A STARK OPPOSITION.

Obama's policies have always looked to serve the nation in general, and the poor in particular; like (1). the healthcare law that passed last year, amid a reactionary hoopla of a Republican Party opposition, and an acute animosity expressed by private Healthcare Insurance providers; (2). the new tax laws that would replace the Bush tax breaks for the wealthy that would soon expire; just to use those two examples.

The new measures would benefit small businesses, which were responsible for creating 75% of jobs in America; and who were deserved of a tax break. By so doing he would bring unemployment levels down from 10.5% to 8%, as he had previously promised, during his first days in office. His stimulus plans to save Wall Street, the banks and car makers, were all designed to keep unemployment figures from climbing upwards to where the country would experience economic recession indefinitely.

It was a negative milestone that he had inherited from a global financial upheaval; and his administration and the Democrats in Congress were endeavoring to manage and wrestle it, somehow, from completely getting out of hand.

It (upheaval) had ravaged the economies of most European countries, and as President, he was doing everything he could to contain it. However, according to many economists, it has gone past containment into what could be termed as a depression, and the U.S. seemed to be in dire straights, economically, of course. Yet, the situation was happening under his watch, and he had to do all he could to speed up a sluggish economy in the interest of the nation.

Nevertheless, his opposition has always come from the racist element of the American public; particularly, the leadership of the Republican Party, on the one hand; and in recent days, through the so called Tea Party movement, whose mechanized manipulation of public sentiment, resulted in an unusual assemblage in Washington D.C. last month, on the other.

It was an unusual gathering, because it lacked specific leadership or a clear cut objective, except to indicate that the country was in "the wrong hands", and it had to be taken back. In other words, the Tea Party movement had collaborated with others like it; and were connected, directly or indirectly, to the "Restoring Honor" meeting, coupled with a "march", that was witnessed infront of the Lincoln Memorial on August 27th, 2010. Its goal, whimsically, was "to take our country back."

The meeting had actually culminated from the vociferousness of a TV personality who had attacked Obama from the moment he became President of the United States; and he had instigated that he (Obama) had surrounded himself with socialist extremists, etc. etc. He had also in the past espoused radical views himself; and for those reasons, among others, he, the TV host, has vowed to bring him down.

The Republican opposition was also using lame excuses to put obstacles in his way; such as spending unnecessarily, and not being able to create jobs; hence, a sagging economy. His response was that, America needed to rebuild most of its infrastructure, and that was where the spending was mainly going.

Suffice it to say that Obama was black (African American); but the majority of the make-up of that gathering was not. Therefore, one could only deduce that, at least, it (meeting) had a racist outlook; and it was, by every stretch of the imagination, motivated by people with racism on their minds. "If we used the race card, people would come," they had said.

So that, however much wool its organizers would attempt to pull over the eyes of the American people, their goal, though secret, has more than become quite obvious to the rest of the world, that Obama could not run the country, because he was black.

If so, then he has not been judged by the content of his character, but by the color of his skin. His color was not conducive to the public good, and so he must go, according to his malefactor marchers.

Would not that be a turnaround from what the speakers at the meeting were philosophizing as the underlying factor to socially support and legitimize the motives of their "march"; thus making it politically acceptable by invoking the name of the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.; and repeatedly referring to his "Freedom March" on Washington D.C. as their model? They also have described his famous "I have a dream" speech, which made mention of "character" as opposed to "the color of the skin" as a gauge of acceptance in society, almost 48 years ago, as iconic.

Were all those comments false on their part? Were they just paying lip service to the Civil Rights leader's memory?

To many people, that speech still stood for something truthful, great and special; and his "Freedom March" was the opposite of theirs. His was to free the down trodden.

In fact, the marchers have demonstrated that they were acting with malice toward President Obama; and that was the big picture that the world was seeing on that day; and if that was the case, then America has reverted to its old ways of dealing with the black uppity. It was making headway, "and it needed to be slapped down."

"It must be realized that it (uppity) must be suppressed; because it was an anathema to the American way of life."

That was what Dr. King's opponents would be saying. That was what the marchers of August 27th, 2010, on Washington D.C. were saying. A stark opposition; but did America need that?