Posts Tagged ‘race-baiting’

Obama Gives 95% of Wealth Increase To Top 1% During His Regime Even As He Dishonestly Demagogues ‘Income Inequality’

January 24, 2014

Do you understand this, you stupid liberals???  Obama handed 95% of the wealth gains in America to the very richest one percenters.  Even as he publicly railed against the very thing he was doing in private:

But since the recession officially ended in June 2009, the top 1 percent have enjoyed the benefits of rising corporate profits and stock prices: 95 percent of the income gains reported since 2009 have gone to the top 1 percent.

That compares with a 45 percent share for the top 1 percent in the economic expansion of the 1990s and a 65 percent share from the expansion that followed the 2001 recession.

The top 10 percent haven’t done badly, either. Last year, they captured 48.2 percent of income, another record. Their biggest previous take was 46.3 percent in 1932.

So let’s see: 65 percent under Bush vs. 95 percent under Obama.  That means that the income gap rose by 46.15% under the very same dishonest slandering demagogue who is now trying to distract the public from his colossal ObamaCare failure and all the lies he told about that fiasco.

My gosh.  It sounds like Obama demonizing Bush over national security abuses only to commit far worse abuses himself (yes he did SO do that!).  Under our fascist-in-chief, we are now a police state and Big Brother status (the Bible prophesied the coming of this Antichrist beast) is just around the corner.  It sounds like Obama demonizing Bush over the national debt only to explode the national debt at three times the rate that Bush did.  It sounds like Obama demonizing Republicans over refusing to raise the debt ceiling just like Obama refused to raise it when HE was a Senator and Bush was the president.

The decidedly leftist Huffington Post had this headline and began thus:

Income Inequality Worse Under Obama Than George W. Bush
The Huffington Post  |  By Alexander Eichler
Posted: 04/11/2012 6:19 pm Updated: 04/11/2012 6:19 pm

President Obama may talk a big game about economic fairness, but his record on the issue doesn’t quite match up.

There are lots of reasons to think so — and we’ll touch on several in just a minute — but the most recent comes from Matt Stoller, blogging at Naked Capitalism, who points us toward a recent bit of number-crunching from Emmanuel Saez, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley.

Saez, who’s known for his work on the income gap, has highlighted a surprising and discouraging fact: during the post-recession period of 2009 and 2010, the rich snagged a greater share of total income growth than they did during the boom years of 2002 to 2007.

In other words, inequality has been even more pronounced under Obama than it was under George W. Bush.

So how does the man who made the wealth gap worse than EVER and certainly worse than BUSH demonize Republicans and claim to be a voice for the very people he most hurt (and at a time when OBAMA’S DEMOCRATS had lock-step control over all three branches of government)???  It’s easy: Obama is a liar without shame, without honesty, without decency, without virtue and without integrity of any kind.  He just keeps on making dishonest promises – and when reality exposes one of his dishonest promises, he just lies again and then again as he slanders his opponents as being responsible for what HE as president did and led.

Meanwhile, of course, the rabid slanderer-in-chief has destroyed the American middle class.  Under Obama’s crony capitalist fascism where he rewarded his friends and punished his enemies, workers are taking home the smallest slice of U.S. income – EVER.  Inequality has WIDENED.  The job market is a gaping hole (with a record 100 million Americans not working).  The poverty rate hasn’t budged under Obama and is the worst since LBJ’s bogus “war on poverty” in the early 1960s.  More Americans are reduced to food stamps under Obama than EVER.  Obama’s war on business has forced business and particularly manufacturing business to move out of the country.  And we’re losing ground in global trade.

The labor participation rate has plunged like an anvil in a duck pond under Obama.  Every single year of his presidency fewer and fewer and fewer Americans have jobs.  And it keeps getting worse and worse.  You deserve this, America.  And you are going to get worse if you don’t get a whole lot smarter real quick in time to utterly reject fascist Democrats in 2014 and then resoundingly reject them again in 2016.  Because otherwise President Hillary Clinton will be saying, “What DIFFERENCE does it make?” to a  whole lot more tragic government incompetence and incredibly cynical political cover-ups.

It is now a documented FACT that the Pentagon knew within fifteen minutes of the Benghazi attack that it was a TERRORIST attack.  And yet for WEEKS afterward a dishonest President Obama and his dishonest administration and a dishonest Hillary Clinton and her dishonest State Department perpetuated an outright lie and fraud in order to cover-up for their failure.  For Obama, he had deceitfully boasted to the American people that he had decimated al Qaeda and that it was no longer a threat because of his policies.  That was a lie.  And Hillary Clinton had to cover-up for one of the worst acts of incompetence imaginable.  So they both lied to the American people.  Period.  End of story, to quote the liar-in-chief.

If you are a Democrat today, you are a liar, you are a hypocrite, you are a fascist.  You give giant rewards to rich liberal crony capitalist fascist boondoggles even as you demonize your opposition – in frankly the most intolerant and most race-baiting and most fascist way possible - for doing the very thing YOU’RE DOING WORSE.

You Democrat mass-murdering genocidal baby-killing sodomite worshipers are nothing short of pure evil in absolutely every single thing you stand for.  It’s all a bunch of lies intended to fool the gullible and the depraved so you can steal more power and use it to punish your enemies and reward your friends.  All you have to do to see that is watch how Obama used power to either criminally attack his enemies that he wanted or used the IRS as a weapon to punish them for him.

Barack Obama is a cynical, dishonest slandering demagogue.  His core promise – according to the liberal New York Times – was to “transcend the political divide.”  But no president in American history has EVER been so nakedly partisan or has dived more deeply into the sewer of political division than Barack Obama.

Barack Obama Loves Racist Anti-American Preachers. And That Should Tell You Who He Really Is

April 27, 2011

Let’s consider the preachers that Obama likes:

Jeremiah Wright, he of “No, no, no.  Not God bless America, God DAMN America!” fame.

Of Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama’s spiritual mentor for 23 years, two things can definitively be said: 1) Jeremiah Wright is an admitted racist and Marxist; and 2) Barack Obama followed in his mentor’s footsteps.

Then there was Reverend Pfleger:

“… expose white entitlement. And supremacy, wherever it raises its head. I said before, I really don’t want ot make this political, because you know I’m really very unpolitical.

When Hillary was crying, and people said that was put on, I really don’t believe it was put on. I really believe that she just always thought, ‘this is mine. I’m Bill’s wife. I’m white, and this is mine. I just gotta get up and step into the plate.’

Then out of nowhere, ‘I’m Barack Obama!’

Imitating Hillary’s response, screaming at the top of his lungs again, he continues, ‘Ah, damn! Where did you come from? I’m white! I’m entitled! There’s a black man stealing my show!’

(mocks crying)

She wasn’t the only one crying, there was a whole lot of white people crying!”

And then we had Reverend James Meeks:

Described in a 2004 Chicago Sun Times article as someone Barack Obama regularly seeks out for “spiritual counsel”, James Meeks, who will serve as an Obama delegate at the 2008 Democratic convention in Denver, is a long-time political ally to the democratic frontrunner.

When Obama ran for the U.S. Senate in 2003, he frequently campaigned at Salem Baptist Church while Rev. Meeks appeared in television ads supporting the Illinois senator’s campaign…

Since that time, not only has Meeks himself served on Obama’s exploratory committee for the presidency and been listed on the Obama’s campaign website as one of the senator’s ‘influential black supporters’, but his church choir was called on to raise their voices in praise at a rally the night Obama announced his run for the White House back in 2007.

Interestingly, the Chicago Sun Times has also reported that both Meeks and Obama share a history of substantial campaign contributions from indicted real estate magnate Tony Rezko.

[JAMES MEEKS, REVEREND] “We don’t have slave masters. We got mayors. But they still the same white people who are presiding over systems where black people are not able, or to be educated.  You got some preachers that are house niggers. You got some elected officials that are house niggers. And rather than them trying to break this up, they gonna fight you to protect this white man.”

This man appeared in Obama campaign commercials. He served on Obama campaign committees. Obama campaigned at his church. Obama sought him out for “spiritual counsel” and political support.

And we had Obama’s next replacement for racist spiritual adviser Jeremiah Wright, Jim Wallis:

The United States of America was established as a white society, founded upon the genocide of another race and then the enslavement of yet another. [...]

What has not changed is the systematic and pervasive character of racism in the United States and the condition of life for the majority of African Americans. In fact, those conditions have gotten worse.

Now we’ve got Dr. Wallace Charles Smith:

James Parker at WRNO-FM in New Orleans did some digging yesterday about Shiloh Baptist’s pastor, Dr. Wallace Charles Smith. Not only did he find that Smith loves to preach on race, but he noticed Smith even infused race into yesterday’s Easter sermon:

One has to dig into the blog notes from various reporters to piece together the content from the sermon.  Aside from the First Couple being honored guests, Pastor Wallace Charles Smith also announces that his 4 week old grandson is attending church for the first time, and a pool reporter noted an interesting perspective on the infant:

“[Pastor Smith] talked about how his baby grandson’s gurgling is actually “talking” because he is saying ‘I am here … they tried to write me off as 3/5 a person in the Constitution, but I am here right now … and is saying I am not going to let anybody from stopping me from being what God wants me to be.’”

 

Parker asks the obvious questions:

The pastor hears American institutional racism in a baby’s gurgle?  Do most people with infants hear Constitutional bigotry in their baby’s gibberish?  Did any mention of the 3/5 clause or racism in general make it into the Easter service you attended?  Is this pastor’s amazing leap from a baby bark to white oppression another coincidence to add to the list, or has he established a pattern of race baiting and white bashing in the past?

And Parker posts a sermon posted on Youtube to document that this was (to paraphrase liberally biased PBS), a “seriously racist, racist preacher” that Obama should have known to avoid like a particularly contagious leper.

Let me begin with his “three-fifths” screed.  It is a lie that this was intended as a racist statement or to promote racism.  The simple fact of the matter was that this was inserted into the Constitution to prevent the United States from having slavery forever, and if men like Wallace Charles Smith are in any way glad that they are not STILL slaves today, they should thank God that our founding fathers came up with that “three-fifths” compromise.

Take a moment to do something that no pseudo-liberal intellectual will never do: learn history.  The “three-fifths” compromise was intended to LIMIT the political power of slave states.  Slave-owning states wanted their slaves FULLY counted in order to maximize their political clout and so protect themselves from ever having slavery banned.  States that did NOT want slavery at ALL wanted to not count slaves at ALL.  The “three-fifths” thing had everything to do with representation and the number of racist pro-slavery congressional representatives a pro-slavery state could get on the basis of its slave population, and nothing whatsoever to do with the ontology of black peole as “human beings.”

If you want to argue that it was about ontolological status, then you are in the rather miserable position of saying that people who wanted blacks to be slaves are the good guys, and that people who wanted to abolish slavery are the bad guys.  It turns you into a moral idiot of the worst possible stripe.

But that is precisely the point: Wallace Charles Smith, Reverend Pfleger, Jeremiah Wright, Jim Wallace, James Meeks, and most definitely Barack Obama who keeps intentionally surrounding himself with these vile people are seething racists who hate and despise America and everything this nation stands for.

It is an amazing thing to have a president who hates me personally on account of my race, and who hates the nation that he was elected to lead and to represent.  But that is precisely what we have in Barack Obama.  That much ought to be blatantly obvious by now.

Finally, although what is above ought to be proof positive enough, Barack Obama is very definitely no Christian on any legitimate understanding of Christianity.  Allow me to simply quote myself from yesterday:

 in 1995, Obama said, “my individual salvation is not going to come about without a collective salvation for the country …” and again in May of 2008, “our individual salvation depends of collective salvation.”
 
What does Jesus say?  Consider Matthew 16:24-25:
Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If any one (individual) wishes to come after Me, he (individual) must deny himself (individual), and take up his (individual) cross and follow Me.  For whoever wishes to save his (individual) life will lose it; but whoever loses his (individual) life for My sake will find it.
 
Consider 2 Corinthians 5:10 for the thoughts of St. Paul:
 
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one (individual) may be recompensed for his (individual) deeds in the body, according to what he (individual) has done, whether good or bad.
 
And again, St. Paul in Romans 14:12:
 
So then each one of us (individual) will give an account of himself (individual) to God.
 
Or consider Galatians 2:20:
 
“I (individual) have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I (individual) who live, but Christ lives in me (individual); and the life which I (individual) now live in the flesh I (individual) live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me (individual), and delibered Himself up for me (individual).”
 
And, again, in the words of Jesus as recorded in Revelation 3:20:
 
“Behold, I stand at the door and knock.  If any one (individual)  hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him (individual) and will dine with him (individual), and he (individual) with Me.”
 
Barack Obama is most certainly not a Christian to so miserably misunderstand that we are EACH INDIVIDUALLY saved by our PERSONAL faith in Jesus Christ through what He did for us on the cross.  This is not some esoteric “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” sort of question; it is a core fundamental of the Christian faith.

We are in God damn America.  And as bad as things are now, they will continue to get worse and worse until Obama is finally no longer able to hurt America with his ruinous worldview and the ruinous policies that derive from that worldview.

Cokie Roberts Says We Hate Obama Because He’s Black (But Then Why Do We So Despise YOU, Cokie?)

April 26, 2011

File this one under the category “Stupid liberal tricks.”

It is pulled out all the time, because liberals are people who have no possibility of debating on the level of ideas, and can therefore only demonize and race-bait.

Last year, I responded to the same exact charge from Jimmy Carter the same exact way: “Question For Jimmy Carter: If We Despise Obama Because Of Racism, Why Is It That We Despise YOU?”

But here we go again, another liberal ideologue who assumes that just because she can’t get over her own personal issues of racism, neither can her opponents whom she projects upon:

Because They Can’t Say ‘I Don’t Like Him Cause He’s Black’
By Noel Sheppard | April 24, 2011 | 12:06

ABC devoted its entire “This Week” on Easter Sunday to “God and Government,” and not surprisingly the question of President Obama’s faith prominently entered the discussion.

When it did, Cokie Roberts said, “The bad part about this is that it’s acceptable to say that he’s a Muslim because the same people won’t say, ‘I don’t like him cause he’s black'” (video follows with transcript and commentary):

STEVE ROBERTS: The word Muslim is a code word, and it’s a metaphor. It’s a metaphor for racism. It’s a metaphor for he’s different from us, he’s not like us, he’s got this funny name, which he says all the time. And it is – and he’s an alien on some level. But this goes back to our earlier discussion, that there has always been a strain of America that wants to exclude the other. Exclude someone who’s different…

(CROSSTALK)

COKIE ROBERTS: But – but – but the bad part about this…

(CROSSTALK)

ROBERTS, S.: But in the long run, the forces of…

(CROSSTALK)

ROBERTS, C.: Right. But – but…

(CROSSTALK)

RICHARD LAND, SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION: Forty seven percent of white people voted for him.

Actually, it’s 43 percent, but still a spectacular point by Land that most on the panel missed and most in the country ignore. They also forget that shortly after his inauguration, Obama’s favorability rating was around 75 percent. That includes a lot of white people as well.

What the media just can’t get their hands around is that disapproval of Obama today isn’t because he’s black – it’s because of his policies. Or do the 70 percent of the country that now believe the nation is on the wrong track also feel this way because the President is black?

ROBERTS, C.: But – but the bad part about this is that he – that – that it’s acceptable to say that he’s a Muslim…

EBOO PATEL, INTERFAITH YOUTH CORE: That’s right.

ROBERTS, C.: …because the same people won’t – won’t say, “I don’t like him cause he’s black.” So it’s – it’s – and – and the fact that it’s acceptable to dislike him because he’s a Muslim is the problem that you were talking about.

Calling Americans racist, despite there being an African-American in the White House, is acceptable on Easter Sunday.

I doubt I’m the only one that felt this was highly inappropriate on such a holy day.

So why is it that I think you’re a total disgrace, Cokie?  I mean, you’re white and everything.  Why is it, based on your racist theories, that I think that an obviously quite-caucasian-person like you is utterly morally depraved???

 I would rather appreciate it if liberals would search through my blog for liberals like Jimmy Carter, or Nancy Pelosi, or Barbara Boxer, or Harry Reid, or Alan Grayson.  And maybe you can do a pull-quote where I say, “I can’t agree with __________’s politics, but he/she happens to be white, so I like him/her.”
 
I could care less about Obama’s melatonin level.  It’s the color of his ideology I can’t stand.  Same as with you, Ms. Roberts.
 
Cokie Roberts and this Steve Roberts are racists.  They are racial demagogues.  They falsely use the issue of race to attack their opponents.  They are among the very worst human beings in America.  Because if you don’t agree with them in their politics, they will stoop to the lowest and most loathsome tactics to paint you in the most hateful way they know how.
 
I like Clarence Thomas, when I know you can’t stand him, Cokie.  Same goes for tremendous (and black) men like Herman Cain and Allen West.  You can’t stand these black men.  And they are actually considerably “blacker” than Barack Obama.  And going by your own “logic,” I can only conclude that it must be because you are a racist.
 
You are poisonous, vile people.  Frankly, it never would have even OCCURRED to me to think that disliking a politician from the “other party” was due to racism, but you racist bigoted people just keep forcing me to apply your own twisted and perverted standards back at you.
 
It is crap like this that explains why I don’t bother to watch ABC unless they have something like the NBA playoffs on (which somehow I love to watch even though there seem to be an awful lot of black people).  I mean, how much is it worth to hear Cokie Roberts look into my mind from the other side of the television camera and attempt to diagnose my mental states?  You know, when I know that a) she hates me; and b) that she is a fundamentally dishonest and venemous person???  You know, even in spite of the fact that she’s white and all.
 
I like black people just fine, Cokie.  It’s people who think and speak like you I can’t stand.  And I don’t care what color your skin happens to be.
 
For the record, I have never said Oama is a Muslim.  If anything, I think Barack Obama’s god is Barack Obama.
 
I DO know that he is most certainly no Christian:
 in 1995, Obama said, “my individual salvation is not going to come about without a collective salvation for the country …” and again in May of 2008, “our individual salvation depends of collective salvation.”
 
What does Jesus say?  Consider Matthew 16:24-25:
Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If any one (individual) wishes to come after Me, he (individual) must deny himself (individual), and take up his (individual) cross and follow Me.  For whoever wishes to save his (individual) life will lose it; but whoever loses his (individual) life for My sake will find it.
 
Consider 2 Corinthians 5:10 for the thoughts of St. Paul:
 
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one (individual) may be recompensed for his (individual) deeds in the body, according to what he (individual) has done, whether good or bad.
 
And again, St. Paul in Romans 14:12:
 
So then each one of us (individual) will give an account of himself (individual) to God.
 
Or consider Galatians 2:20:
 
“I (individual) have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I (individual) who live, but Christ lives in me (individual); and the life which I (individual) now live in the flesh I (individual) live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me (individual), and delibered Himself up for me (individual).”
 
And, again, in the words of Jesus as recorded in Revelation 3:20:
 
“Behold, I stand at the door and knock.  If any one (individual)  hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him (individual) and will dine with him (individual), and he (individual) with Me.”
 
Barack Obama is most certainly not a Christian to so miserably misunderstand that we are EACH INDIVIDUALLY saved by our PERSONAL faith in Jesus Christ through what He did for us on the cross.  This is not some esoteric “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” sort of question; it is a core fundamental of the Christian faith.
 
And if you need further confirmation that Obama’s “Christian faith” is nothing more than a leftwing political ideology masquerading as religion, consider the hateful racist preacher he chose to listen to on Easter Morning when the rest of us were celebrating Jesus’ Resurrection.
 
The “Muslim” thing is a red herring.  To the extent that some “conservative” is wrong to call Obama a “Muslim,” liberals are every bit as factually incorrect to call Obama a “Christian.”
 
Then there’s the fact that Obama has largely brought the “Muslim” label on himself:
 

OBAMA: And what was the first thing the McCain?s campaign went out and did? They said, look, these liberal blogs that support Obama are out there attacking Governor Palin.

Let’s not play games. What I was suggesting — you’re absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith. And you’re absolutely right that that has not come–

STEPHANOPOULOS: Christian faith.

OBAMA: – my Christian faith.

 
You see, I’ve made a lot of gaffes in my day.  But I have never even once in my entire life inadvertainly called myself a Muslim.  That doesn’t necessarily mean that he’s a Muslim, but it definitely at least means that he doesn’t hold his “Christian faith” very firmly.
 
Just this past Sunday (which was Easter for you liberals who don’t give a damn about the day we celebrate the bodily Resurrection of Christ from the dead), Obama amazingly refused to give an Easter statement.  By contrast, Obama has released plenty of statements honoring Muslim holy days:
 
Barack Obama released statements for the Muslims holidays of Ramadan, Eid-ul-Fitr, the Hajj, and Eid-ul-Adha last year. Just last month he released a statement for the Persian Nowruz holiday
 
So it’s like when it comes to being accused of being a Muslim, Obama – at the very least – puts a great big giant “PLEASE KICK ME!” sign on his own pants, and then cries in outrage and shock every time somebody dares to kick him in the pants.  And then there’s all these mainstream media propagandists just following Obama around hoping that somebody kicks him in the pants so they can cry foul.
 
In the end, I never cease to be shocked at just how unrelentingly biased and hostile these “objective” journalists are to conservatives.  And frakly, if so-called “journalists” like Cokie Roberts simply had the integrity to come out and say, “I am a rabid leftwing ideologue, and I’d like to tell you what I think,” they would be far more interesting.
 

Shirley Sherrod Never Changed: She’s STILL A Racist

July 26, 2010

It’s really amazing, this fallout from the White House’s involvement in the firing of Shirley Sherrod, and how the mainstream media has used it to demagogue Fox News and conservatives.

Andrew Breitbart is depicted as having “edited” the video of Shirley Sherrod.  They’ve used that word over and over again in an attempt deliberately to convey the fallacious impression that the video was changed and that Shirley Sherrod didn’t really say what Breitbart said she said.

But she said it.  From the transcript:

The first time I was faced with having to help a white farmer save his farm, he — he took a long time talking, but he was trying to show me he was superior to me. I know what he was doing. But he had come to me for help. What he didn’t know while he was taking all that time trying to show me he was superior to me, was I was trying to decide just how much help I was going to give him.

I was struggling with the fact that so many black people have lost their farmland, and here I was faced with having to help a white person save their land. So, I didn’t give him the full force of what I could do. I did enough so that when he — I — I assumed the Department of Agriculture had sent him to me, either that or the — or the Georgia Department of Agriculture. And he needed to go back and report that I did try to help him.

So I took him to a white lawyer that we had — that had…attended some of the training that we had provided, ’cause Chapter 12 bankruptcy had just been enacted for the family farmer. So I figured if I take him to one of them that his own kind would take care of him.

“I figured if I take him to one of them that his own kind would take care of him.”

So let’s just get that out of the way, once and for all.  Shirley Sherrod said EXACTLY what the Breitbart video said she said.  Period.

I might be wrong, but it is my understanding that Andrew Breitbart was sent the portion of video that he released, and that he did not have the entire video (which the NAACP that applauded Sherrod’s firing DID have).

The mainstream media, the NAACP, and the Obama White House has made all kinds of hay out of Sherrod’s saying it wasn’t ENTIRELY about white versus black:

That’s when it was revealed to me that, ya’ll, it’s about poor versus those who have, and not so much about white — it is about white and black, but it’s not — you know, it opened my eyes, ’cause I took him to one of his own and I put him in his hand, and felt okay, I’ve done my job

So Shirley Sherrod says that it’s not ONE HUNDRED PERCENT about white versus black, and that’s supposed to be enough to overcome all accusation that she’s got a huge problem with race?

You see, I’ve still got a problem with her remarks.  We’re supposed to believe that Shirley Sherrod has somehow totally transcended her previous racism, but why should we think that?

From the speech in question itself, contrast this:

The first time I was faced with having to help a white farmer save his farm, he — he took a long time talking, but he was trying to show me he was superior to me. I know what he was doing.

with this bit from the same speech:

You know, I haven’t seen such a mean-spirited people as I’ve seen lately over this issue of health care. Some of the racism we thought was buried. Didn’t it surface? Now, we endured eight years of the Bush’s and we didn’t do the stuff these Republicans are doing because you have a black President.

First of all, yeah, right, Shirley.  You sure didn’t “do the stuff,” did you?

You liar.

If Shirley Sherrod had a shred of personal integrity, she wouldn’t have spouted such patent untruths.  Just take a trip down memory lane to see what a giant lie she spouted.

But my primary point is that this woman started off with a cynical, bigoted, and hateful attitude toward white people – which she revealed in her attitude toward the farmer – and she STILL has a cynical, bigoted, and hateful attitude toward white people.

And she displays that attitude in the very speech in which she’s given so much credit for not being racist.  She tells us in that very same speech that to be opposed to ObamaCare is to be a racist.

And what a racist thing of her to say.

Then she compounds her racist demagoguery with more racist demagoguery.  Here she is denouncing Fox News as a racist white people entity that wants to take us back to “when black people were looking down”:

She said Fox showed no professionalism in continuing to bother her for an interview, but failing to correct their coverage.

“I think they should but they won’t. They intended exactly what they did. “They were looking for the result they got yesterday,” she said of Fox. “I am just a pawn. I was just here. They are after a bigger thing, they would love to take us back to where we were many years ago. Back to where black people were looking down, not looking white folks in the face, not being able to compete for a job out there and not be a whole person.”

But yet again, Shirley Sherrod is a racist liar without dignity or character.

This woman says these hateful things about Fox News when the truth of the matter is that:

Fox News didn’t run a report on the controversy until after Sherrod had resigned under White House pressure and after the NAACP had issued a press release condemning Sherrod.

If anything, it appears that it’s BARRY HUSSEIN and the NAACP that wants to keep black people looking down.  THEY were the ones who acted first.  Fox News didn’t fire you, Shirley; Barry’s regime fired you.  And when Fox News reported the story and played the video AFTER the Barry Hussein regime fired you, their “crime” was to assume that the president of the United States and the NAACP were not racists, and were not shockingly incompetent morons.

Fox News’ crime was that it didn’t realize that – to allude to Obama’s Attorney General – that the Obama administration wasn’t “a White House of cowards” on race.

As Shirley Sherrod herself recounts:

They asked me to resign, and, in fact, they harassed me as I was driving back to the state office from West Point, Georgia yesterday,” Sherrod told CNN. “I had at least three calls telling me the White House wanted me to resign…and the last one asked me to pull over to the side of the road and do it.”

Sherrod said the final call came from Cheryl Cook, an undersecretary at the Department of Agriculture. Sherrod said White House officials wanted her to quit immediately because the controversy was “going to be on Glenn Beck tonight.”

Let’s place the blame where it squarely belongs: on a cowardly White House that was willing to toss “it’s own kind” to the wolves out of naked, peeing-on-themselves-in-submissive-urination fear of Glenn Beck and Fox News.

But loathsome race-baiting hypocrites like Shirley Sherrod and virtually every “reporter” on the mainstream media don’t bother to cover the actual facts.

But they’re a bunch of race-baiting liars.  So somehow suddenly the White House’s firing of fellow race-baiter Shirley Sherrod becomes Fox News’ fault.

For the record, it turns out that Shirley Sherrod’s husband himself gave a hard core anti-white speech only a few months ago.

What this story really tells us – besides the fact that the Obama administration is cowardly and despicable – is that you can trust that you will NEVER get the truth from the mainstream media about anything.

You want to see a particularly villainous degree of blatant media hypocrisy?  Watch CNN anchor Rick Sanchez piously declare that “most news organizations do have rules and standards about stuff like this” as he demonized Fox News for playing the video.  Mind you, that selfsame Rick Sanchez while anchor of that selfsame CNN didn’t care about “rule and standards about stuff like this” when he was smearing Rush Limbaugh with false quotes (i.e., not even taken out of context; just plain FALSE) about race.

At least I haven’t heard that this was Bush’s fault.  That’s a first.

Obama Is Not Only Demagogic But Anti-Government On Immigration

May 8, 2010

Laura Ingraham’s site details the basic facts regarding what Obama said and why it isn’t true:

Obama attacks again: AZ law would ‘single out people because of who they look like’
Posted by Staff

At a Cinco de Mayo reception at the White House Wednesday evening, President Obama launched another attack on Arizona’s new immigration law. “We can’t start singling out people because of who they look like, or how they talk, or how they dress,” the president told the crowd. As he had in earlier criticisms of the law, Obama ignored the law’s specific stipulation that any check on a person’s immigration status can only come after a “lawful stop, detention or arrest” when a person is suspected of breaking some law — that is, as Arizona lawmakers explained in a footnote to the bill, it must come “during the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state.”

And even after meeting that standard, the law directs that police meet a “reasonable suspicion” standard before “a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person…” The phrase “reasonable suspicion” means that there must be a number of specific factors that an officer can cite before taking action, and the law specifically says that prosecutors “shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race, color or national origin.”

And even with those safeguards, the law specifies that if the person involved produces a valid Arizona driver’s license, or other forms of identification specified in the law, then that person is immediately presumed to be in the country legally. In other words, the whole question of legal or not legal becomes moot once the person produces a driver’s license — a common experience for nearly every American, regardless of his or her race or ethnicity.

So there’s the fact that Obama is simply wrong on the facts.  And he’s not only wrong, he’s demagogic.  He uses his lies to slander and demonize his opponents.

But there’s another aspect to this story that comes out of something else that Obama recently said:

“What troubles me is when I hear people say that all of government is inherently bad,” Obama said after receiving an honorary doctor of laws degree. “When our government is spoken of as some menacing, threatening foreign entity, it ignores the fact that in our democracy, government is us.”

Government, he said, is the roads we drive on and the speed limits that keep us safe. It’s the men and women in the military, the inspectors in our mines, the pioneering researchers in public universities.

So, okay, we’ve got Obama saying that we shouldn’t distrust government, or view it as inherently bad (like conservatives are out there demanding that all government be abolished and we live in total anarchy – which is to say that Obama is yet again being the slandering demagogue here).  But let’s take Obama’s statement here at face value.

Isn’t what Obama says we shouldn’t do exactly what he’s in fact doing?

What is the cornerstone of our society if not our laws and our justice?  And what is the cornerstone of our system of justice if not our police who are out on the streets enforcing our laws?

But Obama and liberals – even as they decry the right as being “anti-government” – are patently anti-government when it comes to the Arizona law.

Because they demagogue the police who are the ones at the very forefront of our system of justice.  They claim that the fact that the law specifically says that police can’t just walk around saying “show me your papers,” that’s exactly what they’ll do.

Why?  Because these guarantors of our system of justice are inherently evil, inherently biased, and inherently racist.  You can’t trust the American police officer.  And you can’t trust the government to enforce its laws fairly or honestly because it’s those same dishonest, biased, bigoted, and deceitful police officers who would do it.

Now, as a laughably hypocritical matter, it doesn’t matter to liberals that most Americans are compelled to “show their papers” to their government as a matter of routine course.  It’s okay all the other times when government demands proof of our identities; it’s only evil this time, when Arizona tries to deal with a population that Democrats regard as “their” race who will vote for them.

A Politico article understands Obama’s racial polititicking quite straightforwardly:

Obama speaks with unusual demographic frankness about his coalition in his appeal to “young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and women who powered our victory in 2008 [to] stand together once again.”

Which makes another of Obama’s remarks beyond asinine:

On April 28, while speaking in Iowa, President Obama denounced Republicans who “exploited” the immigration issue “for political purposes.” President said Arizona’s new immigration law would “undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans.” He painted an alarming picture: “local officials are allowed to ask somebody who they have a suspicion might be an illegal immigrant for their papers. But you can imagine, if you are an Hispanic-American in Arizona — your great-grandparents may have been there before Arizona was even a state. But now, suddenly, if you don’t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you’re going to be harassed.”

Just who’s exploiting immigration for political purposes?  How on earth can Obama possibly claim that it isn’t anyone other than himself?!?!?!

And why are these legal immigrants going to be harassed?  Because, to put it in terms that Obama has made in the past, “police act stupidly.”

What a profoundly anti-government thing to say.  If Obama is right, and our police – who are all-too-prone to “acting stupidly” or in a racist and bigoted manner – are fundamentally incapable of being honest or fair, then on what possible basis do you want to grow the size of government, so that there are more laws for more police to enforce in a fundamentally unfair and bigoted manner?

Let me put it bluntly: if I can’t trust the police – the guys who go out to your house and arrest you for disobeying all the laws that increasingly big-government will pass – then why in the freaking world would I want MORE government that will pass MORE laws for the dishonest police to maliciously and falsely roust me over?

Just who are the ones out there referring to “when our government is spoken of as some menacing, threatening foreign entity”?

By Obama’s own logic, YOU SHOULD BE ANTI-GOVERNMENT.

Obama and the Democrats – who falsely charge that conservatives are “anti-government” – are therefore the ones who are themselves profoundly anti-government.

They are also anti-truth, and pro-race baiting:

So, do all these politicians have a point or is it just scaremongering? Unlike the couple thousand plus page laws passed in Washington that are filled with very complicated legalese, the Arizona law, along with the minor clarifications passed last week, is only about four pages long and is written in pretty straightforward English. Anyone reading the law will clearly see that the claims made by some Democrats are false.

As a matter of fact, Arizona legislators themselves didn’t want the police to have the power to simply “ask somebody who they have a suspicion might be an illegal immigrant for their papers.” So they set up not just one but two requirements. First, police must have “lawful contact,” meaning officers must already have detained an individual they suspect violated some other law.

Even then, authorities must have “reasonable suspicion” that someone is an illegal alien. This “reasonable suspicion” standard has regulated police behavior since the 1960s and is a rule that police nationwide already deal with every day. “Reasonable suspicion” requires that the known facts and circumstances are sufficient to convince a person of “reasonable prudence” that a crime has been committed.

Opponents of the law claimed “lawful contact” was much boarder than the legislature intended and would allow police who were simply questioning an individual to ask for an ID. On Friday, April 30, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed a bill clarifying the point, replacing “lawful contact” with “lawful stop, detention or arrest.”

We can look at the actual language used. After Friday’s bill signing, the new Arizona law reads: “A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, or town or other political subdivision of this state may not consider race, color or national origin.” Before Friday, the bill said that police could not just consider race, color or national origin. But this was also superfluous, as every police officer who arrests someone or stops them for a traffic offense requests identification.

Democrats are playing with fire by misleading the nation to stir up racial tensions. Secretaries Clinton and Napolitano, Rep. Rangel, and President Obama are all lawyers. They know what legal terms such as “reasonable suspicion” and “lawful stop, detention or arrest” mean. To quote Congressman Rangel, the distortions are “outrageous.” The new law is so short, just four pages, and written in such plain English that they must hope that no one else bothers reading it. And the worst part of all this? The racial animosity Democrats are creating will last for years.

Barack Hussein: the demagogic, anti-government race baiter-in-chief.

Demagogue Democrats Now Support Violence And Swastikas

April 27, 2010

Nancy Pelosi didn’t need actual incidents of violence to demonize the tea party movement; all she needed was pure distilled demagogic rhetoric when she said:

I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw … I saw this myself in the late ’70s in San Francisco,” Pelosi said, choking up and with tears forming in her eyes. “This kind of rhetoric is just, is really frightening and it created a climate in which we, violence took place and … I wish that we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made.”

As I pointed out, that terrible violence in 1970s San Francisco was committed by DEMOCRATS.

Basically, the actual substance of Nancy Pelosi’s diatribe against the tea party movement is this: “I’m afraid that the right is becoming so angry against the totalitarian government-is-god rule we’re trying to impose on them that they could become as hateful, as vile, as loathsome, and as violent as the Democrat Party and its progressive allies have been for the past forty years.”

Nancy Pelosi also had her take on swastikas as symbol:

Interviewer: Do you think there’s legitimate grassroot opposition going on here?

Pelosi: “I think they’re Astroturf… You be the judge. “They’re carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on healthcare.”

She proceeded to demonize the tea party movement as “simply un-American.”

I dealt with those demagogic and frankly hateful charges, too.

Nancy Pelosi told a crowd of supporters, “I’m a fan of disruptors!”  What she really meant to say was that she’s the kind of hypocrite who doesn’t mind pouring gasoline on the fire one day, and demonizing those who oppose her party-line agenda the next.

The AP had this story:

PHOENIX (AP) – The furor over Arizona’s new law cracking down on illegal immigrants grew Monday as opponents used refried beans to smear swastikas on the state Capitol, civil rights leaders demanded a boycott of the state, and the Obama administration weighed a possible legal challenge.

Activists are planning a challenge of their own, hoping to block the law from taking effect by arguing that it encroaches on the federal government’s authority to regulate immigration and violates people’s constitutional rights by giving police too much power.

The measure – set to take effect in late July or early August – would make it a crime under state law to be in the U.S. illegally. It directs state and local police to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are illegal.

“If you look or sound foreign, you are going to be subjected to never-ending requests for police to confirm your identity and to confirm your citizenship,” said Alessandra Soler Meetze, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, which is exploring legal action.

Employees at the Capitol came to work Monday to find that vandals had smeared swastikas on the windows. And protesters gathered for a second straight day to speak out against a law they say will lead to rampant racial profiling of anyone who looks Hispanic.

The White House would not rule out the possibility that the administration would take legal action against Arizona. President Barack Obama, who warned last week that the measure could lead to police abuses, asked the Justice Department to complete a review of the law’s implications before deciding how to proceed.

And how did the protesters “speak out”?  By throwing rocks and debris at police officers as they tried to escort a man who had himself been physically attacked by the mob.  Rocks and bottles full of water were hurled at the retreating police by what is clearly a mob of hundreds who are pursuing them:

The mainstream media depicted this as a “largely peaceful demonstration,” and then subsequently pointed out that it was just a “small” riot as video of the violence began to appear. Well, “small” riot my butt.

The problem from my perspective isn’t “police abuse,” but “liberal protester abuse.”

Swastikas.  Violence.

Where’s San Fran Nan?

She’s with the people who are smearing all the swastikas and assaulting the police officers, that’s where she is.  She and her fellow San Franciscans are trying to boycott the peaceful people of Arizona to show their solidarity with swastikas and violence.

The same Nancy Pelosi who demonized peaceful tea party protesters as “simply unAmerican” also said last March that anyone who basically tried to enforce our borders and our national sovereignty were likewise “unAmerican.”

HotAir put it this way:

Frankly, the rioting seems to do nothing except bolster the argument for why this bill was needed. The federal government has failed Arizona residents. Despite growing numbers of crime — drug smuggling, assault, rape, kidnapping, murder — nothing has been done to secure the borders or crack down on illegal immigration. While not all illegal immigrants are violent criminals or drug smugglers, they are all criminals. Even if our borders aren’t well-enforced, it is still a crime to cross them illegally. The federal government has just sat back and let it happen. The state of Arizona responded to the overwhelming crime… and the protestors of this bill responded to the state with violence.

Kind of just proves the whole point of why this bill was needed, doesn’t it?

And what are people so angry about? The bill requires law enforcement officials to basically do nothing more than aggressively enforce our immigration laws. Arizona voters overwhelmingly approve of the bill, and that includes a majority of Democrats and independents. Something has to be done in Arizona, and if the federal government won’t step up, then the state absolutely should.

Nancy Pelosi loves disruptors.  And Al Sharpton is prepared to take “civil disobedience” “on the streets” to fight the new law.  These were the people who demonized the peaceful tea party rallies.  You know, the ones where there was no violence, and where the protesters left the parks where they protested cleaner after they left than they were before they showed up.

And do you remember the constant demagoguery over the whole “party of no” thing?  Whose the damn “party of no” now?

Just another charge that only matters when it’s being employed by liberals to demonize conservatives.  Never the other way around.

The charge doesn’t even have to be true.  The evidence now clearly shows that tea party rallyers did not use the “n-word” or ominously threaten to assault congressional Democrats who did their own version of the “Nazis marching through Skokie march,” as Democrats maliciously claimed.

Speaking of Skokie, we have Obama’s National Security Adviser telling a joke depicting Jews as greedy swindlers even as Obama proves he’s the most blatantly anti-Israel president in U.S. history.  But that’s another story.

Now we’ve got Barack Obama directly race-baiting and calling upon blacks and Latinos “to stand together once again” and oppose the white honky bastards.  Can you imagine the massive stink bomb that the left would have detonated had George Bush tried to rally white men and evangelical Christians to his political cause???

Racism, swastikas, and violence are fine – as long as it’s coming from liberals.

John Lewis Launches Pro-Obama Race-Baiting

October 13, 2008

Democrats and the mainstream media are attacking the McCain-Palin campaign as hateful.  They are pointing to what a few people who attend McCain rallies have said (disregarding that there are every bit as many people who attend Obama rallies who are full of hate).  They have pointed to Sarah Palin’s statement that Barack Obama was “palling around with terrorist” William Ayers as being racist, because even though Obama officially PARTNERED with Ayers, and even though Obama’s campaign own manager David Axelrod said the two men were “certainly friendly,” you can’t say for certain they were “pals.”  Therefore it must be racist.  They have suggested that Sarah Palin calling herself a “hockey mom” was racially biased because only white people play hockey.  They have said that McCain’s “that one” comment must be racist and intend to portray Obama as “the other.”  They are now saying that John McCain saying that he’d “whip Obama’s you-know-what” in the next debate was racist because whipping a black man clearly hearkens back to the days of slavery.

Yesterday’s New York Times was filled with hysterical articles and commentary events at McCain-Palin events.  And mainstream media outlets all over are fixated on every negative thing that comes out of the McCain-Palin campaign, regardless of the source.  Events such as the group of Obama supporters wearing T-shirts at Obama events emblazoned with the words, “Sarah Palin is a cunt” apparently didn’t rise to any inappropriate level for the mainstream media.

The goal is straightforward: the media wants to focus on McCain’s “negativity” and ignore Obama’s in order to portray McCain as angry and desperate in the face of certain defeat.  The overwhelming media narrative is that Obama is sweetness and light and McCain is Darth Vader without the helmet.

Bill O’Reilly said today that he could match anti-McCain-Palin anger at Obama events one-to-one, and that it is frankly stupid to attempt to link remarks made by one or two in a crowd of thousands to the sentiments of the candidates themselves.  But he’s pretty much the only guy out there who even wants to be fair on this issue.

Stop and think about it.  The media is trying to make John McCain guilty by association with people he’s never even met before even as it attacks John McCain – as a racist or as anything else they can think of – for trying to reveal long-term personal associations that Barack Obama had for years.

Let’s listen to what John Lewis, a key Obama surrogate, had to say:

“I am deeply disturbed by the negative tone of the McCain-Palin campaign,” said Lewis, an Obama supporter, civil rights icon and Georgia Democrat in the U.S. House of Representatives.

“What I am seeing today reminds me too much of another destructive period in American history. Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are sowing the seeds of hatred and division, and there is no need for this hostility in our political discourse,” he said.

Noting that Wallace, a divisive political figure in his day, had also run for president, Lewis said, “He created the climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent Americans who were simply trying to exercise their constitutional rights.”

“Sen. McCain and Governor Palin are playing with fire, and if they are not careful, that fire will consume us all,” Lewis said.

Nothing over the top there.  I mean, of COURSE John McCain wants to put black people back into slavery.  He even said he wanted to whip a black man!!!

How on earth can John Lewis’ words not be viewed as both “hateful” and “divisive”?  How are his words not a “vicious attack”?  This attack is nothing less than an attempt to inoculate Barack Obama from any kind of criticism, particularly in areas in which he ought to be held morally accountable for his decisions or for his relationships.

Remember how Barack Obama was said to be able to take America beyond race?  Turns out his side is better at race-baiting than leading the nation beyond race.

The Obama campaign said while Lewis was right to condemn “hateful rhetoric” the Illinois senator did not believe McCain or his policy criticism were comparable to Wallace or his segregationist policies as governor of Alabama in the 1960s.

Well, there’s a nice backhanded punch in the mouth that was supposed to pass as some kind of repudiation of Lewis’ vile and offensive race-baiting rhetoric.

Hate is only hate if white people say it.  Separatism is only bad if white people are separatists.  Claims that a people based on the color of their skin are terrible and will do terrible things is only racist if white people say it.

That’s the level of idiocy that passes for coherent thought and media analysis these days.

And the unrelenting bias of the media – which has been engaged in a campaign to create a narrative that John McCain is being negative and engaging in dirty politics while the Obama campaign is allowed to throw all kinds of filth at John McCain – is what passes for journalism these days.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 530 other followers