Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Saturday, February 23, 2019

Of the 60 people who co-founded the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People in 1909, only seven were, in fact, “colored.” Most of the organization’s founders were white liberals like Mary White Ovington. Its highest honor, the Spingarn Medal, is named for Joel Spingarn, who was Jewish and white.

Point being, white people have been intricately involved in the NAACP struggle for racial justice from day one. So Rachel Dolezal did not need to be black to be president of the organization’s Spokane chapter. That she chose to present herself as such anyway, adopting a frizzy “natural” hairstyle and apparently somehow darkening her skin, has put her at the bullseye of the most irresistible watercooler story of the year. This will be on Blackish next season; just wait and see.

As you doubtless know, the 37-year-old Dolezal was outed last week by her estranged parents. In response, they say, to a reporter’s inquiry, they told the world her heritage includes Czech, Swedish, and German roots, but not a scintilla of black. In the resulting mushroom cloud of controversy, Dolezal was forced to resign her leadership of the Spokane office. Interviewed Tuesday by Matt Lauer on Today, she made an awkward attempt to explain and/or justify herself. “I identify as black,” she said, like she thinks she’s the Caitlyn Jenner of race. It was painful to watch.

Given that Dolezal sued historically black Howard University in 2002 for allegedly discriminating against her because she is white, it’s hard not to see a certain opportunism in her masquerade. Most people who, ahem, “identify as black” don’t have the option of trying on another identity when it’s convenient.

That said, it’s hard to be too exercised over this. Dolezal doesn’t appear to have done any harm, save to her own dignity and reputation. One suspects there are deep emotional issues at play, meaning the kindest thing we can do is give her space and time to work them out.

Besides, this story’s most pointed moral has less to do with Dolezal and her delusions than with us and ours. Meaning America’s founding myth, the one that tells us race is a fixed and objective fact.

It isn’t. Indeed, in 2000, after mapping the genetic codes of five people — African-American, Caucasian, Asian, and Hispanic — researchers announced they could find no difference among them. “The concept of race,” one of them said, “has no scientific basis.” The point isn’t that race is not real; the jobless rate, the mass incarceration phenomenon, and the ghosts of murdered boys from Emmett Till to Tamir Rice argue too persuasively otherwise.

Rather, it’s that it’s not real in the way we conceive it in America where, as historian Matt Wray once put it, the average 19-year-old regards it as a “set of facts about who people are, which is somehow tied to blood and biology and ancestry.” In recent years, Wray and scholars like David Roediger and Nell Irvin Painter have done path-breaking work exploding that view. To read their research is to understand that what we call race is actually a set of cultural likenesses, shared experiences and implicit assumptions, i.e., that white men can’t jump and black ones can’t conjugate.

To try to make it more than that, to posit it as an immutable truth, is to discover that, for all its awesome power to determine quality of life or lack thereof, race is a chimera. There is no there, there. The closer you look, the faster it disappears.

Consider: If race were really what Wray’s average 19-year-old thinks it is, there could never have been a Rachel Dolezal; her lie would have been too immediately transparent. So ultimately, her story is the punchline to a joke most of us don’t yet have ears to hear. After all, this white lady didn’t just try to pass herself off as black.

She got away with it.

(Leonard Pitts is a columnist for The Miami Herald, 1 Herald Plaza, Miami, FL, 33132. Readers may contact him via email at lpitts@miamiherald.com.)

  • Share this on Google+0
  • Share this on Linkedin0
  • Share this on Reddit0
  • Print this page
  • 70

168 responses to “Rachel Dolezal Proves Race Not A Fixed Or Objective Fact”

  1. 2010HDSTGLIDE says:

    The only race is the human race. I do feel that this womdoes need help.

  2. itsfun says:

    If a white man decides to be a black woman because he is a black woman trapped in the body of white man, can that person than apply for employment as a minority. That would give his future employer a double minority for Affirmative action. So much for affirmative action.

    • tomtype says:

      I have a friend who literally can trace her ancestry back to the Mayflower. She was married to an Arab, who also can trace his ancestry back to the leader of the first group of Arabs to come to Detroit. But with an Arab last name and a possible Arabic-sounding first name, she was a double minority count for several social service agencies. We used to joke about the strange facts of her job search.

      • Eleanore Whitaker says:

        Actually, many don’t know this but women are considered a “minority” according to EEO/AAF regulations. The joke is that women in the US outnumber men by 2%. One wonders then why women hired for jobs are considered a “minority.”

        I recall working in personnel recruiting in the very early 80s. It amused me that when we pitched women for jobs in sciences, finance or computing, the client companies would first check the status of their prior hiring to see if they had met their “quota” of women.

  3. FT66 says:

    What I don’t understand is, did this woman get the job because she looks black or because she was capable to do the job? And how did she do it? What I know, it is not the race which does the job as required, it is the person regardless the color they have.

    • Eleanore Whitaker says:

      When it comes to women in the US and jobs, I know for a fact that companies have and will always “judge” job applicants based on these factors and in this order:
      . Salary
      . Gender
      . Age
      . Race

      Some of the biggest corporations play little games with those job applications. They are prejudged on the above bases by the intake recruiter in HRD.

      • FT66 says:

        I get your point Eleanore. So, now tell me, on this case of Rachel Dolezal, who is promoting discrimination? Aren’t those who hate it? They can’t hate it at the same time promoting it.

        • Eleanore Whitaker says:

          I don’t think Dolezal’s intent was to promote anything or anyone but herself…we live in a hugely narcissistic society today where it’s all about “me, me, me.”

          Often, men and women are so grossly insecure that they play these head games with others they hope will insure they can do what the rest of us can’t.

          There are many saboteurs who promote that which they hate. Their motivation is validation of their hatred.

          That isn’t Dolezal’s motivation here. She has an obvious identity problem. A kind of psychological “double agent” mentality.

          Those of us who truly hate discrimination know it will never disappear. In my own personal experience, racism is bred in the bone. A kind of adaptation of “culture” that simply cannot view minorities in any other light than the prism of “inferiority.”

          Which to me, only proves a deep seated inferiority complex.

          • FT66 says:

            Dear Eleanor, please don’t twist up things. I know you are a clever woman so do we. You must understand that Rachel Dolezal didn’t employ herself. What I asked earlier was: was she employed for being black or because she showed being competent to do the job? Those who are complaining now, are the ones who always complain about discrimination. Do you think discriminating Rachel Dolezal now is OK because she wasn’t born black? And what about blacks, will they accept to continue being discrimated as Rachel Dolezal has done by giving up her job?

    • idamag says:

      That is what I couldn’t understand. Many of our local members of the NAACP are not Black. I am not. We had a President who was not Black. What is the deal?

  4. Eleanore Whitaker says:

    Leonard Pitts, of “Miami, Florida” is so typical of some men in our society. He finds one single woman who managed to prove his point that no racism exists and off he goes into the Wild Blue Yonder…Really Pitts?

    The problem isn’t one of race for guys like Pitts…It’s one of having to take accountability for their actions and behaviors. So one woman erases all of lynchings, the bombings and in Florida, especially, where bigots breed by the hour, (don’t deny it Pitts. I have relatives who live in the Panhandle) all of the plantation culture disappears, washed clean as a halo on St. Michael the Archangel. Oh Puhlease….Can you come up with something more substantial to wipe any the outright violent KKK reputation?

  5. MichelleRose3 says:

    More than anything else, I wish the media and its pundits would stop comparing Dolezal and Caitlyn Jenner. They are similar only in that the false assumptions within “race” and “gender” allow established structures to maintain power and control. But transphobic people believe that trans folk are deceivers, liars and so they compare trans women with Dolezal.

    (“Transphobic” doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re “afraid” of trans women or trans men, it just means disgust, contempt, hatred, distaste or any sort of belief that a trans person doesn’t have the right to be the person they choose to be. So don’t split hairs with me because I’m not interested in micro-fine definitions, ‘kay?)

    I will say this: identity is a personal choice. If Dolezal chooses to define herself as black or identify as such, then I support her choice to do so. Whether or not she comes to that position “authentically” is not my concern. “Authenticity” is relative. Identity is not.

    Now go ahead and take your best shots, you friggin’ conservative meatheads. Nothing you can do or say can be worse than what I’ve already endured. I’ll tell you this: your world is changing and if you can’t adapt and accept it, you’re going the way of the dinosaurs and good goddamn riddance.

  6. tomtype says:

    I remember hearing and speaking with John Griffin who wrote Black Like Me. He spent 6 weeks traveling across the south after chemically changing his skin color. He initially was afraid that Blacks would not accept him, as he was actually white. But he noted that the surface appearance was all that mattered. He passed without question among both Blacks and Whites. Everywhere he traveled he had hate stares from whites and open help from Blacks, just on the basis of his skin color. In fact, in New Orleans he met a friend who did not recognize him in his new color. Part of his base rule was that he would not change his name or lie about who he was. He used his real name and identity throughout his many bus trips.

    • Eleanore Whitaker says:

      After over one hundred years of embedding racial stereotypes, many whites today still find themselves hugging their wallets a little tighter the minute a black person, especially a black male. Doesn’t even matter that he is well dressed, appears well educated and has a highly cultured demeanor.

      Sadly, the plantations produced a whole lot more than just sugar, tobacco and cotton. Thanks to slavery, the stereotypes of the ignorant “darkies” remains alive and in fact, is once again rearing its ugly head.

      • tomtype says:

        You are right that there is still a deep division. Fortunately for me I hope I have helped to bridge some of that gap here in Detroit. Every year Detroit area and New York area seriously vie with each other as the point of entry for the most immigrants and that has been true since the 1920’s They tend to alternate first and second place, but there is still no danger of that pair being at the very top for new immigrants. But New York area is over 4 times the size of the Detroit Area. We are simply the most diverse city in the US. We have minorities that other cities have never heard of.
        For a while I dated the second Black female CPA. Her grandson was very light and might be able to pass as white. As he sat in his chair, while the whole family was on vacation, he put his arm against mine and seemed puzzled that I was still so much lighter than he was.
        I felt honored at one printing company I worked for, when the staff voted me an honorary black man, so they could now claim we were an all black company. Second-hand I heard one of the other board members of the NAACP advising the owner, to listen to me, because my skills in managing printing costs would help save his company.

        • Eleanore Whitaker says:

          I think at the moment, the issue closest to my sensitivities toward bigotry is what is really behind the sudden glut of guns in NY City and other big inner cities.

          Is it a coincidence that since April 2015, 3 white Georgia gun runners were thrown in jail for selling guns in NY City?

          White males in the south and midwest are THE most grossly insecure human beings on planet Earth. Why? Because they are neurotically terrorized by the color “black.”

          All of the white male bigots I have ever known were the most disgusting examples of insecurity. Little surprise they loathe black men and stereotype them as “arrogant” when they are quite emotionally secure.

          The joke about white male bigots is “why” they so fear the color “black.” They swagger about like preening peacocks, overloaded with superiority, when their underlying fear is one of gross inferiority.

          It’s easy to see why they will do virtually anything, up to and including selling illegals guns on big city streets so these black males kill each other off.

          Why else would these inner cities suddenly become glutted with guns if not due to the large numbers of minorities?

          It fries my brain these these Lil Abner types use their states rights to cross over into other states to sell guns illegally for no reason other than to sell to minority males.

          Anyone fool enough to think these good ole good ole GA boys didn’t know exactly what they were doing when they sold guns to minorities in NY City needs to rethink the entire bigot premise.

          Sadly, it isn’t just black men who kill each other with these illegal guns. Innocent women and children are victims more often. That’s a disgrace.

          So what do the GOP bigots do? They cut funding to ATF, knowing full well it’s a wink wink nod nod to the gun runners in red states. Which, by the way, the top 5 billionaire gun manufacturers ALL live in red states.

      • mike says:

        More stupid horse crap from delusional Ferranti.

        • tomtype says:

          Do you have access to some black walnut trees? This fall, take the skins and rub them over your hands, arms, and face. That will darken your skin for a short period of time. And walk around your own community. Then come back and offer a real opinion, not one based upon flawed perceptions. Not even you close friends will know you. The police may question you. You will be a changed man that day and thereafter, even after the stain fades.

          • mike says:

            Same old emotional bull sh$t coming from the progressive wing.

          • tomtype says:

            Most of our lives we deal with emotions. We love, we care, we feel. In fact you reaction is emotional. It is not rational rejection, but rather based on what you feel. So, actually do the experiment and find out what different emotions darker skin brings out. One of the things John Griffin worried about was he lacked “negroid” features. NEWS FLASH: many black people in America lack negroid features. It is just skin color!
            So, if you want to condemn emotion based expressions, you should start by refraining from using them as your primary argument. Logic 101.

          • mike says:

            Thank for the good chuckle.
            No emotion involved in my comments, just plain understanding the “touchy feely” baloney coming from liberals. In your world, logic, common sense, and the exclusion of critical judgement goes out the window and emotion rules everything you say or do.

          • tomtype says:

            Maybe liberals are known for “touchy feely.” That still makes more sense than prickly touchy. Who wants to cuddle a cactus? I would like to see a little more critical thinking. At least soft and cuddly sells, and is often the best response, and the one in keeping with our religious and cultural traditions. And those are traditions, which means they are conservative. Where did this condemnation of good sense, descent treatment, tolerance and respect suddenly lose its revered place in society?

          • mike says:

            Maybe in the eyes of a progressive that makes sense, but in the real world it doesn’t.
            Common sense not good sense. I never said descent treatment, tolerance and respect have lost their revered place in society. Remember I said, exclusion of critical judgement, common sense, logic goes out the window when it comes to how progressive think the world is and should be.

          • tomtype says:

            Except that good sense and critical judgement insist tolerance, respect and justice are what works in the real world, is what should be (both because it works and is the right thing to do). So it is how the world works best and how it should be, so where is the disconnect? And what could possibly be a better way, a more realistic way?

          • mike says:

            But you progressives lack common sense and exclusion of critical judgement rules your lives. Touchy feely makes you happy, not smart!

          • tomtype says:

            Since when did conservatives choose suffering. Dress in sackcloth, and omit the itch and sunburn creme? While they might not mind if others are uncomfortable, they don’t choose to be uncomfortable either. So, that is a silly argument. That liberals want the same comforts as we ourselves want, which is why they lack virtue and we are full of it. And you are!

          • mike says:

            Keep trying!!!
            Only silly argument is your continual belief that your lives are not controlled by the exclusion critical judgement and common sense. Your decision making puts a major emphasis on touchy feely emotions and has little to do with the real facts of life.

          • tomtype says:

            Emotions are real facts of live.
            Keeping them in mind is not excluding critical judgment. After all we are not all Dr. Spock. Rational arguments carry more weight because they can be “proven.” But it turns out that those closely correlate to the expectations of the emotions. You are presenting a false dicotomy.
            As noted above, the emotionally attractive ideas like justice, equality, fairness, are also the stuff of rational, critically judged situations. In other words, good emotions equals good sense. If you make the argument solely rational, and forget that people also have emotions, it becomes sterile and often falls into fallacies, while if purely emotional, it may lack balance, and fall into the fallacy of demanding isntant, complete change. But the truth is that together, in unison they give us the critical judgement and good sense to make decisions that both emotionally satisfy and are workable.
            Don’t forget most questions involve a major amount of emotional reference, e.g. you own postings that your solutions are the best, and that other solutions really lack focus and emphasis. That is a direct appeal to emotions. As is most of what passes as the conservative agenda.

          • mike says:

            Keep trying.
            Lack of common sense(not good sense) and the exclusion of critical judgement fits all progressives. Touchy feely is the answer to all problems, damn the facts or consequences.
            No, you and the rest of the progressives are emotional wrecks.

          • tomtype says:

            Given your criteria, and your several statements above, where you definitely show a lack of critcal judgement, and a lack of good common sense, and you seem to damn the facts, full speed ahead approach, I am left with the one inescapable conclusion that you are a rabid eyed progressive? Gee, it feels good to have figured that out. Aren’t I right?

          • mike says:

            As usual you are wrong again!! But keep trying, I need the laugh.

          • Eleanore Whitaker says:

            Tom, Sadly, Mike cannot be reasoned with. He is just a spoiled, overindulged Daddy’s boy who believes in his own empirical entitlement to prey on anyone who disagrees with his bizarre mental aberrations. Mental hospitals are full of people who cannot be reasoned with.

            These are dangerous minds who will, just to prove, they are omnipotent, become out of control given the right ingredients.

          • Eleanore Whitaker says:

            Hate progress do you MIkeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee? No surprise there. Keeping everything as it was in Pre-Civil War days is right up your alley. You dump all the dirty work on your free slave labor and then get to sit back on that fat rump and watch the world earn profits for you, you won’t pay one dime of taxes on.

          • mike says:

            I see you continue acting and thinking stupidly. No surprise coming from you.

          • Eleanore Whitaker says:

            Do you have ANYTHING worthwhile to contribute to this topic? Or are you paid to sit there like a big round schlump and prey on others who prefer to take part in interesting discussion?

            I see you continue to be a blockhead and think you are Hitler’s Hermann Goehring. No surprise…coming from a cement brain.

          • mike says:

            LMAO!!
            What I have found is the majority of your posts are as worthwhile as whale sh$t at the bottom of the ocean.

          • Eleanore Whitaker says:

            L”M” AO….Since you are basically pond scum and are mentally unbalanced, your and only your opinions hold little or no real concern to me.

            Get thee to a mental health professional. You can’t focus on a single topic Mr. Predator.

          • mike says:

            Say what you may but your past posts show how delusional you are. Your EX hit it out of the ballpark describing you.
            I want to laugh, but sadly know how deeply you are flawed, and out touch with reality.

          • Eleanore Whitaker says:

            For a man who hates being judged by the ranting and raving of your posts, you do an awful lot of judging of others. So tell us, Oh Grand Pubbah of Upper Butt Crack, who died and named you God? Get off the ego trip. Sand fleas like you have nothing of value to offer.

          • mike says:

            “Ranting and raving of my posts”, just shows how warped and delusional you really are. Again, your “ex” has it right, you are certifiable crazy.
            Still laughing my a$$ off.

          • Eleanore Whitaker says:

            Watch your mouth bub…The National Memo terms of service doesn’t tolerate slander. My ex has been deceased since 2006 and we got on quite well. If you don’t stop posting your BS, I will sue you and your rich boy Daddy.

            I got rid of Louis Allen for his slander and lies. You are next.

          • mike says:

            Louis Allen said he was your “ex” and I had no reason not to believe him. If he lied to me then he deserves to be gone. I find it interesting that I have used “ex” on at least 4 occasions over the last 4 months and nary a word from you.
            What I do know is that you are delusional in your posts.

          • Eleanore Whitaker says:

            Which is why I threatened to sue Louis Allen’s butt if he didn’t stop with that lie. I was married once..to Douglas Whitaker. I have never met Louis Allen.

            I don’t validate BS from men like you and Allen when you can’t prove what you post in a court of law. I was married on February 29, 1964…THAT the NJ Bureau of Marriage Licensing can prove…not you and your Louis Allen liar BS artists.

            This just proves what I’ve been saying about you. YOu are so totally mentally deficient that you fall for the lies of another mentally insane predator who has fantasies about a woman he has NEVER met.

            My posts can be proven in a court of law. Yours can’t. But, should you want a “record” of my marital history, NJ will be happy to provide it for you AFTER I sue you for continuing a lie of Louis Allen. Slander can be costly muggsy

          • mike says:

            First, you must learn the definition of slander.
            Secondly, go ahead spend and waste your money on a frivolous lawsuit. Once people see your stupid, ignorant responses, from your comments about male anatomy when they disagree with you, to your women being a monolithic voting block, to actual lack of knowledge on numerous subjects, they will laugh you out of court.
            As to my opinion on your ranting and raving bordering on delusion, that won’t change.

          • Eleanore Whitaker says:

            First, I don’t make idle threats. Second..I do not need YOU to tell me what slander is. If you choose to believe a poster who makes up lies and you continue that lie by posting it, that is SLANDER. As for you and your inability to stick to topics and provide intelligent, healthy exchanges based on the topic of the thread, be warned, I have already taken steps to insure that the likes of posters like you cease the kind of ranting and raving and preying for no real reason other than to attack others.

            That IS the only point of your posts…someone, anyone, to attack to get your jollies. A waste of your intelligence and MY time.

          • mike says:

            I never knew it was a lie, so it is not slander. I know it now and will not say “ex” but I will state my opinion on any subject and will express my thoughts when you make stupid/ignorant comments, which have been many.

          • Eleanore Whitaker says:

            Liar. You knew it was a lie because you read every post where I stated it was a lie and proved it. You are free to do as you please…Just do it according to the National Memo terms of agreement.

          • mike says:

            More of your delusion I see. Not once did you address the “ex” to be a lie to me. I know if you did specifically post to me the “ex” being a lie, you will produce it/them. The first time I was aware of “lie” was on this thread. Don’t try any shenanigans, it won’t work.

          • Eleanore Whitaker says:

            Here is what I posted 7 hours ago that proves you are a liar:

            “Which is why I threatened to sue Louis Allen’s butt if he didn’t stop with that lie. I was married once..to Douglas Whitaker. I have never met Louis Allen.

            I don’t validate BS from men like you and Allen when you can’t prove what you post in a court of law. I was married on February 29, 1964…THAT the NJ Bureau of Marriage Licensing can prove…not you and your Louis Allen liar BS artists.”

            I have NEVER met Louis Allen. You are reported just like several others on this thread. If I tell you to go to the NJ Bureau of Vital Statistics and you are too chicken livered to dare to be proven wrong …it only proves you and Louis Allen and the rest of your harassing BS artists are losers. Get a life.

            I already reported you and Allen. Allen is a predator like you. Enough with you sickos.

          • mike says:

            You pathetic imbecile.

            Here is what I said to your last post starting with “Liar”. “More of your delusion I see. Not once did you address the “ex” to be a lie to me. I know if you did specifically post to me the “ex” being a lie, you will produce it/them. The first time I was aware of “lie” was on this thread. Don’t try any shenanigans, it won’t work.” Do you not see the word “thread”.

            Do you not know what a thread is?? A running commentary of text messages pertaining to one topic or question. The back and forth comments on NM represents a thread.

          • Eleanore Whitaker says:

            I think your posts prove precisely why you even bother to respond and prey on MY posts.

            I am now going to ADDRESS what you call the “ex” lie…I do not know Louis Allen other than on National Memo. I have never met him in person. I was married on February 29, 1964 to Douglas A. Whitaker, Sr. and divorced him on April 23, 1980. According to the State of NJ Bureau of Vital Statistics, NO OTHER MARRIAGE HAS EVER BEEN RECORDED SINCE…GOT THAT JUNIOR GENIUS?

            I reported you to National Memo because your posts violate the terms of agreement.

            In response to this current post of yours, Do you have ANYTHING to add to the topic? If you can’t stay on topic and express opinions ON THAT topic, you violate the terms you agreed to by getting ALL too personal.

            You forget one thing. I have a very public persona due to being a published author, an army of friends who laugh at you and Allen for you insistence on lies about me and lies you dare not bother to prove in a court of law for being viewed as what you are: an argumentative, contrarian predator who hates the truth.

            I have now provide you with all of the information, which most of the public already knows and which makes a fool of both you and Allen. Try again hot shot..You are DOWN for the count and sinking faster than the Titanic.

            GET OFF MY CASE or you will be the next case in court.

          • mike says:

            “Prey on your posts”!!! Really!! Now that is one of your funnier statements.
            Produce the posts, not the one on this thread, you allegedly sent me telling me I was wrong about “ex”. Pretty simple.
            As to reporting me to NM, that’s fine. They were my opinions of your pathetic posts, nothing more, nothing less. We will see what happens.
            What doesn’t surprise me is the fact that you can’t take the heat and ran to daddy for help. What makes you so pathetic is you had a choice not to respond but you continually did.
            I could care less about your life.
            Start posting intelligent and factual posts and I will get “off my case” as you call it, which to me is not the case.

          • Eleanore Whitaker says:

            I produce 3 posts…Now, you prove how mentally unbalanced you are. This is why I had to report you.

            Men like you think if you ignore facts and truth, the rest of us will let you get away with control freak lies.

            So liar mental case…Here is the post where I addressed and debunked your insanity plea that I am a liar…Obviously, you have reading comprehension problems:

            “I am now going to ADDRESS what you call the “ex” lie…I do not know Louis Allen other than on National Memo. I have never met him in person. I was married on February 29, 1964 to Douglas A. Whitaker, Sr. and divorced him on April 23, 1980. According to the State of NJ Bureau of Vital Statistics, NO OTHER MARRIAGE HAS EVER BEEN RECORDED SINCE…GOT THAT JUNIOR GENIUS?”

            Go ahead liar boy…NOW let’s see you pretend I didn’t address this “ex” BS.

          • mike says:

            “I produce 3 posts….”, really!!! Where did you “produce” them, I haven’t seen them. Produce the 3 posts and the threads they were on, pretty simple.

          • Eleanore Whitaker says:

            You are a cowardly liar. You read my last post and missed the part where I addressed the “ex” issue. You are one sick sick sick dude.

            Here it is for a 4th time..no wonder no woman comes within 10 inches of you…You are a veritable nut job.

            The address on the “EX” issue you will no doubt pretend you didn’t get.

            “I am now going to ADDRESS what you call the “ex” lie…I do not know Louis Allen other than on National Memo. I have never met him in person. I was married on February 29, 1964 to Douglas A. Whitaker, Sr. and divorced him on April 23, 1980. According to the State of NJ Bureau of Vital Statistics, NO OTHER MARRIAGE HAS EVER BEEN RECORDED SINCE…GOT THAT JUNIOR GENIUS?”

            And again so you don’t miss it…”I am now going to ADDRESS what you call the “ex” lie…I do not know Louis Allen other than on National Memo. I have never met him in person. I was married on February 29, 1964 to Douglas A. Whitaker, Sr. and divorced him on April 23, 1980. According to the State of NJ Bureau of Vital Statistics, NO OTHER MARRIAGE HAS EVER BEEN RECORDED SINCE…GOT THAT JUNIOR GENIUS?”

            and again so you can’t lie and say you can’t “read”….”I am now going to ADDRESS what you call the “ex” lie…I do not know Louis Allen other than on National Memo. I have never met him in person. I was married on February 29, 1964 to Douglas A. Whitaker, Sr. and divorced him on April 23, 1980. According to the State of NJ Bureau of Vital Statistics, NO OTHER MARRIAGE HAS EVER BEEN RECORDED SINCE…GOT THAT JUNIOR GENIUS?”

            Enough for you or do I have to report you again for continuing to lie and insist I didn’t address the “EX” issue…

            Crazy Man Alert!

          • mike says:

            Give the tread it was written. You know, give me the topic and comments. All you have to do is copy and paste showing your actual comments to me.

          • Eleanore Whitaker says:

            If you are trying to prove you are a dimwitted Ahole, you’ve succeeded. I already posted all I plan to ..I know what you are trying to do. But, you go about it the wrong way…Tell this lie about me one more time and like Allen, you disappear. Go change your Pampers you sick little pup.

          • mike says:

            Produce the Topic, and thread, where you informed me Allen was not your husband. Very simple copy and paste them, you have them, or do you???
            It wasn’t until this thread that you addressed the issue.

          • Eleanore Whitaker says:

            Hey! Mental Case…It IS this thread and THIS topic where I produced 5 times my address to your lies. You respond with the same BS post…ooooh ooooh wah wah wah Mikkeeee wants to see them…ooooohh oooooh Mikees Pampers are overloaded with BS….He can’t read what I posted 3 times in a single post But this mental case keeps repeating the same BS over and over and over…It IS this thread jerk. If you are vying for Ahole of the year…You’ve won.

          • mike says:

            Here is your post from 3 days ago. Eleanore Whitaker mike • 3 days ago

            Liar. You knew it was a lie because you read every post where I stated it was a lie and proved it. You are free to do as you please…Just do it according to the National Memo terms of agreement.

            Other than the post on this thread that said Allen lied, which is the first time I was aware of the lie, produce the “every post where I stated it was a lie and proved it.” Not under this Topic but the other topics that shows your claim.
            One time, I never saw or heard of the misinformation until this thread and topic.
            Just produce the topics and threads that shows you stated your positions and that I knew and ignored them, OTHER THAN THIS THREAD.

          • Eleanore Whitaker says:

            Just because your Daddy spoiled you and pandered to your whim I will NOT. I posted a response on THIS thread and that should be sufficient to stop you from promoting lies about me,.

            But, you like all insane males just don’t stop until you are forced to. You know full well that National Memo doesn’t retain threads from two weeks ago. But, you love to be pretend how smart you are and try to insist you have to see all of Allen’s posts to me. They are gone thanks to MY having reported him to National Memo.

            Go play with yourself…That’s really the only game you know.

          • mike says:

            Are you nuts, I never asked for Allen’s posts to you. I asked you to produce the posts(other than this thread) that you told me I was lying about the “ex” comments.

            LMAO!! You can’t and now you are back to your insipid remarks.

          • Eleanore Whitaker says:

            Wrong…I posted that I can find the posts where I told you you were lying about the “ex” comments. All I have to do is pull up your comments and you will be one embarrassed jerk.

            4 days ago…your post name show this is what you posted and how you promoted that “ex” lie:

            “Say what you may but your past posts show how delusional you are. Your EX hit it out of the ballpark describing you.
            I want to laugh, but sadly know how deeply you are flawed, and out touch with reality.”

            You wrote that Allen was my “ex.”

            And another of YOUR posts, “Louis Allen said he was your “ex” and I had no reason not to believe him. If he lied to me then he deserves to be gone. I find it interesting that I have used “ex” on at least 4 occasions over the last 4 months and nary a word from you. What I do know is that you are delusional in your posts.”

            So asshat…keep up the lies and you and Daddy will end up on welfare.

          • mike says:

            Not surprised that your understanding of the English language is lacking. The operative words are “not on this thread”.
            I said, produce the topic and thread where you told me and warned me that I was using falsehoods about your “ex”. Give the topic it was under, copy and paste your response saying it was wrong.

            The first time I was aware it was wrong is on this thread, just produce the other Topics that you warned me I was committing in your words “slander”.

            Pretty simple. if you warned me it should be easy to prove.
            PS: the topic that Allen claimed to be your husband is found in the topic “No good argument for Clinton needing a challenger”, two months ago(i thought it 4 months).

            I know you can produce the response telling me I was lying about your marriage to Allen.

          • Eleanore Whitaker says:

            I don’t have to lie. The state of NJ would tell you that you lying little thug. I am a published author. Nothing about my personal life is a secret.

            Everyone who knows me would stomp you a need anal cavity for your lies. YOu are one big typical right wing BS artist.

            As you see, Allen is not posting. You are next.

          • mike says:

            I could care less if you are published or not.
            I was unaware Allen had lied to me about being married to you until this thread. I gave you the topic and thread when it contacted me about you.
            As to future posts I will no longer use the incorrect information like “ex” or reference Allen’s remarks made to me about you.
            I will not stop responding to your remarks that in my opinion are wrong or ridiculous.

          • Eleanore Whitaker says:

            Your post above: “Not surprised that your understanding of the English language is lacking.” Hence, my DUH response to you that I am a published author and SEO copywriter since 2008 of over 4300 online articles ghost written for blogs and business websites. You do have a serious problem with facts that prove I am more understanding of the English language than you, don’t you?

            You are a woman hater and can’t admit it. That’s why you pounce on women and the men who agree with women on these threads. You must be a real loser if you speak English and then have to make up an excuse for backtracking.

            In another world, I am certain you have some prurient value to someone. Unfortunately, men like you NEVER learn when to back off until it’s too late.

          • mike says:

            More baloney from the resident Misandrist.
            I am enjoying another good laugh from another of your asinine post.

          • Eleanore Whitaker says:

            Allen is not allowed to post to me. Want the same? Keep up the BS. You have nothing my little pea brain. All you know is to make judgments of others who are perfect strangers. Your posts reveal more about you than you ever hoped they would.

            The more you post your trash, distortions, criticisms and judgmental BS, the more you substantiate what and who you are.

          • mike says:

            LMAO!!! Eleanore having another Hissy Fit. Soooo funny!!!
            It is easy to come to a judgment on strangers when i see how irrational and stupid their comments expose their lack of knowledge.

          • Eleanore Whitaker says:

            Another Mikeeeeee delusion? Another Mikeeee ASSumption? That figures. You judge everyone else and yourself least of all. Perhaps, therein lies your problem. A man who has no soul, no conscience and the viciousness of a viper is a man who can’t examine his own conscience honestly. Get thee to a confessional…your time on planet earth is ticking away and your mortality is not far off the deep end.

          • mike says:

            LMAO at another stupid post and ignorant assumptions by you. Go figure.

          • Eleanore Whitaker says:

            Must be pathetic to be as deluded as you are. Did you get a degree in it or did you just come by it naturally?

          • mike says:

            I hate to continue to use LMAO, but you keep making stupid and worthless posts without an ounce of value. Soooo LMAO again!

          • Eleanore Whitaker says:

            I always consider the source whenever someone like you is such a hateful loser. I know my posts have value. Check them out. Only wing nuts like you post hateful BS. So…you, as a source of BS, is obviously unimportant to me.

          • mike says:

            Keep trying but no cigar again!!!
            Only in your limited brain do you think your posts have value.

          • Eleanore Whitaker says:

            Keep smoking those cigars. You’ll do us all a favor and drop dead of lung cancer. My brain is far superior to yours. I have done more in my lifetime than you could possibly hope in 2 of your bloated pretentious BS CON lifetimes. Try again cement brain…Time for a laxative…you have brain constipation.

          • mike says:

            LMAO!!! Love you insane comments.

          • Eleanore Whitaker says:

            Most insane nuts like you always view everyone else as crazy. That’s the upside world YOU live in.

          • mike says:

            No, the insanity is all yours and especially after reading your ignoramus statement something to the effect of red states and the confederacy somehow being united. Funny when you see a Indian American women governor of SC, a black U.S. Senator and you think they have an interest in the confederacy. What hogwash,. When you see thousands of all colors uniting against this terrorist act from holding hands across the bridge, expressing outrage, and the condemnation from through out the red states, just shows how out of touch you are with real world.

          • Eleanore Whitaker says:

            No, the insanity is YOURS. Keep insisting you belligerent, monoconstipated brain dead lunatic.
            You have nothing of value to offer human existence.

            What I post is my opinion to which I have every right. If you don’t like my opinions, shove it up that double wide posterior. Who cares what a loser like you thinks?

            The only man in Noo Yawk out of touch with reality is you, a spoiled, oveindulged CON who takes from others than he gives back. Let’s keep the spotlight on you….you are the one insisting you are soooo right..Spotlight Mikkeeeee and his mentally deficient gospels of BS.

          • mike says:

            Yes, that is your opinion and it is absolutely wrong and just shows more of your delusional mental process.
            As to the rest of your post, nothing of value but it did produce more laughter, thanks I needed it.

          • Eleanore Whitaker says:

            Yes…It IS my opinion. What your opinions tell all of us is that you would love nothing better than to be the ONLY opinion that matters. That show how nuts you are and what a lousy set of corrupt, deceptive, greedy, narcissistic parents raised you.

            As for the rest of YOUR BS post…Don’t think for one minute we accept what your Big Daddy taught you…bullying and demanding only your voice is correct. Daddy must be burning in hell for his part in raising a dimwitted snot nosed punk like you. Too bad you were never raised to know what is right and wrong and what is best for the greater good. The greater good is what you think is YOU YOU YOU. Burn Daddy Burn.

          • mike says:

            “Yes, that IS your opinion,” but still a poor one at best.
            Keep trying, no cigar again for you.

          • Eleanore Whitaker says:

            My opinion is far superior to yours. That’s the problem you have with too truthful people like me.

            Shove that cigar up your too fat rump.

            The comparison between you and that murdering punk in Charleston are many:
            Like you, he wanted to be the ONLY authority.
            Like you, he hated anyone who dared disagree with him.
            Like you, he thought he could twist the truth and facts.
            Like you, he believed in some bizarre white male supremacy.
            Like you, he was hateful.
            Like you he was angry.
            Like you, he supported any twisted ideology that suited his sickness.
            Like you, he had a angry, racist, coward father who worked hate into his children and now that his kid is a mass murderer, like your paragon of sireship, he doesn’t dare show his face in public.

            Like you, he had a mother whom Big Daddy walked all over, making a son hate all women.
            Like you, he wasted his life, his future and his potential.

            Sorry, pallie…but no denials from you are required. Your posts precede you and brand your hater boy reputation.

          • mike says:

            LMAO!!!! You really are one delusional person. LMAO!!!

          • Eleanore Whitaker says:

            No, I am clairvoyant. Sorry, but your posts tell more than you want them to. A man who wastes as much time online for no reason other than to attack others who don’t fall for your line of contradictory BS is pathetic.

            I’m online because I have an online job as a writer. My articles are requested by my clients…What’s your pathetic excuse?

          • mike says:

            LOL!!! Go get a life!!

          • Eleanore Whitaker says:

            Unfortunately for a Daddy’s Boy like you, I have a life and it’s one that makes you pissgreen with envy. How about you stop posting BS? Since you, not I, are the one who is lacking in productivity. You can only use handicapped status to describe you mental status.

          • mike says:

            Your opinion about red states and the Confederacy in today’s world was absolutely wrong and bordered on lunacy. You don’t know what you are talking about, that is not only my opinion but the opinion from the great/vast majority of people from these states that have expressed their thoughts against this heinous act. You seem not to recognize the millions of Northerners that have come south the last thirty years and their effect socially and economically on the region.
            Again, go get a life!! Your stupid anti-male comments just shows how delusional you are.

          • Eleanore Whitaker says:

            Actually, I trapped you …yet again. My opinions were based on my relatives who live in NC, FL and TX…I do know what THEY talk about. You don’t. As a mentally handicapped lunatic radical who lives in NY, a blue state, YOU don’t know what YOU are talking about.

            Just as many minorities have left red states to move north. The US Census Bureau will prove that if you have the balls to check it.

            I have a life…All you have is bashing anyone who disagrees with Daddy’s little punk face.

          • mike says:

            For weeks you have been saying I live north and I have let you say it, snickering every time you would do it, knowing it is just more of your diarrhea of the brain and mouth and poor assumptions of yours.
            I have lived in NC have for the past 40 years,, my wife’s family is from NC. her great uncles died fighting on the Confederate side, all highly educated at Normal College/Trinity College(Duke) and UNC Chapel Hill.

            We were both educated in the North.
            We have never talked about the Confederacy, other than about historical facts, because it is dead in the mind of the more educated people. If was a failure and doesn’t represents our values.
            So all I can gather from again one of your imbecilic post is you have a bunch of uneducated, red necks, wanting to relive the sins of the south and living in the past.
            Over the years we have found away to get along, found common ground to develop the area. Is it perfect?? Far from it. It is working and will continue to work as long as level heads prevail.

          • Eleanore Whitaker says:

            My relatives in NC live in Fayetteville and one who is recently deceased lived on the rim of the Uharry (sp?) state forest. I have at least 4 nephews living in NC, one in TX, another in AZ and half a dozen nieces and nephews whose great grandparents have lived in the Panhandle in FL since before the Civil War. I seem to recall you posting that you lived in northern NY and you answered my posts in reference to that region of NY state. So, either you are a bald faced liar or you are now trying to CYA.

          • mike says:

            Well you recalled wrong. But you can always go back find it and copy and paste where I said I lived in NY.
            I notice you are totally ignoring the facts that show you again have your a$$ where the sun don’t shine when it comes to Blacks moving north. You were wrong again, as you were on the red state/confederacy, the shah overthrown in the 50’s by US. Not surprised knowing you have this superiority complex.

          • Eleanore Whitaker says:

            Sorry you are such a dimwitted male bully. I don’t care where the hell you are from …I already posted to you that the US Census Bureaus shows that more blacks live up north. As for NC, it is THE most racist state there is. Just this weekend your “rebels” managed to take revenge for that toilet paper rag Stars and Bars being taken down. It was in all of the NY papes should you care to be proven wrong.

            As for the Shah being overthrown..again…Mr. Mikkee BS artist is wrong. In the book, American Dynasty, by Kevin Phillips, You will find the substantiation of who masterminded the depostion of the Shah and why. You can also find proof of what I posted in “Safe for Democracy, Secret Wars of the CIA.” Assuming that is you are not such a KKK relic asshat and you can READ.

            You bet I have a superiority complex. I know how far superior our unbaised northern schools are. You idiots in NC are still preaching Confederacy while you states feeds at the federal trough. NC gets $1.47 for every $1 YOU pay in federal taxes. Not a single one of the blue states gets 60 cents for their $1. So big mouth red Rebel without a Brain…yo live off my federal taxes.

            As for NC, it is stuck in a time warp where wages are still among the lowest on the East Coast and there are many men like you who are corrupt and ready to flip houses, cheat your customers as contractors and then when you fill up your banks accounts run your hideously “ignernt” mouths.

          • mike says:

            You really are a blankety blank idiot!!
            Here is one from the Census showing 57% of blacks live in the south, not North. Wake up!
            http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/2011-02-15-census-black-migration_N.htm

            http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/us/25south.html

            http://www.governing.com/topics/economic-dev/gov-new-black-south.html

            As to Shah:Eleanore Whitaker mike • 2 months ago

            No…You are a liar. GHWB was behind the deposition as CIA director.

            The Shah was deposed by Bush Sr.’s CIA in 1979. Bush was not director, he had been gone for 2 years. Wrong again.

            Carter did it all on his own.
            Here is more.
            Eleanore Whitaker mike • 2 months ago

            Dream on sick little man…You may have found a woman who lets your walk all over her, I’m not about to cave to your simpering, neurotic need to submit to your BS.

            I provided you with proof you can’t stand dipshit. From the looks of your posts, I’m not the only one who thinks you are a mental case…

            The Shah was deposed in 1953 but at the behest of Big Oil, one of which GHWB was a member. Now…go change your Pampers dipshit…You are already full of it. Wrong Again.

            Eleanore Whitaker mike • 2 months ago

            Nice try hot shot. I don’t grasp at straws ever.

            Go back to 1953 when the Iranian coup d’etat occurred. Who was the CIA chieftain then? He was in office as the 11th CIA Chief in 1976. Wrong again!!! Walter Smith 1950-53, Allen Dulles, 1953-61 were in charge of CIA in those years.

            Here’s more.

            In 2000, U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright stated:

            “In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran’s popular Prime Minister, Mohammad Mossaddegh.
            No you have been proven wrong again.
            As to the your last paragraph, just more of your diarrhea of the brain.

          • Eleanore Whitaker says:

            Boy are you stupid…George HW Bush was CIA director according to government record from January 30, 1976 to January 20, 1977. As the asshat you are, you wouldn’t connect the 1979 deposition of the Shah to Bush’s CIA would you because as we all know…you are hot to blame Carter. Wrong. In the book, Safe For Democracy, a former CIA analyst Robert Gates, stated that the Iranian crisis of 1977 to 1980 under then CIA Director Turner were following the 1977 CIA plan to depose the Shah. Carter didn’t take office until January 1978…Try again dipshit.

          • mike says:

            You don’t even know what you have said previously, you blankety blank imbecile.
            Here is what you said.
            Eleanore Whitaker mike • 2 months ago

            Nice try hot shot. I don’t grasp at straws ever.

            Go back to 1953 when the Iranian coup d’etat occurred. Who was the CIA chieftain then? He was in office as the 11th CIA Chief in 1976.

            Wrong again!!! Walter Smith 1950-53, Allen Dulles, 1953-61 were in charge of CIA in those years.

            Why are you do dumb. Carter was president from 1-20-1977 to 1-20-1981, Carter controlled the agenda, Carter wanted the Shah out. Only you would believe that Bush who served from 1-30-76 to 1-20-77 was responsible.

            CARTER MADE THE FINAL DECISION!!! BUSH was not THE CARTER ADMINISTRATION.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter

            Hey, dipshit(a word you like to use and fits you perfectly) you are wrong again.

          • Eleanore Whitaker says:

            Here a link from Wikipedia DIPSHIT…https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'ét It was known as the “Mordad” coup and it was

            Ford was president from 1974 to 1977 only because Nixon, your GOP president was forced to resign. Carter did NOT MAKE THAT DECISION…YOU NEED TO GET A BRAIN STUPID.

            GHWB was as I posted a CIA director…30 January 1976–20 January 1977 under Gerald Ford…GHWB resigned and was replaced by E. Henry Knoche who served from 1977 when Bush resigned his post and Stansfield Turner took over in March 1977…under Carter.

            The plan to depose the shah began in 1953 by the Brits in cooperation with the US CIA.

            More info for MR. Dipshit of the Year:

            In 1951, Mohammad Mossaddegh was appointed Prime Minister and committed to nationalizing the Iranian petroleum industry controlled by the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (AIOC).

            Under the leadership of Mossaddegh’s democratically elected nationalist movement, the Iranian parliament unanimously voted to nationalize the oil industry – thus shutting out the immensely profitable AIOC, which was a pillar of Britain’s economy and provided it political clout in the region.

            At the start of the confrontation, American political sympathy was forthcoming from the Truman Administration. In particular, Mossaddegh was buoyed by the advice and counsel he was receiving from American Ambassador in Tehran, Henry F. Grady. However, eventually American decision-makers lost their patience, and by the time a Republican Administration came to office fears that communists were poised to overthrow the government became an all consuming concern (these concerns were later dismissed as “paranoid” in retrospective commentary on the coup from U.S. government officials).

          • mike says:

            Quit wasting my time trying to correct your idiotic remarks.
            First you said more blacks live in the North. Census proves they don’t.
            Then you said Carter took office in 1978, he took office in 1977. So wrong again.
            You said it was Bush’s fault for the overthrow the Shah, he didn’t. It was the Carter administration lack of support that was his downfall long after Bush had left.
            Bush resigned on the same day that Carter took office.
            “The plan to dispose the shah began in 1953 by the Brits in cooperation of the US CIA.” What a stupid and incorrect statement. The shah was not in power, ignoramus.
            Your are an idiot!!!

          • Eleanore Whitaker says:

            It’s you who has your balls in a knot..not I. I give you proof. You reject it out of hand as wrong, incorrect or anythign else you rednecks can come up with to prove you are almighty god reincarnate.

            It was Bush’s fault for the overthrow of the Shah as Kevin Phillips states in American Dynasty. Because GHWB was and still remains an active investor in OIL. Are your hicks in NC that stupid?

            This is the same reason, the Bush family went after Castro with a vengeance, even to supply arms to the Contras in Cuba and Iran to overthrow Castro…I’m sure you red asshats in Confederate NC love to try to play know it alls and deny facts that are in not one but two very bibliographical books.

            From the book: “The Original October Surprise” by Robert Parry…

            “On Nov. 4, 1980, after a full year of frustrating efforts to free the 52 American hostages held in Iran, Carter lost in a landslide to Ronald Reagan and his running mate, George H.W. Bush. The hostages were finally freed after Reagan was sworn in on Jan. 20, 1981.

            While the full story is still unclear a quarter century later, the evidence leaves little doubt that former CIA Director Bush – first as a Republican presidential candidate and then as the party’s vice presidential nominee – supervised a team of bitter ex-CIA officers whose careers had suffered under Carter.

            These ex-intelligence officers were so angry with Carter that they cast off their traditional cloak of non-partisanship and anonymity in 1979 and enlisted in the Republican drive to unseat the sitting President.

          • mike says:

            “Bush’s fault” what an ignorant statement, Carter had the final decision, nothing could happen if not for the President, Jimmy Carter. Bush was not part of the administration. WHATEVER PLANS WERE MADE BY CIA BEFORE CARTER, NOTHING COULD HAVE HAPPENED WITHOUT THE GO AHEAD BY CARTER. What is so hard for you to understand. My God you are one dumb beach. The rest of your post means nothing. Carter was a bust as president, heck, even the democrats like Ted Kennedy didn’t like him.
            Now how many more blacks live in the south or the north?? You said more lived in the north, wrong again idiot.
            Carter was a failed president much like Obama, not because of Bush or republicans but his incompetence as a leader.

          • Eleanore Whitaker says:

            A man with no brains and no balls like you won’t dare read the chronicled history of the Bush Family.

            Men like you just love to show how intelligent you are using overloaded bias you know you can’t prove in a court of law.

            According to the last census, NY City alone has over 3,362,616 blacks…Compare that to Atlanta GA with 1,707,913. Every major southern and midwestern city has less than the population of NY City. Now do you want to count DogPatch where blacks worked on North Carolina’s tobacco plantations for peanuts during the Civil War?

            Carter was not a failed president. In the book, “Safe for Democracy,” it was clearly stated that Reagan’s back room GOP delayed the release of the Iran hostages which Jimmy Carter’s CIA had planned before he left office. But a sack of cow dung like you can’t read..so why the hell would anyone expect a hick, red state racist North Carolina tobakee plantation owner’s son to know facts that are clearly proven in bibliographies in these books.

            Reagan and GHWB were the masterminds who sold arms to the Contras in Iran. Go ahead big mouth…try and deny that. and You’d have to also explain why the hell the minute Bush Junior took office in January 2001, the first thing he did was shred all documents, 1000s of them that made ANY reference to Daddy’s involvement in the Iran Contra scandal.

            How about stop wasting your mentally handicapped brain and get busy sharecropping…something most NC hicks consider “beneath them” but is their only work opportunity.

            Carter and Obama are people presidents. Not political prostitutes like all of the GOP men I have ever known. As a former Republican of 33 years, don’t you dare try to tell me what I know about the male dominated GOP party.

            And, BS artist, grow up. I know your childish, bully boy attitude all too well. You forget, I have lived an entire lifetime in a man’s world. That’s what a hick good ole good ole Daddy’s boy like you hates most…that some women are fully financially independent and don’t need any man for money like your simpering, clinging vine North Carolina Dixie Belles ALL do.

          • mike says:

            You are becoming more delusional each day!!

            You keep trying to change the subject but it won’t work.

            You originally said more black lived up north than in the south, you are wrong.

            https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/2010_census/cb11-cn185.html

            http://www.governing.com/topic

            http://www.colorlines.com/articles/black-america-moving-south-and-burbs-whats-it-mean

            Bush caused fall of the Shah, it was Carter, ding a ling.

            Carter was a failed president.Jimmy Carter struggled to respond to formidable challenges, including a major energy crisis as well as high inflation and unemployment. In the foreign affairs arena, made some headway in Arab-Israeli conflict, but was damaged late in his term by a hostage crisis in Iran. Carter’s diagnosis of the nation’s “crisis of confidence” helped him to lose the election.

            Here’s more.

            In an interview with President Valery Giscard d’Estaing, the former president of France during the time of America’s first crisis with Iran. That in 1979 he met with Carter in Guadalupe for a summit, as did Helmut Schmidt of Germany and James Callahan of Great Britain. Carter told this group of men that the U.S. was going to support Khomeini instead of the Shah of Iran. In essence, Mr. d’Estaing said he realized the U.S. was trading its strongest pro-Western Persian Gulf ally in favor of a terrorist Muslim cleric.

            “I was horrified,” said d’Estaing. “The only way I can describe Jimmy Carter is that he was a ‘bastard of conscience.’”

            “People presidents”, not so. Obama will join Carter in the bottom third of presidents.

            Keep trying on that “Bush Thing”, it means nothing in the real world.

            Once again, you are showing your delusional self.

          • Eleanore Whitaker says:

            As I posted, the first attempt to depose Shah Reza Pahlavi occurred in 1953. Who was president then? What a stupid, insistent, belligerent hick. Bush ’41 was responsible for selling arms to Iran. A fact a dipshit like you can’t admit was due to Bush’ 41’s fallout with Saddam Hussein whom Bush ’41 betrayed when he sold those arms to the Iran Contras.

            Did all of that just magically happen the minute Carter took office? Or, as all documentation proves with bibliographies, deposing the Shah was already on the minds of Bush ’41 and his CIA prior to his becoming president due to Bush ’41’s oil interests. Obviously, since your hicks live with a toilet paper Confederate flag in 2015, you wouldn’t have any ability to track history properly. Instead, you play your blame a Democrat game to cover your oil slicked butts and take NO responsibility for reckless, treacherous big business boys of the GOP you elect. Sorry, but the tide is turning and you rednecks are about to be kicked out on your lazy idle, freeloading butts. Do us all a favor and secede from the union. We can’t afford to pay for your arsenic laced NC water pollution.

          • mike says:

            Are you totally insane?? Pahlavi was never deposed but actually assisted in the coup to oust Mosaddegh.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat
            Read and weep. The coup was against Mosaddegh, the democratically elected president of Iran. Wake up!!!
            Britain and the US selected General Zahedi to be the prime minister of a military government that was to replace Mosaddegh’s. Subsequently, a royal decree dismissing Mosaddegh and appointing Zahedi was drawn up by the coup plotters and signed by the Shah. The CIA had successfully pressured the weak monarch to participate in the coup, while bribing street thugs, clergy, politicians and Iranian army officers to take part in a propaganda campaign against Mosaddegh and his government.[20] At first the coup appeared to be a failure when, on the night of 15–16 August, Imperial Guard Colonel Nematollah Nassiri was arrested while attempting to arrest Mosaddegh. The Shah fled the country the next day. On 19 August, a pro-Shah mob paid by the CIA marched on Mosaddegh’s residence.[21] According to the CIA’s declassified documents and records, some of the most feared mobsters in Tehran were hired by the CIA to stage pro-Shah riots on 19 August. Other CIA-paid men were brought into Tehran in buses and trucks, and took over the streets of the city.[22] 800 people were killed because of the conflict.[1] Mosaddegh was arrested, tried and convicted of treason by the Shah’s military court. On 21 December 1953, he was sentenced to three years in jail, then placed under house arrest for the remainder of his life.[23][24][25] Other Mosaddegh supporters were imprisoned, and several received the death penalty.[8]

            Try this on for size.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh

            Only in your vacuous mind can you believe that the Brits and USA would overthrow the Shah and then reinstate him.

            Your are a total moron.

          • Eleanore Whitaker says:

            YOU posted that YOU had no reason not to believe Allen was lying…YOU posted that…not I. Hope you won’t find collecting welfare a problem…You will be as gone as Allen for perpetuating a lie and harassing me.

        • Eleanore Whitaker says:

          I always love when you slam my posts. The pile of BS your post continues to grow. Any time you slam one of my posts, it’s usually because your mind is so badly damaged and blocked, all facts go right over your big, fat head.

          So Mr. NOOOOO Yawkah, try again…your blather and rabble rousing offers nothing and you know it. It’s why you have to get your 10 seconds of angst out of your sociopathic system.

      • Whatmeworry says:

        Hmmmm wasn’t it old Jessie Jackson who said tat when he sees a group of 3 or 4 colored he crosses the street in fear

    • idamag says:

      I read that book. There are some books that should be required reading in school. In the first of the book, he looked in the mirror as a Black person and realized that, he himself, had latent bias. The other thing that struck me was how scared he was for his life as a Black Man. I have a friend who told me, “I know it is irrational and wrong, but I have prejudice against minority races and I am working on it.” I respect him. I don’t respect those who hate minorities and want to do harm to them.

    • BiteMeLiberals says:

      You don’t have to change your skin color to get the same treatment. Most people can see beyond color.

      • pjm19606 says:

        Most people can NOT see beyond “color” especially you. Every one of your posts are negative toward minorities. Effing Redneck!

      • tomtype says:

        Ah, that that were true. And the objective truth is that you are much given to wishful thinking. Time and again it has been demonstrated that color is seen first and far too often that blinds the viewer to anything beyond color.
        If you really can do it, then you are close to unique.
        So, if you really can, take the black walnut test and find how few others can do it.

  7. Dominick Vila says:

    The problem with Rachel is not that she got a good job at the NAACP, which anyone can fill regardless of ethnicity or gender, but that she lied about her ethnicity to either have a better chance to get the job, or because she needs professional help.

    • FT66 says:

      Dominick, you can call it a lie or whatever, but after observing how her parents reacted on this issue, I see the woman (Rachel) has been living on her own life and no support from those who brought her to earth. She chose the life she wanted to be in as all of us do. She could have deserved to be called a liar if her parents at this time were still on her side. What she did was denouncing her race the same people do in denoucing their nationality to suit their purposes.

      • mike says:

        I guess you didn’t watch her adopted black brother refuting everything she claimed as truth. Why would she tell her brother not to “blow her coverage” in 2012, if she was not living in a lie. It looks like her law suit against Howard for racial discrimination during her “white period” undermines her claims.
        She was caught in a lie, actually several, is a liar, and needs professional help.
        Very sad.

        • FT66 says:

          I do not care what her brother or her parents say. They have proved so far in the eyes of many, as being unfuctional family. A functioning family always tries hard to hide the mistake done by one of their family member. But this family! only god knows how it functions.

          • mike says:

            The only lack of functioning is in your thought process.
            She has been caught in lies, end of story. If she wants to be black, that is her choice and I couldn’t care less. It is her lack of integrity that tells me she has deep deep problems.

          • FT66 says:

            mike, are you striking again?
            “the only lack of functioning is in my thought process!”?
            cheap shot BUT I can take it and I care the less because it is you.

          • mike says:

            I see you are still not functioning mentally, no cheap shot, just pointing out how lacking you are mentally. She is much like Hillary, lacking truthfulness in her life.
            Thanks for another good laugh.

          • pjm19606 says:

            Mikey, you are clueless!

          • mike says:

            No, clueless is all yours.

          • tomtype says:

            Mike, we all suffer from our own little Walter Mitty fantasies. So long as they do not hurt someone else, we fully allow people to so indulge. Are such fantasies really lies? Belief that I am the world’s best lover, that I am a hero, that I have great intellect. Only when we act on those fantasies and attempt to force a partner, or injure people trying to “rescue” them or show our own intelligence limitations by forcing our ill conceived plans over better plans and injure someone are we called dangerous, or delusionional. I fail to see how Rachel calling herself Black injured anyone, and may have helped others, as she was a good worker for Black civil rights.
            You are right, you shouldn’t care. The other question is, even if you can’t understand why anyone would want to be considered Black, why is this a sign of deep, deep troubles. Maybe it is just self delusion clouding your normally excellent judgement. Yes, you believe you are a great lover, heroic and a great intellect, but you are just number 2, right after me.

          • mike says:

            She lied, what is so hard to understand. She has deep deep emotional problems. Her family has refuted all her statements in growing up.
            The question is, did she claim on applications that she is Black, if so, that is fraud. Big difference between saying “I am Black” and saying “I identify as black.” Was Rachel’s claim a legal violation because she received a benefit that she wouldn’t have gotten if she identified as Caucasian? If she misrepresented a material fact to gain money or other things of value like a scholarship, that would ordinarily be fraud.

          • tomtype says:

            Like the difference between I identify as a Christian and I am a Christian?

          • mike says:

            Keep trying!!! She said she was born black, which she wasn’t, she is Caucasian.

          • tomtype says:

            Maybe she was born again Black.

          • mike says:

            Now that was hilarious, thanks for the good chuckle.

          • slk5 says:

            i really don’t care what anyone wants to identify as, what bothers me, is she benefited from “being” black, and also sued howard univ for discrimination for being white!!! personally if she wanted to help, her first wrong decision, was going to the naacp!!!

          • tomtype says:

            Since there is no racial requirement for being an officer in the NAACP, and in fact when first founded, it had a majority white membership, which is now less because they did promote the advancement of people of color.
            We all need to start thinking of our selves as colored. As the Frenchman said when he sat down at a colored restaurant in the South, and was told he couldn’t be served. “Sure, I’m colored. I’m peenk!”

          • BiteMeLiberals says:

            Unfunctional? Being white and claiming to be black or anything that you are not is nonfunctional.

    • pjm19606 says:

      Crap. She identified fully as Black when she took the job. Her parents actions were nothing but an attack on her and she should be sung them. Anyone of us can self identify legally as we wish.

      • Dixon Diaz says:

        If race is a matter of choice, then what is the rationale for racial discrimination laws? What I mean is, if you believe you are being discriminated against because you are “black,” then just identify as “white,” right?

  8. Freedom Fighter says:

    Thank You Don for that report!

  9. OG Bricks says:

    The problem in the United States right now is the fact that the light skinned blacks are making full fledged blacks almost extinct. They have a better chance and opportunities of landing great jobs and getting promoted. I feel sorry for the full fledged blacks as they are being pushed away from the scheme of things and Dolezal took advantage of that.

    • Whatmeworry says:

      1 drop makes you a full fledged black

      • OG Bricks says:

        America must drop this racial nonsense at it is alienating a whole group of people.

        • As a card carrying member of the KKK, I resent that

        • Whatmeworry says:

          Agreed but its all the colored have to hang their hats on. That way they can blame whitey for their lack of responsibily

          • tomtype says:

            Don’t forget the real yahoo. All he has to hang is hat on is that he thinks he was born better than any Black person. Remember Billie Carter, and he imagined himself better by race than G W Carver, or M L King.
            After you finish that extended laughing spree, don’t forget that is basically the yahoo argument. That the most irresponsible, loutish, town drunk is a better, more responsible citizen than any black teacher, preacher, or engineer. Sad enough to make one cry.

        • tomtype says:

          Blacks have been trying to drop this racial nonsense from the beginning. And they were the group that was alienated for all that time. And they are still alienated. If a few whites get upset all because they want to eliminate this racial nonsense, that is hardly alienation, but rather more like sour grapes. That they might really have to compete on a level playing field.

      • Daniel Max Ketter says:

        Why, my girl Staci is married to a full fledged black man, and he’s the finest son in law I’ve ever had. Sure better than my deadbeat boy Lewis. Don’t you agree??

  10. Whatmeworry says:

    No one was hurt?? No what shows is why quotas are a bad idea and need to be outlawed

    • Daniel Max Ketter says:

      Why, we need quotas. Must not read the daily newspaper where you live.

    • Eleanore Whitaker says:

      Wrong…quotas are necessarey to prevent employers from discriminating against new hires. One company I worked for knew what their EEO/AAF quota was and still found a loophole to identify the job applicants they didn’t want to hire whom the employer considered “racially undesirable.”

      • Whatmeworry says:

        Quotas reward non achievers

        • Why, he’s not really whatmeworry, but max ketter (actually Dan M
          Ketter), a bigot desk clerk who was once on Ford Motors payroll, now a parasite living off taxpayers dole with disability in Williamsburg VA. Dan also lies he is a retired military officer on his online profiles, but he actually DODGED THE DRAFT to stay in college to get his business degree and play racquetballand like Bill Clinton, had NEVER served in the military. Sad dan couldn’tget hired for a govt job because of his conscientious objector status,working part time teacher but mostly living on welfare until Ford hired his sorry a$$ out of pity.

  11. edinvestor1 says:

    So, therefore, the racially based laws are, in fact, not based on fact but instead political ploys to get votes.

    • tomtype says:

      Exactly. White votes. They are the ones who benefit from racially based 9biased) laws.

      • Whatmeworry says:

        Only the colored benefit from Quotas

        • But Staci Ketter is married to a colored

        • tomtype says:

          Explain exactly how the “colored” benefit from such quota laws as in old South Africa that required all skilled trade jobs to be filled by whites. That is a quota. Or in Belgium, which is all white, that every larger company over 100 workers have at least 40% Flemish, and not more than 60% Waloon, because the country is about 50-50.
          Even here, where you might have an argument, if say a computer company decides at least 15% of the workers must be women, to encourage more women in the business, which actually has had a declining percentage of women employed in computer programing since the 1970’s. That is a quota.
          Quotas help business management spot mis-allocation of resources, with the result that they may be over spending on labor, that they may be overlooking real talent that might really grow the company, or have that break-through idea. Or just establish better community relations to help the entire country fulfill its ideals.
          Better put: Quotas benefit the disadvantaged.

          • Whatmeworry says:

            Quotas benefit low achievers

          • Why, he’s not really whatmeworry, but max ketter (actually Dan M
            Ketter), a bigot desk clerk who was once on Ford Motors payroll, now living off taxpayers dole with disability in Williamsburg VA. Dan also lies he is a retired military officer on his online profiles, but he actually DODGED THEDRAFT to stay in college to get his business degree and play racquetballand like Bill Clinton, had NEVER served in the military. Sad dan couldn’t get hired for a govt job because of his conscientious objector status and his racist attitudes,working part time teacher but mostly living on welfare until Ford hired his sorry a$$ out of pity.

  12. Dixon Diaz says:

    If race is a “choice,” then racial discrimination laws make no sense.

    • tomtype says:

      Yes, they do. One should still not be discriminated against for choices one makes unless the actually impact the job that you do. We all forget in this that it doesn’t matter if it is inborn or a choice. The biggest, original, freedom is of religion, which is always a choice. It always can be changed, which is why we don’t want to force anyone to do so, because it becomes so intimately part of who they are, even if a choice.

  13. phylin says:

    If weight could be a choice I’d be a lot lighter than I now am.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.