HAIL TO THE CHIEF

Readers assess Barack Obama’s legacy and his successor’s differences

An end to political correctness

RE: JAN.3 EUGENE ROBINSON column, “Progressives’ America, like Trump’s, is ‘real,’ too”

No, Mr. Eugene Robinson, for “real” Americans, political correctness is not merely “common courtesy.”

It is a pernicious attempt to squelch free speech and to implement thought control.

It falsifies history and misstates facts in the name of multiculturalism and groupthink. It stifles critical thinking in schools. Its robotic adherents uphold some religions while disparaging others.

And in the Obama Administration, it has endangered national security by barring the targeting — or even the naming — of that group of terrorists most likely to harm us.

But the American people have awakened — they elected for president the least politically correct candidate. RICHARD BLUMENFELD Albuquerque

Public voted for Clinton

IN A RECENT OP-ED PIECE headlined, “Election shows Clinton more disliked than Trump” [sic], the author tries to equate the electoral college with proof that somehow shows the general public who voted showed their distaste for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump.

I want to remind readers that Clinton won the national popular vote with an almost 2.9 million vote lead, 48.2 percent over Trump’s 46.1 percent.

If you add the 5.7 percent of the national popular vote that went to candidates other than Clinton or Trump then you have 53.9 percent of national voters who didn’t like Trump.

Granted, both candidates were highly disliked, but if this were a popularity contest Trump was the ultimate loser.

And yes, you can count me as one of those who is not going to get over it. MARY JO MARAVETZ Albuquerque

Obama’s indifference

AND SO PRESIDENT OBAMA’S second term in office is now winding down. Many are the questions evoking discussion regarding his presidency.

A large number of these questions are of political basis or origin. There are however two issues that have no political basis that should be of concern and disgust regarding his actions or inactions.

First, the fact that the president has not paid much more than lip service to the inner city shootings and murders. The large majority of these happenings are black on black.

The killings in south and west Chicago are horrific and continue to escalate. Christmas weekend logged 12 killings and a total of 60 shootings. The unemployment rate among young blacks in Chicago is currently 40 percent, no doubt contributing to the problem.

The shootings continue to escalate and yet no seeming care or concern or action on the part of our president for those in his hometown.

Second, the recent abstention on the part of our ambassador to the United Nations regarding Israel has no Republican or Democratic attachment. For some 20 years the U.S. has stood firm in its support of Israel. And so now, without a veto vote, the resolution was allowed to pass.

Without going into chapter and verse, what have the Palestinians done to even begin to deserve a seat at the negotiating table?

From the Gaza Strip, there continues to be a barrage of shelling on Israel territory and there also continues to be violence against Israeli citizens in Jerusalem.

This tiny country is but our only real friend in the Middle East, and yet the Obama Administration through abstaining from the recent vote, basically has turned its back on Israel.

Again, the two issues referenced above have no basis in politics but are stark disappointments regarding the president of the United States and his actions and inactions. DAVE BROWNING Corrales

Mere existence polarizing

AN OP-ED BY JAY AMBROSE was published in Journal of Jan. 2.

He noted that Gallup polls during the Obama Administration showed more political division in the country than ever before.

From this he concludes that Obama was responsible for polarizing the country, stirring up class antagonisms, heightening racial tensions and instigating political stalemate. He implied that Obama did all this on purpose.

He’s partially right. Obama’s mere existence as the president stirred up racial tensions to a level not seen in years — but he did his best to prevent that.

For the last few years, I’ve gotten at least one email a week from a conservative friend in Kansas, claiming that Obama was born in Kenya, that he was a communist, that he was a Muslim, that he hated America — all without proof, in fact without any reason at all except that he was a black Democrat in a position of authority.

Each week I was warned that “next week he’s going to come for your guns” or “next week he’s going to put the country under martial law.”

Obama’s presidency did heighten racial tensions, but Obama didn’t do it; the racists who couldn’t accept him did.

Obama didn’t instigate political stalemate, the Republicans — who either hated his color or his party — did.

Obama didn’t heighten class antagonisms, either. Ambrose didn’t explain what he meant by that, but I’d guess he meant the rebellion against the status quo that gave us the election of Trump.

And Obama didn’t cause that, either — many years of lost manufacturing jobs, lost mining jobs, and the like, did. JERRY STAUFFER Albuquerque