Archive for the ‘Bigotry’ Category

Obama’s Victim Strategy: The OJ Defense

Sunday, July 15th, 2012

Victim of Racism?

Barack Obama may be a terrible President, but like so many awful chief executives of the past, he’s a very skilled politician.  The word has gone out since the start of his Presidency that critics should be branded with the scorching iron of racism at every opportunity, but this is more than a mere smear aimed at his opponents.  It’s part of a strategy, and I believe that to some degree, it is working.  He may be presiding over the worst economic conditions in memory, and he may indeed be worsening the lot of every person in America whether they have the foresight to know it or not, but President Obama is counting on the African-American vote to deliver well into the ninetieth percentile at the polls.  Every rational person can read the statistics as well as you and I, and there is no denying that by all measures, African-Americans have been hit harder by the prevailing economic conditions, worsened by Obama’s policies, than any other group.  What is he counting on to deliver the vote of black Americans?  What is it he seeks to accomplish?  In order to prevent mass defections, Barack Obama is seeking to portray himself as the ultimate victim of racism, a regular latter-day Jesus on the way to his crucifixion at the hands of a legion of white racists.

It is not unusual for race-hustlers to try this approach, even when it has nothing to do with their situation.  In point of fact, this has become the standard tactic in the whole period following the assassination of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.  What most don’t realize is that Obama’s ploy is made substantially worse by the fact that he’s relying on good old-fashioned identity politics played to the hilt.  All politicians do this to some extent, and it’s the reason a jerk like John Kerry buys a hunting license and wears a flannel hunting jacket: It’s an attempt to identify with those whose votes one wishes to secure.  Candidates spend bizarre sums of money in order to get their target audiences to identify personally with them.  After all, is this not the reason the proverbial wolf dons the clothing of sheep?   One can wear any clothing one likes, but what one cannot do is to change the color of one’s skin.  Part of Obama’s approach is to exploit this common characteristic with black Americans in a way no politician’s appearance at a NASCAR race ever could.

Of course, if beauty is only skin-deep, so too is the pageantry of politics, and if your policies have harmed one identifiable group of voters more than any other, it is inevitable that some will take note, wherever their visceral loyalties may lie.  One must concoct a way to strengthen that sense of identification among the group to withstand even the self-evident fact that the candidate is causing that very group of voters more harm even than he is causing others.  One of the most effective ways to make this connection is to demonstrate a kinship of battle, loss, or victimization.  Groups composed of crime victims assemble, as do former warriors, and survivors of family members lost to dread disease.  There is a deep-seated presumption of commonality in understanding among groups defined by these sorts of things, and few are more powerful than the claim of victimization on the basis of race.  Since every person is the member of one race or another, every person can imagine what it is like to be victimized solely on that basis.  Naturally, there are many who refuse to be seen as victims, no matter the monstrous ravages they’ve suffered, but also quite naturally, it is very easy for such victims to multiply out of all proportion on the slimmest conjecture of victimization.

Victimization becomes a sort of built-in, ready-made excuse for all sorts of people, not merely defined by race, sex, or other immutable characteristic, but also on the basis of anything imaginable.  Consider the “Occupiers” who see themselves as victims of “corporate greed,” and the like.  Too often, the notion of victimization becomes an excuse for the sorry choices one makes in life.  Sadly, no group in America has fallen prey to this thinking more than African-Americans.  We have whole departments at public universities coast-to-coast dedicated to the notion.  To my knowledge, the incidence of acts of racism perpetrated by whites against blacks has declined throughout the entirety of my life.  My generation was mostly raised without any particular animus on the basis of race, although I am certain there are always outliers.  It is stunning to read polls that most African-Americans consider themselves to be the victims of an inherently racist culture in America.  Rather than spend time debunking those thoroughly bankrupt notions, however, I would prefer to examine its consequence in the electorate.

Whether America is the racist hegemony some would have you believe is irrelevant, as we often recognize in politics that perceptions become reality, no matter their inherent absurdity.  Let us therefore stipulate that whatever the justification, or logical lack thereof, many African-Americans believe themselves to be victims of racism.  Whether it is true or not, the fact of the matter is that many believe it.  On this basis, Barack Obama is well-positioned to make the claim that he too is the victim of this alleged American racism.  More, he can make the astonishing claim, and sadly, it will stick with far too many people, that his entire presidency has been the victim of institutionalized racism aimed at his administration simply on the basis of his skin color.  Laugh if you like, for the preposterous allegation this constitutes on its face, but also understand that as maniacal as it may sound, it is not ineffective.  Why do you think that Bill Clinton suddenly became the “first black President,” being “lynched” by a Republican Congress over his perjury before a grand jury?  It was a coldly-calculated attempt (with some success) at cultivating the same sense of togetherness as victims.

This was made clear to me today when once again, some daft liberal commenter on this blog insisted that the only basis for criticisms of Obama must be due to his race.  Never mind the preposterous nature of the allegation, the poster didn’t stick around long enough to try to make the case.  It was only cast out there to lay like a land-mine to explode in the face of an unsuspecting passer-by.  Nobody who knows me, or who reads this blog could believe that race had the first thing to do with my criticisms of the Obama administration.  Not even a mad-cap leftist could be so foolish to think such a charge would stick, and yet there it was, with all its vitriolic implications.  Why then do it?  It is not that the writer had any honest expectation of making such a charge stick, but instead to cry out with the clarion call to intended members of the victimized group, in an effort to recall and strengthen the claim of victimization, thereby strengthening the bond to President Obama.  It’s a simple form of propaganda, but it is pernicious in its use.

This is why Barack Obama expects to retain the same percentage of African-Americans in the coming election, and his agents of propaganda are now coming out in the full bloom of the season.  If he is to retain the Oval Office, he must no lose any part of his support among African-Americans, and his campaign is fully aware that energizing his base may not be so easy in 2012.  The propaganda of victim-group identification is in play, but this tactic has been used before.  The man was guilty, everybody knew it, but the mostly African-American jurors had been predisposed to believe he had been a victim too.  Whether he was actually guilty of the crimes made no difference against the identity of victimization.  In the same way, President Obama hopes to side-step the charge that his has been a disastrous presidency, particularly for blacks.  When future analysts consider the tactic of this President’s campaign, the sharp ones will recognize his living example, but the irony is that as a child, I once cheered for that same man from the nose-bleed seats of Buffalo’s old War Memorial Stadium:

Orenthal James Simpson

 

 

 

Video Flashback: Thomas Sowell Compares Derrick Bell to Adolph Hitler

Thursday, March 8th, 2012

Thomas Sowell

Breitbart has managed to dig up a small segment from C-Span2’s Book TV, in which Thomas Sowell is asked about Derrick Bell by interviewer Brian Lamb on the question of what sort of ideology Derrick Bell was pushing at the time.  The interview is from May, 1990, when Bell was using his radical approach of protest and occupy to try to force the administration of Harvard University to hire a professor based on whether that professor accepts the ideological viewpoints of Bell, at the time, a tenured professor at Harvard Law.  This is a stunning interview, inasmuch as Sowell was will to go so far as to compare Bell to Hitler.  If you’re familiar with Dr. Sowell, you’ll know that he doesn’t throw such comparisons around in jest, or thoughtlessly.

Here’s the video:

I think this demonstrates that even as early as 1990, in the same time-frame in which Bell was Barack Obama’s mentor, Bell’s Critical Race Theory wasn’t considered merely controversial, but radical, and this is the ideology Barack Obama was recommending when he embraced Bell, saying:

“Open your hearts and open your minds to the words of Prof. Derrick Bell.” -Barack Obama(Video Here)

To pretend that Derrick Bell wasn’t a radical, or that the philosophy of law he professed wasn’t controversial is a ridiculous position, but since the unveiling of the Obama-Bell video Wednesday evening, the media has been doing all it can to downplay its importance. In this case, Sowell was condemning Bell’s ideological bigotry, that demanded a complete agreement among faculty and students. This should be interesting because at the time, he was one of Obama’s mentors.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Alert: Charlie Rose Identifies Rick Santorum…

Sunday, February 19th, 2012

Dreaded "Social Conservative"

Perhaps I should warn you that the content maybe disturbing to some readers, and maybe Charlie Rose should stick to asking honest questions.  In this interview of Rick Santorum on CBS, Rose tries to get Santorum to answer for remarks by Foster Friess on contraception and “an aspirin between the knees,”  in another interview with Andrea Mitchell who was offended and left speechless by the remark.  Santorum said he wasn’t about to comment on every controversial remark of every supporter of his who says something about which others may become offended.  It’s true to say that Santorum isn’t Friess, and Friess isn’t Santorum, so it’s hard to understand what point Rose was trying to make other than to smear Santorum by association.

That’s a favored tactic of lefties, but as Santorum correctly point out, it’s not something they’re willing to entertain even slightly when it comes to the things said by associates of people on the left, such as Barack Obama’s long affiliation with the black liberation theology spewed consistently for decades in Reverend Wright’s church.  That, of course, is beyond the pale, but more, it is interesting to hear Rose dismiss it as old news.

[vodpod id=ExternalVideo.1012874&w=425&h=350&fv=si%3D254%26amp%3B%26amp%3BcontentValue%3D50120113%26amp%3BshareUrl%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbsnews.com%2Fvideo%2Fwatch%2F%3Fid%3D7399106n]

It may be old news, but not on your network, pal.  More, it is as if Rose wants to seriously contend that since he’s not practicing a double standard, apparently because we’re to believe that…CBS has improved its journalistic standards?  Please.  Charlie Rose is a left-wing hack who got busted by Santorum who continued to insist that this is a trumped-up bit of nonsense, and that the media is trying to make hay of it for the sake of their own political agenda.  He’s right, and it’s completely unfair, and just as the media is willing to ignore Obama’s record, they’re equally willing to ignore their own inconsistent standards.

Of all the things that Rose said, the most shocking was: “You have been identified as a social conservative…”

OH NO!!!  Identified by whom, Charlie?  Identified?  Oh goodness, has the FBI been notified?  A social conservative?  What is the world coming to now?  Social conservativesWho’s ever heard of such an outrageous thing? Somebody CALL DRUDGE NOW!  Get that little warning light going!

NEWSFLASH: Santorum identified as a social conservative!

It’s clear to me that Charlie Rose doesn’t know anything about social conservatives.  It’s further obvious that Santorum caught Rose with his pants down on that one, or well you know, I can’t say that in the same paragraph with the dreaded “social conservative.”

All this from the same people who seem to have no discomfort with Shariah…

The left is insane, and the proof is in the fact that they don’t even notice their double-standards or logical inconsistencies.

Note to Samuel L. Jackson: I Vote With My Dollars Too

Monday, February 13th, 2012

Over the weekend, the story came out that actor Samuel L. Jackson has told Ebony Magazine that he voted for Barack Obama because he is black.  Jackson went on to say he didn’t care much about politics, but was instead simply voting as others, allegedly for somebody who “look like them.”  This is typical fare for Jackson, apparently:

“I voted for Barack because he was black. ’Cuz that’s why other folks vote for other people — because they look like them,” the actor recently told Ebony magazine via Page Six. “That’s American politics, pure and simple. [Obama’s] message didn’t mean [bleep] to me.”

First of all, let me simply say that this is clearly a racist sentiment. Yes, if this is Jackson’s belief, he’s a racist. He then went on a tirade in which he dropped the “N-Word” several times:

“I just hoped he would do some of what he said he was gonna do,” Jackson said. “I know politicians say [bleep]; they lie. ’Cuz they want to get elected.”

“When it comes down to it, they wouldn’t have elected a [bleep]. Because, what’s a [bleep]? A [bleep] is scary. Obama ain’t scary at all. [Bleeps] don’t have beers at the White House. [Bleeps] don’t let some white dude, while you in the middle of a speech, call [him] a liar. A [bleep] would have stopped the meeting right there and said, ‘Who the [bleep] said that?’ I hope Obama gets scary in the next four years, ’cuz he ain’t gotta worry about getting re-elected.”

Actually, what is scary to me is that Samuel L. Jackson sees everything through the lens of race.  What is scary to me is that with all the hatred in the world, this Hollywood jerk is running around talking this way.  What’s scary to me is the primitive racist who thinks it’s perfectly fine to think this way, never mind speak this way publicly.

Here’s the thing Mr. Jackson ought to know.  I tend to vote with my dollars, and I do so in various ways.  As a matter of habit, I won’t go to movies with certain leftists in them because I refuse to give money to their support.  I do this as a matter of moral and philosophical consistency, and the cost is that fewer and fewer movies are made that I will watch, simply because of the cast.  At this point, Mr. Jackson joins such ignorant people as Sean Penn and Alec Baldwin on my “do not watch” list.  Yes, it’s clear that as leftists in Hollywood make themselves known to me, my list grows longer, and the number of moves I will watch shrinks.  Too bad.  I love books more anyway.

What Mr. Jackson should understand is that while he votes for people who “look like [him,]” I find that method of selection repugnant, and since I vote with my dollars, no more of mine will be traveling to him.  That’s how that works.  The world is filled with more than enough irrational hate without supporting people who add to the sum.