Life in America today suddenly seems like a combination of a seriously illogical dream and being on the trip that Alice took to "Wonderland." It appears as if someone set off a device that has deprived almost everyone of any common sense or logic.
Dealing with the relatively new phenomenon of "Terrorism" is bad enough; the senseless killing of innocent individuals by Muslim Extremists, Mentally Ill individuals and a couple of Far-Right Fanatics is an unfortunate fact of life today. All violence or any sort, whether against persons or property, is to be condemned and punished no matter who the perpetrator.
But by what logic does this sudden desire to sanitize and/or revise History become a populist movement, seemingly endorsed by the Media, the Democrat Party (and its members) and the Republican Party (and its members)? Has the entire country become so narcissistically enthralled by a desire to "attack" something that such action a denial of historical truth will erase anything or improve life in America in 2017 for anyone? If this was the 1850's in our West, tomorrow the mob would wake up feeling guilty and avoiding looking each other in the eye out of embarrassment and guilt.
Our President condemns the violence in Virginia by all who took part in that violence, and goes on to condemn the attitudes of Racism as being "wrong" and "unacceptable" but the Media, the Democrat and Republican elected officials and anyone on the ideological Left insists on misinterpreting his comments as equating the beliefs of the Racists with the beliefs of those who declare that Racism is wrong. Instead of seeing the statement(s) as the plea and demand for non-violence by both sides, promising punishment for those who act violently, as the call for sanity that it clearly is, they incorrectly label his comments in an attempt to profit politically.
Seems as if there is a strong logical basis for suggesting that all of America...or, at least the media and the political establishment (all sides)...should properly be undergoing treatment in a mental hospital.
The only speech allowed these days seems to be Leftist, Socialist, Progressive, Marxist, Liberal and Fascist. All others are shouted down or prevented from speaking without being denigrated and insulted with the aid of the media. What is going on today is the over-turning of the Constitutional guarantee of "Free Speech."
For those who respond that the "speech" being quashed is "bad" speech, they might consider that if a group that disagrees with that definition gains power, the reversal will make it impossible for them to speak at all. The court held that the church that demonstrated at military funerals with a message that clearly was hurtful to the families involved had a Constitutional right to so demonstrate. There was emotional hurt but no violence.
How much more effective would it have been if the legal march in Virginia (they had a permit, after all) had simply been allowed to take place...BUT NO ONE ATTENDED OR REPORTED ON IT? After all, they were after publicity. Any intelligent person or group would have won the day by simply ignoring the matter...it is a fringe group with no significant support and that would have been clear is all had simply stayed away. But unfortunately today's attitude is that anyone with whom you disagree must be shouted down and "prevented" from saying anything. Why?
Politicians say a lot of things that I don't like. But they get to say them anyway. News reports are very often wrong on facts or incomplete and slanted...but I don't get to shut them down. But I don't want to shut them down. If I feel strongly enough about a matter, I can write letters, make calls, ask questions and made suggestions. But the actions of the last week suggest that my right to do so will not exist for long, because this feels like an attack on our very rights under the Constitution.
When History is being sanitized revised, and re-written...and mob rule replaces our Constitutional guarantees, we are in very big trouble.
Showing posts with label Socialist. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Socialist. Show all posts
Friday, August 18, 2017
Saturday, October 3, 2015
Barack Obama - a layman's analysis
For almost eight years now...ever since he burst on the scene as a Junior Senator running against Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Nomination to be President...Mr. Obama has been an enigma.
Here was an unproven young man with what appeared to be an excellent educational background and an exceptional oratorical ability seeking the approval of a major Political Party to attempt to win the Office of the Presidency of the United States. Any cursory examination of his background revealed that he had fine educational opportunities (although curiously his transcripts and papers from that period were never made available) and his work experience seemed confined to that of a Chicago-based Community Organizers, with little administrative experience or record. Further reading revealed that the closest thing to a mentor was one Frank Marshall Davis, an admitted and proven Communist active in Communist, Socialist and Marxist causes. Also of interest to any researcher was his long-time attendance and affinity for the Church of one Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who's sermons seemed to glorify a "victim" status for his church members and often called down the wrath of God on America for their treatment of his members generally.
Few attempts to discuss this background ever found its way into the mainstream media. There seemed a protective cocoon established around Mr. Obama's background and history other than the superlative labels of intelligence and high Educational background. Any challenge to this cocoon...any attempt to pierce it...were met with accusations of racism. You see, what we have not yet mentioned was that Mr. Obama's genetic background is 50% black, as his father was from Kenya, although not present for most of Mr. Obama's life, as he was raised in a single parent home in Hawaii.
However, the cocoon was no excuse for awareness of the totality of Mr. Obama's background. Any person who deemed it important enough to know details about the background for a candidate for the Office of the President of the United States of America could easily find and read the essential details. Few did. There was an aura of "special" about him seen by his supporters. How much of this perceived "awe" was the admitted power of his oratory and how much was the collective vision of putting to rest the stain of slavery by putting into the office of the Presidency a man of the black race, or some other perception may never be known. What seems clear, however, is that absent his Black background...if he were a white man of European heritage...he would have been judged as too young, too inexperienced, of unproven ability and with no track record by which to judge his likely intentions upon achieving the Office of the President.
He won.
Since taking office, Mr. Obama's performance has been spotty at best. Running on the ambiguous (subject to being defined differently by each listener) tag line, "Hope and Change," Mr. Obama promptly disappointed the first of his well-wishers by approaching elected officials of the opposing party, not with offers to compromise and work together but, with the comment, "I won," and then pushing through (barely) a partisan health-care bill. He failed to use his majority control of government to achieve promised immigration reform and generally earned a failing grade in "plays well with others" by totally neglecting to even attempt to establish a working, friendly relationship with Congress...even within his own party. He disturbed many with what appeared to be an "apology" tour of the world as unseemly and obsequious. Over his two terms, his Foreign Policy has seemed, at best, puzzling and at times non-existent.
While his supporters will deem my comments extreme, even they will admit a certain lack of achievement and direction, as well as Mr. Obama's proven propensity to lie to the the general public. I will not bore anyone with the multiple examples...the fact stands.
But...now rises the ongoing question of...Why? Some have argued that the lack of performance is simply a matter of lack of experience. Others assign darker motives. And the scope of the speculation is absolutely breath-taking with most being beyond the ability of this writer to consider, ...even momentarily.
I would like to suggest the major explanation (or motivation, if you wish) of Mr. Obama's behavior and attitude in office goes back to a self-perception of victim-hood. Certainly, Mr. Obama was subjected to the challenges of growing up as neither fish nor fowl; he was half-Black, raised in a single parent home by a loving mother but feeling clearly that he was a minority. He spent much time hearing the country and the world being analysed by Mr. Davis. While a card-carrying Communist, Mr. Davis also saw the Black race as being victims...and felt he was a victim. The truth is that Mr. Davis WAS a victim and was punished continually for the "sin" of "being black." Of course, he was also seen as at fault for his Communist views, a judgement that would have descended upon him regardless of his skin color. But...much of what an impressionable youth would take from the relationship was that element of being a victim, even as his education would steer him away from the Communist point of view...at least in part, although clearly there were associations (again, never explored or discussed during his campaign by anyone, much less the public) with socialist groups.
Would a self-image of being a liberated "victim" explain most, if not all, of Mr. Obama's character, behavior and attitudes? Consider: he has a thin skin, reacting badly to criticism, unable to admit fault; he is virtually unable to punish others or hold them accountable, finding sympathy with them regardless of outcome; he finds it virtually impossible to confront anyone or anything directly, unless at a distance or in surroundings he deems "safe"; he avoids contact with people where is is not in absolute control, where he can avoid one-on-one challenges (where unavoidable, he does not challenge directly any person face to face); he expresses true feelings and particularly anger only when with trusted friends.
"Victim-hood" places an almost unimaginable burden on anyone. To me, the consideration of it as a primary element explaining Mr. Obama's behavior and attitude, as well as his character, gave occasion to an "Ah-hah" moment. That doesn't make it so. But perhaps it is worthy of consideration?
Here was an unproven young man with what appeared to be an excellent educational background and an exceptional oratorical ability seeking the approval of a major Political Party to attempt to win the Office of the Presidency of the United States. Any cursory examination of his background revealed that he had fine educational opportunities (although curiously his transcripts and papers from that period were never made available) and his work experience seemed confined to that of a Chicago-based Community Organizers, with little administrative experience or record. Further reading revealed that the closest thing to a mentor was one Frank Marshall Davis, an admitted and proven Communist active in Communist, Socialist and Marxist causes. Also of interest to any researcher was his long-time attendance and affinity for the Church of one Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who's sermons seemed to glorify a "victim" status for his church members and often called down the wrath of God on America for their treatment of his members generally.
Few attempts to discuss this background ever found its way into the mainstream media. There seemed a protective cocoon established around Mr. Obama's background and history other than the superlative labels of intelligence and high Educational background. Any challenge to this cocoon...any attempt to pierce it...were met with accusations of racism. You see, what we have not yet mentioned was that Mr. Obama's genetic background is 50% black, as his father was from Kenya, although not present for most of Mr. Obama's life, as he was raised in a single parent home in Hawaii.
However, the cocoon was no excuse for awareness of the totality of Mr. Obama's background. Any person who deemed it important enough to know details about the background for a candidate for the Office of the President of the United States of America could easily find and read the essential details. Few did. There was an aura of "special" about him seen by his supporters. How much of this perceived "awe" was the admitted power of his oratory and how much was the collective vision of putting to rest the stain of slavery by putting into the office of the Presidency a man of the black race, or some other perception may never be known. What seems clear, however, is that absent his Black background...if he were a white man of European heritage...he would have been judged as too young, too inexperienced, of unproven ability and with no track record by which to judge his likely intentions upon achieving the Office of the President.
He won.
Since taking office, Mr. Obama's performance has been spotty at best. Running on the ambiguous (subject to being defined differently by each listener) tag line, "Hope and Change," Mr. Obama promptly disappointed the first of his well-wishers by approaching elected officials of the opposing party, not with offers to compromise and work together but, with the comment, "I won," and then pushing through (barely) a partisan health-care bill. He failed to use his majority control of government to achieve promised immigration reform and generally earned a failing grade in "plays well with others" by totally neglecting to even attempt to establish a working, friendly relationship with Congress...even within his own party. He disturbed many with what appeared to be an "apology" tour of the world as unseemly and obsequious. Over his two terms, his Foreign Policy has seemed, at best, puzzling and at times non-existent.
While his supporters will deem my comments extreme, even they will admit a certain lack of achievement and direction, as well as Mr. Obama's proven propensity to lie to the the general public. I will not bore anyone with the multiple examples...the fact stands.
But...now rises the ongoing question of...Why? Some have argued that the lack of performance is simply a matter of lack of experience. Others assign darker motives. And the scope of the speculation is absolutely breath-taking with most being beyond the ability of this writer to consider, ...even momentarily.
I would like to suggest the major explanation (or motivation, if you wish) of Mr. Obama's behavior and attitude in office goes back to a self-perception of victim-hood. Certainly, Mr. Obama was subjected to the challenges of growing up as neither fish nor fowl; he was half-Black, raised in a single parent home by a loving mother but feeling clearly that he was a minority. He spent much time hearing the country and the world being analysed by Mr. Davis. While a card-carrying Communist, Mr. Davis also saw the Black race as being victims...and felt he was a victim. The truth is that Mr. Davis WAS a victim and was punished continually for the "sin" of "being black." Of course, he was also seen as at fault for his Communist views, a judgement that would have descended upon him regardless of his skin color. But...much of what an impressionable youth would take from the relationship was that element of being a victim, even as his education would steer him away from the Communist point of view...at least in part, although clearly there were associations (again, never explored or discussed during his campaign by anyone, much less the public) with socialist groups.
Would a self-image of being a liberated "victim" explain most, if not all, of Mr. Obama's character, behavior and attitudes? Consider: he has a thin skin, reacting badly to criticism, unable to admit fault; he is virtually unable to punish others or hold them accountable, finding sympathy with them regardless of outcome; he finds it virtually impossible to confront anyone or anything directly, unless at a distance or in surroundings he deems "safe"; he avoids contact with people where is is not in absolute control, where he can avoid one-on-one challenges (where unavoidable, he does not challenge directly any person face to face); he expresses true feelings and particularly anger only when with trusted friends.
"Victim-hood" places an almost unimaginable burden on anyone. To me, the consideration of it as a primary element explaining Mr. Obama's behavior and attitude, as well as his character, gave occasion to an "Ah-hah" moment. That doesn't make it so. But perhaps it is worthy of consideration?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)