Cornbread n Jazz in Elkhart, Indiana.

I had the amazing opportunity to not only attend the Cornbread n Jazz this past weekend but also got a chance to participate as a spoken word artist there at the Historic Roosevelt Center in Elkhart, Indiana.

Familiar with the venue having been there two months ago directing and performing in the 3rd annual Michiana Monologues, I pretty much thought I knew what to expect: a little bit of poetry and singing…cool!  I am always up for an open mic.  For the most part, I was right but what I didn’t expect was a short play, the wide array vendors showcasing their talent, and the smell of black-eyed peas and cornbread!

Yes, some people sang, some people recited poetry, they even cracked a few jokes.  Some people just shared their ministry or mission of visiting Haiti.  Others celebrated their victory from illness.  Then there were just some people who came to watch.

Cornbread n Jazz is rich in culture.  Most importantly it is rich with talent and well-organized;  not just on stage but behind the scenes as well.  As I would like to mention names, I do not think it would be fair simply because I understand how many people it takes to organize a successful show.  So I say “Bravo” to everyone involved with planning and organizing Cornbread n Jazz this past weekend.  I look forward to the next one!

Join Cornbread n Jazz on Facebook!  http://www.facebook.com/pages/Cornbread-n-Jazz/122296798584

“Precious” Was Not Accepted in Theaters Everywhere. Why?

Director Lee Daniels was quoted in The New York Times saying he was “embarrassed” to show Precious at the Cannes Film Festival. Nikki Giovanni mentioned in her speech she gave at Indiana University South Bend that she is boycotting the film.

On November 6, 2009, Precious was not shown in any South Bend or Mishawaka major movie theatres. Yet the University of Notre Dame’s DeBartolo Performing Arts Cinema is showing the film. Indiana University South Bend’s Titan Publishing screened Precious April 1. What is the big controversy about this movie and why was it released only in certain demographic areas yet our educational institutions are showing it?

Precious began as an independent film based on the book Push by Sapphire. The film is directed by Lee Daniels Entertainment and Smokewood Entertainment. It would soon get picked up by Lions Gate Entertainment after the 2009 Sundance Film Festival screening.

Precious brings the audience into the world of an overweight girl, Claireece “Precious” Jones (Gabourey Sidibe) who is an illiterate African American teenager. She comes from a background of poverty, physical, and mental abuse.

The journey begins with Precious being expelled from high school because she is pregnant—for the second time. When Precious is confronted about her pregnancy, her response is delivered in the stereotypical way of a black woman, terse and with attitude. On her way home, the audience walks with her through the ghetto where she is harassed by black teenage boys who yell obscenities and shoves her to the ground because she ignores them. Precious finally makes it home to squalid public housing and there we are introduced to her lazy and verbally abusive mother, Mary (Mo’Nique) who spews a harangue of distorted reasons why her daughter needs to drop out of school and cash in on her pregnancy by registering at the welfare office.

Through dialogue, it is revealed that the welfare system supports their household and that Precious pregnancies are a product of incest. Precious’s father raped her and Mary not only watched it happen but exploited her daughter’s misfortune by collecting an additional welfare handout for Precious‘s child, her own granddaughter.

So far the story of an obese black teenager depicts negative aspects about the African American community. It could be said that this is why Daniels may have been embarrassed to present the film. In the New York Times interview, Daniels admits that he did not want to “exploit black people” by directing such a consciously grim movie like Precious which rehashes stereotypes. During Giovanni’s visit to IU South Bend, she referenced a hypothetical situation of an individual who, unexposed and uneducated with black culture might have a misconstrued perception of the black community based on certain movies like Precious.

With the help of the character Miss Blu Rain (Paula Patton), a teacher from Each One, Teach One, an alternative education center for troubled teens, Precious eventually learns to read and write. The movie credits Precious’s enlightenment with a montage of African American figures like Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, Langston Hughes, Alice Walker, and other historical people who made a significant impact in black history. Aside from the montage of positive role models, the movie remains focused on the main character of Claireece “Precious” Jones.

The bleak reality of Precious’s life exposes social issues like rape, incest, teen pregnancy, and HIV/AIDS. Marshall Fine of the Huffington Post said, “…this film takes [the audience] places they don’t want to go, that it is an experience to avoid – a look into a world of which they want no part.”

Because of the gritty content, it could be said that the reason why Precious was not released in every theatre is due to the fear of negative feedback. Perhaps Precious was not released in South Bend or Mishawaka because of old traditional and religious values that the Midwest is so well known for. However the movie was released in larger cities that had a wider array of diversified demographics. Nonetheless, Precious grossed approximately $1.8 million the first week. Soon after, with the increasing support of positive reviews and Academy Award nominations, Precious soon followed after other successful independent films like Slumdog Millionaire and The Wrestler. People became more curious as to what the hype about this movie is all about.

This movie address a variety of social issues that are so critical that perhaps the University of Notre Dame and IU South Bend could not academically afford to ignore Precious. To remedy Giovanni’s concern with this movie, maybe for the unexposed and uneducated, this movie should only be viewed in a liberal arts school. As for Daniels, he says that because we have a black president, “It’s O.K. to be black” and that he “is no longer ashamed” and so, Precious it is.

Wealthy Adopts Welfare Mentality.

If taxpayers must involuntary bail million-dollar companies like AIG out, then we need to implement stipulations that require the fat cats of these fallen companies to humbly resign, bringing in new executives with fresh ideas and a shared perspective of growing our economy first and foremost, not their wallets.  This misuse of taxpayer funds proves that you do not need to live in urban areas in order to improperly handle money.  This only proves that even the wealthy misuse money on a higher scale.  Have not the countless white collar crimes proven this? 

 

Look at it this way; does it make sense to give a homeless drug addict money to pay for their mortgage when their drug addiction is what brought the home to foreclosure in the first place?  Of course not!  Just the same, we can not afford to give companies like AIG bail-out money until they show evidence that there is some reform within the executive structure.  Otherwise, we will have only taken welfare to another level. 

 

Welfare was originally created to help low-income families for a minimal amount of time—to rise above the lifestyle of poverty.  Yet, it is known all too well how most welfare recipients can abuse its benefits, using it as a primary source of income to support themselves and their families for the duration of a lifetime.  The same is happening with these companies on the brink of bankruptcy.  We need to reform this Bail-Out Plan so that it explicitly ensures that it will only help companies that are willing to help themselves—not to bonuses, but to help themselves in order to help this economy and ultimately, our country.

Getting Over the Hurdle of Separating Church and State

Does anyone remember the term “separation of church and state”?  Why does this not apply to Senator Barack Obama?  As America appears to have excused The Pope from the Catholic sex scandals, so should Obama be exempt from the offensive comments of his former pastor.  Yet, this is not the case, proving once again, the idea of separating church and state will always have double standards.

For centuries, the conflict of whether Church or State should govern has always been an issue.  Temporary resolutions like oh, I don’t know, THE FIRST AMENDMENT, in The Bill of Rights of The United States Constitution states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting free exercise thereof…”.  The phrase, separation of church and state coined by former President Thomas Jefferson believed religion, being a very personal subject was a conscience state of mind that was between an individual and his God.  According to the British philosopher, John Locke, this concept of thinking is what early settlers brought to the American colonies and is what influenced the authors of The United States Constitution.

Today, a man runs for president and suddenly, America wants to combine state and religion even though former President James Madison wrote in The United States Bill of Rights, “practical distinction between Religion and civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and is guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States”.

If this is true, then why can we not make the distinction between Senator Obama as a political official and Obama who according to Jefferson, “owes account to none other for his faith or his worship…,” taking into consideration that “…the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions”.

That said, why are we focused on the opinion of a preacher who supposedly is not considered a legitimate power of government?  Many citizens expressed how scary it is to have someone with Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s viewpoint ruling our country.  Yet, it is not Wright who is running for president.  It is a senator who is (or was) spiritually influenced by him.  At the end of the day, America is persuaded to focus on our president’s political decisions, disregarding his religious practices and beliefs because after all, it is guaranteed to all of us in The U.S. Bill of Rights.

Reverend Wright’s sermon is taken out of context as if he and his congregation are planning to hand America over to foreign adversaries on a silver platter.  It can be said President George Bush and Senator John McCain are already taking care of that by planning to send as many U.S. Troops to Iraq until someone’s ego reaches its apex. 

Perhaps Reverend Wright’s proclamation of what he believes about our country pricks the hearts of Christians, Catholics, and other denominations because they know the prophesies written in the Book of Revelations reflect current travesties.

To all the offended and self-righteous, Revelations is the last book in The Bible.  I highly recommend it.  It is a good read.

Any proclamation Obama’s preacher may have had regarding religion was extinguished with bitter hate stemmed from generations of rejection and oppression.  I am by no means making excuses for Reverend Wright.  Yet, I understand where his anger comes from.  This does not mean that I fully support Wright’s outrageous opinions either.

It can be said everyone has a friend, relative, or colleague whom they are closely associated with whose political and racial opinion differs from their own.  Why, consider Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro.  I challenge you to even consider The Pope who is associated with The Roman Catholic priest, nuns, and monks where an estimated 0.2% of them are proven abusers.  The Pope states his moral opinion differs from the theirs.  If Obama must suffer the ramifications of his ex-preacher’s opinion, then why and how is it that The Pope remains sovereign?  Granted, we are comparing apples to oranges with The Catholic religion verses the U.S. government institution.  Yet, isn’t that what America is doing by paring Wright’s sermons with Obama’s presidential campaign?

Senator Obama’s ex-pastor is no different from the person scarred by a bad childhood.  Yet, only the underprivileged netting between $21,000 to $22,000 a year who are forced to live in affordable housing that is often located in hazardous communities can identify with this.  Dare I say not even non-minorities who today, suffer the social backlash of racism have only felt what could be thought of as a grain of sand compared to the overall treatment of the working-class citizen.

Yet, we have been told for years to “get over it”.

Some do.

Some don’t.

The bottom line is that Senator Obama has.

So, to all the people whose feelings were hurt from the words of Reverend Jeremiah Wright.  To all who are appalled by such outrageous statements against our country.  To all the white women whose hearts were pricked from Wright’s discriminating comments.  I urge you to march to the words of our forefathers and distinguish the actions of Senator Obama from his religious beliefs, which according to our U.S. Constitution he really owes no explanation for;  and if you can’t,  then I suggest that you simply get over it!

 

McCain and Rev. Wright’s Rage

Let’s just get over the fact that Senator Barack Obama happens to be a black man with a religiously irate preacher and admit he is the only presidential candidate who can make rational decisions with a level head and does not waste the public’s time with delusional tales of sniper adventures.

Senator Obama does not have an anger management problem.  Senator John McCain, a.k.a, McNasty does.  I don’t know what you’re opinion is about this, but the last leader who had anger issues and spoke tenaciously about war, caused a genocide of an estimated six million European Jews.  Yet, some favor McCain because he chooses to perpetually deposit trillions of dollars into foreign militia so that they can police their own country rather than invest in domestic healthcare.  People want Senator McCain as president because they apparently like the fact businesses receive ridiculous tax credits for conducting business overseas, leaving Americans unemployed.  It can be said that McCain supporters don’t necessarily agree with contributing welfare to unemployed citizens who, ironically, might be able to afford their own healthcare if they could get a job but cannot because big businesses are employing overseas and the government pays them to do so! 

All due respect, Senator McCain reminds me of the rich, snobbish family who would rather tongue-kiss their dog and put diamond collars around it’s necks rather than be their brother’s keeper.

Granted, a percentage of people take advantage of the system that often hinders people from contributing to the welfare of low-income citizens.  That said, reform the system by adding restrictions with more detailed responsibilities for case workers.  Get organized!  There is too much money filtering throughout our country NOT to get it right.

At the same time, I’m not one to throw my money away either.  Yet, as human beings, we have an obligation to contribute to the underprivileged.  Don’t we?  Perhaps we are all just too selfish and focused on pursuing the happiness believed to lie in our own perception of The American Dream.

But I digress.

Let’s just conclude by noting Senator Obama is not the angry one.  His ex-preacher is.  McCain is just a short fuse.  Like a recovering alcoholic might slip and take a drink, McCain is subject to lose his temper in The Situation Room.  Yet, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s ex-preacher, who is NOT running for president, by the way, is getting media coverage as if he is.  Meanwhile, Republicans believe McCain, a man who has admitted to having problems managing his own emotions, can manage our United States military better than Senator Obama (again, whose ex-preacher displayed emotional resentment toward political issues, not Obama himself).

Yep.

Give me the man with mental problems over the senator whose religious choice is in fact a constitutional law that is supposed to be viewed as a separation of church and state.

The Angry Preacher.

Having come from a church where my pastor, or in my case, a resigned Apostle who spoke offensively is a personal and touchy subject.  Because of that, I have the authority to speak upon Senator Barack Obama’s preacher, Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

American history tells us what kinds of leaders are birthed from such radical thinking.  At the same time, Biblical history tells us that great men have been birthed because they thought outside the box.  In fact, our nation celebrates Jesus Christ’s birth and his resurrection every year.  Yet, America gets offended when someone proclaims what he stood for. 

The separation of church and state are now facing off.

As a black woman, not only did I have the opportunity to choose on behalf of my gender and color, but now I feel somehow, I must choose between my faith verses the righteous way to govern.

Consequently, the two are not that different.  Although it can be argued that the two indeed clash.  This all depends on an individual’s viewpoint.  What is your perspective?  Is it from the spiritual or political eye?

If the perspective is from a spiritual viewpoint, particularly Christian, which is the religion American was founded upon, then biblically speaking, Reverend Wright speaks the truth to a certain degree.  His proclamation of doom and gloom on America reflect those from the book of Revelations, prophesying damnation on a civilization that has not turned from their sins and refuse to accept Christ as their Lord and Savior.  The offensive part comes only in the reverend’s opinion which from a political standpoint is appalling and insulting to any political official as it should be if anyone’s job, career, gender, or race was spoken ill upon.  However, Reverend Wright is entitled to his own opinion and if anyone does not like or agree with his sermons, they have the right and liberty to go to another church.

Now Senator Obama has already stated that he does not always agree with Reverend Wright’s opinions but he does look up to him as a spiritual advisor.  American citizens have a valid concern in wanting to know who influences the political candidates running for President of the United States.  A man of Reverend Wright’s political viewpoints is indeed a pivotal factor in determining how Senator Obama plans to rule as president.  Yet, these presidential debates are designed to determine who and what our future president stands for.

From a political viewpoint, consider this:  like Geraldine Ferraro stepped down from Senator Hillary Clinton’s campaign, so should Reverend Wright resign from Obama’s.  Ferraro and Wright’s personal opinions and beliefs have tainted the Democrat’s campaign.  The difference between Ferraro and Reverend Wright is that Ferraro’s statement was aimed directly at the presidential campaign.  Reverend Wright’s sermons were not. Both comments are offensive.  However, Reverend Wright’s speech was geared toward a smaller audience while Ferraro pushes her opinion upon the masses.  Both possess the individual right to relay their message any way they like.  Neither comment has a place in the arena of political campaigning.

Just as Obama’s retired preacher Reverend Wright had his pulpit, I’m sure Ferraro is on her soapbox proclaiming her thoughts and beliefs in front of a substantial audience then later having tea with Senator Clinton at high-noon.  Just because Ferraro resigned from Clinton’s campaign does not mean that they are no longer colleagues.  Is not Ferraro and Clinton long-time friends just as Reverend Wright and Obama are?

Reverend Wright and Ferraro actually have this in common:  Their own righteous indignation of disgust toward a particular group or class that may have cost Clinton and Obama their presidential campaign.

Overall, the only difference between Ferraro and the reverend is just their opinion!

Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King set the example of what a spiritual leader and political activist should be.  King says, “We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline”.

King referenced “our struggle” toward the black population.  In this case, we ought to refer “our struggle” to America’s struggle or more specifically, the Democratic struggle.  Neither Ferraro nor Reverend Wright has appeared to adhere to this teaching.

Clinton Pulls a Rabbit out of Her Hat!

Thank God, Clinton won Texas and Ohio because I need something to write about!  Had Obama won those states, the Democratic campaign would look very similiar to the Republican campaign of McCain verses some generic contender to make it look like a race.  No dissrespect to Huckabee but did he get the hint when Romney dropped out?

Speculations of how Clinton broke Obama’s winning streak has everything to do with Obama’s dealings with Canada.  Whether the allegations are true or false, the timing of the leak favored the Clinton campain enough for voters to question Obama’s character.  Obama had 48 hours to explain himself which meant, him or his campaign had to compose a speech that eloquently dismisses the allegations while still keeping the beat to his regular speech of hope and change. 

It is a tricky thing to do and unfortunately, 48 hours was not enough time to sway the undecided voter his way.

Other speculations are that Clinton just got tough.  The famous commercial campaign she launched of who is more qualified to answerer a national security crisis call at 3 a.m. seem to be final push to catapult Clinton back in the race.

According to CNN.com, Obama currently takes the lead with 1,378 pledged delegate and superdelegates to Clinton’s 1,269.  To become the Democratic nominee for president of the United States, the candidate must get 2,025 delegate and superdelegate votes.

Meanwhile, McCain sips ice tea with Bush, observing Clinton and Obama fight for the remaining votes, secretly hoping they verbally destroy their own party.   Consequently, making him a more attractive candidate for the next president of The United States.

Burger King Cheated on Me!

             In 2002, I traveled to London for a missionary trip.  I was quite excited to experience the culture of London society.  The moment I got off the plane, I noticed that most of the people’s accent were different than mine.  However, I was clearly able to understand what they were saying.  What I had to learn quickly, was the meaning of things.  The subway was referred to as The Tube or Tram and dollars meant pounds.  I had to learn how to communicate effectively in order to adapt to my new surroundings.  Visiting London was exciting and I truly felt like I was in a different world.  I had to see more of London, England!

            I did the usual tourist thing.   I went sight-seeing.  Westminster Abbey, The London Eye, Harrods, and Buckingham Palace were the spectacles I stood in awe at.  Eating strange food, taking snapshots with doormen and the London policemen, also known as “Bobbies” was my way of socializing.  I also made it a point to purchase commodities of unique culture, items that I never seen in America.

            I was a little surprised to see a Clarion Hotel down the street from my very English cultured hotel, The Porterhouse.  The hotel looked out of place, as if it did not belong because of its modern architectural build.  Reminding me of home, I quickly shrugged Clarion off and proceeded to immerse myself in more of the English culture.  Imagine my surprise to see Burger King standing on the corner of the downtown area!  I was appalled!  Why hadn’t I seen this before?  How dare Burger King come to England? I thought.  The Clarion Hotel I could blindly accept but Burger King?  Burger King!  Burger King was ours!  Mine!  Americas!  How could they?  I thought.  Traders!  Burger King and England!  Both of whom have betrayed me and their countries! 

            Burger King betrayed America because their commercial catered to the Americans.  Us.  Me!  Their commercials insinuated that there would always be a Whopper waiting for me.  “Have it your way!”  That’s what they promised me, to have it my way.  Our way.  America’s way, not England’s way.  I felt like Burger King had cheating on me.  The devastating was almost worse than a cheating boyfriend! 

            Neither Burger King nor myself expected to find each on another in such a foreign place yet, there we were standing in front of each

other.  I was at a standstill.  Should I go in?  I asked myself.  If I do, will ruin my foreign experience?  Yet, I had to know, would I still be

able to have it my way, like the Burger King promised me in America?  I took a step closer and stopped abruptly.

Plastered on the window, Burger King flashed a sign advertising to all of London that its Whopper was worth $2.39—only the dollar sign was replaced with a pound symbol.  Burger King spoke another language!  It never occurred to me that Burger King could speak another dialect other than American English.  It was like I didn’t know this restauraunt anymore!  Nonetheless, I went inside.

It was as if I was back in America.  Plastic seats, value meals, Coca-Cola, and Sprite all gave me the nostalgia of my home, South Bend, Indiana.

            “Can I help you?”  asked the British Burger King employee.

            “No.  Thank you.”  I retort.

            I left Burger King.  I wanted nothing else to do with that place ever again.  Until I flew back to America.

            I exit the doors of Burger King entering downtown London again.  London, my foreign love, also betrayed me.  Rich, with its culture and historical buildings, I was lead to believe London, England would forever remain a place where the traditional English breakfast and tea with two lumps of sugar and cream would always trump The Whopper with cheese.  Apparently, the English could have it there way too.

            As much as I embraced London, London embraced me just the same.  London loved me for the same

reasons I loved it.  I was interested in its culture and wanted to consume it all.  London was interested in my American culture and wanted to

consume my appetite.  But alas, our affair wouldn’t last.  America was calling me and so was my Whopper.

Our Understanding Serve as Filters

          The key to truly understanding the concept of literary interpretation is understanding the day and time in which the author of a literary piece has written it.  Anyone can make up a single definition of what literary interpretation means to them supported by argument after supporting argument, reference after reference and yet, it is guaranteed that not everyone will agree with that definition.  Why? Because people are diverse!  We have a variety of languages, cultures, religion and ethnic backgrounds.  Even if we were to narrow it down to a religious sect, rarely, will there be a majority vote in regards to interpreting literature outside their own hallowed writings. 

          There are some pieces of literature that have stood the test of time–being able to identify with the text I mean but even then, the interpretation still may not be the message the writer intended to get across.  For instance, the poem, The Walz, which was written some time ago, is simply about a child dancing with his clumsy drunken father.  This same poem interpreted today will be understood as a child getting a beating from his father. 

My Papa’s Waltz by Theodore Roethke

The whiskey on your breath
Could make a small boy dizzy;
But I hung on like death:
Such waltzing was not easy.

We romped until the pans
Slid from the kitchen shelf;
My mother’s countenance
Could not unfrown itself.

The hand that held my wrist
Was battered on one knuckle;
At every step you missed
My right ear scraped a buckle.

You beat time on my head
With a palm caked hard by dirt,
Then waltzed me off to bed
Still clinging to your shirt.
 

          When it comes to text that is heavily laced with metaphors, the interpretation of literature is what the reader gets what they perceive out of it according to their own level of knowledge on a social, religious, and academic basis.  All literature is a type of propaganda.  Once it is displayed in the market, it is vulnerable to be misinterpreted and over-interpreted.  If the writer is lucky, their literature may be interpreted just how it originally intended it to be.  On the other hand, some literature is interpreted just as it is written and it usually is some type of scientific and mathematical text book. 

There are too many perspectives to arrive to just one conclusion on any matter.  Thus, to interpret literature is to understand the history of it and if one does not know the history then they must be able to interpret the history of historical literature!

 

Seriously, Is America Really Ready for a Black President?

             How can the so-called United States of America be ready for an African American president when such a question must be asked?  The significance of an African American running for president in a country where once upon a time, blacks were legally considered personal property deserves acknowledgement.  However, when we choose our presidential candidates based on the color of their skin, placing the microscope over a black man running for president shows just a token of improvement towards racial equality.   This skewed thinking manifests segregated thoughts our country has tried to mask since the victory of the 1968 Civil Rights Movement.  It provokes citizens to decipher which ethnicity can do what better, creating social and racial conflict distracting us from more important issues such as our nation’s finances, domestic and global affairs. 

            Slavery aside, how can we as a nation overcome the mentality of being superior to another race, creed, or culture?  The American history books boast about the melting pot theory of all ethnic races forgetting their culture and conforming themselves into the ideal American citizen.  The ideal American citizen can be defined as an unrefined, rebellious European society who seeks out minority cultures to civilize and trade economic goods.  With that said, the question still stands:  Is America ready for an African American President?  The better question is:  Is America ready to put its ego of cultural superiority aside and humbly submit to a government led by a person who at one point in American history was not considered a human being?         

            Some say racism is no longer an issue in the United States.  How can this be true when nothing is done about a 16 now 17-year-old teenager in Jena, Louisiana who is tried in an adult court for aggravated battery and conspiracy to commit aggravated battery because of a school fight prompted by threats and racial slurs where no weapons were involved?  No appropriate disciplinary action was taken against the antagonists who happen to be white.  In Charleston, West Virginia six white people kidnap, rape, beat, and stab a 20-year-old black woman, all the while taunting racial slurs.  The arm of justice is doing what it should to take care of these particular violators.  However, both of these crimes were sparked by the hate of an individual’s skin color, particularly what is commonly referred to as black. 

            These perpetrators are not alone.  After all, African Americans are supposedly the minority, right?  How many more people silently champion the racial injustice in America today?  According to a research from the Southern Law Poverty Center Intelligence report, there are 601 hate organizations in the U.S.  Ninety-three percent of them are white supremacy groups.  Of the 93%, 78% hide behind non-threatening names, 16% of them are religious organizations, and 15% are blatant Klan organizations.   The actual number of members in these organizations remain a mystery.  Are these people ready for a man who they perceive to be an “N” as president?  As stated before, to even ask if the United States is ready for an African American president is proof that unless Americans change how they identify their presidential candidate, particularly by race, America is certainly not ready for any president other than a white man.