Big Dogs Weblog

Sharpton and Obama Have Double Standard for Racism

Jul 18, 2008 Political

The Reverend Al Sharpton is always quick to point out when some white guy does anything that the Rev thinks is the slightest bit racist. He and his coalition of race baiters got together last year and worked to get Don Imus fired after he called some females a bunch of nappy headed hos. Sharpton was indignant and he had Imus on his show groveling and then pushed to get him fired anyway. At the time Barack Obama said that Imus needed to be fired for what he said. Barry was very clear about how he felt with regard to racial remarks:

“I understand MSNBC has suspended Mr. Imus,” Obama told ABC News in a story dated April 11, 2007, “but I would also say that there’s nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group. And I would hope that NBC ends up having that same attitude.” World Net Daily

Now this is all fine and dandy and Obama got his way because Don Imus was fired. The question I have is, how sincere was Obama when he made his statement about how he would handle racist comments “about anybody of any ethnic group.” The reason I asked is because he did not demand that Jesse Jackson be fired (if anyone can figure out what job Jackson actually holds). Obama did not hold Jackson up to the same standard that he held Imus. Is Obama a racist who will allow blacks to get away with anything they want while he goes after whites? How else can you explain the discrimination, you know treating people differently based on their color.

I am not talking about the Jesse Jackson fantasy about castrating Obama (a deed that was done to blacks during Jim Crow instead of, or in addition to, lynching). I am talking about when Jesse Jackson referred to black people as “niggers.” I know there are other sites that call it the N word but Jackson did not say the N word, he said niggers. If someone called him a bastard we would not call it the B word. Anyway, Jesse Jackson insulted the people to whom Obama was speaking about responsibility. Jesse said Obama was “talking down to black people; telling niggers how to behave.”

Jackson apologized about the earlier comment and it was readily accepted by Obama. This latest item was released yesterday and Jackson actually apologized before it was out. There is no word as to whether Obama will accept this apology as well. I can absolutely assure you that Obama will not call for Jackson to be fired and he will most certainly hold Jackson to a different standard than he held Imus to. Why shouldn’t he? To Jackson this is not a real issue:

“There really is no justification for my comments and I hope that the Obama family and the American public will forgive me. I also pray that we, as a nation, can move on to address the real issues that affect the American people.” CNN [emphasis mine]

See, he wants us to move on to the REAL issues. When Imus said what he did it became a real issue real fast. The black community was whipped into a frenzy by Sharpton. Jackson piled on when Imus was the one who dissed blacks but there is no such frenzy when Jackson, whose statement was much worse than Imus’, is involved. Hell, Sharpton even expressed how much respect he still had for Jackson.

Sharpton certainly did not feel this way when Imus was the center of attention even though Imus apologized over and over and was much more sincere about it than Jesse Jackson. That made no difference and the only outcome the race baiters, as well as Obama, would accept was for Imus to lose his job.

I have been listening to all this crap about racism in America and I am sick of hearing it. There is a small number of people of all colors and nationalities who are racist. The majority of people are pretty good folks who are not racists. The problems arise when decent people see this kind of double standard and they begin to wonder why it is that people who ostensibly want equality expect special treatment. Why is it Obama, Sharpton and Jackson have a different standard than a guy like Imus. Why did they discriminate against Imus and why do they ignore their own bad behavior?

Just keep this in mind for the next time that race baiting poverty pimp, Al Sharpton, complains about some white person. Just remember to tell Al I said to pound sand up his sewer hole. As for Obama, how about someone in the media ask him about his double standard. I know they are all busy packing to go to Europe and the Middle East with the messiah but that does not excuse them from doing their job. I will make it easy for them. Here is the question:

Senator, you said that you would bring people together and that there was no place for racism in the election process and in this country. A while ago you called for Don Imus to be fired for a racist remark and yet you basically ignored the racist remark by Jesse Jackson. Senator, did you ignore it because he is black? Why do you have different standards for black people than you do for whites?

None of them have the guts to ask it and Obama would dance around it.

Senator, Al, and Jesse, bad behavior is bad behavior regardless of the color of the person exhibiting it. You can’t expect to be taken seriously about racial equality when you can’t exercise that yourselves.

Source:
WCBSTV

Tags: double standard, jackson, Obama, racism, sharpton

Obama and Insults to Muslim Americans

Jul 16, 2008 Political

Barack Obama has stated that the cover of the New Yorker in which he is shown in Muslim garb, is insulting to American Muslims. Apparently, the scorn he took for crying about the cover has caused him to acknowledge the First Amendment and to indicate that he has seen worse. Now I guess his position is that the entire incident was insulting to Muslims:

These fallacious e-mails and The New Yorker cartoon are “actually an insult against Muslim Americans,” he said. There are “wonderful Muslim Americans” across the country, Obama said, and “for this to be used as sort of an insult, or to raise suspicions about me, I think is unfortunate.”

“It’s not what America’s all about,” he said. NY Daily News

Why would it raise suspicions if the Muslims are wonderful? I am sure there are many wonderful Muslim Americans. I have met many who are good people but I can’t figure out how being compared to a Muslim raises a suspicion (as if it is a bad thing) when they are good.

The real insult to the Muslim community is from Obama himself. Barack Obama has held 13 events in the state of Michigan and has never visited a Mosque or met with Muslims leaders, according to a piece at Bloomberg.com. Couple this with the recent incident where his staff made several Muslim women (dressed in traditional Muslim garb) move out of a photo with him and it appears as if Obama is avoiding the Muslim community.

I am sure he is doing this in order to keep further rumors from flying but avoiding difficult situations or ones that are politically dangerous is not very presidential. The idea is that the Muslim community is going to support him anyway so why pander to them and take the chance of fanning the flames in the rumor mill.

Obama claims to be a new kind of politician and he says he wants to bring us all together but his treatment of the Muslim community shows him to be a typical calculating politician who avoids controversy in the name of political expedience. His avoidance of a potentially difficult scenario reminds me of his “present” votes.

Obama might want us to believe he is taking the moral high round but his treatment of the Muslim community is the real insult in all of this.

Tags: avoidance, controversy, insults, muslim, Obama

Is New Yorker Cover a Ploy to Help Obama?

Jul 16, 2008 Political

The New Yorker published an unflattering cover of Barack Obama and his (now) proud wife and it displayed every negative thing that has been said about him during the race for the White House. The New Yorker insists that this cover is a response to all the false things stated about Obama [by the Republicans]. Obama received most of his criticism during the Democratic Primary where DEMOCRATS spread rumors about him or where the words of his clueless wife were used against them. It was operatives from Hillary Clinton’s camp that spread the Muslim rumors and pictures of the Messiah in Muslim garb. It was Michelle’s radical words and lack of pride that came under fire. It was members of the Democratic Party who played the race card and it was Obama’s camp that attributed racism to every criticism. Still, the attacks from the left did not prevent Obama from saying that the right would be on the attack:

“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?” Yahoo News

Since Obama made that claim about a month ago there have been no attacks like what he described, at least not from the right. McCain denounces any utterance that might look like an attack on Obambi and the 527s that Obama warned about have been from the left (mostly Soros) attacking John McCain. Where are all these attack ads? Where is this plan where we are going to make people afraid of him?

The fact is, it is not there. In steps the New Yorker with the cover that has drawn scorn from the contenders in both parties. Did this magazine make this cover to give Obama the attack he predicted? Did they do this so that he could say I told you so? Certainly the magazine is supportive of Obambi so why else would they do this?

I think they wanted it to appear as if the Prophet Obambi (PBUH) was right. Most people outside of a small group of elitists do not read the New Yorker and quite a few don’t know what kind of magazine it is so the general public will be left with the impression that this is a right wing attack on the Messiah. The magazine also gives the impression that the cover depicts what most people on the right think about Obama.

I believe that the cover was intended to help Obambi and he knows this. His indignation is probably feigned and he is relishing the idea that the cover will give his predictions of attacking Republicans some legs.

FWIW, I do not oppose Obama because he is black or for what his religion is. I believe him when he says he is Christian. Whether he is a good one is another question. I feel sorry for his wife because she has not felt pride in the many accomplishments of this country and I don’t care if he wears a Flag pin ( I just wish he had the testicular fortitude to stick with his original position and not pander). I oppose him because I know he is a socialist and that he will tax us to no end. I know he is inexperienced and that he is dangerous for this country. I also feel that he is not a true patriot and that he believes in a one world concept rather than having a national identity.

I also believe that the New Yorker and many other publications will do whatever they can to help him win. That cover had a purpose and hurting Obambi was not it.

Tags: cover, new yorker, Obama, socialist, terrorist

Obama Is Like An Empty Shell, No Nuts

Jul 14, 2008 Political

Jesse Jackson made the startling revelation this week that he wanted to cut off Barack Obama’s nuts but that would presuppose that Obama actually has a pair of them to remove. Obama has given a number of hints that he lacks testicular fortitude. It is has been evident each time he has thrown someone under the bus and it is obvious in his inability to take a position and stick with it.

Perhaps the strongest indicator that Obama lacks a set of testicles is his reaction to the recent cover of the New Yorker. Now, I understand what the magazine was doing and I can see what they are getting at. I can also see how it would upset Obama but he is running for the presidency and should man up. If he ignored the thing it would go away and that would be it. By complaining about it he allows it to get more and more air time and it makes him look petty. Wonkette probably said it best:

“Who cares about the stupid New Yorker cover? It just makes the silly-sallies at the Obama campaign look like, uh, silly-sallies, and makes the New Yorker look terribly unfunny, which it is, except for that Anthony Lane who is a stitch.”

It is not like the New Yorker has never done this before. George Bush has been the object of their satire on a few occasions as have members of his administration and other politicians. Barack Obama is the only one who has thrown a fit over it and that is because he lacks the ability to man up an accept the fact that when one is in the public eye he is fair game.

It really isn’t all his fault because the media has given him a pass thus far and people have treated him as the messiah for so long that he actually believes it.

Tags: castration, jackson, messiah, nuts, Obama

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