What must have been the subject?
I have always had a smidgeon (smidgen) of respect for Minister Louis Farrakhan, even before he became head of The Nation of Islam; and although, his meeting with Iran's President Ahmadinejad last week would not surprise many people, because the two men shared the same faith.
What baffles the general public is that, Minister Farrakhan has been outspoken on many political issues, particularly, on the shabby treatment of African-Americans, and the need for America to repair the damage done to them socially, economically and politically.
On the other hand, President Ahmadinejad's background does not reflect the slightest of sympathies for the down trodden, as he heads an autocratic regime that smothers any kind of freedom through Sharia Law in his own country.
The bone of contention here is that Minister Farrakhan tends to be an avid scholar of world history. He has read widely on the indigenous and anthropological make-up of Africa, and the effects that ancient Islamic slavery has had on the black race. It has, by and large, contributed to the social conditions that are seen in present day Africa; it has inflicted so much harm on black peoples everywhere, more than any historical activity; and it is through its modalities that the trans-Atlantic slave trade has materialized.
So, it is beyond any amount of comprehension to see the two men, with such opposite and distinct dichotomies, sitting and talking.
Is it (subject) about freedom; or is it about slavery, or is it about the brotherhood of man? That is the question.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Monday, September 27, 2010
AN UNWELCOME GUEST.
(UN)WELCOME TO THE CLUB.
From many of the interviews with Iran's President Ahmadinejad last week, he never broke away from his rehearsed male monologues that he has compiled over the years. (...and he never broke a sweat repeating them, either).
On the question of whether he wanted Iran to have nuclear weapons or not, during the many interviews, he had come out with the same answers, several times over; as if they were a carbon copy list of replies he had given reporters and TV interviewers before, the last time he was at the U.N., almost two years ago.
"Iran's nuclear program is for peaceful purposes,"; quote, unquote.
Or, did his country support terrorism or not; and he would say,
"We don't support terrorism in any way, shape or form. Iran is a peaceable country."; quote, unquote.
Only this time around, he had to throw in two new subjects; 1. That, some believed
"9/11 was caused by segments within the U.S." to cover up a failing economy, and "to save Israel." However, how that happened, he was completely mum about it.
If he had mentioned the CIA or any other group(s) used for secret military missions overseas or even internally, like the FBI, he would have given himself away as one, who has been thoroughly doing his homework; but he wanted to sound deliberate and off-the-cuff, if not summarily casual, just to deceive his listeners; therefore, there was no naming of any organizations.
The other was, 2. Presenting his views on the world economy at large, and saying the U.S. and other Western powers were dominating the decision making processes; and therefore an overhaul of "undemocratic and unjust decision making bodies," was long overdue.
There too, he refused to mention any names, like The World Bank or the IMF; however, those two organizations immediately came to mind, anyway.
With the second subject, he has found an opportune time to arbitrarily assume the title role of "the defender of the poor" around the world. CRIKEY! What a surprise.
Yet, all that was done to camouflage his own difficulties back in Iran, where the economy was in shambles; and his position as president was still in question, whether the election that brought him into power for the second time was rigged, just as the first.
In other words, his own political survival was at stake; and he would depend on being able to develop a nuclear bomb, (or at least an IED of it), to indicate to his fellow countrymen that his regime has taken Iran to a new level, militarily, of course, by ushering it (Iran) into the nuclear age, and thus making it an International force to reckon with. (A wondrous achievement; wouldn't that be).
The proof of that assumption was in his statement, when he first arrived to attend the 2010 U.N. General Assembly; when he said, "the future belongs to Iran," and that "the United States must recognize his nation 'is a big power'."; quote, unquote.
He realizes everywhere he turns, he is on slippery ground; even in "his own neck of the woods", where the elite in society forms a formidable opposition, as far as his regime is concerned; in addition to the fact that his U.N. audience was being wary of his radical views.
All of his remarks, whether he is aware or not, unequivocally give him away.
He surmises he wants a nuclear free world, and yet, he advocates the annihilation of Israel by nuclearization, probably; showing how unstable and insecure the man is.
He cannot choose to be pleasant to his neighbors, as he is testing missiles for war; but here in New York City, he is clamoring for a world without "the bomb"; a precarious stance to please, perhaps the U.S. and members of what is termed "the nuclear club", which is determined to reject him.
Or to tantalize the Ayatollahs in Iran, whose views are, most of the time, at variance with the rest of the world. He wants to have it both ways, so to speak.
The message he brought with him to The U.N. General Assembly was fraught with so much confusion, and a whole lot of misinformation; indicating his political life was at its ebb.
In the end, there was every indication that, he has been "able to fool all the people some of the time," and "even fool some of the people all the time,"; but he could not "fool all the people all the time.", with his negative speeches to The U.N. General Assembly members, and his wry and warn-out answers to, at least, the American public, watching him on television.
Ahmadinejad, an unwelcome guest to the club.
P.S. (IED: improvised explosive device).
From many of the interviews with Iran's President Ahmadinejad last week, he never broke away from his rehearsed male monologues that he has compiled over the years. (...and he never broke a sweat repeating them, either).
On the question of whether he wanted Iran to have nuclear weapons or not, during the many interviews, he had come out with the same answers, several times over; as if they were a carbon copy list of replies he had given reporters and TV interviewers before, the last time he was at the U.N., almost two years ago.
"Iran's nuclear program is for peaceful purposes,"; quote, unquote.
Or, did his country support terrorism or not; and he would say,
"We don't support terrorism in any way, shape or form. Iran is a peaceable country."; quote, unquote.
Only this time around, he had to throw in two new subjects; 1. That, some believed
"9/11 was caused by segments within the U.S." to cover up a failing economy, and "to save Israel." However, how that happened, he was completely mum about it.
If he had mentioned the CIA or any other group(s) used for secret military missions overseas or even internally, like the FBI, he would have given himself away as one, who has been thoroughly doing his homework; but he wanted to sound deliberate and off-the-cuff, if not summarily casual, just to deceive his listeners; therefore, there was no naming of any organizations.
The other was, 2. Presenting his views on the world economy at large, and saying the U.S. and other Western powers were dominating the decision making processes; and therefore an overhaul of "undemocratic and unjust decision making bodies," was long overdue.
There too, he refused to mention any names, like The World Bank or the IMF; however, those two organizations immediately came to mind, anyway.
With the second subject, he has found an opportune time to arbitrarily assume the title role of "the defender of the poor" around the world. CRIKEY! What a surprise.
Yet, all that was done to camouflage his own difficulties back in Iran, where the economy was in shambles; and his position as president was still in question, whether the election that brought him into power for the second time was rigged, just as the first.
In other words, his own political survival was at stake; and he would depend on being able to develop a nuclear bomb, (or at least an IED of it), to indicate to his fellow countrymen that his regime has taken Iran to a new level, militarily, of course, by ushering it (Iran) into the nuclear age, and thus making it an International force to reckon with. (A wondrous achievement; wouldn't that be).
The proof of that assumption was in his statement, when he first arrived to attend the 2010 U.N. General Assembly; when he said, "the future belongs to Iran," and that "the United States must recognize his nation 'is a big power'."; quote, unquote.
He realizes everywhere he turns, he is on slippery ground; even in "his own neck of the woods", where the elite in society forms a formidable opposition, as far as his regime is concerned; in addition to the fact that his U.N. audience was being wary of his radical views.
All of his remarks, whether he is aware or not, unequivocally give him away.
He surmises he wants a nuclear free world, and yet, he advocates the annihilation of Israel by nuclearization, probably; showing how unstable and insecure the man is.
He cannot choose to be pleasant to his neighbors, as he is testing missiles for war; but here in New York City, he is clamoring for a world without "the bomb"; a precarious stance to please, perhaps the U.S. and members of what is termed "the nuclear club", which is determined to reject him.
Or to tantalize the Ayatollahs in Iran, whose views are, most of the time, at variance with the rest of the world. He wants to have it both ways, so to speak.
The message he brought with him to The U.N. General Assembly was fraught with so much confusion, and a whole lot of misinformation; indicating his political life was at its ebb.
In the end, there was every indication that, he has been "able to fool all the people some of the time," and "even fool some of the people all the time,"; but he could not "fool all the people all the time.", with his negative speeches to The U.N. General Assembly members, and his wry and warn-out answers to, at least, the American public, watching him on television.
Ahmadinejad, an unwelcome guest to the club.
P.S. (IED: improvised explosive device).
Friday, September 24, 2010
SHOULD AMERICA LEARN MORE?
Complete Fabrication.
The U. N. had an earful of anti-American political effusion, coupled with Israeli epithets; and uncompromising jargon that would come from a person no less than Iran's President Ahmadinejad, who had practiced his speech, several years ahead of time, to deliver it to the present day General Assembly meeting, Thursday, 23rd September, 2010.
His words caused the U.S. delegation to walk out of the chamber in protest, for insensitively accusing America of collusion in the 9/11 attacks of The World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington D.C.
To many, it was a bunch of complete balderdash; and it would be looked upon as something to be brushed aside or to ignore, to the point of it being a passing fancy fit only for children; yet, to the politically astute, he was narrating what the Islamic world had known for years, that the attacks have been planned long before they happened; and that a cogent story had to be formulated to bring America into a corroborative position or some type of involvement in the attacks to support that story, and so to make it believable.
He really had nothing much to say than to make the U.S. look bad. It (U.S) would have no objection to the statements that he was dishing out, except to stage a walk out; which it did, because he was in a forum as head of state, and anything he said would not be held against him.
However, an accusation has been made, even though under diplomatic circumstances, to embarass the U.S.; it has to be taken seriously and be met with a response that it deserved. It was a total fabrication by a world leader speaking at the U.N to a worldwide audience. Therefore, its effect would be far-reaching, if nothing was done to counteract it.
It is for the U. S. Government State Department to issue a strong warning to Iran, opposing such an atrocious accusation; and investigate it as well, Should not America be forced to learn more?
The U. N. had an earful of anti-American political effusion, coupled with Israeli epithets; and uncompromising jargon that would come from a person no less than Iran's President Ahmadinejad, who had practiced his speech, several years ahead of time, to deliver it to the present day General Assembly meeting, Thursday, 23rd September, 2010.
His words caused the U.S. delegation to walk out of the chamber in protest, for insensitively accusing America of collusion in the 9/11 attacks of The World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington D.C.
To many, it was a bunch of complete balderdash; and it would be looked upon as something to be brushed aside or to ignore, to the point of it being a passing fancy fit only for children; yet, to the politically astute, he was narrating what the Islamic world had known for years, that the attacks have been planned long before they happened; and that a cogent story had to be formulated to bring America into a corroborative position or some type of involvement in the attacks to support that story, and so to make it believable.
He really had nothing much to say than to make the U.S. look bad. It (U.S) would have no objection to the statements that he was dishing out, except to stage a walk out; which it did, because he was in a forum as head of state, and anything he said would not be held against him.
However, an accusation has been made, even though under diplomatic circumstances, to embarass the U.S.; it has to be taken seriously and be met with a response that it deserved. It was a total fabrication by a world leader speaking at the U.N to a worldwide audience. Therefore, its effect would be far-reaching, if nothing was done to counteract it.
It is for the U. S. Government State Department to issue a strong warning to Iran, opposing such an atrocious accusation; and investigate it as well, Should not America be forced to learn more?
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
THE U. N. AND HUNGER.
Hunger and Thirst.
The difference of opinion expressed by world leaders at the U.N. antipoverty summit this year is not surprising at all, with President Ahmadinejad of Iran holding on to the fact that capitalism is mainly responsible for the world's poor economic conditions.
He reiterated that, governments, led by the U.S., have somehow relinquished their moral obligation to bring lesser nations into the decision making process of the overall world economy. He continued to appeal for "the overhaul of 'undemocratic and unjust' global decision-making bodies, which are dominated by the U. S. and other Western powers."
The meeting has been convened to "assess and spur on achievement of U.N. targets set by world leaders in 2000"; and thus to garnish some results from its Millennium Development Goals that have been set some ten years before. It (meeting) portrays why the U. N. has been formed, several years back, to deal with all kinds of problems, including poverty, of course.
Now, it has somewhat the privilege to weave through the bickering and argument that have characterized the U. N. for so long, and has made it necessary for the suggestion that it must be moved from New York City to some other place, because it has outlived its usefulness.
Billions of people are still suffering from diseases of several kinds; and there is still hunger and thirst in many parts of the world; however, do all these things have to be attributed to the U.S. and its few rich allies, or do all leaders have to admit their share of responsibility for the negligence that has prompted such economic woes that the world is facing today?
The answer is "No", to the former part of the question; and "Yes" to the latter part. What must happen is for some cultures to change to allow basic education to become widespread, even in the remotest parts of the world; and for the attitudes of governments to be more responsive to the needs of the people that they are supposed to serve.
It is wonderful for German Chancellor Angela Merkel to stress that "the primary responsibility for development lies with the governments of the developing countries," and she continued to emphasize that "the key to economic prosperity was good governance and a flourishing capitalist economy."
Such is the statement people are waiting to hear from the leaders of the world at the U. N.; alongside the fact that capitalism is good, if utilized properly to benefit all peoples.
The difference of opinion expressed by world leaders at the U.N. antipoverty summit this year is not surprising at all, with President Ahmadinejad of Iran holding on to the fact that capitalism is mainly responsible for the world's poor economic conditions.
He reiterated that, governments, led by the U.S., have somehow relinquished their moral obligation to bring lesser nations into the decision making process of the overall world economy. He continued to appeal for "the overhaul of 'undemocratic and unjust' global decision-making bodies, which are dominated by the U. S. and other Western powers."
The meeting has been convened to "assess and spur on achievement of U.N. targets set by world leaders in 2000"; and thus to garnish some results from its Millennium Development Goals that have been set some ten years before. It (meeting) portrays why the U. N. has been formed, several years back, to deal with all kinds of problems, including poverty, of course.
Now, it has somewhat the privilege to weave through the bickering and argument that have characterized the U. N. for so long, and has made it necessary for the suggestion that it must be moved from New York City to some other place, because it has outlived its usefulness.
Billions of people are still suffering from diseases of several kinds; and there is still hunger and thirst in many parts of the world; however, do all these things have to be attributed to the U.S. and its few rich allies, or do all leaders have to admit their share of responsibility for the negligence that has prompted such economic woes that the world is facing today?
The answer is "No", to the former part of the question; and "Yes" to the latter part. What must happen is for some cultures to change to allow basic education to become widespread, even in the remotest parts of the world; and for the attitudes of governments to be more responsive to the needs of the people that they are supposed to serve.
It is wonderful for German Chancellor Angela Merkel to stress that "the primary responsibility for development lies with the governments of the developing countries," and she continued to emphasize that "the key to economic prosperity was good governance and a flourishing capitalist economy."
Such is the statement people are waiting to hear from the leaders of the world at the U. N.; alongside the fact that capitalism is good, if utilized properly to benefit all peoples.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
REPEAL D.A.D.T.?
RECONSIDER.
America will never win any war in the Middle East, if the DADT policy is overturned. The Afghan war and the Iraq war will be in jeopardy, because they will be fought, tooth and nail, by Islamists, who think that homosexuality is an abomination, and that it must never be tolerated in any society. Therefore, they will be damned, if they are forced to face a bunch of soldiers who happen to be that type.
The whole U.S. military will be affected, as it will be branded as being abnormal or a company of "kafirs". In that respect, it will be impossible for any manner of support to be gleaned from even those who are regarded as moderate Muslims. "Kafir is the worst word in the human language.", http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/kafir/
If it is attached to our men and women, who are fighting two wars to secure our freedom and peace, they will be saddled with a moral burden that they have not asked for, and do not deserve, in addition to their normal military duties. In other words, morale within the military will deteriorate; it will be drained to such an extent that their readiness will become ineffective.
At this juncture, the Republicans, who are threatening to filibuster the Defense Bill, which is before the Senate Armed Services Committee tend to be right, especially from the perspective that Pentagon must be permitted to complete "a review of the impact of changing the policy."
Among whom is Senator McCain, a war hero, who is insisting that, changing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy will "hurt military readiness and unit cohesion in the middle of two ongoing wars,"
Many people, including myself, have written about this issue before; but the Obama administration keeps suggesting that the repeal of the ban will please a portion of its political base, even though such an act will be detrimental to the whole nation. The administration must reconsider.
P.S. Lady Gaga has had her say, regarding this matter. Now it is my turn. Thank you.
P.P.S. If the U.S. fails in the Middle East, it will fail everywhere.
America will never win any war in the Middle East, if the DADT policy is overturned. The Afghan war and the Iraq war will be in jeopardy, because they will be fought, tooth and nail, by Islamists, who think that homosexuality is an abomination, and that it must never be tolerated in any society. Therefore, they will be damned, if they are forced to face a bunch of soldiers who happen to be that type.
The whole U.S. military will be affected, as it will be branded as being abnormal or a company of "kafirs". In that respect, it will be impossible for any manner of support to be gleaned from even those who are regarded as moderate Muslims. "Kafir is the worst word in the human language.", http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/kafir/
If it is attached to our men and women, who are fighting two wars to secure our freedom and peace, they will be saddled with a moral burden that they have not asked for, and do not deserve, in addition to their normal military duties. In other words, morale within the military will deteriorate; it will be drained to such an extent that their readiness will become ineffective.
At this juncture, the Republicans, who are threatening to filibuster the Defense Bill, which is before the Senate Armed Services Committee tend to be right, especially from the perspective that Pentagon must be permitted to complete "a review of the impact of changing the policy."
Among whom is Senator McCain, a war hero, who is insisting that, changing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy will "hurt military readiness and unit cohesion in the middle of two ongoing wars,"
Many people, including myself, have written about this issue before; but the Obama administration keeps suggesting that the repeal of the ban will please a portion of its political base, even though such an act will be detrimental to the whole nation. The administration must reconsider.
P.S. Lady Gaga has had her say, regarding this matter. Now it is my turn. Thank you.
P.P.S. If the U.S. fails in the Middle East, it will fail everywhere.
Monday, September 20, 2010
A NEW DAY AT THE U.N.
Have Serious Talks.
The U.N. General Assembly is hosting world leaders again this week; with President Obama scheduled to address the august body on Wednesday. Other leaders will have their chance to speak, and to express their perception of how the state of world affairs are shaping, either for peace or for conflict among member nations.
To find ways to solve the myriad of problems the U.N. has at its door must be the foremost agenda for all the leaders, instead of the quibbling, wrangling and animosity that have pervaded previous meetings; such as Iran developing nuclear energy, and eventually having plans to produce weapons, and others following suit; and North Korea sinking a ship for no other purpose, but just to start trouble with its southern neighbor.
President Ahmadinenad has already been saying that, "the future belongs to Iran," and that "the United States must recognize his nation 'is a big power'." That already looks like throwing down the gauntlet on the part of Iran, and by so doing, putting the U.S. on the spot.
Most people will wonder what the U.S. response will be; and if President Obama is not too careful, such a statement can start a spark of contention, or at least, a great deal of misunderstanding that will go a long way to mar the spirit of unity and the purposefulness of peace for which the meeting has been convened, and of which the U.N. must be more concerned about.
The man in the street; the ordinary New Yorker, will be going about his business as usual; but he will also be watching how the leaders of the civilized world will tend to behave toward each other; and he will learn from it, whether good or bad. Have serious talks instead.
We all wish the U.N. peace and harmony in its deliberations this week.
The U.N. General Assembly is hosting world leaders again this week; with President Obama scheduled to address the august body on Wednesday. Other leaders will have their chance to speak, and to express their perception of how the state of world affairs are shaping, either for peace or for conflict among member nations.
To find ways to solve the myriad of problems the U.N. has at its door must be the foremost agenda for all the leaders, instead of the quibbling, wrangling and animosity that have pervaded previous meetings; such as Iran developing nuclear energy, and eventually having plans to produce weapons, and others following suit; and North Korea sinking a ship for no other purpose, but just to start trouble with its southern neighbor.
President Ahmadinenad has already been saying that, "the future belongs to Iran," and that "the United States must recognize his nation 'is a big power'." That already looks like throwing down the gauntlet on the part of Iran, and by so doing, putting the U.S. on the spot.
Most people will wonder what the U.S. response will be; and if President Obama is not too careful, such a statement can start a spark of contention, or at least, a great deal of misunderstanding that will go a long way to mar the spirit of unity and the purposefulness of peace for which the meeting has been convened, and of which the U.N. must be more concerned about.
The man in the street; the ordinary New Yorker, will be going about his business as usual; but he will also be watching how the leaders of the civilized world will tend to behave toward each other; and he will learn from it, whether good or bad. Have serious talks instead.
We all wish the U.N. peace and harmony in its deliberations this week.
Friday, September 17, 2010
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)