LISTEN to BLACK MAN THINKIN’


Watching Melanin Fall…

Comments: 7 Comments
Published on: January 19, 2020

To the extent this is credible – Oh, how the American black mind calcifies!

Blacks are pessimistic about, and choose to consider racist, an elected official who’s presided over:

Interestingly, Trump’s thinking and behavior toward blacks is virtually unchanged from what it had been before he sought the presidency, which represents a time when he was acknowledged for a “lifetime of service to African Americans” by one Jesse Louis Jackson. In an existence more public than most, Trump endured failed companies, failed marriages, ridicule, bankruptcies, and was called many things; however, ‘racist’ was not among them.

(I’m aware of the federal housing discrimination lawsuit; no one has shown that he did anything more than seek not to lease apartments to those he believed were unlikely to pay rent…and he wrote in one of his books,  “What we didn’t do was rent to welfare cases, white or black”.

I’m also aware of Trump’s stance regarding the Central Park Five…and I don’t care. Trump didn’t produce the case against them; NYPD and the District Attorney’s office did. Nor has anyone shown he might have acted differently had the perceived perpetrators not been black. Trump has mad love for NYC for many reasons, including business, and that crime was an assault on ‘his’ city.)

Donald John Trump is an out-sized personality who has supported blacks for decades, and that behavior continued after his unexpected ascent to the presidency. Trump hasn’t changed; however black perception of Trump has, and that change is more likely to condemn blacks than condemn the president, in the eyes of the nation and her electorate.

Begin with the poll finding blacks the most racist U.S. demographic, even in the minds of blacks.

Then consider public positions that blacks take which at least appear unreasonable:

Such hypocritical and nonsensical rhetoric damage black credibility. Couple that with disproportionately high illegitimacy, abortion, criminality, and STD infection rates, and it becomes reasonable to wonder about the current humanity of a people who just 6 decades ago led the nation on a moral crusade against inhumanity.

Blacks, as a group, are marginalizing themselves, with an especially virulent strain of  TDS that renders those affected all but incapable of rational thought or conversation where the president is concerned, that renders them deaf to anyone who’s not a progressive member of the Democrat Party, or a progressive agent of the mainstream (or left-wing) media. Other whites who attempt to engage them are labeled racists exercising white privilege; blacks who deign to approach are labeled “coons” or other pejorative terms.

This would not be a testimony against blacks were they not faring measurably better under Trump than than they fared under his predecessor. Blacks show less regard for a white president who serves them well, than for a black one who made them at best a third priority, behind homosexuals and illegal immigrants. And the country saw and took note of the obvious racism and lack of logic.

Consequently whites, Latinos, and Asians are becoming less likely to engage with blacks on issues that impact the country at large…because blacks reduce the areas  of objective American commonality between themselves and other citizens. Even Jews, longtime allies with blacks on political and social issues, are re-evaluating their relationships with blacks, in the wake of rising – and violent – anti-Semitism from members of the black community.

Meaning blacks, through every fault of their own, will see their part in the national conversation decrease. While there remains a call for national unity, many blacks opt to be the ice block in the Great American Melting Pot – critical of the good economy, critical of not being at war, critical of the military, (hypo-) critical toward God, critical of anyone or anything that runs counter to what they espouse.

And what far too many blacks accept, without claiming to so do, represents a cultural posture that cannot help them…or anyone else:

Many born-in-America blacks have chosen a backward-looking mindset that prevents fully benefiting from what their country offers; instead of opening their hands to America’s current and future opportunities, they would rather shake a clenched fist at America’s past,  detaching themselves from Americanism and making themselves adversaries – if not enemies – of the state. That is a ruinous prescription for every black person inclined to get it filled. and that is what currently destroys black influence – political, social, and cultural – in America.

Fortunately, a small but increasing number of blacks want a new drug.

The temptation, fed by the media, is to see black support for Trump as an embrace of the president himself. It is likely not that; it stems from a realization that the political path for blacks need not be charted by those who are false friends to them, and who hate the country itself.

The number of blacks who will side with America will not eclipse the number whom Malcolm Little described as “political chumps and traitors to their race” anytime soon. But it would be un-American (and ungodly) not to hope, fervently, that it one day will. Just as abolitionists held out hope for decades that enough would agree with them so chattel slavery would end. Just as many hoped, for nearly a century following Reconstruction, for  laws encoding segregation into American society to fall. In both those cases, holding out hope was warranted though, at the time, it may have seemed pointless.

My thought is that hope will prove warranted in this instance as well, that the majority of blacks will embrace the political and ideological postures that underpin American confidence and success, and I believe they will. However, until that change occurs, America will continue to witness a decline in the fortunes of her black population; a decline which the nation will find painful to observe, but one that it cannot stop…because it’s a Black thing.

How Complete is America’s “Fundamental Transformation”? Have You seen the Iran Nuke Deal?

The U.S. and Iran – along with China, France, Russia, the U.K., and Germany – reached an “agreement” regarding the Iranian Nuclear Program. For Iran, the agreement is as historic as it is beneficial. By simply signing the document, Iran receives:

    Relief from financial and economic sanctions, a move opposed by the Saudis and other Arab states in the region,

    • Relief – with Russian and Chinese support, and over the objections of the outgoing Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff – from the arms embargo that currently keeps Iran from being even more powerful in the region, and

    • Virtually no restrictions on its nuclear program after 15 years.

More money, more weapons and, in just a little while, no hindrances. In addition, Iran has already taken over four governments, while negotiating the nuclear treaty with Obama; their imperial intentions in the region are widely known. Since Obama took no strong action opposing Tehran’s ambitions, while negotiating a weak nuclear agreement with them, the U.S. also cedes control of the Middle East to Iran.

As Iran’s president, Hassan Rouhani, said in a televised address, after the agreement’s announcement, “the prayers of Iranians had ‘come true'”.

For their part, the U.S. and its allies receive…well, that is hard to say.

How weak is the agreement that the U.S. president insists be implemented? Let’s talk assurances… Obama insists that the limiting aspects, on Iran, of the agreement are not matters of trust, but matters of verification:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=En977tH_0ns[/youtube]

So, why did no one first verify that Iran yet complied with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) it signed in 1968? Iran is currently nuclear weapon capable, an NPT violation so obvious that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry wrote an Op-Ed piece to say how important a new agreement would be to ensuring Iran had not violated, or would not continue to violate, the old NPT.

(When you need a new agreement simply to verify compliance with an earlier agreement…odds are there will never be either compliance or agreement.)

And the president chose not to mention that, under this new agreement, Iran can challenge inspection access requestsfor as long as 24 days – and deny inspectors access to any military facilities inside the country. So, Iran can delay any U.N. inspection, long enough for them to move anything suspicious to a facility where inspections are not allowed. So, unless you can trust Iran to allow the U.N. and Western powers to verify their compliance, there will be no verification…and who trusts Iran?

The U.S. did not gain international prestige with the deal. Arab commentators supported Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s position when he addressed a Joint Session of the U.S. Congress in March 2015; Netanyahu has called the agreement an “historic mistake”. The Arab heads of state who snubbed Obama back in May 2015 in response to the Iran deal framework, are not praising today’s “done deal”. Even the Europeans, who generally laud the deal have reservations; Marietje Schaake, a Dutch MEP from the ALDE group, warned that Iran had largely contributed to the current civil war in Syria by strengthening the government in Damascus and militia on the ground, and “must now choose to be part of the solution and the end of the war instead.”

Neither did the U.S. gain any credible deterrent to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, should Tehran not wish to wait 15 years for an all-clear. Neither the sanctions that continue to lift, nor the arms embargo now set to fade, prevented Iran from pursuing its nuclear program or destabilizing one government after another in the region before…what is different now?

Nor did the U.S. gain the freedom of its four citizens being held or tortured by the Iranian government. So, Obama missed a chance to change his image from being the American president who leaves American citizens behind – whether in Iran, in Benghazi, in Yemen, in Mexico

Again, what did anyone, not named Iran, receive from this agreement?

The president indicates that alternatives to this deal are either continuing Iran’s nuclear program, or war. Those are disingenuous alternatives. Regarding Iran’s nuclear program, it continues unabated since its 1982 post-Islamic Revolution restart, and this agreement lets Iran hide any portion of it that they wish to conceal. War is an option manufactured by this president, to garner support for talks with Iran: Obama undermined what could have forced Iran to capitulate by consistently relieving sanctions on Iran, since June 2013. Iran was not forced to the table; Obama removed viable alternative paths for the U.S.

So, the president dismantled what could have, without negotiation, ended Iran’s nuclear program, thereby ensuring negotiations with Iran on how to continue their nuclear program. How does that scenario benefit the U.S.? Why would anyone believe a deal, emerging from that scenario, is good for the United States of America? Now Congress has 60 days to review what took nearly two years to craft, under threat of veto if they do not rubber-stamp it.

Obama says, “no agreement means a greater chance of more war in the Middle East.” But there are numerous wars in the region and this agreement impacts none of them. To say it keeps the U.S. out of new Middle East wars is specious; will the U.S. defend Israel or another ally only if they suffer nuclear attack? How many nuclear weapons did Iran use to co-opt Yemen, Syria, or Iraq? The agreement does nothing to reduce the likelihood of future U.S. military involvement in that area of the world; it does not impact even our current military presence, else the troops recently deployed to fight Islamic State would come home, now that the Iranian nuclear deal is complete.

Finally, you have the mixed message of Americans, who want an agreement, do not trust Iran to abide by it.

America is not war-weary, as you suppose; she is weary of “leaders” who spend the precious capital of her sons’ blood pursuing questionable goals. For those who consider Bush guilty of this sin, they should note nearly 4 times as many military members died in Afghanistan under Obama than under his predecessor.

This agreement does not prevent war as much as it sets a future date for it, giving the enemy time to grow stronger, both militarily and financially – increasing the likelihood of an American defeat.

The America that was a great nation, seeing that threat, might already bear a bloodied sword. If she remained “a government of the people, by the people, and for the people”, then Iran would know her displeasure, likely by direct means. As it is, the “fundamental transformation” of America is almost complete, and “a people of the government, by the government, and for the government” have lost, not only the will to fight, but also the ability to know a bad deal when it’s about to kill them.

The 180⁰ Turn Against His People – Whether American or Black

These comments, delivered on July 25th, 2011 before the National Council of La Raza, are chilling:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wD5Y88UWno[/youtube]

As are these, delivered to a Univision audience on March 28th, 2011:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfZ3kaKZoIw[/youtube]

and these, spoken during a February 14th, 2013 Google Hangout:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSV9n-v_0KI[/youtube]

As well as any of these other comments, uttered by the current president:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehH8KMIxntQ[/youtube]

They are chilling because now the president said this on November 19th, 2014:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeT_vu31eaw[/youtube]

Obama has now effectively exercised power he said he had not, behaved as the emperor he claimed he was not, and bypassed Congress as he pledged he would not:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBsS6kGXaYU[/youtube]

The obvious question is, “Why?” To begin to answer, one needs to determine how important immigration reform is…and to whom.

Though not on any ballots, Obama pushed immigration reform ahead of Nov 2014 midterm elections, while on-ballot Democrats simply threw everything against the wall, looking to see what might stick against Republicans; immigration reform was in the mix, but far from a main ingredient. As Democrats sought to distance themselves from a politically toxic president, Obama reminded voters that, while he was not running, every one of his policies, including immigration reform, were.

However, immigration reform was not a voter priority; even Hispanic voters seemed ambivalent.

For the record, during Obama’s presidency, immigration reform has yet to energize (legal) voters. It did not excite them in 2008, or in 2010, or 2012. The Democrat “electoral extinction event”, ongoing since 2008, would suggest that it still fails to excite the electorate.

Simply put, the American electorate is not interested in immigration reform; the majority believe the government is not doing enough to remove illegal aliens from the U.S.

Therefore, it is not surprising no immigration reform legislation has passed during the Obama presidency; not from January 2009 through January 2011, when his fellow Democrats held majorities in the House and the Senate, or since. Not surprising, either, is that the lack of an immigration reform bill has not halted Republican electoral gains, federal or state, in the last 6 years.

Nevertheless, the president disregards the people’s will, bypassing their duly elected representatives, to do as he pleases; effectively turning government “of the people, by the people, for the people” into something resembling how the colonists viewed England under George III.

So, if not the voters, to whom is the president catering? Quite frankly, it is two classes of non-voters. The day after the election, Obama gave a curious nod to registered non-participants:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4mBVL6Qz0Y[/youtube]

which inspired one reporter to ask if the president led the “Non-Voters of America” coalition, the presidential equivalent of a ventriloquist’s dummy, whose whispers can only be heard by Obama, and whose silent “voice” is subject, solely, to the president’s interpretation.

The second class of non-voters…are actually non-citizens. The Hispanic advocacy group, La Raza, which many believe supports illegal immigration, is also quite cozy with the Obama administration. The president, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/07/23/remarks-first-lady-national-council-la-raza, and the Vice President and the outgoing Attorney General, have all attended La Raza events. By way of contrast, Obama skipped the 2012 NAACP Convention, sending Joe Biden instead.

Also, the Obama administration hired a former La Raza Vice President in 2009, and nearly tripled federal funding to the organization. Again, by way of contrast, the former NAACP member hired by the Obama administration led to Obama establishing a Gulf Oil Spill Claims facility for which the NAACP lobbied.

So, the first elected black president seems more inclined to represent the interests of America’s illegal immigrants than those of America’s blacks. He seems more sympathetic to the plight of those who would steal the right to the franchise and the American Dream than to those who bled and died to earn their rights to the same…and some of the folks are waking up to the fact:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9ixOsjut3E[/youtube]

And, make no mistake, America’s blacks will be disproportionately harmed by actions that make it easier for illegal immigrants to come or stay in the country. Interestingly, while acknowledging the coming harm to blacks, some “black leaders” actually lauded the president’s executive action.

Therefore, the president betrayed America’s blacks who overwhelmingly supported him twice, and those who should appeal on their behalf for moderation from the president have instead co-signed his treachery.

And blacks are not the only ones who will suffer; all American lower wage workers will be hard-pressed to find higher wages or more job opportunities, or even the same level of government services as the number of illegal immigrants increase…just as the president indicated…when he was a Senator.

So, the president’s about-face on immigration helps those who do not vote and those who should not be voting; it hurts all of America’s citizens, and especially those who, as a voting bloc, showed him the most support and loyalty.

What may be worse about this is that those in the federal government who oppose the president’s actions, though they soon will possess superior numbers, still likely posses an inferior level of resolve. Despite their governmental, and constitutional, being relatively clear, Republicans can’t figure out how to respond. Which is odd, since they knew, some time ago, that the president would take this action.

The situation is as follows, regarding illegal immigration:

    • The American people oppose the president’s action,
    Portrayals of Obama as worthy of impeachment have gained traction among voters,
    • Republicans won majorities in both House of Congress, meaning they control the agenda, and
    • The Constitution provides them multiple, effective, responses to carry out the will of the people…

Yet the GOP is both hesitant and far less decisive than the electoral victory they just achieved.

Because, within D.C., the GOP are not interested in the welfare of Americans; their concern is the acquisition and exercise of power. Therefore, the interests of the party will trump the interests of the country in the fashioning of their response…as it has with Obamacare…as it has with reducing government spending.

They would rather keep the federal government running, at any cost, so they might have someone in 2016 who can wield power as Obama has, than see federal influence in the affairs of citizens decrease one iota.

And as long as the electorate believes that voting alone is enough to protect their interests and their liberty, the federal beast will continue to devour both.

The Numbers Make No Sense, But Things Are Better?

The economic indicators are a jumbled mess…and that may be on purpose.

The financial markets soar, but fewer stocks have rising prices. Corporate profits reach all-time highs, but employees receive their lowest share of it 1947…as they struggle to reduce consumer debt that hit a record high in 2012.

The employment picture is even more confusing.

The U.S. economy added 288,000 in April 2014, and the headline unemployment rate declined from 6.7% in March to 6.3%. Additionally, upward revisions for the two prior months mean 713,000 people found work from February through April. That seems positive, even hopeful…until one learns 806,000 people left the workforce in the month of April alone and that the exodus from the workforce, not the number of people finding work, accounts for the decrease in April’s unemployment rate. Interestingly, people leaving the workforce since 2009 account for all the unemployment rate decline during the Obama administration, and for dropping the labor force participation rate to a 35-year low.

Despite this, the press says the job market is improving, going so far as to say leading indicators signal the pace of U.S. economic growth is poised to snap back. How, or even when, that might occur when First Quarter GDP growth for this year was 0.1% – yep, ZERO-POINT-ONE…PERCENT – is mystifying. Equally mystifying is how the experts conclude weather caused the poor growth growth, but did not affect stock prices. More mystifying still is how the president concludes an economy, absent of growth, is improving.

So, stock markets are high, but not that many stocks are rising; businesses make more money, but employees see less of it, while consumer and public debt are at all time highs, here and abroad. Some find work, but even more give up looking; the economy does not grow, but we hear it is getting better. Yep, clear as mud.

The mixed messages don’t stop there. The president says of “income inequality”: “I believe this is the defining challenge of our time”: [youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmRgU2B1pe0[/youtube]
Yet, his policy “prescriptions” may only exacerbate the disease:

    His minimum wage increase will reduce the number of jobs, according to the CBO and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve,

    The president wants Obamacare implementation “follow through”, though the CBO has determined it will cut work hours by the equivalent of 2,000,000 full-time jobs, and

    Obama’s “Promise Zones” sound like Clinton’s “Empowerment Zones”, which made poorly validated claims of helping the poor, and like the “War on Poverty”, which has cost $15 Trillion (perhaps more) over the last half-century, with the Census Bureau reporting a higher poverty rate now than in 1966. (Reflect on that: We have spent the rough equivalent of the current national debt on a project that has missed its mark for the last 50 years. One can only wonder where the economy might be had that money remained in the private sector.)

It is hard to see how any “income inequality” challenge would be met by reducing the number of available work opportunities, or by doubling down on policies that have not worked for decades.

Today’s U.S. economy is a modern retelling of the Emperor’s New Clothes, complete with a media chorus that works to explain away the nakedness much of the public has already seen.

Simply put, things are not better for U.S. economy. The number of people in the workforce, as a percentage of the working population, has not been this low since 1979. Some may recall that the Jimmy Carter economy is what led to the Reagan Revolution in 1980, and that Ronald Reagan won re-election in 1984 by helping to put Americans back to work after the Carter years: [youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU-IBF8nwSY[/youtube]

Unfortunately, though Americans considered jobs and the economy their top priority 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014, the federal government maintained a different perspective. Instead of focusing, the president has instead “pivoted” to jobs and the economy so many times that he resembles a whirling dervish: [youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jwn4dJcl08[/youtube]
The result from all that “spin” is 11.3 million people out of the workforce, against approximately 4.1 million jobs added since 2009. Add to that, a great number of the jobs gained are part-time, not full-time. Add to that, median income for U.S. households is down since the Great Recession ENDED.

For all the confusing and conflicting economic news, one thing is quite clear: America has failed to do, from 2008 through 2014, what she accomplished from 1980 to 1984, even though — with double-digit unemployment, inflation, and federal interest rates — the 1980’s began with a much more troubled economy.

What seems most odd is that all the bad information about the economy is even worse for blacks, who voted 95% for Obama in 2008, and 93% for Obama in 2012. Despite “depression level” unemployment, higher poverty rates than any ethnic group, and losing ground “in every single leading economic indicator category”, many blacks remain willing to defend Obama against (imagined) racial attacks on him (something the president encourages), but not willing to defend themselves against the economic attack of his policies on them.

A telling quote is this:

    “Still, 61 percent regard the economy negatively, including a majority of all age and income levels, most independents and 80 percent of Republicans. Only among Democrats, people with a postgraduate education and blacks do a majority regard the economy as good.”

So you have to be either a Democrat, highly educated, or black to believe the economy is doing well, even though it is not doing well. That is a strange collection of people who simply do not believe that “fat meat is greasy”.

As long as such people ignore the essential facts to support an ideology, there will always be an ideological struggle. As long as the nation allows those who share such an ideological view to hold elective office, there will always be unnecessary economic struggles…and people purposely contorting data to make things seem better than they are.

And until the clear thinking among the American people either purge or abandon a government containing such ideologues, we may never see “Morning in America” again.

The Non-Case That Won’t Be Going Away…Anytime Soon

Here’s the deal: This past August, a governor’s close aide e-mails one of the governor’s appointees, saying “traffic problems” should occur in a specific city. The appointee makes some calls and, on September 9th, voila, problems emerge. The city’s mayor contacts the governor’s administration to complain. The appointee e-mails the aide and another official, misleading them about what caused the problem.

An appointee of the neighboring state’s governor then orders the problem stopped. In the midst of this, the governor is re-elected by a wide margin. After joking about the incident, the governor says he knew nothing about its cause.

And then it all blows up for New Jersey Governor Chris Christie…

Since October, all manner of things continue to swirl about: subpoenas, hearings, impeachment threats. The appointee who made calls to cause the traffic problems resigned, and Christie fired the aide who sent the “traffic problems” e-mail. The appointee who resigned recently said Christie knew about the lane closures when they occurred…as though traffic could halt on the world’s busiest bridge and Christie – and a few million other people – would not know.

Add to that, Hoboken’s mayor accused Christie’s administration of bullying her over Hurricane Sandy relief funds, but her story doesn’t add up, and there is no corroboration. Now, concerns about her diary entries pertaining to a 2013 wrongful termination suit damage her credibility, including the fact she was accused of perjury in that case.

The DNC ran a Superbowl online ad about the re-inventing drama of the governor’s troubles, reading in part, “And it’s only the first quarter. It’s going to be a long game.” That could be true for Christie’s attackers as well: as Democrats and the press yell “Fire!”, it is not that easy to see even smoke in this “scandal”. As ABC News notes, “there has been no evidence linking him directly to the scandal.”

So why is the press spending so much time on what they admit is a non-story, especially when we have more Obamacare train wrecks occurring, “traitors” nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, and a Texas Democrat struggling with the truth about her own life story?

Because none of those other items pose a threat to the presidential aspirations of one Hillary Rodham Clinton.

A UK publication said it, straight out: Republicans can’t blame Clinton for Benghazi while absolving Christie of Bridgegate. How that statement could be made with a straight face goes a long way toward explaining the liberal mind, and not only in the US. Somehow:

    • Not knowing about a “traffic study” (Christie) is equal to not admitting what you know about a terrorist attack (Clinton)?
    • Staff members lying about bridge lane closures (Christie) is equal to staff members denying requests for increased security (Clinton)?
    • Four months after the incident occurs, holding a press conference to take responsibility for what occurred [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67TB0Uz2WME[/youtube] is equal to telling Congress “What difference, at this point, does it make?” [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFZytEUCXu4[/youtube]

It is unlikely that many reasonable people will see an interstate traffic jam as equal to an international terror attack, but the effort to show equivalence be made. If it is not, then how can a woman who lost to Barack Obama in 2008 prevail against anyone who would hang her involvement in his failing presidency around her neck, as Christie might?

Therefore, the strategy Obama employed against Mitt Romney in 2012 comes against Chris Christie in 2016…even though it is only 2014…and even though the party presidential primary elections remain 2 years away…and even though neither Christie nor Clinton have announced their candidacy for the nation’s highest elected office. The “Kill Romney” strategy irrelevancies and deceptions to distract people from the Obama record and focus them on an illusory version of his opponent’s history. The strategy was arguably effective, but the 2012 election was closer than many might think.

However, Democrats may believe the margin was narrow because they did not seek to “Kill Romney” soon enough. To correct that error, they seek Christie’s blood nearly two years before the presidential primaries, and are employing a full-court press. At the state level, New Jersey Assembly Deputy Speaker John Wisniewski, a Democrat has issued subpoenas and launched investigations. At the federal level, Obama’s HUD Inspector General is looking into whether Christie misused Hurricane Sandy relief funds. Interestingly, Republicans are tacitly on board for Christie’s demise, running their own investigation of Christie.

It’s not difficult to appreciate the Democrat motivation for attacking Christie; they seek the “Clinton Coronation” they failed to deliver in 2008. Six years ago, Hillary Clinton ran a great campaign: she knew the issues, had good messaging, the best political strategists, and made no mistakes. All things were ready for her to win…except the fact that Democrat voters, wanted someone else, and leading Democrats jumped off the Clinton bandwagon. Now, the party wants to make up for its “betrayal”.

The Republican motivation for killing Christie may not seem obvious until you remember the Obama praise and “bro hug”

Bro Hug

(which Christie says did not happen), which get credit for helping the president win re-election. Before that, there was Christie’s keynote address at the 2012 Republican National Convention address, which appeared to support his own presidential aspirations more than support the party’s nominee, Mitt Romney. At least in the eyes of the GOP establishment, Chris Christie simply is not as “part of the family”.

Consequently, the issue of betrayal will keep “bridge-gate” with us for some time to come. Republicans will use it to punish Christie for his betrayal in 2012; Democrats will use it to whitewash their betrayal of Hillary Clinton in 2008 and, in the Democrats’ calculus, no Christie means Hillary can’t lose.

So, the long knives are out for Christie on the Democrat side, and revenge-minded Republicans have a few stilettos of their own. The political class does not want a Chris Christie presidency: the Democrats want to apologize to Hillary Clinton for 2008 by nominating her in 2016, and the GOP…well, no one knows who they want…but it ain’t Chris Christie.

However, if Hillary Clinton couldn’t beat Barack Obama with a near-perfect campaign in 2008, who can she beat in 2016, when she has to answer for Obama’s policies?

…But, Mr. President, They Liked Their Plan…

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoV0NeHNklk[/youtube]
That was the false rhetoric. While Obamacare purported to reduce the number of those without health insurance in the U.S., it now has the opposite effect, with more insured people losing the coverage they had and preferred than previously uninsured getting new policies. It is not possible to say how many more, since the administration has not released data on Obamacare signups, and others are not sure if the available numbers are accurate.

This much, however, is known: In Florida, 300,000 will see their individual policies “transitioned” to Obamacare, but not cancelled.

Seriously? The insurance they had, and liked, goes away in favor of new insurance that contains what they did not use (the “old” policies did not contain things like “maternity and newborn care, mental health, substance abuse services and emergency services”, which a “qualified” health plan must now include), will cost more, and is unavailable, due to the 0.4% signup success rate for those trying to get coverage through HealthCare.gov. That, in someone’s mind, is not a cancellation.

Why a healthy, sober male would need, or should pay for, maternity care or substance abuse services is difficult to understand, as is the government’s de facto assertion that people are incapable of deciding, for themselves, what makes up minimally acceptable health insurance coverage. That is, of course, until one remembers the new policy premiums will be more expensive.

Simply put, it is not about providing affordable health insurance to those who already had coverage; it is about making sure those who had coverage pay more to cover someone else.

We also know that, in California, Kaiser Permanente cancelled 160,000 individual policies, and Blue Shield cancelled 119,000 policies back in September; nearly 2/3 of the Blue Shield customers will see rate increases. In addition to the “Florida Flow” and the “California Carnage”, Pennsylvanians are gettin’ dropped like it’s hot: Highmark, in Pittsburgh, is shedding 20% of their individual policies, and the major insurer in Philadelphia is kissing 45% of its individual polices goodbye.

Since insurance companies are canceling policies, instead of individuals opting not to renew coverage, can anyone assert that these people can keep the coverage they liked, as the president said they could?

And are those who liked their doctor able to keep their doctor, which was the other part of the president’s “pledge”? Well, it depends on whether:

    • The doctor still accepts insurance. Some bailed on working with insurance companies in the Obamacare era, even before the website debacle?

    • The doctor still owns, or remains part of, a private enterprise which practices locally? Some argue that by 2014, such doctors will be harder to find.

    • You’re a Medicare patient, in which case, you need to get lucky.

As people waste time worrying about why a website doesn’t work, it is increasingly clear that the president’s assurances to those already insured were lies designed to encourage them to skip the debate, believing they would be unaffected by whatever happened. They are now learning how much their apathy may cost them.

Indeed, a bigger problem than people’s difficulty in accessing the website, will be their difficulties once they do. For one, the website seems not to respect the privacy of those who do manage to log on. Add that to what doctors must request and record under Obamacare, and the U.S. healthcare system may gather more information about U.S. citizens than the NSA.

The second major difficulty is the cost. The Manhattan Institute has calculated that Obamacare will double health insurance premiums for younger men, and hike them for younger women by 55% to 62%.

Of course, higher premiums run counter to candidate Obama’s 2008 campaign pledges:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66bgpRRSDD4[/youtube]which he repeated during the re-elect campaign: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4rkKzajF7Y[/youtube]

Interestingly, there are Democrats: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXpfox_4-1I[/youtube]who have another view, including the HHS Secretary, and acknowledge Obamacare will not lower costs.

To be fair, Obama’s remarks, about people keeping what they liked were quite subtle. All Obama said was if you liked your doctor or plan that you CAN keep it; he did not say how much it would cost anyone to do so.

This interesting fact remains: with 300,000 in Florida, and another 279,000 in California losing their health insurance, Obamacare took health insurance policies from more people, in just 2 states, than it provided to people throughout the entire nation. All who would dispute this need do just one thing: get the Obama administration to release its information regarding how many got policies, either via the website or any other signup mechanism. Rest assured, if Obamacare participation were strong, then that would be the only thing Jay Carney would discuss with the press….instead of ramblings like this:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrMbG4byoqQ[/youtube]

So, Obama was less than truthful regarding his promises to the already insured, about how his signature legislative achievement would impact them. Is anyone honestly surprised by that…or simply by how large the fabrications were and how far they went?

…and all to pave the way for the single payer system the Democrat Party wants to impose:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXgSKwYMnWo[/youtube] which will emerge from the ashes and lies of Obamacare.

The Fiscal Cliff: What the Obama is Going On Here?

For those who wondered, I am not depressed by last month’s election results. Since October, I have worked on changing careers. Staring deeply into technical documents and prepping for certification exams has left little time for blogging. My apologies but…I’m ba-ack…..

Both sides in the so-called “fiscal cliff” (the combination of looming tax increases and spending cuts) debate have voiced their public positions. Here is a summary of Obama’s:

    The Obama administration is “absolutely” willing to go off the so-called fiscal cliff if Republicans refuse to increase taxes on the nation’s top earners.

    • Obama’s current spending cuts proposal looks eerily similar to his budget plan, which failed to garner a single vote in either the GOP-controlled House or the Democrat-controlled Senate. Obama’s plan is so flawed that Senate Democrats kept it from coming to a vote on December 5.

    Obama wants authority to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling, effectively transferring to the Executive Branch of the federal government a power constitutionally given to the Legislative Branch, or Congress, even though in 2006, then Senator Obama called increasing the nation’s debt “a leadership failure”.

Here is a summary of the GOP position:

    • Individual income tax rates stay unchanged; , additional revenues would come from subjecting more of an individual’s income to taxation, by removing provisions that shield income from taxation (closing loopholes) and limiting current deductions.

    • Reduce government spending, including raising the age for Medicare eligibility, and reducing annual Social Security increases.

    • It does not seem that the White House proposal for unilateral presidential authority to increase the debt limit will receive serious consideration.

Critics of the GOP plan note that the Bush era tax cuts gave money to upper income earners and, in part, led to the 2008 recession. However, those rates, implemented in 2003, after the 2000 – 2001 Clinton recession and the September 2001 terror attacks were, by 2005, generating more income tax revenue than in any year of the Clinton administration. Since lower rates generated higher revenues, the argument that low tax rates either hurt the economy or deprive the Treasury is a difficult one to make.

The press, for their part, appears more focused on identifying Republicans with a willingness to “break ranks” and raise taxes than reporting the objective consequences of either position. They could look to Europe, where the higher taxes, lower spending approach is en vogue. The results are not encouraging:

    • Greece raised taxes to bring in more revenue, only to see its deficit increase. Worse yet, tax receipts actually declined after taxes were raised. Additionally, the street demonstrations, protesting budget cuts, continue.

    • Great Britain was harder hit by the Great Recession than the US. After 6 T, after 6 quarters of decline, he British economy began to grow again in late 2009 at an annual rate of more than 2.5%. Then the government enacted an Emergency Budget in June, 2010, which contained a ratio of more than $3 of spending cuts for every $1 of tax increase. GDP growth retreated to less than 1% annually. And, as with Greece, there are the protests.

    Spain is taking the same approach with, predictably, the same results.

Bottom line, the “fiscal cliff” approach of raising taxes and cutting spending, to get government finances in order and to boost the economy has failed in Europe. According to CBS News, “Across Europe, six countries are in recession and economists predict the entire region could be heading for recession by the end of the year.”

Then why would the president be absolutely committed to going off the cliff if Congress refuses to raise tax rates? Well, he did say he wanted to “fundamentally change this nation.” Perhaps he is now revealing into what.

History teaches that economies are more likely to grow when taxation decreases and not increases, and now is a time when America could use more economic growth. The trustees of both Medicare and Social Security continue to sound the alarm that those programs are in deep financial trouble and need reformation to stay viable. And the Founders made it clear that one man should not control the nation’s purse strings. Yet, on each of these points, Obama seeks a path that demonstrably runs counter to American success or future prosperity. Further, he is not given to cogent explanations of how his approach would change the country’s current financial or economic plight.

Nevertheless, the president who claims to care for the middle class, would rather plunge them, and everyone else, into economic adversity that would bring more pain, debt, and poverty, rather than allow 2% of the nation’s income earners keep their current tax rates – just like everyone else. The revenue projected from what Obama desires, over a decade, is less than one year’s annual deficit. More than 4 times what the president seeks from the top 2% would be raised if all tax rates were allowed to rise (if the economy was so good under the Clinton rates, then why only bring them back for some of the nation?). If the nearly half of income tax filers who pay nothing contributed only $1,000/year, that would raise more revenue than the president seeks. So why the insistence?

The Defense cuts could cause more problems for an already troubled job market. No action on Social Security or Medicare could leave one or both of those programs unable to help seniors, Yet, Obama presses on, insisting he is right, but without saying what would happen should he get his way.

The president is an “all or nothing” negotiator, when anyone can get him to the table. His approach: “I won re-election, so now you must do whatever I want.” This ignores that every Republican in the GOP-controlled House also won an election on November 6, that there are more elected Republicans than Democrats in D.C., and that it is unlikely that voters sent Republicans there to bow to Obama. If only this were simply political drama, and not potential economic madness.

What the Obama is going on here?

The Debate: Blacks Didn’t See It Coming – Don’t Believe It Happened

debate

I recall being doubly flabbergasted watching my Facebook News Feed during the debate. The first flabbergasting item was the pitiful nature of the president’s performance in the first debate with Mitt Romney. Obama got pimp-slapped – told he does not understand business (which he doesn’t) and compared to a child who tells his parent the same tall tale over and over, in hopes it will be eventually believed. Obama showed no spark, seemed disinterested, and said nothing different from 4 years ago about what he wanted for the country. It was not pretty; even those who do not support the president found it painful to watch.

However, the second flabbergasting item, even more than the first, was how many black people could not quite get the idea that Obama was actually losing the debate while it was ongoing, and did not believe he had lost once the bloodletting ended. The expectation had clearly been that Obama, being the better orator, would more than hold his own against an opponent he had consistently described as a tax cheat, a felon, a murderer, and uncaring, sometimes with Gov Romney’s help.

Despite Romney’s negatives, both real and manufactured, Romney dominated Obama in the October 3rd presidential debate in Denver. A CNN post-debate poll had 67% of those watching declaring Romney the winner, with only 25% believing Obama won the debate.

That result is extraordinary, given that at least one poll said voters, by a nearly 2 to 1 margin expected Obama to prevail in all the debates. However, even more extraordinary is the level of black surprise at Obama’s debate showing, despite the many signs pointing to what did occur.

What signs?

Begin with these remarks in the days leading up to the debate:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iv-FWP-40Vs[/youtube]

While it seemed the president was self-deprecating to keep expectations reasonable, how closely did his assessment before the debate, match each man’s performance during the debates?

Then there is the aversion this president has to difficult discussions. Obama walked out of tense debt ceiling talks last summer. He walked away from his promise to craft comprehensive reform during his first year in office, though his party held strong majorities in both house of Congress. He walked away from a potential budget agreement with House Speaker Boehner (each blames the other). He walked away the Simpson-Bowles recommendations, even though he put together the commission that made them.

Obama avoids the press. He avoids world leaders. He avoids political rivals. It is hard to recall many times that the president engaged in any defense of his views in any more hostile environment than the View:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFowtgmGa6g[/youtube]

Obama acquitted himself well against a daytime talk show host. However, there was also the Univision interview…. that did not go quite as well:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHCZQUWlcTA[/youtube]

The Univision interview also included this gem:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlkD4pN3G4o[/youtube]

Had Obama countered Romney as strongly as he did Elisabeth Hasselbeck, there might have been a different result in Denver. However, however, had that line about being unable to change Washington from the inside come up in Denver, then the election might have ended that night.

Barack Hussein Obama does not do well without a script, or a teleprompter, a fact not lost on his supporters in Wisconsin. It is his preference to speak unchallenged and uninterrupted, something that warms the hearts of blacks and liberals. However, that is something unknown to presidential politics.

It is a willingness to endure constant intellectual challenge, to stand in against verbal and ideological opposition that helps great leaders transform their ideas from pretty speeches to working ideas that benefit a country. It is also the thing that ensures that a leader’s ideas evolve with the challenges that he, and his country, faces. Unfortunately, this president has avoided those challenges. Consequently, what President Obama says today is not different from what candidate Obama said four years ago.

That Barack Obama struggles when challenged is well-known to all but his most die-hard supporters – the majority of black people. But our apparent love of his speaking style, and admiration for his historic election have blinded us to two, now obvious truths: 1) Barack Obama needs a script to sound or be good; and 2) he is out of ideas for improving the affairs of this country.

This is how a majority of black people seemed to think the first debate night go:

Unfortunately, the 90-minute ordeal looked more like this:

Obama supporters say Romney was rude and would not let Obama speak. But the truth is the president spoke for three more minutes than his challenger. Former Vice President Al Gore blamed altitude sickness. There are no words that can do justice to the MSNBC reaction to the debate.

Nevertheless, what happened on October 3rd was a long time coming. It should not have surprised anyone, but it shocked many liberals and progressives, and most blacks. We never saw it coming, many of us still either do not believe or will not accept that it occurred.

However, if we want to make sure that our views our respected by whoever wins next month, then black people need to step away from personalities, step up to the issues, and figure out who represents our interests and values before the next Obama-Romney debate, because the worst time to figure out that you’ve backed the wrong horse is win the race is over.

How did “Yes We Can” become “No One Ever Could”?

On Election Night, 2008, a new president-elect called the nation to the ready:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiskE1Jsr6A[/youtube]

On the canvas of Ann Nixon Cooper’s 106-year life, Barack Obama painted more than a century of American victories: over wartime enemies, over slavery and oppressive segregation, over financial catastrophe, over travel to a world away. Each eloquently recalled conquest of American resolve brought tears to American eyes, not just in Chicago’s Grant Park, but across the country, and increasingly louder repeats of the campaign slogan: Yes We Can. Each mention built confidence that the nation’s challenges on that night were no greater than those already overcome. The recession would end, jobs would abound, prosperity would increase because America, like the God in whom she trusts, was able: Yes We Can.

By 2012, however, many of 2008’s economic challenges remained; some were worse. The recession ended, but prosperity did not reappear. More than a year after the “stimulus” bill, which the administration said would cap unemployment at 8%, President Obama told the nation 9.6% unemployment wasn’t so bad:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6utL1Gl6VQU[/youtube]

Labor participation rates decreased; the percentage of Americans working or looking for work hit a 3-decade low. In February 2009, 141.7 million Americans held jobs (see page 2); by August 2012, the number was 142.1 million (see page 4), an increase of less than a half million workers, despite the Obama campaign website’s claim of 4.6 million jobs created in the last 30 months. While CNN and others dispute the Obama claims, the president told the nation, in June 2012 regarding job creation, that “the private sector is doing fine.”

More startling than the Obama economic record was the explanation for it given at the 2012 Democratic National Convention:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3-eknQ5nlM[/youtube]

When the current president’s “lawyer” in this case is a former president who once offered to a federal grand jury,

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHlt1W83JFU[/youtube]

because of another statement he made,

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBe_guezGGc[/youtube]

the question is just how hard is one’s leg being pulled? And Clinton’s credibility issues include things other than what led to his impeachment.

Wagging the same crooked index finger that assured the nation he did not have sex with Monica Lewwinsky, Clinton excoriated the GOP and said the “Arithmetic” he brought to Washington, D.C. led to 4 consecutive balanced budgets under his administration.

Really?

Clinton, like Obama, had Democrat majorities in the House and Senate at the start of his first term. Clinton, like Obama, saw his party suffer harsh defeat in his first midterm election. The 1994 GOP “Contract with America” gave Republicans their first House majority since 1954 and a Senate majority; the GOP maintained both throughout the Clinton administration. Once the GOP held the nation’s purse strings, the Clinton budgets came into balance.

Bill Clinton’s “Arithmetic” did not balance the budget. The American electorate provided adult supervision, in the form of the Republican Party, to balance Clinton’s budgets, and produce surpluses “as far as the eye could see”.

During that long DNC speech, Clinton neglected to mention that, along with budget surpluses, he also left a recession. Clinton’s GOP successor handled that, and the economic turmoil caused by the September 11, 2001, terror attacks…by cutting taxes. Barack Obama mocked the GOP’s use of tax cuts to combat economic ills:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S60pGZzB7A4[/youtube]

Yet George W. Bush did take two tax cuts (2001, 2003). When morning arrived, income tax revenues increased; by 2005, Bush’s lower rates generated more annual revenue than the best years of Clinton’s higher rates:

US Income taxes 1997 - 2008

Additionally, employment increased; note job growth from 2004 through 2007:

US Employment 2000 - 2008

Democrats say tax cuts do not work and no president could have handled the 2007 – 2009 recession in one term. But one president, plus 2 tax cuts, IN ONE TERM, overcame a recession and the worst terrorist attacks on record to grow federal revenues and national employment. No economic “stimulus” or “jobs” bill, just the same old “aspirin” Obama wants to avoid. Had the subprime mortgage bubble, which would have destroyed ANY economy, not burst, the US economy might still be humming.

And Bush was not alone. The Kennedy Administration responded to the 1960 – 61 recession by cutting taxes:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEdXrfIMdiU[/youtube]

JFK, a Democrat, expected lower taxes to spur growth in his decade as the Bush cuts did last decade. The 1960’s saw the nation flush with enough cash to send a man to the moon, start the Great Society anti-poverty programs, and increase its war effort in South Viet Nam. One president, one tax cut, ONE TERM – a decade of federal largesse.

Ronald Regan took two tax cuts (1981, 1986), responding to the Carter “malaise” and the recessions of 1980 and 1981 – 82. The US economy began the longest post-World War II expansion up to that time, and Reagan presided over reversals of double-digit inflation, unemployment and federal interest rates in ONE TERM.

It is difficult to fathom President Clinton’s argument that no one president could have turned around the bad economy in a single term when at least three presidents did just that. One of them was a Democrat. The Republicans faced circumstances more challenging than Obama: high interest rates and high inflation complicated matters for Reagan; the loss of New York’s World Trade Center not only exacerbated the recession Bush inherited, but dampened the national mood. Still, all three presidents, Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush 43, successfully addressed recessions in ONE TERM…and used income tax cuts to do so.

Bill Clinton, who raised taxes in 1993, may not grasp that concept. Obama has threatened “targeted” tax hikes since before his election, so he may not “get it’, either.

Perhaps what Clinton should have said is, “No one president, who ascribes to the same ideology that I and President Obama share, could have fixed this economy in one term.”

But here’s a question: How can a president, whose ideology blinds him to sound economic policy, fix in a second term what isn’t corrected in the first, given that his ideology remains the same?

Is This Why Obama Could Lose?

Categories: ... 'bout Politics
Comments: Comments Off
Published on: August 31, 2012

This is not about which party had the better nominating convention. It’s not about budget deficits or the national debt. It’s not about Social Security or Medicare. It’s not about who built American businesses. It’s not about unemployment or “fair” taxation. It’s not about Obamacare.

It’s about an American president’s response to the death of Americans.

Rule No. 1 of war is “Young Men Die”; Rule No. 2 is “You Cannot Change Rule No. 1”. Therefore, Americans expect US casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, they do not expect US allies to purposely attack US troops.

On Aug. 10, Afghan “friendlies” killed 6 Americans in one day in two separate attacks. In one, a police commander shot 3 Marines he invited to a meal, then reportedly joined the Taliban. In the second, a civilian opened fire at a NATO base. These were hardly isolated incidents. Attacks on, and deaths of, American troops have increased in frequency, with more occurring this year than in 2011.

However, the Commander-in-Chief’s response is more disturbing than the attacks. When US troops mistakenly burned copies of the Koran, President Obama sent a 3-page letter of apology to the Afghan president, who replied on Afghan television, “we call on the US government to bring the perpetrators of the act to justice and put them on trial and punish them.” Obama complied, though stopping short of criminal charges for an error that injured or killed no one. However, Obama demanded no apology when Afghani “allies” killed US troops.

Apparently, American blood is fair compensation for the loss of paper and ink.

On Aug. 20, Obama vowed to do more to protect American troops. He would talk with Afghan president Karzai, and he called on American troops to be more careful about who they trust. On Aug. 27, an Afghan “colleague” killed 2 more American soldiers .

In contrast, when Manuel Noriega’s Panamanian Defense forces opened fire on 4 unarmed US military officers in December 1989, killing Marine First Lieutenant Robert Paz, President George H. W. Bush invaded Panama, removed Noriega from his country and from power, and put him in prison. That action demonstrated a president who values the lifeblood of his military. Perhaps this president does not regard that same blood as highly.

After Trayvon Martin was killed in Florida, Obama said, “You know, if I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.” His desire: “that everybody pulls together…to figure out exactly how this tragedy happened.” Undoubtedly, a better response than what he gave to US troop deaths in Afghanistan.

Unfortunately, whether Obama sought calm or political advantage is unclear. If Obama wanted calm, then why not reprimand Spike Lee for his tweets, condemned the New Black Panther Party for offering a seven-figure bounty on a man convicted of no crime, or discussed the tone of pro-Trayvon rallies with Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson?

Obama shied away from those stands, leaving perhaps an innocent man to twist in the wind after telling the nation that the boy George Zimmerman killed might have been Obama’s son.

Perhaps Obama’s seeming lack of concern for the lives of Americans half a world away is excusable, though military families will disagree. Obama’s awkward show of concern for the death of one young man stateside may be no big deal, though it resembled pandering or political posturing. But something closer to home, the president’s home, is impossible to either excuse or ignore.

In 2008, nearly half of Chicago’s more than 400 gun homicide victims were aged 10 to 25. During the 2008 – 2009 school year, as the one-time Chicago community organizer was ascending to and assuming the presidency, guns killed at least 36 Chicago public school children. In 2009, Chicago had more black children shot to death than soldiers dying in Iraq. The year 2010 saw Chicago with weekends in which 29 and 54 people were shot.

In 2008, 405 homicides were by gunshot wounds. In 2009, there were 379 gunshot homicides. 2010 saw 364 killed by guns. In 2011, it was 375. Finally, in 2012, there are 307 gun homicides through Aug. 29. Since 2008, 1,830 people, most of them black, have died from gunshot wounds in Chicago.

As an American, a black man, and a Chicagoan, this should deeply concern President Obama. So, what is his response to the carnage?

When police stopped a convicted felon outside then Senator and presidential candidate Obama’s home with a .40-caliber handgun and a bulletproof vest in 2008, Obama had no comment.

This is not to imply Obama is silent on all gun violence. When a gunman shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) and killed 6 others in January 2011, the president took to the podium, calling it “an unspeakable act”; he also released a statement. When a deranged man opened fire in an Aurora, CO, theater, killing 12 and wounding 58 others, the president issued a statement saying how he and the First Lady were “shocked and saddened”. He spoke to the incident at a campaign event in Florida.

It is difficult to give the president high marks for compassion in these cases. It is more likely that, as president, duty compelled him to respond to the shooting of a House member. Since he was already before a campaign event crowd ignoring or downplaying the Colorado shooting to deliver a stump speech, would have been bad form.

However, those who live and suffer in the city Obama calls home still wait for their hometown-boy-who-made-good to empathize with them. So far, he has not.

Compassion for fallen Americans does not come naturally to this president. When he is silent as nearly 2,000 are gunned down on his hometown streets, when he apologizes to a foreign ally that murders US troops, something is wrong.

Many wonder if this president cares about Americans struggling in the current economy. Given his demonstrated concern for dead countrymen, that remains a fair question. Should enough people decide he does not care, then, no matter the nation’s challenges, and no matter his November opponent, America will likely choose to face the future with a different president.

Copyright 2012. blackmanthinkin.com

«page 1 of 2

The World of Black Man Thinkin’
ARTICLE ARCHIVES
WDFP Radio Show Archives

Welcome , today is Sunday, December 22, 2024