While the Obama administration's chief apparatchiks such as Samantha Power expect Sri Lanka's diverse ethnic communities to be 'reconciled', the United States of America remains what white people still consider to be 'frontier territory' particularly in the south of the country. In this perceived virgin territory, 'settlers' carry guns, and they are entitled to shoot at will, in the interests of retaining their property.

What that means is that there is no social contract really - law enforcement is essentially for decorative purposes, and for justifying murder by white property owners, when they have mistakenly shot people ostensibly in the interests of safeguarding their property rights.

At the centre of this vast frontiers' territory, you get a non-white President, who is so afraid that he would upset this status quo regarding the safeguarding of white property rights, that he has retreated into the toughest of shells vis-a-vis the topic of race relations. In other words he is so afraid that his position as President of this country - a failed state - where the social contract does not prevail will be assailed if he is perceived to be favouring black people, that when it comes to laws enforcement, the blacks are now much worse off after he became President -- in his 'post racial America.'

The President is extremely muted when white frontiersmen taking the law into their own hands kill black people almost for sport -- of course ostensibly in the pursuit of maintaining their property rights.

This was never more visible than in the recent case in Florida when George Zimmerman was acquitted by an all white jury on the charge of shooting dead a black teenager by the name of Trayvon Martin. Barack Obama who had previously said that if he had a son he would have looked like Trayvon, merely released a written statement in the wake of the verdict, maintaining that if there were less guns in the U.S, there would be less deaths such as that of Trayvon Martin's.

The black President in his frontier land finds it impossible to utter the truth about race, lest he be considered a man who is setting out to dismember the concept of defending white property rights, sans law enforcement.

Certainly a white President would have done better, as he would not have been open to the accusation -- utterly ridiculous as it is under the circumstances -- that he is partial to blacks in the matter of law enforcement.

Partial? Blacks are being mowed down by whites with guns, and the President of the United States of America cannot do anything about it, lest he be seen to be against the maintenance of white property rights in this land in which the social contract has palpably lapsed. That's why when a Harvard University professor is accused of breaking into his own home -- he was locked out and tried to get back in -- and is arrested, all the black President can do is to call the arresting officer and the offending Harvard don, and have a 'beer summit' at the White House lawn.

This of course adds insult to the senior Harvard's don's injury; not only does he get no recompense for being charged for trying to break into his own house, he has to sit down with his tormentor and chug a pint with him as if he has in fact done something wrong, and is being excused for it due to the magnanimity of a white cop and a black President!

There is no social contract -- if white vigilantes enforce their own law at the expense of black people who do not carry guns, the social contract has collapsed. This is why Obama's America is a failed state.

Black parents are worried about what they have to tell their kids. If you see a white man pursuing you, do you run or do you 'stand your ground?' Neither seems to be healthy considering what happened to Trayvon Martin.

This is post racial America. No wonder black leaders have called the Trayvon verdict 'Southern justice'. This is frontier country. He who owns the gun, will shoot to kill.