Thread: CURL: Obama picks scab off America’s racial wound

CURL: Obama picks scab off America’s racial wound


See, for Mr. Obama, there were no shades of gray — the case wasn’t even black and white, just black. Only Trayvon’s parents lost someone that night, he implied as he praised their “incredible grace and dignity.” Mr. Zimmerman’s parents, though, didn’t matter. They didn’t even rate a mention from the president, who had decided that the jury was wrong — which is really what brought him to the podium.



And he couldn’t have cared less about how Mr. Zimmerman had lost his life, too, in a very real way: No, the president wanted to make his life worse, to pile on. And even though the altercation was not racially motivated — the testimony was clear on that point — Mr. Obama, adept at pitting side against side, was eager to play the race card.
“The African-American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that doesn’t go away,” he said, refusing to move America beyond its racist past.
He oddly segued into black-on-black crime: gangs, drugs, he said. But America’s past is to blame for that: slavery, repression, he said. “Some of the violence that takes place in poor black neighborhoods around the country is born out of a very violent past in this country, and the poverty and dysfunction that we see in those communities can be traced to a very difficult history.”
Yes, slavery 150 years ago is still causing inner-city crime today. Victimology at its finest.
Forget the fact that Mr. Zimmerman was mentoring two black children whose father is serving a life sentence (Mr. Obama didn’t mention that — it didn’t fit the narrative). Instead, he made a shocking charge: “If a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario, from top to bottom, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different.”
Which means this: If a 27-year-old black man had shot a 17-year-old white boy to death, the black man would be found guilty and sent to jail. End of story, at least for Mr. Obama. And that means the Florida jury was racist; it freed Mr. Zimmerman because he was white but would have convicted Trayvon because he was black.
The Associated Press applauded the shockingly divisive statement, assigning a black reporter to write a story headlined “In passionate speech, Obama bares his black self.”
“This first black president, the guy accused by some of running from his blackness, of trying to address black folks’ needs on the down low, suddenly lifted the veil off his black male identity and showed it to the world. It was something no American president before him could have done,” the reporter wrote.
So that, too, was his motive, to shore up his bona fides within the black community.
And perhaps the move worked. The president clearly thought so: While rallies for Trayvon were held in 100 cities across the country on Saturday, Mr. Obama didn’t attend. Instead, he headed to the golf course.
• Joseph Curl covered the White House and politics for a decade for The Washington Times and is now editor of the Drudge Report. He can be reached at josephcurl@gmail.com and on Twitter @josephcurl.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/21/curl-obama-picks-scab-americas-racial-wound/#ixzz2ZnxQHpP4


Every time the Divider and Chief opens his mouth he spews hate, then he goes of to play somewhere!!!!

And Another Article

Across the Great Racial Divide of Obama & Friends

Larry Klayman 5 hours ago

"I have a dream that one day little black boys and girls will be holding hands with little white boys and girls."

– Martin Luther King Jr.

We Americans had thought we had come a long way since the days of the civil rights movement led by the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. Over the decades since his tragic death, freedom for Black Americans had been increasing, and their upper movement among all strata of society has been clear for all to see and experience. In effect, the American people by and large stopped thinking in racial terms; the words of Martin Luther King increasingly had taken hold in deeds.
While I, for one, did not vote for Barack Obama in 2008 (nor in 2012), I felt good as an American that We the People had elected a Black American, something even our "enlightened" European white ancestors had never done. Indeed, while Obama obviously had received a large percentage of the Black American vote, it was white people who put him over the top and in effect elected him in both 2008 and 2012. As a result, both the Black American and Caucasian races had much to be proud of. They also had a right to expect that the new president would seek to represent all of us, not just his own people, in his new job.
But things did not turn out as hoped for. Obama and his cronies spent the next five years favoring Black Americans and people of color over all other groups of society, and it became painfully obvious that this socialist saw himself as the one person who could extract a pound of flesh for all the years of insidious discrimination against blacks, dating back to even the years before the founding of the republic. In effect, Obama and his friends – ranging from black Muslims to anti-Semites, to anti-Christians, atheists and other ultra-leftists – saw his presidency as an opportunity to "settle the score" with not just conservatives but rich whites. If this meant bankrupting the country with higher taxes on rich whites and other means to extract what in effect were reparations, then this was the price that needed to be paid for past discrimination. It was time for "whitey" to pay up, and to hell with the economic and social health of the nation.
One saw this early on in Obama's presidency, with his continuous references to "income inequality," his role in increasing the tax burden primarily on rich whites, his choking, anti-capitalist over-regulation of businesses, his and his Democratic colleagues' enactment of Obamacare, his alignment with racist anti-white black Muslims and others like Louis Farrakhan, Jeremiah Wright, and now deceased Harvard Law professor Derrick Bell (which helps explain his latent anti-Semitism, disdain for Israel and pro-Muslim/Arab foreign policies), his prejudicial comments during and after the Trayvon Martin case, where he condemned George Zimmerman and effectively called the incident a race-based attack on blacks, his 2012 presidential campaign, where he pitted Black Americans and other people of color, such as Latinos, against whites, and a host of other actions designed to favor blacks and people of color over whites.
In this context, and as I have written before, the irony is that, under the Obama presidency, there has been a role reversal; whites, and particularly rich ones, are now at the back of the bus. While it is not politically correct in today's world for whites to raise this feeling in public, there has developed regrettably and tragically an undercurrent of deep resentment among whites, which is now starting to manifest itself in major ways.
While I cannot with certainty explain the recent outbursts of what the mainstream media perceived as racism by Cliven Bundy, owner of the Bundy ranch in Nevada, and Donald Sterling, owner of the Los Angeles Clippers, this feeling and latent resentment by whites that they do not have a president who represents their interests, but instead is prejudiced against them, may be a large part of the underlying cause. As much as blacks experienced in the years leading up to Obama's election, and even to today, whites now feel disenfranchised by our chief executive, and they may be striking back subconsciously with this resentment.

I hardly condone the comments of either Bundy or Sterling, but it is the deeds of a person that speak louder than his or her words. For instance, during the Nixon presidency, the president made a number of what were perceived to be anti-Semitic outbursts on what came to be known at the Nixon tapes. More than any other modern-day president in my lifetime, it was Richard Nixon who was the biggest friend of the Jewish people. Nixon went on red nuclear alert to stop the Russians, who were pro-Arab, from intervening during the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, when the Egyptian military moved against Israel during the sacred Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur and could have overrun Israeli defenses. Nixon saved Israel. No more than Nixon can the reactive words of whites these days categorically brand them as racists. These remarks are wrong and offensive and certainly not politically correct, but regrettably they may be understandable given the highly resentful mood among whites created by Obama and his friends.
The atmosphere of racial divide President Obama and his comrades have fomented is extremely unhealthy, if not cancerous for the body politic of this nation. It runs counter to the words and deeds of the person he attributes for his rise to the presidency, Martin Luther King Jr. Obama has set back the civil rights movement to the days preceding King and the advancement in race relations that followed his death.
If Obama does not start to show that he represents all Americans, expect more Cliven Bundys and Donald Sterlings to reactively bring race into the national dialogue.
It is truly a sad day when the president of the United States divides the races for his own and his party's own purposes and biases. This is contrary to the famous words of Martin Luther King, who proclaimed in front of the Lincoln Memorial on Aug. 28, 1963, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/05/ac...Z9s6sgxV4M3.99

Our Race-Hack President

July 22, 2013
By Bruce Thornton

As protests against the Zimmerman verdict spread, along with the vandalism and shopping sprees that progressives call “demonstrations,” the President last Friday made some remarks that reinforced all the race-hack rhetoric keeping this country racially divided and most blacks mired in social and economic misery.

Not satisfied with his remark from last year that if he had a son he’d look like Trayvon Martin––thus injecting racial animus into a case where it didn’t exist––Obama said Friday, “Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago,” and went on to cite three examples of lingering racism in America, the first two of which he says he’s experienced personally: being followed in a department store, hearing car-door-locks click as he passed by, and seeing women clutch their purses when black men enter an elevator. I’m surprised he didn’t add the other two constantly cited signs of endemic racism: being ignored by cabbies, or “driving while black,” being pulled over by a cop for no other reason than race.

Obama’s first statement implying he could have ended up like Trayvon Martin is preposterous. Martin’s death is an anomaly among black youths, and the odds that any black man is going to get shot to death by a white man are miniscule. Getting shot by another black man, on the other hand, is 25 times more likely, based on 2011 murder statistics. But given the privileged environments Obama grew up and has lived in, even those odds would be longer in his case. Obama’s statement exposed the big lie at the heart of racial demagoguery––that no amount of economic or social privilege can insulate a black man from the relentless racial animus of white America.

That’s the same point of the examples Obama cited of persistent racism. All these claims amount to anecdotal evidence, even if they’re true. But let’s consider these experiences and what they really tell us. First, if these are the only examples you can come up with to prove racism, then you are unwittingly admitting the enormous improvement in black people’s lives that has taken place over the last several decades. I’m old enough to remember when the evidence for racism comprised “Whites Only” signs on restaurants and drinking-fountains, segregated schools, a black man tied to a tree and tortured to death with a blow-torch, and black men knocked into the street and beaten for “reckless eyeballing” of a white woman. To imply that the slights Obama listed are “racist” is to drain the word of any meaning.

Next, Obama only glanced at the real reason for such behavior: the epidemic of crimes committed by black men. Many of those reactions are the consequence of that reality, the fruits in many cases of painful experiences. Remember when Jesse Jackson admitted that he felt relief when he discovered that the footsteps he heard behind him on a dark street belonged to white people? Is Jesse Jackson a “profiling” racist?

Or how about the old charge of being ignored by cab drivers? I think that meme faded because most of the big-city cab drivers aren’t white, and many are African immigrants. It’s a hard sell to argue that a Nigerian barely able to speak English has more privilege than an American black, or has somehow been conditioned into racism by whites. The more obvious answer is once you’ve been robbed and assaulted by blacks, you’re going to play it safe and not risk yet another attack, one that could leave you dead.
Or how about the racial profiling of drivers? Remember in the 90’s when the New Jersey state police were sanctioned by the Clinton DOJ for rampant profiling of blacks on the New Jersey turnpike? After all the race-industry bluster and media frenzy died down, a study showed that black were being stopped at a greater rate (23%) than their proportion of the drivers (16%) because they sped and drove recklessly at a greater rate (25%). In other words, blacks were being stopped at a rate less than their behavior would predict.

But two can play the grievance game. By Obama’s logic, isn’t it legitimate for white people to list the regular affronts they have experienced from black people in order to explain their sense of grievance against blacks? The times they have been cursed and threatened on the street by black thugs, the times they have been a victim of black crime (blacks commit interracial crimes 25 times more often than whites), the times a public space was polluted by noisy, rude, vulgar, rambunctious blacks indifferent to those around them? I know, saying that many people respond to blacks in certain ways because of black crimes or other bad behavior is indulging racist myths based on vicious stereotypes. But Obama’s catalogue––the standard one usually heard from educated, affluent blacks––is gospel truth, and to doubt it is racist. Here we see the logic of race-hackery: heads I win, tails you lose. Whatever a white person says or does that deviates from the race-hack dogma is racist.

But we all know what’s going on––the mechanisms that drive what David Horowitz calls “black skin privilege,” the institutional and social advantages and double standards that benefit mostly the race industry. These all depend on perpetual black grievance and perpetual white guilt. Without decrying those grievances elevated into the equivalents of Jim-Crow violent racism, without exploiting the misery and dysfunction of other blacks the roots of which lie not in race but culture, those advantages have no rationale, and people would realize that most of the hacks running the race industry live better than 90% of white Americans do.

Just look at our president. Even as his policies have benefitted the black upper class and intelligentsia, he has failed the rest. Black unemployment was 12.7% when he took office, now it’s 14%. Most black children are still trapped in dysfunctional schools. Black rates of illegitimacy, murder, and government dependence are still astronomical. Nothing much has improved, but Obama gets a pass because he mouths the black-bourgeois rhetoric of persistent racism even he has experienced, in order to justify his own privilege and to keep black Americans hostage to the Democratic party. That sordid fact smacks much more of racism than a woman nervously clutching her purse or locking her car-doors.

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/bruce-t...ack-president/

BTT