Birther and “racism” exhaustion
It began early in the Obama campaign. The way it went was this: Obama would make predictions about his opponents and insinuate their criticism of him would inevitably have racist roots (they’ll say “he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills;” “and did I mention he’s black?”).
This acted as a signal to supporters—as if they needed urging—that criticism of Obama was to be interpreted as racist. Obama himself would stay serenely above the fray, the post-racial healer, and the attack dogs would attack.
Whether or not those playing the race card actually believed their own charges, or whether they just figured the approach would be strategically effective in both demonizing the opposition and silencing it through fear of being called racist, it all worked pretty well for quite a while. Early opponents Hillary Clinton and then John McCain were effectively neutered by it, the “first black president” Bill Clinton was enraged, and the whole ploy helped Obama ride the tide of hope and change to power.
By now, though it’s gotten pretty old. After a while the American people began to wonder whether any criticism could be mounted against Obama without triggering the old “racist” canard.
Of course there are still some racists in America, in both parties. But just as surely, the vast majority of the criticism of Obama comes from disagreement with his policies, well-earned distrust of his word, and dislike for his much-displayed narcissism. To notice those things and comment on them is to treat him as what he is: a human being to be judged on his merits or lack thereof, not a specially favored, criticism-exempt member of a minority group.
The birther controversy was a great gift to those crying “racism,” because it allowed them to revive the “racist” charges against those who doubted Obama’s American birth, or those who merely wanted him to document it (as others before him have had to do—the very white but Panama-Canal-born John McCain, for example, a fact that the anti-birthers conveniently ignore).
Today the NY Times offers its typically sneering and dismissive, mildly Orwellian take on the matter:
With sardonic resignation, President Obama, an eminently rational man, stared directly into political irrationality on Wednesday and released his birth certificate to history…It was particularly galling to us that it was in answer to a baseless attack with heavy racial undertones…the birther question was never really about citizenship; it was simply a proxy for those who never accepted the president’s legitimacy, for a toxic mix of reasons involving ideology, deep political anger and, most insidious of all, race. It was originally promulgated by fringe figures of the radical right, but mainstream Republican leaders allowed it to simmer to satisfy those who are inflamed by Mr. Obama’s presence in the White House.
Actually, it was originally promulgated by the Clinton camp, but why should the Times care about history or veracity in this particular matter when it cares so little about it in general? Besides, what is irrational about asking Obama to produce a long form birth certificate, and what is “eminently rational” about his failing to do so all these years when he could have scotched the controversy long ago?
Speaking of rationality—you may ask why I still pay any attention at all to the NY Times at this point. Well, it’s for a number of reasons, chief among them the fact that I still know a lot of people who consider it the final word on what’s happening in the world. Another is that when I was growing up the Times was the newspaper of record, and “all the news that’s fit to print” was something I actually believed.
What can I say; I was a child. Looking back, I don’t think the Times was ever what I was told it was or what I imagined it to be. But my feeling of betrayal and disillusionment is still there.
“when I was growing up the Times was the newspaper of record, and “all the news that’s fit to print” was something I actually believed.
“What can I say; I was a child.”
LOL! This was wonderful, Neo. It should be plastered on t-shirts!
The Times is still the go to place for Europeans seeking news about America. It drives me nuts!
Remember the “journolist” scandal? One of the guys said that if conservatives tried to make a big deal out of the Reverend Wright tapes then they’d just pick out a conservative at random and call him a racist to silence him. The guy even suggested two when he said, “Karl Rove or Fred Barnes, who cares?”
They’ve played the race card so frequently the meaning of the word has been devalued. And that’s too bad, because now when someone cries about real, genuine racism we may not take it seriously.
To notice those things and comment on them is to treat him as what he is: a human being to be judged on his merits or lack thereof, not a specially favored, criticism-exempt member of a minority group.
At best, IMO, affirmative action is a well-intentioned idea whose unintended consequences are, to put it mildly, an unfolding mess. More likely it has become part of the Gramscian project to condition the country to the Marxist view of class (via demarcation of oppressor and victim groups). The election of Obama fits right into that narrative.
Speaking of canards: “Of course there are still some racists in America, in both parties. ”
That’s a canard/disclaimer that needs to be retired. Of course any statement that starts with “Of course” also needs to be retired as well.
Pingback:Why Trump’s shenanigans matter… | Amused Cynic
The democrats are basically saying the President being black is a special needs person and any criticism or judgement of him is a shameful thing. Yet those who consider him their equal as a person who needs no kid glove treatment or special consideration are the racist. Something’s wrong with this picture.
It’s going to be a nasty election.
You’re a racist if you disagree with Obama.
Can he win on this in the face of economic catastrophe?
Stay tuned.
“. . . affirmative action is a well-intentioned idea whose unintended consequences are, to put it mildly, an unfolding mess.” gs (2:29 above).
This is a succinct description of generally all liberal policies.
Furthermore, if, as liberals insist, affirmative action is a requisite to combate racisim, how can describing someone as an affirmative action beneficiary be racist? Racism is racist, and combatting racism is racist??!!?? No wonder you can’t have an intelligent conversation with a liberal!
they use the underwear test for party parity..
ie… they throw their dirty underwear at the wall, if it sticks they know they have a winner…
no valid point, just power..
its why they love unfalsifiable points..
you can have both opposing camps under one power umbrella that gets to choose what it likes, and set the two camps at each other using the blowfeld method.. (see 007 fighting fish clip)
so feminists for pornography, and feminists against pornography, each have no real representation.
the feminists above, vote waht they want as they have both camps under them, so how can they pick wrong? the worst that happens is the two camps fight each other, while the leaders in he common unfalsifiable position collect from both sides (and against the middle.. the women and through them the men who are victims of their games)
you see.. they take no real position…
only the one that leads to power.
and they play this completely dishonest thing by pretending to be with whatever side is winning or will appear to be. no loyalty, no ethics, no conviction, no morals, no debate..
all of that is meaningless. they are at a higher level..
above it..
in this way, the dems could be for the KKK until that was no good, then switch to the White MAN cigar unions.. then oppose that for the side that only a couple of decades before they were vivisecting alive…
then they joined withthe communsts. who had the same morals and ideas…
woodrow wilson segregating everything worked to gain power from the base that feared the antibellum movements.
as from the chatechism of the revoluitionary, they believe or care about no real side or method or position other than that which will gain them all power.
so they tell women to hold off having kids, take their money to pay for other children along demographic lines, and so forth..
while they themselves have litters..
pelosi has 5 kids.
how come that doesnt get the ire that others with similar get?
you cant wake up to the game until you realie that they are not playing the game… they are playing higher game in which your the pieve on the board and the takin gof a position is to move you..
not two people moving on a board debating a real issue to a real end.
which is why games like dialoging to consensus.. ie. replacing the debate with the leaders choice while pretending to orchestrate and listen to a debate which is only for the consumption of the people who do not get to have a real choice. but if they knew that they would not blindly comply with the game screwing them. so dont tell them. shhhhhh.
(heck they dont believe even if you do and explain it)
Vanderleun @ 2:53pm
Of course you are correct.
The Leftist canards are like allergy shots; eventually the (political) body simply ignores the allergen, even as the stimulating doses increase.
Diversity programs:
http://www.mcw.edu/display/docid619.htm
this amounts to the equivalent in germany that a jew cant have a small business… (but its extended from them to the people that saved them)
[only for women, minorities, and oppressed
one group cant participate]
http://www.sba.gov/content/8a-business-development
thanks to this program, my son who graduated with honors in genetics and gene engineering… cant find work… he is at macys minimum wage.
Research Supplements to Promote Diversity in Health-Related Research
grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/pa-05-015.html
basically if you pad your research group with women, minorities, gays, and eject poor white jewish and christian males.. you get a bonus cash prize for your research.
so like in germany, jews and disfavored have lost their small businesses, and have lost access to education… we also have similar to action 4 in health care too.
The announcement for the RESEARCH SUPPLEMENTS FOR UNDERREPRESENTED MINORITIES
at grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-01-079.html
when getting me to not be able to go to school after i made it to bronx sciecne, wasnt good enough to equalize men and women..
This program, originally announced in 1989, was established to address the need to increase the number of underrepresented minority scientists
participating in biomedical research and the health related sciences.
they quietly without debate was paying you to discriminate.
is it any wonder that my best shot at a future for my family is to die?
The NIH hereby notifies all Principal Investigators holding NIH research
grants that funds are available for administrative supplements to existing
grants for the support and recruitment of underrepresented minority
investigators and students. The aim of these supplements is to attract and
encourage minority individuals to enter and pursue health-related research
careers in areas within the mission areas of all the awarding components of
the NIH.
so basically, they didnt tell my son.. he worked hard like i did. and the social engineers disenfranchised him.
why? wrong color/race – wrong sex – wrong orientation
so what does a poor jewish lad do?
maybe he and his wife put off having kids?
maybe they abort hoping for a better thing
they certainly dont protest, they dont know this is bieng done tothem by the people they support.
shoa II has already started
and the people who saved them last century, are going down with them.
wealthy elite whites last century were very antisemitic. supporting coughlin, the progressives, and nazi stuff with social justice.
it was the poor common man that hated the pesecution of blacks.. it was the poor common white man who volunteered to fight in wwii…
take some time to see the demographcis and stuff.
social engineering of this kind violates the constititon in favor of a secret soviet system that acts and hides and the people are to odistracted and twisted around to put the tail on the donkey.
if you walk the halls, there are almost no white males. if you do see one, he is an administrator (who are now being fired for diversity and pushed out using nasty social games).
67% are women..
most of the rest are foreign
and with the fact that the nazis just nationalize education money.. do you think poor white jewish and other white lads can get the help they need to participate and succeed?
of course not.
shoa II started a long time ago.
but this method keesp the victims from protesting until their numbers are so small nad they are so universally hated that no one cares what happesn to those cheaters (proven by disparate impact – invented by the nazis in their effort to demonize the jews and capitlaists)
i
helen thomas was not an aberation it was a slip of the mask in front of the “innocents”
As Daffy Duck so eloquently lisped: “It’s just the injustice of it all.”
Looking back, I don’t think the Times was ever what I was told it was or what I imagined it to be.
C’mon, neo, would Walter Duranty lie to you?
ever notice that when there is something to talk about, the spamminator kicks in and helps prevent discussion of the key subject?
my post is in the spam bin..
too tired to post again.
tinyurl.com/6huwku3
No exhaustion here.
Re. about tea party people:
We’re fighters and we prize the fight. We consider a life where everything is guaranteed to be an empty life. We love risk and the accompanying achievement. The famous Teddy Roosevelt statement that starts, “It is not the critic who counts” sums up our belief in that area. That’s what is resonating with The Donald and the tea party people.
We don’t look at life as what we need to avoid but as “What can I take.” Sure, morals can get lost with that perspective, and they do. Obviously they did with Trump–but how badly? Let’s put in perspective.
The triumphs of high achievement!
Or another expression of a tea party spirit is Jack Nicholson in “One flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest,” where he tries to pull the water fountain out of the floor. He doesn’t succeed but “at least I tried, dammit, I least I did that.”
Obama can take his putsy mealy limp dick wet noodle and join up with all the other limp dicks. Me, and you, we’re going to endure, to fail, to succed, to live greatly and not require another to shoulder our responsibilities. Look at almost any truly handicapped or “challenged” person. What of all things is their natural desire? To live as independently as possible, to succeed in spite of their difficulties.
This charge of racism falls into a bigger category of “take care of me. I’m afraid. I can’t do it.” It is a fear based on losing of not getting what the other guy gets. It is based on envy.
These whiners with their false cries of racism are beneath contempt but that doesn’t mean they don’t deserve contempt. They deserve contempt and the best way to give it to them is by living our life and stating in words and deeds “Isn’t life great!”
“… why should the Times care about history or veracity in this particular matter when it cares so little about it in general? ”
The NYT only cares about its agenda. They don’t need no stinking veracity.
“… they throw their dirty underwear at the wall, if it sticks they know they have a winner… ”
That’s more than quotable. 🙂
Gee whiz! I’m glad to know the New York Times condemns
Nice to know ideology and political anger are toxic.
Do you suppose there is one thing, even one, that was considered by me and my parents and me to be moral and honorable, that the New York Times has not declared a mortal sin?
Maybe somebody can sell a fake birth certificate to Dan Rather. You know, using word processing fonts that didn’t exist in 1961. It almost succeeded against Bush until the Powerline crew smoked it out.
Hot damn you just gotta love that “eminently rational man” bit. I want to make a shirt with Obama’s mug on it and the words,
“An Eminently Rational Man”
stamped triumphantly above his head, like the very heavens he descended from.
It’s hard to believe that the folks who wrote that line don’t realize how eminently silly it sounds.
Thankfully, I never read the great adjudicators of eminent rationality at the New York Times growing up. Unfortunately, I did read the grey eminences at “the best red paper in America,” otherwise known as the St. Petersburg Times (“Petrograd Times” for short).
Youth is truly wasted on the young.
gs Says: At best, IMO, affirmative action is a well-intentioned idea…More likely it has become part of the Gramscian project…
Afterthought, for clarity: I remember echoes of the saying that Negroes, Catholics and Jews are not 100% Americans. The country is a far far more open society than it was during my childhood.
Still, I’m glad my mouth was empty when I read Neo’s allusion to Obama the post-racial healer.
It is quite apparent that the NY Times lives atop a memory vortex…
The Party Line prior to this latest e-fraud was that the original document couldn’t be found by the Governor of Hawaii…
Also: That all such records had been digitized and the originals shredded!
Now the Party Line is that a 500 page tome has been moved into a super-secret, super-special vault so that no one ( expert in documents ) can view it!
It’s one un-ending string of lies.
BTW, the latest e-release is a fraud.
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?blog=Market-Ticker&page=2
Scroll down and run the clip. There is nowhere to run. It’s a fraud.
Others have noted astounding details:
The fraud e-BC uses the exact same time of birth as the Kenyan BC deemed a fraud by the Party Line. WHAT a coincidence!
Whom ever ginned the fraud up did so on a computer — and is young enough to not know of tab stops on typewriters. Close inspection shows that the critical fields are NOT tab-stop aligned! Real long form BCs are tab-stop aligned.
There is NO WAY that the e-BC was scanned into a pdf directly nor does any software crank out countless layers all loaded with uniquing details.
It is transparent that a real long form was used to format the fraud. Digital manipulations were so lame that the fraud is falling apart hourly.
The larger question is why?
As I’ve posted before the need to get Stanley out of state was very real.
Here’s another point. Stanley renewed her passport in 1965.
But since it’s a renewal — she had to have one issued in 1960/1.
What kind of girl gets a passport as a minor? She’d been 17 or 18 years old.
Its only use is for international travel!
BTW, it is now out on the web: Obama, Sr. was run off by Harvard once they realized he was a bigamist — and was going for ‘wife’ number three!
http://www.scribd.com/doc/54015762/Barack-Hussein-Obama-Sr-Immigration-File
Obama, Sr. ( per the documents ) had a wife in Kenya ( abandoned ) a wife in Honolulu ( abandoned ) and was nailing another babe ( age 27 ) while at Harvard!
So they cut his money off and drove him off to Kenya.
Plainly, Barry is a legal bastard. Stanley could never get a marriage license for Obama, Sr. since married was stamped all over his documents.
No one has ever established that any ceremony ever occurred. ( It probably mirrored the Sonny & Cher first wedding: performed in a bathtub with just each other! )
Adding it all up: the need to con America exists because Stanley really was shipped out for the birth. Hence her passport.
Pelosi and the Party conned America.
BTW, all of the key Hawaii State officials involved with the coverup have received rocket powered career enhancements courtesy of the White House. Imagine that!
blert,
I agree with your post, except for this:
I had a passport at 15 (1971) and used it to go to Japan as a Boy Scout for a World Jamboree. I’m sure there are parents who take their young children on overseas vacations which require passports. Stanley Ann having a passport at 17 is not that big a deal.
RickZ…
Getting one when you’re pregnant…
And there’s no story floating around about Stanley being taken overseas by her mother.
All such trips were domestic.
The Dunhams apparently didn’t go overseas, just Stanley.
When someone points out the New York Times, I simply mention Jason Blair and that usually shuts them up.