Revisiting Fort Sumter, 150 Years Later

I’ve lived a long time and watched a dozen presidents come and go on the American scene, but President Barack Obama is the first to convince me that he really does not have the best interests of America – at least the America that we have known since our founding – at heart.

I believe that, as a result of his upbringing, his academic and personal associations and experiences, and his twenty-year sojourn of learning at Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s church of Black Liberation Theology, he has conflated the ideology of “anti-whiteness” with the Constitution. It seems clear to me that, out of this milieu of resentment-filled mentors, he has learned to hate the America of free-market capitalism and personal responsibility and is determined to dismantle the structure that it created.

Unfortunately, it would appear that he has chosen the strategy of framing all issues within the context of existing racial and social tensions in order achieve his goal of “social justice”.

Rather than working to unify all disparate groups for the sake the national well-being, the Obama administration consistently attempts to drive a wedge between races, classes, and cultures. This is wrong every way you look at it and the president is too well informed to not know what the outcome of his divisive words and actions are likely to be. Eric Holder’s Department of Justice appears to be his instrument of choice to accomplish this end, as evidenced by the suit against Arizona’s illegal immigrant law, the dismissal of the charges of voter intimidation against the New Black Panthers, and the immediate reaction by the DoJ to “investigate” the recent jury verdict of involuntary manslaughter in Oakland against a white police officer who shot and killed an unarmed Black man.

It has become perfectly crystal clear that President Obama intends to form a majority voting block comprised of the aggrieved–the unions, the Hispanics, the Blacks, and, of course, the Marxist/Socialists of all stripes who make no secret of their distain for free-market capitalism–and such demographics may very well be on his side, aided and abetted by the revisionist history taught in our educational system.

Yes, there was a critical failure by our Founders to confront the issue of slavery in the very beginning, but it is also true that their primary goal was to obtain a consensus among the thirteen colonies. It is also true that our history is replete with tales of unfair treatment of Native Americans in the infancy and expansion of our nation. We must recognize and accept the reality of our history and, in so doing, understand that resentments run deep and are passed down from generation to generation, always seeking means of redress. That having been stipulated, there never has been a lack of persons, both black and white and almost universally motivated by their religious beliefs, who have been willing to fight, many to the death, to rectify those moral failures.

We fought one civil war which eventually pivoted on the issue of slave ownership but, apart from maintaining the Union by force, that war served only to metastasize racial inequity until the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964 — and even that effort fell far short in terms of creating racial harmony and equity. We can’t run away from these facts, but my fear now is that we are being goaded into a second major social conflict based on the conclusion of those in power that the problems of race and wealth distribution are too pervasive and embedded too deeply to be solved by anything less than the total eradication of “whiteness” as defined by James Cone in A Black Theology of Liberation and in Judy Helfand’s Constructing Whiteness, both of which I have covered in previous articles here at America’s Right.

If we are to avoid social upheaval on a scale not seen in this country since the Civil War and one which will change the American landscape forever we must be very careful how we respond to the Obama administration’s actions and policies. As I have said before, one of the most painful lessons that I’ve learned over a lifetime is that it’s not what others say or do that does us irreparable harm; it’s how we respond to provocation, regardless of whether it be perceived or real.

God forbid that Phoenix, Arizona would become the twenty-first century equivalent of Ft. Sumter, but there is nothing to say with confidence that it will not become just that.

Share

Comments

  1. Anonymous says:

    How does that phrase go?, que sera sera………

  2. Many fights brewing says:
  3. whats_up says:

    Wow, two scare pieces in a row. Can Conservatives not defend their viewpoints better than this. Randy we had more social upheaval in the late 50′s and early 60′s than we do now. That didnt produce another Ft. Sumter, what makes you think anything that is happening today would produce one?

  4. Dee says:

    I agree that BO does not have the best interests of our country at heart. I don’t think he likes our country or those who elected him. Our country has slowly lost sight of the original plan. The economy is so stagnant that it saddens me when I think of my children’s future. BO keeps preaching “fairness” and “equality”. What is the incentive to improve your condition on your own if you know that it will be “shared” by those not inclined to do so? I can hardly wait for November 2010 and November 2012.
    Thank you, Randy.

  5. Randy Wills says:

    To”whats_up” @ 12:06:

    We have never had a president in the WH who, based on my overservations since he took office, appears to be blatantly fomenting racial tension. I may be wrong; I hope that I am, but I think that you missed the point. My article was not intended as a “scare piece” (although I honestly believe that we will see a serious escalation of civil unrest, or “intensity”, as the First Lady would say) but rather a cautionary note to those on the Right who would overreact to perceived provocation.

    My reference to Ft. Sumter is apropos in that it never needed to happen. SC could have chosen to fight the issues in the political/legal arena but chose to do otherwise, leaving the Lincoln little choice but to respond with force or let the Union dissolve.

    And by the way, Obama is no Lincoln, so please don’t interpret what I say as making that connection.

    Randy

  6. Happy Days says:

    The 50′s and 60′s…. ah, the good old days. Are you kidding me?

  7. Gail B. says:

    whats_up says:
    July 15, 2010 at 12:06 pm

    “Wow, two scare pieces in a row. Can Conservatives not defend their viewpoints better than this.”

    Whatsie, honey, do you not realize what is going on? Do you not realize that the regime is trying in every way possible to divide us? (“United we stand; divided we fall.”)

    The last time the United States was fired upon from across the Mexican border (until recently at El Paso) was in the EARLY 1900s. Our military was sent to the area and CLEANED IT OUT! Why not today?! Instead, the Obama Regime has filed suit against Arizona because it has no responsible federal government protecting it against an armed invasion.

    The NAACP has passed a resolution condemning the Tea Party movement for alleged racial behavior. Where is the NAACP’s resolution against the Black Panthers and their televised graphic demonstrations when they urged the killing of white babies?

    A year ago someone asked me if I had a gun. Who would want to kill a white-haired 70-year-old woman?! Well, the Black Panthers would have no hesitation, I do believe.

  8. Gail B. says:

    Change “Instead, the Obama Regime has filed suit against Arizona because it has no responsible federal government protecting it against an armed invasion.” to this:

    Instead, the Obama Regime has filed suit against Arizona, which wrote its own law mirroring the federal law because it has no responsible federal government to protect the state against an armed invasion. WHY DOESN’T ARIZONA HAVE FEDERAL PROTECTION?

  9. Gail B. says:
  10. William A. Rose says:

    The American Civil War was not a result of the slavery issue. It was a result of State’s Rights and the Federal Government’s desire to exercise far more unconstitutional control over the States and the People. The issue of slavery was a perfect reason to give for the war, however, because it distracted from the true reason.

    Deception is key. Misdirection. Misinformation. Division. You have those, and you can accomplish anything you want.

    And that is precisely what Obama is doing as well. We’ll get our Civil War redeaux.

    What this country needs to do is return to God and set aside all the detrimental policies and laws and things created over these past 200 years and get back to what the Founding Fathers gave us.

    And that will never happen.

  11. Boston Blackie says:

    And that is precisely what Obama is doing as well. We’ll get our Civil War redeaux.

    And when it happens, we will all be called racists.

  12. Ditto says:

    Mr Rose is right.

  13. whats_up says:

    @William Rose,

    Please William the only “states rights” that the South was interested in was Slavery. Go read the resolutions calling for secession, they mention Slavery as the reason to leave. Spare us your re-writing history.

    @Randy,

    Okay, now your piece makes a little more sense. However I disagree that Obama is fomenting racial tension, I see alot of others doing it but not the White House. Again I think this comes from you being scared. I dont think that Obama is Lincoln, nor would I make that silly comparison. There is much I disagree with about Obamas policies but lets not get carried away with ourselves. I heard this same line of bs in 76 and again in 94, it gets old after awhile.

  14. Randy Wills says:

    Just “a little more sense”, “whats-up”? Doesn’t sound like a very good grade to me, but I’ll keep trying. I’d hate to think that all I write is “bs”.

    And BTW, I’m still waiting for someone to accept my challenge to provide the name of one person of influence in Obama’s formative years that can be honestly classified as a person of “traditional American/Judeo-Christian values”. All I’ve been able to document are Socialist/Marxist/Progressive radicals. If I’m wrong on that, please set me straight. Otherwise, you’re welcome to join me in a little well-placed “fear” fir the future of America.

    My point is not that we haven’t had civil unrest before, but rather that we’ve never had a president – at least in my lifetime – who I am convinced is bent on destruction of all that I believe in.

    Randy

  15. Strength, I mean weakness, in numbers says:

    The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the presidency. It will be easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails us. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.

    —author unknown

  16. Boston Blackie says:

    A little off subject but…
    http://bostonherald.com/news/politics/view.bg?articleid=1268403
    Here’s what happens when you have one party running the state. mASSachusetts is following MD, IL, NJ, IL and WA by eliminating the electoral college for presidental elections.
    Constitution, we don’t need no Constitution.

  17. Common Sense says:

    Let’s all quit living a lie……

    http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=qtjfMjjce2Y

  18. Randy Wills says:

    “Strength –” @ 8:24 PM:

    Your quotation took me back to the very first piece (“Obama’s Not the Problem”) that I submitted to Jeff almost exactly one year ago.

    There is a little glimmer of hope that enough people are waking up to the real problem to at least start to turn things around this fall. I know that, starting with Jeff, all of the contributors to AR are focused on this task.

    Randy

  19. Bumper Sticker removal says:
  20. Gail B. says:
  21. Randy Wills says:

    “Gail B.” @ 5:33 PM:

    Some of the names, such as the David Packard and Bill Hewlett Foundations, associated with Tides are utterly astounding.

    And btw, did you read the article in Investor Business Daily posted on Drudge today regarding “the next Revolution”? Perhaps the rest of the world is catching up with the AR crowd.

    Randy

  22. Will says:

    I think I’ll get my history from those who do research and not from those that depend on their “painful lessons that I’ve learned over a lifetime”.

Speak Your Mind

*