Obama: those who think I’m exceeding my authority as president and becoming a tyrant…
…are racists calling me uppity.
No, Obama didn’t say those words, not exactly. But that’s what he said anyway.
For years I’ve marveled at Obama’s subtly clever use of the racism charge, performed while he simultaneously pretends to take the high road on race. It’s a highly developed balancing act, probably one he’s been practicing for a long time. He demonstrated fine use of it during the 2008 campaign. And of course the MSM cooperates in further disseminating the meme that all criticism of Obama is racism.
It strikes me that no other president before Obama has had this particular approach available to him, for the simple reason that no previous president has been a member of a minority group. But I also don’t think that most other politicians, of any race or religion or gender, would have had the sheer audacity to have taken this tack. They would have thought it undignified or unpresidential or divisive—because that was the prevailing opinion until Obama came along.
Remember this incident from over five years ago, when Obama said during his 2008 campaign:
It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy. We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?
Here’s what I said then about what Obama was doing, and I stand by it now:
…[T]his Presidential race (oops, I used the “r” word!!) has truly gone into a sort of twilight zone in which no one is able to mount any sort of campaign against Obama, even using his own character flaws against him, without being accused of racism.
To recap: use Obama’s photo, and you are emphasizing that he “looks different.” Therefore, you’re a racist. Mock his overwhelming and fully demonstrated arrogance, and you’re really calling him an “uppity n-word.” Mention that this almost uniquely inexperienced candidate is unready for the responsibilities of the Presidency, and you’ll find (as Hillary did) that you’re a racist as well.
Note also, both then and now, Obama is accusing Republicans in general of this, not some specific Republican who said a specific thing. It’s a general and amorphous charge, which is far more effective and versatile propaganda. In that 2008 statement, Obama was predicting it would happen and telling people to be on the lookout for it— and although in fact it hadn’t happened and didn’t happen and wouldn’t happen, that hardly mattered, because he’d placed the idea firmly in people’s minds.
In a similar way, various methods were used later on to strongly suggest that the Tea Party was a racist organization, even though there was no evidence of anything of the sort. Such suggestions work; that’s why they’re used.
And used over and over. Here’s the latest incident from Obama:
In his interview with the Times, when asked about over-enthusiastic use of executive power, Obama sneered at conservatives. “Some of those folks think I usurp my authority by having the gall to win the presidency. And I don’t think that’s a secret.”
He added: “But ultimately, I’m not concerned about their opinions ”” very few of them, by the way, are lawyers, much less constitutional lawyers.”
Gall, indeed—another code word for “uppity” no doubt. Those racists who hate Obama, angry at him for having the gall to have won!
Somehow Obama has managed to pack into those two sentences more offensive, twisted, narcissistic, manipulative, mendacious thoughts than there are words in them. How anyone can read those two sentences and like the man is beyond me.
But Obama knows exactly what he’s doing. He may be a knave, but as I’ve said for a long time he’s no fool. There’s not a word there that isn’t carefully chosen. Obama is not just the first black president: he is the first Orwellian president. And it turns out that charges of racism against critics make a great cover for tyranny.
[NOTE: By the way, about that “constitutional lawyers” remark—of course, some of Obama’s critics are lawyers. But the implication that a constitutional lawyer would necessarily respect the Constitution is ridiculous. Some do, some don’t; some learn the finer points of the Constitution in order to figure out ways to violate it or get around it.
And what’s a “constitutional lawyer” anyway? There are constitutional law experts, constitutional law professors, constitutional law students, and constitutional law instructors or lecturers (as Obama was). Obama was a singular Con Law teacher in that as far as we know he never wrote a paper on the subject, although he taught it. What’s more, he never taught a general course in it; he was a specialist.
All of Obama’s law teaching load was concentrated in several subjects that would be of use to him in his life in politics:
Before he outraised every other presidential primary candidate in American history, Mr. Obama marched students through the thickets of campaign finance law. Before he helped redraw his own State Senate district, making it whiter and wealthier, he taught districting as a racially fraught study in how power is secured. And before he posed what may be the ultimate test of racial equality ”” whether Americans will elect a black president ”” he led students through African-Americans’ long fight for equal status…
At the school, Mr. Obama taught three courses, ascending to senior lecturer, a title otherwise carried only by a few federal judges. His most traditional course was in the due process and equal protection areas of constitutional law. His voting rights class traced the evolution of election law, from the disenfranchisement of blacks to contemporary debates over districting and campaign finance. Mr. Obama was so interested in the subject that he helped Richard Pildes, a professor at New York University, develop a leading casebook in the field.
His most original course, a historical and political seminar as much as a legal one, was on racism and law.
Please read the whole thing. It’s quite illuminating.]
(Just posted below on another thread but even more apropos here)
An interesting if somewhat obscure and neglected book that I believe I have mentioned here before, and one that may well have key insights very directly applicable to the incipient Tyranny developing in our day is Israeli Historian J. L. Talmon’s, seminal 1952 work “The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy”–(also termed “Messianic Democracy”), a direct criticism of Rousseau and his ideas including the “Social Contract” and “natural man,” which discusses and dissects the Leftist ideology that drove the French Revolution and the Terror, and the Left’s idea that its utopian goals are so noble that that end justifies any means, and that includes destroying anyone who stands in the way of accomplishing those goals (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarian_democracy) .
A key idea is that the Left wants to “force you to be free,” as it defines “freedom”
“I also don’t think that most other politicians, of any race or religion or gender, would have had the sheer audacity to have taken this tack. They would have thought it undignified or unpresidential or divisive–because that was the prevailing opinion until Obama came along.”
They would have thought it “undignified or unpresidential or divisive” because…it is undignified, disrespectful of the office of the president, the nation and our societal foundations and, deeply divisive. That was not merely the prevailing opinion until Obama came along, that was recognition of reality.
What has changed is that the left now completely dominates the democrats and media and, liberal low-information voters have fully bought into the dual memes that those on the right are supportive of evil and, that the left’s agenda must be achieved by whatever means are necessary.
Obama’s deflection of any criticism as racist is highly effective because he doesn’t directly dispute the criticism, he questions his accuser’s motivation. Knowing that the ‘independent’ media will support both him and his characterization of any criticism as racially motivated. Thus, he with media support invalidate both the accuser and the criticism and, place that particular accusation ‘off the table’, having already ‘established’ that criticism to be racial motivated.
“By the way, about that “constitutional lawyers” remark—of course, some of Obama’s critics are lawyers. But the implication that a constitutional lawyer would necessarily respect the Constitution is ridiculous.”
Obama has personally demonstrated the degree of respect that leftist ‘constitutional lawyers’ (he isn’t one but has intimated himself to be one) hold toward the Constitution. But I think his ‘constitutional lawyers’ remark is primarily designed to intimate that only constitutional lawyers are qualified to hold an opinion regarding the constitutionality of his actions. And unsaid but implied is that even if a constitutional lawyer accuses him of acting unconstitutionally, plenty of leftist constitutional lawyers will disagree, making it all a matter of opinion.
“All of Obama’s law teaching load was concentrated in several subjects that would be of use to him in his life in politics…His most original course, a historical and political seminar as much as a legal one, was on racism and law.”
It strains credulity to imagine that to be accidental.
It’s also absurd to presume that Obama self-directed his path through prescience. He’s smart but not that smart. It’s far more likely that Obama, from late high school on, was groomed and directed upon his path with the highest attainable political office as its goal.
Isn’t the racism charge a tactic of stimulating his own personal cathexis — a libidinal energy invested in some idea or person or object — namely himself and his wonderfulness? It may be that that, like Chris Matthews and others, Barry squirts his pants when he thinks of Barry.
Pingback:our first orwellian president | the link brief
The Democrat party and the media would not have allowed any black President to NOT play the race card. Only their candidate, of course, not a conservative black. It is too valuable a weapon and it’s deployment wouldn’t have been unique to Obama.
Doesn’t mean that our Dear Leader isn’t himself a unique
POtuS.
“no previous president has been a member of a minority group.”
JFK, Catholic. As I remember (but only 9 years old at the time) it was an issue during the Dem primaries and he gave a speech about it. After he was nominated I don’t think it came up again prominently either in the campaign or his administration. Regardless of any other faults he may have had he did not exploit it the way Obama has used, and continues to use, race.
Obama is no fool in the same way that Hitler was no fool, but the end that is being led to, if it were plainly seen, who else but a fool could desire it?
Obama cannot accept his position as a mediocre intellectual, much less his character flaws. He has been enabled in his flight from reality because man, led by Leftists, is flying from reality.
I heard on the radio two pontiffs pontificating on “the American Myth.” To hear their assured dribble was disgusting. You know the reel. Unwind their every assured assertion and there is no substance, just accusation that “you didn’t build that.”
The Bible speaks metaphorically on the subject. When man builds his alter, he uses bricks–each brick the same as the other. God commanded his alter be built with unhewn stones, each stone an individual.
Obama’s genius is the genius of children who build fantasy worlds to their own liking. Actual hard work and learning are not required. Obama is an expert in maintaining his fantasy world. That maintenance utilizes the corruption of language, but language–despite the philosophical assertion that it is reality–does not overcome reality.
America, because it has been dedicated to rationalism–an irony given that the rationalism is inherited from the Judeo/Christian worldview–has largely rejected God. Science has presented too many conflicts.
But soon the conflicts of the present religion (politics) will cause people to re-evaluate. First they will see the value of the commandments, then see behind the commandments to wisdom, and finally, look to interpret the Bible with an open mind rather than God-hatred.
The main message of the Bible is “I am the Lord your God. There is no other.”
Obama and his followers hate this message and hate those who believe it. I can’t say exactly how the new faith will sort things out. Science will be an unexpected ally in this new discovery. And ultimately, Obama and politics as religion will be de-throned.
This is of course a religious analysis, but I am more than ever amazed to see how well explained is the current upside down world in which we live by reasonings based on religious suppositions.
George Pall,
Perhaps and given his narcissism, most probably so, but if the case, it is the motivation that led to his recognition of the efficacy of the tactics he employs.
KLSmith, POtuS! I love it, perfect snark.
Gary Rosen, I was in my mid-teens when Kennedy was President and that is my recollection as well.
sharpie,
I’m not entirely sure of your analysis but that the left represents a crisis of belief and faith in the west… of that I have no doubt.
Every step of the way starting with undergraduate school Obama has achieved because of race. It’s what he does.
Know your place, peasants… or else.
“How anyone can read those two sentences and like the man is beyond me.”
Agreed, but I’m sure that he has a lot of admirers who would read them and think “my hero!”. This is the kind of thing that periodically reminds me of how divided the nation is. I have at least two Facebook acquaintances–people I know slightly in real life, but who, in that way some people do on Fb, trumpet their politics very loudly and seem to assume that everyone agrees with them–who thought Hillary’s “What difference…” snarl was a brilliant and crushing comeback. I’m completely incapable of comprehending that.
The race card has worked for Obama.
His win in 2012 was based on another historic Black turnout percentage and 98% vote for him. The shocker for me is that the vote was contrary to the results in the economy.
And now his amnesty bill has a fair shot and Blacks aren’t against it. 11 million illegal aliens hurt Blacks economically more than other groups. Unions also aren’t opposed to the bill.
Barack is all about Barack.
Why can’t more people understand this?
For a good “derrrrr” picture of Obama:
http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2013/08/03/the-5-attitudes-that-will-cause-you-to-fail-at-life-in-america-n1655400
When I saw the title to the above Townhall article I thought I would read just the opposite in that to succeed in America today you must adopt the opposite of the five attitudes.
“Why can’t more people understand this?”
What exactly are the black slaves working for Obama’s Democrat allies going to “understand” Here?
Even if they understood, they won’t be allowed to do anything against the Master or run off the plantation.
That doesn’t mean it’ll be easy or that there won’t be some big bumps in the road, but the promise of America is still out there for people who want to grab it instead of obsessing over “fairness,” “income inequality,” and how they’re supposedly being “victimized” by society.
Then the IRS comes over and puts enough penalties make you declare bankrupcy and fire all your employees.
Then the Democrat unions and businesses come in, demand your client list, and make for themselves big bucks while you get nothing.
The Left won’t allow people to make money, except for their own aristos. Ignoring that, is about as productive as ignoring how the world works for social benefit.
Where is Cuba’s middle class? Where is the white land owners of South Africa? Where are the people who were part of South Vietnam’s Republic at and doing?
The Left can sell ropes to capitalists that the ywill be hung with, for a reason. Those capitalists are too busy making money to realize what’s really going on.
Being successful is a resistance to the LEft, but it is only a defensive posture, not an offensive one. Defense does not win wars. It merely delays defeat.
Those who think of science as being one authority that tells everyone else how to think and obey, are already a converted member of the New Science Religious cult of supreme utopian ideals.
Science was developed as a tool by real scientists, not con artists.
Members of a religion should be excluded from participating in such a process, since they will mishandle the tool of science.
His Infantile Majesty has the intelligence of a bag of rocks and makes the horrific Charley Rangel look Gifted. Gawd, it’s proof positive that snake oilers and grifters and the morally bankrupt can be very nimble little villains.
About those Mac mentions “who thought Hillary’s ‘What difference…’ snarl was a brilliant and crushing comeback”: Maybe the reason we can’t comprehend that is because they didn’t read it as a “snarl” but as an appropriate finish to what she’d said just before:
What she did there was to make it seem that she was taking the high road — bemoaning the awful tragedy of “four dead Americans” — and contrasted it with those cold-hearted Republicans who would rather be nitpicking about who did the killing. I mean, really, have they no decency?
And remember that she’d already painted herself as the embodiment of compassion in her opening statement:
Of course it was all misdirection, but I think it works for those who are already committed to her and Obama to begin with.
He’s not not a fool, but he’s not the genius you insist that he is. He’s a minority who has taken full advantage of his blackness, which affords him cover for everything he does. As you say, no criticism is valid because he cries racism. He can’t be criticized, therefore nothing he does can be called a failure. There is very little Obama has done right as president- nearly everything he stands for has blown up in his face. We’re he he white and made constant excuses for his incompetence, it would not be tolerated. He knows that being black means being immune to failure, incompetence, and criticism, and that does not require much intelligence. What separates him from others is his lack of honor or shame to use it as an excuse for everything. He owes his success to cowardice on the part of the media to call a…. Better not use that expression.
He’s nothing more than a Race pimp with a law degree, and has used his race as an excuse for being one the worst presidents in modern history, while having the luxury of never having anyone in the media with the courage to point it out to him. And he knew going into this it didn’t matter how bad he was- they would never dare or he’d call them racists too.
Someday, he will play that card one too many times, and the temper tantrum that ensues will be spectacular.
The “those calling me tyrant are racist” argument by Obama is not his core argument. It is an outer shell of the layered defense and is quite effective for shooting down many of the incoming projectiles.
But what about projectiles that are not white? Those projectiles are quite more threatening, hence the rabid and quick response against any black conservative.
I think it a bit unfair to call blacks “slaves” because they will not condemn Obama. It is a metaphor, but remember, metaphors are useful because in comparing unlike things they show fundamental truths. The fundamental truth of the “slaves” metaphor is the truth that freedom is earned not given.
But a vote is outside the “slave” metaphor. It more properly belongs in the “family” metaphor. To not vote for Obama is to abandon your family. And what family does the black person have? Obama occupies the unique position of being both protector (government) and Father. Race, let us remember, is family. It takes a whole lot of love, instruction, and acceptance to create a true cosmopolitan. (Familiar with and AT EASE in many different countries and cultures.)
Blacks do not feel at ease. How could they as a minority which speaks a language immediately identifying them as not belonging? What we must recongize is that we are asking blacks to give up their identity, an identity which was forged in the high pressure high stroke crucible of slavery. It is right that we should ask this since slavery doesn’t exist anymore.
We need to develop and then propogate the reason why adopting a cosmopolitan identity instead of the slave identity is the right thing to do. Mr. Black man, do you want to be free, to you want ease, then you must reject Al Sharpton and CRT. You must believe in America’s goodness, which is your and our goodness. We want a cosmopolitan America.
It has come full circle. And it didn’t take long to happen. The civil rights movement now should target the race hustling “civil rights” movement. The enclosure in quotes means everything. Civil rights is no longer civil rights but fear and anger. In the same way that whites once feared a mass black uprising, the blacks now fear a mass white uprising. Blacks are becoming more desparate (Note Rangel’s “cracker” comments) and seek ever more power through immoral and racial laws. But that foundation is crumbling.
Our nation has seen and surmounted this before.
I distinctly remember Senator Hillary triumphantly holding aloft a newspaper whose front page headline read, “BUSH KNEW”.
(“KNEW” about the 9/11/2001 attack in advance and did not take appropriate measures bla bla you can finish in your sleep)
This was many months after the 9/11/2001 attack.
It sure as h#ll made a difference to Senator Hillary, even “at this point”.
LORD I detest these people. (And I know the feeling is mutual.)
Ann,
Very astute. I would add that when Hillary said, “Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans?”
She cleverly limits the possibilities of what led to the deaths of four Americans to ‘pure chance’ and by immediately following up with the question, “What difference, at this point, does it make?” she confirms for the liberal low-information voter (her only audience) that this line of questions is a waste of time. And so outrages her questioners that they forget to dispute the prior ‘pure chance’ limitation she’s ‘established’…
Neo writes:
“Somehow,Obama has managed to pack into those two sentences more offensive, twisted, narcissistic, manipulative, mendacious thoughts than there are words in them.”
You tell ’em! Brilliant!
Sharpie said: “The Bible speaks metaphorically on the subject. When man builds his alter, he uses bricks—each brick the same as the other. God commanded his alter be built with unhewn stones, each stone an individual.”
Ymarsakar said: “Those who think of science as being one authority that tells everyone else how to think and obey, are already a converted member of the New Science Religious cult of supreme utopian ideals.
“Science was developed as a tool by real scientists, not con artists.
“Members of a religion should be excluded from participating in such a process, since they will mishandle the tool of science.”
I believe that, using sharpie’s metaphor, briefly:
Regardless of one’s religion, or lack thereof, those who do science to seek facts–subject to the constraints imposed by the time in which they live–are doing science. Newton was religious to an extreme, but his accomplishments in science (and math) were of the highest order. Newton built his magnificent scientific edifice using the unhewn stones, the facts as they exist that he found through his methods, (again, due to the constraints of his time, which included techniques and terminology).
Regardless of one’s religion, or lack thereof, those who do science to seek justification for their ideology and their ideological methods, are doing what ends up as pseudo-science. They take their “results”, add other bits and pieces, and shape them into clever little bricks that build the Potemkin edifice that aids the infrastructure of their fraudulent methods and philosophy. They may be excellent scientists or not, but in their “official findings” they are fraudsters.
Regardless of one’s religion, or lack thereof, those who do science or pseudo-science and who then deliberately shape their bricks of research findings the better to seek financial resources to fund their careers, are fraudsters. They often use the architectural dictates that come from those who seek justification for their ideology and their ideological methods when they build their structures seeking funds and fame, because the ideologists often control the financial resources.
OK, I wrote this too quickly, but I hope it makes some sense.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AB_6chO1uD0&feature=player_embedded
My favorite part is at 0:38. YEAAHH.
What I just wrote simply means that one’s religion or lack of religion is not the issue in doing science. The issue is whether the researcher is committed to the facts, both in methodology and in the interpretation and report of findings.
You can even be a good scientist in one field and have ridiculously irrational views in other fields.
(And, yes, I know that constraints of the historical time make the stones not quite as unhewn as we would like them. I believe my points still stand. It’s just a useful metaphore, after all.)
I think that just about any black politician is going to employ the “You’re a racist if you disagree with me” strategy by default.
It’s effective, and nobody’s figured out how to answer.
Aren’t just about all black politicians employing this tactic? So, there you go.
Minta Marie Morze @ 5:24 . . .
Your post make sense. Especially the very last part:
” . . . because the ideologists often control the financial resources.”
That’s exactly why the the U.S.A. is in such trouble right now. The ideologists control the census department, the IRS, the U.S. congress, the various funding agencies. The Republican party no longer exists as an opposition party because the people in congress have given up their role as representatives. They now exist to further their own careers and bank accounts.
Us normal citizens, without access to extra wealth via bribery and future seats on “boards” will continue to take it on the chin. Basically, we’re being robbed without having any recourse.
It will be “interesting” to see what happens when the economic system crashes or when some crazy enemy like the Iranians do their damage.
sharpie Says:
August 3rd, 2013 at 4:43 pm
Maybe they do, but I don’t see any sign of it. But their increasing arrogance and vindictiveness towards “whitey” is making it more and more likely.
Many white people are getting sick and tired of black criminality and their sense of entitlement.
It’s just a useful metaphor.
Ahhhh, no. Much more than useful. Metaphor is dispositive.
It’s all we have. Science is no more objective than the brain that wields it. Is there science without a person (subject)?
Granted, there are the obvious measures of data and redundancy. But those measures were created and that act of creation included the creator. The creator cannot step outside of himself.
Thus, the only hint of objective reality is metaphor, otherwise, before 1600, known as religion. The latter centuries should include literature, culture and politics–but it is still the same attempt to create a reality beneath reality.
…additionally, The Boy King is a moral coward and a very, very tepid little man. Take a few minutes off to look at the world AS IT IS NOW juxtapposed to the world on January 20, 2009. HHhhmmmm…
Anybody remember those Evil Doers of the Bush Administration saying,”If we have learned anything from history it is that WEAKNESS IS PROVOCATIVE.”
Well, just look at us now,’Yo!!
Shouting Thomas,
To the best of my recollection, Allen West has never employed the racist accusation to shut down a critic. Nor do I accept that he’s the exception, that proves the rule. I think it comes down to whether you accept that truth is determined by reality or whether you believe that reality is determined by ideology.
When people say anything to me about “racism,” I just laugh in their face and say that “they” should stand up straight and pull up their pants.” Most of these people know exactly whom I’m referring to.
I also laugh at those who mention global warming and tell them that in fact I expect global cooling and have an entire drawer devoted to wool socks and thermal underwear.
As is obvious, I have less and less patience with stupidity and less and less interest in being “popular.” Where will it all end? Maybe nobody will come to my funeral.
I hope Allen West can get a serious campaign going. We need some kind of leader if we’re going to make it through the next few years.
I would support Allen West. That is exactly the sort of no-nonsense leadership we need.
In fact, I said numerous times that my dream ticket in 2012 would have been Palin/West.
Ah, well.
It pays to remember and consequently not to underestimate our longings. That those longings describe things not within our reality, well, you decide.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IZ-jATBq9A
Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.-MO
It’s not like they were lying to us. People just didn’t want to comprehend what was really going on in 2008.
Minta Marie Morze,
To elaborate on what I mentioned before, science and religion should be separated. Jefferson had convincing arguments why religion should be separated from governments by a wall. Not by a thought police that dictates enforcement of personal beliefs, but by a wall. You can look, but don’t touch, steal, or conquer/own other people’s stuff.
Religion should not only be walled off from politics, but politics should be walled off from science, and science should be walled off from both.
They aren’t at the moment. The Left’s religion is both “science” and “religion” and “politics” all rolled into one. So is Islam coincidentally…
Slavery is not a metaphor. Until people comprehend why it isn’t a metaphor, their effectiveness against the Left will not be as high as it could be.
“Somehow Obama has managed to pack into those two sentences more offensive, twisted, narcissistic, manipulative, mendacious thoughts than there are words in them. How anyone can read those two sentences and like the man is beyond me.”
What Obama has done his entire life is practice deceit and manipulation based on his race. He’s very very good at it. And very very dangerous because of it.
I’m surprised his approval ratings are as high as they are, after the last five years of proof as to just how empty the suit really is, but then the Zimmerman case kinda shows just how many racists are out there.
It’s ironic that the J Jacksons became what they fought so hard against. And Obama who talks a lot about civil liberties and being against racism is the biggest threat of our generation to those liberties.
I wonder if some Germans didn’t experience something similar in the 30’s.
The Jacksons never did any fighting. The real fighting was done by MLKj and Malcom X.
Who, conveniently, somebody “got rid of” and blamed it on whiteys. Then the “inheritors” like Jackson started cropping up. Convenient, that.
Those that think modern generation feminists and civil rights operatives, were ever part of the “fight back then” misunderstand what actually happened. Those organizations were grassroots when they were generated, but the Left hijacked them much as terrorists hijacked those planes on 9/11.
“But their increasing arrogance and vindictiveness towards “whitey” is making it more and more likely. Many white people are getting sick and tired of black criminality and their sense of entitlement.”
Count myself among them. I used to be a nice person, all sympathy and understanding … until I began to choke on the hypocrisy of it all. I was in the military for 20 years, did all the awareness classes and lectures and briefings … and honestly, some of the best and most outstanding NCOs and commanders I had were black. But I can’t be browbeaten for another moment – knowing what I do about the black thug sub-culture. For the love of the Almighty, I had friends of color who joined the military to get away from it and make something of themselves! I was involved in a local Tea Party group – and the accusations of racism are unfounded and sickening to me. So is the hell that political blackness has made out of Detroit and various inner cities.
Sorry, fellow citizens of color – you did this all your own self. I refuse to accept blame, at this point.
Just took delivery of a book titled “Negrophilia”.
Subtitle: “From Slave Block to Pedestal”.
By Erik Rush, who is as black as Obama.
Slavery is a metaphor. And it is real.
It is more effective as a metaphor than real chains.
I live in the reality. I don’t know about most of you.
Tonight I had a baseball bat used as a weapon against me. Because I dared to assert my right to a spot at a Starbuck’s plaza.
It was either rush the fool and take away his bat or leave the area.
I left the area.
You tell me if I was wrong.
I feel I was wrong.
Sharpie-
I’m sorry, I don’t understand what you’re trying to say.
Could you re-phrase that?
Thanks,
A_Nonny_Mouse
Gary Rosen:
No previous president has ever been a member of a designated-victim minority group.
Catholics were never considered in need of special treatment or affirmative action to make up for past wrongs done to them. Kennedy was a Catholic, but Catholics were not a “minority group” in THAT sense, which was the sense I actually meant it.
What’s more, “women” qualify as such a “minority group” even though they are actually in the majority. And Jews and Asians do NOT qualify as minority groups in that sense (nor do Mormons, by the way) even though they are actually smaller minorities, population-wise, than blacks. So “minority-group” was not used in the sense of percentages of the population, but in the political sense. Sometimes the two (small numbers and political label as minority) match, sometimes they do not.
Neo-Neocon
Maybe the correct term to use would be “minority (officially-designated victim) group”; then everyone would get the “it ain’t about the numbers” sub-context.
😉
When a person has a choice, it’s not an example, merely a turn of phrase used to describe less than ideal circumstances.
What most people see as chains are merely the rules of their society binding them. That’s not particularly special or deserving of mention. Slavery, though, is a special circumstance that not all societies practice or promote.
Legally speaking, we’re not talking about minorities as such but protected classes, no?
See this Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class
This list has now become so long (I was going to say “inclusive”, hah!), it’s almost more useful to try identity the remaining classes that aren’t “protected”:
Rednecks…
Tea baggers…
Conservatives…
Republicans…
Libertarians…
Who else?
The Left, knowing it cannot get what it wants by honest means, made something like the following calculation in picking Obama.
1. We need a ruler who can do whatever he wants and be as immune from possible from criticism or questions.
2. The most immune person is a black man because society has been so conditioned (for 40 years now) that if you criticize him for anything you will (not “may”, but “will”) be accused of being a racist.
3. Being a racist is one of the two or three worst things it is possible to be. Your life and reputation will be ruined, destroyed, decimated if you are thought to be one. This fact is known and used to great effect.
4. Obama was picked because he is a black man who speaks well. He has no other experience or redeeming qualities than those two. In fact, he has many things wrong with him but they matter not a bit. He was used for his skin color and he went along with it for obvious reasons: He is on the same side and he gets all the power and glory.
Everyone knew this going in. Everyone knew that is why this guy would be so hard to beat. The threat of “guilt” was used to maximum effect.
As long as decent people cower in fear and refuse to tell the truth, we more or less deserve our fate – which is to be enslaved, or at least en-serfed, by the Left – who mean only to help us no matter how much they abuse every good and decent thing and person (for our own good of course).
I apologize for going completely OT at the end of a long thread, but I just had to register how frightening it seems to me that O is spending his birthday weekend partying — that is, parTAYing — with a bunch of jocks from his former life while the whole national security apparatus is meeting urgently in the Situation Room.
Two days of partying. How adolescent can you get? Can you remember the days when a president would observe his birthday with a cake and a quiet family celebration and then get back to the work of being president? How reassuring that was, and how frightening it is to be in the hands of this hyper-ideological party boy.
98% of “the black vote” went to His Infantile Mixed Race Majesty in 2012. After nearly 4-years of seeing the Shipwreck of Obamism, 98% of those black voters still voted for His Emminence??!!
How’s THAT for F-ing Racism?! Ooopppssssie, I BAAAD…I white boy WACIST,’Yo. (-:
He should have been “busted” for this in immediately in 2008, if not by the sycophantic media then by his Republican opposition. But John McCain wasn’t gonna go anywhere near that, which was emblematic of McCain’s myriad drawbacks as a candidate.
“What we must recongize is that we are asking blacks to give up their identity, an identity which was forged in the high pressure high stroke crucible of slavery.” sharpie
Balderdash. Prior to the 80’s blacks spoke English just fine and their ‘identity’ did NOT rest upon the ghetto gang culture. There are many examples to cite of educated blacks prior to the 80’s speaking clearly and articulately and even the uneducated spoke understandably.
The ‘identity’ “forged in the high pressure high stroke crucible of slavery” is a blatant lie and adopted solely to leverage white guilt into otherwise unsupportable privilege and entitlement.
Isn’t that the point, neo? Also, regardless of special interest politics and the like it was a pretty big deal at the time that Kennedy was Catholic.
“it was a pretty big deal at the time that Kennedy was Catholic.”
To amplify on this, it was a bigger deal that Kennedy was Catholic in 1960 than it was that Lieberman was Jewish in 2000, in the sense that his Catholicism was considered more of a potential obstacle to his election.
Mike: exactly! Add to your #4 that he was a light skinned black man whose mom was from Kansas. Black enough to reap the benefits of the race card but not too black to be threatening to the stupid white people in flyover country. The perfect candidate for the perfect storm election to fundamentally transform America.
Gary Rosen: was it a bigger deal or did the speech police of today limit the conversation? Did political correctness make it impolite to discuss the anti-Semitic elephant in the room?
I’ll add this: it’s easy to criticize McCain. Too easy, him being such low hanging fruit because of his multiple deficits. In 2008, following Bush, it was a near impossible task for any Republican, Bush had tarnished the brand so badly (mainly because of Rove’s strategerie of “rising above the critics” and not defending his policies). But, the race issue should’ve been dealt with forthrightly. The left COUNTS ON Republicans running away and hiding from the race issue, so McCain played right into their hands.
In truth, the Democrats are far more responsible for America’s race problems than are Republicans. The Republican party is the party of Lincoln after all, created to end slavery, and did it. Republicans should stick to that script and not get sucked into the box the left wants.
Like Van Jones, Obama is an Al Sharpton/Jessie Jackson v2.0. Just a more refined message, with less bull horn and more ivy league credentials. Like a good con man, Obama’s always had a knack for saying seemingly soothing words while never quite actually committing himself to anything. The racial divisiveness is his specialty.
What’s interesting (and scary) is that he’s also made many on the Left so comfortable that they often forget to use the right messaging and reveal their true agenda. So while Obama stays subtle, his supporters agitate for a much uglier agenda. But as Rush says, they always tell you who they fear most. They may not fear white riots, but they most definitely fear people being able to protect themselves from their riots using their own guns. They also fear Christianity (add that to Carl in Atlanta’s list: Christians), I suppose because it it is a higher moral authority than the state. They also obviously fear the Tea Party a lot (judging by the IRS scandal and the full-on effort to paint the movement as racist, etc.) because the Constitution poses such a challenge to their quest for more power.
G Joubert – If you’ve ever seen Allen West when confronted by CAIR you get a lesson in how to handle accusations of racial/religious hatred. We need more of this, at all levels, because the Left has so effectively painted Republicans and conservatives as racists. Facts about who supported an end to slavery and who fought the civil rights movement don’t matter, because the masses have been brainwashed to believe the opposite.
Lizzy,
Facts about who supported an end to slavery and who fought the civil rights movement don’t matter, because the masses have been brainwashed to believe the opposite.
You’re absolutely right, but we must keep saying it, otherwise it’d never get said. The leftists in the media and academia would never tell it.
In fact, it ought to be the Republican motto: “The party of Lincoln, created to end slavery and did it, over violent objections from the Democrats. “
One of the reasons why the masses think Repubs are racists is because they think Lincoln is a Democrat. Stop allowing the Left to rewrite American history and maybe more people will be inclined to… I don’t know, believe Republicans?
KLSmith: the difference is the eras. 50 years ago European ethnics descended from turn-of-the-(20th)century immigrants were still much more differentiated from the rest of the country – Irish, Italians, Jews, Poles etc. and a large proportion were Catholic or Jewish. Every President up to that point had been a white Protestant. Now these same groups are pretty assimilated and mostly just considered “white”.
Mizpants – that’s not really too far off topic. I think we can all imagine the uproar if a Republican President had done such a thing; especially with the latest “National Security” alert shutting down 20 or so embassies across the Islamic world.
We don’t have to wonder how Barry will handle that 2:00 am phone call. We now know that he simply won’t answer it. And how dare we “racists” call him out on it!
}}} for the simple reason that no previous president has been a member of a minority group.
Actually, Neo, JFK was considered a minority as a Catholic. It seems laughable these days but it used to be pretty significant back in that time, and there was a lot of question about whether JFK could win based on anti-Catholic sentiments. He was also Irish, and there were questions about THAT.
And before anyone says anything silly, I’ll call attention to the former views of many by noting my Great-GF, born (iirc), 1870. When my mother brought me around in “swaddling clothes” to show off, he was sitting in view of the door as my GGMother opened. He took one look at her, and said, “You’re not bringing that n**** baby into my house.” My GGM reluctantly closed the door in my mother’s face.
I’m half **ITALIAN**.
He passed away about a year later, and I can’t recall that my GGM had any issues with it, I certainly stayed in that house on many occasions once my GGF passed away.
People forget how strong racism was 50 years ago. That’s one reason why comparisons of TM to any of the 50s/60s civil rights cases is so disgusting.
Lizzy, August 4th, 2013 at 2:51 pm:
Right. Definitely add Christians to the list. All stripes, including Catholic (and even Coptic it would seem).
Should white males be added as well (including “white-Hispanic” males?)
Rednecks…
Tea baggers…
Conservatives…
Republicans…
Libertarians…
Christians…
Who else?
The Democrats were using race to control people before the civil war and after it.
The Democrats then had a bunch of white land owners and non land owners, always kept scaring them about “black people” doing this or that.
Basically a mirror copy of how blacks are related to Democrats today.
The White South didn’t break free of Democrat chains openly until Reagan at least. When voting for a ‘Republican’ could be admitted in public, at last.