The Failure of the Black Political Class, Again

The Failure of the Black Political Class, Again

State of Florida v. George Zimmerman

They just can’t help themselves.  Upon learning of the Not Guilty verdict for George Zimmerman the Black Political Class started their engines and spewed out the same toxic fumes that makes their rhetoric so egregious.  The Hill Magazine on Jesse Jackson: “Rev. Jesse Jackson said Thursday that his Rainbow PUSH Coalition would consider boycotting Florida as "a kind of apartheid state" in the aftermath of the George Zimmerman not-guilty verdict last weekend.”  Shakespeare is needed here: “The (reverend) doth protest too much, methinks.”

Jackson and his most famous protégé Al Sharpton have both made a comfortable living out of race hustling and as a result have done more harm than good over the years.  The Martin - Zimmerman Trial is just one more example of the REVERENDS - R - US milking an already volatile situation.

Furthermore, Jamelle Bouie writes in the über liberal journal The American Prospect, “It’s absolutely true that ‘NYPD stats show that 96 percent of all shooting victims are black or Hispanic, and 97 percent of all shooters were black or Hispanic,’ but it’s also true that the number of black and Latino offenders is a small fraction of all blacks and Latinos. But stop and frisk turns all blacks and all Latinos into potential offenders—it erases individual consideration and imposes collective suspicion, (blacks deserve (t)he right to walk freely as an individual, and not as the member of a suspect class.”  I agree but there is a conundrum to this narrow view.

Kevin Jackson of The Black Sphere highlights that “3% of blacks are committing 50% of the crimes.”  This fact causes an innate response by blacks and whites to teenage black males.  

Well Reverend Jackson how does your rhetoric today square with your published views from 17 years ago?  “There is nothing more painful to me … than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery, then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.”

To make matters worse, the President of the United States has jumped into the pile imagining himself as just another brother from the hood.  Trayvon could have been my son now has become, Trayvon is me 35 years ago.  Actually Mr. President that is not true given that you are 50% white – indeed, you were raised by your white mother and white grandparents, and attended one of the country’s most prestigious preparatory schools, Punahou, founded in 1841.  The tuition is a cool $19,200.  Now that the record is set straight Mr. President, the truth is that you took a tragic situation and injected race into it for your own political benefit.  Shame on you.      

The facts in the case are as follows:

1. The defense team did not invoke the Stand Your Ground law during the trial.
2. The evidence showed that Zimmerman was viciously attacked by Trayvon Martin that fateful night.  There is unimpeachable photographic evidence. 
3. The jury believed that Zimmerman was reasonably afraid for his life.
4. A struggle over the gun pursued and Zimmerman prevailed.

What we have today is an attempt at Mob Rule – consider the placards saying “No Justice - No Peace.”  Really?  Indeed, there is a long history of recklessness exhibited by the black political class that is both disturbing and dangerous.  Loosely translated this attitude assumes that the actions of the government are ALWAYS racist and consequently blacks can say or do whatever they want – they are entitled to a special class of rhetorical freedom and action.  How else can you justify Jackson’s call for a boycott of Florida – in essence punishing nearly 20 million people because the reverend did not get his way in a jury trial?

Jackson is not alone.  Julianne Malveaux, Jesse with make-up and a PhD, blasted the exonerated Duke Lacrosse players after video evidence conclusively proved they had not raped Crystal Gail Mangum – (According to Dr. Malveaux) they were still: ‘hooligans,’ had lied, and that they ‘did not deserve an apology.’ ” Oratory propriety is for other folks - not black “folk”. 

 

A less flamboyant example of this recklessness was star witness and Martin friend Rachel Jeantel.  When Zimmerman defense counsel Don West cross-examined Miss Jeantel he asked her if this case was racial in nature.  She said yes.  Then West asked why and Jeantel had no answer – finally she said it was racial since her friend had called Zimmerman a Creepy-Ass Cracker.  “So, Trayvon made it about race asked West?  Jeantel, “No” - she went on to say that Creepy-Ass Cracker was not a racial epithet.  Translation, get real mister; blacks cannot be bigots, next question.

It seems clear that Trayvon Martin thought he was being racially profiled and in his mind concluded, “I don’t have to put up with this junk.  In his mind Reverends Jackson and Sharpton, and Professors (Law) Obama and Malveaux had given him the green light to teach this cracker a lesson he’ll never forget.”  This is why Martin recklessly threw the first sucker-punch and then jumped on Zimmerman – Martin assumed he would have immunity from public criticism.  Unfortunately for this teenager, he paid for his recklessness with his life – and now Reverend Jackson is planning civil unrest in the form of a boycott of Florida.  Trayvon is dead and Jesse Jackson keeps on making money from these tragedies.

As long as the black political class allows Reverends Jackson and Sharpton along with other demagogues to speak for black Americans, the racial acrimony will continue to the detriment of all especially young black males who remain adrift in the sea of fatherless children. (Words: 927)

Geoffrey G. Fisher is a federally designated Highly Qualified state-certified history teacher living in southwest Florida.  He holds a BA in History from the University of Connecticut and a MA in Public Policy from Trinity College in Hartford, CT.  In addition to teaching he is a former elected official and speechwriter.  Mr. Fisher now writes the political blog: THE THINKING CAP at  

www.theamericanthinkingcap.blogspot.com

THE VERTIGO OF SOLEDAD O’BRIEN, The New Racism of the Left

THE VERTIGO OF SOLEDAD O’BRIEN

The New Racism of the Left

By

GEOFFREY GRISWOLD FISHER

The old one-drop rule of the Jim Crow south has been dusted off and this time applied by the new left – if you think you have one drop of sub-Saharan African blood then brother, you’re black.

How else can you explain this giddy statement from CNN’s Soledad O’Brien?

I'm on the phone with a confused reporter, and I'm confused too. She keeps asking me why I "count myself as black... And why does Barack Obama?" My answer (for President Obama, at least) is "have you seen him?" But she won't let it go. "Is your father annoyed that you deny him?" My dad is white. I interject. "Let's conference him in," I say. "Listen, he married a black woman, he has six black children. He'd be the first person to tell you I'm black."

The questions, to me, reveal more about the asker. This reporter surely doesn't know a lot of black people, or she wouldn't be struggling so hard. She'd know black people come in all hues.

 

O'Brien's parents married in 1958 in Washington, D.C. Her father Edward, an Australian (from Toowoomba, Queensland) of Irish descent, was a mechanical engineering professor. Her mother, Estella, who is Afro-Cuban, was a French and English teacher. O'Brien is the fifth of six children, who all graduated from Harvard University;

Hispanic Magazine.com – June /July 2005 - Cover Story

So what would make a Harvard educated woman who is ¼ black or to put it more succinctly, ¾ white, chastise a female reporter for suggesting the obvious – namely, that Soledad is primarily Caucasian.  Remember that Cuba was conquered and settled by white Spanish Conquistadors.  Further, one look at Ms. O’Brien would hammer home the obvious, that she is a woman of European descent with a mixture of other cultural traits.  What would make her deny the obvious?  A pandemic of Hypodescent Fever.

Now it appears that Ms. O’Brien is not faking it.  Obviously, Time Warner, the current owners of CNN have a similar mindset - they hired Soledad O’Brien to host of all things the CNN series Black in America.  Ms. O’Brien’s dismissive posture and righteousness on this topic seems Orwellian.  Indeed, her full name is María de la Soledad Teresa O'Brien.  Soledad and her white husband Brad Raymond have four beautiful children – only a severe case of Hypodescent Fever could lead any mother to decide that they are black – that is, to ignore their full heritage. 

Of course due to the pervasiveness of political correctness in the national media, no one at CNN or at the other cable news outlets have called her out on this point or even question the wisdom of having a predominately Caucasian woman hosting Black in America.  It is just like having an able body actor playing the role of a wheel-bound character – it only works with the willing suspension of disbelief.  And just to complete the vertigo nature of Soledad O’Brien, CNN is touting “Journalist Soledad O’Brien, (as) the host of the two-part CNN documentary “Latino in America,” premiering Oct. 21, (2009.)  I do not question the book smarts of either the producers at CNN or Ms. O’Brien herself, but book smarts combined with arrogance and hubris will produce foolish pronoucements. 

  

THE NEW LEFT EMBRACES THE ONE DROP RULE

Soledad O’Brien might as well be the poster girl for the New Racism of the Left – namely, Hypodescent Fever.  Even Mr. Orwell would be scratching his head.  That doesn’t matter to the new left ravaged by Hypodescent Fever.  Non Sequiturs are the norm rather than the exception.

So CNN is practicing a non sequitur when it trying to satisfy a diversity policy vis-à-vis race by hiring a Caucasian with only 25% black heritage to host “Black in America.”  The most hate filled racist from 1850 Atlanta, Georgia (home of CNN today) would have shouted “bravo – one drop of black blood makes Soledad and her children black – let’s put that filly and her children on the auction block.”

Hypodescent Fever does allow us, however, greater insight into the history of race relations in this country.  Consider the controversy surrounding Sally Hemings vis-à-vis Thomas Jefferson, arguably the greatest founding father after George Washington.

So when we look into the eyes of Soledad O’Brien we’re looking into the eyes of Sally Hemings.  Both women in 1790 Virginia would have been considered slaves even though both were ¾ white.  The only difference is that Soledad O’Brien would have had her hand in the air saying, “That’s right, I’m black.”  The problem with that type of bluster becomes apparent during Miss Hemings’ time – Brad and Soledad’s lily-white children would have been sold into slavery, just like the freckled face, red headed children of Miss Hemings.  Octoroons were 7/8^th white and 1/8^th black and as slaves fetched the highest price at the slave auction, especially the girls for obvious reasons.

If Ms. O’Brien acknowledged her full racial heritage as a facet of who she is rather than picking one aspect of her racial background and making it her sole identify she might restore some balance to her life – that is, eliminate her current racial vertigo.  Think about it, Soledad and her five siblings ALL were admitted to Harvard University.  I wonder what racial box Soledad check.  By “passing” as a black woman Soledad was able to ensure that her first rate mind would be given every consideration at both Harvard and at CNN.

Hypodescent is insidious for many reasons.  Corporate American is now able to present men and women of mixed races as black even thought they project Caucasian features because this type of advertising claims diversity while marginalizing blacks with African features.  Think of Hollywood’s use of Halle Barry, and Venessa Williams, a former Miss America.  Corporate America also uses people like Rochelle Oliver a Florida producer, Don Lemon of CNN, Dr. Julianne Malveaux, radical progressive thinker,  Benjamin Jealous of the NAACP, and Melissa Harris-Perry, a product of a black father, William M. Harris Sr. and a white mother, Diana Gray.  Despite the genetic proof, Mrs. Harris-Perry states: “I’ve never thought of myself as biracial,” Harris-Perry says. “I’m black.  Even President Obama is embraced by the new-left as black, our first black president.  Passing as black today has its benefits and so the hypodescent filter is employed every day.
Yet, the one-drop rule was wrong in 1850 Atlanta and it is still wrong in 2013 America.  Listen to the following words from a man of God from 50 years ago and you’ll feel the power of our greatest national motto: E Pluribus Unum – Out of Many, One.

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”       

                            Delivered from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial

   Washington, DC, Wednesday, August 28, 1963

Thanks in large part by the collaborative efforts of academia, Wall Street and Hollywood, that day is still in our collective future.  Word total: 1165

Geoffrey G. Fisher is a federally designated Highly Qualified state-certified history teacher living in southwest Florida.  He holds a BA in History from the University of Connecticut and a MA in Public Policy from Trinity College in Hartford, CT.  In addition to teaching he is a former elected official and speechwriter.  Mr. Fisher now writes the political blog: THE THINKING CAP at  

www.theamericanthinkingcap.blogspot.com.

READY FOR PILLORY – CORKSCREW HILLARY RETURNS

READY FOR PILLORY

CORKSCREW HILLARY RETURNS

Her sycophants are at it again.  They have launched a new fundraising website - READY FOR HILLARY.  They are ready for her coronation to be the 45^th President of the United States but are we ready for her?

Hillary’s supporters, a combination of third-wave feminists (since 1992), and liberal Democratic activists, are excited and confident that their gal will prevail.  After all they point out “40 years” of political experience, including eight years as a U.S. Senator representing New York, and four years as the Secretary of State.  The girl-power spittle is flying as they look forward to the first woman president.

After all Hillary Clinton fashions herself as a modern woman breaking all types of barriers.  Just listen to part of her June 8, 2008 concession speech after loosing the Democratic nomination to the junior senator from Illinois:

"Although we weren't able to shatter that highest, hardest glass ceiling this time, thanks to you, it's got about 18 million cracks in it…(a)nd the light is shining through like NEVER before…”

“When I was asked what it means to be a woman running for president, I always gave the same answer: that I was proud to be running as a woman but I was running because I thought I'd be the BEST president.” 

Planet earth calling Hillary Rodham Clinton - let’s review the facts.  40 years ago you were a newly minted law school graduate, and the following year you were the proverbial potted plant with aviator glasses at the Watergate Hearings and when you became a partner in the Rose Law Firm your husband was Governor of Arkansas.  Admit the obvious, a powerful man provided coattails for you and you had no political experience. 

As first lady of the United States your tenure was ruined with the collapse of the 1993 Clinton health care plan - a plan that you were appointed to manage.  Senator Kennedy tried to rehabilitate your reputation with passage of the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) in 1997.  Your advocacy was only taken seriously on issues dealing with children because you were married to the president.  Indeed, in 1999 you decided to run for the U.S. Senate from New York despite having never lived in New York and having never been elected to any office.  With the help of the (Bill) Clinton machine, you were elected U.S. Senator – a remarkable feat for your husband rather than you.

Yet Mrs. Clinton and her gang tout this race as some feminist milestone rather than an extension of the Bill Clinton machine going into overdrive.  And of course Mrs. Clinton’s stint as Secretary of State was an appointment by another powerful man this time to mollify Hillary’s disappointed feminist supporters – a move that worked and put Barack Obama in the White House – it’s called quid pro quo and not foreign policy experience.

Mrs. Clinton’s refusal to acknowledge the role of powerful men in her advancement is both dishonest and it makes her look childish – indeed, it makes her a first-rate phony NOT READY for the presidency.

Mrs. Clinton even plugged her years of First Lady the United States as evidence of her VAST political experience.  In 2007 this claim was too juicy for candidate Barack Obama to ignore.  Michelle Malkin reported: “Ever since Barack Obama suggested Hillary Clinton’s eight years as first lady were a glorified tea party a few days back, she’s looked for an opening to strike back.  On Saturday night in Dubuque, Iowa she pounced, arguing she risked her life on White House MISSIONS in the 1990s, including a hair-raising flight into Bosnia that ended in a “CORKSCREW” landing and a sprint off the tarmac to DODGE snipers.  ‘I don’t remember anyone offering me tea,’ she quipped.  The dictum around the Oval Office in the ’90s, she added, was: ‘If a place was TOO DANGEROUS, too poor or too small, send the first lady.’ ” and if she was busy - send Rambo.

This episode showed Hillary Clinton delivering a whopper of a lie with the finesse of a middle-school girl trying to impress her friends.  She then embellished this lie by adding, "I remember landing under sniper fire…(t)here was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but INSTEAD we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."  Mrs. Clinton was so rattled by Mr. Obama’s comment that she took several days to think out this colossal lie – what would she do if presented with a real emergency if elected president.  Would she reach for the nuclear football because someone unnerved her?

Alas, a video of the episode was found a few days later that “shows Hillary and her daughter Chelsea CASUALLY strolling off of an airplane, all smiles.  Country singer Sheryl Crow and comedian Sinbad, who were on the flight as part of a USO tour to entertain the troops, recall no threat at all. The video clearly confirms this, showing a …lengthy discussion with a LITTLE Bosnian girl, who gave Mrs. Clinton a hug, a kiss and a BOUQUET of FLOWERS.”  This is a shameful episode that demonstrates Mrs. Clinton’s pathological need to promote herself as a modern day Joan of Arc.  The adulation of her sycophants is so intoxicating it clouds the judgment of this Wellesley graduate.

Mrs. Clinton did not think anyone would check on her Wonder Woman moment or she just didn’t care.  Corkscrew Hillary lied trying to claim experience for being prepared to be president.  This incident alone disqualifies her from being president.  She does not have the metal nor the coolness to be chief executive.  She also had the gall to say later that she simply misspoke – another lie from Corkscrew Hillary.
Now juxtapose Mrs. Clinton’s reckless lying compared to John F. Kennedy who was saddled with being the son of a rich man who was “buying” the presidency.  Rather than lie about his privileged upbringing, JFK used humor to acknowledge the obvious and then he diffused the issue.  This quote is from a 1960 press briefing: “I just received the following wire from my generous Daddy; Dear Jack, Don't buy a single vote more than is necessary. I'll be damned if I'm going to pay for a landslide.”

Liberal columnist Maureen Dowd of the New York Times summarized the real Mrs. Clinton when she wrote in September of 2007, “Without nepotism, Hillary would be running for the president of Vassar.”

In 1996, New York Times Columnist William Safire penned “Blizzard of Lies” – “Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our First Lady -- a woman of undoubted talents who was a role model for many in her generation -- is a congenital liar.”  Yikes – now that’s hitting the nail on the head.

Safire continued: “(Federal) Investigators believe that damning records from the Rose Law Firm, wrongfully kept in Vincent Foster's White House office, were spirited out in the dead of night and hidden from the law for TWO years…The records show Hillary Clinton was lying when she denied actively representing a criminal enterprise known as the Madison S. & L…By concealing the Madison billing records two days beyond the statute of limitations, Hillary evaded a civil suit by bamboozled bank regulators.” 

Even Carl Bernstein grappled with the subject of Hillary’s truthfulness in his biography on the former first lady: “Since her Arkansas years, Hillary Rodham Clinton has ALWAYS had a DIFFICULT relationship with the truth.”

An additional liability for the would-be president is her temperament.  In 1992 Mrs. Clinton exposed her feminist venom when she spewed: “I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas…You know, I'm not sitting here like some little woman standing by my man, like Tammy Wynette.  This bravado coming from a modern day Victorian wife trying to block out her husband’s infidelities.

In 1993 Hillary was caught in a telling Freudian slip: “I'm not going to have some reporters pawing through OUR papers.  WE are the president.” 

Hillary’s tendency to be unnerved and rattled was seen in its full force four years ago in the Congo when a student speaking through a translator, innocently asked her what “the president” thought about a Chinese trade deal with the Democratic Republic of the Congo.  The translator substituted Mr. Clinton for the president.  “You want me to tell you what my husband thinks?” (Hillary) replied, clearly irked by the thought of being her husband Bill’s spokeswoman.  “My husband is not secretary of state, I am,” she replied.  The incident showed how Hillary is easily rattled and as a consequence her behavior only reinforces the stereotype of the emotional woman.  The end result is Mrs. Clinton came across as churlish and silly.

Mrs. Clinton is always ready to attack when anyone mentions her hair or her clothes.  Yet, Mrs. Clinton is infamous for having 27 different hairstyles.  She even hired her own hairstylist, Isabelle Goetz to accompany her on her overseas travels.

“A woman’s haircut does not portend how she’ll run her country. And we need to stop talking about them as if they do” wrote an incensed Amanda Hess of Slate Magazine, THE XX FACTOR.  Amanda Hess at 41 is a perfect example of a third-wave feminist eking out a living as a grievance commentator.  Well Amanda, don’t put 27 different hairstyles in front of the public and then cry wolf when the public reacts.

It is the lack of graciousness that envelopes Mrs. Clinton temperament and the inability to maintain a cool head when she receives a public jab.  Compare Mrs. Clinton to First Lady Jackie Kennedy who calmly climbed onto the trunk of the presidential limousine wearing high heels to recover part of her husband’s brain during the 1963 assassination of the president in Dallas.  Indeed, look at the steely resolve of Margaret Thatcher during the Falkland War in 1982.  The list of strong women goes on with Benazir Bhutto, Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir and former Prime Minister and über liberal Julia Gillard of Australia.  It is simply unpresidential to have a hissy fit every time things get difficult Mrs. Clinton.  Your antics only reinforce chauvinistic attitudes that women are incapable of leadership roles.

Left-leaning Democrats and political commentators don’t care about the many faults of Hillary Rodham Clinton.  Like Barack Obama she is an empty (pant) suit that fulfills their desire to break social and cultural barriers rather than nominating a qualified candidate to lead our great nation. 

Her eventually undoing may be linked to her stint as Secretary of State.  With her propensity to lie, there is a reasonable chance that she sullied the truth vis-à-vis Benghazi.  If that proves to be the case then her remarks before a recent Senate committee: "Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they’d go kill some Americans," Clinton said. "What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?" audibly pounding the committee table with clutched fists, a gesture eerily similar to her husband audibly banging his finger on a podium while saying, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.” January 28, 1998

While banging a table or a podium does not necessarily convey perjury, with Bill and Hillary Clinton one has to wonder.  And by the way Mrs. Clinton, Charles Woods, the father of Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, one of those “dead Americans” said, “I would say, what difference does it make? CREDIBILITY, because in a courtroom situation we have a rule that says if a person’s testimony is proven to be false in any part, the rest of their testimony is to be disregarded on that subject.”

To date Mrs. Clinton has not been interviewed by the president’s ARB (Accountability Review Board) on Benghazi.  So what happen in Tripoli when a C-130 rescue plane and airmen were told to stand down during the attack?  This is just one point that needs to see the light of day.  Mrs. Clinton, you see the truth DOES matter to all of us including the families of the four Americans who were needlessly and viciously killed on your watch.  (Word Total: 2032)

Geoffrey G. Fisher is a federally designated Highly Qualified state-certified history teacher living in southwest Florida.  He holds a BA in History from the University of Connecticut and a MA in Public Policy from Trinity College in Hartford, CT.  In addition to teaching he is a former elected official and speechwriter.  Mr. Fisher now writes the political blog: THE THINKING CAP at  

            www.theamericanthinkingcap.blogspot.com

A TROJAN HORSE ARRIVES IN ISLAND PARK, SARASOTA

A TROJAN HORSE ARRIVES IN ISLAND PARK, SARASOTA

The national culture wars of the 1990s have finally made their way to the shores of Sarasota, Florida.  Twenty Years ago the mantra of the new left was “Celebrate our Differences” through “Multi-Culturalism” – that is, America does not have a culture but rather many cultures.  This ideology had morphed from the 1980s Pluralism to 1993 Multi-Culturalism, to 2004 Diversity.  The common theme behind each new manifestation was an obsession with matters that separate us. 

Rather than Celebrate Our Differences, a healthier motto is “Celebrate Our Similarities and Respect our Differences.”  This latter motto embraces a traditional view of America as the proverbial melting pot – “E Pluribus Unum (Latin for Out of Many, One) has been our national “motto” since 1782 only to be joined in 1956 by “In God We Trust” – another apple-pie motto also under attack by the vanguard of the new left – the ACLU.  E Pluribus Unum was settled doctrine until the Multi-culturalists gained momentum with the inauguration of Bill Clinton in 1993.

Locally a Trojan Horse has come to Island Park in the City of Sarasota under the guise of the 10^th Annual Embracing our Differences Exhibit.  A public service announcement for the exhibit used GC, a 7^th grade girl from Sarasota’s Booker Middle School as an announcer proclaiming that “No one deserves to be limited by another’s perspective.”  She goes on to proclaim the themes of the exhibit as diversity, acceptance, and tolerance…“because differences are a gift, not a mistake.”

It is hard not to be swayed by this articulate middle schooler proclaiming tolerance and love.  But we must resist liberalism of this sort even when they use a lovely young voice.  The rhetoric of “No one deserves to be limited by another’s perspective.”…is just plain giddy.  This young girl’s entire life has been and will be limited and shaped by her teachers and her parents.  Her performance on the SATs will determine her future in a big way and this will be done by total strangers working in Princeton, NJ.  GC should learn the irony of her words since the new left is notorious for limiting free speech: just Google George Washington University and Father Greg Shaffer.  You’ll see just one more example of the new left trying to shut down free speech in this case two gay seniors upset that a Catholic Priest is promoting the exclusivity of traditional marriage.  This type of intolerant thought by the two students, mixed with their contempt peaked during the 2008 election cycle when candidate Barak Obama addressed a fund raiser in San Francisco, the citadel of liberalism.  The junior senator from Illinois tried to explain small town Americans to his fellow progressives like this: “they (rural Americans) cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”  Really?  Basically if you disagree with a “liberal” you are marginalized as a gun-toting, bible thumping, xenophobe.     

GC is a potent example of the true nature of this modern day Trojan horse in downtown Sarasota, namely indoctrination over education.  Here are some examples to ponder: In 1993 author Jonathan Rauch, a gay liberal journalist, criticized the new left for embracing cultures that they liked and badgering cultures that they disliked in his ground breaking social critique of American society: Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought.  Twenty years ago he used a new term to our lexicon, Political Correctness.  He cited the abuse of the gun culture in the United States by liberal circles.  Out of the 39 posters none were embracing the 2^nd amendment crowd.  Today, the same-sex marriage lobby loves to label traditional Christians who support traditional marriage as haters and homophobes.  Was there one billboard supporting 3,000 years of traditional marriage?  Good luck finding one because the hidden agenda of this annual event is liberal causes not liberal thought.

Recently I had the opportunity to visit this exhibit.  The weather and view of Sarasota Bay were perfect.  What troubled me however, were the dutiful 2^nd and 3^rd grade students following high school docents from posting to posting like characters out of a George Orwell novel, soaking up the liberal rhetoric as though it was established law rather than a point of view. 

I saw no posters on how the break down of the American family was producing students with no impulse control and no respect for themselves or their fellow classmates.  72% of urban babies are now born illegitimately to single mothers.  It seems that pandering and indoctrination is overshadowing a liberal arts education and serious academic debate. 

Listen to this clip from JFK about the idea behind the motto: “CELBRATE OUR SIMILARITIES, AND RESPECT OUR DIFFERENCES.”

From the commencement address at American University in Washington, D.C. on June 10, 1963: “So, let us not be blind to our differences. But let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal.”  This was and is still great advice for the countries of the world and the young people of the United States.  Remember we live in the United States and not the United Nations.

Attend the Island Park Exhibition by all means but do so with an open mind and open eyes.  Word Total, 936.

Geoffrey G. Fisher is a federally designated Highly Qualified state-certified history teacher working in southwest Florida as a guest teacher.  He holds a BA in History from the University of Connecticut and a MA in Public Policy from Trinity College in Hartford, CT.  In addition to teaching he is a former elected official and speechwriter.  Mr. Fisher now writes the political blog: THE THINKING CAP at  

www.theamericanthinkingcap.blogspot.com.

  

DISCUSSION WITH COLLEGE FRIENDS OVER THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS AND THE ISSUE OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

DISCUSSION WITH COLLEGE FRIENDS OVER THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS AND THE ISSUE OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

Dear Randy and Bob:

I think that Bob meant to say faith cannot be contested – religion is the manifestation of that faith.  Most people do not question that authenticity of Jesus’ remarks about the importance of the two commandments listed in my post.

My point was if you do follow Jesus Christ, then you should adhere to his actual words that one must love and trust in God with all your being and only then love your neighbor as yourself.  This is not up for discussion if you are a Christian.  My concern is when a lapse Christian decides on his own to deny Jesus as the Messiah.  This is a life changing comment.

Randy, as I’m sure you are aware, Evangelical Christians do not hate homosexuals, they hate the sin of homosexuality.  God also created Jerry Sandusky but we do not have to approve of his behavior.

I think the two of you need to take a deep breath and own your convictions that you approve of homosexuality and would have no problem whatsoever if your children became a homosexual.  From my position it is okay to disapprove of homosexuality on earthly moral grounds and also to disapprove of the sin of homosexual behavior if you have a Christian fundamentalist reading of the bible.  It’s called free speech.

Word Total: 215

Best, Geoff   

Facebook Discussion on Same-sex marriage and the Role of Christianity in our Lives

Facebook Discussion on Same-sex marriage and

the Role of Christianity in our Lives

Randall commented on your link.

Randall wrote: "Geoff, regarding your comment above about reverence for the bible, there are many faithful people who come from a tradition centered around Christ's teaching that fully reject bible worship. It is mind-boggling when "Christians" trot out select phrases from the bible to judge people different (or not really different) from themselves, while ignoring Jesus' command to love one another, be charitable in judgement, treat others as you wish to be treated (one of the 2 greatest commandments). The bible as we know it today was put together by the Roman Empire to preserve the Roman Empire, and other more spiritual gospels were banned as heretical because they did not require subservience to central authority. If we are to worship God's creation, we should use the brains God gave us to observe the real world around us, and not just follow false teachers like sheep."

Dear Randy:

Thanks for writing back.  I agree with your general contention that God gave us a brain that should be used constructively.  This is one of the reasons why I defer to the New Testament more than the Old Testament.  Yet, Jesus (himself) said that salvation is gained only through him.  That is pretty stark and not left to interpretation.

My main Christian tenets are similar to yours: love your neighbor as yourself, practice kindness and forgiveness towards your fellow man, and remain humble - go into a private room to pray rather than praying only in public like some televangelists.  But again, Jesus said that most important commandment is to love God with all your heart and all your being.  The exact quote follows.

Matthew 22:36-40

New International Version (NIV)

36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two

commandments.”

It seems as though our friend is rejecting the words of Jesus and therefore Jesus himself.  This troubles me and I hope that he can reconcile his political beliefs with the Christianity of his family.  WORD TOTAL 382

Best, Geoff

A FACEBOOK RESPONSE TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE VERSUS TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE

A FACEBOOK RESPONSE TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE VERSUS TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE

Dear Randy and Bob:

Bob your original post dealt with a silly comment about Democrats and Republicans and the same-sex marriage topic was an ancillary posting.  Yet, since the two of you have now thrusted the subject front and center and since the two of you have reference the imagery of me giving myself a prostate examination I will respond with some emotion.

Bob, let me start with you.  In circa 1977 you told Bill Shannon and me that you were a confirmed heterosexual and all that talk about homosexuals needed to stay away from you.  Basically, let the gays do what they do over there and away from you. 

In addition in 1983 I mentioned to you that I had just finished reading a biography on Oscar Wilde and I enjoyed it very much.  Apparently, my brother Herb was nearby and after I left the room you said to him: “Too bad Oscar Wilde was gay.”  In 1983 I thought your comment was thoughtless, cruel, and clumsy.  Wilde’s plays are to this day the epitome of highbrow humor and he remains one of the great wits of all time.  Just listen to his take on the progressive agenda towards drinking: “Drink is the curse of the working class.”  Of course this meant the Italians and the Irish.  Wilde saw this type of patronizing rhetoric for what it was – sentimental dribble by well-educated women with too much time on their hands.

Wilde responded: “Work is the curse of the drinking class.”

Bob, either your opinion about Wilde was that of an immature young adult with a malicious streak or today you are following the latest fad while trying to be sophisticated.  I am learning toward the latter point of view.  Your arguments are old and tired and not very convincing.  What’s wrong with two people falling in love and getting married in a same sex setting?  Well, let’s see:
1. It is literally unnatural, gays can never have children without artificial intervention.

2. At 3%-5% of the population gays have given new life to the term the tail wagging  

    the dog.  Remember that 4% of our population is still 14 million people.

3. Where does the “If it feels good, do it.” End?  How about honoring incestuous marriages.  Does anyone condone Randy’s son and daughter marrying?  Remember, they would be consenting adults who in this scenario would be in love.  The answer is of course neither of you would consider this union to be wholesome and neither one of you would vote for such enabling legislation.

4. Of course someone of the left would say this union could produce children with devastating birth defects.  Well then, let’s change the incestuous role slightly to homosexual incest.  No fear of birth defects and yet two consenting adults who love each other could be granted the dignity of holy matrimony.  So Bob in this instance you and your brother Tom could theoretically throw convention to the wind and marry.  Bob, are you ready to make this leap in order to maintain a consistent argument, that love makes a family?  I bet the answer is no.

Bob, it seems like you’re an unknowing phony, but a phony nevertheless.  Why in the world would you through 3,000 years of tradition out the window, and defy the teachings of the Christian bible.  Is it that important to you to run with the groovy people?

And Randy…I am at a complete loss as to your rhetoric since you never uttered one word of homosexuality when I knew you in college.  What I saw was a well balanced 19 year old who embraced the life of the “working class” intellectual a la Jack Kérouac of the Beat Generation, and Glenn Gould.  You strove (successfully) to project an authentic profile the iconoclastic young gentleman which is why I find your rhetoric now so out of character.

Take this statement: “…when language used assumes particular male or female roles; these make lasting impressions on children.  My response is so what?  This statement sounds straight out of a Jane Fried workshop from 1974.  Men and women are different and that’s a good thing in my opinion.

More Semagin rhetoric: “Traditional marriage is a contract where the husband acquires ownership of his wife (traditionally called mistress) from her father.  Really?  Randy was your mother a slave because I know that Mrs. Jones was not a slave nor was my mother.  Remember that women who maintain their maiden names actually are maintaining their father’s name.

   

And the crowd pleaser: “You both really have your heads up your asses on equal rights for gays and lesbians.”  Randy, this is more than just tawdry language, it smacks of a lazy intellect.  Although, I do not accuse you of switching positions on homosexuality, I do accuse you of jumping on the current bank wagon of fashion.  When the author of DOMA and his wife suddenly endorse Gay marriage I smell opportunism which of course is a mainstay for the Clinton’s or as Randy would say, Bill Clinton and his slave.  (WORD COUNT: 844)

Best to both of you, Geoff