Obama’s Poll Numbers Down, Imaginary Racism Up

It’s a hot topic this week. What we have been seeing with ThinkProgress.org editing a video for propaganda purposes and then with Shirley Sherrod admitting to an overt act of racism, is a massive playing of the race card by the left. Only this time, the race card is blowing up right in their faces, and they know it. Thus, they go on the offensive and claim that only Conservatives can be racist but they immediately clam up or go into major spin mode when asked to explain the comments of people like King Shabazz and Shirley Sherrod.

And of course, no one on the left will even consider commenting on the Justice Department’s directive not to pursue any case where the victim was white and the perpetrator black.

Ann Coulter has a nice take on this:

This is what “racism” has come to in America. Democrats are in trouble, so they say “let’s call conservatives racists.” We always knew it, but the Journolist postings gave us the smoking gun.

This explains why we’ve heard so much about Tea Partiers being “racists” lately.

But despite a frantic search, the media have been unable to produce any actual evidence of racism at the Tea Parties. Even the trace elements are either frauds or utterly trivial.

Whereas bloggers like me have been posting hard evidence about racism in other organizations or that alleged Tea Party racism turns out to be fabricated, we have yet to find one person or group that has any hard evidence of a racist Tea Party.

Rememeber when Andrew Breitbart offered $100,000 to anyone who could produce an audio or video tape showing that some Tea Partier had called Rep. John Lewis a certain racial epithtet (beginning with the letter “N”) at least one time, nevermind the 15 times that the news media charged? That reward still remains unclaimed. Why? Because the incident never happened.

Given the number of video cameras, cell phones and other recording devices that were present, there is no way someone could have yelled that word fifteen times and it never got recorded.


And now this week, with the NAACP accusing the Tea Partiers of harboring racists, and conservatives demanding proof, the George Soros-backed Center for American Progress ran a 45-second video allegedly showing racism at the Tea Parties.

One of the videos shows an obvious liberal plant announcing, “I’m a proud racist!” Apparently this was their best shot, because they had to work this video into the montage twice, amid utterly innocuous posters, for example, saying, “God bless Glenn Beck.” So I guess they didn’t have anything better.

Here’s the part Soros’ people didn’t show you: In the fuller video shown on the Glenn Beck show, the Tea Partiers surrounded the (liberal plant) racist, jeering at him, telling him he’s not one of them and to go home. In a spectacularly evil fraud, all that was edited out.

I have that very video posted on this blog.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Obama’s Poll Numbers Down, Imaginary Racism Up
Ann Coulter
July 22, 2010

Janeane Garofalo: Air-Headed Race Baiting From An Air-Head

Note the following photographs:



And then read what Jeaneane Garofalo had to say:

“Let’s be very honest about what this is about,” actress/comedian Janeane Garofalo said on Keith Olbermann’s MSNBC show. “It’s not about bashing Democrats. It’s not about taxes. They have no idea what the Boston Tea Party was about. They don’t know their history at all. This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up. That is nothing but a bunch of tea-bagging rednecks.”

Fisrt, she should read a good history book to learn what the Boston Tea Party was about. (Hint: It was about taxes.)

But, I’m sure the couple in the following photograph would have a few things to say in response to her unfounded and irresponsible claim of racism:


Racial Bigotry Alive And Well Under President Obama

In spite of promises to the contrary, Barack Obama has not left the racial hatred of Jeremiah Wright behind. Instead, he invited it back under a different name: Joseph Lowery.

Rev. Lowery invoked race in a derogatory way after Obama was sworn in. According to the Associated Press:

After the first black president had been sworn in, Rev. Joseph Lowery’ ended his benediction with a rhyme familiar to black churchgoers:

“We ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around…”

“… and when white will embrace what is right.”

Of course, the implication of such a statement is that all white people are racist. It took less than one hour for Obama to abandon his “post-racial” promise.

Nothing like a president who judges by color of skin, eh?

You can access the complete article on-line here:

AP Describes Black Minister’s Mockery Of Whites As Not Right As ‘Note Of Racial Caution’
Tim Graham
January 20, 2009

Barack Obama: The New Race-Baitor In The White House

Yes, you read the title correctly. I purposely wrote it that way and will stand by it, especially after an interview he gave that was published in the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times. Basically, Obama reasserted his promises to make sure that Hispanics and blacks are scrutinized less by the criminal justice simply because of their skin color, no matter what the severity of the crime or how much evidence is against them. Obama might as well have said that if a white person commits a crime, prosecute them to the full extent of the law, but if a non-white commits the same crime, let them go because of their skin color.

It may be that I am being blunt, but taking someone’s skin color into consideration is a complete departure from Dr. Martin Luther King who said that “content of character” was paramount and “color of skin” should not be considered at all.

Writing for Front Page Magazine, John Perazzo looks at the issue more closely and brings up some very thought provoking points. It turns out that racial profiling does not play a significant role in the judicial system decision making process, but that other factors do:

The most exhaustive, best designed study of this matter—a three-year analysis of more than 11,000 convicted criminals in California—found that the severity of offenders’ sentences depended heavily on such factors as prior criminal records, the seriousness of the crimes, and whether guns were used in the commission of those crimes. Race was found to have no effect whatsoever. In fact the researcher, Joan Petersilia, was forced to admit that these results contradicted conclusions she had drawn from an earlier study—in which she had not taken prior convictions and the use of firearms into account.

But what about the race issue? Where is that coming from?

Read this:

Black overrepresentation is almost entirely at the arrest stage—reflecting the simple fact that the “average” black breaks the law more frequently than the “average” white.

And this:

The National Crime Victimization Surveys, conducted annually by the Census Bureau, show that statistically the “average” black is far more likely than the “average” white to be identified, by a victim or witness, as the perpetrator of a violent crime. This racial gap, moreover, is approximately equal to the racial gap in actual arrest rates. “As long ago as 1978,” says Manhattan Institute scholar Heather MacDonald, “a study of robbery and aggravated assault in eight cities found parity between the race of assailants in victim identifications and in arrests—a finding replicated many times since, across a range of crimes.”

The fact that blacks engage in more crimes than whites is never mentioned by Old Media and was certainly not mentioned by the Barack Obama campaign or transition team. It is an embarrassment to them to tell the truth about this issue. If they did tell the truth, they wouldn’t be able to play the race card.

In fact, the decisions after the arrest tend to favor blacks more than whites:


At all the decision points subsequent to arrest, the outcomes are virtually identical for blacks and whites alike—and the slight differences that do exist tend to favor blacks.[2] In studies that consider all relevant variables—such as the defendant’s prior criminal record, the severity of the crime in question, the offender’s demeanor with police, whether a weapon was used, and whether the crime in question was victim-precipitated—no differences have been found in sentencing patterns, either in relation to the victim’s race or the offender’s race.[3]

Barack Obama’s comments about the alleged disparities in the criminal justice system are nothing more than attempts at race-baiting a la Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Jeremiah Wright. For a man who says he didn’t know about Wright’s racial tirades and would have left the church had he known, Obama sure does seem to want to implement Wright’s philosophy of racial hatred in his policies.

While Obama harps on this, notice that he is also ignoring things like the fact that inter-racial crime is more likely to be black-on-white than any other scenario. If Obama really wants to be the “post-racial” candidate, rather than the same-old, same-old race-baitor of the past thirty years, he will demonstrate “change” by taking the racial rhetoric out of his policies and go foward with Dr. King’s dream of “not by color of skin but by content of character” fresh in his mind.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Obama: Tilting At Racial Windmills
John Perrazzo
December 16, 2008

John David Powell: Don’t Underestimate Race And Trust In Choosing A President

I just got a hold of this article. It is a gem that contains nuggets of wisdom that will go a long way to helping people see clearly what is happening in the politcal arena right now and what will happen in the years to come.

John David Powell takes a look at a couple of the issues we have been facing in this election and how the Obama campaign responded to them compared to how other campaigns responded in the past.

Let’s start with playing the race card:

[T]oday, less than two weeks from Election Day, it’s easy to understand why some non-black voters don’t want others to know they do not support Obama. Who can blame them when any criticism or questioning of the candidate of change results in immediate old-school accusations of racism?

I’ve even had some comments left on certain posts of this blog accusing me of racism despite the fact that the issue of race was never brought up in those postings. Just the fact that I am opposed to a socialist candidate was enough justification for commenters to bring out the race card and a braod-brushed, unsubstantiated charge. As Dustin Hoffman said in Hook: “Bad form.”

And we always seem to come back to domestic terrorist William Ayers:

And that brings us to the second factor, the issue of trust. Obama never really condemns the past and current political views of fellow Chicagoan Bill Ayers, pointing out, instead, that Ayers’ terrorist activities occurred when Obama was 8 years old, and, therefore, have no connection to Obama today. If that’s true, then Obama’s position negates the argument of some black people who push for reparations because their ancestors were slaves. That’s because slavery occurred before those living today were born, and, therefore, has no connection to anyone today.

That is a dead-on-target shot that the Obama campaign cannot dodge. If Barack Obama cannot be held accountable for being a friend and business partner to a man who committed terrorist acts when Obama was 8 years old, then neither can white people in general be held accountable for something that occurred long before any of them were even born. To hold such a double standard seems to be standard for the Democrats though. They hold a low standard for themselves and high standard for everyone else.

But what is Obama hiding by not being completely forthcoming with his past? And what is he afraid will happen if his past is brought up and scrutinized by the MSM? He certainly can’t be afraid of losing the election. Powell looks at this too:

But Citizen Obama does not fully trust the American people to know his full and true relationship with Ayers, because he does not trust the American people to look at his life and accept him as our president.

The American people knew George W. Bush grew up around such neo-con luminaries as Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, but we elected him twice to the presidency.

The American people knew Bush was an average college student, and at one time was what some would call a drunkard who even lost his driver’s license for drunk driving, but we elected him twice to the presidency.

The American people knew Bush was an unsuccessful businessman and person not glib or quick on his feet, but we elected him twice to the presidency.

The American people only know about Obama what Obama wants us to know. And mistrust in the judgment of the American people may tip enough votes to McCain, a candidate the American people know well.

Yes, we knew more about George Bush in 2000 than we know about Barack Obama in 2008. We also know more about John McCain than we know about Barack Obama because John McCain is not afraid of people looking into his past.

That’s trust.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Don’t Underestimate Race And Trust In Choosing A President
John David Powell
October 21, 2008