We don’t run corporate ads. We don’t shake our readers down for money every month or every quarter like some other sites out there. We provide our site for free to all, but the bandwidth we pay to do so doesn’t come cheap. A generous donor is matching all donations of $100 or more! So please donate now to double your punch!
Two of the most important prophets confronting the oppression of black persons in America are Minister Louis Farrakhan and Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr. They are black-chosen not white-approved leader. Thus their unique prophetic authority is revealed in the intense negative reactions to them by mainstream media, which are the guardians of America’s white-controlled hierarchy of access to political and economic power. The fact that the dominant press have singled them out for vilification is evidence of their validation as prophets speaking truth to power—rather than conventional religious leaders finessing compromise with the hierarchical status quo.
The editorial “sin” of Minister Farrakhan and Rev. Wright is their clarity about and courage to confront, rather than accommodate, the “white supremacy” continuing to dictate life, liberty and the pursuit of access in America. The threat they pose is not their power to “divide” but to unite black and other persons at the bottom of the racial hierarchy, which certainly would have a divisive effect on whiteness as the invisible means into America’s mainstream. Thus the guardian media demonize them, and in so doing unknowingly further ordain them as prophets—and at the same time betray their own continuing role as the “white press,” which is what most black people called mainstream media during the 1967 urban riots in American cities. “A press,” the Kerner Commision reported then, “that repeatedly, if unconsciously, reflect the biases, the paternalism, the indifference of white America.” The Commission found that most black people believed “the media are instruments of the white power structure.”1 The more things change….
Mainstream media continue to disclose their traditional function as the “white press” in demonizing Minister Farrakhan, and now Rev. Wright. The focus here is primarily on Farrakhan because of his longer prominence and power to overcome and achieve in the face of a longstanding journalistic lynch mob. (For a commentary on Wright, see Alberts, Jeremiah Wright and America’s Continuing “Separate and Unequal” Societies, Counterpunch, Apr. 19/20, 2008) The following scourging of Farrakhan by mainstream media reveals the guardian role of a “white press” in denial of America’s racial hierarchy with its embedded “separate and unequal” societies, about which the Kerner Commision warned in 1968, and one of the clearest and most forthright critics of which most black people hail Farrakhan to be.
The dreaded “F” word intruded into the 2008 presidential campaign with headlines: “Farrakhan hails Obama as ‘hope of entire world.’” While not formally endorsing Senator Obama, Minister Farrakhan was reported to have spent most of a two-hour address praising him before an audience of 20,000 people: “This young man is the hope of the entire world that America will change and be made better” [italics added]. “This young man,” Farrakhan continued, “is capturing audiences of black and brown and red and yellow. . . . those people are being transformed. . . . A black man with a white mother,” Farrakhan prophesized, “could turn out to be one who can lift America from her fall.”2
Minister Farrakhan’s blessing of Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign was seen as a curse by the Obama people. A kiss of death that had to be quickly and publicly and emphatically rubbed off the face of the campaign. Thus came the immediate denunciation. “Said spokesman Bill Burton: ‘Sen. Obama has been clear in his objections to Minister Farrakhan’s past pronouncements and has not solicited the minister’s support.’”3
But the “F” word was out of the box and into print. Tim Russert, NBC Washington Bureau chief and co-moderator of MSNBC’s February 26 Democratic primary debate, ran with it. He repeatedly grilled Senator Obama about Minister Farrakhan lauding his presidential campaign as “the hope of the world.” “On Sunday,” Russert said to Obama, “the headline in your hometown paper, Chicago Tribune, ‘Louis Farrakhan backs Obama for President at Nation of Islam Convention in Chicago.’ Do you accept the support of Louis Farrakhan?” Obama replied, “You know, I have been very clear on my denunciation of Minister Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic comments. I think they are unacceptable and reprehensible.” He had not solicited Farrakhan’s support, he said, and that the Nation of Islam leader “expressed pride in an African-American who seems to be bringing the country together.” But, Obama emphasized, “It is not support that I sought. And,” he added, “we’re not doing anything, I assure you, formally or informally, with Minister Farrakhan.”
As if not hearing Senator Obama, Tim Russert continued his fixation on the “F” word: “Do you reject his support?” Obama responded, “I have been very clear in my denunciations of him and his past statements.” Russert’s preoccupation with the “F” word became more obvious: “The problem some voters may have, as you know, the Reverend Farrakhan called Judaism a ‘gutter religion.’” The real “problem” for Russert seemed to be the “F” word, which led Obama to answer by repeating himself: “I am very familiar with his record, as are the American people. That,” Obama reminded Russert, “is why I have consistently denounced it.”
But Tim Russert wasn’t through. It was time to bring up Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Senator Obama’s pastor and Trinity United Church of Christ’s Trumpet News magazine, which in 2007 awarded Minister Farrakhan its “Lifetime Achievement ‘Dr. Jermiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpet Award’” for “epitomizing greatness.” Russert set the stage: “The title of one of your books, ‘Audacity of Hope,’ you acknowledge you got from a sermon from Rev. Jeremiah Wright the head of the Trinity United Church. He said that Farrakhan ‘epitomizes greatness’” Then the question close to home: “What do you do to assure Jewish-Americans that, whether it’s Farrakhan’s support or the activism of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, your pastor, you are consistent with issues regarding Israel and not in any was suggesting that Farrakhan epitomizes greatness?” Obama evidently felt the need to provide a lengthy response. “Tim, I have some of the strongest support from the Jewish community . . . And the reason is because I have been a stalwart friend of Israel’s. I think they are one of our most important allies in the region, and I think that their security is sacrosanct. . . And,” Obama went on, “the reason that I have such strong support is because they know that not only would I not tolerate anti-Semitism in any form, but also because of the fact that what I want to do is rebuild what I consider to be a historic relationship between the African-American community and the Jewish community. You know, I would not be sitting here if it were not for a whole host of Jewish Americans . . .” 4
Why did Minister Farrakhan receive Trinity United Church of Christ’s Lifetime Achievement Empowerment Award? Who cares? Tim Russert did not care. But countless black people deeply care, including offenders and ex-offenders and their families, and so many others who have been empowered by Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam.
According to Rev. Wright:
When Minister Farrakhan speaks, Black America listens. . . . Everybody may not agree with him, but they listen. . . . His depth of analysis when it comes to the racial ills of this nation is astounding and eye opening. He brings a perspective that is helpful and honest.
Minister Farrakhan will be remembered as one of the 20th and 21st century giants of the African American religious experience. . . . His integrity and honesty have secured him a place in history as one of the nation’s most powerful critics. His love for Africa and African American people have made him an unforgettable force, a catalyst for change and a religious leader who is sincere about his faith and his purpose.5
Like Tim Russert, Senator Hillary Clinton could care less why Minister Farrakhan received Trinity United Church of Christ’s Empowerment Award for embodying greatness. Her own fixation on the “F” word led her to follow Russert’s interrogation of Senator Obama with, “I would not be associated with people who said such inflammatory and untrue charges against either Israel or Jewish people in our country.” Tim Russert seized on her comment: “Are you suggesting Senator Obama is not standing on principle?” “No,” she smudged, but “there’s a difference between denouncing and rejecting.” Obama did not “see a difference between denouncing and rejecting, . . . but if the word ‘reject’ Senator Clinton feels is stronger than the word ‘denounce,’ than I’m happy to concede the point, and I would reject and denounce.” Clinton replied, “Good. Good. Excellent.” 6
Senator Clinton’s strongest supporter for her presidential candidacy in Pennsylvania is Governor Edward Rendell, who, in 1997, neither “denounced” nor “rejected” Minister Farrakhan. In fact, as mayor of Philadelphia at the time, Rendell shared a pulpit with and lauded Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam for helping to defuse racial tensions following severe incidents of racial violence in the mostly white working class Grays Ferry neighborhood in the city. The “F” word was safe in Rendell’s mouth that day:
As I said in my letter to Minister Farrakhan, I did not know Rodney Muhammad [Nation of Islam minister in Philadelphia] except by reputation. And over the past three or four weeks my respect for him has grown: for the intensity of his beliefs, for the decency of his soul, and for the strength of his courage. [The audience and Farrakhan, sitting directly behind Rendell, vigorously clapped.]
Senator Clinton’s most prominent Pennsylvanian supporter continued his rousing affirmation of Minister Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam, eliciting considerable applause:
And next I would like to thank the Nation of Islam here in Philadephia. . . for what you stand for . . . and all the good it does to so many people in Philadelphia. And if there is anybody out here in Pennsylvania or in the United States of America who doesn’t know, this is a faith that has as its principle, the family. This is a faith that doesn’t just talk about family values, it lives family values. This is a faith where men respect their women and children and they manifest that faith by staying in the home with them. This is a faith that doesn’t just talk about being against drugs, but is out there every single day and night fighting against drugs. This is a faith that doesn’t just talk about the value of education, it imbues in their children and schools that education is the way to opportunity, a lesson that all Americans could learn.
Senator Clinton’s Edward Rendell saved some of his best for last:
And above and beyond all these thank yous, I want to thank each and every one of you for being here. . . . That you are talking about our differences, trying to do something about our differences, about taking the next step on the long road to ending racism and bigotry, not just in Philadelphia but throughout the United States of America. . . . There were many people who said we were running a great risk by sharing this platform with the Nation of Islam. But you know, I know and everyone here knows the terrible toll racism has taken in our city. And we know the real risk is not being able to talk about our differences and try to make progress. And if everyone cares about ending racism, and I believe they do, if everyone cares, they should have been here. They should have been here ready to talk and they should have been ready to listen. 7
A New York Times story reported that the event “was all the more unusual” with Mr. Rendell, who is Jewish, sharing a podium with Minister Farrakhan, who “is widely regarded as anti-Semitic” [which is not how most black people regard Farrakhan]. The story also reported, “Representatives from the city’s leading Jewish and Roman Catholic organizations were invited to participate in the rally, but all declined.” 8
In a Washington Post op ed piece called “Farrakhan’s Pennsylvania Admirer,” columnist Colbert I. King exposes the hypocritical double standard dogging Senator Obama. King concludes, “Consider what the Clinton camp and the media have put Obama through because of Farrakhan’s unsolicited endorsement.” He then asks rhetorically, “Did Clinton demand that Rendell ‘denounce’ or ‘reject’ his association with Farrakhan?” He then answered his own question: “Can a mule whistle?” 9
The hypocrisy of those mainstream media demonizing Minister Farrakhan is their decision not to mention or publish the extent to which Rendell praised him and the Nation of Islam.
Pummeled by mainstream media for past sermons in which he called on God to damn America for its murderous foreign and dehumanizing domestic policies, Senator Obama’s pastor finally broke his silence and, in the process, not only uttered but affirmed the “F” word. After addressing the National Press Club, Rev. Jeremiah Wright was asked by the moderator, “What is your relationship with Louis Farrakhan . . . [and] do you agree with, and respect his views, including his most racially divisive views?” Wright responded, “ . . . So what do I think about him? . . . How many other African-Americans or European-Americans do you know that can get one million people together on the mall? He is one of the most important voices in the 20th and 21st century. That’s what I think about him.” Wright added, “As I said on Bill Moyer’s [program], when Louis Farrakhan speaks, it’s like E. F. Hutton speaks, all black America listens [italics added]. Whether they agree with him or not, they listen.”
Rev. Wright was not done:
Now, I am not going to put down Louis Farrakhan anymore than Mandela would put down Fidel Castro. Do you remember that Ted Koppel show, where Ted wanted Mandela to put down Castro because Castro was our enemy? And he said, ‘You don’t tell me who my enemies are. You don’t tell me who my friends are.’ Louis Farrakhan is not my enemy. He did not put me in chains. He did not put me in slavery. And he did not make me this color. 10
Rev. Wright could have provided more examples of the extent to which black people recognize Minister Farrakhan as a prophetic leader. In 2005, Black Entertainment Television chose him as the Person of the Year for “mak[ing] the most positive impact on the Black community over the past year,” and doing “what no other African American leader has: ‘mobilize hundreds of thousands of Blacks around the issues of atonement and empowerment, and to convince the masses of our people that we must be the primary catalysts and engines for positive change in our communities.” 11
Along with the Million Man March, Farrakhan’s inspiration and leadership are seen in other marches that followed, including the Million Woman March, the Million Family March, the Million Youth Movement and March, and the Millions More March, the advance publicity tour for which Farrakhan received the keys to various cities, with the March held on the tenth anniversary of the amazingly successful and greatly lauded Million Man March.
Rev. Wright could have told the National Press Club audience that none other than Senator Clinton’s husband endorsed Minister Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam’s 2005 Millions More March. “I think this is a very positive idea,” former president Clinton said in an interview with the Amsterdam News, from his Harlem [italics added] office. And he remembered the Million Man March as “a very positive event. They were basically standing up for the dignity of the family and asking African American men and fathers to be more responsible. It was totally non-violent . . . all these people . . . advocating a responsible agenda and not just asking for something.” 12
On the day of the Million Man March, Clinton was a thousand miles away, being forced by the highly publicized March to give an address on the country’s increasingly visible racial division, to a predominantly white University of Texas student body, and being quoted repeatedly by mainstream media as saying, “One million men are right to be standing up for personal responsibility. But one million men do no make right one man’s message of malice and division. No good house can be built on a bad foundation.” 13 What a difference a decade makes—from the White House to Harlem. Location! location! location! Ironically, as will be seen, Farrakhan’s speech that day also referred to a “bad foundation”—“white supremacy . . . that undergirds the setup of the Western world.”
Rev. Wright’s affirmation of Minister Farrakhan at the National Press Club helped to lead Senator Obama to completely “reject” and “denounce” Wright, and also led the white-racial hierarchy’s guardian press to swing into action. A New York Times editorial, called “Mr. Obama and Rev. Wright,” began, “It took more time than it should have, but on Tuesday Barack Obama firmly rejected the racism and paranoia of his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr. . . . In a series of shocking appearances,” the editorial continued, “ he embraced the Rev. Louis Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism . . . said the government manufactured the AIDS virus to kill blacks . . .[and] suggested that America was guilty of ‘terrorism’ and so had brought the 9/11 attacks on itself.” 14 A Boston Globe editorial, entitled “Rev. Wright, the sequel,” followed with, “When Wright repeated, among other things, his past praise for hatemonger Louis Farrakhan [italics added], the preacher made clear that the politically expedient move for Obama—ditching a nettlesome supporter—was also the right one.” 15 In a piece called “Praying and Preying,” New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd chimed in, “. . . [on] the video of Wright at the National Press Club . . . [Obama] again heard the preacher turning Farrakhan into an American idol, and his flame-throwing assertions that the U.S. government had infected blacks with the AIDS virus and had brought terrorist attacks on itself by practicing terrorism abroad.” 16
To editorially write off Rev. Wright’s prophetic condemnation of the American government’s sins as “appalling . . . bigoted and paranoid rants”17 is to reveal a glaring ignorance of or indifference to many black people’s previous mistrust of the government, the medical profession and mainstream media, created by the Tuskegee experiments and other unethical experimentations on and abuses of black populations.18 Included here also is the far greater infection of black persons with hypertension, anxiety, high blood pressure, diabetes, kidney failure, heart disease, other illnesses and lower life expectancy than white persons, resulting largely from a white-favored hierarchy with its economic- and health care-access gaps. 19
Similarly, the slow and inadequate response to the victims of Hurricane Katrina is another example of the often historic indifference of the US government toward black persons—and similarly economically and politically powerless white persons. The exception is the Army where they are welcomed to “be all you can be”—in the service of an imperialistic foreign policy, like the criminal invasion and occupation of Iraq. Buttressed by the ethnocentric, dominant media-reinforced belief that America is God’s chosen country—a self-deceiving belief that will continue to have tragic 9/11-type consequences.
Rev. Wright’s so-called “bigoted and paranoid rants” became the objects of considerable ranting by the “big-time news media” especially The New York Times. A front-page story containing a photograph of him speaking at the National Press Club began with a sarcastic headline: “Not Speaking for Obama, Pastor Speaks for Himself, at length.” The piece soon told its readers, “Mr. Wright, Senator Obama’s former pastor, was cocky, defiant, declamatory, inflammatory and mischievous, but most of all, he was all over the place, performing a television triathlon of interview, lecture and live news conference that pushed Mr. Obama aside and placed himself front and center in the presidential campaign. . . . Mr. Wright,” the story stressed, “revealed himself to be the compelling but slightly wacky uncle who unsettles strangers but really just craves attention.”20
The same day a belittling piece by columnist Bob Herbert appeared on the op ed page of the Times. Called “The Pastor Casts a Shadow,” Herbert began, “The Rev. Jeremiah Wright went to Washington on Monday not to praise Barack Obama, but to bury him.” Herbert proceeded to bury Wright with sarcasm: “Smiling, cracking corny jokes, mugging it up for the big time news media [italics added]—this reverend is never going away. He’s found himself a national platform, and he’s loving it.” 21 So much for an “F” word-affirming, America-bashing “egocentric” minister.
Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen, a long-time guardian of America’s white-controlled hierarchy, jumped on the “F” word-lauding Rev. Jeremiah Wright early on. In a piece called “Obama’s Farrakhan Test,” Cohen wrote that Wright’s “church launched Trumpet Newsmagazine . . . ,” which “last year . . . gave the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. Trumpeter Award to a man it said ‘truly epitomized greatness.’ That man is Louis Farrakhan.”22 Cohen continued to show his “colors” as a representative of a “white press” oblivious to black people and their “separate and unequal” reality. “Maybe for Wright and some others, Farrakhan ‘epitomized greatness,’ Cohen said, and then engaged in projection: “For most people, though [italics added], Farrakhan epitomizes racism, particularly in the form of anti-Semitism.” 23
Not for most black people! Recall the words of that “slightly wacky,” “bigoted and paranoid rant[ing],” “nettlesome [Obama] supporter,” Rev. Jeremiah Wright: “How many other African-Americans or European-Americans do you know that can get one million people together on the mall? . . . When Louis Farrakhan speaks . . .all black America listens.”
In 1995, Minister Farrakhan spoke on the Washington Mall, and over a million black persons listened 24—with “2.2 million households tuned in to Mr. Farrakhan’s . . . speech . . . more people watched . . . on CNN than any other speech this year, including Mr. Clinton’s State of the Union Message and the Pope’s address to the United Nations.”25 The Million Man March provides a classic example of a guardian “white press” denigrating the “F” word to tell black people who their leaders should and should not be—and in the process revealing their obliviousness to the “separate and unequal” reality of black persons in America. 26
The success of the Million Man March is all the more amazing when the intense opposition to it by mainstream print media is considered. Months in advance of the planned March, the dominant press began to engage in a feeding frenzy in their criticism of Minister Farrakhan as a divisive force. He was constantly portrayed as “anti-white,” “anti-Semitic,” “anti-gay,” “anti-Catholic,” “anti-Asian,” “racist,” “sexist,” “bigot,” “hate-monger,” “separatist,” “ . . . and God knows what else,” Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen wrote. 27 The editorialized lynching of Farrakhan’s reputation was so pervasive that even a news reporter could write, “Organizers backed off the assertion that support for the march equaled support for Mr. Farrakhan, fearing that larger issues might be obscured by Mr. Farrakhan’s reputation among many blacks and whites as a racist and hatemonger” and four paragraphs later the reporter added, “Despite the calls to separate the leader from the event, the march . . . could prove a turning point for Mr. Farrakhan, who is known by many Americans mostly for his racist comments” [italics added]. 28
The dominant print media’s obvious aim was to discredit Minister Farrakhan, “the event’s controversial originator,” 29 and to undermine the March. The repeated vilification of Farrakhan, “who has been criticized for years as a divisive force for espousing anti-Semitism and black separatism,” 30 communicated to black men that attending the March would be tantamount to endorsing and enhancing the Nation of Islam leader’s polarizing views. Opposition of traditional black civil rights and political leaders and feminists to Farrakhan and the March was solicited, featured and emphasized. A national debate was facilitated, if not orchestrated, between opponents and organizers over “whether the march will serve as a unifying or divisive force [which] is perhaps the event’s central unresolved question.” 31 That question was answered repeatedly by print media, which used various mainstream black leaders, editorials, op ed pieces and selected quotes of news reporters to assert that the March’s “message” of hope could not be separated from the “messenger” of hate. Predictably, when the Washington Mall overflowed with black men, the media found various ways to separate the “message” and the marchers from “the messenger.”
In a commentary called “Farrakhan’s Marathon,” Washington Post writer Ken Ringle wrote, “The heartbreaking thing” was that Minister Farrakhan provided no powerful “phrases to be remembered along with ‘Four score and seven years ago,’ and “Ask not what you country can do for you’ and ‘I have a dream.’” 32 Here Ringle discloses his own glaring failure to realize how heartbreaking it must be for African Americans and other black persons that the very “Four score and seven years ago”president, who is credited with freeing them from slavery, occasionally stated that he did not believe they were equal to white persons, which fact Farrakhan pointed out in his speech: “Abraham Lincoln, when he saw the great divide, he pondered a solution of separation [italics added]. Abraham Lincoln said he never was in favor of our being jurors or having equal status with the whites of this nation. Abraham Lincoln,” Farrakhan went on, “said that if there were to be a superior or inferior, he would rather the superior position be assigned to the white race.”33
Minister Farrakhan spoke powerful “phrases to be remembered.” Like:
The real evil in America is the idea that undergirds the setup of the Western world, and that idea is called white supremacy. . . . White supremacy is the enemy of both white people and black people, because the idea of white supremacy means you should rule because you are white. That makes you sick, and you produce the sick society and a sick world. . . And in light of today’s global village, you can never harmonize with the Asians . . . you can’t harmonize with the dark people of the world who outnumber you 11 to 1, if you’re going to stay in the mind of white supremacy. White supremacy has to die for humanity to live. 34
I stand here today, knowing that you are angry, that my people have validated me. I don’t need you to validate me. I don’t need to be in any mainstream. I want to wash in the river of Jordan. And in the river that you see, and the sea that is before us and behind us and around us is validation. That’s the mainstream. You’re out of touch with reality [italics added]. A few of you in smoke-filled rooms, calling that the mainstream, while the masses of the people, white and black; red, yellow and brown; poor and vulnerable, are suffering in this nation. . . . All of these black men that the world sees as savage, maniacal and bestial, look at them. A sea of peace. A sea of tranquility. A sea of men ready to come back to God, settle their differences and go back home to turn our communities into decent and safe places to live. 35
Another of Minister Farrakhan’s “phrases to be remembered” summarizes many of his statements and is very applicable to mainstream media: “The power and the arrogance of America makes you refuse to hear a child of your slaves pointing out the wrong in your society.” 36 Prophetic words still for a country suffering from “separate and unequal” societies. A country also afflicted with an ethnocentric foreign policy that believes “America is the greatest nation in the world,” with its benediction of “God bless America.” A country greatly needing its “white press” to become a free press if it is to fulfill its hope of becoming “a more perfect union”—and a peacemaker in the world.
Senator Obama’s selection as the Democratic nominee for president does not in itself change America’s white-controlled hierarchy of access and power, or imperialistic foreign policy. He could represent substance or appearance, which an entrenched hierarchy is adept at using to disguise and maintain its power. Whether he represents equalizing change here and humanizing change abroad remains to be seen.
Rev. WILLIAM E. ALBERTS, Ph.D. is a hospital chaplain, and a diplomate in the College of Pastoral Supervision and Psychotherapy. Both a Unitarian Universalist and a United Methodist minister, he has written research reports, essays and articles on racism, war, politics and religion. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org
1. Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, Bantam Books, 1968, pages 366 and 374.
2. “Farrakhan hails Obama as ‘hope of entire world,’” Associated Press, msnbc.com, Feb. 25, 2008.
4. “Complete transcript of MSNBC’s Democratic Debate,” nbc24.com, Feb. 26, 2008.
5. “An Empowerment Interview: The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan,” by Rhoda McKinney-Jones, Trumpet, Nov./Dec. 2007, www.trumpetmag.com.
6. “Complete transcript of MSNBC’s Democratic Debate,” op.cit.
7. “Pennsylvania Governor Rendell Praises Farrakhan, and Nation of Islam,” YouTube, Added Apr. 20, 2008
8. “Philadelphia Mayor Joins Farrakhan to Calm Ethnic Tensions,” by Michael Janofsky, Apr. 15, 1997.
9. Apr. 26, 2008.
10. “Rev. Wright Delivers Remarks at National Press Club,” transcript, washingtonpost.com, Apr. 28, 2008.
11. “Min. Louis Farrakhan 2005 ‘Person of the Year,’” by Tracy Stokes, BET.com. American Renaissance News, Dec. 19, 2005.
12. “Clinton Endorses Farrakhan March,” newsmax.com, May 7, 2005.
13. “Rift Between Blacks, Whites ‘Is Tearing at the Heart of America,’” address on race relations delivered by President Clinton yesterday at the University of Texas, The Washington Post, Oct. 17, 1995.
14. Apr. 30, 2008.
15. May 1, 2008.
16. Apr. 30, 2008
17. “Sen. McCain’s Agents of Intolerance,” editorial, The New York Times, May 24, 2008.
18. “Sour legacy of Tuskegee syphilis study lingers,” CNN, May 16, 1977. See also, Medical Apartheid: The Dark History of Medical Experimentation on Black Americans From Colonial Times to the Present by Harriet A. Washington, Doubleday, 2007; Dark Alliance: The CIA, the Contras, and the Crack Cocaine Explosion, by Gary Webb, Seven Stories Press, 1999; Whiteout: The CIA, Drugs and the Press, by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair, Verso, 1998; and Rogue State, by William Blum, Common Courage Press, 2000.
19. See, “Racism blamed for health disparities,” The Boston Globe, July 20, 2005; and “Declare War on Diabetes,” editorial, The New York Times, Feb. 5, 2006.
20. By Alessandra Stanley, The TV Watch, Apr. 29, 2008.
21. Apr. 29, 2008.
22. Jan. 15, 2008.
24. “BU analysis says Washington march may have drawn 1.1 million,” The Boston Globe, Oct. 20, 1995.
25. “After March, Lawmakers Seek Commission on Race Relations: Farrakhan Eager to Stay in National Spotlight,” by Steven A. Holmes, The New York Times, Oct. 18, 1995.
26. See Mainstream Media as Guardian of Racial Hierarchy: A Study of the Threat Posed by Minister Louis Farrakhan and the Million Man March, by William E. Alberts, research reportpublished by the William Monroe Trotter Institute, Univ. of Massachusetts, Boston 1995. Yvonne Gomes-Santos contact person at email@example.com.
27. “What Was Jesse Jackson Thinking,” Oct. 18, 1995.
28. “Debate on March, and Farrakhan, Persists as Black Men Converge on the Capital,” by Michael Janofsky, The New York Times, Oct. 16, 1995.
29. “March’s Direction: Unifying or Divisive?” by Michael A. Fletcher and Hamil R. Harris, The Washington Post, Oct. 15, 1995.
30. “Wary of Divisions, Leaders of Million Man March Play Down Farrakhan Role,” by Michael Janofsky, The New York Times.
31. “March’s Direction: Unifying or Divisive?,” op.cit.
32. Oct. 17, 1995.
33. “We Must Accept the Responsibility That God Has Put Upon Us,” Excerpts from the Nation of Islam leader, Louis Farrakhan’s speech yesterday at the Million Man March, The Washington Post, Oct. 17, 1995.