Once upon a time (and, no...this is not a fairy tale) America was a country full of people who "did" things. Our forefathers never ever expected to be given anything; they expected to live or die on the basis of whether they succeeded or not. And many did die. The actual number of people that died as America was settled and then expanded west is unknown...at least I have never seen any estimate supported by good research. Those who survived accomplished amazing things.
These people were of all kinds: kind, cruel, gifted, lucky and all sorts of other mixes of character traits. The common trait, however, was that they had only themselves to rely on and that meant they had to take responsibility for the path that their lives took. They were doers...NOT watchers. They acted. They acted to accomplish goals: to eat, live, support their family, to defend their family. None of them...that survived...expected this to be done for them. They didn't sit around waiting for someone else to support or protect them.
Very few people of that frame of mind exist in America today. Those that do are vilified as cruel, unkind, uncaring and/or racist...in addition to many other terms of disrespect. Why? For two main reasons: 1. that sort of attitude is embarrassing to those who are supported by government handouts and if acknowledged as a good thing would leave the recipients feeling "less than";2. the politicians who use the "giving" of other peoples' money to those who don't achieve in order to "buy" their votes and thereby remain in office do not want that fact...or the fact that they usually never keep their promises...highlighted, lest they lose their position of power. I can remember the days of the Community Chest and local Churches and Charities taking care of the "deserving" poor. Yes...I said "deserving." Because in those days every town and county had hard working folk who had disaster visited upon them unexpectedly and were as hard-working as any other member of the community...they deserved help. Likewise, every town had some who were poor out of lack of effort or impulse, making a career out of looking for a hand out. Those folk were never indulged...except for the "elitists" and Progressives in town who were rich and make themselves feel worthy by ostensibly giving funds to any poor person providing it could be done ostentatiously...in public.
Today's America is populated by an increasing number of passive and active "victims." Almost half now receive money from the government that has no basis on their contributions to government programs, like Social Security. That is money that was paid by the recipients over past years, and that is repaid by the government now on the basis of how much you contributed during your working and productive years. No...I am talking about reverse taxation, unemployment, welfare and the like.
There was a time when a majority of people who found themselves in a position to have to take such support were embarrassed to do so; they knew that they hadn't earned it, and looked forward to getting back on their feet so that they could take pride in living off of what they earned. No such embarrassment today; in fact, there is a certain pride and braggadocio exhibited by those who are "stealing" tax dollars from those who do work and pay the taxes that are so blithely redistributed by politicians. And the majority allow this sort of attitude...even applaud it. I find it disgusting.
The same goes for defending ourselves. We allow the government to abandon guarding or enforcing our borders. We make excuses to not hold those that attack us accountable, thereby keeping from having to react in any forceful way to eliminate such attacks. A majority sit around as if there is nothing to be done...except to chant mantras and call for peace and love. I remember a saying common when I was growing up: "God helps those that help themselves." One didn't sit around moaning about something...you did something about it. Maybe you failed, but you tried. You didn't whine about it or mis-characterize it for some unrelated agenda item. It wasn't about words. It was about doing! Victims whine. Independent free human beings act, and take pride in that fact.
Too bad that America has forgotten how to do that.
Showing posts with label victim. Show all posts
Showing posts with label victim. Show all posts
Monday, June 13, 2016
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)