yoked with Democratic government but can stand on its own inside a Communist or dictatorial form of government, (though its suitability over the long term to such a system, as opposed to an equally open and free form of government, is doubtful).  

Rather, "racial equality" is exactly what it sounds like; rather than any particular political or economic guarantee or system racial equality is best defined as that application of law in a prevailing governmental system where no race is given advantage or favorable treatment over any other race or ethnic group.  Unfortunately,  in our nation's continuing struggle to achieve that vision of which Dr. King spoke in his famous "Dream" speech, we have not yet reached the goal, (although great strides have been made). 


However, to that end, and in line with our desire to contribute positively to the discussion on this critical societal goal, it might be helpful to consider the perspectives of some of those involved in the struggle for racial equality in our nation's history and contrast that with the perspective of those such as Ms. Hernadez in our more modern age.  Indeed, as is usually the case, to properly understand the present one must properly understand the past.

Next time we shall more carefully examine it vis a vis the Founder's of our Nation's beliefs and the impact of Ms. Hernandez' and those who share her belief's on the realization of Dr. King's dream in light of current law.  jp