FBI Enganging in Racial Profiling

In a effort to stem potential problems at Tuesday's presidential inauguration, the FBI and other law enforcement agencies are tracking the activities of white supremacist groups.

Despite the fact that there has been "no known organized effort to express opposition" to Obama, law enforcement officials have been watching internet traffic, e-mail, and other methods of "chatter" to stem off any problems.

However, it seems to go unreported that these law enforcement officials are using questionable racial profile tactics to whittle down their lists of people to watch. Word is that all of the people on the white supremacist watch lists are white!

We know from human rights advocate, the ACLU, and other such concerns that racial profiling does not work. TSA officials, for example, cannot levy extra scrutiny on young Muslim men from Middle East countries, despite the fact that all of the terrorism against the United States has been perpetuated by young Muslim men from Middle East countries.

These advocates tell us that TSA cannot locate the terrorists by looking at people who are most likely to commit terror.

So, it must follow, that to find white supremacists, law enforcement should not be looking only at white people. It would be unethical and a violation of human rights to levy extra scrutiny on the people most likely to be white supremacists.

After all, while not all white people are supremacists; all of the white supremacists have been white.

Call your congressman and make sure that law enforcement does not violate the human rights of the white supremacists by looking at only white people in order to find them. White supremacists could be anyone, an African-American, a Mexican illegal immigrant, an elderly Asian woman in Chinatown.

Don't be lulled into a false sense of comfort by thinking that racially targeting white people will help the authorities in locating and stopping white supremacists from violence and mayhem.

Obama: The Economist Endorses Obama Because He is Black

The Economist Magazine, on their website, tells us to vote for Obama because he is black!

Merely by becoming president, he would dispel many of the myths built up about America: it would be far harder for the spreaders of hate in the Islamic world to denounce the Great Satan if it were led by a black man whose middle name is Hussein; and far harder for autocrats around the world to claim that American democracy is a sham.

Hey! I thought we couldn't use his middle name! It's racist, after all!

And, after all, John McCain is old!

And his age has long been a concern (how many global companies in distress would bring in a new 72-year-old boss?).

To be fair, the Economist has a far better argument for supporting Obama: he has run a better campaign. Period. That's it.

Mr Obama has produced the more compelling and detailed portrait. He has campaigned with more style, intelligence and discipline than his opponent.

Nothing else. No fact, figures, or evidence to support their endorsement. No evaluation of his economic proposals. Why would I turn to the Economist magazine for that?

The magazine goes so far as to tell us to take a chance on Obama, and voting for him is a gamble.

Take a shot; what the hell? It is just our country, our constitution, our money, our way-of-life, our very lives themselves at stake. What the hell.

There is no getting around the fact that Mr Obama’s résumé is thin for the world’s biggest job. The magazine proudly reports.

And I am sure that the Economist would hire as Editor-in-Chief someone with no editorial experience, but whose resume was printed on nice paper and who wore the better suit. Right.

Take the leap. What does the Economist care? When the economy tanks under Obama, more people are likely to subscribe to their magazine.

I was thinking about subscribing to this magazine. But, if this editorial is evidence of the level of insight they lend to other issues, I'll go with Mad Magazine instead.

Remind me who brought race into this campaign?