Hatin’ On Obama - PART I

1. Politics in general

I enjoy politics. I am trying to move away from the word “love” when describing my attachment, enjoyment, or pleasure I get from something. When you think about it, it sounds totally ridiculous to say, “I love politics.” or “I love McDonald’s.” or “I love football.” As Westerners, we really abuse the word love in this way. Before I get off on that tangent, I will continue with my political rant today… As I was saying, I enjoy politics a great deal. I think that in the long run, in our day and age, the politicians are by and large a group of either dishonest men who can pass as crooks in some contexts or they are on their way to being such. However, the fights, contrived fights, struggles, deals, alliances, rivalries, interplay, images, evolutionary change, revolutionary change, personalities, cults, ideas, ideologues, leaders, followers, etc. etc. etc. involved in politics are fascinating. Ironically, I have never voted—well I take that back; I do vote from time to time on the NBA All-Star ballot—ever since you could do it online. But politically, I don’t vote. In terms of the U.S. presidency, I think it’s a waste of time. Really! Every four years the incumbent embellishes all the great things that took place while he was president, while his challenger demands that “change” is what’s needed in order for America to get off the path of destruction. Here in the states, it’s all about the economy. People vote with their wallets. Yes, the bozos talk about crime, education, national security; even age old issues like abortion and gay marriage get tossed around. But, at the end of the day, Americans want to know three things:

1. The unemployment rate

2. The price of gas

3. Can I sell my house and make a profit?

That’s it. And to be honest with you, the president has little to do with that. What happens is that if the economy is good, the president takes the credit. On the other hand, if it is bad, you know who gets the blame. It’s really silly and tells you how uniformed and basically ignorant the American voting populace (as well as pretty much everyone else in the world in this arena) actually is. The fact of the matter is that the market itself is like any other organism; it goes through seasons and cycles of growth, contraction, stagnation, and even death and rebirth. Whatever clown is in the White House has little to do with this. The only thing they can do is put together “bail-out packages” and things of that nature to give the public some kind of reassurance that the government is “on it”—don’t worry—“keep shopping.” Well, pouring money into something that is failing not only does nothing, it can actually exacerbate certain problems. Hasn’t all the billions of dollars in aid to Africa taught us that? Again, I digress…

My point in not voting is that I believe that the powers that control the destiny of a nation—especially ones like the U.S.--lie far outside the walls of the White House. Barack Obama, no matter how you feel about him, campaigned on one word; CHANGE. OK, halfway through his term how is America different? The housing market and the unemployment rate still suck. Therefore, the economy has not changed. There are still young American troops fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan. Therefore, the war has not changed. Statistically, drugs, crime, HIV/AIDS rates, educational performance, etc. has not “changed much” either. So, Mr. Obama sold us a lie or he, like everyone else, is realizing that it’s much easier to talk about than to do about. I firmly believe that most of these areas, save the war, the government has little control over. Most of these issues handle themselves or are issues that are best addressed from the bottom up, the citizenry, not the top down, the government. Besides, in a virtual two-party system like the one in America, how is a narrow choice of two candidates (which are not as politically diametrically opposed as they would have you to believe) a true example of a fair and functioning democracy?

Nonetheless, I do enjoy politics. And for the record, I think Mr. Obama is doing a great job—considering the mess he inherited. Sometimes in the U.S. we focus so much on our problems—on all the imperfections we have in our society, that we forget it is still the number one country that foreigners would move to if they had a choice. It is one of the few countries where you can actually chase a dream and have a good chance of realizing it. It is one of the only places where you can be born into poverty and not have to be locked into it for the rest of your life. America is far from perfect, but it’s still the best deal out there. If you disagree, travel a little bit around the world. Yes, my government has committed heinous crimes not only against its (so called) enemies, but also against its own citizens. But when I juxtapose the U.S.’s record on such things against that of the rest of the world—give me the “stars and stripes” any day. We have a long way to go in America, but I would not rather be anywhere else and try my luck in life. Again, I digress…

It is common to dislike or be against certain people in the political realm that do not support or agree with your particular socio-political ideologies/stances. This is especially true for issues that one feels supremely passionate about (i.e. immigration, abortion, religious liberties, war, etc.). It can downright get nasty and personal. To a degree I understand that. That is part of the nature of politics. I don’t necessarily condone hating someone to the point of wanting to kill them or wanting them to die. But then again our world would have been a lot better if people like Adolph Hitler, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Kim Jong-Il, and Omar al-Bashir would have taken an early “dirt nap.” So, I can’t always agree with killing a leader, but I guess if he/she is the direct cause of mass murder and suffering then their deaths would be well deserved.

With that said, I can understand that there are some people that strongly dislike Barack Obama and what he stands for—no, not to the point of the aforementioned dictators, but there are some who harness a strong dislike for him. If it is in fact rooted in their various political affiliations and beliefs—so be it. America is a country where we can think and express such thoughts openly without fear of harsh reprisal (unlike the country I presently live and work in). But I question the validity of some of this “Anti-Obama-ism” present in America. By default, there will be those in his own political camp who feel that he has not done enough to bring about the promises of “change” that he built his campaign upon—and rightly so. America is pretty much the same. Then there are those who will always be against him because they simply sit on the other side of the political table. OK, I get that. But when one looks at the amount and intensity of this blatant dislike and even hatred towards Barack Obama, I question the legitimacy of its source. Put simply, some of the dislike and, at times, hatred that people feign as just a political/ideological response, I firmly believe is actually rooted in good old American racism. Yep. I said it. Some people do not and therefore will not ever like or appreciate what President Obama is or does—because he is not White. These are the people that find fault with every single thing he says and supports—no matter what.  Give me a few minutes and I will explain.

2. Dishonest dislike

Ever since the election of Barack Obama, there has been a tendency for a few White people to feel the need to inform Black people that they are not prejudice whenever he comes up in a political/social conversation. Here is what happens. Just about every time you get into a discussion about the current president, if the White person you are speaking with is not a supporter of President Obama, you will hear, “Oh, it’s not that I didn’t vote for Barack Obama because he’s Black—no, no, I just disagree with his policies.” Or you may hear, “No, his color has nothing to do with it. I just don’t like what he stands for.” This is comical. This is like hearing White people tell you how they cannot be prejudice or operate out of bigotry because they have Black friends, they have Black in-laws, or they have at one time or another worked with Black people. As if befriending, working with, or being related to Black people automatically makes it impossible for you to harbor any racial ill will. Such statements are both insulting and absurd to say the least. They are absolutely unnecessary. Not all Black people in America are ready to call you a “racist” simply because you did not vote for or you currently do not agree with or support Barack Obama. For White people to assume that they need to preface each statement about him with such idiocy is quite indicative of their tendency to (still) think for us or evidence a most futile attempt to actually cover their bigotry through denial. When we have a political discussion about Mr. Barack Obama, I am not analyzing his race or ethnicity unless it is relevant to the topic. These attributes of his have nothing to do with his economic, national defense oriented, foreign policy, or domestic issue stances. He is simply the U.S. president with his opinions under examination. He is not the Black president with Black points of view that I will only analyze from a Black perspective. To assume that most if not all Black people in America think this way is highly ignorant--and we all know racism is in part based on ignorance--hmmm…

In reality, I would rather the White people who don’t like the president because of his skin color/ethnicity to just be honest about it. Everyone is entitled to like or dislike who they wish for whatever reason they choose (to include racial bigotry). But I feel it extremely cowardly and deceptive to hate the U.S. president because he is a Black American but hide your disdain behind the veneer of political differences. I can respect a bigot—if he or she is honest about it. At least I know where they are coming from. Sure, if you are a bigot, you are pretty much ignorant, fearful, and filled with hatred. But if you own up to it, I have a much higher opinion of you than the one who shakes my hand, smiles in my face, slaps me on the back, asks how my family is doing, and then refers to me as a “nigger” once behind closed doors. It is my firm belief that more racial bigots are of the latter cowardly sort. At least the skinheads don’t hide behind white sheets when they hold demonstrations.

With that said, the presidency of Barack Obama has caused what I like to term, a “dishonest dislike” to arise in our nation. What I mean by this is that there is a concerted effort to discredit, diminish, and deconstruct everything positive that Mr. Obama does and stands for. It is my belief that this constant barrage of negativity is in part due to racial prejudice. Not all—but a meaningful amount of the “anti-Obama-ism” is rooted not in political differences but in racial differences. How else can you explain some of what is going on? There is an old saying; “Even a broken clock is right twice a day.” But it seems like a broken clock has a better track record than Mr. Obama. Some of these “critics” find fault with every single thing he says, decision he makes, and issue he supports/opposes. I understand that a good portion of it is partisan-ism. But there are others who are just dead set on being against him no matter what. Every opportunity, no matter how trivial, these types of people get, they will try and use to degrade Mr. Obama and his policies. Let’s look at a few

1.  There are these idiots that are still trying to say that President Obama was not born in the U.S. so therefore, he should be disqualified from running for president. How do you respond to such absurdity? Is responding to it giving it more attention or relevance than it’s worth? I mean, should these imbeciles even be taken seriously? The birth certificate showing that he was in fact born in Hawaii has surfaced. But that has not stopped these buffoons from still claiming that he was born outside of the U.S. Let’s call it what it is—ignorance and racial prejudice. There is an element of White America that cannot come to terms with the fact that a Black man is in the White house with his Black wife and two Black children. They hate to have to concede that from this day forward, at least during one term, the political face of America is symbolized by a Black man—and he doesn’t speak like Bryant Gumble. I have a sound bit of advice for these people; treat this issue as if it were a fence that stood in your way of progress… get over it!
2. There is another group of morons who claim that Mr. Obama is secretly a Muslim. And as such, he is not only unfit to be the president (I guess because in a nation where supposedly you can worship or not worship religiously as you please—but seemingly you have to be a White male Christian in order to be president), but he also is a potential turncoat because his allegiances will be to Allah first and country much, much later. Thus, this set of idiots looks at President Obama as some sort of Islamic Manchurian Candidate, that because of his closeted faith, will somehow open the floodgates for America to become the next “Islamo-fascist” (a superbly ridiculous term these boneheads have invented and still abuse) state and open itself up to Islamic Fundamentalist sponsored terrorism. Again, I feel a bit of guilt even devoting time and energy to these fools. For a number of reasons, this whole issue is stupid (sorry, after scouring my severely limited English vocabulary, I am unable to locate a more fitting term). Number one, if we as Americans are proud of, exercise, and to an extent defend the right of all Americans to choose which way they practice or not practice their religious beliefs without fear of discrimination and/or judgment—why should it matter what religion he is? If a president were Catholic, would there be an outcry that he/she would all of a sudden become a politico-religious tool of the Pope and the Vatican? Of course not. Would this be the case if the president was a Mormon? Atheist? No. So it is quite hypocritical to just now, with this particular religious belief in the mix, become so concerned with the president’s religion. There are sane and crazy people who follow all faiths. Just as there are some people who believe that the spreading of their faith should include the acts of forced conversion, slavery, and even murder. But let’s be real. All major faiths of today have had adherents—including so called “Christians”—who have participated in the most inhumane crimes against their fellow citizens. This phenomenon is not limited to Islamic suicide bombers and plane hijacks in the Middle East. Do you know how many pastors and priests have been involved, implicated, and indicted in the Rwandan genocide just a short 17 years ago? Number two, President Obama has on numerous occasions come out and discussed at length his Christian faith. Do you realize that if he were truly a Muslim and did this how offensive this would be to his fellow Muslims and how in some Islamic schools of thought that such an act of Islamic denial/Christian embracing would be considered sacrilegious, abominable and even blasphemous? But apparently, it does not matter how many times President Obama goes on television and openly professes that he is a practicing Christian, there will be those racist idiots that refuse to believe he is not Muslim. Deep down, I think some of them know he is not a Muslim. But their stubborn bigotry will never permit them to release what they feel is another opportunity to discredit him. No matter how unreal and utterly preposterous these Islamic claims are, these racists stop at nothing to make the public believe that because his father was an African Muslim, that the proverbial apple does not fall par from the tree. They will take his Arabic (not Islamic and some ignoramuses state) name, his ethnicity, and his travels and want you to believe that these pieces of “evidence” are enough to scare the American public into thinking that if he is not impeached or stopped, that he will become the “soul brother” version of the Ayatollah Khomeini and replace every church and cross in America with a mosque and crescent moon. I’m sure you can start to see the picture now. Finally, (not because there aren’t more reasons, I am just growing tired of giving this attention) Mr. Obama’s attempts to reach out to the Middle Eastern and Islamic world are seen as examples of his pro-Islamic agenda for America. This is almost laughable. Mr. Obama’s overtures to this area of the world were rooted in motives of peace and stability through partnerships and common goals. They are not the fruit of some Anti-American/pro-Muslim plan to subvert the world and promote global Sharia law. For instance, his famous speech made in Egypt a few years ago was an attempt to build or strengthen the bridge between the Islamic and Middle Eastern community by promoting unity, peace, brotherhood, and development. Some argue, with force and some legitimacy, that this area of the world will never experience that. But whether or not that is an accurate viewpoint, to criticize such an earnest attempt at creating dialogue and identifying common ground with a group of people, that the media and some in the government has taught us to fear, has to be looked at as a step in the right direction. Anyone who uses such an act of positive diplomacy to spin and accuse this man of some Islamic conspiracy is obviously blinded by their own ignorance and prejudice.
3. Another comical idea about this president has been expressed by many White people I have come across who say that they don’t support President Obama because he, “Does not represent our forefathers or what this country was built upon.” Oh, wow… with a bit of knowledge about what this country “was built upon” I am not quite sure what they mean—nah, actually I do. But they are ignorant to what they are saying. Let me elaborate. First I will break down what they are saying. These White conservative types (not all White conservatives but the ones that use this lame excuse) are under the impression that all the so-called forefathers of America were a bunch of flag waving Rush Limbaugh types. Not so. Let’s just take the most famous one of all of them and examine him: Thomas Jefferson. This man, a deist, which was a sect of Christianity that summarily denied the existence of miracles and did not adhere to believing in the miracles documented in the Bible. They also believed that God was not too interested in human affairs but sort of stood far away from interaction with humanity. In addition, they looked at the Bible as more of a book of moral principles rather than a book filled with literal truths to be obeyed. This man who would become one of the first U.S. presidents was also involved with a Black mistress whom he even fathered children by. Yeah, that’s what I am talking about; a church going, Bible quoting, fornicator who had no problem with making illegitimate children on the side with his slave, Sally Hemings. She was ironically his slave he inherited from his wife who was also the half-sister of his wife through her father. This made her not only his sister in-law but means that his wife enslaved her own sister. He was also a published racist. Here are some of his quotes:
1. Yes, he once wrote concerning the stereotype of Black sexual appetites that, “… love seems with them to be a more eager desire, than a tender delicate mixture of sentiments and sensation…” In other words he contributes to the racist held belief that Black people are more primal in their interpretation and expression of love (being displayed only through sex) than that of the superior minded Whites who appreciate and understand loves emotional and intangible aspects. This is ironic coming from a man who couldn’t contain his animalistic sexual desire and chose a Black woman in a socially submissive position to deal with his passions after the death of his wife.
2. Furthermore, in his book entitled Notes on the State of Virginia, he compared Blacks with apes by saying that Blacks preferred the “superior beauty” of White people “as uniformly as is the preference of the Orang-ootan [sic] for the black woman over those of his own species.” So where does that place Mr. Jefferson? If he went past other White women and chose to father children (six in all) by a Black woman, is he not placing himself on the same level as an ape? How could his “superior” White eyes and mind prefer an “inferior” Black woman over the “superior” beauty of a White woman?
3. He also wrote that Black people were a “… separated species located beneath humans, but above Orang-ootans [sic].” I wonder how he classified his children by Ms. Hemings; human/monkey hybrids?
4. He once wrote that is was “fixed in nature” that Black people were inferior to Whites “in the endowments both of body and mind.” Furthermore, he elaborated that there was an “inane inferiority of Black compared to Whites.”
5. He was a staunch supporter of slavery and segregation. He once wrote that, “Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free. [But] the two races… cannot live in the same government.” No wonder this man was found to have well over 100 slaves at his death.

In addition, Thomas Jefferson is credited with authoring most of the Declaration of Independence. Therefore, he is credited with coming up with the famous phrase, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” I am sure you can plainly see the hypocrisy therein. Also, take note of this; what does it say about the character of a man, who took advantage of a woman who by the very nature of her social status as a slave (his slave), had to submit to him in every way? This woman, who bore him six children, remained his slave and so did their progeny. Yes, his own children were also his slaves. According to his beliefs, racially, she and thus their children were subhuman. Nonetheless, she was human enough for him to take advantage of his superior social position and have sex with, but she was not human enough for him to marry, free, or free their children who were closer to humanity (according to his racist theories) than she. Let that sink in.

Also, in regards to America’s so called “forefathers,” the very Constitution itself is evident of their elitist and racist attitudes. If this were not the case, why would it have to be changed numerous times in many years later to allow Black and then women the right to vote? Yes, the framers of this nation want you to believe that they viewed “all men” as “equal” yet, there was no provision made for women and non-Whites to be involved in the political process through exercising the right to vote. America: for White men and by White men—unless labor is needed to be done. Not only that, within the Constitution is a statement that tells states that when conducting a census to get an idea of how each state should be represented numerically in terms of taxing and revenue distribution, Blacks were to be counted as 3/5 or 60% of a person. So, not only were these “citizens” used for free labor and thus served as the backbone of the economic wealth and growth of America, but they were not even considered people by definition of the Constitution. This unsurprisingly falls right in line with the mindset of its framers such as Thomas Jefferson who of course considered such people subhuman. But at the end of the day, I guess a being that is 60% human is good enough to sire children by but not quite human enough to count as a real person.

So, when people say that Barack Obama does not represent what “our forefathers” stood for—well, I could not agree more and I am glad he does not. To me, if he stood for those things—an America controlled and directed by rich, White males politically, socially, and economically—he would never have been given a chance to be president. But then again who’s to say America is not that in spite of his position. I’ll let you decide.