suzyrice.com Rotating Header Image

AS TO OBAMA: MLK, FAILED; FOUNDING FATHERS, ABANDONED

Today is this thing called “Martin Luther King” day. A national holiday, though I disagree that he merits a national day of cessation of official business, though he authored and delivered a great speech (“I Have a Dream“).

From that great speech, however, Martin Luther King said this and this is what is most often repeated about King from that speech (and about which he was commemorated to such an extent that the U.S.A. now has a national holiday named for him):

“…not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

Well, he failed. Martin Luther King failed. Today’s proof of that, as is the entire last year and this coming week on top of it: Ninety-five percent of “Black people” voted for “the Black candidate” (so he was sold as), Barack Obama: not because of his character — which remains very bad-to-wretched if anyone reads anything about him aside from what’s chewed over by the Liberal-worker-termite sites — but because of the color of his skin (and theirs as to that “ninety-five percent of Blacks”).

Martin Luther King was grand for his speech-giving ability but as to what he opined, he failed. Because his advice didn’t take. Instead, race-addressing did and it continues today in full array for all the world to see: “the Black President” of the United States of America. And it was “the Black vote” (that ninety-five percent of American Black people who vote) who made him so: race appeal to race-appealing.

LINCOLN MAY NOT HAVE WELCOMED OBAMA’S ELECTION

I am quite sure that Abraham Lincoln would not have welcomed Obama’s election, based upon Obama’s political views and intents compared to — and offensive to — those held by Abraham Lincoln.

Why that is or would be so, is not a skin-color issue but a political-perspective issue.

But this current hype by Barack Obama — about Abraham Lincoln as if Obama was a protege of Lincoln’s (certainly not), about “the Founding Fathers” while Obama continues to openly declare his intents to alter so much of what they envisioned and wrote into history — combined with the race-appealing factor of Obama’s candidacy and pending inauguration, reveal a dreadful lack of informed understanding of not only distant history (Lincoln and his times and his political legacy) but of and about even contemporary history (King’s events and experiences): they are both rewritten today in the minds of some as that which neither was.

The statue of Abraham Lincoln, which sits facing the Capitol in a temple two miles away, will not give two thumbs up. Neither will it weep, commune with the spirit of Martin Luther King Jr. or dance a Macarena of joy.

The point is obvious, yes, but also necessary given that when Obama was elected in November, every third political cartoonist seemed to use an image of a celebrating Lincoln to comment upon the milestone that had occurred. Lincoln, they told us, would have been overjoyed.

Actually, Lincoln likely would have been appalled. How could he not? He was a 19th century white man who famously said in 1858 that “there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which . . . will forever forbid the two races living together upon terms of social and political equality.”

How do you reconcile that with all those cartoons of Lincoln congratulating Obama? You don’t. You simply recognize it for what it is: yet another illustration of how shallow our comprehension of history is, yet another instance where myth supersedes reality.

Not that this is anything new — or that political cartoonists are the only ones susceptible. Indeed, African Americans once tended to regard Lincoln with an almost religious reverence. Consider another Lincoln statue, this one in a park east of the Capitol: It depicts Lincoln towering over a newly freed black man who kneels at his feet. While modern eyes might find the image unbearably paternalistic, it represented the heartfelt sentiment of the black men and women who gave it to the city in 1876 in gratitude, they said, for Lincoln freeing the slaves.

Of course, Lincoln freed no slaves. That’s the myth. His Emancipation Proclamation was a military measure to demoralize and destabilize the rebellious South; it covered states he did not govern but did not apply in slaveholding states that remained under his jurisdiction.

None of which is to deny or diminish the greatness of the 16th president. His greatness stands unquestioned, unquestionable. We would be a very different nation, a lesser nation, without his political genius, his dogged faith in the unsundered Union, his refusal to accept less than Union, even when haunted by reversals and setbacks that would have broken anyone else.

No, the argument is not about Lincoln’s greatness. Rather, it is about our tendency to cherish untextured myths that affirm our preferred narratives. George Washington confessing that he chopped down the cherry tree is one, a parable of honesty that has survived for generations despite the minor inconvenience of not being true. Lincoln the Great Emancipator is yet another.

Abraham Lincoln did not believe in the equality of black people. He did, however — and this was no minor distinction in his era — believe in their humanity. He also abhorred slavery. But he was willing to countenance it if doing so would have vindicated his primary goal: to save the Union.

For him, nothing mattered more…

The myth that harasses the reality of Abraham Lincoln as it has been and is being perpetuated in the U.S. (since about 1965 or so) — Lincoln “freed the slaves” and/or Lincoln, “the Great Emancipator” — is the equivalent of utter brainwashing among our population and we should each, as responsible citizens, be asking ourselves why these wrong assumptions are insisted upon and by whom.

Abraham Lincoln has been assumed if not demanded to be the myth and not the reality because “reworking” American history was and is necessary in order for political goals — in opposition to American history and our American path toward Democracy — to surge forward: replace what was-or-is with what better supports or rationalizes a set of goals antagonistic to our nation’s. Namely, Communism, which requires that there be a struggling but heroic “underclass” who “overcomes oppression” by being “led out of the wasteland” by a figure larger than reality.

This is essentially how all Communist “revolutions” are structured and what’s being attempted via academics in the U.S.A. Note the recurring reliance on the (mostly, vulnerable) youth — today, in the U.S. and elsewhere in other areas — where these same socio-political changes have occurred. Obama continues to attempt ongoing exploits of youth’s vulnerability and eagerness to trust and admire and it is one of Barack Obama’s most terrible characteristics: that he can so easily exploit youth for his political goals and be so uninspiring morally and ethically in doing so.

Obama even today continues to assert that he wants “people” (note he’s not saying, “Americans” very often) “to work” for government, not the other way around. Not one among our Founding Fathers would tolerate such a statement, not once, from anyone poised upon the Presidency as Obama is. While Obama continues to pursue his political goal of actually putting many “people” to work serving more government — the rest, like youth, for example, he’s trying to motivate to “serve,” well, him. Awful! Hideous! Wretched defamation of our very founding principles.

While I would certainly describe Abraham Lincoln as, in history, a “large figure,” to twist and alter who the man was into some other figure who he was not changes reality, yes, but drugs or entrances perceptions of reality. People affected by such drugging literally go about “stoned” on a myth that they perpetuate into being accepted as genuine. The false becomes the legend and the reality of man, story, politics, ideals and events then becomes falsehood where truth once was.

And the same as to how our Founding Fathers today are being so used for popularity or “meme’s sake” by Barack Obama and followers, it’s offensive to our very character as a nation.

We can all, each of us as citizens, respect the Office of the Presidency regardless of what personality inhabits it, but, eventually we must, also as citizens, evaluate the behaviors and politics inhabited by whoever inhabits that Office. In which case, respecting the Office bears a responsibility to realistically evaluate the person in the Office.

Barack Obama is this week declaring strange reverance for if not usery of the reputations and legacies of the Founding Fathers while also, simultaneously, declaring that our nation needs to be redone. He says “a new Declaration of Independence is needed” (is not that an insurrectional declaration, particularly from anyone in government); he says “anything is possible” as to what and where the U.S.A. will be led or can go (is not that potentially threatening to our Constitution). He declares honor about our Founding Fathers and yet lectures on absurd political distortions of our nation’s government and very purpose of being.

In essence, both Martin Luther King AND Barack Hussein Obama are (or, were in King’s case) inherently more tuned-into Communism than they are in agreement with our Founding Fathers, and both were/are more tuned-into advancement-by-race and special privileges based upon race than any of our Founding Fathers would ever tolerate or more than likely with most of them, even listen to. Certainly, the Founding Fathers would confront the intellectual dishonesty inherent in race-based structuring with great academic acumen.

I imagine Barack Hussein Obama reciting his quirky, twisted narratives about his views on abortion, the value of unborn human life and infanticide by whatever cowardly terms Obama applies to all or any of that, and George Washington knocking Obama in the nose before he scoured the guy with chastising reprimands. George Washington was a sincere and dedicated Christian and his political and personal values and family relationships bore this out.

I can imagine John Adams even more livid with Obama about these very same issues and much more. Adams loathed a monarchy and his entire life is proof of that – Obama, unfortunately, has all the grandiose presumptions upon this nation that rivals any monarch or dictator anywhere and Adams would have found this personality aspect about Obama to be utterly offensive in the Presidency (or Senate, for that matter). Imagine Obama being confronted by Washington and/or Adams about his “present” voting record in the Senate, not to mention his overall character throughout his life.

In fact, there is little that is espoused today by Barack Obama that our Founding Fathers — and Abraham Lincoln later — could take seriously other than as a miscreant or enemy.

I wish the Office of our nation’s Presidency good will. I do not wish the politics of Barack Hussein Obama to succeed, however, because I disagree with just about everything he maintains when and if he dares to be specific (his generalities can be entertaining, I agree, but not in any sense that I’d agree with him on so many issues, not specifically — it’s one thing to wish all people well, to say that anything can be done that is imagined, etc., these are grandiose imaginings and inspirational statements that all optimistic individuals can agree with, but also notice that Obama reserves his specific beliefs and goals for rare moments as he also slips suggestions about what he actually believes into those grandiose speeches.

Which isn’t what Martin Luther King did. King, although of dubious character himself (studied Communism, had compromised interpersonal, intimate relationships, academic dishonesty), did clearly speak and inspire while avoiding Obama’s ongoing obfuscations, which Obama appears to engage in quite intentionally inorder to avoid declaring what he actually plans — not the characteristic of a person to admire and trust, not as “commander” in any regard.

And I dare say, Obama’s use of the celebrity as also his supporters’ insistence on him doing so and their unnatural attraction to Obama based upon such, would deeply offend Thomas Jefferson, among others. Would that we had these Founding Fathers with us today to confront what’s currently taking place. But then, we do: we have what they wrote, what they created, what they asked of us as citizens to do when such times might befall us and that was, to speak out and take action against such damages. It’s all there, in the Constitution.


C O M M E N T S : now closed