Farrakhan is rabidly anti-white, anti-Asian, anti-Hispanic, anti-Jew, anti-Christian (of flavors he dislikes), and homophobic.

Farrakhan has made hate speeches and lectures for over three decades, targeting Jews ("bloodsuckers"), whites ("blue-eyed devils" and the "anti-Christ"), America, and homosexuals.

What else does Rev. Wright advocate? Slavery reparations.

The following is available on the Internet via the included links:

The Reverend Jim Wallis has called racism America’s greatest sin before God. That sin is exacerbated by the fact that America has never repented for the sin she committed against hundreds of millions of Africans in chattel slavery.  “To admit to that sin, to confess that mistake and to apologize for a wrong for which there is no justification is not something that anyone with a racist mind would ever consider as a possibility,” says The Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., Senior Pastor, Trinity United Church of Christ, of Chicago.
 
Rev. Jeremiah Wright, pastor of presidential candidate, Barak Obama, will be the keynote speaker at the 20th Anniversary Gala of the National Conference of Blacks for Reparations in America (N ‘COBRA) on Thursday, June 21 2007,  7:00PM at 3801 Market Street.   “The biblical principle of true repentance is that the offended party is given compensation to make up for that which has been stolen from them, the losses they have been inflicted upon them and their families,” said Rev. Wright in a written statement to N’COBRA.

===================================

Obama must provide clear, unambiguous explanations of his views on racial divide, particularly how 20 years of Rev. Wright's black separationist sermons have influenced his views. 

While one's associations may suggest that one's beliefs are in alignment with the norms, values, or behaviors of an organization, the association itself does not automatically proclaim allegiance to, or complicity in, the organization's norms, values, or behaviors.  It is possbile for an individual to be a passive or inactive member of a particular organization, to be unaware of the organization's unlawful aims, or to disagree with those unlawful aims.

The Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment restricts the ability of the State to impose liability on an individual, solely because of his association with an organization, recognizing that a blanket prohibition of association with a group, having both legal and illegal aims, would pose a real danger that legitimate political expression or association would be impaired. 

Although one's beliefs and expressions are Constitutionally protected, one's behavior may not be.  The Supreme Court also stated that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment' requires one's guilt to be "personal," that is, proof of one's wrongdoing cannot be attributed to another.  Thus, one cannot be held liable for the actions of an organization or another merely as a result of membership in that organization or by association with another. 

Together, these Constitutional rights prohibit "guilt by association" - that one's association with another, in and of itself, is made criminal, resulting in punishment or penalty. 

Even so, Congress has the power, under the Due Process Clause, to regulate some associational relationships, and some types of vicarious liability may apply to individuals under particular circumstances, as may be defined by laws pertaining to conspiracy and complicity.  Therefore, the prohibition against "guilt by association" is not absolute.

Although the Constitution protects against invasions of individual rights, and prohibits unlawful guilt by association, it also provides the Government with the power to safeguard its vital interests.  In addition, the Supreme Court has held that the right of privacy does not extend to organized groups or associations which solicit funds or memberships, or to corporations dependent upon the state for their charters.  Also, the right of individuals to assemble is one thing; the claim that an organization of secret undisclosed character may conduct public drives for funds or memberships is another.  Associations and their members may be free to solicit, propagandize, and hold meetings, but they are not free from public criticism or exposure. 

Moreover, although all political efforts by argument or persuasion to change the basis of our social, economic or political life are tolerated, the line is drawn sharply and clearly at any act or incitement to act in violation of our constitutional processes.  Thus, the Government, that is, We The People, have the right and duty to protect its existence against any force that seeks its overthrow or changes in its structure by other than constitutional means.

Where the question is one of the fitness or qualifications of an individual for a particular public position, it is legitimate to inquire as to matters that may prove relevant to their fitness and suitability for the public service.  Past conduct may well relate to present fitness; past loyalty may have a reasonable relationship to present and future trust.  Both are commonly inquired into in determining fitness for both high and low positions in private industry and are not less relevant in public employment.  It is legally permissible to bar persons from certain positions merely because of their associations.

To that end, both federal investigative agencies, and the people of this Nation, have the obligation to conduct investigations, queries, or other vetting, which may be necessary to ensure that a Presidential candidate deserves the highest level of public loyalty and trust that would be granted, if elected to the Presidency.  Thus, while a potential our Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief enjoys the common rights bestowed to all citizens under the First and Fifth Amendments, it is absolutely necessary that the candidate completely and fully disclose and explain, if asked, affiliations with, support of, or endorsement by any organization.

There is no Constitutional right to a government job, including the Presidency.  A candidate does not lose an important property or personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution, if found unfit to be President of the United States.  Their Right to Free Speech is not impaired.  They are free to associate with the organizations, as before, unless the candidate knows, or should know, that members of the organization are engaging in criminal behavior. 

Understand a candidate's associations provides insight into the character of the candidate.  In general, certain reasonable inferences may be made about an individual, by virtue of his membership in that organization.  For example, it would be reasonable to infer that a member of a State Dairy Board has an interest in dairy products.  The degree to which such inferences remain reasonable may vary, for example, by the extent of the individual's activities in the organization, by public membership, support, and statements of affirmation or endorsement, and by concerted activities with other organization members.  For the most part, association with, support of, or endorsement by, an organization would be only one piece of evidence for consideration.  Again, guilt by association applies to punishment or sanction, and not to inquiry, investigation, or vetting.

Association with, support of, or endorsement by, an organization espousing unpopular norms, values, or beliefs is not proof of guilt.  However, it would be legitimate to question or challenge association with, or support or endorsement of, any organization, if such association raises suspicions of character or fitness that would make one unsuited for the job, or if such an investigation furthers an important or substantial governmental interest.

If discovered, information that a candidate associates with or belongs to certain organizations may be deemed a sound reason for making inquiries into the desirability of the election of that candidate.  That is not "guilt by association."  It is a warning to investigate the conduct of the candidate and his/her opportunity for harm.

The race issue was bound to get out of hand anyway.  It doesn't matter who threw the mud, or who threw it first.

There are two components to the race issue in this election cycle:
     *    Black vs. everyone else
     *    Black vs. brown

Up until now, brown voters have not made a significant impact, as a voting bloc, on the Democratic race.

If Hillary Clinton suffers significant losses in the campaigns ahead, many Democratic voters of all races -- who can't subscribe to the smoke, mirrors, and empty hope of Obama -- will be in search of a candidate who can at least reach out to them and seek to settle their concerns.

It appears that Obama may be a water carrier for slavery reparations proponents, as suggested by public links between Obama and those who demand/expect slavery reparations to be paid.
 
Quite frankly, on top of his health care plan, where will he get the money?

Not only does the amount of reparations concern me, but that whatever it is, it is not likely to be enough. Some also want "millions of acres," too.  Who decides which landowners will cede their land and what the fair market value will be for the Taking?

Perhaps I missed something but I don't know why I should have to pay anyone reparations, considering that my family arrived here long after slavery was repealed.

This reparations matters isn't a bolt from the blue, as much as a carefully orchestrated behind-the-curtains shell game by proponents. 

For example, in 2007, The Hill reported that John Conyers, House Judiciary Chairman, has been biding his time until Obama ascends to the Presidency before introducing his bills to enact reparations legislation.

Patient Conyers hopes to move slavery bill during an Obama administration

After waiting nearly two decades, Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) is well positioned to move legislation that could lead the federal government to apologize for slavery and pay reparations. But the Judiciary Committee chairman is willing to wait two more years, when he hopes Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) will be in the White House.

TheHill.com, 03/12/07
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/patient-conyers-hopes-to-move-slavery-bill-during-an-obama-administration-2007-03-12.html

Barack Obama: Is America Ready for Reparations?

Is America ready to pay reparations for slavery? What is that you say, "Doesn't Senator Barack Obama oppose reparations for slavery?" Well, no. He doesn't. In fact the reparations crowd in Washington and Chicago is salivating at the prospect Obama might stumble into the White House and put them on track for a reparations gravy train for slavery which took place centuries ago.