On the back of Obama
E. Ablorh-Odjidja

It is convenient for some to think that conservative Republicans are the only racists in America. But cry racism as much as you want, it is apparent now that President Obama is being used by his liberal Democrat white henchmen. And that is an aspect of racism too.

Unless, you have insufficient understanding of how racism works.

In 2008, Barrack Obama was elected the first black president of the US. Since then, his policies have been liberal and transformational; none specifically geared to the benefit of the black man. But anytime these policies are attacked, Democrats and liberals cry racism.

The intent, of course, is to stop conservative opposition. That’s how powerful the cry of racism is because it produces instant white guilt.

In Obama, liberals have found the perfect vehicle and absolute defense for their cherished policies as they seek control of the power of government with overreach maneuvers, none of which directly benefits black America.

Racism in America, in one sense, has been about discrimination on the basis of skin color. Lately, it has become something else. Its usage is now mainly a tool to extract power and privilege for others in the name of black civil right.

When the need is to shore up or build a bridge to liberties for others, liberals invoke racism to resist opposition. Interestingly, the charge is never used to defend conservative ideas, no matter how good they are.

Black plight, not pride, has always been useful to liberal politicians.

 
You may have heard often this proposition: Republicans want President Obama to fail because he is black.

Most Republicans did not vote for Obama the Democrat because of ideological differences. But, once you accept this notion of dislike because he is black, then you are likely to excuse white Democrats from racial bigotry.

About this time you begin to lose perspective of the problem that liberal racist guise poses for black America: It  has always been used to lure black power to uphold liberal ideals.

.
And your view of history may also be affected. For, nowhere in American history has it been documented that white conservative Republicans alone hated blacks. President Lincoln, a Republican freed blacks. The Southern Jim Crow governors and politicians were Democrats.

Since then, we have come a long way to elect the first black president in history. But this historical achievement is unraveling in front of our very eyes. The reputation of this black president is beginning to crumble under the weight of his liberal champions.

So why must conservative opposition to this tendency be deemed racist?

Starting with Obamacare, Democrats have forced through Congress this healthcare plan that is essentially suitable to their brand of politics but inimical to that of the Republicans.

Obamacare was pushed through Congress at a ferocious and divisive pace. This was an achievement that Democrats had wanted for decades and couldn't accomplish even under Bill and Hillary Clinton.

 
For clarity, it should be known that Republicans wanted a market driven affordable healthcare, with the plan choices firmly in the hands of individuals. For this, they have conveniently been accused of racism and not caring enough for the poor.

True, the poor need affordable healthcare. But, it can only be affordable because it is subsidized. Either of the Republican or Democrat approach can do that. The exception is that the individual would have been free of government control under the Republican plan.

The Democrat approach was pushed through in haste in 2010. It was socialist in intent and promised government control of the process. But right at the start of the program, it started unraveling and the exact problems that some Republicans had predicted began to show.

At this point you would think liberals would have had enough. But the ride on Obama's back was proving to yield more gold.  They just tossed a dynamite into the procedural rules in the Senate to lessen opposition to Obama and liberal legislations.

Under the pretext that Republicans are blocking Obama's nominees to federal appointed offices, Democrats have reduced the super majority votes required for approval to simple majority. Thus, the “advise and consent” role of Senate, a custom that had stood for two centuries in that august body, has been weakened, all in account to impair further Republican opposition.

This bold parliamentary maneuver could not have been done under a white president's watch. None of them would have wanted the legacy.

You know a ruse cloaked in the guise of liberal principles when you see Harry Reid, the white Democrat Senate majority leader, on the Senate floor fending for Obama. About this gentleman Harry Reid, you can't say no more than to match his tactic's to that of Robespierre, according to whom there were only two political parties - "the people and the enemies.".

The Washington Post reported on November 21, 2013 that Harry Read “used a rare parliamentary move to change the rules so that federal judicial nominees and executive-office appointments can advance to confirmation votes by a simple majority of senators, rather than the 60-vote…. .. the rule change represents a substantial power shift in a chamber that for more than two centuries has prided itself on affording more rights to the minority party than any other legislative body in the world. “

The Post, not a conservative paper, continued also with an opinion from the Republican Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, that “linked the rule change to the methods used to approve Obama’s health-care law solely with Democratic votes.”

The gimmickry for Obamacare has already caused a grievous partisan rift. Unfortunately, the latest “Nuclear Option” would make matters worse.

Any president from this day onward can steamroller his judicial appointments through with the help of a simple majority vote by his henchmen in the Senate. And his policies can then be forced through a packed court in time of legal challenges

This is not a passing a black president should be proud of. The move is a setback for American democracy. The political process in America is beginning to look more like a rubber stamp parliament in a Third World. Unfortunately, it has occurred under Obama’s watch.

Harry Read’s interest for supporting Obama now seems more like audacious white guilt pushing for liberal white control. But, for good or bad, it all will be part of Obama’s legacy.

How this legacy will speak about Obama’s competence is moot for now. But it will be interesting to know if the same liberal crowd would have supported a black conservative president. And whether any opposition to the policies of this conservative black president could be met with the charge of racism or that the charge would have simply changed to calls of Uncle Tom?