Jerry Grudem requested a response to his letter objecting to my use of the phrase, "supported his (Obama’s) efforts and successes despite racist obstruction from the conservative right of the Republican Party".
The phrase was used in contradicting unsupportable incompetence charges against President Obama in Arnold Leshovsky’s previous letter. Jerry’s concern that racist obstruction somehow included him was self-inflicted misinterpretation.
The "conservative right" in this case refers to obstructionist senators, representatives, and supreme/lower level court judges, not the general conservative populace unless, of course, you agree with their positions. During Obama’s presidency, they have used every conceivable interpretation of the Constitution and its derivative laws, procedural rules in Congress, and pressures from powerful lobbyists, like the NRA, to block even his most common sense actions.
What supports a "racism" claim? When policies put forth by the President are not even considered or voted on by Congress or when Executive Orders are nullified by the courts, there have to be underlying reasons. The only one that makes sense in Obama’s case is that he is black and that is racist.
Jerry’s list of prominent black conservatives was interesting but irrelevant to the issue. They certainly weren’t racist. They, like Obama, were most likely targets of racism during their entire lives and rise to prominence. Progressive movements in civil rights and social reforms opened the doors of opportunity for them.
For me, the most maddening example of obstructionism is gun control legislation. Obama’s heartfelt expressions of sorrow and compassion after meeting with families of senseless gun violence created a sense of outrage and call for remedial action. Imagine yourself in that role. His frustration that even the most obvious, sensible steps to reduce gun violence have been obstructed for no other reasons than to deny him a "win" or citing the second part of the Second Amendment "… the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
No sign of remorse or compassion for those killed before or the scores who will be killed today.
In that regard, no one addressing this issue, neither the gun lobby nor gun control advocates, ever refer to the first and equally important Second Amendment phrase, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state."
This phrase suggests the framers believed gun ownership was serious business and bears with it the obligation to be prepared and willing to serve in the "militia" (National Guard in today’s terms) as required for security of a free state.
Remember the minutemen? As a minimum, this would require extensive background checks along with military training before allowing ownership of a firearm. It’s part of the Constitution.
As a reminder, Robert Roark’s video series has some new entries. More modern Progressive approaches to today’s and future challenges. The newly framed Democratic Party Platform includes most of them.