LISTEN to BLACK MAN THINKIN’


For Your Hardness of Heart

by Black Man Thinkin'
Categories: ... 'bout Faith
Tags: , , , ,
Comments: Comments Off
Published on: September 8, 2012

I recently re-encountered a passage of scripture that has long interested me. This time, however, instead of just treating it as a destination, I began to see it as a door to a more comprehensive understanding, at least for me. The passage is Matthew 19:3-8.

Instead of seeing this as no more than a treatise on marriage, I began to see it as a glimpse into how God deals with human resistance to His will and rejection of His word.

Many still envision God a petulant being that fumes over the daily sins of men, and waits, ready to punish every misguided act. However, here God is willing to set aside a matter that is part of His eternal will for mankind, the permanence of marriage. When it was clear that men would not honor God’s construct, He gave them an easement to keep their offense from ending their fellowship. This was not the only variation given to Israel; the entire system of sacrifice was a way for God to stay connected with man despite his sinfulness. Eventually, that system no longer served God’s purpose, as Hebrews 8:7-8 demonstrates. God tired of making exceptions to the law and replaced it, using the body and blood of His Son. All this was done to accommodate the hardness of man’s heart.

Regarding the Greek word translated ‘hardness of heart’, it appears only three times in the New Testament. The first two occurrences, in Matthew 19 and Mark 10, refer to the origin of Jewish divorce law. The third occurrence, Mark 16:14, refers to something else altogether.

This different application retains a common thread with the divorce references: man’s refusal to accept and comply with the faithful witness they have received about God. It is one thing for a man to no longer want his wife. But to understand that what causes a man to abandon a spouse is similar to what would make him reject the Resurrection moves me to broaden my understanding of how hard heartedness manifests, and to call it out as such, even when some would call it something else, especially when I see the ties between hardness of heart and unbelief.

Consider the man whose desire to see his son delivered stood at odds with having found no help for him in Mark 9:20-24.

The man’s condition is not often discussed as hardness of heart. However, once he admits to unbelief, it is in play. Hardness of heart is a defense mechanism; a man shields himself from emotional and spiritual pain by closing himself off from what hurts. That does explain, perhaps more than some may admit, why people turn off on their marriages; something, which may or may not be caused by their spouse, has become so hurtful that a person shuts down to prevent further pain. Unbelief is also involved, as the person may choose to no longer believe their spouse loves or cares for them.

The man’s case was no different. The normal, even rational, thing to do, about something that destroys peace is to close one’s heart to it, or risk being overcome. In this man’s case, he was well down the path of accepting that his son was beyond help; his heart was hardening against the prospect that relief was possible. However, this was his son; when he heard that there might yet be hope, he sought out Jesus.

The man’s unbelief was the fear to hope; he had been disappointed before. To watch as an intruder into his child’s being tore him, sought to burn and drown him, caused him to foam at the mouth, and to see every effort he made to help his son fails was devastating. To keep his heart at all, it is not surprising that something inside had to shut down so he might continue to function. He was not seeking to disobey God; he had put himself in survival mode.

People believe there is a set amount of disappointment they can take. As they approach that limit, just as people fill and place sand bags to combat a coming flood, they will also harden their hearts to combat the coming disappointment. However, hardened hearts, no matter the reason they become so, are not open to God’s possibilities, which is why, He answereth him, and saith, O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him unto me. (Mark 9:19 KJV)

So, are you bringing your unresolved matters to Christ? Or have you become so fearful of more discouragement and disappointment that your heart has hardened, for protection’s sake, and you are content to keep your situation from Him, in case Jesus can or will do nothing about it? Remember, all things are possible to him that believeth.

Of course this does not mean that there is not outright sinful rebellion behind the hardness of heart of some people. Consider Jeremiah 5:3-4 and Isaiah 1:4-6. Regarding those passages, those of us with a Southern upbringing might say, “Some folk just think fat meat ain’t greasy.” Hardness of heart comes upon those who decide God’s way deserves neither their time nor effort, and make up their minds that they WILL NOT obey God, no matter what God does to them. It is scary to meet someone who would rather go to Hell than do what God requires: maybe they will not forgive a repentant transgressor; perhaps they will not abandon an immoral or illegal livelihood; maybe they have a family or cultural tradition they consider more precious than God or His word. That was Paul’s problem (Acts 9:1-5)

Aside from approving Stephen’s death (Acts 7), there are few mentions of outright pricks that Paul resisted, or kicked against. In my mind’s eye, I can see Saul of Tarsus, being persuaded by Stephen’s testimony before the Jews, right up until Stephen called them all “stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears.” After that, Saul had no problem consenting to Stephen’s death (Acts 7:58). However, after Saul of Tarsus became the apostle Paul, he would write of the mercy that accompanied his conversion (1 Timothy 1:12-16).

I know of two things God will do: First, He will do whatever He must to crack the shell of a hardened heart – do you need to see an “impossible” prayer answered? A front row seat will be available. Do you need to have your earthly possessions removed because you believe you trust more in them than in Him, or believe you accumulate them without His aid? Prepare to apply for unemployment and food stamps. Do you need to be struck blind so that you can finally see Him and commune with Him as He desires? There is yet a road from Jerusalem to Damascus; He is able to either put you on it or bring it to you.

The second thing God is willing to do is never let one whose heart is softened, or even broken, for Him, live a day without the knowledge of his mercy:

2 Peter 3:9 KJV The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

The one who denied Christ three times while Jesus was on trial has a testimony. He, who happily saw Stephen martyred, and even more happily made martyrs of other saints, before he became one himself, has a testimony. Martha and Mary, who had given up hope regarding their brother Lazarus who was three days in his tomb before Jesus arrived, have a testimony.

Each of these overcame hardness of heart, whether caused by the tearing pain of failure and cowardice, the sin of rejecting God’s testimony of Himself in favor of his own testimony about God, or by the response to personal loss.

The hardened heart has chosen to disbelieve that something God said is true. Of course, that is not a good place to be. For it to change, there must first be recognition. But those with hard hearts often don’t recognize what they have done, or the condition in which they reside. In other words, they can’t see it, nor will they often let others describe it to them. However, God is able to hold a mirror before one’s face, one from which they cannot turn away. In it lies the diagnosis and cure for your hardness of heart.

God Bless You All

An Impassioned Plea…Or a Misleading Performance?

by Black Man Thinkin'
Categories: ... 'bout Politics
Tags: , ,
Comments: Comments Off
Published on: September 6, 2012

Michelle Obama addresses the DNC

Michelle Obama gave a powerful speech at the Democrat National Convention on Tuesday, making her case to delegates and the nation for her husband to get a second presidential term. She was emotional, enthusiastic, fully engaged. It moved many to tears, not just in the auditorium in Charlotte, NC, but in living rooms across the country. It will be one of the most memorable speeches given by any candidate’s wife at any nominating convention. However, now that the cheering has stopped, there is a chance to look more closely at Mrs. Obama words and be less moved by her impressive delivery.

To begin, the speech’s tone was that of one begging a parole board for their loved one’s release. Mrs. Obama did her best to convince those who do not know her man to see the good in him, to understand the man she knows, and to let her vision sway their decision. The trouble is, while an actual parole board may know little of those whose fate they decide, the American electorate is hardly ignorant of Barack Obama.

After four years, most voters know what they think of the president, and whether they support him. Further, the undecided are not likely to make up their minds based on his wife’s appeal. With $16 Trillion of national debt (more than a third of it added since Obama’s inauguration), 23 – 25 million Americans un- or under-employed, uncertainty regarding tax rates, and unhappiness with the president’s signature legislation, there are simply weightier issues for the electorate than whether Michelle Obama supports her husband’s re-election.

Moreover, what president remains a mystery four years in? After all the speeches, interviews, press conferences, and, of course, legislative and political battles since January 2009, what insight can the First Lady provide that can outweigh the impact, good and bad, of the president’s policies in the minds of voters?

Consequently, Michelle Obama’s Tuesday magnificence was, quoting Shakespeare’s Macbeth:

[A] poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more…full of sound and fury –
Signifying nothing.

However, that is not the real issue. Mrs. Obama painted a picture of the “struggling” Obamas. According to her speech, the president drove her around car with rust holes that allowed her to see the pavement, his best pair of shoes were a half size too small, and his proudest possession was a coffee table rescued from a dumpster. That is an interesting account.

The Obamas met in 1989, at the prestigious Sidley & Austine law firm in Chicago. He was a summer intern, following his first year at Harvard Law School; she was one of the firm’s associate attorneys and his mentor at the firm. By the time they met, Barack Obama had graduated from Columbia University, worked for a year each at the Business International Corporation and the New York Public Interest Research Group in New York City, worked 3 years as director of the Developing Communities Project in Chicago, worked as a consultant and instructor for the Gamaliel Foundation, traveled to Europe for 3 weeks, and to Kenya for another 5 weeks.

That does not sound like someone whose finances dictated trash bin furniture shopping.

Mrs. Obama also made the point that neither she nor her husband came from families that had much in the way of money or possessions. However, Mrs. Obama’s humble beginnings story was blown up by the British press during the last campaign. The report indicates the president’s father-in-law earned nearly $43,000/year, before overtime, as an engineer at Chicago’s water plant. Forty-three thousand dollars in 1975 equals about $186,000 today.

Michelle Obama’s characterization of her upbringing being modest financially seems a bit of a stretch.

So, why would Michelle Obama misrepresent her background to give herself a poorer childhood? Perhaps it relates to concerns about the president’s “blackness”, raised in the last election cycle and again in this one. Obama already has a family background and experience to which most blacks do not relate. Giving him less money as a child is a way to get more votes by making him appear more in touch.

The next obvious question is, if she’s dishonest about this, did she say anything else about the president that requires a fact-check? How about his compassion? Some may recall Rep. Maxine Waters’ (D-CA) open questioning of Obama’s concern for unemployed blacks during the president’s summer jobs tour last year:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOMYEttH5fM[/youtube]

Michelle Obama is an intelligent woman. Too intelligent not to know someone would poke holes in her speech, especially since her “humble beginnings” assertions had already been exposed. Yet she wove those debunked claims into a masterful speech, delivered with emotional power and seeming sincerity. One can only wonder why.

Perhaps she’s right about her background and all the investigative reporters are wrong. Unfortunately, that is unlikely. Perhaps she so loves her husband that, in her mind, she should be allowed a recycled falsehood or two in supporting him. That is possible. Or, perhaps she wants to guard against what Rep. Waters indicated could occur: black political leaders hearing that they can start holding the president accountable on issues that concern them. That seems more plausible.

Michelle Obama is a smart woman who knows that if black elected officials abandon her husband, then he is done. Therefore, Michelle Obama is ready to keep her husband in the Oval Office…by any means necessary. Enter Tuesday’s masterful presentation at the Democrat National Convention.

After all, there are more vegetables to grow, more dresses to wear, and more vacations to take. And Air Force Two is only hers as long as her husband remains president of the United States.

So, was it an impassioned plea, or a misleading performance? Perhaps a bit of both, but I very much dislike being misled, especially by someone who looks me in the eye to do so.

Get Government Out Of Marriage Before Politics Takes Over…Again.

by Black Man Thinkin'
Categories: ... 'bout Faith, ... 'bout Politics
Tags: , , ,
Comments: Comments Off
Published on: September 5, 2012

Politicians and advocates, on both sides, have all had their about same-sex marriage in this election cycle. Now, they have moved on to the coming November referendum on the current administration. That battle is more economic; social issues, apart from Sandra Fluke‘s free birth control, have lost their moment in the campaign spotlight.

In the wake of the latest “debate”, there is a tattered and confused narrative regarding the bedrock institution of any society: marriage. Depending on whom you heed, either the nation is moving inexorably toward “legalizing” homosexual marriage, or 31 US states banning homosexual marriage, either by popular vote or by their legislatures (including California twice and, most recently North Carolina), tell a different story. Adding to the disparate narrative is the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, whereby Congress relieved each state from having to recognize marriages performed outside its borders.

There is adequate information, whether electoral, or legislative, even a presidential weigh-in, for anyone to adopt any position they wish on homosexual marriage and find assurance that their view is…reasonable.

So, while the political class hyperventilates over the coming election, now is an opportunity to make a clear statement about marriage in the US…before there is another Chick-fil-A moment. In the interest of full disclosure, my view of homosexual behavior does not deviate from what appears in the Holy Bible. However, my view on marriage will surprise many, even those who know me well. Here goes….

It should not concern the government, particularly the federal government, who marries whom. Further, and taking a libertarian stance, states should exit the business of licensing, and legislating either for or against marriage. In other words, marriage is God’s institution; it can, and should, rise or fall on its own merit.

Some will argue that government should promote marriage; plentiful and strong marriages benefit society. I agree that marriage benefits society, which helps governments. However, given the US divorce rate, while marriage benefits government, government support is not helping marriage. Indeed, it is hard to imagine why an institution that gave rise to the principles of government, and which existed when there was no formal government, should now need government to thrive, or even to continue. And it certainly does not need government to define it.

So what should government do about the state and nature of marriage? I recall Frederick Douglass’ response to what America should do with the Negro:

“I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us!”

Government involvement has indeed already played mischief with marriage. It created a preferred tax position – but why should one’s marital status impact the amount of taxes they pay? Do the unmarried work less hard for, or have less need of, their earnings?

Government has determined that a married person whose spouse dies should receive more in government payments, but couples in financial distress could only receive more government money if the man physically separates from his family and children. Giving a widowed person more government money for their loss, but withholding government help from married couples unless they live apart plays mischief with marriage.

That last one has done particular harm to the black community, pushing marriage rates lower and illegitimacy rates higher in the last half-century.

Now, government would seek to define marriage, to say what it is, whose union qualifies for governmental sanction, to say what schools teach about marriage? An effective government emulates both the structure and function of marriage and the family. How is it that government should presume to define, or re-define, what gave rise to it?

How much more mischief can government play with marriage?

America should remove government from marriage, letting it be an article of faith for those who choose to live that united life:

    • Stop taxing people differently because of their marital status,
    • Stop dictating who can enter a hospital room on that basis, and
    • Abandon the divorce and family laws that give governments, via the courts, control over the assets and children of married couples. Make those who form relationships as an article of faith, keep that faith with regard to offspring and property, whether or not they choose to stay together.

Finally, regarding homosexual marriage, I neither sanction nor support it. Nevertheless, I do not oppose two people uniting their lives, and they can call that union whatever they like. Everyone knows what marriage is; taking the government out of the equation makes the issue a matter of conscience rather than one of politics, which is clearly what marriage has become.

Before the politicians get revved up again, perhaps we take this matter off the table. Eliminating government preferences mutes political arguments. Ending government endorsement heads off discussions of unfairness. Killing government efforts to define marriage puts everyone on notice that the issue is between them and the Almighty, as it should be.

He will have His way with all who seek to use, or misuse, His institution when all is said and done. Government should leave marriage alone.

Copyright 2012. blackmanthinkin.com

Don’t Run From the Moment! The Lord is There.

by Black Man Thinkin'
Categories: ... 'bout Faith
Tags: , , , ,
Comments: Comments Off
Published on: September 1, 2012

I imagine all experience this. Anticipation of a huge moment, either of joy, of pain, or of testing, triggers the “fight or flight” response – even when there’s no one, and nothing, to fight. Many athletes may experience this before a contest, or during “crunch time.” Students may experience this before a final exam, after endless study leaves them yet feeling unprepared. Speakers may feel this as they listen to another introduce them before a keynote address.

The feeling is not restricted to athletes, academics, or public speakers. A new job, a wedding day, or planning a large family gathering can bring this feeling to anyone.

It is at those times, when people feel either so invincible or so inadequate that they cannot be still, that they must, Be still, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth. (Psalms 46:10 KJV)

Men and women often lay the groundwork that leads to a great moment…which they then wish to tear down (fight) or from which they wish to run (flight). The approaching moment brings increasing anticipation, and heavy pressure to do SOMETHING. The natural thing is to move; the reasonable course of action is to change position, the overwhelming temptation is to RUN. However, There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it. (1 Corinthians 10:13 KJV)

God desires a man flee nothing, apart from fornication. It may surprise some that God wants men and women to feel and bear the pressure of the moment; not that they would be crushed, but that they might have greater confidence in Him. It also creates a greater awareness of one’s own limitations. Not the limits of their comfort, but the true limits of their faith and trust in God. However, to learn those limits, people must be compelled to face them.

When Israel departed Egyptian bondage, God positioned His people so they could neither fight nor flee the Egyptian chariots and army:

Exodus 14:10-12 KJV And when Pharaoh drew nigh, the children of Israel lifted up their eyes, and, behold, the Egyptians marched after them; and they were sore afraid: and the children of Israel cried out unto the LORD. (11) And they said unto Moses, Because there were no graves in Egypt, hast thou taken us away to die in the wilderness? wherefore hast thou dealt thus with us, to carry us forth out of Egypt? (12) Is not this the word that we did tell thee in Egypt, saying, Let us alone, that we may serve the Egyptians? For it had been better for us to serve the Egyptians, than that we should die in the wilderness.

The pressure that triggers the “fight or flight” response restricts vision and distorts perception:

    • A blessed man, unemployed for months, can lose sight of how he and his family yet remain in their home and still share meals, so great is his anxiety over the lack of income,
    • A single parent frets over the safety of children he must leave alone so he might work. How does he forget the retired neighbor who reports to him daily on his offspring’s welfare and antics while he was away?
    • The collegian that fails every test in a class and dreads her final grade. How is she blinded to the countless extra credit assignments she completed that guarantees she will pass?

In each of these examples, God’s way of escape helped no one run, but enabled them to bear more pressure, Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. (Ephesians 6:13 KJV)
Israel’s pressure, however, differed from that of unemployment, babysitting, or passing a class; it was life and death. Caught between the enemy and the sea, Israel may have wanted to fight, but a nation humbled by 4 centuries of slavery and lacking weapons knew they were no match for Pharaoh. And, with an army before them and the sea behind, there was nowhere to run and nowhere to hide.

That pressure caused Israel to lose sight of this:

Exodus 14:19-20 KJV And the angel of God, which went before the camp of Israel, removed and went behind them; and the pillar of the cloud went from before their face, and stood behind them: (20) And it came between the camp of the Egyptians and the camp of Israel; and it was a cloud and darkness to them, but it gave light by night to these: so that the one came not near the other all the night.

How anyone can forget God’s accompanying pillar of cloud, I do not know. Nevertheless, this is what allowed Israel to bear the pressure of an approaching army, while the Lord spent all night drying a path through the sea.

1 Corinthians 10:11 KJV Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

The “fight or flight” reflex is a fear response. Often, folks under pressure lose their vision and perspective as fear compromises what faith they have. Not only did God record ensamples of those who gave into fear with great cause, yet needlessly, He spoke to the greatest fear of those under pressure – that they are alone:

Genesis 26:24 KJV And the LORD appeared unto him the same night, and said, I am the God of Abraham thy father: fear not, for I am with thee, and will bless thee, and multiply thy seed for my servant Abraham’s sake.

Isaiah 41:10 KJV Fear thou not; for I am with thee: be not dismayed; for I am thy God: I will strengthen thee; yea, I will help thee; yea, I will uphold thee with the right hand of my righteousness.

Isaiah 43:5 KJV Fear not: for I am with thee: I will bring thy seed from the east, and gather thee from the west

Jeremiah 1:8 KJV Be not afraid of their faces: for I am with thee to deliver thee, saith the LORD.

Jeremiah 1:19 KJV And they shall fight against thee; but they shall not prevail against thee; for I am with thee, saith the LORD, to deliver thee.

Even the removal of the Old Testament did not remove God’s presence:

Matthew 1:23 KJV Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Matthew 28:20 KJV Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

God is never on the way when His child is under pressure – He is already there, Because he hath set his love upon me, therefore will I deliver him: I will set him on high, because he hath known my name. He shall call upon me, and I will answer him: I will be with him in trouble; I will deliver him, and honour him. (Psalms 91:14-15 KJV)

Consider this, So shall they fear the name of the LORD from the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun. When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the LORD shall lift up a standard against him. (Isaiah 59:19 KJV)

It is the enemy that comes, not God; the Spirit of the Lord simply responds, for he was already, and is always, there. The fact that people struggle to see God’s presence neither minimizes nor negates it.

2 Kings 6:15-17 KJV And when the servant of the man of God was risen early, and gone forth, behold, an host compassed the city both with horses and chariots. And his servant said unto him, Alas, my master! how shall we do? (16) And he answered, Fear not: for they that be with us are more than they that be with them. (17) And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

If, in the moment of his greatest trouble, at the time when he feels most pressured – if a man would run from that moment, he is not running toward God, but running away. God is in the moment. God is in the trouble. God is with him. And God is with you.

Be still, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth, (Psalms 46:10 KJV) especially if you don’t run from your moments.

God Bless You All.

Copyright 2012. blackmanthinkin.com

Is This Why Obama Could Lose?

by Black Man Thinkin'
Categories: ... 'bout Politics
Tags: , , , ,
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

Ending Spock “As We Knew Him”

by Black Man Thinkin'
Categories: ... 'bout Politics
Tags: , , ,
Comments: Comments Off
Published on: August 29, 2012

I’m not a “Trekkie”, but I am a fan, old enough to have seen each Star Trek movie’s original release. I consider Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan the best of those using the original TV cast. It was memorable because, in it, Mr. Spock died…sort of. You can see the details of his “demise” here:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPBGZRRrEKM&feature=related[/youtube]

I write “sort of” because the backlash against killing the Star Trek franchise’s most popular character prompted another movie, ostensibly to resurrect Spock. But I digress. I use the clip to draw some parallels between Spock’s “death” and the current Medicare situation.

Upon hearing Admiral Kirk (yep, Jimmy got an upgrade) tell Scottie, “I need warp drive in 3 minutes or we’re all dead!”, Spock leaves the bridge, goes to the Engine Room, and brings the ship’s warp drive back on line, in time for the Enterprise and those aboard to escape harm. In the process, Spock sacrifices himself. In his final dialog with a distraught Admiral Kirk, it is said, “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few…or the one.” That is where I begin.

Spock “as we knew him”, or before he absorbed enough radiation to light the Eastern Seaboard, is comparable to Medicare “as we know it”. The similarities? Well:

    • A Firm Deadline: Spock understood time was of the essence; he had 3 minutes. With Medicare, we have until 2024 if we do nothing, only until 2016 with the effects of Obamacare, or perhaps even sooner. So say Medicare’s trustees.

    • A Need for Quick Action: The Enterprise’s warp drive had to be fixed NOW. In 3 minutes more, no action would matter; there would be neither ship nor crew to save. Similarly, Medicare needs fixing, correction, reform (pick you favorite noun) NOW. In not more than 12 years, and possibly less than 4, if nothing changes, then there will be nothing that can be done.

    • A Need for Bold Action: Had Spock remained “as we knew him”, all aboard the Enterprise would have died. In a nod to Caiaphas, Spock reasoned that it was more expedient that one man die for the ship than that the ship perish. Similarly, should Medicare remain “as we know it”, both Medicare and those who depend upon it will be lost.

All who follow, and who are willing to speak candidly about, Medicare’s financial situation know the status quo cannot continue; both Medicare and Social Security, with its $8.6 Trillion in unfunded liabilities through 2086, will bankrupt the federal government if no action is taken. So far, only one of the major US political parties is speaking openly about this. While both would cut Medicare spending by more than $700 Billion over the next decade, the GOP plan is not law and would be part of reforming the program; the Democrat approach is already law and does nothing to make Medicare more solvent. But back to Spock.

In order to save the Enterprise and those aboard her, Spock effectively reformed himself. Not surprisingly, those who were fond of Spock “as we knew him” resisted this reform, though they had no other plan that would save Spock or the ship. Before he made his sacrifice, however, Spock performed a mind meld with Dr. McCoy, uttering the word, “Remember”.

Remember

That marked the end of Spock “as we knew him”. As it turned out, Spock’s reform allowed everyone to survive, and paved the way for a new Spock to appear.

The point is simple, if somewhat contrived. Had Spock continued “as we knew him”, those aboard the Enterprise would have died; if Medicare continues “as we know it”, America’s seniors, who depend upon government-run or subsidized health care, may not survive.

One major US political party proposes to end Medicare “as we know it”, in favor of a reformed version that could actually last beyond 2016, and even beyond 2024. The other party seems content to simply let Medicare end, not just “as we know it,” but end period, not heeding the financial warnings from Medicare’s trustees. The other party even encourages the lie that money seniors “paid into” Medicare when they were younger will provide their benefits when they turn 65. The open secret is that no one “pays into” Medicare for their future benefits. Instead, everyone now “pays for” the services those now on Medicare receive.

With 10,000 Americans turning 65 daily and qualifying for Medicare, and with fewer than 200,000 jobs created per month, the math no longer works. Something needs to be done differently, NOW, or soon there will be nothing that can be done at all.

Medicare is indeed a case of the need of the many to find a way to fund benefits bumping against the need of the few to receive benefits. Medicare “as we know it” is broken to the point that, at most, 12 years remain before it dies. If Medicare were Mr. Spock, then it would already be on its way to the nation’s Engine Room, looking to get things back online. It would abandon its current make up in search of a new one that would first make those who now depend upon it safe; next, be affordable for those who must pay for it; and remain available for those too young to be in either of the former two groups. It would do that, even if it meant death, because “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few…or the one.”

Spock sacrificed himself only to return for further service. Similarly, the sacrifice of the current Medicare would result in a new program with a longer life. However, for that to occur, the American people must decide they can let go of Medicare “as we know it.”

Copyright 2012. blackmanthinkin.com

Time for a Romney Rant on Taxes

by Black Man Thinkin'
Categories: ... 'bout Politics
Tags: , , , , , ,
Comments: Comments Off
Published on: August 26, 2012

This started back in February, when Republicans were still winnowing their field of potential presidential nominees:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=totRt7wks5I[/youtube]

And it continues to the present time, now fueled by the Obama campaign:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMo5pykT4uw[/youtube]

I’m speaking of the obsession over seeing Mitt Romney’s tax returns. That discussion continues, to the exclusion of other matters in this campaign. To be fair, Romney’s naming a running mate shifted the discussion momentarily. Yet we still here the same three questions about the presumptive GOP presidential nominee’s tax returns:

    • Why won’t he release them?
    • What’s in them?
    • Why is his tax rate so low?

Of course, the president wants this focus on perceived Romney weaknesses – his wealth (therefore, he cannot understand the struggles of the middle class), and his ability to avoid high tax rates (therefore he’s 1%-er and doesn’t play fairly, by the same set of rules as everyone else).

I will not make Romney’s case regarding his tax returns. However, I will note that this discussion is reminiscent of the revelatory scene from the Wizard of Oz:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWyCCJ6B2WE[/youtube]

So, I will do my Toto impression and pull back the curtain. To quote Shakespeare’s Macbeth, the issue of Romney’s tax returns, like the fake wizard, is a matter:

That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

Those who will oppose Romney because of his taxes are likely Obama voters from the outset. Yet the Romney tax discussion works to divert attention from things the Obama campaign would rather keep behind the curtain. Consider how some issues have played out since February, when calls for Romney’s Forms 1040 became loud:

US Jobless Rate Feb - Aug 2012

The unemployment rate, which the administration declared would not top 8% once the “stimulus” bill became law is back at 8.3%, where it was in February, now with an upward trajectory. I doubt that many unemployed have Romney’s tax returns as a top concern. How about this:

Black Unemployment 2012

This disturbs me deeply as a black man. A year ago in Detroit, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) called black unemployment “unconscionable”. It is back over 14%, as it was in February. It appears that the administration’s plan remains a mystery to the Congressional Black Caucus…and to everyone else. I wonder if there are enough black people who now feel it is “time to let go”? Then there is this:

US GDP 2012

As the volume went up on the call for Romney’s tax returns, the volume on GDP growth went down. The trend would suggest another recession, and even more pain for those without employment. And what about this:

Deficits 08-12

The president promised to halve the deficit in his first term. Instead, Obama’s deficits, each year, are more than double George W. Bush’s 2008 deficit, the last and largest of the Bush administration. This last one is key:

US Retail Gas Price Chart

US Retail Gas Price data by YCharts

A gallon of gasoline cost less than $1.80 when Obama took office. The above chart is a bit old; gasoline has already topped $4/gallon in many places across the country. The 120% rise in gasoline under this administration puts a stranglehold on economic recovery and growth and a huge hole in family budgets.

Despite these issues plaguing the nation since February and even before, somehow the nexus of at least some discussions is Mitt Romney’s tax returns. Though it does not appear to be Romney’s style, I think a rant is in order. Some may remember this classic by former NBA star Allen Iverson:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGDBR2L5kzI[/youtube]

If candidate Romney could pull it off, it might go something like:

“If a Democrat (i.e., Harry Reid) says that I’ve not filed taxes, and y’all (doubt that Romney would say “y’all”) hear it, then that’s that – you guys believe it! I mean, I might have not gotten one tax return together, and that’s because we’ve requested an extension and we’re working to get it done. If they’re not done, then I can’t release them. But it’s not about that…it’s not about that…at all. It’s easy to sum it up and try to say it’s all about taxes…

“We in here (another non-Romneyism), I’m supposed to be the GOP nominee for president and we in here talkin’ bout taxes. We’re talkin’ about TAXES, man. Not the economy, not the economy…we’re talking about…taxes. Not high unemployment, not low job creation…we in here talkin’ about…TAXES.

“Not GDP growth, not talkin’ about the US falling back into a recession…we’re talkin’ about TAXES, man. We’re talkin about TAXES!

“Not the deficits, which are higher than ever in history, we’re not talkin’ about that…we’re in here talkin’…about…TAXES.

“We’re not talkin’ about the price of gasoline, and how it’s more than doubled since 2009….”

You get the picture. The country faces serious issues, and we’re in here talking about Mitt Romney’s taxes. This is majoring in the minors. I have no idea how seeing Romney’s tax return would worsen those problems, any more than I can see how Obama’s release of his tax returns has made them better the last four years.

When looking at those problems, it is easy to understand why the president would rather focus on his opponents’ tax returns. However, this is no different from the man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz, who had something he wished to hide. All that’s missing is for someone to confront Obama, as Dorothy confronted the fake wizard and say that they don’t believe him, and that he’s a very bad man. That may come in November, and it will likely be more than one person trying to get back to Auntie Em.

In the meantime, I would just like to hear the rant.

Copyright 2012. blackmanthinkin.com

A Case of Misplaced Sympathy?

by Black Man Thinkin'
Categories: ... 'bout Politics, Best of Site
Tags: , , , , , ,
Comments: 4 Comments
Published on: August 22, 2012

Perhaps you’ve seen this video of Tony Farmer, a rising senior at Garfield Heights High School in Ohio and a top college basketball prospect, reacting to hearing a judge sentence him after he pleaded guilty to several crimes, including 3 felonies:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3295O40Vfbg[/youtube]

There it is! Another young black man going to prison instead of college! Another hateful white judge, ignoring the pleas of teachers, coaches, family members, and even the crime victim not to send Tony Farmer to prison! This is what’s wrong with America – killing opportunity for young black people even before they can realize their potential! This situation requires immediate action. People need to organize. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson need to travel to Ohio and speak to this situation. Recall Judge Pamela Barker! . . .

Ok, forgive me. I put my “social justice” hat on for a moment; only way to complete that rant since that “social justice” stuff can make people say and write strange things. The hat’s off now; back to reality.

First, Farmer’s attack on his former girlfriend, Andrea Lane, was caught on surveillance video. Farmer faced charges of kidnapping (perhaps dragging Lane by her hair back into the lobby of the apartment building was a bad idea), felonious assault (might have been that kick to Lane’s head as she cowered in fear in a corner), and robbery (dude took Lane’s cellphone, a bank card, a laptop computer and her car keys).

Second, a grand jury who, no doubt, viewed the video of Mr. Farmer’s antics, indicted him. So, even though a decent district attorney can, as the saying goes, indict a ham sandwich, ordinary citizens also concluded Farmer’s case warranted criminal charges.

Third, Farmer rejected a plea bargain which contained less prison time than he ultimately received. Interestingly, Farmer’s attorney, Joe Dubyak, said he expected his client would receive probation after his guilty plea.

Now, I’m no lawyer, I don’t play one on TV, and I don’t live in Ohio, but a cursory review of state law makes Mr. Dubyak’s comment seem strange. According to the Ohio Revised Code:

    • Kidnapping is a first degree felony, Chapter 2905.01(C)(1),
    • Felonious assault is a second degree felony, Chapter 2903.11(D)(1), and
    • Robbery is a second degree felony, Chapter 2911.02(B).

The code speaks of mandatory sentencing for those convicted of, or pleading guilty to, the first two crimes. The code also prescribes definite prison terms of 3 to 11 years for first degree felonies, and 2 to 8 years for second degree felonies (Chapter 2929.14(A)(1) & (2)).

Mr. Dubyak’s client pleaded guilty 3 felonies, 1 first degree felony and 2 second degree felony, with two of those calling for mandatory incarceration. It is hard to fathom why he believed probation was a possibility. Judge Barker showed leniency to Farmer, imposing minimum sentences and allowing all sentences to run concurrently. This spared Farmer at least another 4 years and 9 months in prison, and as much as another 24 years and 9 months.

Of course, none of these facts are apparent when watching Farmer collapse as he sees his college hoops aspirations evaporate. There is one other thing that is not apparent, at least not immediately, in the dramatic courtroom video:

The woman Farmer dragged by the hair, the woman he beat and kicked in the lobby of her own apartment building, the woman whose property he stole after assaulting her, is also black.

With so much “concern” of late over attacks on women through the words of politicians, I can only wonder where is the concern over this real attack on a woman, involving fists and feet, all because that woman no longer wanted to have a romantic relationship with the man who would attack her? Is there truly a stronger reaction to what this young man lost than there is to what he did to another black person?

I hate to see young black men go to prison, but can anyone condone Tony Farmer’s crimes? Make no mistake: giving ANYONE who commits 3 felonies against a black woman anything other than prison time is unconscionable. To my thinking, giving anyone who commits 3 felonies against a black woman minimum sentencing, that effectively condenses three crimes into one, also devalues that black female victim, and minimizes the ordeal she suffered.

Again, I hate to see young black men go to prison. However, I cannot say, in good conscience, that what a young man can do with a basketball should entitle him to a pass when it comes to kidnapping, assaulting, and robbing another person. For a violent attacker of a black person to have his talents put aside, the same way he put aside the humanity and dignity of another human being, affirms the value of black people in American society. I always promote human dignity (which all people have) over human talent (which not all people have).

I have no clue why Tony Farmer did what he did, nor do I care, though I hurt for the immediate opportunities that he has sacrificed. My sympathies lie with the woman he attacked, who had a 6′ 7″, 220-pound man drag her by the hair, beat her, and kick her in the head. Anyone who would do that to another human being doesn’t belong on a college campus or on a college basketball team. Anyone who would do that to another human being looks good in an orange jumpsuit.

Copyright 2012. blackmanthinkin.com

Something About Forgiveness

by Black Man Thinkin'
Categories: ... 'bout Faith, Best of Site
Tags: , ,
Comments: Comments Off
Published on: August 21, 2012

Fred Taylor

Fred Taylor is a 36-year-old former NFL running back. As a collegian at the University of Florida, he helped the Gators to a National Championship in 1996. As a team captain in his senior year, Taylor earned 1st team All-Southeastern Conference honors, 1st team Walter Camp All-American honors, and his teammates’ nod as Florida’s most valuable player.

In the NFL, Taylor rushed for 11,695 and 66 touchdowns, and caught 290 passes for 2,384 yards and another 8 touchdowns, in 13 seasons, retiring in 2011.

Taylor is doing well. That should surprise no one; talented people who work hard and perform well often translate their skills into material success.

Tank Black

The man with the… aggressive… tie is William “Tank” Black. Black was an assistant football coach at the University of South Carolina before starting Professional Management Incorporated (PMI), a sports agency, in 1988. Black set a record in 1999 for a single agent by signing five of that year’s 31 first-round NFL draft picks, plus three second round draft picks. Within a year of that record, he stood accused of improperly funneling cash to college players, money-laundering, involvement in a Ponzi investment scheme, and of involvement in a stock swindle.

Tank Black represented Fred Taylor when Taylor came out of Florida in 1998…and lost $3.6 million of Taylor’s money to scams by 2000.

Taylor was so distressed that he considered retiring from the NFL in 2001. Black spent 82 months in federal prison for money-laundering. Taylor overcame Black’s betrayal to enjoy a long and lucrative career, and the comfortable position he enjoys today. Tank Black left prison in 2007, and left a halfway house in 2008.

Needless to say, the events caused a rift between the two men. But that’s not the story.

Fred Taylor recently called Tank Black to forgive him and to thank him, indicating it was something he had to do.

When Taylor asked Black, “What happened?” Black said he was misled into a Ponzi scheme. Taylor doesn’t know if he believes that. Black apologized profusely and broke down crying during the call.

“I just sat and listened,” Taylor said. “It didn’t do anything for me. It didn’t do a thing. I thank God for giving me the courage to do it. Men show up.”

THAT is the story.

Intentional or not, Fred Taylor experienced a key truth regarding forgiveness: it does nothing for the one who grants it. It isn’t supposed to. Check out Luke 7:36-47 KJV

The creditor wanted his money returned, but there was none to collect. God wanted obedience in return for His goodness, but the woman disobeyed. No doubt the debtors made an appeal for mercy from their creditor. The woman’s broken and tearful wiping Christ’s feet with her hair is a legendary example of sacrificial love.

However, scripture is clear, And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. (1 Samuel 15:22 KJV)

Clearly, the Lord did not get what he wanted from the woman. While the creditor likely received much love from those who owed him, it is as Ray Charles sang:

Your love gives me such a thrill –
But your love don’t pay my bills –
I need money . . . That’s what I want!

When viewed from that perspective, Fred Taylor’s reaction to Tank Black’s apology and tears is understandable: “It didn’t do anything for me. It didn’t do a thing…”

Again, it’s not supposed to. Tank Black’s remorse can only benefit Tank Black: pride abandons the man offering a sincere apology, and his tears are to cleanse his stained heart. Fred Taylor left open the possibility of another phone conversation and even a face to face meeting with Tank Black. Should either occur, then Taylor’s forgiveness can continue to work on Tank Black.

The only thing Taylor can ever expect to receive is…Tank Black, so says Matthew 18:15. The next 2 verses in Matthew 18 make it clear that forgiveness is not about helping the wronged party cope, but rather about convincing the wrongdoer to repair broken fellowships.

It is never a given that a wrongdoer will acknowledge their wrong, let alone seek forgiveness. It is also never a given that the wronged party will regain whatever was lost. Consequently, it is hardly reasonable to believe that granting forgiveness will benefit anyone other than the wrongdoer. Granting forgiveness does nothing for God; He is no more divine when He forgives, and He is no less divine should He not forgive. As the apostle wrote: For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. (Romans 9:15 KJV)

Forgiveness does nothing for those who grant it; it requires something from them. It requires mercy; it requires compassion. It also requires kindness and a tender heart. These are difficult things for a wronged person to show.

I don’t know what Fred Taylor expected to receive from calling Tank Black; he says it did nothing for him. I for one, never believed it would. But Taylor also thanked God for giving him the courage to make the call. I also thank God for also giving Fred Taylor the mercy, compassion, kindness, and heart to dial a number and listen as the man who stole from him apologized and cried.

Taylor also said “Men show up.” In this case, when there was noting for him to gain, a man most certainly did show up. Thank you, Mr. Taylor.

Copyright 2012. blackmanthinkin.com

Maybe He’s Just Not That Into Us. Maybe We’d Rather Not See It.

by Black Man Thinkin'
Categories: ... 'bout Politics
Tags: , ,
Comments: Comments Off
Published on: August 17, 2012

It’s not hard to understand why the first black man on the ballot for President of the United States captured 95% of the black vote. One might have thought, after the 2008 election, that Obama loved the black community as much as they loved him. But after nearly four years, and what has happened during that time, I’m not quite sure about that. Consequently, I admit to confusion regarding the continued strength of black support for Barack Obama. Let me explain:

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

Vice President Joe “the Human Gaffe Machine” Biden, spoke to the NAACP National Convention on behalf a black president’s administration. O…K…? When announcing that he would pass on the event, Obama cited “scheduling” issues”. Hmm…

Stop me if you’ve heard this before, “Hey baby, I’d love to come and spend time with you and your family, but I got these ‘scheduling issues’….” Wasn’t that about the time you saw the relationship going downhill?

That’s not the only indication that more black love flows into the White House than flows from it. A quote from the hyperlinked article points to an uncomfortable truth: “… President Obama’s schedule would appear to reflect the power and importance of the Latino vote in this year’s election. The White House’s focus on Latino issues has been demonstrated over the last year and a half.”

So, in 2008, 19 of every 20 black votes cast went to Obama while he received only 2 out of every 3 latino votes. But when re-election time comes around in 2012, Obama spends more time courting…. who, again? Further, he sends his white proxy to talk to the old girlfriend, so to speak.

Do not misunderstand – Biden handled himself well before the NAACP crowd. Still, it’s a safe bet that the conferees wanted to hear from the black beneficiary of the NAACP’s century-long effort for racial equity in America – not the white guy in the second spot on the ticket.

Then I recalled what happened when Obama did speak to black folks:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mnv37Aqbi8[/youtube]

Joe Biden sounded more compassionate toward black people than did Obama. Biden spoke with empathy and concern. Obama, however, talked about himself and lectured black folks to get with him and to stop complaining. Then he slapped the lectern and absorbed all the… applause? Really? Obama ignores blacks for an extended period, then finally drops by to tell them to stop complaining? And they applaud him? Wow.

Sounds like the woman who’s been ignored for so long that she’s happy to hear anything from her man, no matter what it is, so long as he shows up and says it to her. I was almost ready to conclude VP Biden liked black people more than the black president. Then he showed, again, why he’s Joe Biden:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGaWQsq9YbI[/youtube]

He was with us in July, then we became “y’all back in chains” in August. Perhaps he believes only black folks would suffer if a Romney presidency goes bad. Perhaps he’d stand by and let Romney chain black people… or even help.

Of course, a larger question is why does a black president keep sending a white man to talk to black people? What black person voted for Joe Biden? Which blacks flocked to campaign events to see Biden?

I don’t believe blacks have endured higher unemployment than any other American demographic, apart from teenagers, over the last 3 years so that they could be comforted and then thrown under the bus by Joe Biden, while the “latin lover” holds the president’s attention. He attends more latino political events, puts more latino people in his administration, and even risks violating the Constitution making announcements intended to secure the affections of latinos.

Meanwhile, Obama makes announcements that leave black people nearly apoplectic. Seems that black pastors are still reacting to that one…and not well.

Nevertheless, the widely held view is that Obama will yet capture at least 90% of black votes.

Given the state of black unemployment, the disregard for traditional black social values, and the constant pandering to another ethnic group, it is hard for me to understand why black people would support Obama so strongly. It would seem that he’s just not that into us.

Apparently, I’m not the only black person who can’t figure out what’s going on with Obama:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUJIWmsQdi8[/youtube]

You may want to watch that one again. Quite a few of the unemployed black people in Detroit, listening to Maxine Waters, seem more than a bit impatient. Maybe they’re not as “in love” as they once were. Perhaps they no longer believe the president is working hard for black America, or for its votes.

Of course, Obama did say he’s not the president of black America.

He also acknowledges that his administration has not done enough to help American business in general and black businesses in particular.

Then, perhaps it is time for 95% of the black vote to find another lover, one who will do more for us than other groups, and doesn’t scold us when economic pain creates impatience. Maybe he just not that into us. Maybe it’s time for a change.

Copyright 2012. blackmanthinkin.com

«page 8 of 9»

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

Recent Posts
  • All Americans Should Despis… by Black Man Thinkin'

    The Hypocritical Hashtag continues to ride police brutality lies toward an anarchy destination intended to diminish all in America. They taunt toward widespread armed conflict, and Americans will have to fight them – one way or another – to end the current tensions. No “diplomatic solutions” exist that would allow the republic to continue. I’ll[…]

  • Protect the Consequences of… by Black Man Thinkin'

    Busting the current police brutality myth, which beget the accompanying #DefundThePolice insanity, hinges upon the answers to these question: Is it a societal imperative to arrest those accused of violating the law, so that they might answer allegations made against them? Do those who frustrate that imperative commit a separate offense that society allows is[…]

  • Might COVID-19 Rescue Atlan… by Black Man Thinkin'

    After Independence Weekend 2020, Atlanta is clearly a more dangerous place because of the reckless progressivism of Keisha Lance Bottoms, another in the line of liberal U.S. black females who use elected office to compromise public safety for the sake of their ideology. You might recall how Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake had police stand down to[…]

  • But You Say, “It̵… by Black Man Thinkin'

    “It is enough that the people know there were deaths. The people who die determine nothing. The people who say how they died determine everything.”

  • Watching Melanin Fall… by Black Man Thinkin'

    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: The lowest level of black unemployment ever recorded, Collaboration with a black Senator and a black entertainer’s spouse to advocate for and enact criminal justice reform,[…]

  • America Finally Won An Election by Black Man Thinkin'

    [youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdoLcdMJBUY[/youtube] The nation was told not to expect this. From the moment Americans found a 2016 presidential candidate through whom they could speak, they were called racist, xenophobic, Islamophobic, misogynistic, or all of the above… Oh, you thought those were representations of Donald Trump? You poor soul. Virtually every event, good or bad, of Trump’s[…]

  • Need to Drain the “Ch… by Black Man Thinkin'

    It is possible that the “No Christian should vote” movement, regarding either major party candidate in 2016 is primarily a social media phenomenon However, I have reviewed enough articles and had enough personal conversations to doubt that. It is almost certain that anyone with even a remote church affiliation has heard the “ain’t neither of[…]

  • And Then There Was…A … by Black Man Thinkin'

    A picture of America’s modern presidential campaign model. Candidates seek to: • Segment the electorate into as many groups as practical, particularly at the state level, • Empathize with sympathetic groups to create the illusion of a supportive coalition, • Ignore conflicting interests within their coalition, speaking only of common goals, • Hurry to the[…]

  • It’s Not About Trump;… by Black Man Thinkin'

    My “pen” is largely silent during the 2016 presidential campaign and I would prefer it remain so; few things distract more from, while doing less to meet, this nation’s challenges than the two-year kabuki dance of those seeking the presidency. However, something so brazenly foul now occurs that it compels me to comment. Donald Trump’s[…]

  • Regarding New York Values by Black Man Thinkin'

    My late father was born and raised in New York City… Over the course of 79 years, he became a military man, the husband of one woman for more than half a century, a baptized Catholic, the father of 3 and grandfather of 5, a decorated war veteran, a Southerner…and someone who, by choice, never[…]

Categories
Recent Comments
Welcome , today is Saturday, November 23, 2024