President-elect Barack Obama waves during the We Are One: Inaugural Celebration at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington January 18, 2009.
REUTERS/Jason Reed
As we all know by now, and as his remarks Friday indicate, President Obama is a cautious man, particularly when it comes to matters of race. But I was relieved to see that he did not “apologize” to the officer in question or the Cambridge police department.
~~~
The bottom line is that the president was right to speak out against racial injustice & racial profiling given this nation’s history with race and police brutality against black men.
President Obama should have calibrated his Friday remarks to offer a flatout apology to Crowley and the Cambridge police department for his earlier “ill-informed” presidential opinion. And then he should have apologized to the American public for exacerbating race relations in the United States.
The “trans-racial” president has been anything but “post-racial”. On the surface, he looks and sounds centrist, speaks of bipartisanship and reaching across the aisle, and pretends to be the American president, rather than “the black” president. But sitting in Reverend Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ for 20 years, President Obama can’t help himself, but be who he is: black first, American second.
Take this bit of race baiting for example. He spoke out about the arrest of Henry Louis Gates, after admitting he didn’t know all the facts, and said that if it had happened to us “any of us would be pretty angry.”
Those racist cops don’t know when to quit eh? Responding to a 911 call about a couple men breaking into a house, described as two black men, and then having the gall to question the men…who coincidentally had jimmied their way into the house AND fit the description given in the 911 call…for ID.
Hey, it’s the dawn of a new age! That new age includes government sanctioned racism: (h/t Hot Air)
Robert Reich:
I am concerned, as I’m sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to high-skilled people who are already professionals or to white male construction workers. … I have nothing against white male construction workers. I’m just saying that there are a lot of other people who have needs as well. … Criteria can be set so that the money does go to others, the long term unemployed minorities, women, people who are not necessarily construction workers or high-skilled professionals.
The 21st Century Democratic Party is NOT at all the same party as that of FDR, JFK, or even Bill Clinton. No, it’s something else, and burdened with almost complete, unchecked political power, finally laden with responsibility and accountability, ripped away from its preferred victimized position of opposition for opposition’s sake…the party is starting to rip itself apart. The last time this kind of infighting happened (not without coincidence) was the last time the Democratic Party was run by the far left, controlled Congress, and the Presidency.
Democratic unity starts to show cracks
Democrats head into 2009 with sky-high expectations but points of intra-party friction are already starting to show a month before President-elect Obama’s inauguration, forecasting bigger fights next year. Veteran Democrats say the party has become more split along parochial interests since Democrats last controlled majorities as large as they will in the 111th Congress. They say the growth of their majorities in Congress, which has ushered in a new cadre of lawmakers from conservative-leaning states and those with new views on old policy problems, has only made the Democratic caucuses less governable. “Because the Democratic caucus is itself diverse, reflecting many different points of view, it will be a challenge for the leadership to keep that coalition of interests together on the priorities established,” said former Democratic Sen. Richard Bryan (Nev.). “That will be a big challenge.”
The publicly funded Franco-German “cultural” channel Arte did not waste any time celebrating the dawn of a new era in transatlantic relations. This is the same Arte, incidentally, whose earlier contributions to transatlantic understanding have included a report accusing American soldiers of beheading Vietnamese civilians during the Vietnam War and a portrayal of President George W. Bush with devil’s horns and fangs. On the day after the election of Barack Obama to succeed the outgoing demon-president, the channel broadcast a 70-minute-long special, live from Washington, with the highly imaginative title “A Black Man in the White House” [Un Noir à la maison blanche]. (To their credit, the editors at Arte-Germany chose to abjure the racist impulses of their French counterparts and titled the show instead “Obama: A New Wind in the White House” [Frischer Wind im Weissen Haus].) The guests on the program included Annette Heuser, the executive director of the Bertelsmann Foundation’s new Washington, DC, office. The influential German foundation set up shop in DC just this past spring, presumably in anticipation of the impending “change.” Host Daniel Leconte revealed that the foundation had even helpfully prepared “a little aide, a little white book” for the incoming president on how to conduct his relations with Europe. He was careful to interject that the “white book” had been prepared for both candidates.
In any case, Bertelsmann can be sure that Mr. Obama will read its “little aide, its little white book” very carefully. For — as Ms. Heuser failed to disclose and as was not mentioned either in an op-ed on Obama that she published in the Washington Post in July — the Bertelsmann Corporation happens to be the president-elect’s principal source of income. It was Bertelsmann, namely, that agreed to pay Obama a reported $1.9 million in advances for a three-book deal that the then-senator-elect signed with its fully owned American subsidiary, the Random House publishing group, in December 2004. And who knows? The real amount of the deal might well be more than the reported amount. After all, it was only in April of this year that we discovered that a reported $10 million book deal signed by former President Bill Clinton with Bertelsmann/Random House in 2001 had in fact been worth $15 million.
John goes on to detail the fact that Obama has earned over four million dollars in income from the Random House division of Bertelsmann: Read the rest of this entry »
The LA Times is refusing to release a videotape that shows Barack Obama attending a dinner in honor of Rashid Khalidi. It is no wonder that he doesn’t want it released. The comments he made while toasting Rashid Khalidi during the event are inflamatory and embarrassing to say the least! He said:
“My friend Rashid is a hero among our Palestinian brothers along the West Bank, and with his continued effort, and our continued support, we can guarantee the removal of the Jewish invaders from our promised land! Without a doubt, a united Palestinian front can banish the racist Israeli state back to the four corners of the world and cleanse the holy land of their stain! Then, we will use the example of Palestinian liberation to usher forth a new age in America! An America where heroes like my good friends Bill Ayers, Reverend Dr. Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, and Malik Zulu Shabazz will bring and end to the tyranny of capitalism, democracy, and white christianity! We will take the wealth of the American economic elite, and use it to buy the votes of the American poor! Then, when we have control of the United States House of Representatives, the United States Senate, the United States Supreme Court, and of course, the White House, we will show the American people what real governance is! We will redistribute the wealth! We will bring down the corporations, and eliminate the small busenessmen! We will put them on the path to socialism, and get this nation ready for the next step toward Marxist Communism! We will give them change!”
Well, at least I’m pretty sure that’s what he said. Well, actually, I have no idea what he said, I’m just guessing. But, if the LA Time refuses to release the video so we can know for sure, I’m just going to have to assume that I guessed right!
“The notion that people don’t know who I am is a little hard to swallow. I’ve been running for president for the last two years. I’ve campaigned in 49 states. Millions of people have heard me speak at length on every topic under the sun. I’ve been involved now in 25 debates, going on my 26th. And I’ve written two books which any — everybody who reads them will say are about as honest a set of reflections by, at least, a politician as are out there.”
-Senator Obama in an interview with Charles Gibson
Supporters of Democratic presidential nominee Senator Barack Obama hold up a cardboard cutout of Obama at a campaign event at the Palm Beach Community College in Lake Worth, Florida October 21, 2008.
REUTERS/Jim Young
We know John McCain. We don’t know Barack Obama.
Peter Nicholas, staff writer for the Los Angeles Times, wrote an interesting piece in yesterday’s Times on trying to get to know the man behind the image, spending 18 hour days on the campaign trail with the Illinois Senator. What comes across to him, is how well-disciplined Senator Obama is, making every word and action deliberate and calculated, with few instances of spontaneity. The mask is constantly kept on. Nicholas concludes: Read the rest of this entry »
“Barack Obama followed a preacher of hate and said nothing as Wright raged against our country…For 20 years, Obama never complained, until he ran for president,”
Andy McCarthy reminds us of a great interview done by Hugh Hewitt of Stanley Kurtz a few weeks ago that is an excellent primer on the Obama/Ayers association. It also highlights an association that isn’t talked about much. Ayers/Khalidi ties.
Here is the interview, lasts a little over 16 minutes but well worth the time to listen to the whole thing:
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
How can you trust him to do what he says on taxes, education, health care?
Obama is LYING about Ayers!
Charlie Gibson held an interview with Barack Obama on Wednesday. Readers will recall Charlie Gibson’s gotcha question for Sarah Palin on the “Bush Doctrine.” Did Gibson press Obama on his association with Ayers? Nope! The report on the ABC News web site reads more like a press release from the Obama campaign:
Obama: McCain Scoring ‘Cheap Political Points’ Democratic Contender Discusses Economy in Post-Debate Exclusive With Charlie Gibson ABC News Oct. 8, 2008
Sen. Barack Obama says the personal attacks levied against him by the campaign of his presidential rival, Sen. John McCain, particularly references to his association with 1960s anti-war radical Bill Ayers, are an attempt to “score cheap political points.”
“Why don’t we just clear it up right now,” Obama told ABC News’ Charlie Gibson in an exclusive interview for World News. “I’ll repeat again what I’ve said many times. This is a guy who engaged in some despicable acts 40 years ago when I was eight years old. By the time I met him, 10 or 15 years ago, he was a college professor of education at the University of Illinois . . . And the notion that somehow he has been involved in my campaign, that he is an adviser of mine, that . . . I’ve ‘palled around with a terrorist’, all these statements are made simply to try to score cheap political points.”
Obama went on to suggest that these questions about his character were a distraction from the real issues facing Americans in this campaign.
But Obama LIED about Ayers. The two have a relationship that goes back many years during which Ayers continued to express his profoundly anti-American views. Ayers helped launch Obama’s political career and has been at his side throughout Obama’s early career. (see here and the short video Curt posted here).
No snide followups from good old Charlie Gibson on all that… No surprise there!
THREE exposes about Barack Obama have hit the top 20 lists virtually overnight. This brings back the whole question: ‘Whom did Barry know, and why did he know them?’ Some cried foul when these connections were first brought up, and continue to do so, but they are ignoring some common sense about associations.
There seems to be some confusion as to what ‘guilty by association’ means. It is a phrase used in the study of “Logic”. (Logic used to be taught in high schools. If it is found at all nowadays, it is taught in college Philosophy departments.) ‘Guilty by association’ is an “informal fallacy” of logic; it means that you reject someone’s logical argument because of those with whom he associates. I think we can all see how that is unfair and illogical.
However, we have the ability, and at times even the obligation to assess someone’s associations; we’ve always done it and we need to do it.
Probably the best example is getting a job. In every resume, we are required to provide “References”. We all know what these are: they are our closest associations, people who can vouch for our basic character and virtue. If I as an employer were to criticize you for the kind of people you hang around with, could you respond that he is using the ‘guilty by association’ card? Of course not! ‘Just because all of my closest associates are drug dealers doesn’t mean you can make anything of it!’ [Yeah, right! And I don't have to give you a job, either.] Read the rest of this entry »
