|Hit & Run||0|
Despicable but expected nonetheless. David Limbaugh writes:
President Obama led us to believe that he would be a post-racial president who would bring the races together, but it’s gotten to where you can’t criticize this most leftist administration in American history without someone accusing you of racism.
The most recent example involves criticism of Attorney General Eric Holder over Fast and Furious, an operation conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which was overseen by the Justice Department. It involved the indirect sale of weapons to Mexican drug cartels, which resulted in some 300 killings in Mexico, including the murder of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry. Throughout, despite having received detailed memos from DOJ officials about it, Holder has denied he was aware of it.
The scandal and Holder’s stonewalling have led to some 60 congressmen demanding his resignation, and 75 cosponsoring a House resolution calling for a “no-confidence” vote on his performance as attorney general.
Holder has defiantly denied culpability, and President Obama, without betraying the slightest concern, has proclaimed his complete confidence in Holder. In a New York Times interview, Holder suggested race was partially driving a “more extreme segment” against him and Obama.
Holder said, “This is a way to get at the president because of the way I can be identified with him, both due to the nature of our relationship, and, you know, the fact that we’re both African-American.” When pressed for some proof to support Holder’s allegation, the Justice Department did not respond. Nor has the White House distanced itself from Holder’s comments.
None of this comes as any surprise, however, because President Obama had telegraphed his race-oriented mindset in his book, in his church association and in his projecting statement that small-town people “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them.” He has worn race on his sleeve numerous times as president.
When a white police officer in Cambridge, Mass., arrested Harvard professor Henry Gates, an African-American, Obama, without having heard both sides of the case, publicly injected himself into the local matter and gratuitously smeared the entire police department as having “acted stupidly.” In addition, Obama told guests at a private dinner at the White House that race was probably a key component in the rising opposition to his presidency, especially among tea party members.
Not only has Obama made these viscerally charged racial statements, he has also consciously appealed to minority groups with specific reference to their race. In a Democratic National Committee video in April 2010, he urged “young people, African-Americans, Latinos and women … to stand together once again.” Shortly before the November 2010 congressional elections, he told an audience that Republicans “are counting on black folks staying home.” Separately, he appealed to Latino voters not to stay home at election time but to “punish our enemies” and not go along with the Republicans’ “cynical attempt to discourage Latinos from voting.”
These developments are most disturbing and discouraging. There exists a great ideological divide in this nation over which of two primary sets of policy prescriptions ought to be adopted to rescue America from its economic malaise, its bankrupting debt and a host of other major issues.
Conservative opposition to Obama isn’t about race, and I’m confident this administration is well aware of that but is using the race card anyway, out of political desperation, to the destruction of the nation, and to racial relations. It’s disgraceful and unconscionable.
Using the race card is a strategy that worked well for our “post-racial” President back during the 2008 Democrat presidential primaries against the wife of America’s first black President, and it’s continuously been played by either him or his surrogates ever since -with varying degrees of success, and sometimes failure. The fact of the matter is Barack Obama has never been a “post-racial” anything. That’s a pure BS line he and his campaign fed the American people over and over again when he ran for President, a line eagerly parroted by his devoted allies in the mainstream press at the time – a lie that should have been easily debunked once his close ties to Rev. Jeremiah Wright were exposed in detail via two news networks: Fox News and ABC. But, just as the case was with Bill Clinton and his various sexual escapades in the WH, many Democrat worshippers both in the mainstream press and in the opinion world branded the attacks as a “conspiracy” of sorts by the political opposition and as a result, instead of a more in-depth inspection of Obama’s connection to his “spiritual mentor”, we got the “bbbbut Republicans do it, too” response from the press via a full-court press on John McCain’s association with firebrand Texas pastor John Hagee - a clear attempt at deliberate deflection from the real issue, which was: Just how radical IS Barack Obama?
And once Obama finally disassociated himself from Rev. Wright – not because of any remarks Wright made in which he trashed America and Israel but rather what Obama perceived as a “personal attack” on himself, the press all but declared the issue over. In fact, just a few weeks before Obama resigned from TUCC, CNN’s John Roberts famously declared in an interview with Obama that they would be observing a “Wright-free zone” for the duration of the interview. Exact quote:
“I want to just stipulate at the beginning of this interview, we are declaring a Reverend Wright-free zone today. So, no questions about Reverend Wright. Our viewers want us to move on, so this morning we’re going to move on. Is that okay with you?” [to Obama]
Obama, his spinmeisters both on his campaign team and the mainstream news media planted the seeds and continuously facilitated the lie that not only would Barack Obama be a post-racial President, but that all opposition to him was based in deep-seated racism. They got away with it then. Let’s make sure they don’t again.