Obama Addresses Race Issue
Sep 21, 2009 Political
Obama taped his appearance on Letterman’s show and he addressed the claims that opposition to him is based on racism. I actually agree with what he said and it made sense. Of course, no matter what he might really believe (and I am not doubting what he said is how he feels) he would pretty much have to say what he did. This is how the exchange, which people who are desperate enough to watch Letterman can see tonight, was described at the CBS website:
Addressing suggestions that recent criticism of his health care reform efforts has been grounded in racism, President Obama this afternoon quipped, “I think it’s important to realize that I was actually black before the election.”
The comment, which the president made in an afternoon taping of CBS’ “The Late Show,” promoted laughter from the audenice and this response from host David Letterman: “How long have you been a black man?”
Mr. Obama said the notion that racism is playing a role in the criticism, which has been voiced by former President Jimmy Carter and others, is countered in part by the fact that he was elected in the first place – which, he said, “tells you a lot about where the country’s at.”
Yes, Obama was black before the election (well, half black) and he is black now. Unless he wants to pull a Michael Jackson there is nothing he can do to change that nor should he want or need to. The color of a person should not matter one bit when it comes to any aspect of life. It is a shame that it matters to some people but the fact is, it should not.
However, one thing Obama was before the election is more moderate. He opposed items that Hillary, and later McCain proposed saying that he would bring a new day to DC. He promised transparency and gave the appearance that he was pretty moderate. Once he got into office his far left, radical beliefs came out. Sure, he slipped up with Joe the Plumber but his surrogates quickly violated Joe’s privacy and broke the law in order to attempt to destroy the man.
As an aside, this is one of the reasons Breitbart decided to release the ACORN videos a little at a time. He had a plan to get the information out first before getting into who made the discovery. He wanted to avoid having the people who made the videos destroyed by Obama’s lackeys. He successfully made ACORN the story and made it nearly impossible for the MSM to go after the young film makers.
Anyway, Obama has moved farther left since he was elected. He played the left of center moderate, cool, even tempered guy who would take all opinions into consideration. Now he is working on his agenda, not listening to reasonable alternatives, is not displaying transparency, and is paying back his supporters just as politicians have done for a long time. Whenever he has trouble we are reminded that Bush did it. Czars, why complain about Obama when Bush had czars (more if you believe the DNC)? Why? Because Obama said that he was all about change. You can’t say you are all about change and then justify what you do by saying the other guy did it.
That is not change.
Obama took the time to tell Letterman that he did not believe the opposition was based on racism which runs counter to what the racist Jimmy Carter had to say. It is good that Obama would acknowledge that it is not about racism because that clearly demonstrates that is about opposing his policies and what he wants to do. It is about opposing the guy who is doing the opposite of what he said when campaigning. It is about opposing a guy who disagreed with Hillary and McCain but now wants to use what they proposed.
It is about opposing the radical make over of our country. No matter what the liberals think, they can now drop the whole racist bit because it is not working and your boss does not believe it.
Yes, Obama is a different guy than he was when he campaigned and his very appearance on Letterman shows that. Obama boycotted Imus and said he would never again appear on that show because of Imus’ comment about a women’s basketball team. Obama could not go on a show of a person who demeaned women like that. He had daughters to worry about and could not go on a show of a guy who would treat someone’s daughter like that.
He is on Letterman and Letterman demeaned Sarah Palin and her daughter. Palin is a politician and she is fair game though the “slutty flight attendant” remark is demeaning to women. The real kicker is that Letterman demeaned a person’s daughter who happens to be a minor.
Why is it Obama could not go on Imus but can appear on Letterman?
Do different standards apply if it is the daughter of a Conservative rival? One would think a man of integrity would apply the same standards no matter what.
Obama was black before the election. He was also a shrewd, insider politician brought up in the thug Chicago way and schooled in the art of Alinsky (his deception to get into office is right out of that playbook).
Looks like that has not changed either.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: alinsky, health care, Imus, Letterman, lies, Obama, politician, racism
What if Jackson had said Lynch Obama?
Jul 14, 2008 Opinion, Political
Last week Jesse Jackson was caught on a hot microphone expressing his displeasure with Barack Obama and he stated that he would like to “cut his nuts off” while making a cutting motion. The sound bite was discovered later by a person who was transcribing the day’s tapes. It was disclosed by Fox (who caught it) but before they did they contacted Jackson about it. He declined to discuss it but made a preemptive apology which was dutifully accepted by Obama.
There are many reasons that Jackson is upset with Obama and the main one, in my opinion, is that an Obama presidency will make him the default leader of the black community and it will put to rest the idea of inequality in America. If a black man can be president then blacks can achieve anything. If Obama gets elected it will make Jackson irrelevant. That is a matter for discussion at another time.
What I want to know is why Jackson was let off so easily. Castration was often used against black men in addition to or instead of lynching them. If a golf commentator can be suspended for saying the other golfers should to take tiger Woods out back and lynch him in order to beat him (a statement Tiger was OK with but Al Sharpton was not) then Jackson certainly deserves greater punishment than his personal embarrassment. Don Imus lost his job over a statement that depicted young black women in an unfavorable light and stories of nooses being hung lead to investigations of a hate crime. Since castration is a symbol of what was done to blacks that “got out of line” why is Jackson let off so easily?
I am not suggesting that Jackson lose his job because to be honest, the man has never worked a day in his life. He extorts money from corporations by threatening boycotts and he uses the tax laws to shelter money from government scrutiny. He has no job to lose so firing him is out of the question.
Why though, has he not been taken to task for his obviously racist remark? Why is he allowed to apologize and all is forgiven when an Imus apology did not stop him from receiving the scorn of the black community and eventually losing his job?
Jackson thrives on face time. That needs to be denied to him and the MSM needs to point out his racist remarks for what they are and not let him off with a weak apology. People like Al Sharpton need to have as much enthusiasm in pursuing this racism as they do when Duke lacrosse players are falsely accused of raping a black woman, when the criminal acts of teens in Jena Louisiana are defended based on their skin color, when a cab driver in New York accidentally hits and kills a black kid, when landlords raise rent on black tenants, when golf announcers mention lynching, and when Don Imus makes a boneheaded statement.
All Al Sharpton and the rest of the race baiters need to do is pursue Jackson just as they would if a white guy had made the statement. In reality, Jackson’s statement was no different than if he had said “I just want to lynch him.”
If you want racial equality, stop having two sets of standards and actually treat everyone equally.
To do anything else castrates your cause…
Tags: castration, Imus, jackson, jim crowe, lynching, nuts, Obama, racism, sharpton
The Imus and Sharpton Story, Take Two
Jun 24, 2008 General
Well, here we go again with Don Imus. Yesterday on the Imus show they were discussing NFL player Adam Jones and the fact that he had been arrested six times. Imus asked what color he was and when informed that Jones was African American Imus stated; “There you go. Now we know.” Needless to say, this has set off round 2 of the firestorm with Al Sharpton declaring that this would be looked into to see if action needs to be taken. First of all, who made Sharpton the radio police? Second of all, why not wait for the rest of the story which happens to be that Imus was indicating that Jones was being picked on because he is black.
Does anyone remember Al Sharpton declaring that he would look into the comments made by Barack Obama when Obama said that his grandmother was a typical white person? No one can remember such a thing because it did not happen. None of the race baiting poverty pimps decried Obama’s comments and when a stink was made about the issue Obama and his people gave an explanation and it was bought by everyone who has fallen under his spell. No protests from Sharpton, no demands that Barry step down and I think that Sharpton even accused Obambi of schmoozing up to the whites too much.
Whether Imus meant it as he says or not is only known to Imus but the fact is he stated that is what he meant and that is how it should be taken. Sharpton has no right to look into anything to begin with but now this should stop him in his tracks. Sharpton has no moral authority in race relations. He is a race baiter who overlooks acts of racism by black people and exploits any possibility of racism from whites. Al has incited violent riots where people have been killed (if it had been my family member there would be no Al Sharpton) and he has continually made racial issues out of nothing. Duke rape case, Jena six, and countless other issues were incited and inflamed by him and he moved on leaving the embers to burn. When the issues were settled and no racism existed, he did not apologize, he made excuses and still linked it to racism.
I understand that there are those who will say that Imus has a history so his acts need to be looked at. Well, Barack Obama has a racist history and his associations with people like Pastor Wright (who was also ignored by Sharpton) as well as Father Pfleger leave him open to the same scrutiny. I would think that Obambi’s associations with Al Sharpton would be considered a racist history.
Of course Al and his lemmings cannot go after Barry O. He is a brother and he might be president some day. We all know black people cannot be racists and Al cannot take them to task because of slavery oh so long ago. As an aside, Al and Barry seem to be doing pretty well for people who are still oppressed by the scars of slavery.
I know Al will never go after a black guy and will concentrate on any white who he thinks has offended in even the most remote way. But Al, Barry Obama is half white and given your hatred for white people I would think you’d at least pick on Barry half the time.
Regardless of how Imus meant it, the bar has been set and he should be left alone.
Tags: Imus, Obama, race baiter, racist remark, sharpton
Will Sharpton Require Clinton to Quit?
Jan 28, 2008 Political
The Reverend Al Sharpton, our aging antisemitic race baiting poverty pimp makes a name for himself by going after white folks who say things that he thinks are racist. He recently got himself involved in the business of the Golf Channel when one of their female reporters used the word “lynch” while discussing Tiger Woods. Woods took no offense and said it was a dead issue but Sharpton started in. The reporter got 14 days off.
Then of course, there was the Don Imus incident where he referred to a women’s basketball team as a bunch of “nappy headed hos”, a remark that brought Sharpton out in full force. Imus went on Sharpton’s radio show and applied his pursed labia to Sharpton’s ample gluteals but that was all for nothing because Sharpton raised a stink and CBS fired Imus rather than risk losing sponsors to a Sharpton protest and Jew killing spree.
This leads me to Bill Clinton. It is no secret that the Clintons know how to play dirty politics. For all their crying and whining about Republican dirty tricks, the Clintons sure know a few themselves. The Clinton campaign, and particularly Bill, has been engaged in covert racism with regard to Barack Obama. Now they can say that they meant something else and all that but their pattern is to put it out there and apologize after it has had a chance to fester. When Hillary got her head handed to her in South Carolina Bill compared Obama to Jesse Jackson and though it was reported to be an off-the-cuff remark, it appeared as if he was saying; “It was just a brother getting support from the other blacks.” It was seen as minimizing Obama. Before anyone takes me to task, I don’t care what they say and I am happy that Democrats are finally getting a taste of how it feels to be accused of being a racist for a minimal or harmless remark.
Having said that, I also know that perception is often reality and the black community found the comments offensive. Don Imus made a great point when he said that if he had made the Jackson comment he would be before Sharpton again. That is a true comment. If Imus, or any other white person (especially a Republican) had made the Jackson comment Sharpton would be out inciting riots and getting Jews killed. But since Bill Clinton said it, it is ignored by the race baiter.
If Sharpton were consistent (he is in it for the money and nothing else) he would be demanding that Bill Clinton be removed from the campaign and then demand that Hillary drop out. He would threaten her donors (sponsors, if you will) with all kinds of ugly things and he would be telling us that there would be blacks protesting in all states to keep Hillary from winning. In short, he would be giving them the same treatment he gave the reporter and Imus.
Instead, it is ignored or if Sharpton had an opinion he expressed it and moved on. He did not make the demands that he makes of others who dare to offend him and his black sensitivities.
On ABC’s “The View,” Sharpton said voters are hearing “race charges, race-tinged rhetoric” in the Democratic primary campaign, and called on the former president to cease.
~snip~
Sharpton didn’t say which comments in particular bothered him. But many Democrats were particularly upset that the former president made an explicit comparison of Obama’s campaign to Jesse Jackson’s victories in South Carolina in 1984 and 1988, in an apparent attempt to explain why his wife didn’t win the South Carolina primary on Saturday. ABC Political Radar
As this item from ABC shows, he was bothered by the racial part of it but he just told Bill to shut up. He did not give Imus that rebuke. Instead he helped get him fired.
Maybe Sharpton has left Bill alone because Hillary is constantly on his case and riding his butt hard about every little thing. Maybe Bill gets a free ride because his wife is a nagger…
Tags: Clinton, Imus, race baiting, sharpton
Should Jon Elliott of Err Amerika be Fired?
Oct 17, 2007 Uncategorized
Randi Rhodes was reported to have been attacked near her New York apartment. It turned out that she had actually fallen and was NOT attacked. The initial report of her attack fueled speculation among left wing blogs that Rhodes had been attacked by a Right Wing lunatic. Jon Elliott, who filled in for Rhodes, said this:
“Is this an attempt by the right-wing hate machine to silence one of our own?” he asked on the air, according to the Talking Radio blog. “Are we threatening them?” NY Daily News
Here is a guy who has classified the entire “right” as a bunch of hate filled people. He called us all violent hate filled people who would attack a woman with whom we disagree. He did not attack some public official, he attacked all private citizens who happen to be on the political right.
So the question is, will he be fired? Don Imus was fired for his “hate speech” when he called a girl’s basketball team a bunch of nappy headed hos. Imus attacked one basketball team and the race baiters were out in full force demanding that he be fired (and the black journalists have their panties in a wad that Imus will get another job). Elliott called every person on the political right a hater and indicated we were prone to violent attacks so perhaps he should go. I know, he apologized:
“I shouldn’t have speculated based on hearsay that Randi Rhodes had been mugged and that it may have been an attack from a right-wing hate machine,” the statement said. “I apologize for jumping to conclusions.”
So did Imus.
Imus should not have speculated that the girls were nappy headed hos but he got fired for that. Maybe Imus just jumped to a conclusion about the girls, but he apologized nonetheless. His apology did little good because even though he humiliated himself by kissing the ring of the godfather of race baiting, the godfather still demanded that Imus lose his job, his livelihood.
No wonder Err Amerika is going under. The dumb asses there cannot even get a news story that involves one of their own correct. How do we expect them to get things out of their own sphere anywhere neat correct?
Tags: Air America, Commentary, fire, Imus, Randi Rhodes