Posted on 01/22/2013 5:30:27 AM PST by shortstop
It was a speech liberals will love, conservatives will hate and history will forget.
It was 18 minutes of paying off the base and rewarding the coalition. It was a president who won 52 percent of the vote thumbing his nose at the other 48 percent.
There was pomp and circumstance, a torturous poem and some good singing. The family looked good, the crowd seemed large, the Capitol was stunning. As inaugurations go, it was a good, solid medium. It upheld tradition, it showcased the president, it followed tradition and law.
Sure, there was too much Schumer, and the crowd left the National Mall looking like a trash-strewn dump, but the oath got taken and the speech got made and another one is in the books.
It was not, however, a memorable one.
There is no lasting line, there was no national challenge, the pauses for applause were forced. And a president who calls for unity continued to polarize, to so firmly cling to one ideology that its opponent is unavoidably excluded.
There are two Americas, and one of them wasn’t invited to the inauguration.
We are a nation awash in debt and imbalance, where the family is decaying and our position is weakening. And the president spoke of global warming and gay rights, of the interests of feminism and the cause of illegal immigrants. Gun control and entitlement, class warfare and redistribution. He described a world where takers are not takers and where the threat to freedom is not external, but innately American.
And that may have been defining.
In the president’s speech, at the root of it all, we weren’t the good guys, we were the bad guys. At least some of us were. Some of us were good guys and some of us were bad guys and the good guys were at the inauguration and the bad guys must have been home watching it on TV.
When the president spoke of pioneers of freedom, he didn’t talk about those who bought and defended our freedom against foreign foes or on foreign shores, he talked about those whose battles were fought here, against the established order of their day.
It was Seneca Falls, Selma and Stonewall.
Those were the pioneers, those were the heroes, that was the closest thing to a memorable phrase.
Seneca Falls was the first major convention for women’s rights, in a small upstate New York village in 1848. Selma was a pair of marches met by violent opposition in 1965, as people stood to claim black voting rights. Stonewall was a mafia-run gay bar in Greenwich Village in 1969, and the hub of nights of riots in which streets were mobbed and looted, and police were attacked.
These events are seen as milestones in the women’s rights movement, the civil rights movement, and the gay rights movement.
Beyond the fact that those three communities were essential components in Barack Obama’s re-election, the events described and the causes highlighted share something else.
They define us as the problem.
In earlier eras, we have seen America as the defender of freedom and outside forces as threats to freedom. We stood against the Central Powers, we pushed back against European meddling in the Americas. We fought Hitler and the Emperor. We stood unflinching in the face of Soviet and Chinese communism.
And now we stand toe to toe with an Islam that practices apartheid against women, denying them the barest vestiges of equality, and which seems in country after country intent on driving Christians and Jews out of sight and out of existence.
And yet, as the president of the United States began his second term, as he defined the paradigm of his worldview, the fight for freedom was not against the world, it was against an established but intolerant American order.
Seneca Falls was a fight against American intolerance. Selma was a fight against American intolerance. Stonewall was a fight against American intolerance.
In each of these narratives, Obama supporters were freedom fighters against an America that deprived and oppressed them.
The enemy was not an external “them,” it was an immoral “us.”
The implication of the speech was that that is still the case today. The implication of the speech was that the fight for freedom today is still internal to American society. The implication of the speech was that one part of America is in righteous conflict with another, and that the president is going to, with the power of his office, lead that conflict.
And that’s too bad.
Because the name of the country is the United States of America, with the emphasis on the first word.
And the inaugural address was not from the mouth of the leader of a united nation, but from the heart of a leader of one part of that nation in open contempt of the other part of that nation.
The view unavoidably casts a taint on the nation's past, and upon portions of the nation's present. It divides people by philosophy or class or race or orientation. It doesn't unite, it divides, it sets one group of Americans angrily against another.
And that’s too bad.
Because four years is a long time.
A very long time.
And I'm still wondering what she meant. Where has she been for the last few hundred years...was she locked in some evil white man's basement?
Saw an african-american woman, tears on her face, tell the camera when someone shoved a microphone in her direction “we are free now”
And I’m still wondering what she meant. Where has she been for the last few hundred years...was she locked in some evil white man’s basement?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What it means is the birth of Afro American nationalism
as an empowered, mainstream political force in America. I have been somewhat strident in telling folks that Obama is not only a socialist but a NATIONALIST socialist.....indeed a fascist.
As Obama connects to the black nationalist movement as status quo, he acquires his means to accomplish “collective action.”
Things are about to get really tough in some parts of America.
FREE AT LAST, THANK GOD WE ARE FREE AT LAST.......( the knives are being sharpened for urban warfare.)
I wonder, did they ever get their 40 acres and a mule? If not, you better be careful, multiply the coloured population by 40 acres and mules, and that’s a whole new ball game. (Joking?) Guess you can expect zero to support demands for reparations to the UN during this term, like MX planned to do. There’s good reason for the MLK link-up, I read somewhere MX and MLK only met once for a few minutes and THAT photo-op has been used ever since although they had nothing in common.
You’ve allowed history to be re-written by the rabble, allowed the islamist slavers to accuse you of slavery, to convert negroes in prison to islam, to come out and stab your country in the back as black panthers.
It’s going to get ugly long before it gets any different, if it ever does.
One of the daughters of MX had it right when she said recently, that obama was doing exactly what her father did, but obama was COMMUNITY ORGANIZING ON A WORLD SCALE.
Think about it.
One of the daughters of MX had it right when she said recently, that obama was doing exactly what her father did, but obama was COMMUNITY ORGANIZING ON A WORLD SCALE.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes, we know he is organizing on a world scale after Kenya in 2007.
His latest foray is in the Magreb.He has armed every camel humper from the Aswan dam to northern Nigeria, with ordnance from Libya, including 30, 000 shoulder launch stinger stylr missles effective up to 20, 000 feet in altitude. He very handily armed Mexican Drug cartels on our tax dollars until he was caught
This is the mark of Obama’s fascism and Hillery Clinton should be ashamed in not revealing these facts to The People.
Today Hillery Clinton in her testimony before Congress had a chance to step up and be counted as a patriot. She failed miserably, and because of this she never will become president of the United States. I am sure Obama has his own successor in mind.
I have the impression he wants an unlimited number of terms to run, and then his elder daughter, the granddaughter of the 'famous' civil-rights-advocate-convert-to-islam will take over when she's ready. That should just about coincide with the time that the coloured people in the US outnumber the whites, according to another comment I heard...the woman who made it said our numbers are in the ascendancy.
Have you ever heard that expression used? What might have given her that idea? Is this a new meme or an old one? I saw an article recently that suggested white Americans would soon be outnumbered
PS. It's funny how these revealing snippets don't get edited out from news reports shown on TV in Austalia...
Africa appears to be the location of the new killing fields to which the coalition countries now exiting Afghanistan will contribute materiel (not men) so that the africans who don't want sharia can fight the fanatics. What you are seeing is a classic example of We'll arm you to let you and them fight each other.
Algeria set the tone already, and the UN is totally superflous in the desert.
The followers of Wahhab are in a struggle to the death with the Sauds and the West is firmly in the camp of the Kingdom imo.
The followers of Wahhab are in a struggle to the death with the Sauds and the West is firmly in the camp of the Kingdom imo. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thats pretty much it. Obama has done the House of Saud’s dirty work for them, as the cult fights occur all over the Magreb kiloiing millions and Obama also is bent on a Socialist Utopia at home where freedom no longer can raise her now palid head, where citizens no longer have guns to fight these same cultists should they decide to do their dirty in the USA, they are already here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.