Obama gave a very good speech last night. But when he said:
“But what we can’t do is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on one another. As we discuss these issues, let each of us do so with a good dose of humility. Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let us use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy, and remind ourselves of all the ways our hopes and dreams are bound together…”
I would have believed it to be far more sincere had Obama mentioned his own spiteful and polarizing rhetoric –
Didn’t Obama spend more than 20 years with a church that by any reasonable standard would be readily identified as a racist hate organization? You remember: that whole sordid “God Damn America” thing?
Didn’t Obama say of rural white Pennsylvanians, “they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations”?
Didn’t Obama command, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun”?
Didn’t Obama command, “I want you to argue with them and get in their face.”?
Didn’t Obama say, “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry. I’m angry!”
Didn’t Obama tell his followers to “punish our enemies”? With said “enemies” being Republicans?
And there are so many others. Even ones that most people would find minor, such as the campaign slogan, “Fired up, ready to go!”, should sound sinister given the attack that Sarah Palin’s “Don’t retreat, reload” has received.
– and disavowed many of his own words as contributing to the hostile climate that we have seen spring up in his presidency.
Obama ran as the man who would transcend the political divide by rising above partisan and polarizing politics as usual. That was his core promise to the American people.
But in reality – as affirmed by the American people – he has been the most polarizing president in American history.
It’s always do as I say, not as I do with Obama.
We’re not supposed to make a great tragedy political???
Tell it to Obama:
“Together We Thrive” was the slogan (and just when in the hell did Memorial services start getting “slogans”?) of the Tucson memorial service. You know, the one where the crowd cheered as though they were at a political rally, rather than at an event to mourn and honor people who were just ruthlessly gunned down by a psychopath.
Here are the T-shirts printed with the political slogan (yes, we can factually say that this is was very much a political slogan, having been the slogan of Obama and his “Organizing for America” organization):
And just when the hell was the last time you attended a memorial service for people who were gunned down and murdered or maimed, and received a T-shirt with bearing a political slogan???
The mainstream media continued to make it all about Obama, with the headline, “Obama Could Get Political Boost From Tucson Speech.” They say:
President Barack Obama’s consoling, sermon-like speech at a service for the victims of the Arizona shooting rampage steered clear of politics, yet it may have given him one of the biggest political boosts since he took office two years ago.
“Steered clear of politics”??? The partisan crowd cheering at the “memorial service” were literally wearing their politics like T-shirts!!!
I mean, my God. I’m just disappointed now that I didn’t get my Bush 9/11 victims memorial speech commemorative T-shirt, featuring a George W. Bush for president election slogan.
Meanwhile liberals are congratulating themselves at their marvelous “tolerance” expressed in Obama’s speech, even as they continue to pile on in their hate for conservatives like Sarah Palin.
And here’s the fruits of Obama’s ostensible call for tolerance and understanding:
Death threats to former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin have increased to unprecedented levels in the wake of Saturday’s shooting in Tucson, an aide tells ABC News.
Following the attack that seriously wounded Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others, Palin has found herself embroiled in a firestorm of controversy. Numerous left-wing commentators have accused Palin’s hard-hitting partisan rhetoric of influencing accused shooter Jared Lee Loughner.
The Daily Caller reported that dozens of Twitter users called for Sarah Palin’s death in the hours following the shooting, with some going so far as to wish for her assassination.
Major mainstream media figures continued to demonize Sarah Palin even after Obama’s speech. Keith Olbermann attacked her for speaking out in her video one day after attacking her for not speaking out. Bill Press said that Sarah Palin’s self-defense against the vicious leftwing attacks against her reminded him of a terrorist hostage video.
Sarah Palin’s worst “crime” was coming out with a map that “targeted” vulnerable districts for Republican election victories, including Gabrielle Giffords’ seat. It is conveniently overlooked that the DEMOCRAT PARTY has used similar maps. It is conveniently forgotten that powerful leftwing site Daily Kos targeted the moderate Gabrielle Giffords. It is conveniently forgotten that Daily Kos featured an article literally saying of Gabrielle Giffords, “she’s dead to me.”
Funny. I don’t recall Sarah Palin saying that Gabrielle Giffords was dead to her. All she did was use a map the same way Democrats have been doing basically since Lewis and Clark rowed around America in their canoes.
All I can say is I watched the Tucson memorial service. I thought the Native American blessing thing was bizarre (were any of the shooting victims Native American?). I thought the University of Arizona president thought the event was to celebrate his university. And I thought the cheering at what was supposed to be a memorial service was just flat-out wrong.
But even the cheering dims in sheer brazenness to the “Together We Thrive – Organizing for America” political sloganeering.
It very much seems to be ALL about politics to the left. Because they don’t seem to believe in anything else but raw political power. And that goes from the lowest leftwing blogger furiously writing in his parents’ basement all the way up to the president of the United States.
Tags: antipathy toward people, argue with them and get in their face, bitter, cheering, church, Daily Kos, don't retreat, fired up, Gabrielle Giffords, I don't want to quell anger, I think people are right to be angry, if they bring a knife to the fight, Jeremiah Wright, map, memorial service, Obama, organization, Organizing for America, polarizing, political, punish your enemies, racist, rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, ready to go, reload, she's dead to me, T-shirts, target, targeting, they cling to guns or religion, Together We Thrive, Tucson, university, we bring a gun
Start Thinking Right 
January 14, 2011 at 6:06 am
BTW, who paid for all those slogan T-shirts? This is an outrage that this memorial service turned into a campaign rally for someone who I cannot address as President. His name is a curse word in my home. I owuld think that a college graduate would know the definition of “memorial” and if he didn’t know the definition, someone on his staff should know it or LOOK IT UP. Politics has reached an all-time LOW.
January 14, 2011 at 6:30 pm
Edith,
My understanding is that university funds (they assure that it won’t come out of tuition) paid for the T-shirts. And of course, somehow that is supposed to separate it from the White House.
But do you have any idea how many billions and billions of dollars of stimulus money went to universities???? And do you have any idea of how profoundly liberal and Democrat universities are???
Given that the shirts literally bear Obama’s campaign sloganeering, let’s just chock it up as a liberal special interest group providing a payoff to Obama.
January 15, 2011 at 8:58 am
“Together we Thrive” is from the Latin idiom “iuncta iuvant” (strength in unity) and is related to the fascist symbol the “fasces”
http://bit.ly/9g3N5c
January 15, 2011 at 5:05 pm
That’s a rather pathetic development which is only one more proof over which party is “fascist,” isn’t it?
Earlier, I had this exchange with an idiot leftist:
She came at me with this bit of ignorance:
And here was my response to the imbecile:
I don’t mind your warped denunciation. Because you are a pathologically ignorant creature.
Hitler was first and foremost a Nazi, you little cretin. Let’s see what that entails:
Now all the articles from “shakespearessister” in the universe won’t change that fundamental reality.
And because you are a truly mindless ideologue, you demonize Republicans, who are limited government conservatives.
Tell me, Sancia: in precisely what sense was Adolf Hitler for “limited government”? What specific sphere of life did Hitler say, “I should have no authority to control this?”
And further, just what was it that Adolf Hitler trying to “conserve” as a “conservative”?
Please don’t bother to post back unless you have an answer to those questions. Because you are a complete waste of time.
You demonize the Republican Party merely because your hollow skull is full of demons. It is the DEMOCRATS who are socialist; it is the DEMOCRATS who constantly advertise themselves as the “workers party.” And if there were a “National Socialist American Workers Party” today, it would be filled completely and entirely by the left.
From this point I shall merely copy and paste a previous response to a previous idiot:
Since you point out Nazism was fascist, let’s look at some history as to WHICH side of the American political divide recognized literally ITSELF as fascist in America.
Fascism sought to eliminate class differences and to destroy/replace capitalism and laissez-faire economics.
H.G. Wells, a great admirer of FDR and an extremely close personal friend of his, was also a great liberal progressive of his day. He summed it up this way in a major speech at Oxford to the YOUNG LIBERALS organization under the banner of “Liberal Fascism”: “I am asking for a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis.” He said, “And do not let me leave you in the slightest doubt as to the scope and ambition of what I am putting before you” and then said:
H.G. Wells pronounced FDR “the most effective transmitting instrument possible for the coming of the new world order.” And of course, we easily see that the new world order Wells wanted was a fascist one. In 1941, George Orwell concluded, “Much of what Wells has imagined and worked for is physically there in Nazi Germany.”
You aren’t informing me of anything, and you CERTAINLY aren’t correcting me for any mistake I made, by saying that Nazism was a form of fascism. The problem you have is that fascism is such an inextricable part of the progressive movement that characterized Democrats between Woodrow Wilson and FDR. A quintessential element of fascism is mobilization, what is described as “the moral equivalent of war.” It is about an expert-driven unity, where our leaders mobilize society to solve whatever “crisis” they decide to focus upon. FDR in his inaugural address promised to seek the power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe… I assume unhesitatingly the leadership of this great army dedicated to a disciplined attack upon our common problems.” And he militarized society to deal with the emergency. And both Hitler and Mussolini BOTH had their own forms of the New Deal, and both pursued the same basic ends the same basic way.
Mussolini and Hitler felt they were doing things along similar lines to FDR. Indeed they celebrated the New Deal as a kindred effort to their own. The German press was lavish in praise for FDR. In 1934 the Volkischer Beobachter (the national newspaper under Adolf Hitler) described Roosevelt as a “warmhearted leader of the people with a profound understanding of social needs.” The paper said that FDR, through his New Deal, had eliminated “the uninhibited frenzy of market speculation” by adopting “National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies.”
Mussolini reviewed FDR’s book Looking Forward saying in effect, “This guy’s one of us!” He wrote: “The appeal to the decisiveness and masculing sobriety of the nation’s youth, with which Roosevelt here calls his readers to battle, is reminiscent of the ways and means by which Fascism awakened the Italian people.” Mussolini further wrote that FDR understood that the economy could not be “left to its own devices” and went on to say, “Without question, the mood accompanying this sea change resembles that of Fascism.” And the Nazi newspaper paper Volkischer Beobachter wrote that “many passages in his [FDR’s] book Looking Forward could have been written by a National Socialist. In any case, one can assume that he feels considerable affinity with the National Socialist Philosophy.” For a source see Schivelbusch’s “Three New Deals,” pp. 23, 24, 19.
Mussolini, in a famous interview with Emil Ludwig, reiterated his view that “America has a dictator” in FDR. In an essay, Mussolini marveled at how the forces of “spiritual renewal” were destroying the outdated notion that principles such as democracy were “immortal principles.” He wrote, “America is itself abandoning them. Roosevelt is moving, acting, giving orders independently of the decisions or wishes of the Senate or Congress. There are no longer intermediaries between him and the nation. There is no longer a parliament but an ‘etat majeur.’”
What the Nazis pursued was a form of anticapitalist anti-conservative communitarianism encapsulated in the concept of Volksgemeinschaft, or “people’s community.”
From the Nazi Party Platform:
Ah, yes, the Nazis had their Fairness Doctrine before your liberals had theirs.
Now, you read the Nazi Party Platform, and given what American liberals want and what American conservatism opposes, it is so obvious which party is “fascist” that it isn’t even silly. Then you ADD to that the fact that fascism and American progressivism (which is liberalism) were so similar that the great fascists of the age couldn’t tell the damn difference.
I’ve got more on a similar lunatic idiot liberal myth here.
So you can take your “research” back to whatever toilet bowl you drink out of and spit it back in.
The saddest thing of all about people like you, Sancia, is that the more you learn the more ignorant you become, because you are committed to a worldview that is entirely false and depraved, and everything you proceed to learn is false and depraved. And when your head is so filled with crap that it is unreal, you profess yourself to be wise, while all the while you are a fool (Romans 1:22).
And now you point out that Obama’s campaign slogan in 2008 was merely the English translation of a Nazi slogan…
January 18, 2011 at 3:17 pm
You’re committing what you complain about.
You seem to having be fun, though…
January 19, 2011 at 8:24 am
“none”,
So, on your view, if I oppose violence, and a jackbooted thug knocks me down and starts stomping on my face, then I’m as guilty as the jackbooted thug if I fight back???
There’s no question who started the demonizing. Democrat politician Linda Lopez immediately attacked conservatives. And liberal elite Paul Krugman was throwing out lies only two hours after the attack. But, not surprisingly, you don’t care that your side viciously and immorally attacked my side without cause. All you care about is how bad my side is for fighting back to the hate you threw.
The fact of the matter is, I have merely very consistently – since the Democrats began demonizing conservatives for opposing health care as “Nazis” – been holding up a mirror at the left and pointing out their vile hypocrisy for repeatedly attacking the right for “hate” when in reality they are FAR more hateful themselves.
In a recent article on this very subject titled something like, “Truth among the causualties,” I listed a number of very harsh Obama quotes (and there are many others, such as Obama saying, “… so I can know whose ass to kick”). And then I said QUOTE:
And my point was – and is – that Democrats practice a gigantic double standard. And, so, at some point, yes, we’ll play ball their way and use their tactics right back at them. It would be stupid for us not to.
I embrace free speech. If the Democrats didn’t employ hypocrisy as a central defining element, I wouldn’t condemn them for their speech.
It is YOUR side that wants a “Fairness Doctrine.” It is YOUR side that has consistently tried to limit and demonize free speech even as they have unleashed “free speech hell.”
Sorry, “none,” but if people like you throw your garbage back at people like me, prepare to get your garbage thrown back in your face. Hard and where it hurts.
October 15, 2011 at 4:06 am
This blog makes me feel sorry for America and scared for the world.If the so called literate and educated among us use such warped logic. if the so called saved among us use religion in this way. If the educated among us must go to Hitler as an arrow to morality and good behaviour we are in trouble. Wake up America
October 15, 2011 at 8:10 pm
Gerr,
I’m guessing that you “use religion” in a way that ensures you are not obliged to actually do anything you don’t want to do. Frankly, I have a feeling that you would find it difficult to differentiate your “religion” from the ACLU agenda – which is strange given that the ACLU is both atheistic and communist.
I’m also guessing that you don’t like the fact that Hitler was a leftist socialist who created a big government totalitarian state.
The only people who are pushing the same things that Hitler pushed are Democrats. Unless you think you have a snowball’s chance in hell of demonstrating that Adolf Hitler was a small government, free-market conservative who cherished the U.S. Constitution as it was literally written and intended by the American founding fathers.
Maybe you should wake up along with America.