Obama the divider
At John Lewis’ funeral Obama sowed division, both racially and otherwise. One of Obama’s statements was, “George Wallace may be gone, but we can witness our federal government sending agents to use tear gas and batons against peaceful demonstrators.”
But it’s Obama who is more like Wallace – not just in being Democrats, but in their attitude towards federal troops and/or agents. See this:
In 1963, President John F. Kennedy’s administration ordered the U.S. Army’s 2nd Infantry Division from Ft. Benning, Georgia to be prepared to enforce the racial integration of the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa. In a vain attempt to halt the enrollment of black students Vivian Malone and James Hood, Governor Wallace stood in front of Foster Auditorium at the University of Alabama on June 11, 1963. This became known as the “Stand in the Schoolhouse Door”.
If you want to read more of Obama’s eulogy for Lewis, the full text is here. There are plenty of additional things there to criticize, but I’ll just summarize by saying that it’s Obama doing what Obama does best. I mean that without irony, because long ago I noticed that Obama has a particularly useful and well-developed skill, which is to say things that are often untrue, designed to engender anger and hatred towards the opposition and to exploit racial divides, and yet to continue to appear – in the minds of many listeners, at least – to be high-minded, sincere, and loftily above the fray.
That is his greatest skill, and his deft use of it has been instrumental in helping bring this country to the current sorry state in which we find ourselves. I first noticed it during his 2008 campaign, and it alarmed me immediately. Here’s a summary of some of the points I had made then, and here’s a post in which I discuss his dissing of his white grandmother. Here’s another discussion of Obama’s use of the race card during his campaign. Then, during the Obama presidency, we had his statements about the Trayvon Martin case.
But I think the earliest post I ever wrote concerning Obama’s rather sophisticated technique for sowing racial divisiveness was this one from June of 2008. I’m going to quote the whole thing right now:
Barack Obama, the candidate who wants to end divisiveness, and who wants to run a clean and honorable campaign without negativity, said the following in a recent campaign speech at a Florida fund-raising reception:
“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?”
We have here a truly masterful attempt to flames of paranoia on the part of his followers and adopt the mantle of victimization for himself, thus raising rather than lowering the amount of divisiveness and vitriol in the campaign. Pretty good for just a couple of sentences.
Obama is correct in saying that there have been racist remarks against him. These have originated from fringe elements and/or commenters in the blogosphere and/or anonymous email campaigns. They focus on his “funny name,” for example, or the fact that he’s black.
But in this speech he appears to attribute—or to encourage his supporters to attribute—these charges to the entire Republican Party, couched as a threatening “they.” At the same time, he fails to differentiate these attacks – and actually connects them as part of an undifferentiated list – from extremely legitimate concerns that people have voiced about other characteristics of his, such as his inexperience.
In the final sentence of the paragraph he slyly encourages a phenomenon I’ve noticed happening more and more: the charge that any criticism of Obama emanates from racism. If the racism isn’t overt and clear, as in the emails, then it’s covert; “inexperience” (a valid concern based on the objective facts of his history) becomes a code word (wink wink) for hidden racism and fearmongering.
This is dangerous demagoguery.
Because one so seldom hears overt expressions of racism any more, and certainly not from mainstream candidates, there has been a tendency to imagine it is everywhere, but hidden. Here Obama cynically fosters that belief and encourages the definition of his entire opposition as energized by this impossible-to-prove—or, more importantly, impossible-to-disprove—motive.
No, it turns out that most of them haven’t mentioned he’s black, except in approving terms. But they don’t have to nowadays to be racists; Obama has taken care of that.
Obama was doing this from the start, so no one should be the least bit surprised that as an ex-president he continues his successful campaign to divide America. Obama had a wonderful opportunity to do the opposite, but that was never the goal of this community organizer par excellence.
One of the most consistent criticisms of Trump from the left is that he is guilty of “sowing racial divisiveness” despite the fact that the evidence overwhelmingly supports the argument that this is done by leftists for political advantage, and the events of the last several months prove this beyond any reasonable doubt. A very curious and noticeable feature of Obama’s oratory is his adoption of black cadences during speeches in black churches; his being of mixed race notwithstanding, this comes across as equally as inauthentic as when done by HRC.
I second j e’s observation. When Obama gets back to his uber-elite milieu whether in D.C. or Hawaii or wherever, he abandons his black argot and becomes the suave, sophisticated, urbane Obama that we all got sick of hearing back when he was president.
However, unlike Obama so far, George Wallace found the courage and humility to change, and even John Lewis paid him that respect:
__________________________________________________
George Wallace should be remembered for his capacity to change. And we are better as a nation because of our capacity to forgive and to acknowledge that our political leaders are human and largely a reflection of the social currents in the river of history.
Whether at the bridge in Selma, at a bombed church in Birmingham or on the schoolhouse steps, George Wallace and I were thrust together by fate, by our personal conviction and principle and by what I like to call the spirit of history. The civil rights movement achieved its goals in the person of Mr. Wallace, because he grew to see that we as human beings are joined by a common bond.
I can never forget what George Wallace said and did as Governor, as a national leader and as a political opportunist. But our ability to forgive serves a higher moral purpose in our society. Through genuine repentance and forgiveness, the soul of our nation is redeemed. George Wallace deserves to be remembered for his effort to redeem his soul and in so doing to mend the fabric of American society.
–John Lewis, “Forgiving George Wallace”
https://www.nytimes.com/1998/09/16/opinion/forgiving-george-wallace.html
__________________________________________________
I rather doubt I’ll ever have the opportunity to make a blog comment like that on behalf of Barack Obama.
A terrible president and a not very nice human being.
Those on the left didn’t seem to notice it was a funeral…
people who hate religion have no concept of sanctified, holy, etc…
oh, they give lip-service to it because they know the meaning of words
but they dont know beyond that as people who are religious do
they do not get that their lack is the source of the problems
they do not notice that the more they apply their projection cure
the more things go in ways they ultimately do not like
But the democrats specialize in Paul Wellstone funerals.
http://progressivedisorder.com/ThePaulWellstoneFuneral.shtml
Personally, although I am 20+ years older, I want to live long enough to piss on his grave.
I’ve never been a big Obama basher but he really has become Example #1 of the Entitled Elites Who Think Their Opinion Cannot Be Disputed.
Mike
check off another of the 45 communist goals:
42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special interest groups should rise up and make a “united force” to solve economic, political or social problems.
I wish someone would calculate how much Obama owes in reparations for the slave owners in his mother’s family. His father was never a slave, so Obama might lose his houses.
Obama is a narcisstic Obamaphile. He doesn’t care a bit about other blacks- or whites.
Expat beat me to it about reparations. Since Sasha and Malia are 1/4 white will they have to pay 1/4 of an annual amount? Since Malia is dating a white man does her bill up? You can make hay about asking inconvenient questions to the people advocating reparations. I am in the midst of reading Hugh Thomas “Slave Trade” and one thing is apparent that if the African tribes hadn’t poached from each other there would have been minimal slaves to export. I would demand each ancestor of any tribe to apologize face to face to those whose ancestors were captured and enslaved by theirs. Use Alinsky’s rule # 4 – make them live to their own rules and #8 – keep the pressure on.
In what would be monumental political theater is to find some descendants of slaves owned by Kamela Harris’s ancestors and have a public confrontation about it and demand she pay reparations directly to them. It would be entertaining to say the least and also drive home the one point is that most blacks are of mixed race and they need to be responsible for their ancestors sins too.
A quick final mind picture. Imagine the Hemmings having to pay reparations to the other slaves of Thomas Jefferson as Sally was a privileged slave. Imagine their reaction when you put that demand in front of them.
To turn a funeral into a political event is the act of someone whose religion is politics. To use a funeral to create animosity between the races is the act of someone who is deeply racist. To make a political spectacle of the funeral of an important figure in our history is the act of a person who has no regard for John Lewis or his life or this nation.
We can now see what he did as POTUS. He politicized the DOJ, CIA, FBI, Military, and IRS. He and Joe Biden were in on the plan to sabotage the campaign and first term of Donald Trump. If there was any justice, he would be facing indictment for his acts of sedition.
IAS:
I think most Whites would be blissfully satisfied if Blacks (see, I capitalized it!) would simply agree to be responsible for their actions and the consequences thereof in the here and now.
As for any request for reparations, GTFO is too polite a rejoinder.
If we *must* be reminded about the existence of that blot on the record Obama (another excellent candidate for Damnatio Memoriae), I guess it’s only fair to give Fred Reed an airing:
https://www.unz.com/freed/its-gonna-blow-be-a-miracle-if-it-dont/
A bit unreliable on the Hispanic Question is Poor Old Fred, but can’t fault him here.
Not quite as vulgar as the Wellstone funeral rally, but grossly inappropriate. And it’s a reasonable wager neither Obama nor Bush nor Clinton were more than tangentially acquainted with Lewis, so why were they offering eulogies?
I think most Whites would be blissfully satisfied if Blacks (see, I capitalized it!) would simply agree to be responsible for their actions and the consequences thereof in the here and now.
Zaphod: You may say that I’m a dreamer…
Not being sarcastic.
Never let a funeral go to waste
Diversity (i.e. class-based taxonomic systems, processes, beliefs), division, and exclusion, but I repeat myself, are first-order forcings of adversity.
A situation report by Victor Davis Hanson: search this 20 minute interview at YouTube “The New Civil War. Victor Davis Hanson on AMERICA First | Sebastian Gorka Radio“
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJ-KeMyPPY4&list=PL4RgQJPM6xtdBoAz4zKn08A4WyxwDbxCq&index=3
Towards the final third, he reminds us that during the 1960s strife, there was no geographical polarisation manifest. Today, because of China trade and globalisation, there is: the far coasts versus the middle.
This difference enables Civil War conflict today in ways that did not exist then. This gives our present polarisation different and more focused fissure points.
There is more, such as the absence of establishment pushback today. This, too, is deeply troubling. But take heart. In the comments: people want to fight to the death.
And a radio report indicates that Trump’s job approval numbers are back at 50%. While I have not checked out details, I’m not surprised. Our enemy have no agenda except reject Trump, embrace communism or whatever has failed before, again and again: Venezuela is not a model for progress unless you’re a gullible moron.
“Venezuela is not a model for progress unless you’re a gullible moron.” – T J.
Looking at the Democrats today, that’s a QED.
Is this really Obama or just a deep fake actor
I think he meant “using tear gas and batons against mostly peaceful protestors,” such as those setting federal buildings on fire, but mostly against those setting federal buildings on fire.
One might hope that this gets out and about:
https://twitter.com/varadmehta/status/1289390985424670720