Why McCain and Obama Won’t Talk about Race

Obama and Mccain

Obama and Mccain

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama made one speech in March to damp down the furor over his relationship with his controversial former pastor Jeremiah Wright. He made another speech at the NAACP convention in July. Other than those two speeches, he has not uttered another word about racial issues since.

Republican rival John McCain spoke at the same NAACP convention. Shortly after that, he issued a terse statement backing the Ward Connerly concocted anti-affirmative action initiative on the November ballot in Arizona and two other states. Other than that, he has not uttered a single word about racial issues since.

The audience for McCain and Obama’s speeches at the NAACP convention were mostly blacks. That reinforced the notion that racial issues are by, and for, blacks, with no broad policy implications for all Americans as issues such as health care, jobs and the economy, terrorism and Iraq.

About the only talk about race during the campaign has been the interminable Hydra headed question of: Can Obama make history by being the first African-American president? And if he doesn’t will race sink him? That’s hardly the candid, free-wheeling, in-depth talk about the problems that impact the lives of millions of black, Latino, Asian, and American Indian voters. Minority voters make up about one quarter of American voters, and they deserve to hear what the candidates have to say about racial matters and, more importantly, what their administration plans to do about them.

Obama and McCain’s racial blind spot has been ritual blindness in all candidates in recent America presidential races. Racial issues have seeped into presidential debates only when they ignite public anger and division. In a 1988 debate, Bush Sr. hammered Democratic contender Michael Dukakis as being a card carrying ACLU’er, a milksop on crime, and tossed in the Willie Horton hit to drive home the point. In one of their debates in 2000, Bush and Democratic challenger Al Gore clashed over affirmative action

Race has been a taboo subject for presidents and their challengers on the campaign trail for the past two decades for a simple reason. No president or presidential challenger, especially a Democratic challenger, will risk being tarred as pandering to minorities for the mere mention of racial problems. In stark contrast, Obama, let alone McCain, would never worry about being accused of pandering to Christian Evangelicals by talking incessantly about gay marriage and abortion.

Full article: www.insight-info.com

Advertisement

Respected astronomer loses fellowship at University for thought crime

Dr Nicholas Kollerstrom, a respected astronomer and author, is the latest scientist to discover the limits of academic freedom in the Western world.

university college london

Until recently Dr Kollerstrom was an honorary fellow of University College London. His views as a science historian were sought by scientific journals and media organisations, such as the BBC in its
report on new research concerning the planet Neptune.

Yet on 22nd April University College abruptly terminated his fellowship, without any consultation or right of appeal. Dr Kollerstrom’s offence was to have published sceptical views about scientific aspects of the Holocaust on the CODOH website, based in America. At no time had he promoted these views within University College, or done anything to bring the college into disrepute.

The London based Jewish Chronicle duly boasted about Dr Kollerstrom’s dismissal on the front page of its 25th April edition.

On 7th May Dr Kollerstrom first became acquainted with Lady Renouf to seek advice on whether he could expect to travel safely to Germany where he hoped to present his paper The Walls of Auschwitz – a review of the chemical studies to the Berlin Conference on 15th-18th May.

This conference (Extermination in Gas Chambers in National Socialist Concentration and Extermination Camps) was designed to refute the revisionists’ case on the alleged mass murder weapon – the gas chamber.

Lady Renouf advised in her observation that: a) it was unlikely that the organisers would include a revisionist paper in their unchallengeable conference (as opposed to the entirely open to allcomers Tehran Conference in 2006 on The Holocaust – A Global Review). And to prove the case she asked the Berlin Conference organisers whether she could be included as press, but received no response;

b) if Dr Kollerstrom were to open his scientific mouth in Germany, or in any of the ten countries where it is illegal to bring forensic science in to question the Holocaust legend “in full or in part”, he would risk certain prosecution and a long term of imprisonment.

About to appear herself on a Press TV live panel discussion Lady Renouf suggested to the channel, which at last offers UK viewers a democratic choice of information sources, that they interview Dr
Kollerstrom, who had been persecuted by the mainstream media, thus to provide him with some redress for the vilification and libel he has recently suffered following his scientific article published on a U.S. website.

On 14th May the channel duly filmed an interview with the science historian Dr Kollerstrom and a second interview with Lady Renouf, who provided the background regarding the stark contrast between the open
democratic approach she had experienced at the Tehran conference, as compared to the tyrannical and closed programme of this year’s government sponsored Berlin conference, where no revisionist was
invited – though the conference was supposed to be all about revisionists and their (source) criticism.

Kollestrom and Renouf at Press TV Dr Nicholas Kollerstrom and Lady Michèle Renouf on set at Press TV after recording each of their interviews. Lady Renouf is holding a copy of The Rudolf Report

The substance of Dr Kollerstrom’s interview is his hope that a scientific journal will sponsor his own on site chemical analysis of the walls of Auschwitz, in the tradition of the Leuchter Report and the Rudolf Report. These authors, like Dr Kollerstrom himself, came to this work out of scientific curiosity and with no political interest.

After recording his interview Dr Kollerstrom appeared live on Press TV’s Between the Headlines 14th May edition.

Despite Ms Bevan’s earlier hypocritical stance in favour of scepticism (during a discussion of Le Monde’s recent admission that it had misidentified photos supposedly of Hiroshima after the 1945 atomic bombing) in her subsequent unthinking mandatory denunciation of revisionism one recognises at once the archetypical parroting response of the mainstream journalist, confronted by a taboo source-critical attitude towards what Jewish historians term the “holy of holies”.

Source: www.insight-info.com