In his own words Barack Obama chose his friends in college carefully. No one does anything "carefully" without deliberate intent; without hope of a desired outcome. When one does something carefully, there is a desire to have the fruit of one's labor bear a specific, desired fruit. "To avoid being mistaken for a sellout," he wrote in Dreams From My Father, "I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists." In short, Barack Obama chose exclusion rather than inclusion.
Politically active blacks-- code for angry, disdainful of America and white government. Liberal. Recent History is replete with instances of black hatred of non-black's: Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan, reverend Jeremiah Wright, and now reverend Otis Moss, all of whom have expressed antipathy for white America. This did not the Reverend Martin Luther King do.
Barack historically invokes King's Dream while riding the rip currents of mentors and heroes who have propagated fear and hatred in the name of that very same Dream. Tawana Brawley, slander and defamation; the Crown Heights riot, the murder of Yankel Rosenbaum; Freddy's Fashion Mart, and the death of 7 store employees, because of one man's seemingly insane rage against "white interlopers" and "Jews." The list of atrocities in the name of black social patriation is extensive. King had a dream of peace, but men like Sharpton, Jackson, and others used that dream for political and personal glory.
The so-called reverend Wright, damns American in God's name-- a little "white" blasphemy that shocked religious whites across the nation. Wright, the president-elect's one-time spiritual mentor and family friend, lost now somewhere under the bus for political expediency.
Louis Farrakhan whose list of spiritual and social atrocities are too numerous to count is praised and rewarded with a lifetime achievement award from Barack's church-- a church that is also somewhere under the bus.
William Ayers-- Marxist, terrorist, murderer; free and clear on a legal technicality, who on the day of 9/11, in the pages of the New York Times, expressed no regret for his crimes but rather said he felt he didn't do enough.
Friends-- if history is any indication --that were carefully chosen with intent of purpose toward a specific outcome or stage-setter. These were the friends of president elect Barack Obama.
Promises have been made. Many promises. And like every other politician before him, those promises are to be taken with a grain of salt, for all the likelihood any of us will ever see those promises fulfilled. Tax cuts for 95% of wage earners? Impossible. The current state of our economy forbids it. But despite that, Congress desires to raise taxes, not cut them. Congress is not about to lay its constitutionally provided power over the purse strings at the feet of any president's whim. Even Clinton didn't get carte blanche over the desires of the democratically led congress. Barack will not get exactly what he wants, but the real fear is that he may get more than he asks for.
Danger, Will Robinson! Danger! Higher taxes will deepen the hole our economy currently finds itself in. The bar Obama raised delineating that line between patriotic taxpayer and 'spread-wealth recipient' has crept downward over the last few weeks. Joe the Plumber was concerned about a business he might buy that makes a little over 250k a year. Soon after-- after the Obama investigation of Joe, and Media's complicit silence --the number slipped to 200k. Then to 150k, and finally(?) 120k. Will it slip further? to the magic 45k number? 'Sorry folks, I wanted to spread the wealth, but after looking at the numbers it's just not possible. Not if we want to institute the nearly one-trillion in new spending...' But this is to be expected. No president keeps every promise he makes. He simply can't.
What else can history tell us about the present? Let's talk Civilian Police Force, for which the Constitution does not provide power to the Federal Government, but to states only. A police force as strong and equally equipped as the greatest military force in earth's history. History shows us what happens when governments control the police.
What can history tell us about governments that determine what is and is not acceptable speech? What does history say about those who express themselves contrary to governmental standards of speech? Reread the previous paragraph and extrapolate to this one.
The Fairness Doctrine? Some say no one in government is even talking about it, but these same people haven't been listening. Senator Charles Schumer, when asked yesterday morning, "Are you a supporter of telling radio stations in America what content they should have on their radio station?" replied:
"Well, you know there are -- the radio air, it's not that this is like printing a broadside. You would never say anyone who wanted to hire a printing press or go on a computer has to have any view. Do you think we should allow people to put pornography on the air? Absolutely not, particularly on television and radio... the very same people that don't want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC to limit pornography on the air. I am for that. I think pornography should be limited. But you can't say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you're allowed to intervene in another. That's not consistent."
Free speech-- SOME free speech --is likened unto pornography by a senator sworn to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and bear true faith and allegiance to the same." This alone is astounding.
History shows us that nothing really changes; nothing is truly new. If it happened once, it can happen again. The problem many see in the president elect are both his past, deliberately chosen associations, and their influence upon him as reflected in many of his stated desired policy changes. Socialized health care, creating a whole new, and more expansive subset of government dependents. Higher taxes on the rich [whatever the final "line in the sand" ] to spread the wealth around; as Karl Marx wrote: from each according to their ability, to each according to their need. A government controlled, richly funded police force; gestapo-esque perhaps? The First Amendment muzzled by arbitrary partisan standards, and anything outside those standards the verbal equivalent of pornography?
What was it Reagan said?
"Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"
There is no new thing under the sun! And understanding this, who in forty years will stand outside the walls Barack desires to erect, and demand that the then democratic potentate of America tear down the Wall?
What great Moses, after forty years in the back-end of political Sinai, will demand the then democratic pharaoh to let his people go?
It is quite possible that none of these dark visions will ever come to pass. No president ever succeeds in getting all that he wants. The danger however, especially in light of one party control over House, Senate, AND the White House, lies in the possibility this president could get MORE than he's asking.
I prayerfully hope that the Change President Barack Obama brings us is nothing reflective of history. I pray his governance is indeed historic; that he can actually accomplish and forge a new understanding between the partisan party politics and ethnicities that remain today divided against each other. I hope he can truly heal this nation.
But history says my hopes have little chance of bearing new fruit. Change, yes... but what kind of change? We know what history has had to say.
What now has the Future to say?
Eric,
ReplyDeleteThe Future can't talk to you until you catch up on the last 150 years to get to the Present.
Feodora,
ReplyDeletePerhaps YOU should be the one catching up!