Democrats embrace modern America as Republicans reject it

dems

 

Which political party loves America? Not the United States that once existed, but the flesh-and-blood nation that we live in now.

The debates we have witnessed — too few and far between for the Democrats, frequent enough for the Republicans to constitute a new reality TV show — have provided an incontestable answer to that question.

The Democrats embrace the United States of Now in all of its raucous diversity.

Democrats are not free of nostalgia. They long for the more economically equal America of decades ago and celebrate liberalism’s heydays during the New Deal and civil rights years.

But Hillary Clinton, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Martin O’Malley all stand up for the rights of a younger America — today’s country — that is less white, more Latino and more Asian (and, yes, more Muslim) than was the U.S. of the past. The cultural changes that have reshaped us are welcomed as part of our historical trajectory toward justice and inclusion.

The Republicans, particularly Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.), don’t like our country right now. They yearn for the United States of Then. The current version is cast as a fallen nation.

True, the party shut out of the White House always assails the incumbent. But a deeper unease and even rage characterize the response of many in the GOP ranks to what the country has become. This can cross into a loathing that Trump exploits by promising to deport 11 million undocumented immigrantsand block Muslims from entering the country while dismissing dissent from his program of demographic reconstruction as nothing more than “political correctness.”

I am certain that in their hearts, every candidate in both parties still likes to see us as a “shining city upon a hill” and “the last best hope of Earth.” Within the GOP, Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) and Jeb Bush have been especially careful not to abandon the virtue of hope and any confidence in the present. But this makes them stronger as general-election candidates than within their own party.

The stark cross-party contrast complicates any assessment of Saturday’s Democratic debate. As Clinton, Sanders and O’Malley all made clear, each believes their own disputes are minor in light of the chasm that has opened between themselves and the Republicans.

“On our worst day, I think we have a lot more to offer the American people than the right-wing extremists,” Sanders declared at the debate’s end. O’Malley concluded similarly: “When you listened to the Republican debate the other night, you heard a lot of anger and a lot of fear. Well, they can have their anger and they can have their fear, but anger and fear never built America.”

Democratic solidarity was Clinton’s friend. She emerged stronger simply because neither of her foes made a clear case for upending the campaign’s existing order. Her own solid performance will reinforce those who already support her.

But two big quarrels between Clinton and Sanders are important to the Democrats’ future. By pledging to avoid any hike in taxes on those earning less than $250,000 a year, Clinton strengthened herself for her likely fall encounter with the other side. But Sanders deserves credit for speaking a truth progressives will need to face up to (and that social democrats in other countries have already confronted): that the programs liberals support are, in the long run, likely to require more broadly based tax increases.

On foreign policy, Clinton continued to be the more openly interventionist candidate. Here again, Clinton likely positioned herself well for the long run. But Sanders may yet capitalize on his comparative dovishness with the generally peace-minded Democratic caucus electorate in Iowa.

Each also offered revealing one-liners as to whether “corporate America” would love them. Clinton nicely deflected the question by saying, “Everybody should.” But Sanders was unequivocal. “No, they won’t,” he replied with starchy conviction.

Above all, this debate should embarrass the Democratic National Committee for scheduling so few of them, and for shoving some into absurdly inconvenient time slots that confined their audiences to political hobbyists.

Debates are a form of propaganda in the neutral sense of the word: They are occasions for parties to make their respective arguments. Given that the divide between the parties this year is so fundamental, it’s shameful that Democrats did not try to make their case to as many Americans as possible.

If you have faith in your response to anger and fear, you should be ready to bear witness before the largest congregation you can assemble.

 

SOURCE

THANK YOU PRESIDENT OBAMA: National Gas Prices Dip Below Two Bucks a Gallon

LOW-PRICES

 

Gas stations have an early Christmas present for American road-trippers. With gas becoming cheaper by the day, the national average has officially slipped below $2 a gallon for the first time in more than six years.

The milestone reflects a long slump in oil prices that has brought significant savings at the pump. According to AAA data, Monday’s average is 41 cents cheaper than the same day a year ago. Americans have saved more than $115 billion on gas this year, or $550 for every licensed driver.

“The best news of all is that there is room for prices to drop even more in the coming weeks,” AAA President and CEO Marshall Doney said in a statement.

AAA said Monday it estimated a U.S. average of $1.998 a gallon, the first glimpse of sub-$2 gas since March 25, 2009. Two-thirds of all gas stations in the country are now selling gas for $1.99 a gallon or less, and the most popular price is $1.899 a gallon.

Drivers in certain areas are seeing even bigger savings. Gas costs an average of $1.59 a gallon at the cheapest 1% of gas stations. The states with the lowest gas prices are Missouri and Oklahoma, where state averages sit near $1.77 to start the work week.

More than 91 million Americans are expected to drive at least 50 miles for the holidays, AAA said.

GasBuddy.com calculated a sub-$2 national average slightly earlier on Dec. 19. Its live ticking average on Monday morning was $1.995, 8.8 cents cheaper than a month ago.

The website noted that even though gas prices have been in retreat for over a year, the U.S. average has come up short of $1.99 a gallon because of slower declines in the West.

 

SOURCE

After Donald Trump demanded an apology from Hillary Clinton

irony

 

 

IRONY!

After Donald Trump demanded an apology from Hillary Clinton, who recently accused him of helping ISIS recruit members due to his anti-Muslim rhetoric, the Democratic front runner responded, and it wasn’t what the billionaire real estate mogul wanted to hear.

“HELL NO!”

Let’s be honest, Trump should first apologize to blacks, Latinos, Muslims, refugees, women, and the poor for his hate-filled rhetoric, which has been used as an excuse to harm individuals at his rallies, and offending millions.

Americans shouldn’t let Trump and others “divide us by race.”

bernie

Sanders said this a “very dangerous moment in American history,” citing not only terrorists attacks but a struggling economy.

“You know what they are anxious about?” Sanders began. “They are working harder. They’re working more hours . . . and they are saying the rich are getting richer. They’re saying ‘I’m getting poorer. What are you going to do about it.’

“Then someone like Trump comes along,” Sanders continued, “saying we have to hate the Mexicans . . . we have to hate the Muslims. . . . Meanwhile the rich get richer.” Sanders said Americans shouldn’t let Trump and others “divide us by race.”

Bernie Sanders Could Win. Yet, a New Study Proves He is being Blacked Out by Mass Media.

bernie

According to the Tyndall Report, 81:1 is the ratio of media coverage that Donald Trump receives in comparison with Bernie Sanders.

And that number doesn’t include social media coverage, so it starts to become clear to see how Trump has been dominating our television as well as our phone or laptop screen.

An analysis of network news coverage, unsurprisingly, recently revealed that Bernie Sanders is getting 1/30th of network coverage that Donald Trump is receiving.

For stories based on the campaign alone, Trump received 234 minutes of coverage compared to 10 minutes for Sanders. ABC World News Tonight gave Trump 80 minutes, while Sanders got less than a minute this campaign season.

Bernie Sanders’ campaign released this statement in response, which calls on corporate news to give Sanders the same coverage as other leading candidates:

“The corporately-owned may not like Bernie’s anti-establishment views but for the sake of American democracy they must allow for a fair debate in this presidential campaign. Bernie must receive the same level of coverage on the nightly news as other leading candidates.”

Sanders regularly speaks out about not only how the media covers political campaigns, but also how it covers “news” in general, saying, “The American people, I think, increasingly understand that corporate media is prepared to discuss everything 24 hours a day, seven days a week except the most important issues facing the American people.” Sanders explained, “Increasingly what media sees campaigns being are soap operas and football games, rather than a serious discussion about the serious issues facing America.”

Sanders, however, isn’t the only candidate that is being overshadowed, as Trump has received more media coverage than all of the Democrats put together.

Currently media of every kind seems fixated on the outrageous Republican front-runner, giving him an over abundance of free airtime and attention to showcase his latest insulting and discriminatory outburst. It is impossible to switch on a device and escape his verbal assaults.

I believe Sanders is capable of putting in place desperately needed changes and creating a significantly better future for not just for the U.S., but with policies that will reach out to positively influence and vibrate across the rest of the world.

While Trump and Sanders have regularly been compared to being similar to one another, it is only because they both have what are considered to be extreme views, although, being at the opposite end of the spectrum to one another.

Vermont senator, Bernie Sanders regularly talks about sustainability, and he is a man of his word, battling for equal rights for the past 40 years.

In 1976, Sanders said, “The fundamental issue facing us in the state is that ½ of one percent of these people—the richest ½ of 1 percent—earn as much as the bottom 27 percent and the top three percent earn as much as the bottom 40 percent.” And he repeats the message still today, “There is something profoundly wrong when the top one-tenth of one percent owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent, and when 99 percent of all new income goes to the top one percent.”

Rather than focusing directly on ISIS, Sanders discusses other issues that are also affecting millions of people daily:

“What I have said is that obviously ISIS and terrorism are a huge national issue that we’ve got to address, but so is poverty, so is unemployment, so is education, so is health care. So is the need to protect working families. And I will, I will continue to talk about those issues.”

Sanders is also outspoken about LGBT rights, civil rights, racial discrimination, university tuition fees, universal healthcare, climate change, and—although he is not a supporter of war—he supports and raises awareness for the rights of veterans and their benefits.

A mock presidential election carried out by Western Illinois University showed Sanders would win the 2016 presidential election. They have successfully predicted who will be the next president for the last 20 years, using exactly the same system.

Just last week, even though Sanders topped the TIME’s Person of the Year poll with over 10% of the votes (twice as high as the second place person, Malala Yousafzai), he was not included in the shortlisted group of 6 people to be voted the official Time Magazine Person of the Year. He is the first presidential candidate to win the poll before the end of a campaign.

Speaking to TIME Magazine in September Sanders said, “In this fight we are going to take on the greed of the billionaire class. And they are very, very powerful, and they’re going to fight back furiously. The only way to succeed is when millions of people stand up and decide to engage.”

Not only does Sanders rate well in the polls, he also successfully draws people out to see him in person. 28,000 supporters recently turned up to support Sanders at his Portland rally, while Trump’s rally followed with a crowd of around 15,000.

But, despite Sanders regularly pulling in larger crowds than Trump and polling equally well, he is being blacked out of the media in favor of Trump who has every word he speaks chronicled and made into a news story.

Trump’s explosions are often dramatic, offensive, ego-inflated and cause problems on social media as well as in his business ventures. I struggle to see how prejudiced views and opinions could ever help create a fairer, more sustainable world and one that peacefully brings people together.

When Bernie Sanders was asked by MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow during the First in the South Presidential Candidates Forum what his ideal job would be, he replied, “President of CNN. If I was president of CNN, trust me, the way media deals with politics would radically change.”

I think not just politics, but the world would be a very different place if CNN took Sanders up on his offer.

SOURCE

Hillary Stands With the Latino Community, and I Stand With Her

hillary

In my nearly 30 years of public service, I have seen many pay lip service to the Latino community, especially around election time. Only a loyal few have stood by us through thick and thin and advocated for the issues most important to Hispanic families.

Hillary Clinton is the only candidate for President with a long-standing record of fighting for our community, dating back to her efforts to register Latino voters in South Texas in 1972. As first lady, she held the first ever White House Convening on Hispanic Children and Youth, and played a key role in creating the Children’s Health Care Program (CHIP), which with Medicaid has benefitted millions of Latino children. Since then she has fought to provide Latino families with access to health care, quality education and better pay; protect DREAMers; and pass comprehensive immigration reform to keep families together. She stood with our community when her vote mattered. No candidate will fight harder on behalf of Latinos than Hillary. And no one will be able to accomplish as much.

Hillary is acutely aware of the cost of inaction on immigration, for immigrants, their families, and for society at large. Earlier this year she met with Las Vegas DREAMers who shared their experiences living in fear that they or their parents would be deported. Hillary assured them that she would not only defend President Obama’s executive actions for DREAMers but go further to make deferred action possible for their parents as well. She understands what creating and defending legal immigration means to who we are as a nation and the success of our economy and that we must get immigrants and their families fully integrated into our communities.

At a time when the Republican candidates fight over who will build the bigger wall and who will deport more families, Hillary has demonstrated real compassion and reached out to immigrant communities. She has defended America’s immigrants from the hate espoused by the likes of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. Voters who care about justice, about fairness, and inclusion — those of us who feel we are made great by our citizens and those who aspire to be citizens — have seen how she has stood up to the bullies who aspire to be President.

On another issue critically important to me and many other Latinos, the crisis in Puerto Rico, Hillary stands far above the rest. She has called on Congress to help the 3.5 million U.S. citizens living on the island by granting Puerto Rico equal treatment under the bankruptcy code. This would not cost U.S. taxpayers a dime but would provide relief to everyday Puerto Ricans, who would no longer be forced to abandon their homes. She also recognizes deeper, structural obstacles facing Puerto Rico and how critical economic development and job creation are for the Island’s citizens, as well as the ability to obtain the same Medicare and Medicaid benefits as those living on the mainland.

Hillary is the most qualified candidate to tackle the challenges facing working class and middle class families struggling to get ahead in this country. She has a proven track record of reaching across party lines to do what is in the best interest of the American people. As she put it recently, she’s a “progressive who likes to get things done.” And that is exactly what she would do as President: she would get things done for Latinos and all Americans. Hillary is ready to lead, and I am proud to stand with her.

SOURCE

PARIS: CLIMENT CHANGE DEAL APPROVED! THANKS OBAMA!

thank-you

Paris (CNN)After years of buildup and weeks of negotiations, world leaders accepted the final draft of an ambitious, global climate change agreement Saturday in Paris.

Though hailed as a milestone in the battle to keep Earth hospitable to human life, the plan is short on specifics. It doesn’t say how much each country must reduce greenhouse gas emissions or how nations will be punished if they violate the agreement.

The accord sets a goal of limiting average warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial temperatures — and of striving for a limit of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) if possible.

“We have set a course here,” U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said. “The world has come together around an agreement that will empower us to chart a new path for our planet. A smart and responsible path. A sustainable path.”

President Obama is set to speak about the agreement at 5:30 p.m. ET Saturday.

Some major points not addressed

The agreement doesn’t mandate exactly how much each country must reduce its greenhouse gas emissions.

Rather, it sets up a bottom-up system in which each country sets its own goal — which the agreement calls a “nationally determined contribution” — and then must explain how it plans to reach that objective.

Those pledges must be increased over time, and starting in 2018 each country will have to submit new plans every five years.

Many countries actually submitted their new plans before climate change conference, known as COP21, started last month — but those pledges aren’t enough to keep warming below the 2-degree target. But the participants’ hope is that over time, countries will aim for more ambitious goals and ratchet up their commitments.

Another sticking point has been coming up with a way to punish nations that don’t do their part, but observers say that was never really on the table.

Instead, the agreement calls for the creation of a committee of experts to “facilitate implementation” and “promote compliance” with the agreement, but it won’t have the power to punish violators.

‘This didn’t save the planet’

Another issue, according to observers, was whether there would be compensation is paid to countries that will see irreparable damage from climate change but have done almost nothing to cause it.

The agreement calls for developed countries to raise at least $100 billion annually in order to assist developing countries. Members of the scientific and environmental activist communities responded with varying degrees of optimism.

“This didn’t save the planet,” Bill McKibben, the co-founder of 350.org, said of the agreement. “But it may have saved the chance of saving the planet.”

Jennifer Morgan of the World Resources Institute anticipated a “historic agreement that marks a turning point in the climate crisis.”

What happens next?

Even though the text has been agreed upon, there’s still much more that needs to be done before the agreement goes into effect.

The agreement was adopted by “consensus” during the meeting of government ministers. That doesn’t necessarily mean all 196 parties approved it; French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, who served as the president of the conference, had the authority to decide if a consensus had been reached.

Individual countries now must individually ratify or approve the agreement in their respective countries.

And the agreement won’t enter into force until 55 countries have ratified it. Those nations must account for 55% of total global greenhouse gas emissions.

That means if the world’s biggest polluters don’t authorize the agreement, enacting it could prove challenging.

China and the United States, respectively, account for about 24% and 14% of total greenhouse gas emissions, according to the World Resources Institute.

The United States has backed off climate change votes in the past.

The Kyoto Protocol on reducing greenhouse gas emissions was adopted in 1997. The Clinton administration signed the agreement but, fearing defeat, never submitted it to the Senate for ratification.

In China, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress is in charge of approving treaties.

The agreement calls for a signature ceremony in April 2016, and requests that the U.N. Secretary-General keep the agreement open for signing until April 2017.

Fabius released the draft worked out by negotiators Saturday morning. Later in the day, world leaders or their representatives approved it. A crowd erupted in applause once the agreement’s adoption was announced.

‘We need all hands on deck’

World leaders praised passage of the agreement.

“A month ago tomorrow, Paris was the victim of the deadliest terror attack in Europe for more than a decade,” British Prime Minister David Cameron wrote in a Facebook post. “Today, it has played host to one of the most positive global steps in history.”

U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon hailed the draft that was put together at the 21st Conference of Parties, or COP21.

“We must protect the planet that sustains us,” Ban said. “For that we need all hands on deck.”

In the streets of Paris, outside the conference, protesters demanded action. #ParisAgreement was trending on Twitter.

“Nous sommes la nature qui se défend!” read one tweet, with a photo of one person dressed as a polar bear and another dressed as a penguin. “We are nature that defends itself.”

Some demonstrators felt differently — they called the agreement insufficient and chanted “it’s a crime against humanity.”

“We have a 1.5-degree wall to climb, but the ladder isn’t tall enough,” Kumi Naidoo of Greenpeace said at a press conference. He did call the agreement a “new imperative” and positive step.

2 degrees Celsius threshold

Capping the increase in global average temperatures to 2 degrees Celsius was organizers’ key goal going into the COP21. That level of warming is measured as the average temperature increase since the Industrial Revolution.

Failure to set a cap could result in superdroughts, deadlier heat waves, mass extinctions of plants and animals, megafloods and rising seas that could wipe some island countries off the map.

Scientists and policy experts say hitting the 2 degrees Celsius threshold would require the world to move off fossil fuels between about 2050 and the end of the century.

To reach the more ambitious 1.5 degrees Celsius goal, some researchers say the world will need to reach zero net carbon emissions sometime between about 2030 and 2050.

SOURCE

President Obama Compares Syrian Refugees to Mayflower Pilgrims, Administration Says States Can’t Block Them

President Obama used his weekly address to appeal to families counting their blessings on Thanksgiving, reminding Americans that the holiday isn’t only about turkey but a tribute to the deep immigration history that led to the nation’s founding.

obama“In 1620, a small band of pilgrims came to this continent, refugees who had fled persecution and violence in their native land,” Obama says. “Nearly 400 years later, we remember their part in the American story – and we honor the men and women who helped them in their time of need.”

The Obama administration said Wednesday that states can’t legally block the resettlement of refugees, according to a letter from the HHS Office of Refugee Resettlement sent to state officials.

In the letter, the agency said states are bound by the Refugee Act of 1980 to provide “assistance and services” to refugees “without regard to race, religion, nationality, sex or political opinion,” and cannot cut off ORR-funded services to Syrian refugees.

Additionally, the letter says refugees are protected by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which “prohibits discrimination on the bases of race and national origin” in all programs that receive federal financial assistance.

More than 30 state governors have indicated they will attempt to block any future refugees from settling in their states.

Obama said he’s been “touched by the generosity of the Americans” who have written letters and emails in recent weeks offering to open their homes to refugees fleeing the Islamic State, ISIL.

“Nearly four centuries after the Mayflower set sail, the world is still full of pilgrims – men and women who want nothing more than the chance for a safer, better future for themselves and their families,” the president says. “What makes America America is that we offer that chance. We turn Lady Liberty’s light to the world, and widen our circle of concern to say that all God’s children are worthy of our compassion and care. That’s part of what makes this the greatest country on Earth.”

The House of Representatives passed a bipartisan bill on Nov. 19 that would require the FBIdirector to certify a background investigation for each potential refugee from Syria or Iraq, and administration officials including the DHS secretary must attest that each potential refugee is not a security threat to the U.S. The White House and Senate Democrats oppose the measure, which passed through the lower chamber with a veto-proof majority.

House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Virginia, charged that the majority of U.S. governors have taken positions that reflect the views of their constituents.

“It’s hypocritical for Obama Administration officials to threaten enforcement action against these states when they refuse to enforce the vast majority of our immigration laws, such as cracking down on sanctuary cities that openly defy federal law and endanger the American people,” he wrote. “The Administration’s latest threat shows why we need the American SAFE Act so that the American people have confidence in their government’s ability to fully screen refugees seeking to come here.”

After serving turkey to homeless veterans and pardoning a turkey on Wednesday, President Obama privately enjoys Thanksgiving at the White House.

MUST READ: The Slow Motion Lynching of President Barack Obama

president-obamaI’ve watched liberal and right wing commentators alike blame the president for being lynched. They say “he’s not reaching out enough” or “he’s too cold.” It’s the equivalent of assuming that the black man being beaten by a couple of thug cops must have “done something.”

I am a white privileged well off sixty-one-year-old former Republican religious right wing activist who changed his mind about religion and politics long ago.  The New York Times profiled my change of heart saying that to my former friends I’m considered a “traitorous prince” since my religious right family was once thought of as “evangelical royalty.”

I’ve just spent the last 7 years writing over 200,000 words in blogs and articles in support of President Obama. My blogs on the Huffington Post alone would add up to a book in support of the President of over 300 pages. Weirdly, I just realized that through all my writing, this has been the first time in my life I’ve personally gone to bat for a black man. It just happens that he’s a president. But my emotional stake in his life is now personal.

So I’ve changed from a white guy who used to read news about some black man getting shot or beaten by cops or stand-your-ground types who assumed that the black man must have “done something,” to a white guy who figures that the black man was probably getting lynched. I’ve changed ideology but I’ve also changed my gut intuitive reactions.

I’ve changed because if this country will lynch a brilliant, civil, kind, humble, compassionate, moderate, articulate, black intellectual we’re lucky enough to have in the White House, we’ll lynch anyone. What chance does an anonymous black man pulled over in a traffic stop have of fair treatment when the former editor of the Harvard Law Review is being lynched?

One famous liberal commentator wrote a book on how Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neil could disagree and still be friends. Why, he asked on many a TV show promoting his book, couldn’t President Obama be like that? Because, I yelled at the screen, those two men were white Irish Americans and part of a ruling white oligarchy.

Because, I yelled, you might as well ask why Nelson Mandela didn’t talk his jailers in South Africa into seeing reason.

Because, I yelled, the President is black and anytime he’s reached out he’s pulled back a bloody stump.

Because, I yelled, liberal white commentators have been as bothered by a black man in the White House, who’s smarter than they are as much as right wing bigots have been bothered.

Because, I yelled, President Obama has been lied about, attacked, vilified, and disrespected since Day One.

Because, I yelled, this country may have passed laws so blacks can vote and eat in a white man’s world, but in our hearts we’re stuck in a place more like 1952 than 2013.

We’ve been watching a slow motion lynching of a moderate brilliant family man, a father, and faithful loving husband. The Republicans in Congress are so dedicated to lynching the President they’ve been willing to shut down our government and risk the future of our economy.

Evangelical “Christians” have been so stuck on putting a rope around this black man’s neck they have denied their faith and been the backbone of the lying Tea Party who spawned the so-called “birthers” and the rest of the white people driving our news cycle.

Roman Catholic bishops have denied their tradition of helping the poor and been so eager to destroy this president they aligned themselves with white Evangelical bigots and tried to stop health care reform, all because the President wants to give women a fair shake. The bishops even called him “anti-religious” because the president wants insurers to pay for contraception.

This is a slow motion lynching of a black man who is so moderate and centrist that he favored Wall Street enough so that the Left is all over his case. He’s so “radical” and “leftist” and “hates America” so much, and “coddles our enemies” so much, that he killed bin Laden and used drones to kill our enemies. He’s such a “socialist” that he presided over the revival of our economy from the worst recession since the Great Depression, and led us to the present day stock market boom. President Obama is such a “Marxist” that he tried to give insurance – not socialized medicine – to all Americans.

President Obama never answered back to the disgusting southern right wing rubes from the former slave states that have tried to belittle, mock and stymie his presidency shouting “You lie” in a million ways, while actually meaning “You lie, nigger!”

And did the “enlightened” Left have President Obama’s back? No. They carp about his “failure” because a website was slow to get running! The white privileged “progressive” few were too busy blaming him for getting lynched and telling him how to craft policy while a rope was put around his neck again and again and tightened with each filibuster, each lie told on the radio, each self-defeating scorched earth action to stop him from succeeding, even if it meant taking us all down too.

We don’t like to admit who we really are. So we make excuses and blame the victim. I’m ashamed for our country, a country my Marine son fought for in two stupid wars this president has been working to end. And I’m still rooting for the best, smartest and most decent man who has been president in my lifetime. I pray for his health care reform to succeed. I pray for his immigration reform to succeed. I’m amazed he’s gotten anything done, but he has, even while the lynch mob gathers again and again to laugh, lie and spit and claim he’s “failed” while “liberal” commentators nod sagely and talk about his “mistakes” as if President Obama has been playing on a level playing field.

We have a lot to do to heal this country of the damage done by the right wing Obama-haters and the Left wing know-it-all pundits who did not have his back because they don’t have the honesty to admit that we still live in a backward racist swamp of prejudice. Maybe in 50 years our country will be worthy of someone of President Obama’s forbearance again. For now we can just hope that the hatred of the Republican Party for our first black president doesn’t drive us to the brink of ruin again as they strip food from the mouths of the poor, and try to get people to not sign up for health care, just to get even with the black man they swore to destroy from the day that “uppity” black who is smarter than all of them put together took the oath of office.

God bless you Mr. President. I’m praying for you. I am so very sorry. But take heart, in the long reach of history the door you opened will stay open for the millions of Americans of all colors, genders and beliefs who will follow you. They will bless your name. So will history. 

– See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/frankschaeffer/2013/12/the-slow-motion-lynching-of-president-barack-obama/#sthash.Wv2kIBk8.CiSOyUho.dpuf

 

SOURCE