Monday, August 20, 2012

I Will Heal The Divisions

During his 2008 campaign for the presidency, Barack Obama proclaimed: “There is not a black America and a white America and a Latino America and an Asian America; there's the United States of America.” Near the end of his first (and only?) term, America is more divided along racial and class lines than at any time since the beginning of the civil rights era. Barack Obama himself deserves much of the credit for this divisiveness.

There were hints in that earlier campaign that Obama really wasn't all that post-racial. He commented that “some people won't vote for me because I don't look like the other presidents.” That was a suggestion that if you voted for the other candidate, you were voting against Obama solely because of his color. There was a lot of criticism on the right for that comment, though some of us conservatives thought that it was not an entirely unfair or untrue remark. It recognized a truth that both liberals and conservatives ought to be able to agree on. Bigots still exist, and probably always will. It was the suggestion that anybody who voted against him was a bigot that was offensive. And that thought has been magnified and amplified throughout his administration.

The concept has gelled to the point that it is now a major theme of the liberals during the 2012 presidential campaign. Never mind Obama's utter failure on the economy. Never mind the apology tours. Never mind his abandonment of allies and pats-on-the-back for Middle East dictators. Never mind his Chicago-style oppression of dissent. Never mind his crony socialism. If you oppose anything Obama does, you are an “intolerant bigot.”

Even among white voters, Obama's race seemed in 2008 to have been more of a plus than a minus. Many who really knew nothing about him listened to what he said and thought to themselves, “at last, we can get past all the division by electing a black president who wants to put racial and class division behind us once and for all.” A huge percentage of those same white voters have come to regret their vote. Almost from the beginning, it became apparent that Obama had no intention of healing racial relations. He, along with his Attorney General Eric Holder, early on began to make it clear that the administration would not be about healing, but rather about revenge for real and imagined past white sins.

When Harvard Professor Henry Louis (“Skip”) Gates was arrested for disorderly contact and resisting arrest, Obama rushed to blame it on “stupid cops” arresting a notable black academic based on his color. The Holder Justice Department dropped all further actions against the New Black Panther Party for egregious voter intimidation in Philadelphia, going so far as to drop cases which had already been won against them. When a black teenager was shot by a “white” neighborhood watch member, Obama rushed to judgment, bringing out the violins by proclaiming “if I had a son, he would look just like Trayvon (apparently Obama disregarded the most recent photos of the victim sporting gang tattoos and a gold “grill”). The Holder DOJ has throughout Obama's first term used the obsolete provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to squelch reform efforts in the South. The list is very lengthy.

This president had an unprecedented (his favorite word) opportunity to bring Americans of all colors and classes together to make a greater America. Instead, he has taken every opportunity to divide the country along those very lines he could have helped to erase. As I said in 2008 (and still say), I don't oppose Barack Obama because he's black. I oppose him because he's red. Yet the mainstream media continue to prettify Obama and his legions while downplaying any criminal activities on the left which are racially or ideologically motivated.

Although he has not overtly spouted black liberation or socialist philosophy, both his actions and inactions have led America down those primrose paths. He has emboldened the left to call conservatives racists and bigots for opposing his policies, no matter what the issue before them. His cynical reversal of his position on gay marriage has added gay-straight/Christian-secularist hatred to the mix. His above-the-fray inaction in failing to condemn tagging of all conservative and/or traditional values as bigots has further emboldened the liberals. He has never said that he agrees with the leftist Southern Poverty Law Center labeling the Family Research Council as a “hate group.” But neither has he condemned it, and a supporter of gay, lesbian, and transgender causes used that as a justification for an armed attack on the “hate group” FRC in Washington, DC.

As the racial and class warfare remarks continue to escalate in the campaign, Obama remains silent. As most of us know, the ancient legal dictum is that “silence implies consent.” And that is exactly how the race and class warriors on the left have interpreted the silence. A Democrat PAC implies that Mitt Romney was directly responsible for the death of a cancer victim, and Obama remains silent. His Press Secretary mumbled and bumbled when the abject lie was pointed out to him. The ad continues to run in key states, and Obama continues to remain silent.

By allowing his minions to attack all conservatives and Christians as bigots, racists and neanderthals without putting on the brakes by condemning their actions, Obama is complicit in the very bigotry he purports to loathe. All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Barack Hussein Obama is not a good man. And anyone who opposes him, is (in his own words) a "typical white person."


Joel Farnham said...


This is one of those articles that I have to go through three or four iterations. It is because I think I start sounding like a bigot.

To vote for Barack means that we are okay with the bigoted response from on high, yet we are told we are bigoted if we don't vote for Barack. Well, I guess I have to be called bigoted, because I won't vote for Barack.

I never voted for him, and I never will. He is a hateful man. His policies are hateful. His friends are hateful. His appointments are hateful.

Ever since Obama was elected, I have been ashamed of my country. I have been ashamed of the outright racism promulgated from this administration. I am ashamed of people who should know better yet follow it blindly.

Individualist said...


To treally un derstand the veracity of the "post racial" president comment just reverse it.

If McCain had been the one to state "I will be the first post racial president" what would have been the reaction of the individuals that voted for Barack's "post racialness". If it is not exactly the same. It they accuse McCain of bigotry and go off on the "insensitivity" of the remark.

Well then the lie of being Post Racial is exposed isn't it.

As to the one's who state I am against Barack Obama becasue of his race I say nonsense. I have alwayus been against Barack Obama becauuse he is the reincarnation of Benito Musolini, the amount of melanin in his epidermis is not relevant.

Anthony said...

How could a single guy heal race relations? From where I stand they don't need healing.

As I've said repeatedly, for the overwhelming majority of Americans idealogy>race. Show me an elected black conservative and I'll show you someone in whose district the black vote is meaningless.

In 2010, the black Artur Davis (who was never anywhere close to conservative, but sought to move to the center to appeal to more voters) lost the black vote to the white Ron Sparks because of Davis's opposition to Obamacare.

Its also worth noting that one of the Tea Party's favorite elected politician is hands down Allen West.

The mostly baseless accusations of racism that are often flung about by Obama's supporters have robbed the allegation of much of its sting, but they haven't made race relations worse.

T-Rav said...

Joel, I haven't been ashamed of my country. I have been ashamed of our so-called leader and the millions of useful idiots who voted for and continue to support him. But that's no different from before he was President.

BevfromNYC said...

Anthony, what I have found disturbing is how agressively and viciously liberals will attack minority conservatives. That is where I think the real divisiveness is. They can call me a racist all they want because as you say, it has lost much of it's sting and I know that I am not.

If conservatives (especially Southern conservatives) were to use the same hateful rhetoric that is thrown at West, Jindal, Haley, Rice etc., the ACLU would calling it a hate crime and filing a lawsuit.

It is the same for conservative women. Not a peep from NOW when Palin, Whitman, Angle, and Farina, when they were called all manners of mysogynist names including the "c" word. But when Rush called someone a...well, we all know what happened. And they doubledown on Haley and Rice because they have the audacity to both.

Unknown said...

Joel: I've reached the point where I think that half the people who call others bigots for opposing Obama don't even believe it themselves. He has only two cards to play--racism and socialism. I reject both.

Unknown said...

Indi: ". . . the amount of melanin in his epidermis is not relevant." To the vast majority of Americans, I believe that is absolutely true. Sadly, it matters to Obama and his race-baiters.

Unknown said...

Anthony: As a veteran of the civil rights movement, I would have agreed with you just four years ago about racial relations not needing healing. Not so today. Obama's racial divisiveness has stirred that ugly brew incessantly for his entire administration. The extremists at both ends of that have been energized and mobilized by Obama's rhetoric and that of his surrogates.

One man does not have a great affect on race relations if he's your average Joe. But Obama is the president of the United States, and that's not an average Joe. His administration has stirred up racial resentments on all fronts. You and I may think that the racial statements made by the Democrats are baseless. Tell that to the people in South Central Los Angeles, the South Side of Chicago, Bed-Stuy, the South Bronx and Harlem in New York City. Try waving a Romney/Ryan banner in Detroit without a police escort and see what happens.

Unknown said...

T-Rav: Ditto. I was disappointed to say the least when Obama was elected, but it didn't make me ashamed of America. I might feel differently if he is reelected. Paul Ryan just quoted Winston Churchill, and it's worth repeating: "You can count on Americans to do the right thing, after they've tried all the other options."

Unknown said...

Bev: I touched on race and class, but you reminded me of another group which Obama purports to support but has made poorer at a faster rate than their male counterparts. Thanks for adding the female perspective that I neglected.

Anthony said...


On both the liberal and the conservative side when discussing blacks, a lot of people tend to use plantation rhetoric I find objectionable but which each side usually has no objection to when its used to describe the other side. Along those lines, black politicians of all stripes are usually characterized as pawns or dupes by their opponents.

On the matter of female politicians, I agree that liberals tend to go much much further than conservatives in terms of ridicule/hate. I'm no Palin fan, but the hate f*** stuff and the shots at her family were disgusting.

AndrewPrice said...

I'm gonna go with Anthony on this (partially). While it's clear that race baiting has become the go-to strategy of this administration (and the Democrats generally) and I think black racism is as strong as ever, I see no evidence that Obama has made things worse. To the contrary, it seems that all of his and Sharpton's and the MSM's attempts to stir the racial pot are falling on deaf ears.

Despite near-constant smears of the Tea Party as racist and repeated attempts to create race riots out of shootings, no one had turned out. There have been no marches, no riots and no neighborhoods burned. I don't hear average people talking about race. And I no evidence of anyone really getting upset.

So while I don't believe for a moment that the race baiting is harmless, I just don't think what Obama has done has been at all effective.

Anthony said...


I agree that the West ad (with the fake shiny gold tooth) was racist and would have been condemned by the NAACP back in their more noble, less partisan past and as Bev pointed out, the same is true of NOW.

Unknown said...

Andrew: I can't entirely agree. Perhaps it's different in your neck of the woods, but I've seen the affect that the Obama division strategy has had in both San Francisco and Bakersfield. I agree that most Americans are taking much of the rhetoric with a grain of salt, but that doesn't mean that the fringes can't stir up a whole lot of trouble. Watts (South Central Los Angeles) hadn't had a race riot in decades until one simple traffic stopped struck the match which put much of the area in flames. The near-invisibility of something is not proof of its non-existence.

One thing I will entirely agree with you on is that Obama is largely ineffective at almost everything, including race-baiting, thank God. That match I mentioned may very well get struck if Obama is defeated in November. I hope and pray I'm wrong.

Individualist said...


I think when the dem's tried to paint the Tea Party as racist, race baiting in America Jumped the Shark so to speak.

Prior to that it seemed that Conservatives would take the charge seriously, contritely attempting to counter it. When people started being told they were racist because they disagreed with complex and arcane laws taking over their healthcare because the leader of the DNC in office was black it was enough.

Now these things are being seen through and conservatives attack the cdharge with equal vigor. In a sense it is a good thing becasue the goto racial charge has to bem first justified before people will listen to it. This was not the position default before.

Unknown said...

Anthony: It has been a very long time since the NAACP has been a force for good. It elected felon Benjamin Chavis as its executive director in 1993 and former radical Congressional Black Caucus leader Kweisi Mfume as its president in 1996. Together, they pulled the organization away from encouraging black equality and into black "victimhood," finding virulent racism under every bed.

Unknown said...

Indi: Though I agree with you about the largely-failed attempts to paint the Tea Party as racist, there are many other areas where the race-baiting is succeeding. The Trayvon Martin case is a prime example.

Anthony said...


I think the NAACP's problem is that it is a legal organization at a point in time where black Americans' problem isn't the system, its the poor decisions of too many individuals.

Post-CRA, the NAACP has drifted without purpose, with its membership numbers and donations slowly decreasing. It wasn't actively harmful, it justn't doing anything useful.

Then in the 90's the incoming leadership hit upon the strategy of squeezing money from corporations over silliness (see the Hallmark controversy) and since then their financials have been fine, even though they still have membership problems (because they still lack purpose).

Individualist said...


The Trayvon Martin case is falling apart for the race baiters. More and more the facts are indicating that the tragedy had nothing to do with racism including the fact that Zimmerman is part black.

The district attorney has made the same mistake as the Duke Lacrosse player case in asking for charges of murder and not manslaughter. Hopefully she has the sense to not start hiding the facts fromm teh defence the way the Duke case prosecuter did and thus not ruin her career.

Still the racism chaqrge for Zimmerman is not meeting with the overall assumption of guilt that the cops in the Rodney King beating are receiving. The media tried similar tricks (editing the 911 call to not show that it was the 911 operator asking about the race of the subject, etc).

In the King beating I remember Limbaugh showing the whole tape on his show. The part where King throw off four cops holding him to the ground and then bull rushing one of them was left out. Also the tape that played on the news repeatedly showing the beating over and over were only two swings. Kuhn hade ordered strikes with the baton to the joints to disable King and King gave up almost as soon as that started. (According to Kuhn's book). The media was successful in stopping the public from any look at the facts or trying to udnerstand what happened.

People are not happy with Zimmerman because they feel he was not as responsible as he should have been and got himself into the altercation that ended in tragedy. Still only the hard core leftists are actually beleiving it to be about race.

I think the advent of the new media correcting sophistry presented as facts and the publics ire over the continual hammer of this charge being used from everything to control banks, stop what is in a happy meal and anything else some prog dreams we should all be stopped from doing has changed that dynamic.

People are going to research the facts before they beleive a Jessie Jackson when he calls someone a racist. They have been crying wolf too many times. Just my two cents.

Unknown said...

Anthony: All true--too true, unfortunately.

Unknown said...

Indi: Much of what you say is true. But I advise caution in assuming that it is the only view. Perception, particularly perception based on previously-held views bolstered by racist rhetoric, can be as effective as the facts. A great many blacks, along with the hardcore left, are convinced of the truth of the racial charges. The fact that edited news reports are becoming apparent to many of us doesn't alter the fact that they are not apparent for many others.

Unknown said...

Indi: I've mentioned before that I wrote an article for the L.A. Daily Journal (the lawyer's bible) about the distortions of the Rodney King incident. I pointed out the deliberate editing, and the fact that King was alive only because Stacy Kuhn, the commander on the scene, ordered his men not to shoot when King reached into his waistband for something. Kuhn's reward was to be sent to prison on a federal civil rights rap, along with two of his fellow cops.

I also pointed out that when CNN first showed the tape, they had a lip-reader translating what the cops were saying, since it was a non-audio video. They were pleading with King to stay down--"stay down, please, we don't want to hurt you." Just hours later, the lip-reader's comments had been completely eliminated. It didn't fit the agenda. That CNN tape was shown to the Simi Valley jury which acquitted the police officers of homicide and use of excessive force, but not allowed into evidence at the Los Angeles civil rights trial.

K said...

Anthony: The NAACP no longer lacks purpose. They're a socialist front group, just like NOW, AARP, SPLC, Greenpeace and a host of others.

Hawk: Agree about perception. Martin is being railroaded to keep riots or more attacks on non blacks from happening. Reminds me of the 1920s and the short ascendency of the KKK during that period. Corrupt politics and media, political power through violence and the threat of violence.

StanH said...

In my mind the only thing good about Barry being elected president, is the fact that he is half black. It’s just too bad it wasn’t a Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Herman Cain, instead we get a dullwitted community organizer who only knows derision as a tactic. He has indeed damaged racial relations with his rhetoric and actions. When we fire him on 11/6/12 don’t be in black areas, sadly I expect the wilding to be extreme, Rodney King squared.

Unknown said...

K: Well-said about all those organizations which have lost their way and forgotten their original purpose.

I don't see the current polarization as being as bad as the rise of the KKK, but actions produce reaction. I do shudder to think what will happen if Zimmerman is found not guilty. That currently festering anger might just break out again, a la Rodney King.

The New Black Panthers and the Neo-Nazis/skinheads are recruiting. I think Obama has contributed to that, more by his inaction than his actions. Yes, those are small, fringe violent groups. But that's where the violence usually starts.

Unknown said...

K: And I should have added: "But that's where the violence usually starts, then takes on a life of its own (mob mentality).

Unknown said...

Stan: I hope we're both wrong about that, but I'm a realist and I've lived through the Watts riots and the Rodney King riots. It's a very volatile situation. At least I now live where the violence won't reach.

Anthony said...

Well, let's dance the Trayvon Martin dance again.

If Zimmerman was deliberately murdering blacks, he wouldn't have stopped at one (remember the Tulsa shootings?) but I don't think he was sane, he was merely a different strain of nut.

If a random guy follows someone in a car, then runs after them when they attempt to lose him by leaving the road most people are going to think 'mugger' not 'neighborhood watch' (on a related note, but every account I've read, Zimmerman never bothered to identify himself).

If Martin had someone been able to read Zimmerman's mind and had played along with the little fantasy Zimmerman had, treating the weird guy pursing him as the uniformed officer Zimmerman imagined fantasized about being, I don't doubt Martin would still be alive.

Racial motivation-wise, I had more doubts about the Sanford PD, who recently failed to prosecute a case in which a white guy threw a beating to a homeless black guy (apparently for laughs) up until the viral video sparked outrage.

On a related note, the problem wasn't Martin's shooting (more overtly racial indcidents happened before and since and caused little controversy) it was the police department's slow, fumbling response (they initially false told Martin's family Zimmerman had no criminal history) and the fact that Stand Your Ground was cited as a reason for the lack of prosecution of the play cop.

Unknown said...

Anthony: We've beaten the Trayvon Martin case half to death on this blog. This time around, we're discussing the perceptions. I think we may see some readers disagreeing with your assessment, but I am going to stick to what the case means about race relations, rather than guilt or innocence. At least in this thread.

Joel Farnham said...

I am starting to see some things that are making sense with regards to race. Two incidents stand out to me, both at a Red Lobster, both involved black customers attacking a waitress for service. The first incident was about the waitress bringing the wrong food to the table. They physically attacked her. The second one the waitress brought "too much water" to the table. Water was thrown in her face. Yet, there was not one call to have blacks banned from using Red Lobster. If banning blacks was the reaction blacks were looking for, it didn't happen.

It takes two to tango.

When the Usual Suspects, Sharpton, Jackson et al, took their "Traveling Trayvon Minstral Show" on the road, in the past, people would have started up local chapters and created a new civil rights movement. So far, no movement. Yes, there have been some instances where some black thugs have attacked and cited "Justice for Trayvon" as their reason. So far, there have been no matching actions of whites or Mexicans attacking blacks and citing "Justice for Zimmerman" as a reason. If the Usual Suspects are wanting a race war, so far whites are not accommodating them.

When Eric Holder, unjustly yanked the New Black Panther Party already won verdict and thereby created an injustice, if this is a racist country, there should have been mobs rioting. Has anyone seen one? I haven't.

I think the truth has been staring us in the face. We are a post racial society, despite the best efforts of the Usual Suspects attempts at race baiting and creating race wars.

Unknown said...

Joel: Your assessment is a bit rosy for my tastes, but I think we had almost gotten to a post-racial society. With a little luck, the Obama regression will just be an historical footnote. But I do have to say that Obama's actions and inactions have created considerable resentment. Resentments tend to fester long before they break the surface.

Tam said...

I agree with Joel...we are (mostly...obviously, racism still exists) a post racial society. Adam Carolla and others have said if we are a racist nation, we're doing a terrible job of it, citing Obama, Oprah, Will Smith, Tiger Woods (before his fall from grace) and other popular black entertainment, sports, and political figures as examples.

Our Dear Leader has done his best to pretend this isn't true, and it's just one in a list of many shameful attributes of his presidency and character.

P.S. I hate Obama. And not because he's half black.
P.P.S. 78 more days.

Joel Farnham said...


Okay, can you show to me the water hoses being shot at whites? Can you show the outright banning of whites, blacks or Mexicans from any restaurant? Can you show a hanging of a black in retaliation of an attack on a white?

Yes, there are resentments, but not at the level prior to the Civil Rights movement. Prior to the Civil Rights Movement, There were incidents on both sides. So far, the only incidents I have seen have come from Race Baiters.

Individualist said...


I think there are two types of Balck community now. I think you have the more affluent black community and you have those stuck in the Welfare projects. I think enough Blacks have started to move out of the lower projects despite the difficulties there to create a viable bourgeoisie to use terms our Dear Leader can understand.

I think that with regard to the Trayvon case the negative reactions of the Sharptons are in the welfare ranks but I think there are enough blacks in society who are more educated and more knowledgeable to understand the Zimmerman thing is about Zimmerman and Trayvon.

While the same old saws as the King case are thrown out I don't beleive it has the same monolithic meme now with Trayvon. This is what I think diffuses the power in the media. they may get the lower class riled up but those pesky educated middle class people seem to know better. And I think the monopoly on thought is what the leftists need to use the Race Card to full effect.

but I am just speculating as to why. I just have the gut feeling that it ain;t the same anymore. Race baiting has jumped the shark.

Unknown said...

Tam: If you vote against someone because of his race, you're a racist. But by the same measure, if you vote for someone largely because of his color, you may still be a racist. Much of that happened in 2008. It remains to be seen what will develop in 2012.

Unknown said...

Joel: That's all very interesting, but if you re-read my article, you'll see that I said: "America is more divided along racial and class lines than at any time since the beginning of the civil rights era.." Just because things aren't as bad, it doesn't follow that they aren't bad at all.

As I said, we were getting close, but I still say that we have stepped backwards during the Obama administration. There is more to racial animosity than riots, firehoses, and de jure segregation.

Unknown said...

Indi: As an amateur historian and as someone who lived it, I can tell you that prior to The Great Society, the black middle class was growing by leaps and bounds and black poverty was being reduced as racial equality became the law of the land. Black families were as sound and permanent as white. Racial barriers were falling all over the nation. Then, the government nosed in, and has successfully reversed most of the gains for the middle class and at the same time created a permanent underclass (which certainly isn't exclusively black).

Black middle class mobility has increased dramatically since the 60s, but not the percentage of middle class blacks.

Joel Farnham said...


I still see more of a non-reaction occurring. If Obama gets re-elected and he continues his non-stop attacks on every one except liberal blacks, maybe you might get a reaction, from blacks. That I am seeing, more and more.

Unknown said...

Joel: I'm getting nervous. My response to you disappeared. But basically I said that we are not disagreeing on the basics, just the details. I simply see more of a problem than you and several others see. Maybe it comes from being in the middle of all the racial problems in the 50s and 60s, but I see too many parallels to ignore them entirely.

Unknown said...

Joel: If that festering resentment isn't there in some strength, we will not see any civil unrest if Obama is defeated in November. But I'm not holding my breath.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

LawHawkRFD said...

"Joel: I've reached the point where I think that half the people who call others bigots for opposing Obama don't even believe it themselves. He has only two cards to play--racism and socialism. I reject both."

Hi LawHawk, excellent post!
Obama also has played the class warfare card a lot.

I concur, every card he plays is divisive, because his supporters, not all of them but a significant number, spew the same vile and completely false crap just because others disagree with them.

It's the kind of thing a fascist would do. Mussolini is a good least the early years.

I have no doubt that 4 more years of Obama would lead to greater divisiveness and enbolden the Occupiers and fringe, radical left to do more than fling false accusations at those that disagree with them.

In fact, it's already been happening.

And these radical leftists have basically been given a green light by Holder's injustice dept..

Obama ain't post-racial, he's just a racialist and a closet racist. His own words in his books expose that insidious side of him and he has shown no indications he has evolved past that.

The not-so-reverend Wright wasn't his "spiritual leader" for nothin' and it's no secret what Wright preaches and believes.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Thomas Sowell had an excellent article up about race riots that ain't being reported by national news networks, and when they are, race isn't mentioned if the perps are black:

While I agree that Obama has been mostly ineffectual in stirring up race wars, it has had an impact, and it sure can get worse.

Also, Dennis Prager had a good article asking why isn't class warfare considered as bad as race warfare?

Obama and many democrats constantly villify the "rich" (except for lefty rich) and blame them for practically all our problems.

If he did the same thing to blacks or hispanics or gays the media would have a meltdown of epic proportions.

So why is it okay to demonize someone because they are successful?
Also see the Sowell article because there is a link there to the race riots.

I firmly believe Obama would make race, class and ideological relations exponentially worse if he's reelected.

And I agree, if he loses, that may be a match in some hot spots.

Post a Comment