Preserving cultural identity in the face of institutionalized white supremacy: Another Home-going -- Pt. 1b -- The "taking" rolls on with nary a peep from the MSM

Veronica Brown, 3, sees father off to mandatory National Guard training from Tulsa 
International Airport on July 22, 2013.  (Courtesy Cherokee Nation)

"We must remember that the purpose of an adop­tion is to provide a home for a child, not a child for a home."

Justice Sonia Sotomayor

This case has been going on now for a little over four years with little to no coverage from the mainstream media (though local South Carolina media has wasted no time in fashioning their own "single stories").  But, since they play such an important role in oiling the wheels of institutionalized white supremacy by, more often than not, only telling the stories of the "hunters" -- I'm not surprised.

As I look at that photo, I can't help but get a creepy, "Groundhog Day" feeling (but with the child-trafficking, Capobiancos and birth mother needing to learn Phil's lessons).  Because yes, it was Dusten Brown's last deployment (to Iraq that time) -- in service to a country which continues to fail him miserably -- that set this spiteful, baby-selling case into motion.  Here, in his own words, he explains himself most eloquently:

"In December 2008, I got down on one knee and proposed to the love of my life. She accepted with joy. It seemed like one week we were planning a big, outside wedding and celebrating ecstatically the news of our pregnancy, and the next I was receiving a phone call from Christy saying she didn't know how she was going to pay her bills and she was stressed. I told her I had money saved and not to worry and asked her what she needed. I remember specifically that it shocked me when she told me no, that she had "a plan." Still, I knew that my military benefits would provide the medical and financial support she needed, so I did everything I could to push the wedding date up.

Always in the back of my mind I was concerned about going to Iraq. I knew there was a possibility that I might not come home. I pushed for marriage because I needed to know they would be OK if something happened to me. She said no. She told me to stop calling her and stop texting her.

But I called. I texted. I begged. I pleaded. I drove four hours and knocked at my ex-fiancée's door, praying she would answer. I had offered financial support, military benefits, everything I had. When I was told no, I foolishly tried to go along with whatever she asked me to, hoping she would see how willing I was to do whatever it took.

When I did finally hear from her, she started texting me, asking me to sign my parental rights over to her. Every day for a month and a half I got a text asking me that same question. It was a horrible feeling, watching myself being shut off from the woman and daughter I loved so much. I knew I didn't have a chance to fight her for custody because I was about to leave for Iraq for a year. So after weeks of texts, I said I would sign my rights over, thinking I was agreeing for her to have full custody and she would let me see my daughter." (all emphasis mine)

And as he reported for his annual training this July, preparations were already in motion to rip his, biological daughter out of his arms and his life, in order to give her -- not to her birth mother, but to a society identified, white South Carolina couple who, for all intents and purposes, have paid somewhere between $30,000 and $40,000 for her.

Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse for this man and his child, I read this and knew I was wrong:

Reinforcing the court's order last week for Charleston County Family Court to expedite the adoption of Veronica, the justices, split 3-2 as they were last week, praised James Island adoptive parents Matt and Melanie Capobianco for their "commendable" consideration of the child's best interests over the course of the case.

Sombody please tell me, how this same S.C. Supreme Court, with Chief Justice Toal, writing for the majority said...

"This case involves a contest over the private adoption of a child born in Oklahoma to unwed parents, one of whom is a member of the Cherokee Nation. After a four day hearing in September 2011, the family court issued a final order on November 25, 2011, denying the adoption and requiring the adoptive parents to transfer the child to her biological father. The transfer of custody took place in Charleston, South Carolina, on December 31, 2011, and the child now resides with her biological father and his parents in Oklahoma. We affirm the decision of the family court denying the adoption and awarding custody to the biological father. (emphasis mine)

...could turn right around and now say this:

As determined by the USSC, the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) has no applications to Birth Father. Our erroneous decision was premised on the applicability of ICWA to the Birth Father. As a result, the Birth Father’s right, if any, are determine by the law of the state of South Carolina. While this Court was in error concerning the applicability of the ICWA, we have consistently held that under state law, the Birth Father’s parental rights (because of his irrefutable lack of support, interest and involvement in the life of Baby Girl) would be terminated."

That unsubstantiated statement in the parenthesis at the end, flies in the face of the facts -- not only did Mr. Brown try to marry this woman and was deploying to Iraq, he began fighting for his daughter four months after she was born.  I think they think it justifies their having been bullied into reversing their original ruling.  There was a time when white folk at least tried to disguise their hypocrisy.  They just don't even care to anymore. {smdh}

After having followed this case and reading whatever I could about it (to include the many twisted comments from white folk who feel entitled to other people's children for money), a chilling realization washed over me -- while Dusten Brown is the very public target of these baby-selling machinations in general, the specific target is the Indian Child Welfare Act. 

At what other conclusion can a sane, critically thinking person arrive?  Tell me, how does Ms. Maldonado go from the afore-mentioned litany of, "I don't know how I'm going to pay my bills" -- to this?! -- Baby Veronica's Birth Mother Files Suit, Claims ICWA Unconstitutional:

On Thursday, the day after the South Carolina Supreme Court denied an appeal filed by Dusten Brown and the Cherokee Nation to consider a “best interest determination” hearing, Veronica's birth mother filed yet another suit in South Carolina federal court claiming that placement preferences for Indian families violates equal protection provisions because the law uses “race” as a factor in custodial placement. (all emphasis mine)

What?!  Here's a brief snapshot of who Ms. Madonado and her attorney are.  When you're done reading, tell me who you think is really behind this frivolous lawsuit.

Before the top of my head blows off -- here's an interview with  Bill Means, co-founder of the American Indian Movement (AIM).  Maybe it'll again make clear, why this lawsuit from Ms. Maldonado and her "attorney" is seven ways from stupid (do read this insightful piece in its entirety):

This has been a long struggle since the Indian Child Welfare Act was passed back, I believe, in 1978. And since that time it has … the original intent was that, before an Indian child could be adopted to non-Indian community, that the relatives, on or off the reservation, would be contacted in order to give a priority of raising the child, and keeping the child in the culture of his origin, in the culture of his family, of his people. The reason they passed this was that we had a tremendous trafficking of Indian children, which, in a way, still goes on today. It’s … very much needed to expose that the Christian Church is probably most responsible for adoption of Indian children off the reservation. And this [law] set up a process where the tribe had to be involved...

...But, to give you an example, back in the early history of A.I.M. in the Seventies, the Christian churches, here in the state of Minnesota and South Dakota, were averaging 30 Indian children a month being adopted out to non-Indian families. And after a lot of research was done in a book called My Brother’s Keeper: The Indian in White America … a lot of studies that were done by other Indian organizations throughout the country showed these horrendous statistics that brought about the Indian Child Welfare Act where churches were engaged almost every single day in adopting Indian children because there was a very, shall we say, stereotypical image that Indian children were neither black nor white, therefore, they were most desirable. As well as getting the Indian child off the reservation, as if that automatically meant that they would have a better life. And so it took years of protests, of statistics, of studies to get the Indian Child Welfare Act passed in 1978. So this is a very, very, shall I say, heavy set back. (emphasis mine)

As I said earlier, Mr. Means -- the ICWA, not Dusten Brown was always the target.  In this case, as in the recent Voting Rights Act Case -- the "Supremes" have spoken saying -- "Times have changed."  I say, tell that foolishness to all the folk who will be on the short end of these rulings.

Why do I care so much about this case?  I mean it's not like the Cherokee Nation "had nothin' but love" for us Black folk.  Do I know that they had Black slaves?  Yes.  Do I realize that only two years ago, they expelled the descendants of those same Black slaves from The Nation, despite the fact that Article 9, of the Treaty of 1866 with the Cherokee Nation bestowed upon them the rights of native Cherokees.  That would be another Yes.  And we can talk about that anytime you wish.

I care about this case, this child, because what's happening here is sick, and patently wrong.  For me, it's not an either I stand up for my people, or I stand up for this child -- it's a stand up for both, and recognize that, from the founding of this country up until today, the boot on both our necks, has been and continues to be worn, by those of a decidedly alabaster hue.

White folk's constructed idea of race and its accordant hierarchy of human life, made both the Voting Rights Act and the Indian Child Welfare Act necessary in the first damned place.  And let's be clear, the decisions this year, gutting important provisions of both, represent a concerted, institutionalized assault by the White Supremacist Capitalist Patriarchy on "Others" in this country to whom they have been most inhumane.

And their inhumanity will continue unabated for two reasons -- because they think they still have a right to use said inhumanity as they see fit and, because we, "Others" won't band together in any way to stop them.  I bet if we'd all change our stance to Malcolm's, "By Any Means Necessary," the politricksters would be out all over the country urging for calm and, despite the fact that the mainstream media all but turned a blind eye to the "taking" going on in South Carolina -- they'd be scrambling to report what we "savages" were up to.

Continued: Preserving cultural identity in the face of institutionalized white supremacy: Another Home-going -- Pt. 1c -- A jackbooted, "Mission Accomplished"

Related:
- Atty: Girl will be devastated if taken from Okla. biological father, adopted by SC couple
- Did the S.C. Supreme Court get it right on Baby Veronica?
- Veronica, Lowcountry child

Preserving cultural identity in the face of institutionalized white supremacy: Another Home-going -- Pt. 1a -- Cultural assaults on "The Other" continues

Veronica with her biological father Dusten Brown and his wife Robin. (Jeremy Charles for the Washington Post)

After having finally been able to organize my thoughts a little less emotionally about the decision reached by the "Supremes" in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, I was gut-checked by this:  Baby Veronica To Be Adopted by White Couple:

In a 3-to-2 decision, South Carolina’s Supreme Court has ruled that the Native child whose case went to the US Supreme Court will be placed back with the white family that sought to adopt her.

In its ruling, the US Supreme Court held that Dusten Brown, and his daughter, Baby Veronica—who are both citizens of the Cherokee Nation—were essentially not protected under the Indian Child Welfare Act.  As such, the case was bounced back to the South Carolina court. After the ruling, Brown ironically attempted to adopt his own daughter in Oklahoma, since the high court didn’t recognize his rights as a parent. But Oklahoma declined to hear the petition, claiming that South Carolina retained exclusive jurisdiction of the case, since that was where the potential adoptive parents resided.

The South Carolina court agreed Wednesday to terminate Brown’s parental rights, ruling against him and Cherokee Nation. The ruling means that Matt and Melanie Capobianco, the white couple that sought to adopt Veronica, will now regain custody and finalize the adoption. (emphasis mine)

Before I launch into my feelings about the "taking" to which I referred here,  I just have to own, that my initial, sizing-up of Justice Sonia Sotomayor appears to have been a little hasty.

After the Changeling nominated her and then, had his puppy-dog underlings very publicly check her on her "wise Latina" comment and she acquiesced, saying it was a "poor choice of words" -- I thought, "No need to expect anything but the company line from her."  But it seems that, rather than taking a page from the Changeling's book, pretending to be wise and actually standing for something (other than himself and the string-pullers), once selected  -- she actually was wise, doing what my mother taught us regarding the whole, "integration" illusion.  Dana Lone Hill succinctly reiterates that lesson in her First Nations, White Privilege & the Red Struggle post:

“I will follow the white man’s trail. I will make him my friend, but I will not bend my back to his burdens. I will be cunning as a coyote. I will ask him to help me understand his ways, then I will prepare the way for my children, and their children. The Great Spirit has shown me – a day will come when they will outrun the white man in his own shoes.”

Tasunke Ota, Oglala Lakota

After reading her absolutely, stinging dissent (scroll down 3/4 of the way down to read it in its entirety), I've come to realize that unlike the Changeling, once she was selected, she refused to bend her back to their burdens and instead, she used that "trail" for some serious truth-telling.  Below, she lays out an excellent primer in how she learned to "understand" their ways and,"outrun the white man in his own shoes," skewering what Pascal Robert describes here, as the "Politics of Redemption" --

...The reader’s first clue that the majority’s supposedly straightforward reasoning is flawed is that not all Mem­bers who adopt its interpretation believe it is compelled by the text of the statute, see ante, at 1 (THOMAS, J., concur­ring); nor are they all willing to accept the consequences it will necessarily have beyond the specific factual scenario confronted here, see ante, at 1 (BREYER, J., concurring). The second clue is that the majority begins its analysis by plucking out of context a single phrase from the last clause of the last subsection of the relevant provision, and then builds its entire argument upon it. That is not how we ordinarily read statutes. The third clue is that the majority openly professes its aversion to Congress’ explicitly stated purpose in enacting the statute. The majority expresses concern that reading the Act to mean what it says will make it more difficult to place Indian children in adoptive homes, see ante, at 14, 16, but the Congress that enacted the statute announced its intent to stop “an alarmingly high percentage of Indian families [from being] broken up” by, among other things, a trend of “plac[ing] [Indian children] in non-Indian . . . adoptive homes.” 25 U.S.C.§1901(4). Policy disagreement with Congress’ judgment is not a valid reason for this Court to distort the pro­visions of the Act.  Unlike the majority, I cannot adopt a reading of ICWA that is contrary to both its text and its stated purpose.  I respectfully dissent. (emphasis mine)

Certainly far more "respectful" than I could've been under the circumstances (being "respectful" in the face of disrespect is counterintuitive to me -- particularly when the constant onslaught of microaggressions and overt racism are in play).  She continued:

ICWA commences with express findings. Congress rec­ogonized that “there is no resource that is more vital to the continued existence and integrity of Indian tribes than their children,” 25 U. S. C. §1901(3), and it found that this resource was threatened. State authorities insufficiently sensitive to “the essential tribal relations of Indian people and the cultural and social standards prevailing in Indian communities and families” were breaking up Indian fami­lies and moving Indian children to non-Indian homes and institutions. See §§1901(4)–(5). As §1901(4) makes clear, and as this Court recognized in Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U. S. 30, 33 (1989), adoptive placements of Indian children with non-Indian families contributed significantly to the overall problem. (emphasis mine)

This clip, from the soon to be released,  "Schooling the World: The White Man's Last Burden” immediately bears witness to that fact:



Moving on, with her dissent...

Working back to front, the majority then concludes that §1912(d), tainted by its association with §1912(f ), is also inapplicable; in the majority’s view, a family bond that does not take custodial form is not a family bond worth preserving from “breakup.” Because there are apparently no limits on the contaminating power of this single phrase, the majority does not stop there. Under its reading, §1903(9), which makes biological fathers “parent[s]” under this federal statute (and where, again, the phrase “continued custody” does not appear), has substantive force only when a birth father has physical or state-recognized legal custody of his daughter.

When it excludes noncustodial biological fathers from the Act’s substantive protections, this textually backward reading misapprehends ICWA’s structure and scope.  Moreover, notwithstanding the majority’s focus on the perceived parental shortcomings of Birth Father, its reasoning necessarily extends to all Indian parents who have never had custody of their children, no matter how fully those parents have embraced the financial and emotional responsibilities of parenting. The majority thereby trans­forms a statute that was intended to provide uniform federal standards for child custody proceedings involving Indian children and their biological parents into an illogi­cal piecemeal scheme. (emphasis mine)

The hypocrisy of this "scheme" is egregious, and veers dangerously close to the approval of child trafficking, if the "buyer"is white, and has enough money -- and the Capobiancos obviously fit both those requirements.  From the birth mother and her attorney (hired and paid for by the Capobiancos), to the agency handling the "adoption," to the faux adoptive parents and their attorney -- this case stinks of spiteful baby-selling.  The majority's wholesale acceptance of their "facts," despite evidence to the contrary, makes them complicit in the crime.

The birth mother, about whom I chose to exercise some restraint in my first post, should be ashamed. There's no doubt she got a boat-load of cash -- up to, and after the birth -- now she says, if the Capobiancos don't get Veronica, she will fight the termination of her parental rights (given up at her birth) if the couple’s adoption doesn’t go through.  À mi hermana morena, I say -- this is all you were ever about:

Though this case is primarily about Native American, biological fathers, it should send chills up the spines of any ethnicity of biological fathers, whom the haves routinely denigrate as "not wanting to take care of their own children" -- including their own.

Justice Scalia, joining Justice Sotomayor's dissent, makes plain the majority's hypocrisy saying:

While I am at it, I will add one thought. The Court’s opinion, it seems to me, needlessly demeans the rights of parenthood. It has been the constant practice of the common law to respect the entitlement of those who bring a child into the world to raise that child. We do not inquire whether leaving a child with his parents is “in the best interest of the child.” It sometimes is not; he would be better off raised by someone else. But parents have their rights, no less than children do. This father wants to raise his daughter, and the statute amply protects his right to do so. There is no reason in law or policy to dilute that protection. (emphasis mine)

And the majority's not alone in being hypocritical about this issue, our society is as well.  For all the talk in society about fathers not wanting to take care of their children, here we have a father who wanted to marry the mother of his child and live as a family -- fighting to do just that!  But Capobianco supporters rally around their "right" to this man's flesh and blood, while most of American society pays no attention.  Where's the flood of support for Mr. Brown?  Is society only interested in the perceived "rights" of the haves?  This is not their child!!!

I'd been seeing commercials for three upcoming episodes of Oprah's Lifeclass on "Fatherless Sons" and "Daddyless Daughters."  In it, she's crowing about, "I'm so glad we started this discussion!"  Please.  She may have started that discussion on OWN, but it's been going on long before then (guess you can tell, just like Obama-love, I'm not awash in Oprah-love either -- and for a lot of the same reasons).  I do, however, like and respect the opinions of Iyanla Vanzant.  As I think about this little girl, this one rings particularly true:

“What is it that would make a creature as fierce, majestic and powerful as a lion is, subject itself to the intimidation of a man a whip and a chair? The lion has been taught to forget what it is.”

― Iyanla Vanzant, Peace from Broken Pieces

I watched the "Daddyless Daughters" episode last weekend and it was interesting to hear how her opinions stacked up against the trauma being inflicted on this child by the Masters degree and PhD in Developmental Psychology-havin', faux adoptive mother, who develops therapy programs for children with behavior problems and their families! {smdh}  I wonder how Miss "O" and her team would spin what is happening to Veronica and her DADDY?  Look at the photo that introduces this post.  That child is a mirror of her father!  Do you think she won't know that the white man, who makes hay of cutting her umbilical cord is not her father?  What LIES will they tell her when she asks (and she will ask!) about her "real" family and why she doesn't look like EITHER OF THEM (Money talks, and bullshit walks is all I can think of right now)?!

As the case was kicked back to a South Carolina Court, where this sham adoption was already denied by the Family Court and then affirmed by the State Supreme Court, I just couldn't shake their continued, We want what we paid for protestations.  I never believed they cared a whit about "the best interests" of this child.  In this local Post & Courier piece, they tell the reporter -- "Their worst fear was making it harder for other families to adopt!"  And the more I read, the more obvious their motives become:

The Capobiancos realize that Veronica might call someone else Mommy and Daddy. But they know Veronica still remembers her first home.

In her room, the bed she once slept on is still set up as a crib. Matt Capobianco kneaded the arm of a padded chair tucked in the corner.

“When she couldn’t sleep, I would read to her in this chair,” he said. “Now when we come in here, it’s mostly just to run the vacuum.”

If Veronica returns, the couple thinks she’ll remember all of this — the Himalayan cat ZuZu, her toy grocery cart, the Santa, snowflake and candy cane stickers she adhered to a leg of the dining room table during the Christmas just before she left...

...Brown doesn’t want anything to change.

He, his wife, Robin, and Veronica vacationed in Branson, Mo., this weekend. But Brown thinks Oklahoma is where his daughter belongs.

It’s where she dons a traditional dress, dances, sings and bangs on a drum. She’s learning the language used in Brown’s Cherokee Nation.

It’s where she rides a Jet Ski with Brown and learns to doggy-paddle in a pool.

It’s where the pets she helped name — Cookie and Chip the guinea pigs, Cowboy and Boogers the dogs — mosey through the yard (emphasis mine)

Now it could just be me, but with the exception of Mr. Capobianco saying he read to her at night, those two descriptions of Veronica's life, B.A. (Before Alito)  and A.A. (After Alito) -- seemed all they ever had to offer Veronica were, THINGS -- bearing out Justice Sotomayor's most important statement in her dissent:

“We must remember that the purpose of an adop­tion is to provide a home for a child, not a child for a home.”

The Capobiancos need to realize, "The Great White Father Myth" is just that -- a myth:

Coming home from the schools and the cities and the milatary (sic) services the Indians of the new generation loom larger in their own self-esteem. It is this contagious pride that they have brought back with them to the reservations. Moreover, they now know more than merely how to speak the language of the conquerors. They know how to speak it in a way that the white man knows how to listen to. And it is this, their articulate voices, in swinging and university-toned English, which they have brought to the tribal elders, that more than anything else has scaled down the size of the unmountable mountain.

The effect of this change on the Cherokees of Oklahoma was told by Clyde Warrior: 'The unrest and resentment has always exsisted through all the age groups of Indians. But the elders did not think anything could be done.

"Now they have young people coming home who are somewhat verbal [in English], who have some knowledge of how the mechanics of government and American institutions work. They have begun to utilize these rebellious young people. It's a kind of happy meeting of elders, with power in the community, and these young people who have some idea of how urban America works."

In this way the young Indians are becoming the spokesmen for the unspoken thoughts of their fathers. So many things unsaid and uncommunicated for years have begun to be voiced with that "vehemence" and that "expressive, concise, emphatical, sonorous, and bold" eloquence that James Adair heard two hundred years ago.

And yet the white man, long soothed by the seemingly supplicant and seemingly stoic Indian, is reluctant to give up that comforting image. He prefers, of course, not to listen.

The tribal Indians are undergoing so intense and complex a process of rediscovery of their beliefs and strengths that they do not know how to make their voices heard. Nor do they know what to say. Young Vine Deloria, Jr., of the National Congress of American Indians, thought his own path of self-discovery that had led through two universities and governmental offices and Congressional hearings and national politics was not atypical.

His path "was just a little longer," Deloria, Jr., said: "In the college where I went there was a professor who had just discovered the 'crisis of identity.' He would sit in seminars and ask us: 'Do you have this "crisis of identity"?' What he meant was, 'Do you have a crisis in identifying with the mainstream of my way of life?' He should never have asked that question!

"There were a number of us, young Indians, who thought about it and discovered that we did not identify with his way of life. We identified with our Indian way of life.

As will "Veronica." I'm certain Dusten Brown and the Cherokee Nation will stop at nothing to curtail "The Taking" -- and they should not.  This child belongs with her father and if that does not happen, she will forever be a "Daddyless Daughter" -- I don't care how much money the child-trafficking Capobiancos have.

UPDATE: Native American groups ready to sue if SC court doesn't rehear Veronica case; Cherokee grant temp custody to father's family

Continued: Preserving cultural identity in the face of institutionalized white supremacy: Another Home-going -- Pt. 1b -- The "taking" rolls on with nary a peep from the MSM

Related:
- Leonhard: 'Human and Constitutional Rights' Violated in Baby Veronica Case
- Anger Erupts Across Indian Country Over Baby Veronica Ruling
- Native American Rights Fund: Stop the Forced Removal of Baby Veronica
- South Carolina court orders Baby Veronica returned to adoptive parents
-Native American group "confident" Veronica will stay with birth father
- James Island couple, Oklahoma man not giving up fight for chance to raise Baby Veronica

"You'll say what we tell you to say Sonia!"

The only alarm bells that went off for me about the Changeling's pick for SCOTUS was, well - that she was the Changeling's pick for SCOTUS. That she'd be Latina, I kind of expected. But, cautiously optimistic, I tried to find out more about her opinions and her two previous appointments by Daddy Bush and Bill Clinton, just to see what SHE was about. Now who woulda thunk it? After doing all that reading, it only took these three things to pretty much convince me she's probably just another woman - among the many it seems (Jarrett, Michelle, Hilary to name a few) - who's forfeited her voice, in exchange for a smooth ride to glory on his coattails - as long as she says and does whatever he says --

1) Giblet on May 29:

2) The Changling on May 29:

White House: Sotomayor's Latina Comment Was Poor Choice of Words. Sorry, you'll have to go to the link and then click on "an excerpt from the interview online" to see the actual video because he's already met his "number-of-times-I-want-to-see-his-face-on-my-own-blog-every-time-I-sign-in" quota!

3) Her Honor on June 2 (as told by Diane Feinstein):

Sotomayor to Feinstein: Latina remark 'poor choice of words':

She said, 'Obviously it was a poor choice of words if you read on and read the rest of my speech you wouldn’t be concerned with it but it was a poor choice of words,'" Feinstein told reporters.

According to The Post piece:

Neither Obama nor Gibbs said how they knew that she would say this, and Gibbs acknowledged, "I have not talked specifically with her about - this."

Rather, he said, he had had "discussions with people" that led him to believe that "if she had the speech to do all over again, I think she'd change that word."

Come on now Giblet!!! You know damn well both of you talked to her! As Cinie says, "Lying Liars Indeed Lie."

Now I know this seems a petty litmus test, but when something hits me, it just hits me. First, the (all-male?) "handlers" marginalized the importance of what she said. Then, it looked like it might not go away so they trotted the Changeling out to further marginalize it. And the-e-e-n, she goes a courtin' on Capitol Hill in a series of supposedly "private meetings" with Senators - and, using their words, takes back her words just like those "wise men" told her. And the-e-e-n, they used a female senator to put the marginalization out into the ether. Brilliant I tell you, just brilliant!

Unless, of course, she's playing the "Undercover Hermana" role like the Changeling's alleged "Undercover Brotha" role that so many Black people keep telling me he's playing because, I ought to know he can't go up in there talking 'bout what he's going to do for us because "they" won't let him (Damn, here I am in 2009 thinkin', "we is all free ya'll!" - stupid me).  If that's the case, I have no respect for her either. I might be a helluva lot poorer than them, but trust me - I am far freer (guess it depends on what's most important to you).

I tell you, POTUS, FLOTUS and SCOTUS are lookin' more like Wynken, Blynken and Nod each and every day I breathe.

Update:  Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor breaks her ankle at LaGuardia airport.  See, God really don't like ugly!  (Okay, that wasn't nice to say.)