Of Obama, Historic Things, And “Double-Standards” (Guest Post)

By 16 Comments 1,340 views

golf

In the wake of the tragic shooting last Wednesday night in Charleston SC, Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama reiterated his call for the Confederate battle flag to be relegated to a museum.

White House spokesman Eric Schultz told reporters aboard Air Force One Friday that the President, “believes the Confederate flag belongs in a museum.”

OK, fine, but what about other historic artifacts? Do they belong in museums as well? Obama called the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church, where the shootings took place, “a sacred place in the history of Charleston, and the history of America.” By Obama’s standard, the church should have been in a museum as well.

Or is this another example of Obama’s “double-standard”? Obama BELIEVES the Confederate battle flag should go, but not the church. After all, the Confederate battle flag is part of American history as well, regardless of how often liberals want to deny it.

Here’s yet another example of Obama’s “double-standard”. Obama is golfing in Palm Springs CA, this week-end. Golf courses take lots of water to keep the fairway grass and the greens grass healthy and green. The course upon which Obama plays used 36 billion gallons of water last year. But California is suffering through a drought. Yet the golf course on which Obama plays is nice and green. In what has to be an effort to mitigate Obama’s “double-standard,” White House deputy press secretary Eric Schultz said on Thursday:

This administration’s commitment to helping those affected by the drought is second to none.

Some commitment.

The tragedy in Charleston servers as another illustration of Obama’s “Do as I say, not as I do” attitude. So does Obama’s golfing.

And while we’re on the “double-standard” concept, let’s go a bit further. NAACP President Cornell Brooks, on Friday while criticizing the Confederate battle flag, said that it is an “emblem of hate.”

When we see that symbol lifted up as an emblem of hate, as a tool of hate, as an inspiration for hate, as an inspiration for violence, that symbol has to come down.

Brooks, are you guilty of applying a “double-standard” when looking at the Confederate battle flag, an emblem used to rally troops in the days before modern communication? By seeing it only as an “emblem of hate,” are you disregarding the opinions of others such as Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who said of the flag, it’s “… part of who we are” as South Carolinians? Are you disrespecting all the men who fought and died under that emblem?

Who died so that you got appointed official “emblem authority”?

Yes, the “bully pulpit,” a term coined by President Theodore Roosevelt, that is a position of authority that provides its occupant with an opportunity to speak out on any issue, provides Obama and Brooks with a platform for forwarding their opinions. But when their actions are contrary to their opinions, a “double-standard” occurs. The bully pulpit does NOT provide for that action. Sadly, it is up to us to recognize when a “double-standard” is being foisted because the MSM won’t.

16 Responses to “Of Obama, Historic Things, And “Double-Standards” (Guest Post)”

  1. 1

    MOS 8541

    Just think, in the near future you and this nation will lower the American flag to be replaced by muslim flags. You can all thank the fool and the congress for this action.

  2. 2

    Larry Weisenthal

    As everyone by now knows, both Lindsay Graham and Nikki Haley have also called for the removal of the confederate battle flag. The best comment on this issue which I’ve yet read was the following (by a 29 y.o African American): “Why would you support a flag that represents division instead of a flag that unites people?”

    That’s entirely the point. The confederate battle flag is — at its core — a symbol of division. A symbol of a horrific war who’s sole objective was to tear apart the United States of America. It’s part of history. Nikki Haley said that it was part of the past; not a part of South Carolina’s future.

    What basic objective is served by flying that flag from the grounds of the South Carolina statehouse today? It’s a memorial to a failed attempt to destroy the United States of America. And that is not even considering the fact that it is without question a rally symbol for the minority of South Carolinians who are deep seated racists. The same type of people as the fraternity brothers of Sigma Alpha Epsilon and their now infamous taunting chant.

    In 2015 America, we really don’t need this sort of s—. Put it to bed. Put it in a museum. It’s where it belongs.

    What on earth this has to do with playing golf, I don’t have a clue. It’s a whole different issue. It’s as if we were arguing about the economy and someone starts talking about ISIS. A non sequitur, I believe is the operational word.

    – Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

  3. 4

    Nanny G

    The hypocrisy of going golfing in CA while people are being told to take very short showers (less than 4 minutes) has got to rancor Californians.
    But then rich Californians (like doctors?) just think, ”if I can pay my bill I can use however much water I want,” so their hypocrisy needs Obama’s company.
    LOL!

  4. 5

    Nathan Blue

    @Larry Weisenthal:

    I agree the Confederate Battle Flag — the flag of a vanquished succession of states against the United States — should not be flown anywhere that takes tax money (and it’s a symbol of slavery, point blank; that alone makes it wrong).

    Other than that, Larry Weisenthal is still a f*cking turd.

    Nathan Blue/Denver CO

  5. 6

    retire05

    @Nathan Blue:

    I agree the Confederate Battle Flag — the flag of a vanquished succession of states against the United States — should not be flown anywhere that takes tax money (and it’s a symbol of slavery, point blank; that alone makes it wrong).

    If the War of Northern Aggression was simply about slavery, how do you explain the lack of mention of slavery in the Senate’s vote to authorize the war?

    http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsj&fileName=053/llsj053.db&recNum=91&itemLink=r?ammem/hlaw:@[email protected]%28sj05321%29%29%230530091&linkText=1

    And why did Lincoln not make an issue of slavery until the Copperheads were demanding to end the war and just let the Southern states go their own way?

  6. 7

    Larry Weisenthal

    Hi Retire, I agree with you that the Civil War was not, from Lincoln’s perspective, primarily about slavery. From the South’s perspective — yes. If the South’s ability to maintain the slavery institution — necessary to maintain the South’s plantation economy — had been vouchsafed, there would have been no secession.

    Once the South did secede, Lincoln’s primary objective was to restore the Union. If memory serves, I believe that Lincoln was quoted as saying that if he could have saved the union and not freed the slaves, he’d have done it. And if he could have saved the union by freeing all the slaves, he’d have done that too.

    So what’s accurate to say is that the Confederate Battle Flag was the symbol of a group of states who had the intention of destroying the union of states which comprised the USA. Their primary motivation for secession was a desire to maintain the institution of slavery, which was necessary for maintaining their plantation economy.

    It doesn’t matter that the North’s primary motivation was to put down the rebellion and restore the Union. What matters is that the Confederate Battle Flag is indeed the strongest surviving symbol of states which tried to destroy the USA for the primary purpose of preserving their ability to own slaves.

    – Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

  7. 8

    Larry Weisenthal

    I posted a reply to Retire’s comment, which was promptly marked as spam and which immediately disappeared. I always hated it when this occurred. I could have gone to bed 15 minutes ago.

    If certain commentators are not welcome, could not a way be found to notify said would-be commentators in advance that they are on some sort of black list, so that they don’t need to waste their time writing things which will then simply be trashed? – Larry W/HB

  8. 9

    Curt

    administrator

    @Larry Weisenthal:

    Are you for real?

    Because one comment got marked as spam you think its a conspiracy? Man you liberals are wacked.

    Lets see…what kind of spam did that spam plugin that so “unfortunately” marked your comment as spam catch over its lifetime?

    PAST SIX MONTHS
    186,211
    ALL TIME
    2,337,883
    SPAM BLOCKED

    When you run a website get back to me…until then stfu.

  9. 11

    Ditto

    @Larry Weisenthal:

    It’s not Curt’s fault that something you sent might have triggered the spam blockers. Nor does it make any logical sense for you to spuriously claim that the spam filter singled you out as part of a “conspiracy” against “certain commentators”, when your first commentary post clearly “passed” and was posted as comment #2. Really Larry, I thought you were smarter than this.

    I’ve run a few websites also these past 20 years, (including a political forum on Delphi,) and have had to fish things out of the spam filters. With a politics based website, some of the spam the filters catch are attacks on the website or “click” link-based attacks designed to attack it’s users. Trust me that it’s better that the website admin has to occasionally fish an erroneously tagged message from the spam filters, than for the many nefarious ones to not have been caught. I’m with Curt on this.

  10. 12

    Budvarakbar

    @Nanny G:

    The hypocrisy of going golfing in CA while people are being told to take very short showers (less than 4 minutes) has got to rancor Californians.

    There is something that you are missing re the type of a$$holes that support ‘rats like obie — he is an exalted ONE – G-d is, has, and will be smiling upon him – he is being beautified — can do absolutely NO wrong and it is their pleasure to give up their few gallons a day for his pleasure — they will be closer to heaven that way!

  11. 13

    Bill

    @Larry Weisenthal:

    “Why would you support a flag that represents division instead of a flag that unites people?”

    Why should we honor the opinions of such people regarding symbols when they stomp on the symbol of their very freedom from slavery, taking pictures as they do it? Of course, not all blacks do this, but where is the recognition of this fact and condemnation of those who disrespect the very freedom from slavery they now enjoy?

    So what’s accurate to say is that the Confederate Battle Flag was the symbol of a group of states who had the intention of destroying the union of states which comprised the USA.

    No, not really. Not any more than when the Revolution began, the goal was to destroy the British Empire. The goal, in both cases, was to establish a new nation without the oppression (or perceived oppression) of others. The Southern states were rebelling against federal intrusion on state’s rights (though no such thing had occurred), which was a sacred thing at that time. Many considered their state as their country; they “fought for Virginia”, and so on. Furthermore, the vast majority of those who fought and died never owned a slave.

    What is perceived of the Confederate battle flag cannot be altered through no amount of education. When I see it, I think of those who fought and died for their state, not slavery or racism. You might as well do some investigation into just how happy some Union soldiers were to be fighting to “end slavery”. Racism was not confined to the South.

    As to the essence of the post, it is about how Obama uses. He is a user, a liar, and a hypocrite. This is what the post is saying, which of course, is a fact.

  12. 14

    another vet

    @Bill:

    When I see it, I think of those who fought and died for their state, not slavery or racism. You might as well do some investigation into just how happy some Union soldiers were to be fighting to “end slavery”. Racism was not confined to the South.

    You are correct. Civil War historian James McPherson researched various forms of correspondence from the day from the ordinary soldiers and wrote about his findings in his book, What They Fought For. What he found was that those in the South fought for what they believed was liberty and independence from a tyrannical government. Slavery was very rarely brought up in the correspondence of Union soldiers when writing about the War and why they were fighting it. He also found that the North’s treatment of contrabands (freed slaves) was characterized by cruelty, indifference, and contempt. If you were to read the writings of prominent generals in the North- McClellan, Grant, and Sherman for example, you’d find the same way of thinking. They believed the South had no right to secede and that was the reason for their fighting the War. McClellan stated if the War ever became about slavery he would resign his post and even stated he would use his troops to put down slave rebellions. Grant believed slavery was a Southern issue and should be dealt with by the South. Sherman owned slaves and flat out said the Southern form of slavery was the best in the world.

    Other than the Abolitionists, the majority of Northerners were very indifferent to slavery. Ditto for the South. Other than the large plantation owners whose wealth was heavily tied up in slavery, the majority of Southerners were indifferent. I’ll ask people if the war was primarily about slavery and not states’ rights, why did the South opt for a confederacy as opposed to a federalist system? The primary objective of the War was not to end slavery but rather to preserve the Union. As Larry pointed out, Lincoln himself stated that and as Retire pointed out, Congress stated that in the Crittenden-Johnson Resolution in 1861. People like to believe the War was all about ending slavery so they can feel good about themselves. Historical facts be damned.

    One prediction- Stars and Bars banned or Stars and Bars flying, there will be no difference in racist incidents or any type of crime for that matter, in this country.

  13. 15

    retire05

    @Larry Weisenthal:

    That’s entirely the point. The confederate battle flag is — at its core — a symbol of division.

    Not to Southerners, and only by those, like you, that seem to be a product of a public school education that presented only the victors side of the dispute. But you see, Larry, Southerners took this little piece of writing to heart:

    “When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation”

    A symbol of a horrific war who’s sole objective was to tear apart the United States of America. It’s part of history.

    That’s pure bullshit. More public school revisionism. The Southern states simply wanted to dissolve the political bands that connected them to a federal government that favored the Northern states, and did not represent them. Had they been allowed to leave, there would have been no war.

    What basic objective is served by flying that flag from the grounds of the South Carolina statehouse today?

    It is part of their history, just like the Mexican flag is part of California’s history.

    It’s a memorial to a failed attempt to destroy the United States of America.

    Had the South wanted to destroy the United States of America, and not simply leave it, it could have. The Confederate Army could have marched into Washington, D.C. and totally wiped out the U.S. government. Burned it to the ground. Instead, the South never initiated the war until after Lincoln had deceived them. And even then, the first battle was not on Northern soil. It was federal troops invading the state of Virginia, and no, it was not first Manassas.

    And that is not even considering the fact that it is without question a rally symbol for the minority of South Carolinians who are deep seated racists.

    How do you know that? You can’t possibly know what is in the heart and mind of every South Carolinian. You are simply blathering the b/s mantra mouthed by uninformed people like yourself.

    I agree with you that the Civil War was not, from Lincoln’s perspective, primarily about slavery. From the South’s perspective — yes. If the South’s ability to maintain the slavery institution — necessary to maintain the South’s plantation economy — had been vouchsafed, there would have been no secession.

    Again, you show how little you know. The “northern” government had imposed such high tariffs against the South, and the Southern ports like Charleston, that the South objected to them based on the fact that those same tariff rates were not imposed on the North. The Southern states wanted the tariff system redone to be fair, or to allow the states, and not the federal government, to impose the tariffs.

    The Northern politicians know this would be fatal to the financial leviathan that the federal government was becoming. On Dec. 10, 1860 the Chicago Daily Times wrote:

    “In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half it is now. Our coastwide trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We would lose our trade with the south with all its immense profits. Our manufacturies would be in utter ruins.”

    The North knew that if the Southern coastal ports were allowed to handle their own tariffs, it would create immeasurable financial harm to the harbors of New York and Boston. That could not be allowed to happen. i.e. the Morrill Tariff. When the Morrill Tariff became impossible, Lincoln created the nation’s first “income” tax.

    What matters is that the Confederate Battle Flag is indeed the strongest surviving symbol of states which tried to destroy the USA for the primary purpose of preserving their ability to own slaves.

    Your ignorance is astounding.

  14. 16

    Budvarakbar

    @retire05: Hey!! — retire05 >>> your comments are awesome >> I have a couple of additions / clarifications:

    “When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation”

    Therein lies the essence of the Civil War (War of Northern Aggression) – as you further pointed out in your post the War was the third onslaught of the internationalist European bankers to gain control of the United States. The first was the War of 1812 and then the Mexican War — Mexico in 1847 was in the process of becoming fully controlled by the European (French, Belgium, British, and German) interests >> a few notable passages are quoted as follows:

    “The second French intervention in Mexico (Spanish: Segunda intervención francesa en México), also known as the Maximilian Affair, Mexican Adventure, the War of the French Intervention, the Franco-Mexican War or the Second Franco-Mexican War, was an invasion of Mexico in late 1861 by the Second French Empire, supported in the beginning by the United Kingdom and Spain. It followed President Benito Juárez’s suspension of interest payments to foreign countries on 17 July 1861, which angered these three major creditors of Mexico.”

    “The Pastry War (Spanish: Guerra de los pasteles, French: Guerre des Pâtisseries),[1] also known as the First French intervention in Mexico or the First Franco–Mexican War (1838-1839), began in November 1838 with the naval blockade of some Mexican ports and the capture of the fortress of San Juan de Ulúa in Veracruz by French forces sent by King Louis-Philippe. It ended several months later in March 1839 with a British-brokered peace. The intervention followed many claims by French nationals of losses due to unrest in Mexico City, as well as the failure of Mexico to pay a large debt to France.

    “This incident was the first and lesser of Mexico’s two 19th-century wars with France, being followed by the French invasion of 1861–67, resulting in the installation of Emperor Maximilian I of Mexico.”

    “The German settlement in Mexico goes back to the times they settled Texas when it was under Spanish rule, but the first permanent settlement of Germans was at Industry, in Austin County, established by Friedrich Ernst and Charles Fordtran in the early 1830s, then under Mexican rule. Ernst wrote a letter to a friend in his native Oldenburg which was published in the newspaper there. His description of Texas was so influential in attracting German immigrants to that area that he is remembered as “the Father of German Immigration to Texas.”

    Many Germans, especially Roman Catholics who sided with Mexico, left Texas for the rest of present-day Mexico after the U.S. defeated Mexico in the Mexican–American War in 1848.

    In 1865 and 1866, a total of 543 German-speaking people (men, women, and children) were brought from Hamburg specifically to the villages of Santa Elena and Pustunich, in Yucatán.[5] This was a project of foreign colonization promoted during the Second Mexican Empire, and the reign of Emperor Maximilian I of Mexico,”

    The Southern states simply wanted to dissolve the political bands that connected them to a federal government that favored the Northern states, and did not represent them. Had they been allowed to leave, there would have been no war.

    Without the European Bankers the war most likely would have petered out in less than a year!

    The Confederate Army could have marched into Washington, D.C. and totally wiped out the U.S. government. Burned it to the ground. Instead, the South never initiated the war until after Lincoln had deceived them.

    The “WAR” was completely avoidable!!

    And that is not even considering the fact that it is without question a rally symbol for the minority of South Carolinians who are deep seated racists.

    How do you know that? You can’t possibly know what is in the heart and mind of every South Carolinian. You are simply blathering the b/s mantra mouthed by uninformed people like yourself.

    Best comeback answer to a liberal fool so far this year!!

    By the 1840s, India was no longer capable of supplying the vast quantities of cotton fibers needed by mechanized British factories, while shipping bulky, low-price cotton from India to Britain was time-consuming and expensive. This, coupled with the emergence of American cotton as a superior type (due to the longer, stronger fibers of the two domesticated native American species, Gossypium hirsutum and Gossypium barbadense), encouraged British traders to purchase cotton from plantations in the United States and plantations in the Caribbean. By the mid-19th century, “King Cotton” had become the backbone of the southern American economy. In the United States, cultivating and harvesting cotton became the leading occupation of slaves.

    During the American Civil War, American cotton exports slumped due to a Union blockade on Southern ports, and also because of a strategic decision by the Confederate government to cut exports, hoping to force Britain to recognize the Confederacy or enter the war. This prompted the main purchasers of cotton, Britain and France, to turn to Egyptian cotton. British and French traders invested heavily in cotton plantations. The Egyptian government of Viceroy Isma’il took out substantial loans from European bankers and stock exchanges. After the American Civil War ended in 1865, British and French traders abandoned Egyptian cotton and returned to cheap American exports,[citation needed] sending Egypt into a deficit spiral that led to the country declaring bankruptcy in 1876, a key factor behind Egypt’s occupation by the British Empire in 1882.

    Prisoners farming cotton under the trusty system in Parchman Farm, Mississippi, 1911
    During this time, cotton cultivation in the British Empire, especially India, greatly increased to replace the lost production of the American South. Through tariffs and other restrictions, the British government discouraged the production of cotton cloth in India; rather, the raw fiber was sent to England for processing. The Indian Mahatma Gandhi described the process:
    1.English people buy Indian cotton in the field, picked by Indian labor at seven cents a day, through an optional monopoly.
    2.This cotton is shipped on British ships, a three-week journey across the Indian Ocean, down the Red Sea, across the Mediterranean, through Gibraltar, across the Bay of Biscay and the Atlantic Ocean to London. One hundred per cent profit on this freight is regarded as small.
    3.The cotton is turned into cloth in Lancashire. You pay shilling wages instead of Indian pennies to your workers. The English worker not only has the advantage of better wages, but the steel companies of England get the profit of building the factories and machines. Wages; profits; all these are spent in England.
    4.The finished product is sent back to India at European shipping rates, once again on British ships. The captains, officers, sailors of these ships, whose wages must be paid, are English. The only Indians who profit are a few lascars who do the dirty work on the boats for a few cents a day.
    5.The cloth is finally sold back to the kings and landlords of India who got the money to buy this expensive cloth out of the poor peasants of India who worked at seven cents a day. [15]

    In the United States, Southern cotton provided capital for the continuing development of the North. The cotton produced by enslaved African Americans not only helped the South, but also enriched Northern merchants. Much of the Southern cotton was trans-shipped through northern ports.

    Cotton remained a key crop in the Southern economy after emancipation and the end of the Civil War in 1865. Across the South, sharecropping evolved, in which free black farmers and landless white farmers worked on white-owned cotton plantations of the wealthy in return for a share of the profits. Cotton plantations required vast labor forces to hand-pick cotton.

    European BANKERS — !!!

    What matters is that the Confederate Battle Flag is indeed the strongest surviving symbol of states which tried to destroy the USA for the primary purpose of preserving their ability to own slaves.

    Your ignorance is astounding.

    But clearly illustrated

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *