Paul R. Lehman, Trump and Goldberg uninformed on Confederacy monument removal

August 24, 2017 at 2:52 pm | Posted in African American, American Bigotry, American history, Baltimore, Bigotry in America, blacks, Catherine Pugh, criminal activity, Criticism, Democrats, discrimination, Disrespect, equality, Ethnicity in America, European American, European Americans, extremists, fairness, justice, justice system, language, law, Leftists, Media and Race, political power, politicians, Prejudice, President Trump, protest, Race in America, racism, respect, Slavery, social justice system, The Oklahoman, The U.S. Constitution, whites | Leave a comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A Bernard Goldberg commentary “Where Does current Movement End?  Question posed by Trump is one worth considering,” (The Oklahoman 8/23/17) gave pause for concern. The part of the title is a question that President Trump asked while making comments relative to the Charlottesville protest recently. The second part of the title makes the statement that the question was worth asking. For someone knowledgeable of history both question and statement would seem disingenuous. Nonetheless, we will examine both concerns as best we can.

Goldberg begins his comments by relating an incident from his youth, the 1960s when his family drove South from New Jersey to Florida. He recalls his reaction to his father stopping at a restaurant that feathered a “Whites only” sign by refusing to go in and eat. His family decided not to eat there. From this experience, Goldberg makes the statement that “My parents weren’t bigots. They were appalled at what they saw on TV coming out of places like Mississippi and Alabama.”Goldberg still does not realize that all Americans, European Americans, as well as African Americans, were conditioned to see bigotry as something natural. One wonders why Goldberg chose the South to use as an example of ethnic bigotry when he could have just as easily selected any part of New Jersey with its isolated ethnic populated communities. That is, of course, unless he did not live in a segregated community, attend a segregated school, worship in a segregated church, which he possible could have. But one thing was clear from his story; he and his family saw themselves as white. As a white person in America, viewing people of color as inferior was natural and commonly accepted by whites. That conditioning allows European Americans North and South to see bigotry in others, but not in themselves. That might be why Goldberg could say that his parents were not bigots.

He subsequently, made the comment that a case can be made for Trump asking the question: “Where does it end?” He continued: Is taking down a statue of Robert E. Lee or Stonewall Jackson or Jefferson Davis enough?” Goldberg, evidently, does not understand the reasons for removing the statues and monuments in the first place. New Orléans major, Mitch Landrieu,  offered a host of reasons for the removal, for example, he noted that “ New Orleans was America’s largest slave market: a port where hundreds of thousands of souls were brought, sold and shipped up the Mississippi River to lives of forced labor of misery of rape, of torture.” He added that “America was the place where nearly 4,000 of our fellow citizens were lynched, 540 alone in Louisiana; where the courts enshrined ‘separate but equal’; where Freedom riders coming to New Orleans were beaten to a bloody pulp.”Speaking specifically regarding the monuments he stated: “So when people say to me that the monuments in question are history, well what I just described is real history as well, and it is the searing truth.”

In addition to Mayor Landrieu, Baltimore, Maryland, mayor Catherine Pugh, had several statutes removed under the cover of darkness to avoid protesters and possible violence. One statue was “A monument of Taney, the supreme court justice who oversaw the 1857 Dred Scott case declaring that black people could not be American citizens, was to Pugh particularly disgraceful. She remarked: “How does a statue like that, a supreme court judge who oversaw the Dred Scott case, even exist? Why does someone like that even deserve a statue? Why should people have to feel that kind of pain every day?”Many other local and state officials have joined the movement to remove the offensive statues and monuments.

Goldberg shows his bias when he posed the question: “Is that where it ends—with a mob deciding what statues stay and which one go?” Evidently, Goldberg has not been watching or reading the news reports of how the mayors in several Southern cities decided to remove some statues honoring Confederate men. The references to two mayors of two major cities should more than underscore who makes the decisions to remove the statues and monuments. Why would Goldberg think the decisions are made by mobs? If Goldberg and Trump fully understood the reason for the movement of remove the statues and monuments, the question of “where does the movement end” turns rhetorical. The movement has its bases in history, not conjecture or assumed notions of correcting a wrong. The wrongs committed cannot be correct, but a constant reminder wrongs perpetrated against a people can be removed.

Another of Goldberg’s comments seems to go beyond the boundaries of common sense and logic: “Asking who’s next and where does it end doesn’t make you a white supremacist, or even unreasonable.” One would hope that before questions of the nature posed that a working knowledge of the movement in question might be acquired. Asking questions would never make a person anything by seems informed or uninformed about the subject matter. The answer to the question “who’s next” would depend on whose asking the question and what Confederate statue or monument is being considered. The history of the statue or monument relative to the time and place it occupies and why it was erected. A question important to the significance of the statue or monument would be does this monument honor the Confederacy or reflect some aspect of ethnic bigotry? In any case its presence on public property would be of concern.

What Goldberg seems to suggest is that the people who find the monuments the Confederacy offensive and sensitive are somehow taking their 1st Amendment rights too far. He added: “Leftist already shut down speech they don’t like on college campuses, including public universities funded by taxpayers. Is it such a stretch to silence people we detest from the public square?” Identifying but not defining some people as “Leftists,”  Goldberg, apparently, believe these people go about indiscriminately creating and causing problems simply because they do not like something. Also, why would he think these people are not taxpayers? Goldberg totally missed the point of the movement and its proponents and it shows in his uninformed comments and questions. Most people in the movement do not want to silence anyone, but they do want to exercise their rights to protest and seek to remove anything that historically has been shown to be offensive and hurtful to them and other citizens.

Paul R. Lehman, Steve Bannon accidently reveals secret of extremists use of language for control

August 18, 2017 at 4:27 am | Posted in African American, American Bigotry, blacks, equality, Ethnicity in America, European American, extremists, justice, Kevin Drum American Prospect, Mother Jones, politicians, Prejudice, President, Race in America, racism, white supremacy, whites | 1 Comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The two most important elements of the system of white supremacy are race and racism; they are like wet and water. Without these two elements, the system would fall apart. The system was constructed in a way that keeps it running smoothly by the people it promotes and those it oppresses. For example, when a right-wing extremist is referred to as a racist rather than serving as an insult, it, in fact, serves to underscore his self-concept, working the same as a compliment. The system is supported and promoted every time the words race and racism are used because they underscore its existence. The fact that many Americans have tried to combat racism for several hundred years without any success is an indication of how clever the system was constructed. The key to the system’s strength and longevity is in the language it uses. By everyone using the system’s language without knowing its effect guarantees its uninterrupted continuance.

Today, like several hundred years ago, people speak about race and racism as if they have full knowledge of their impact. The fact of the matter is that what many users of those words do not realize is that by the very use of the words, the system of white supremacy is being validated. The system and how it works was detailed in my book: The system of European American (white) Supremacy and African American (black) Inferiority (2016). In that book the statement was made that racism cannot be defeated; it must be replaced. One reason it cannot be defeated is that one would be forced to reconcile the system by using the system’s language and that is always a losing proposition. Regardless of what anyone says about race and racism both remain undisturbed in the system they support. For that reason, people, especially politicians, can rant and rave about the negative effects and consequences of racism with impunity.

Americans have become accustomed to the parade of televised panels of race experts and scholars giving their assessment of the latest incident of social unrest or print media articles touting the ills of racism and its effect on society. In some instances, some good has come from some of those experiences relative to social and human relations in the national community. However, when the next incident of civil and social unrest occur involving race and racism, it seems that everything must go back to the beginning of a conversation relative to race.

A number of prominent individuals travel the country speaking and teaching about the ills of racism and attempting to show audiences what it feels like to be discriminated against because of one’s skin color. In addition to the good that comes from these experiences, little to nothing is done to replace racism. What these individuals do not realize is that they are using the system’s language, so while the knowledge of a system of white supremacy might be communicated, any opportunity to replace that system is lost.

An article appeared recently (8/16/2017) in Mother Jones by Kevin Drum, that read “Steve Bannon: Fighting Racism is for Losers.”  The article recounted an incident where Steve Bannon called the  American Prospect to “chew the fat.” During the conversation, Bannon was asked what he thought about combating racism and white supremacy. Bannon responded: “The Democrats,” he said, “the longer they talk about identity politics, I got ’em. I want them to talk about racism every day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we go with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats.”Here we have the words right from the mouth of one of the people associated with an alleged extremist group, a person who works in the White House as an advisor to the President.

So, why would Bannon state that he wants the Democrats, and one suspects, everybody else, to talk about racism. He knows that any talk about race and racism will lead to a dead-end and in so doing waste time and energy in a foolhardy enterprise. What Bannon knows is that race used as identity, black and white, is a lie, but Americans have been conditioned to accept it as fact. Once race has been accepted then additional aspects of it can be added to it, like racism, racial, mixed –race, biracial etc. While these words all look legitimate, they are just as bogus as race. Bannon knows this and enjoys the game because as long as he manipulates the language, he wins. The irony of it all is that as long as Americans identify with either black or white, they lose because race separates and unites simultaneously.

What the extremists know is that whenever the word black is used or the word white is used they both are followed by the word race whether stated or not. The use of each word serves the same purpose –to divide and unify since they are both followed by the word race. If society would stop using words black and white in favor of African American and European American respectfully, the divide would no longer exist. Using the words ethnic group or ethnicity instead of race would remove the divide caused by the language. However, because we have been socially conditioned, we are implicitly biased, and the bigotry comes naturally and therefore is difficult to replace.

Only when we as a society come to understand how the system of ethnic bigotry dominates our lives can we start to see reality. Bannon and his followers in the extremist movement do not want us to know that we have been and continue to be manipulated into believing that race by color and racism are legitimate. They do not want us to stop and think about the language we use which support and underscore their bigoted ideology. That is why they provoke and encourage the constant use of the words race and racism because all the effort and energy exerted to try to destroy them only serve to support and promote them. Once we come to our understanding about the system of European American supremacy and its language, we will be able to agree with Bannon that fighting racism is for losers and we know better than to continue down that path.

Paul R. Lehman, Group identity, not Party, the key to Republican victory

November 10, 2014 at 5:54 pm | Posted in American history, American Racism, Civil War, Congress, democracy, Democrats, entitlements, equality, European American, lower class, minority, political tactic, politicians, poor, President, President Obama, Race in America, Republican Party, socioeconomics, the Republican Party, upper class, whites | 1 Comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The results of the recent election came as a surprise to many people because they thought that many of the issues touched the lives of enough people until they would go to the poles and cast their votes in support of the people who would look out for their best interest. Unfortunately, in many instances, that was not the case and many people were disappointed. Had they given serious thought to what has been taking place recently in politics relative to history and group dynamics, they would have not been surprised.
What were at stake in this election were not so much the issues, but the survival of the group—the conservative European Americans (whites) against change. With the creation of a white race, the ruling class of Anglo-Saxons also made manifest certain beliefs, attitudes and conditions that would represent aspects of the race (group). Regardless of the numerous aspects of group membership, loyalty, dedication, and unity were required under any condition, even loss of personal goods, property and religious practices. So, the importance and protection of group membership was understood to be the top priorities from the beginning. For European Americans, loosing their white identity would be like excommunication from the church or being shunned from the family. For some European Americans, having a white identity was/is the only thing of social value they have.
Since the election of Barack Obama as President, the wheels were set in motion to eliminate and discredit him. We all can recall the words of Sen. Mitch O’Connell before Obama had taken office to prevent him another term. We can also recall the affect that attitude had on the Congress that led to it being referred to as the “Congress of No.” What was not made clear to the public was why this negative attitude and disrespect towards the new President was necessary. The answer is change; Obama’s election as an African American signaled a change in the group dynamics of America’s social structure. The social value of African Americans had never been a real concern for European Americans since they created, represented, promoted and controlled the “white race” and its standards of normalcy. That normalcy included only European Americans in the group. Obama represented a threat to the group’s unity.
The plan set in motion for the recent election followed the plan in effect since Obama’s election—blame him for everything, and praise him for nothing. In essence, Obama was made the target and represented evil, doom, destruction, despair, and of course, change. His name was to become synonymous with everything that can and does go wrong in society and the world. When anything occurred in society, Obama critics found a way to place the blame on him: problems with immigration, border security, foreign policy, the national debt, climate changes, Ebola, and a host of other things. So, when the recent election ads began to show up, no one was surprised that Obama was who the candidates were running against. The office the candidates were running for were not really of consequence, the party identity was the most important concern, and the code word for unity was Obama.
To underscore the point that group unity was the most important concern of the Republican Party we have only to look at the campaign advertisements of the candidates. Regardless of the office the candidate was running for, the important code word—Obama was found in it. The reference to Obama in the ads was not necessarily directed to Obama but the candidate’s affiliation with Obama and/or his policies or actions. This plan of making Obama the target was not only used on the national level, but also in state and local elections.
The importance of group unity took precedence over common sense issues as in the case of a number of states including Kansas, Arkansas, and Nebraska where the minimum wage issue was on the ballet and passed. However, the candidates who were against this issue were voted into office. The irony in these cases cannot be avoided—why would a citizen vote against his or her own best interest on one hand and for it on the other? The answer seems to be that group loyalty takes priority over personal interest.
In addition to the republicans holding to their group unity plan, even a number of Democratic candidates chose group loyalty over political party membership. In a number of races on both national and state level some democratic candidates distanced themselves from President Obama; they did not want their constituents to think that they supported Obama. They wanted to show their group members that they were still part of the group although they represented a different political party. They knew that the battle for their group was not so much the election victory, but the group victory to hold off social change.
What many of the voters never realize is the fact that they have been and continue to be exploited by the ruling class or “Titans” of their group. According to Theodore W. Allen, author of The Invention of the White Race, this group of poor and working class European American people who vote against their own best interest are used as:
“the Great Safety Valve, the system of racial privileges conferred on laboring-class European-Americans, rural and urban, poor and exploited though they themselves were. That has been the main historical guarantee of the rule of the ‘Titans,’ damping down anti-capitalist pressures by making ‘race, and not class, the distinction in social life.’ This more than any other factor, has shaped the ‘contours of American history.”
For Allen, the plan of the ruling class of Anglo-Saxons has always been to keep an actual gap between themselves and the lesser member of the group while exploiting them, but making them believe that their membership in the group offered them a feeling of superiority over other non-European groups—that is their reward in exchange for their votes.
Another irony of American politics occur when African Americans are accused of using the so-called race card to gain somewhat of an advantage over an opponent; the fact of the matter is that whenever the race card is brought into play, the European Americans benefit because race is a code word used to marshal their safety valve—group members.

Paul R. Lehman, Congressman Brooks tries to use race as a political tactic.

August 6, 2014 at 9:27 pm | Posted in African American, American Bigotry, blacks, Congress, discrimination, Disrespect, equality, Ethnicity in America, European American, GOP, justice, political tactic, Prejudice, President, President Obama, race, Race in America, Republican Party, Respect for President, skin complexion, whites | Leave a comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Race is a power-packed word in American society and has been for decades because it possesses the power to separate and divide human beings into groups. Regardless of the context in which the word race is used, if the suggested meaning involves a group identity, then it separates and divides people. As early as the 1800s, society was advised to avoid using race along with color as a social or cultural identity because it could not be defined and employed with any accuracy or certainty. Nonetheless, society ignored the warnings and proceeded to use the word race in a social context. One reason for the word’s longevity is due to the social rewards derived by some groups from the identity. And old saying that underscores the manipulation of race by color determining social value stated: “If you’re white, you’re right; if you’re yellow, you’re mellow; if you’re brown, stick around; if you’re black, get back.”The sentiments suggested in that old saying still has some currency in society today whether we want to believe it or not.
When the word race is used in conjunction with a so-called racial group identity, the mere mention of the group automatically creates separation and division. This separation and division occurs because of the social conditioning experienced in the society and the accepted views of society relative to different social groups. The nature of most groups is to defend and protect itself against any and all criticism that might cast negative views of it. Whether the claims are true or false makes no difference because with respect to race nothing can be validated unless and until race is defined. Nevertheless, some people will use race as a tool or tactic because it generates feeling of loyalty, protection, pride and unity by the people who identify with a race. For example, people who identify themselves as belonging to the white race automatically gives credence to a belief in many races biologically different from the so-called white race. Rather than recognizing the fact that all races are social creations and therefore bogus, some people hold on to the belief and adopt a defensive character relative to the group. Hence, we note the separation and division quality of the word.
The conception and accepting of the word race with the focus on it divisive powers were displayed recently in an article by Erica Wemer from The Associated Press, “Republican congressman says Democrats are engaged in ‘war on whites’” (8/5/14). The article noted that “Congressman Mo Brooks made his comment on conservative talk radio host Laura Ingram’s program Monday. He said the Democratic Party claims white people hate everyone else and that it’s part of President Barack Obama’s strategy of dividing people on the basis of race, sex and class.” Whether the claim is true or not, one of the obvious reactions is for the groups to unify. From a political perspective, this tactic could be used to gain support for an individual identified as belonging to that so-called white group because the suggestion is that the other group is ganging-up on him; which will seem unfair.
The article noted that Brooks stated that “Race should not be an issue in public policy debates, we should be colorblind, we should be the melting pot.” Every one of these phrases is a relic of the past and lacks logic or value in our society today. The fact is, is that race should not be an issue in any debate whether public or private since it has never been defined, just assumed. The fact that America is a diverse society and draws it strength from it diversity would make the suggestion of being a colorblind society hypocritical; our strength comes from accepting the individual regardless of color. The concept of the melting pot is a flawed one because the metaphor never reflected the reality of society. All those old, over-used sayings might sound fine, but in reality, they are meaningless.
The obvious intention of Brooks is underscored in his comments:”But so long as the Democrats have a political campaign strategy to divide Americans based on skin pigmentation then they are the ones who are fanning the fires and doing a disservice to our country, not those who try to hold the Democrats accountable for what is very counterproductive and sinister campaign tactic.” Brooks, in essence, is attempting to charge the Democrats with using many of the same tactics Republicans have used for years and ascribing things to the party that have long been a part of the general social perspective. The argument goes back to “us versus them,” or “good guy, bad guy,” with the one making the claim being the good guy.
Brooks have forgotten, evidently, the litany of incidents where many representatives of his party have shown disrespect to the President with no justification other than his skin complexion. For anyone to fall for Brooks’ argument would be to totally ignore that Senator Mitch O’Connell stated at the outset of President Obama’s first term the objective to prevent him having a second term. In addition, when we examine the lack of action of the Congress, we recognize that the President has been limited in what he could do as one individual.
In his statement, Brooks wants to create a division within society based on old prejudices and bigotry but make it seem that he is really trying to defend the cause of freedom and justice for all. He focused his attentions directly on the Democrats and said: “This is a part of the war on whites that’s being launched by the Democratic Party. And the way in which they are launching the war is by claiming that whites hate everybody else.” A phrase that fits Brooks’ contentions is “reverse psychology” or “projection” where the deeds or misdeeds of one party are associated with another party, and then is criticized as unacceptable.
Wemer ended the article with the following passage: “To a request for comment, the spokeswoman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Emily Bittner, wrote in an email: ‘Wow. Congressman Brooks is living in his own world of paranoia, but sadly, this is precisely the kind of divisive rhetoric that has come to define House Republicans.’”
Although the word race is power-packed any attempt to use race by color as a tactic or ploy will enviably fail because any definition offered for it cannot withstand close scrutiny.

Paul R. Lehman, President Obama’s critics show lack of knowledge in how government works

October 22, 2013 at 8:52 pm | Posted in Christianity, democracy, Democrats, Disrespect, fairness, GOP, justice, Oklahoma, President, President Obama, Republican Party, Respect for President, The Oklahoman | 1 Comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A very sad and unfortunate fact today is that many of President Obama’s critics do not understand how their government works or the job of the president. Many of them think he has the power of a dictator or king; some even think of him as a super man who can do all things simultaneously. In any event, the fact that they use their free speech to ridicule President Obama actually has the opposite effect. A few examples should demonstrate the point. The examples are three letters published in The Oklahoman’s “Opinion” section of that paper.
The first letter was written by Charlie Taylor of Norman, Oklahoma (10/11/13) who stated that “If President Obama had what it takes to be commander in Chief of the best military in history, if he had even 1 percent of the integrity, class, patriotism and guts shown by the lovable, beautiful veterans of World War ll, Obama would be at the World War ll memorial every day….” We need to pause here before we continue this sentence and examine just what Taylor has said. First, he questioned President Obama’s intelligence and ability to serve as Commander in Chief, a position that goes with being President as if the office was vacant. Next, he questioned President Obama’s integrity, class, patriotism, and intestinal fortitude as consisting of less than 1 percent. No word was said about how these qualities of character should be displayed or not displayed; as far as Taylor is concerned, President Obama does not have them. And if he did have them, how would Taylor measure the 1 percent?
Taylor’s sentence is conditional in that it begins with the word “If” and demands a “then” conclusion to make it effective. So, according to Taylor, if President Obama could meet all the qualifications listed, then he would be at the World War ll Memorial doing what exactly? Well, the Commander in Chief would neglect all his other duties while “…escorting them [the veterans] as they tour the grounds and reminisce about their feats and buddies. He would be thankful for the honor of pushing their wheelchairs.” Taylor definitely shows his understanding and knowledge of how our government works, especially the executive branch.
In his letter (10/12/13), Charles Nichols of Oklahoma City showed his extensive knowledge of politics and the presidency. He stated that “The primary difference between the two parties is that Republicans want a minimum shutdown affecting a few people as possible and the Democrats want a maximum shutdown hurting as many people as possible.” We do not know where Nichols obtained his information, but now we know why there were problems agreeing on reopening the government. Nichols offered more information to support his contentions. He stated that “The proof can be seen by Barack Obama’s action to close down such things as the veterans cemeteries that hurt no one and cost nothing.” Well, now that Nichols has proven his points, we can move along to more serious things like Obama’s lack of religion.
The final letter was written (10/12/13) by Larry Phillips of Walters who believes our society is in trouble because President Obama has no religion and wants to take it away from everybody. Phillips began his letter by stating that “I’ve heard it said that the Obama administration is the most anti-religious of any administration ever. I beg to differ. It’s the most anti-Christian administration ever. It doesn’t seem to be concerned with Islam, Hinduism or any other religion except Christianity.”So, now we see President Obama as the number one anti-Christian, and this information is based on what? We are not told how that information was obtained, but we are given more information. Phillips stated that “It won’t be long before a minister won’t be able to preach the word of God from the pulpit without fear of prosecution.” From where does this information come? Why is it that President Obama always end his speeches with the phrase “God bless America” if has no religion? Wait! Phillips has the answer: “It’s already happened in Canada; we won’t be far behind.” So, we will follow in Canada’s footsteps. At this point in the letter Phillips seem to shift his attention away from President Obama to pass judgment on a number of other concerns: “Political correctness will be the downfall of America. Stating God’s commands will soon be labeled as hate speech, punishable under law. We’re losing our right to free speech in the name of political correctness and our fear of offending someone.” Phillips, evidently, had no fear of offending President Obama. He concluded by stating that “This is no longer a nation under God. We are declining at an alarming rate. It’s time to become spiritual warriors before it is too late.”
In a democratic society, addressing social problems are a constant necessary with which we learn to live. However, the tone reflected in the three letters above indicates a sense of doom and gloom in our President and society. President Obama’s critics seem to see him as a super man or a demon or both. In any event, they seem to think that society will be destroyed because he is President. The concept of our three branches of government seems to be lost on these letter writers who probably represent many more like-thinkers. To them President Obama is the beginning and the ending of all America’s problems. Some have tried to place the blame for the fear and hatred relative to President Obama on the fact that he is a democrat, and some of that is perfectly acceptable, however, thing like integrity, patriotism, intestinal fortitude, and class have little to do with his political identity, but fall directly on his character.
When we take the time to examine these letters carefully, what we discover is that the letter writers are really reflecting their own qualities. They are participating in what psychologists call projection: “to make a thought or feeling seem to have an external and objective reality, especially to ascribe a disturbing personal thought or feeling to others.” The lesson to be learned here is in our passing judgment on others we should be certain to use both knowledge and wisdom: “knowledge knows that a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.”

Angry white Guys forced to deal with the reality of a changing world

May 5, 2013 at 12:15 pm | Posted in African American, American Racism, Congress, Democrats, Emancipation Proclamation, equality, European American, GOP, justice, minority, nationofchnage.org, Prejudice, President, President Obama, presidential election, segregation, socioeconomics, the Republican Party, The Thirteenth Amendment, Theda Skocpol, U.S. Supreme Court, whites | Leave a comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The 2008 election of Barack Obama, an African American, as President of the United States was a monumental experience in America. His election was extremely significant because it represented a major acknowledgement in the progress of social change. That social change for many people represented progress towards America achieving a higher level of positive movement in the direction of its democratic principles. Not all Americans, however, viewed Obama’s election as progress or even as positive. Thomas Magstadt, in an article entitled “Angry White Guys: The Roots of Reactionary America,” in “NationofChange.org “discussed his reasons for the negative reactions of some “White Guys.” The reason for the anger, according to Magstadt, can be viewed as political anger.
In describing the anger of the European American guys, Magstadt first took a look at Charlie LeDuff’s book, Detroit, An American Autopsy, and made the statement that “It’s a powerful book that speaks volumes not only about Detroit but also about most big cities in America today—cities where petty crime, gang violence, drug addiction, prostitution, poverty, vandalism, filth, abandoned buildings, arson, and despair have been on the rise for decades.” LeDuff was angry because for him Detroit is a “city suffering from a chronic condition that has taken an ugly turn and become terminal.” Basically, we are told that LeDuff’s anger was “with leaders who don’t lead and politicians who make promises they don’t even try to keep.” He blamed both political parties for the problems. So, we recognize one level of anger.
Next, Magstadt shifted to a work by Theda Skocpol, Obama And America’s Political Future, which took a look at the Tea Party and its objective to move the county in a certain direction. Although she praised the party as committed, dedicated “and unstinting in their effort to move society in the direction they desire,” she noted that much of the Tea Party’s criticism of Obama “is unrealistic.” To this charge of criticism of Obama being unrealistic, Magstadt wrote that “If so, the main reason it’s unrealistic is that Obama has, quite simply, run into a brick wall erected by rightwing Republicans in the U.S. Congress. These Republicans–including the Tea Party Caucus—are nothing like traditional Republicans.” Magstadt contended that the “extreme right-wing Republicans in Congress are not taking their cues from the grass-roots Tea Party rank-and file but are in fact cynically using them, manipulating symbols and issues that move this mass of disenchanted gray hairs, embattled blue-collar workers, anxious job –seekers, financially stressed homeowners, and beleaguered taxpayers to accomplish other aims altogether.”
After some reflection, Magstadt noted “The question is not how they [Republicans, conservatives, and Tea Partiers] can believe the nonsense they spout. The question is, why are they so damn mad? What is the source of this seeming inexhaustible wellspring of anger?”He presented a number of theories that reflected politicians, and political issues from civil rights to global warming, health insurance and Obama. He talked about the changes in America during the 1960s and ‘70s and even Ronald Reagan of the 1980s. Then he stated: “Ask yourself who [during this time] stood to gain the most? Answer: the very people who in the past had always been the losers. And who stood to lose the most?”He came to the conclusion that we Americans were led to believe that the “…tectonic shift in American society in the 1960, and 70s was not simply about rich versus poor. It was not about ‘class warfare,’ and it still isn’t.” He goes on to tell us that the biggest losers are the “..white males who dominated the home, professions, business, banking, unions , politics, sports, entertainment, higher education, radio and television—well, just about everything worth dominating.”
Magstadt brought his discussion home when he said that things in America are not “fair or equal or just, but much different from the society of the 1950s.” In effect, the changes that have occurred and are still occurring are the cause of the anger:
The angry white guys who dominate the Republican Party in Congress represent all the angry white men in America who cannot accept what they’ve lost forever—namely the exclusive right to take all the best jobs, run everything, make all the decisions, and oh yes, keep everybody who doesn’t look, act, and talk the way they do out of the good old boys club. Even Augusta National and the Masters have finally bowed to the inevitable.”
We can certainly agree with Magstadt’s assessment of why some European American males are angry, but not on his timeline. The realization of the loss of power was felt by the ruling European American male in America after the Revolutionary War by extending the vote to the un-propertied males. Since each state established it own voting requirements the laws were not uniform. The actual loss of domination by the European American males was not the same as the fear of loss. The fear became a concern right after the Civil War and the passage of the 13th and 14 Amendments. The fear of the loss of dominance showed itself during the Reconstruction period in America when many law were created by the states that served to re-enslave the African Americans; social conventions kept the women from enjoying many freedoms. Sharing the rights and liberties of America with all Americans was not the concept of freedom many European American males possessed.
The fear began to change into anger in 1954 when the Supreme Court ruled that segregation in public schools was unconstitutional in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. Change had come to their European American male dominated society that took away their power to segregate in public schools. Naturally, efforts were made by the losers to regain control of their schools, but the law prevailed. The changes in American society that Magstadt makes reference to in the 1960, and 70s had a devastating affect on the European American male; his dominance was not only being challenged, but also the loss of it was being threatened.
One of the major changes that affect the European American male that Magstadt did not focus on had to do with Obama’s election to the Presidency. As long as the biased European American male did not have to acknowledge his loss of dominance, he could still, to a degree, save face. However, when Obama was elected president, this loss became a reality. If he accepted Obama as President, then he could no longer claim superiority by color. So, regardless of the excuses used to denigrate Obama, his administration, his policies, his character, his leadership, etc…all these antics and more are simply expressions of the anger and fear of the European American males represented by the rightwing Republican Party, Tea Party, conservatives and other biased groups lamenting their great loss and the fact that all their efforts to regain their dominance are forever gone.
If Magstadt had known about this blog, he could have arrived at the point he makes regarding the angry white guys a few years earlier, but, better late than never. Nevertheless, we appreciate his efforts.

Paul R. Lehman, Naomi Schaefer Riley’s comments show a need for African American Studies

January 1, 2013 at 5:21 pm | Posted in Affirmative Action, African American, American Bigotry, American Racism, black midwifery, blacks, Democrats, desegregation, Disrespect, Equal Opportunity, equality, Ethnicity in America, European American, fairness, Good Times, justice, minority, Prejudice, Public housing, Race in America, segregation, Slavery, the Republican Party, whites | Leave a comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Back in April 30, 2012, a former writer for The Chronicle of Higher Education, Naomi Schaefer Riley, wrote a blog article entitled “The Most Persuasive Case for Eliminating Black Studies? Just Read the Dissertation.” The blog caused considerable debate because of statements to the effect that Black Studies no longer served any useful purpose and should be discontinued as an academic discipline. Shortly after the blog’s publication a controversy ensued and Ms. Riley was fired. Anyone with a working knowledge of American History would have detected a number of defects in Riley’s comments as well as an attitude akin to arrogant ignorance. The article displayed a lack of knowledge and understanding of American History, African American History, and an attitude of biased superiority.

Most educated people today realize that the only difference between American History and African American History is the point of view; both are American History. The fact that the discipline is known as “Black Studies” places a stigma on it as not being of equal value as other traditional subjects. The stigma comes from the negative value and the lack of information relative to the experiences of African American presented through education as well as because of some people’s conception of the “Black American ‘experience” which most history books and classes over-looks. Riley’s comments relative to the choice of topics of the graduate students for their dissertations showed her lack of knowledge of general American History when she labels all three “so irrelevant no one will ever look at them.” When we looked at the subjects, we got a different reaction.

The first dissertation subject Riley commented on was one by Ruth Hayes: “’So I Could Be Easeful’: Black Women’s Authoritative Knowledge on Childbirth.” Hayes’ study looked into the history of African American midwifery because she found that “nonwhite women’s experiences were largely absent from natural-birth literature.” According to Riley, “How could we overlook the nonwhite experience in ‘natural birth literature,’ whatever the heck that is? It’s scandalous and clearly a sign that racism is alive and well in America, not to mention academia.”Obviously, Riley has no idea or concept of what life was like on the slave plantations nor the role African/African American women played in midwifery to both the females in the master’s household as well as the female slaves. Although Riley might not want to learn about some of those experiences, her ignorance indicates a lack of knowledge of its importance historically. Even after slavery, many African American women continued to serve as midwives to both the European American and African American community. My grand mother was such a person, and the one who helped facilitate my entry into this world.

The next dissertation topic Riley selected to denigrate was one written by Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor entitled: “Race for Profit: Black Housing and the Urban Crisis of the 1970s.”  Riley shows her complete ignorance of contemporary American History with her comment relative to Taylor’s study: “Ms. Taylor believes there was apparently some kind of conspiracy in the federal government’s promotion of single family homes in black neighborhoods after the unrest of the 1960s. Single family homes! The audacity!” Unfortunately, Riley adds insult to her ignorance when she states: “But Ms. Taylor sees that her issue is still relevant today. (Not much of a surprise since the entirety of black studies today seems to rest on the premise that nothing much has changed in this country in the past half century when it comes to race.” Her ignorance is compounded when she states 😦 “Shhhh. Don’t tell them about the black president!”) Riley shows complete ignorance of government sponsored segregation and discrimination in public housing. This blog discussed this very same topic in two recent publications, one dealing with “Good Times,” and the other with “All in the Family.” Evidently, Riley’s education has not served her very well.

The third dissertation Riley selected to discredit was written by La TaSha B. Levy and dealt with the topic of “Black Republicanism, especially the rightward ideological shift it took in the 1980s after the election of Ronald Reagan.”Riley adds that “Ms. Levy’s dissertation argues that conservatives like Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, John McWhorter, and others have ‘played one of the most-significant roles in the assault on the civil-rights legacy that benefited them.’”What Riley fails to grasp in this work is the fact that these men mentioned are African Americans who having benefited from the opportunities afforded them through civil rights advances, now want to undo those advantages for others. In essence, the benefits were fine for them, but not for other African Americans. This topic was also treated recently in this blog and underscored the fact that most African American republicans today belong to that party for personal attention and gain, not for what the party offers the African American community. The fact that many African Americans belong to the Democratic Party is owing to what the party has to offer them in comparison to what the Republican party offers.

So far, Riley has struck out in her assessment of these dissertations as well as her knowledge of American History. Her comments and assessments are proof enough that courses in African American Studies should be required for all students. Her comments and evaluations of these works show a gross lack of information relative to the African American experience in America History as well as a general lack of knowledge that the influence both had on the other. How she managed to write for as long as she did being so ill-equipped is amazing.

What was the final insult to injury in Riley’s blog was the bigoted, better-than-thou attitude of European American superiority she exhibited throughout the piece. In all her splendid ignorance, she felt secure and comfortable in denigrating the work and scholarship of graduate students and simultaneously saying to their institution and mentoring professors that they were all illegitimate scholars. She alone had the intelligence to pass judgment on what should be considered quality academic work based, it seems, on the color of her skin. Rather than dismissing these works as “a collection of left-wing victimization claptrap,“ Riley should have consulted with someone more knowledgeable in the subject-matter. In fact, that is what most people do when they do not know what they are doing.

Paul R. Lehman, Why Pat Buchanan thinks President Obama “killed white America.”

November 11, 2012 at 3:14 pm | Posted in African American, American Bigotry, American Racism, Bigotry in America, blacks, Congress, Democrats, equality, Ethnicity in America, European American, GOP, integregation, Media and Race, minority, Prejudice, President Obama, presidential election, public education, The Daily Currant, the Republican Party, whites | 5 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

For a number of years in my books and lately in my blog the question of American bigotry has been discussed. An important part of America’s history and heritage is involved with ethnic bigotry. We know that the ruling class in society created race as a vehicle to accomplish control of society. Because slavery was necessary to America’s economic success and slaves came in many different shades and colors, a distinction had to be made to guard against organized protest against the ruling class. The best way society thought to accomplish this was to make everyone of European ancestry and of fair complexion, superior in every way to all other ethnic groups. So, the society gave itself the gift of race, and color—black and white. White or the so-called white race became the symbol of superiority and normalcy regardless of the social or economic status of the citizens. These characteristics were constantly re-informed through all the institutions of government. The end result was that all Americans knew their status in America; if they happened to not be European American, then they knew they were not considered first-classed citizens.

The fact that American society consciously created ethnic bigotry as a consequence of slavery, it also was aware of the hypocrisy that was created in its creed of “all men created equal” or “life and liberty of all,” and the idea of a democratic society. The ruling class knew they were in the minority, so they placed in the Constitution the right to abolish the government if they believed their rights were not respected by the government. Over the years, the word “minority” changed and came to mean something the founding father did not consider—ethnic Americans and women. So, for three hundred years or so, European American males were led to believe that America belonged to them and the other people living here were only here because they allowed them that privilege.

After the passage of the various civil rights acts as well as many social changes in America that favored the ethnic Americans, a degree of concern began to sweep over the European American conservatives that they were slowly loosing control of their country. The one event that brought this point home to them was the election of Barack Obama, an African American, as President of the United States. Obama’s election in 2008 came as a complete surprise to many European American conservatives.  That election was proof positive that the country was changing and they were losing control. So, they put into process efforts to undo the damage that had been done by the election. Now, however, they were motivated by fear and dread of actually losing their country through the loss of power and political control.

After four years of fighting to hold on to their country, the verdict came in early Wednesday morning—they lost. Obama had been re-elected. No one epitomized the reaction better than Pat Buchanan, a conservative political pundit, when he noted that Barack Obama has “killed white America.” Buchanan, in an interview with G. Gordon Liddy, reported by The Daily Currant, stated that “White America died last night. Obama’s reelection killed it. Our 200 plus year history as a Western nation is over. We’re a Socialist Latin American now. Venezuela without the oil.” We are told that Liddy recognized this statement as biased, and tried to get Buchanan to re-do his statement: “With what you just said right there…You seem to imply that white people are better than other people. That’s not really what you’re saying is it?”

To that question the article noted: “’Of course that’s what I’m saying,’ Buchanan replied ‘Isn’t it obvious? Anything worth doing on this Earth was done first by white people.”

In the course of Buchanan’s lamenting the loss of so-called white control he states that “I cried last night for hours. It’s over for all of us. The great white nation will never survive another 4 years of Obama’s leadership.

Buchanan’s reactions are not an isolated experience; many conservative European Americans across the country expressed the same sentiment. The problem with Buchanan and all his like-minded citizens is that they try to operate in twenty-first century America and world with a nineteen-century perception. They never bought into the concept of democracy. With society and its institutions telling the European Americans that being white was superior to all other ethnic groups, what were they to believe? With history books telling them that God gave this country to the European Americans to do with as they saw fit, and with the laws making certain that white skin received public privilege and political power, what were they to believe? They thought that their power and control would last for many more years.

Too many people like Buchanan failed to realize that America is a constantly changing society and has been since it beginning. Unfortunately, America has not been very attentive to its responsibility of keeping everyone aware of the many changes that have taken place regarding our changing demographics and our history. The mere fact that Buchanan considers America as “Great White Nation” is proof enough that he has little grasp of reality. As a society, we must do a better job of educating ourselves concerning who and what we are as a nation. The fear and dread of losing the power and privilege usually associated with being white is at hand for many social conservatives; they cannot take the country back because it never was their’s in the first place. That idea was a social creation as was race. Both concepts have been debunked.

Having to come to grips with reality when reality is contrary to what one has believed for all one’s life is devastating. But, how can one live in a society where changes in all its institutions have occurred and not be aware of those changes? Whatever one might call Buchanan because of his outdated social perspective, please do not refer to him as a racists. By doing so, one would be endorsing his false concept of multi-biological races of human beings existing. Bigot is the accurate term for him. He needs to know that only one race of humans exist, and it come in many colors.

Paul R. Lehman,A few reasons why some African Americans join the Republican Party

October 21, 2012 at 4:15 pm | Posted in American Bigotry, blacks, Democrats, Ethnicity in America, European American, justice, minority, Oklahoma, Prejudice, presidential election, Respect for President, whites | 3 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Some confusion exists in the minds of some people who try to explain the reasons why some African Americans are Republicans. One Opinion writer for The Oklahoman believes they are attacked because they do not reflect “racial unity.” In the article, “Color Bind: Racial unity pledge coming up short,” he states that President Obama “implied that his election would usher in a post-racial era. This hasn’t been the case.” Whether President Obama implied it or not, he has no control of the mind-set of the entire country.  The article noted “Consider how black citizens who support Republican Mitt Romney are treated. After actress Stacey Dash tweeted her endorsement of Romney, she was inundated with racist attacks.” The article further noted that “In a CNN interview Dash said she chose Romney ‘not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character.’” According to the article, Dash is joined in her support of Romney by other African Americans, former U. S. Rep. Artur Davis, Ward Connerly, J.C. Watts, and T.W. Shannon. The point missed by the “Opinion writer” is that the color of the candidate has nothing to do with the complaints made against these people –it is their choice of party—republican.

For an African American to join and support the Republican Party today, he or she must have little or limited knowledge of the party’s history since the early 1950’s. Knowledge of the Republican Party beginning with the 1950’s will reveal a story that shows just how unaccommodating the party has been to African Americans. Once known as the party of Lincoln, the Republicans changed their views towards African Americans during and following Reconstruction. The belief among European Americans in general, but especially in the South, was that the government would never make any ethnic group equal to them. When the public schools were desegregated many Southern democrats started to change their political party to republican. Many European Americans in the Republican Party believed that the African American was to be always a second-class citizen. So, armed with that information, one wonders why an African American knowing the history of the party would join it.

For an African American to join and support the Republican Party, he or she must not have any knowledge of the civil rights struggle waged by the African Americans to gain basic rights. They need to know that the Republican did not support any form of civil rights legislation that included the court decisions from Brown v Topeka to the fair housing act or even the Lily Ledbetter Act. At every juncture where African Americans have tried to gain first-class citizenship, the Republican Party has been against it. So, again, one wonders why an African American would want to support a party with such a record. This party has never been afraid to show its biases. All one has to do is look at the many instances where some of its representatives have tried to denigrate President Obama, not because of his party affiliations, but because of his ethnicity.

What should be apparent to many Americans today is the battle being waged in society and politics has to do with human rights, everything from Affirmative Action to voting rights, and workers’ rights. When we check to see who is behind the efforts to deny American rights, we learn that much of it come from representatives of the Republican Party. They believe that when ethnic Americans gain rights, they lose something, so they fight anyway the can for the status quo.

Again, why would an African American want to be associated with a party that wants to deny him or her basic rights? The article made the following suggestion: “The caucus [African American] tacitly acknowledges that black officials enjoy greater opportunity in the Republican Party. This has been the case in Oklahoma, where J. C. Watts won a statewide office (corporation commissioner) and a U.S. House seat.” The article also noted that “State Rep. T.W. Shannon, R-Lawton, is expected to become the first black speaker of the Oklahoma House of Representatives next month. Both have won the support of voters who don’t share Shannon racial background but do share his conservative values.”

Yes, and that, of course, is part of the reason for African Americans being in the Republican Party—the recognition and opportunity to progress as individuals. Notice that the emphasis on African American republicans is on the individual, not the people. In effect, some African Americans join the Republican Party knowing they will be exploited, but also knowing they too can exploit the party. Many of the visual African American republicans can be conceived of as “watch pocket” republicans because they only come out when the need is there. For a while, J.C. Watts was the hottest ticket in Washington, D.C.; the fourth highest ranking republican. But what degree of power and/or influence did he have? When the word came out that Tom Delay, the third highest ranking republican in the House was thinking about a move up, Watts thought he would simply move up also. Unfortunately, and presumably when Delay heard of Watts’s possible plan, he changed his mind about moving up, and remained in his position. . Being very visual but having no power evidently did not sit well with Watts; he did not run for re-election.

Republicans enjoy having “watch pocket” African Americans in the party because any time there is a charge of bigotry or ethnic bias, they can go to their pocket and pull one out to show that any accusations of bigotry or biases is completely false. They can pull one out to show and tell “they have one!” Many Americans, African Americans included pause to take note of African Americans who join and support the Republican Party because they know that anyone with common knowledge about the history of today’s Republican Party, and its relationship to the civil rights movement would reflect better judgment in their choice. That is, unless there is a payoff for them.

The “Opinion writer” thinks that African American republicans are being criticized for not supporting Obama and “Racial unity,” because of their obvious ethnicity. However, the real reason is because their sense of logic and rational thinking is being questioned. Why would a drowning man ask for a glass of water? To many people, that is exactly what African American republicans resemble.

Paul R. Lehman, The GOP’s war against Obama fueled with hate and fear

September 16, 2012 at 12:20 pm | Posted in African American, Bigotry in America, blacks, Congress, Disrespect, equality, European American, fairness, justice, Media and Race, Prejudice, President, President Obama, presidential election, Republican Convention, Respect for President, whites | 1 Comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

When Barack Obama was elected President of the United States of America, conservative elements of the GOP went into shock. All their plans and victories at the local, state, and nation levels were now in question because the totally unexpected had happened. Never in their lifetime did these conservatives believe America would elect an African American for president. So, after the shock wore off and even before Obama made it to the Oval Office, they gathered together to plan how to undo the damage to their master plan by getting rid of Obama.

Whether one considers Obama’s ethnicity or political party the reason for the GOP‘s wanting him to be removed, the fact still remained that he must be removed. Part of the problem resided in the fact that Obama won the election, a phenomenon that was never supposed to happen. What went wrong? Some people believed that the country suffered a brief period of insanity because people in their “right mind” would have never elected an African American President. So what is the reason behind wanting to remove Obama from office? Part of the answer lies in what Obama represents rather than Obama the individual.

When Africans were introduced into slavery in America, the image of the slave as property had to be established, maintained and promoted in order for the system to operate effectively. The first order of this business was to strip away any and all human and personal worth of the African slave. This effort was made effective by removing any vestiges of the slave’s former life and history and remaking him as a less-than-human thing or property. His names, Negro, black, slave, etc… give no indication of a language, geography, culture. All his new names placed him in the system of slavery, and the only value he exhibited was either via work or the market place (auction block). His being represented nothing that the majority society viewed as deserving respect or value.

Although the idea of democracy as stated in America’s “Declaration of Independence” 1776, declared that “all men were created equal,” nevertheless, America forgot to include the African Americans and other slaves as men in the 1787 “Constitution.” They were listed as “three fifths,” a person. The problem that resulted from these concepts of democracy and slavery juxtaposed created two additional concepts: 1, many Americans knew that African/African Americans were human being like themselves, but was made less so by society, not God or biology. 2, Many Americans accepted the concept of African/African Americans being less than human regardless of the fallacy. Although Americans in both the North and South shared in both concepts, more Americans in the North accepted the 1st concept while the majority in the South shared the 2nd. Today, the two concepts are represented in politics with the Democrats identified with the 1st concept, and the GOP representing the 2nd.

Since the Civil War, the two concepts of the African American have been germane to the progress of American society as represented in the various Civil Rights Acts. Unfortunately, laws do not change individual concepts, so although society though government and science has attempted to correct the injustice and fallacy, many people hold on to the 2nd concept religiously. Their reason for holding on to the concept is based in fear of losing their place of prominence in society. That is, if the African Americans are equal to all people, then they, the people representing the 2nd concept, are less than privileged—they lose value.

So, when Obama was elected President, the GOP felt the immediate blow to their belief system and social status. Damage control had to be the first order of business.  The objective they set regarding Obama was to make him appear totally unfit to be President by any means necessary. The efforts to discredit him as inept did not work, so they took another approach, to make him not one of us—someone alien, not American, a foreigner. That campaign is still in progress. In addition to not being American, these critics accused President Obama of being a socialist, communist, Muslim, and a host of other things that might cause him to appear unfavorable.

With a continuous barrage of negative charges against President Obama, the GOP believes they can convince enough people to their way of thinking in order to defeat President Obama in the election.  The fact that Obama, an African American, is President is a reality the GOP cannot accept, not because of Obama personally, but because of what he represents—a changing America. The change that is taking place in America is a change that takes away the prestige, privilege, and power that was once associated with being European American (white).  The battle now is for the GOP to try and forestall as much change as possible; hence, the phrase “we need to take back our country.” Because Obama represents change, he also represents the enemy, and the enemy must be destroyed. Former President Bill Clinton said during his speech at the Democratic Convention words that address the problem: “Though I often disagree with Republicans, I never learned to hate them the way the far right that now controls their party seems to hate President Obama and the Democrats.” Hate seems to be the fuel that propels their actions.

We should not think that the battle against Obama is weakening.  Obama’s election to President did more than indicate a positive change in America, it also brought to light the many bigots that were hiding behind façades.  One irony that was created by the election campaign includes European Americans who say they differ with Obama’s politics, but get accused of being biased against him. Their complaint is similar to the African Americans who get accused of voting for Obama only because he is African American. When the GOP declared war against Obama being re-elected, they colored the field with prejudice, so identifying the European Americans who simply differ with Obama’s politics get caught in the mix. Sorry.

Many members of the GOP believe strongly that their party will be victorious in this election. One commentary by Victor Davis Hanson compared the election to the classic story “The Tortoise and the Hare,” with Obama being the hare. He stated that “The country is also not quite ready to confess that it went a little crazy in 2008 and voted for the embarrassing banalities of ‘hope and change’ offered by a little-known senator with a thin resume and little national experience.” He continued by offering some scenarios that might befall Obama and Romney and concluded with “Barring a real recovery or sudden war, the steady, plodding Romney tortoise is ever so slowly winning the race against the flashier—surging, yet always fading—Obama hare.”

So now the country “went a little crazy” for voting Obama into office because it was duped by his con game. Maybe this time around the country will “go a little sane” and look at the issues and elect the best man for the job. In any event, a change is coming, and any change that diminishes hate is a good change.

Next Page »

Blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.