Liberals are correct: I have a serious problem with Obama’s color

Whenever I read the news, I’m being told that those who disagree with Obama do so based on his color.  Ordinary Americans simply can’t handle a black man in a power position and reflexively disagree with him and wish him ill.  It’s not even personal, we’re told.  It’s just that we’re bone-deep racists.

When Joe Wilson called Obama a liar for asserting in his big speech that no illegal aliens would be covered under the Democrats’ proposed health care plan, liberals were undeterred by the fact that Obama had just gotten through calling all of his opponents liars; by the fact that Obama was, to put it politely, misstating things when he made his claim about coverage for illegal aliens; and that Democrats had treated Bush just as rudely.  Nope, what mattered to liberals was the (to them) obvious fact that, because he is a Southerner, Joe Wilson’s sole reason for shouting out was Obama’s skin color.  Here’s Maureen Dowd to explain:

Surrounded by middle-aged white guys — a sepia snapshot of the days when such pols ran Washington like their own men’s club — Joe Wilson yelled “You lie!” at a president who didn’t.

But, fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!

[snip]

The congressman, we learned, belonged to the Sons of Confederate Veterans, led a 2000 campaign to keep the Confederate flag waving above South Carolina’s state Capitol and denounced as a “smear” the true claim of a black woman that she was the daughter of Strom Thurmond, the ’48 segregationist candidate for president. Wilson clearly did not like being lectured and even rebuked by the brainy black president presiding over the majestic chamber.

[snip]

But Wilson’s shocking disrespect for the office of the president — no Democrat ever shouted “liar” at W. when he was hawking a fake case for war in Iraq — convinced me: Some people just can’t believe a black man is president and will never accept it.

Dowd is not the only person accusing Americans of being racists for calling out the president for policy disagreements.  In connection with the Tea Party Tax protests, the always charming Jeanine Garafalo has been open in expressing her concerns about the racism that permeates American society:

You know, there’s nothing more interesting than seeing a bunch of racists become confused and angry at a speech they’re not quite certain what he’s saying. It sounds right and then it doesn’t make sense. Which, let’s be very honest about what this is about. 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 teabagging rednecks.

Not to be left behind, Joan Walsh, writing at Salon, chimed in with a whole column devoted to just how racist ordinary Americans are.

You don’t have to look only to the celebrated liberal doyennes of New York and Hollywood to get the loud-and-clear message that the only reason one could possibly dislike Obama is because of his color.  Nor, as these gals show, do you need any actual, explicit racism to make that inflammatory charge.  An unknown L.A. Weekly blogger was equally strident when he discussed the implications of the now famous “Obama as the Joker” poster:

The poster, which bears a very superficial resemblance to Shepard Fairey’s famous Obama Hope illustration, has been pasted on freeway supports and other public surfaces. It has a bit of everything to appeal to the drunk tank of California conservatism: Obama is in white face, his mouth (like Ledger’s Joker’s) has been grotesquely slit wide open and the word “Socialism” appears below his face. The only thing missing is a noose.

When called on that last sentence, the blogger doubled-down:

The truth, again, is that the fears of the art lovers who champion the Obama Socialism poster are all about race – about losing their skin privileges, about the possible airing of old crimes and grievances committed against blacks. How else can you explain the mad surge to buy guns, to deny Obama’s American birth, the teary prediction that the White House is ordering up concentration camps, and the rock-solid belief that Obama’s lab-coated bureaucrats are coming to kill our grandmas? Who’s the real Joker here? And whose deck is that race card being played from?

The most recent development is that politicians are getting into the act:

“As far as African-Americans are concerned, we think most of it is,” said Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas), when asked in an interview in between sessions how much of the more extreme anger at Obama is based upon his race. “And we think it’s very unfortunate. We as African-American people of course are very sensitive to it.”

[snip]

Rep. Mike Honda (D-Calif.), chairman of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, agreed with his colleague that elements of the opposition can’t accept the reality of a black president.

“There’s a very angry, small group of folks that just didn’t like the fact that Barack Obama won the presidency,” Honda said, adding: “With some, I think it is [about race].

Said Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) about the race factor: “There are some issues that have been swept under the rug and we’re not witnessing them come out.”

Just today, Howard Kurtz assured his Washington Post audience that conservatives, independents and even some Democrats who keep questioning the unconstitutionality of Obama’s proposed health care plans are just using that ragged old document as code to hide their racism:

I began to suspect that race was a factor for at least some critics when I heard them shouting about “the Constitution” and “taking our country back.” Maybe Obama’s health-care plan is an awful idea and his budget is way too big, but how exactly is any of this unconstitutional? Clearly, for some folks, there’s a deeper rage at the man occupying the White House.

It seems that Kurtz has never heard of the 10th Amendment.  Let me remind him:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

In plain English, the federal government has only enumerated powers.  The power to turn our entire health care system into a government operation is not one of those powers.

Things have gotten so bad when it comes to charges of racism concerning our post-racial president that we’re now told that even our lily-white American babies are racists.

Well, I have a confession to make.  Here it is.   All of the liberal pundits are correct.  I do have a big problem, a really big problem, with Obama’s color. But my problem isn’t the color of Obama’s skin, which is completely irrelevant to me.  Instead, it’s with the color of his politics.  With every passing day, Obama is proving to be an old-fashioned Red – a true, bone-deep socialist.

Obama’s relentless push to place place our economy in the government’s hands, whether directly or indirectly, shows that he is a socialist.  Obama’s political advisors (Valerie Jarrett, Van Jones, etc.), many of whom hew, not just to the Left, but to the far Left, show that he is a socialist.  Obama’s disdain for free speech, demonstrated by his repeated statements that his opponents should shut up, and his support for people who want to destroy talk radio, show that he is a socialist.  Obama’s affinity for and deference to dictators shows that he is a socialist.  Obama’s manifest hostility to our traditional Democratic allies (most notably Israel and England) shows that he is a socialist.  Obama’s non-religious support for totalitarian Islamic governments is a good hint that he is a socialist, since the Left has long been in bed with those entities, since they, like the Left, are hostile to America.  Obama’s manifest disdain for America, bastion of capitalism and freedom, shows that he is a socialist.  And Obama’s life-long mentors (Frank Marshall Davis, Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Jeremiah Wright) all of whom are active Communists, socialists or America haters, shows that he is a socialist.

Probably because I’m a word person, I truly am color blind.  When I read a blog report or a newspaper story, I have no physical image in my mind of either reporter or reportee.  The only thing that matters in my completely verbal world is the content of the speaker’s or writer’s character.  That Obama’s skin is darker than mine (and, honestly, everybody’s skin is darker than mine) is irrelevant.

What is relevant is the fact that everything I read about what Obama says, what Obama does, and who Obama chooses for his friends shows me that his real color, the color that transcends his skin and defines who he is, is RED, RED, RED.  And I, as someone with a deep and abiding affection for America’s Constitutional freedoms, and her marketplace economy, cannot think of any worse color for an American President to be.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • SADIE

    suek, thanks for the link.

    It did make my heart feel good.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ Ymarsakar

    He turned out to be a Rebel without a Clause

    I think i hit a punade.

  • suek

    >>…we’re now told that even our lily-white American babies are racists.>>

    http://www.newsweek.com/id/214989/page/1

    Your link went to a short page that had a link to the article. Very interesting article. I wouldn’t say that it proclaims that our babies are racists – what it says is that our babies notice when a person has a different skin color. And as they grow up, children need a framework in which to place that difference, and many if not most of our social interactions don’t provide that framework. As a result, young people have to work out a framework on their own, and as in many situations where young people are left without any guidance, the framework they develop can be seriously flawed.

    Considering that babies start life with a great big “ME!” as their focal point and gradually widen that to include their immediate family, and then their neighborhood, then their country…this shouldn’t be a big surprise. I think what _is_ surprising is the idea that we need to talk about race with children – what it is, why it is, what it isn’t – that sort of thing. I can’t say I ever gave it any thought with my children – but we were in the military – we were Army green. Period. So in my mind, it’s an “us” vs “them” problem, and we just need to make sure that “American” is _us_. In fact, I think that’s at the whole heart of the diversity problem – we need to be _us_ – not a whole bunch of “thems”.

  • Gringo

    RE “babies are racists.”

    I would rephrase it. Ethnocentrism, or some sort of differentiation between group and not-group is embedded in our genes. Here is my tale.

    Years ago I was at a small hotel in northern Argentina. When I was walking across the lobby, the toddler son of the caretaker started screaming when he saw me. I was walking, not running, and was around 30 feet away from the child. Similar scenes repeated themselves, but after several days of seeing that his mother accepted me, the child remained calm in my presence. (Had the child some sort of traumatic experience with someone of my appearance, I assumed, perhaps erroneously, that I would have been informed of that.)

    My interpretation was that I looked very different from the other people the child had seen. I was light-skinned with light brown/dark blond hair, and blue eyes,in contrast to the brown-skinned black haired and dark brown eyed inhabitants of the hotel. I had eyeglasses and a mustache, which the others did not. The child was scared of me because I looked different from what he was accustomed to. Once the child saw that his mother accepted me, and he got accustomed to my appearance, he no longer got upset at my presence.

    At the same time, once children see that an adult cares about them , they are indifferent to the ethnic makeup of the adult. IOW, the innate ethnocentrism is not difficult to overcome.

  • gkong3

    Aaron Lozier: I continue to give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you still have a continued interest in a civil debate between left-leaning and right-leaning people. Don’t let the verbiage scare you; it’s worth reading through and responding.

    I hope by now you will concede that President Obama was not indeed voted in by a majority of eligible American voters, and that his administration so far has not been living up to the campaign hype.

    I also hope that you concede those on the left are poisoning civil discourse by calling every single accusation we levy at President Obama a racist one. Every. Single. Accusation. Quite frankly, this beggars belief, and should arouse even your sensibilities.

    It should be obvious by now that the health insurance debate is arousing a hige wave of feeling – mind you, from the same people who ostensibly ‘voted for the nigger’, as one Obama campaign anecdote colourfully put it. (source is apparently http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/on-road-western-pennsylvania.html, whose author is an Obama man, it would seem, and later on http://www.trinidadexpress.com/index.pl/article_news?id=161392966, assuming of course that the Trinidad and Tobago Express is a good fact-checking newspaper) This in and of itself should clue you in to the fact that it is the bill – and Obama trying to ram it down America’s throat – that is arousing such amounts of indignation.

    All in all, it is not racism that is the main trigger – otherwise you would have to concede that you are essentially calling most of the right-wingers racist, which you take pains to say you do not believe, right?

    But let me concede this much. There are racists in the right wing. Just as there are racists in the left wing, and how! I myself am an incredible racist of the highest degree. I believe that the Chinese race is the superior race, and that next to us only the Jews, who are our cousins, can be considered equal. Well, maybe the Japanese and the Koreans and the Mongolians as well. Maybe. Insofar as they are part of the Chinese nation and/or were offshoots.

    That, however, does not preclude me from holding positions that are in opposition to Obama’s that have nothing to do with his ancestry or skin colour.

  • SADIE

    gkong3

    I believe that the Chinese race is the superior race, and that next to us only the Jews, who are our cousins, can be considered equal.

    ..which would explain

    I myself am an incredible racist of the highest degree.

    ..but does not explain

    How you came to the incorrect conclusion that Jews are a race

  • gkong3

    Sadie: Oh? Why is that an incorrect conclusion?

    Genesis 12: YHWH to Abraham, “I will make of you a great nation, a father of many. Whomever you curse, I will curse. Whomever you bless, I will bless. And you shall be a blessing to many nations.”

    Abraham -> Isaac -> Jacob -> 12 sons -> 12 tribes of Israel -> … -> the nation of Israel -> a split in the nation into the Northern Kingdom (Israel) and the Southern Kingdom (Judah, after the tribe of Judah).

    Northern Kingdom invaded, colonised, intermarried -> Samaritans
    Southern Kingdom invaded, ultimately maintained racial purity -> Jews

    Therefore, the Jews are a race. QED. Of course, Judaism is a religion as well, and Paul does allude to the fact that circumcision alone does not make someone a Jew, just as Jesus says that G-d is able to raise sons of Abraham from the very stones. But that does not mean the Jews are not a race in and of their own right.

    But please, I am always happy to learn new facts and discoveries as they come to light. Your assertion that the Jews are not a race is a novel idea to me.

  • SADIE

    Race is a genetic distinction, and refers to people with shared ancestry and shared genetic traits.

    I would define the Jewish communities of the world as a nation of many faces. The word nation in Hebrew means people, so that you can insert the word ‘people’ where you have read ‘nation’. Judaism is a religion, but being Jewish is also a shared culture and ethic identity bound together in a common history, a separate language for prayer and prescribed rituals.

    Jewish communities exist throughout the world. The Jews of Ethiopia do not genetically look like the Jews of Kai Feng nor does either community look like Eastern European Jews or those from Yemen. The thread that brings all of them together as a people/a nation is that they share the same roots/history and of course, Torah.

    Nothing ‘novel’ at all. Jews have never perceived themselves as a race, have never defined themselves as race -only hitler did, in his attempt to erase them.

  • gkong3

    Sadie: Argh. Okay, fine.

    http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/is-there-a-jewish-race–13670

    Insofar as you are referring to the people who embrace Judaism, as in the terminology Orthodox, Conservative or Reform Jews, then yes, there is no such thing as the Jewish race.

    However, I am referring to those physical descendents of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the Hebrew people. I am applying the term ‘race’ in that sense. Like someone would describe himself as a secular Jew, or an atheistic Jew.

    The problem is, as anyone can tell you, is that even up to the 1st century AD and then some, despite the diasporas, the term Jew still referred to the people descended from the tribe of Judah, as well as their religion. If you were a convert, you were known as a God-fearer, or a Jewish proselyte. Hence our assertion that Jesus was a Jew. http://www.keyway.ca/htm2004/20041009.htm The term does get conflated, and I’m not responsible for that conflation.

    But tell you what. There’s no such thing as a black race, or a white race, or a hispanic race either. So why don’t I modify my comment and say that I am an ethnic supremacist, and I believe people of Chinese descent and extraction blah blah blah, with only those Jewish people of Hebrew descent as our equals blah blah blah.

    However, I do agree that the term ‘race’ is ill-defined, and that the word ‘people group’ suits better. For that matter, there are Chinese born awfully close to the Indian border who look pretty much like Indians (and probably won’t be distinguishable from a DNA test) and are still Chinese. Strictly speaking, Chinese isn’t a race either (more a hodgepodge of Hans, Manchureans, Mongols, etc etc etc), but I’m not gonna bellyache over this.

  • http://bookwormroom.com Bookworm

    I do think there is a genetic Jew, although Jews are too diverse, historically and in the present day, to yield to that simple classification. That’s what makes us interesting.

  • Pingback: Watcher of Weasels » Spot the Weasel Winners()

  • Pingback: Soccer Dad()

  • Pingback: The Colossus of Rhodey()

  • Pingback: Rhymes With Right()

  • Pingback: The Council Has Spoken!()

  • Pingback: The Razor » Blog Archive » The Council Has Spoken: September 18, 2009()

  • Pingback: Bookworm Room » Fair and unfair criticism of Glenn Beck()

  • Pingback: Bookworm Room » The Communist cat is out of the climate change bag()