When's media going to hold President Barrack Obama accountable for his own words? The book "Game Change" - a post 2008 Presidential election analysis of both camps - explained how President Obama and his cohorts emerged from damaging video clips released by the Conservative media. The threat of these damning video clips (of his best friend, his close associate, and spiritual mentor Jeremiah Wright) was extremely real. In this montage, Obama's mentor blasted America on the issues of "war, economy, inequality", in his mind, America is a racist country. The bigoted pastor charged that 9/11 was a product of America's atrocity in the world; referring to the victims of 9/11 as "Americans Chickens coming home to roast". To make matters worse, Obama, on impulse, appeared on at least a handful of channels denying any knowledge of that kind of racist sermons. But, as more evidence of the relationship between Obama and Jeremiah Wright surfaced, Obama was forced to address the nation, admitting indirectly that his earlier statements were factually inaccurate. While he took the podium explaining the needs for unity of all races, the media came out swinging, attacking and leveling those who dared to question Obama's integrity as "racist" and "bigots". The bottom line is that Obama survived.
Today, the media is doing it again. Other than asking whether Obama is really who he portrays himself to be, the media is attacking his critics in an unprecedented way. The first responses to the clips (unearthed last night) were all about the motives of those who released them. The media attacked Drudge (a Conservative website) and Conservative talk-show host, Sean Hannity, for their role in releasing the video. Others referred to Obama's statements as mere "old stories" or "old comments". However, the entire video (unedited) cannot be defended with this theme: ' white America hates Blacks' even after have a century of racial unity.
In 2007 speech, then Senator Obama "accused" the federal government of treating black and white victims of two different occasions, differently. He used 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina as examples of how the federal government, driven by race, approached these two events. In his speech, Obama spoke directly to the black people of New Orleans that the "government (federal) didn't care about them as much [as they do victims of 9/11]. Was he just pandered to a crowd of black supporters, of is this view this a byproduct of Obama's strongly held view about race in America?
This is a democratic country where everyone's beliefs are protected by the constitution. It is (or was) Obama's right to believe that minorities in USA are being treated differently in many ways, but to use two different instances - mostly distortions - to paint a picture that is not there, is rather unfair. For instance, hundreds of billions of dollars were given to New Orleans for reconstruction and a huge portion of that money was a "no string attached" fund that the federal government gave as a gift to the suffering people; many of them African Americans. Obama didn't acknowledge that. The media relentlessly attacked President George Bush for not responding quickly to the crisis, but to use this disaster to advance racial division is indeed evil and unethical. These 2007 statements merely echoed the deepest held views of the one who uttered them. This is the true Obama who embraced Professor Bell [who wrote that racism is permanent in USA] not only physically, but mentally and philosophically.
In our yahoo daily mud-swinging and hair-pulling political debate, I pointed that the true Obama lives in his book - the man who wrote in his book that in while in college he chose his friends "carefully"; in other words, he befriended people that shared his views. In his book 'Dreams from my Father', Obama wrote;
To avoid being mistaken for a sellout,I chose my friends carefully.The more politically active black students.The foreign students.The Chicanos.The Marxist Professors and the structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.We smoked cigarettes and wore leather jackets.At night,in the dorms,we discussed neocolonialism,Franz Fanon,Eurocentrism,and patriarchy.When we ground out our cigarettes in the hallway carpet or set our stereos so loud that the walls began to shake,we were resisting bourgeois society's stifling constraints.We weren't indifferent or careless or insecure.We were alienated. (DOMF, p 100-101)
No explanation can mitigate the fact that Obama inked these words (his own) into his own book. He basically agreed with the "Marxist Professors" (Radical professors of Harvard including Prof Bell), the "Black activists" (Black Panthers), the "Structural feminists and Rock Stars" - the hippies and anti-government socialists of the 60s and 70s, and "Poets (probably Frank Marshall - the wanted Communist who mentored him in Hawaii). Suffice to say, that the Obama of today is interestingly different from the Obama that lives in his books. His real history had distorted and cover-up by his campaign since 2008 and often reconstructed by the left-wing, liberal biased media. He was portrayed as the only man that transcended racial line as a part white and black American, and the only person that could bring all Americans together. That never happened. Off course, his first four years was quite the opposite; he is the most divisive president in US history, jumping on every racial issues in the country including accusing a white police officer of arresting a black professor at Harvard even after admitting he didn't know the facts; even commenting on the Zimmerman case, and awarded billions of dollars to "black farmers" in the name of "reparation".
In a country where candidates are often disqualified for hiring "illegal immigrants" and for "sexual immoralities", Obama's history (past associations) should have been a killer had the media played it's role of objective reporting. In the end, what America have now is a divisive president whose views often times raised public eyebrows. Take these issues for instance: Obama and the Department of Justice refused to prosecute two Black Panthers who were intimidating voters at the polls with a pipe and a knife. One of the accused Panthers also said in the past that it was okay to "kill white babies". If this isn't hate crime, what is it? Recently the New York Times quoted Democrat party, president Obama's party, as saying that the party has ruled out "White working class" because they are conservative anyway. If the white working class is ruled out, Obama obviously is fighting for the blacks and other less privileged minorities. If this is not a racism, what is it?
Instead of downplaying this video, the media should take a closer look at Obama. They should ask themselves whether this man deserved another term in office, and whether America should be further divided along racial lines in the next four years. Besides, President Obama has deferred some of his most destructive policies he proposed for 2013 onward, a clear indication that his plan to "fundamentally transformed" America into a society that suits his socialist utopia is coming. He hurt this country in 2013 onward. The media and Obama must also know that the reason why Obama is putting off everything till after the November, 2012, presidential election is because he would never won with this massive far-left overreach. It would be too late to turn back if Obama won his reelection. This president should be vetted carefully and honestly, but off course the media working for Obama.
No comments:
Post a Comment