In Your Face?

The president’s White House “Civil-Rights” concert was aired on the local public TV station the other evening, marked by some of the biggest African-American names in entertainment joined by some of the biggest white-protester names of the 1960s, the folk singers who played their guitars and wailed against Vietnam. The litanies of discrimination – certainly a fact of life until the 60s – were repeated again for the white folks in the audience, though none had ever owned slaves and were part of the “freedom” generation…or at least their forebears were. The glitz and glamour screamed the polar opposite of the downtrodden.

Morgan Freeman spoke of the “change” that had come to Washington, the change who was in the audience, the president. He was justified in doing that, but didn’t note that he and the president had made their fortunes as the result of the actions of white folks, mostly republicans, who actually DID change things in the 1960s, and of the voting of other white folks, of course, who actually DID elect Obama over a white woman and a much-revered national hero and statesman.

Freeman probably also meant the CHANGE promised by Obama during the campaign and which, especially with a supposedly compliant Congress preparing the way since 2007, should have by now inculcated the “transformation” of the nation as promised in the campaign. It has become obvious since the election that the president had in mind “transforming” the nation from entrepreneurship as economic engine to government as its replacement, i.e., placing the populace on welfare, just as much of the black community has been placed on welfare since the 60s.

It’s considered politically incorrect to call the president’s approach socialism, but facts can’t be ignored. The tragedy of the Obama presidency lies in the fact that instead of building on the foundation that has brought it to prominence and power, it has blundered from one extreme to another on everything from economics to national security. His party, largely if not almost exclusively, has been complicit and has mostly proven that common-sense-challenged people can be elected to high office.

Obama has surrounded himself with some of the quirkiest people ever to come down the pike, some of them already gone, but others remain. A number had to be thrown under the bus because they loved this country too much and showed it by not paying their taxes. Some, like Van Jones the avowed self-admitted communist who was eased out one midnight, admire strange people like Mao and Hugo Chavez, who is even now clamping down harder on the Venezuelans. This is scary as the nation continues its downward spiral, spending like a drunken sailor and printing constantly devaluing money as fast as the presses allow.

It’s unseemly that the first black president, with the opportunity to prove the innate ability of his race to accomplish anything it tackles, has settled for a sort of in-your-face approach to governance that is off-putting to a degree not often seen. This has been seen in sports on all levels as blacks have become dominant – strutting, posturing, taunting, trash-talking, bragging, belittling opponents and generally making jackasses of themselves in the process. They’ve brought a crudity into the games that was never there before. It’s an in-your-face, payback type of mentality used on people who allowed/propelled them to be successful and actually glory in that success with them. It’s mostly the exercise of brawn over brains, the exact opposite of what’s needed.

Obama tipped his hand when, without any substantial proof, he rather glibly said that white policemen in Boston acted stupidly. That was an in-your-face pronouncement that Jesse Jackson would have had more sense than to make. Or, take his pre-trial claim, as well as that of his attorney general, that Khalid would be found guilty, something no other law-professor would do.

Concerning holding the trial in New York City, Obama said, "I don't think it would be offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him" (New York Daily News, 18 Nov. 2008). Even a law-school student would know better than to pre-judge an accused person. So…is Obama (and Holder) doing his “in-your-face,” number regarding the Justice Department and the public, or is he just shallow, or maybe an egomaniac? Who knows?

In 2009, the president had an overwhelming majority in the House and a filibuster-proof Senate to do his bidding, i.e., the passing of any and all legislation he wanted. The fatal flaw: He left it to Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid to do that bidding. In so doing, he gave the task to non-leaders and indicated thereby his own non-leadership ability. The nation is better off for this, of course, since his major legislation has died, but has he learned a lesson to apply to three more years? In the meantime, the November elections will tell the tale regarding the actual state of the union.

And so it goes.
Jim Clark