Sunday, January 29, 2012

Through the Prism of Race
It doesn't matter what we say, you'll call us 'racists' anyway

I'm really angry. In fact, since I began writing this little blog, I don't think anything (aside from an attack on Israel) has made me this mad. Look, I've made no doubt where my political leanings are. With that said, there is more to being a conservative than voting for the Republican nominee. Half the time, conservatives care little for their nominee but only vote for the candidate because the alternative is much, much worse. Three years of Obama have proven that once again.

But back to topic; my anger.

It has widely been reported, by members of our beloved mainstream media, that anyone who dares disagree with President Obama is a racist. It doesn't matter if the criticism against him is due to his poor record on economic issues, his dangerous naivete on foreign policy or even his seemingly endless campaigning, while the country lurches towards another civil war.

Simply stated, anything said about the President in a bad light deems the attacker a racist.

And why is that? Well, obviously the first thought that comes to mind is the fact that President Obama is the first black man to hold the office. That alone is a tremendous accomplishment for a nation that was dealing with serious racial inequality (at the very least) just 40 years ago. That there is no question as to how miserably black Americans were treated in this country during many of our generation's lives, gives excellent reason many - not just blacks - tremendous pride for eschewing the prejudices of old and attempting to create the society that Martin Luther King, Jr. prayed and spoke about.

And yet, as far as we have come, there are so many of us who still demand to see everything in life through the prism of race. It these people's world, blacks voting over 90% for Obama in 2008 was perfectly fine. But should a white candidate receive that amount, he is more than likely to be considered a member of the KKK, who wants white supremacy to rule the land.

When George W. Bush was President, he was mercilessly mocked as a buffoon, an ape, a terrorist and the ultimate evil (all by the Left). There was even a movie that was released showing his assassination, for crying out loud. The vitriol placed against the President was so vicious he is still being threatened by leftists the world over.

Yet, when anyone on the right says ANYTHING even remotely derogatory (and yes, I admit some things aren't just derogatory), the media immediately claims the GOP candidate is using "code words" from Jim Crow days. The point, of course, is a tactic that is used by leftists throughout history. And that is when you have no argument to make about the policy, demean to neutralize your opponent. I've seen this tactic every time I've sat through each and every commentary on MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CNN and CBS.

And it isn't just on the news shows. Pick up a newspaper and read the New York Times or Washington Post. Often times, it's much more subtle that a flat out "Republicans are racists" meme. However, almost every time someone writes about the political race for president, the author always finds reason to attack the GOP candidate for not caring about Black people.

For example, Newt Gingrich and his calling Obama the "Food Stamp President." Even when Gingrich clearly states that there are more white folks receiving food stamps than black folks, network hosts (too many to mention here) still claim he is slamming black folks. How, exactly? Do the hosts at MSNBC, CBS or any of the other non-Fox networks feel only blacks are on food stamps?

How about Maureen Dowd of the New York Times? When Joe Wilson shouted the words "you lie" when Obama was lying during a joint session of Congress (September 2009), Dowd wrote the following day, "But, fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!" Perhaps Wilson should have shown more respect for the office of the president. But after watching the Supreme Court justices berated openly during the State of the Union address, and also being told that he and other Republicans should shut up "because I won," Wilson was clearly frustrated that no one dare question Obama.

Look, there is no doubt anymore that the main stream press is the only reason Barack Obama is President today. He had no experience running even the smallest business, he openly called for wealth distribution, he openly called for the fundamental transformation of the greatest country the world has ever known, he criticized those who "cling to religion and guns," and he sat in the pew for 20 years listening to ravings of vicious, anti-American, anti-Semitic preacher, who by the way inspired the President to write his first autobiography. In addition, LA Times is sitting on a video of Obama praising "his good friend" and known anti-Jewish bigot Rashid Khalidi. Khalidi is a harsh critic of Israel, has made statements supportive of Palestinian terror and has worked on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization while it was involved in anti-Western terrorism and was labeled by the State Department as a terror group.

And yet, when the Democrat primaries were underway, the press destroyed former favorite-daughter Hillary Clinton - often portraying her unfavorably in photographs, while constantly publishing pictures of Obama with a halo behind his head. But the press' man agenda was the removal of President Bush at all costs. For proof, go back to 2004, when Dan Rather ran a story with forged military records of the President. Of course, Bush won re-election while Rather was finally outed as a left-wing partisan hack.

So what is it today that angered me so and brought up all these emotions?

Jesse Jackson.

Yes, the good old Reverend who was so ticked off by Obama's stealing his thunder that he once threatened to "cut his nuts out." during a break in an interview (live mike caught his comment). Well, Jesse seems to have gotten over himself and has joined the ranks of those who see everything through the prism of race. In defense of Jackson (not that he deserves it), He's ALWAYS seen the world through the prism of race and he's also ALWAYS been dishonest about it. After all, one of Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" is that the ends always justify the means." Ok, that was Karl Marx's ideology as well. But we are comparing two sides of the same coin. On Saturday morning, at Rev. Jesse Jackson's Rainbow PUSH forum, broadcast nationally on the Word Network, the bad Reverend got worked up over the photograph of Arizona Governor Jan Brewer pointing at the chest of President Obama. Here's what Jackson said:

"She knew what she was doing. She was telling him off. She was cutting him down to his size. She must never get away with that. Even George Wallace did not put his finger in Dr. King’s face. Say, enough is enough."

Wow. I love the "enough is enough" comment, as if Democrats are so civil themselves. But what gets me is the sheer hypocrisy. First of all, Jackson immediately compares Governor Brewer and President Obama to George Wallace and Martin Luther King. Seriously? Aside from Wallace being a Democrat and King being a Republican (bet you didn't know that, huh?), Jackson is clearly race baiting here. Wallace was famous for sending Bull Connor to stop the "uppity Negroes" in Selma. Wallace was a terrible bigot who split the Democrat votes in 1968 and 1972. Jackson isn't calling Obama "Wallace" here. He's calling Brewer that (and likewise comparing Obama to King - which is an ENORMOUS stretch of the imagination).

So, according to Jesse Jackson, it's absolutely racist to point your finger at someone without them being racists. Okay, let's assume this to be true. Then how do you explain these pictures:

Is President Obama a racist? Is Jesse Jackson? Well, we know the answer to question #2.

The truth of the matter is, Governor Brewer is not a racist for pointing her finger at Obama anymore than President Obama is a racist for pointing his finger at Prime Minister Netanyahu. But the agenda of Jesse Jackson, just like the agenda of the liberal press, is to make ALL conservatives look like racists. The ironic part of this is it was the Democrats who fought for slavery and the Democrats who tried to destroy Lyndon Johnson for the Civil Rights Amendment. It was Democrats who created, funded and supported the Ku Klux Klan.

When you look at the damage that has been done to the black community over the past 4 decades, you can see much of it stemmed from Johnson's "Great Society." I do not begrudge the Democrats for wanting to help those less fortunate then themselves. It's a very noble act. But when your actions cause so much damage, it matters not how good the intentions are. The fact that conservatives, like myself, believe there is a better way to help less fortunate folks (white or black or purple or green), does not mean we hate Blacks. Quite the contrary. We simply do not care what the color is of your skin. Unlike the left, we believe all people should have the opportunity to raise themselves up to as successful as they can. We do not believe in pushing someone down to make them like everyone else. We believe in raising everyone up who wishes to be raised up.

Unfortunately, people like Jackson need racial strife to continue in order for him to be relevant (and financially rewarded). This is why he was so in favor of castrating the President. He saw him as a threat to his standing and felt the need to knock Obama down, in order to raise himself up. Of course, he was soundly derided for it and thus needed to do something to rebuild his image. How better to do that than by reaching into the Democrat playbook of the politics of personal destruction? And with Obama being black, it's an easy sell to others who see the world through the prism of race. Of course, Jackson has tried this before, especially after his "Hymietown" comments and after his affair with Karin Stanford, a 39-year-old worker at his Rainbow/PUSH Coalition office in Washington (while counseling President Clinton after his relationship with Monica Lewinsky became public.

Obama was supposed to bring in a new era of a post-racial America. At least, that was the hope and expectation of many who voted for him. Instead, he surrounds himself with extreme race-baiters whose agenda is not to move America forward, but to punish those who they feel oppressed them. Sadly, not only are they trying to punish the wrong people, they are seriously hurting the fabric of this country.

Jesse Jackson says "enough is enough." Too bad he doesn't really mean it.


Anonymous said...

Well Said

Clover said...

This is really a great read for me. Thank you for publishing articles having a great insight stimulates me to check more often for new write ups. Keep posting!


kelly said...

the way you discuss the whole thing, you are really intelligent. very well said.

Leslie Lim said...

I would like to thank you for the efforts you have made in writing this article. I am hoping the same best work from you in the future as well. .


joy said...

Hi, I hope you have a good day. Thank you for inspiring us. You bring joy to our face.visit my site if you have time.


sarah lee said...

I really enjoyed reading your article. I found this as an informative and interesting post, so i think it is very useful and knowledgeable. I would like to thank you for the effort you have made in writing this article.

Barbie Chiu said...

I really had a great time stopping by your site, it gives me a lot of information. You can also visit my site, thank you!

Cindy Dy said...

I love surfing and blogging. Thanks for your blogs, I have now another idea what to do on my own blogs. Keep it up. I'll come back later to read more post from you. Thank you.