Recently, actor Tom Hanks endorsed Barack Obama for President. He’s a Hollywood power player, so it shouldn’t surprise me. After all, The Democrats are the party of the Rich and elite, no matter what they try to tell us.

However, I was a bit shocked by it, considering Mr. Hanks last project was the HBO Miniseries “John Adams”, the biographical account of the progenitor of our nation who later became the second president of the United States.

Maybe I’m alone, but I find it a bit odd for someone to feel passionately enough about a small government conservative like John Adams to produce a 10 hour miniseries about him, and then turn around and endorse a big-government socialist like Barack Obama. That would be like me producing a Ken Burns–length epic on FDR. I’d sooner hang myself with barbed wire. I’d never do it. I’d feel so dirty.

Tom Hanks must be making a bundle of money off this, because it’s the only sensible motivator I can think of. But, in reality, all of this is just a precursor to what I discovered a little later, and that is that Tom Hanks is full of the proverbial “white guilt” and ridiculously stupid.

You see, I became aware of Mr. Hanks endorsement of Barack Obama via a MySpace video. …I can’t believe I just said that. Yes, Tom Hanks, one of Americas greatest actors, made a MySpace video. Again, I feel dirty.

Anyway, in the course of this video, Hanks said the following:

“I want Barack Obama to be president of this country. A country that once said people of his skin color were only 3/5 of a human being. My support for Obama isn’t just about breaking boundaries…”

Okay. Problems here:

First, in voting for our leaders, “breaking boundaries” should *never* be an issue for consideration. Color is not a legitimate issue in the electoral process. It’s a fabricated issue perpetuated by the race industry. Read: Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and, the newest star of the “Whitey is the Devil” Army, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. (Incidentally, Jeremiah Wright is a screaming racist buffoon. His claim of being taken out of context is utterly false. I have heard a Wright sermon in its entirety. He was not misrepresented. The clips that have circulated in the media over the last few weeks accurately portray their intended context. He is indeed a misinformed hatemonger who breeds racial tension and discontent.)

Now, I am sure I will catch some flak for calling Reverend Wright a racist. I accept that. Jeremiah Wright is a black man, after all, and therefore genetically incapable of being a racist. I know, I know, I should know better. I’m such a hateful white man. You know, I wish I black so I could say horribly divisive and inaccurate things and chalk it all up to “oppression”. Oh, how sweet life would be!

Anyway, as I was saying before I went off on that much needed tangent, color is not an issue to the majority of the voters. While I have had my doubts about our electorate from time to time, I am more than fairly certain of that. America would easily vote for a competent black man, Such as Michael Steele, or a competent black woman such as Condoleezza Rice. In fact, in the case of Miss Rice, she may very well be the smartest woman in America. She could easily become President if she so chooses. She is living proof that color is only a boundary if you choose it to be. She is/was a poor black child from Alabama, who actually witnessed church burnings. Despite all that, she didn’t let anything stop her, least of all her skin color. Now 54, she has already been a professor, Stanford University Provost, a board member of several corporations, an adviser to President George H.W. Bush, as well as National Security Advisor and later Secretary of State to President George W. Bush.

Not bad for a woman who is called “Condo-skeeza” by Rev. Wright, because apparently to him, if you aren’t on welfare and speaking ebonics, you’re some sort of a race traitor.

Point being, it’s not about color. By the way, Bobby Jindal, the Governor of Louisiana whose name has been floated as John McCain’s running mate, as well as being touted as “The next Ronald Reagan”? He’s Indian. …And I when I say “Indian” I don’t mean Apache.

Moving along, the second problem I have is with the “3/5 argument” I hear this pop up via Reverend Wright and others quite a bit as an argument to substantiate black oppression in the early days of the American union. While there was indeed oppression back then, “3/5” is almost always misused. Coming back around to Tom Hanks, I was shocked he mentioned it, especially after producing “John Adams”. Here’s why:

John Adams, along with the majority of the founding fathers, abhorred slavery. Slavery was only agreed to because without it, unfortunately, the union would have never been formed. The South insisted upon slavery. They had grown far too accustomed to it to give it up, and they flatly refused. It should also be said that slavery was a carryover of English practice, not American practice.

It was the anti-slavery North that wanted to count the slaves as less than a whole person. Not the South. This is because the North wanted to *overturn* slavery and free the black man. This could not have been done if blacks were counted as full persons, because that would have given the South a disproportionately large representation in congress, which would have made abolishing slavery impossible. The number of 3/5 was the compromise between the North’s proposal of zero, and the South’s insistence on one.

So in reality, (which is rarely discussed these days) The 3/5 compromise was a liberation tactic, not a means of oppressive bondage. Unfortunately, the truth doesn’t seem to fit Tom Hanks template, because if it did, he would be educated enough not to mention the 3/5 compromise. I thought for sure he was smarter than Jeremiah Wright and his ilk. I guess I was wrong, and that’s something I don’t admit too much.

Where would we be today if influential black “leaders” weren’t stuck in pre-civil war or even pre-1964 America? Where would we be, indeed.

I have a dream, too.

Popularity: 68% [?]