Obama does not want Americans to be free — to think for themselves, to enjoy their First and Second Amendment and other constitutional rights or to reject any aspect of His radical transformation of our country. Part I, of what will become a multipart series, deals with race relations under Obama.
In an article posted on January 12, 2014 titled Might President Obama morph into an el Presidente Chávez? I offered parallels and dissimilarities suggesting that it had already started.
When el Presidente Chávez took office in 1999, he began only slowly to implement his “reforms.” To a casual observer, few changes were apparent in Venezuela between 1997 when my wife and I first arrived and late 2001 when we left, probably never to return. We had a few concerns about the future of the country under Chávez but they were low on our list of reasons not to buy land and build our home in the state of Merida, up in the Andes. Mainly, we wanted to continue sailing and Merida is inconveniently far from an ocean.
Chávez’ initiatives increased dramatically in number and in magnitude only when he was well into his seemingly endless terms in office. Maybe he had heard the story of the frog put into a pleasantly warm but slowly heating pot of water. The frog failed to realize until too late that he was being boiled for dinner. By then the frog had become unable to jump out of the pot.
President Obama, flush with victory and perhaps not having heard the frog story, turned up the heat quickly at first. As a result, starting in January of last year, President Obama’s dinner was delayed by an uncooperative House of Representatives. The frog survived for a while longer. If reelected and given a compliant Congress, he seems likely to turn up the heat. We are the frog.
The situation has worsened since I wrote that article in January of 2012. His then already rapid pace has accelerated and the consequences of His actions have become more “transformational.” In no particular order, He has done His utmost to enhance racial divisions, to conduct His own “war on women,” to engorge the welfare state, to import many illegal aliens, to punish His enemies and reward His friends and to conceal His intentions and actions and otherwise to deceive the public. He has also continued to militarize Federal, State and local law enforcement entities and others well beyond their legitimate needs to the detriment of those who obey the law. His transformational depredations have not been limited to domestic situations but have also infested His foreign policies and actions. In particular, He has tried to punish His, rather than America’s, enemies and to reward His, rather than America’s, friends. Despite all of this He remains — although decreasingly — popular with His admirers.
Here’s a pretty good summary of the situation:
Does Obama really have a “tradition of not remarking on cases where there may still be an investigation?”
[H]e’s lying about what he’s saying even has he’s saying it. He’s claiming to be above the fray, but he bookends it with comments suggesting the police treat black people unfairly. Whether you agree with that or not, he denies he’s saying it even as he’s saying it. He gives his opinion on a case where there still may be an investigation, he claims he’s not doing that very thing, and then he goes back to doing so. [Emphasis added.]
When Obama and Attorney General Holder feel that “their people” have been “wronged,” they stand up for them against all others. A 2009 incident involved a black Harvard professor and a white Cambridge, Massachusetts police officer.
On July 16, 2009, Harvard University professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr., was arrested at his Cambridge, Massachusetts home by a local police officer responding to a 9-1-1 caller’s report of men breaking and entering the residence. The arrest initiated a series of events that unfolded under the spotlight of the international news media.
. . . .
A local witness reported their activity to the police as a potential burglary in progress. Accounts regarding the ensuing confrontation differ, but Gates was arrested by the responding officer, Cambridge Police Sgt. James Crowley, and charged with disorderly conduct. On July 21, the charges against Gates were dropped. The arrest generated a national debate about whether or not it represented an example of racial profiling by police.
On July 22, President Barack Obama said about the incident, “I don’t know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it’s fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home, and, number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there’s a long history in this country of African Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately.” [Emphasis added.]
Shortly after George Zimmerman was blamed by the “legitimate” media and other assorted race baiters for murdering a little black “child,” Trayvon Martin, Obama claimed that if He had a son he would look much like little Trayvon.
The “legitimate media” helped Him by distorting and otherwise lying about the facts.
Do facts matter when they contradict the leftist narrative? It appears that they don’t.
The process was repeated when a white police officer, Darren Wilson, shot and killed an “unarmed” black “gentle giant,” Michael Brown. When the Grand Jury decided, based on voluminous evidence, that there was no basis on which to indict Wilson, race baiters erupted with anger and incited mob violence.
Obama should be very proud of His legacy of transforming America into a “post-racial” society in which all are judged, not by the goodness of their character, but by the pigmentation of their skin.
Obviously the sheriff in the video embedded immediately above is a racist, since he seems not to appreciate all of the great transformative things that Obama has done for black people. He even thinks that the Reverend Mr. Sharpton, a
racist race adviser to Obama, is a charlatan. Oh. the sheriff is Black? Then it’s even worse: he must be a Tea Party/KKK racist.
Obama met with such
civil rights activists race baiters as Sharpton and demanded Federal review of instances in which He claimed that His people were treated more harshly than Whites and the resultant “simmering distrust.” His Attorney General initiated an investigation into alleged civil right violations by Officer Wilson.
As noted here,
BINGO – AS EXPECTED – Mike Brown and Eric Garner as tools: – President Obama wants, and needs, to make the case that the deaths of these men were not isolated occurrences, but part of a larger pattern in which law enforcement officers were hostile to the human rights of African Americans; ergo a pattern that is rooted in hundreds of years of similar hostility including centuries of slavery.
So his argument is that not only individual agents of American law enforcement but the larger American legal system is white supremacist.
There’s a reason for this:
President Obama and Attorney General, Eric Holder, are both advocates of critical legal studies that uses storytelling and theorizes about class dominance in American law. In essence Critical Race Theory reaches the DOJ. [Emphasis added.]
Consequently, to advance the race ball, President Obama wants to do his own storytelling.
Within his narration the actual facts of what happened in Ferguson are not so important as the story about America that he wants to tell by exploiting what witnesses falsely claimed they supposedly saw. The facts are irrelevant, the story is the goal. [Emphasis added.]
. . . .
President Obama will say through his acolytes and sycophants that any/all accusations by those seeking to hold him or Holder accountable are racist in motivation; and that his accusers wish to treat him, Holder, etc. just as unjustly as Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, and Eric Garner were treated. [Emphasis added.]
Since “Black Lives Matter” the masses should ultimately rise up in defense of him and AG Holder since if accusers get away with actions against them who knows what racist cops might try to get away with against far less powerful people. [Emphasis added.]
Do White lives matter?
Will Obama publicly condemn a December 5th South St. Louis incident in which “A 26-year-old white Bosnian woman was dragged out of her car and beaten by three black assailants?” He apparently has not yet and probably won’t.
Will Obama direct His Attorney General to investigate whether race motivated the attackers?
According to a police report, at about 5:30 a.m., a Bosnian woman was driving on the 4600 block of Lansdowne when three black males in their late-teens to early-20s stepped in front of her vehicle.
When the woman tried to drive around them, the suspects reportedly pulled out a firearm, so she stopped the car.
After hitting her windshield with a crowbar, the suspects pulled the woman from her car, threw her on the ground and kicked her.
A suspect grabbed her purse, searched it, and told the others it was empty. All three suspects then fled the scene.
Police say the woman said she thought the crime was racially motivated because the suspects asked her if she was Bosnian.
Early Sunday morning in the same neighborhood, Bosnian Seldin Dranovic was beaten by three teens wielding hammers; but he managed to escape. An hour later Bosnian Zemir Begic would not be so lucky. He was brutally bludgeoned to death by the same groups of thugs. [Emphasis added.]
Would Obama publicly condemn an incident in which the same had been done by Whites to Blacks or illegal immigrants imported from Latin America? Would He direct His Attorney General to investigate? Perhaps Holder should deputize this
nut constitutional scholar.
Who is vastly privileged because of the color of his skin rather than the goodness of his character?
Finally, here may be some “good” news (I hope), despite this chart
These figures, of course, do not include Blacks or others who were aborted.
The CDC reports that of the approximately 4000 abortions that are performed daily in the United States, 1452 of them are performed on African American women and their pre-born children. This means that although African Americans represent only 12% of the population of the United States, they account for 35% of the abortions performed in this country. [Emphasis added.]
Much has changed since 2010, with masses of immigrants coming and staying (thanks to Obama) and black birthrates increasing as white birth rates decline. Still,
Will Whites continue to leave the Democrats for the Republicans? I had previously posted that there has been a pretty steady trend of whites abandoning the Democratic Party for the Republicans. If something were to happen to increase that trend, a Republican Party that dominates the white vote could dominate politically for years.
Will successful Hispanics and Asians want to be locked in with the party of grievance? The identity politics left assumes all people of color (including oddly white Hispanics) will all naturally side with each other against whitey. That of course is the reason that changing the national demographics is so important to the left. But Asians and Hispanics are groups with different factions and are not all locked in to the Democrats the way Blacks are. Japanese Americans are basically indistinguishable from white people in most key indicators. Most Asian groups are on the opposite side of the affirmative action debate since they are punished, not helped by it. They’re also on the opposite side of the shopkeeper/business owner vs rioter situation. For Democrats, being the “Black” party can backfire when some of your other constituents are the people having their stores burned to the ground. I’m wondering how much that impacted the decline in Asian support for Democrats on this last election.
Indians are growing in size and influence among Asians. Who is going to wind up with their loyalties? Right now there are two, count them two, southern Republican Indian-American governors. And this is in what the political forum left regards as the unreconstructed racist south. Since Democrats are un-churched, they don’t understand how religion plays a role…well in anything. The future political Indian-American divide may be among those who are Christians flocking to the Republicans and those who have other or no religions flocking to the Democrats. We see something similar among Korean-Americans. Christian Koreans are far more likely to be Republican that [sic] Buddhists or atheists. That’s a dividing line that may be more important to future America than race, however Democrats so discount religion it might be years before they can even consider the possibility.
And like Asians, the Democratic calculus on Hispanics assumes they will want to remain poor in the party of angry grievance. Don’t they think a fair number of people want to “make it?” They want to move to the suburbs, have a white color job, and just don’t buy that they can never do those things because evil white Republicans are keeping them down.
Contrary to liberal science, Hispanics are an ethnic group and not a racial group. So for those who assimilate, increase their incomes, and intermarry, are they expected to remain loyal to Democrats because of last names?
It will be interesting to learn what the next census indicates and also whether America will eventually begin to recover from the festering racism which is presently weakening if not destroying her. Meanwhile, I
may seem am just a tad pissed off angry about the extent to which Obama has radically transformed America into a hatchery for racists. While hoping for the best, I expect the immediately foreseeable future to get worse.