Racial Issues
Race riots in 2012 campaign?
Would Barack Obama foment race riots to stay in the White House? An anonymous White House source (or sources) say(s) exactly that.
What exactly did the source say?
Barack H. Obama. Will he play the race card?
The reports come from the site NewsFlavor.com, and from a user calling himself “Ulsterman.” He says that one person, in a high place in the White House staff, feeds him inside information on what is going on in the White House. Whether he really has only one source, or several, no one can (or will) say independently of Mr. “Ulsterman.”
Over the last three weeks, this source (or sources) have said a number of disturbing things. (See Parts One, Two and Three of the interview between “Ulsterman” and the “Insider(s).” Warning: The “insider” uses language most fitting for the deck of a ship, language that “Ulsterman” never Bowdlerizes. Parental judgment and discretion are advised.)
The most alarming thing that the source said, is that Barack H. Obama will campaign on being the First Black President. Also that he and/or his operatives will suggest that only by voting to keep him in office can any white person show that he is not a racist.
It’s not gonna come so easy as it did in 2008, but that’s why they plan to ramp it up – the race issue. Look, you got generations of voters in this country who have been hammered with guilt for being white. Schools, television, movies…decades of this racism [model] coming at them from all sides. White guilt is very real. I’ve used it – done it myself… countless times in an election campaign. And for Barack Obama…his re-election team – they are banking on it bringing victory in 2012. Even if it means the threat of race riots. They are willing to go that far – go down that road if need be. If the Obama team can’t guilt enough of White America into voting for them in 2012 – they are just fine with trying to scare the [living daylights] out of them to do it.
Naturally, “Ulsterman” says that he doubts that any such strategy could work. So the source paints an unflattering picture of Obama. His Obama is self-obsessed and believes his own press (in magazines like People and Rolling Stone). He takes briefings (limited to fifteen minutes) while in a second-floor “office-away-from-the-office,” clad in “shorts, a t-shirt, and…flip-flops.”
[He] sold his soul for a job he can’t stand.
(In fact, Obama schedules very little time for briefings, and a lot of time for meetings with selected Cabinet members.)
How is this relevant? Simple, according to the source. Obama is not the confident, cool-under-fire world leader he pretends to be. He lives in constant terror that the public will see him for what he is (as several world leaders already seem to see already). So he covers up this fear with
absolute arrogance and when necessary, willingness to over-reach acceptable executive authority…how far [will he] go to keep the charade up, right? How far, and who is he willing to throw under that bus?
Answer: as far as he feels a need to. That would include not healing racial divisions, but making them worse.
The race card, the racial thing – whatever it’s gonna be called, it is the number one asset this administration believes it has to win in 2012. Their own polling data has shown that to be true over and over again. But how far are they willing to push that? Race. The charges of racism? I believe all the way if they have to. And they are gonna get people stirred up. And if Barack Obama doesn’t win re-election, watch them stand back while the riots break out, and watch them mouth the words “Burn baby burn.” I don’t think they are willing to go that far, I know it. If they can’t have America, nobody will.
Can you believe the source?
That is, can you believe that the source is what “Ulsterman” says he is, and what he says? Here’s a clue: a year ago, this same “insider” said that a major scandal would soon break. The “insider” fully expected a senior administration official to resign under a cloud on that account. This year, a scandal did break. Its name: Operation Fast and Furious, the scheme to “walk” guns into Mexico. The source says, convincingly, that Attorney General Eric Holder not only knows about it, but ordered it.
Obama plays the race card
The “Ulsterman” interviews are not the only source to say that Obama will stir up race hatred. Noel Sheppard of the Media Research Center says that the campaign has already begun. He accuses Chris Matthews, of Hardball fame, of taking part. Matthews seems to think that whites are becoming racist again. His evidence: white support for Obama-friendly politicians went down, from 43 percent to 36 percent.
This morning, Joe Schoffstall, also of MRC, filed this (Warning: More cursing-like-a-sailor):
Get ready for class warfare “All you…tea-party-[activists],” warns a protester from the Red & Anarchist Action Network at a Wisconsin Capitol singalong.
Other sources agree that Obama is in serious danger of failing of re-election. David A. Patten of Newsmax.com quotes Matt Towery, CEO of InsiderAdvantage, as predicting that Obama will run a very negative campaign. Unemployment is higher now than it was when he took office. None of his policies have worked.
Jonathan Emord, at Newswithviews.com, says that Obama is on the defensive. Not only have his grand plans not worked, but the message of limited government now looks more attractive to more voters than ever before.
The above suggest that Obama is now desperate, and will grow more desperate with time. Desperate enough to use race to hustle votes? Or worse? Only time will tell. Thankfully, even the so-called Insider cannot know whether such a strategy could hope to succeed.
[amazon_carousel widget_type=”ASINList” width=”500″ height=”250″ title=”” market_place=”US” shuffle_products=”True” show_border=”False” asin=”B00375LOEG, 0451947673, 0800733940, 0062073303, 1595230734, 1936218003, 0981559662, 1935071874, 1932172378″ /]
Terry A. Hurlbut has been a student of politics, philosophy, and science for more than 35 years. He is a graduate of Yale College and has served as a physician-level laboratory administrator in a 250-bed community hospital. He also is a serious student of the Bible, is conversant in its two primary original languages, and has followed the creation-science movement closely since 1993.
-
Civilization5 days agoChina, Iran, and Russia – a hard look
-
Civilization3 days agoDrill, Baby, Drill: A Pragmatic Approach to Energy Independence
-
Civilization4 days agoAbortion is not a winning stance
-
Civilization2 days agoThe Trump Effect
-
Civilization3 days agoHere’s Why Asian Americans Shifted Right
-
Executive2 days agoFood Lobbyists Plot to Have It Their Way With RFK Jr.
-
Civilization4 days agoLet Me Count the Ways
-
Civilization3 days agoWho Can Save the Marine Corps?
Seriously? An anonymous source quotes an anonymous source? Is there anything substantial to anything here? I’ve heard more compelling political commentary from Art Bell.
As I said in the article, that source, whoever it is (or they are), predicted—successfully—that a big scandal would break two years before it did. The name of that scandal is Operation Fast and Furious. I’d say that’s enough to take this seriously.
What we don’t know is whether Obama would be able to start a racial firestorm in this country. The people might be too smart for that this time.
He predicted that a scandal would occur soon, wow. Had any person made that prediction at any time about any president of the us ever would they be wrong? No. If no scandal occurred it would be extremely abnormal. Therefor predicting a scandal is about as difficult as predicting that the sun will rise or that the tides will come in. Next time a president is elected I think I’ll send you an anonymous prediction about mandatory hormone treatment to deal with the issue of homosexuals and I’ll back it up with “and a scandal is going to break outsoon” and you will have more unbacked claims to put up on your blog.
But I thought that Barack H. Obama was Different! I thought He was the Messiah, the Black Christ Who would lead the world to a New Enlightened Future! Not for him the breath of (gasp!) scandal! He was Perfect! Men like you said He was Perfect!
And this is no ordinary personal scandal. This is about a policy that got at least one man killed. Those who wrote that policy, did so to have a pretext to disarm the populace.
So since Obama turned out to be a mere mortal and this scandal turned out to be just slightly bigger than your average scandal this anonymous source must be correct? You are taking an extremely weak induction and adding irrelevant information and pretending it’s a strong induction. I think you need to brush up on some critical thinking skills.
Because Obama turned out to be a mere mortal, and you did not think he would be, you are in no position to judge the credibility of a source that said that Obama would have a scandal, all right—a policy scandal, not the cheap tabloid-type stuff that Bill Clinton brought on himself.
Almost 3 years after Obama’s election, your website and its “informants” still see the President primarily as a black man. Wake up and realize the world has left you behind.
That’s because Obama sees himself that way, and lets everybody know it.
Besides: I’ll take Herman Cain over Barack Obama any day. I don’t think you could or would say the same.
For my co-founder and me, it’s all about bad ideas that (a) haven’t worked as advertised, and (b) threaten individual liberty as never before. If Howard Dean promulgated the same ideas, I would oppose them just as strenuously, and on the same grounds. (And if, say, Chris Christie promulgated ideas like these, I would try to cure him of his madness.)
But of course Obama is a race hustler. That’s why you hear even today: a white man who votes against Barack H. Obama is a racist.
And you, sir, are conforming to stereotype.
You rely on self-reinforcing statements to make your case. “..because he sees himself that way”, or earlier claiming that your magical source once predicted an event that is also (conveniently) in the past.
And you dance around the fact that, actually, Obama almost NEVER even speaks about his race. One major speech mid-election during the Jeremiah Wright spectacle.
To be clear: I’m not even bothering to accuse you of racism. I’ll just say instead that you are small minded and lazy.
Operation Fast and Furious broke this year. The prediction came two years before.
Here we have another prediction from the same source. And I don’t know whether you have accused another white person (other than myself) of being racist for disapproving of Barack Obama—or not. But I hear that from liberal commentators all the time. Every day, somebody talks about racist whites who won’t vote for Obama. Janeann Garofolo is not the only one, and never was.
Interesting. Does this mean your going to go after conservatives who think liberals are misogynist for darring to disapprove of people like Michelle Bachman and Sarah Palin?
Not when those same liberals go after Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin and specifically say that each woman is a traitress to her gender for not following Feminist Identity Politics or living the Feminist Identity Lifestyle.
Another Anonymous Source, or does this one have a name?
Why don’t you read the article? Then we’ll talk.
And if you’re talking about Bachmann and Palin again: do you deny that the Feminist Narrative is that all men keep all women in bondage (literal and figurative) and fear? Do you deny that Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin both serve as instructive counterexamples? Do you suppose that any liberal can possibly accept that? Do you accept that? If I were a wagering man (which, being Christian, I am not), I would lay you fifty-to-one odds that you do not.
Terry, I dont need you to lecture me on the femminist naritive, my mom has been pushing that on me for years. And yes, I know that feminist think that all men keep all women down at all times. I also know that feminists want women to be seen as being able to do more then be a wife and mother, which Bachman and Palin are. So your argument sort of loses traction because they serve as perfect examples OF feminism.
Pardon me, I think you do need me to lecture you on the Feminist Narrative. And what’s more, that is my job. And what’s more, I offer these lectures free of charge, brought to you by my advertisers. Be. My. Guest.
Wanna know why you need me to lecture you on the Feminist Narrative? Because your understanding of it is clearly incomplete. You only caught half the Feminist Narrative. The other half is Marxism and Atheism, which both these women despise.
I personally could care less about their race baiting. His
race is not the problem; his heritage,allegiances,and
relegion are the concern for those of us that believe in
freedom and adherence to our Constitution.
I do not fear their race riots. Only the ignorant, liars,
or cowards refer to obama as president, and it has been
long past time for people to take a stand against the
corruption in every level of government.
In truth, I do not believe there has been honesty in government since the turn of the nineteenth century. In
fact the civil war, wich so many of the ignorant believe was fought to end slavery, really only served to enslave
us all to a power hungry federal government.
Wait, religon? You are aware, of all the qualifications to be president, his religon is not one of them. Or am I wrong. Point to me where in the constitution it says only Christians can be president, and I’ll apologize.
I don’t believe he said that. But I recall no provision in the Constitution that says that no person holding to a religious belief should be eligible to any office of honor, trust or profit in these United States or any of them. You may think, and probably do, that anyone who holds to any religious belief is “stupid or unfit for his post,” as Hans Christian Andersen might have said. But under the Constitution, he can still have a vote.
Where to start. First, I never thought, said or even TYPED that. You have no idea what I do and do NOT believe in terms of christianity, or even orginized religon as a whole. I could believe in Odin, king of the Norse gods for all you know
Second, I was pointing out this quote: “his heritage, allegiances, and relegion are the concern”. No it isnt. It dosn’t matter what he believes, or if you believe he’s a christian or not. You know what other president had a scary religon? JFK. People thought he would take his orders from the pope.
Third, your quote: ” You may think, and probably do, that anyone who holds to any religious belief is “stupid or unfit for his post,” “. Can you name six states where it is illegal for Atheists to hold a public office? Have you seen the outrage over a muslim in the new jersey courts that CHRIS CHRISTIE had to come out and have a press confrence to defend him? Could you imagine the outrage if someone tried that with Christianity? Id take a look at the conservitive stance on religon before you attack me for a stance I dont even have.
I said you may think that of religion. But after that last outburst, I think more than ever that you do. Sometimes your indirect replies are sufficient evidence. They’re a good-enough proxy for how you would act if we were facing each other, say, on The Five or “Kelly’s Court” or on The O’Reilly Factor.
Heritage, allegiances, and religion (or substitute for it) are always a legitimate concern for voters. The Constitution (Article VI) does say that no religious test would determine eligibility for any office of honor, trust or profit. But no document can tell a voter how to vote.
Atheists forbidden to hold office? Ah, yes—in North Carolina, South Carolina, Arkansas, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Texas. That’s seven. Isn’t Google wonderful? And you know what? Which of those States has the best job-creation record of all the fifty? (And which of the remaining States has the most people wanting to move out?)
As to the Muslim in the Superior Court of New Jersey: I live here. (Do you?) The issue is the application of Shari’a law in the family courts, and even in the criminal courts. Islam is more than a religion. It is a body of common law, and one that is completely foreign to the English common-law traditions of New Jersey (or, for that matter, the Spanish common-law provisions of Texas or California or elsewhere in the American Southwest). We have seen judges apply Shari’a law in other jurisdictions. We do not want to see any judge apply it here.
The outrage if someone tried that with Christianity: that’s next. The jig is up, neighbor.
Indirect replies? Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar terry. (not sure how to put that in a quote box)
The best job creation would be North Dakota, which is not on that list by the way. The worst is Nevada which has been govorned by christian republicans since 1999. Just saying
link to economy.ocregister.com
Most people leaving? Why that would be New Jersey (can’t blame them) which had a revolving door go govoners both republican and democrat, but they have all been christian.
link to unitedvanlines.com
And if this guy can act in a just manner, in accordance to our constitution, in the New Jersey Courts, I say more power to him. Alot of the outrage seems to be over things that have yet to happen. But then again, I dont live in NJ, you do. So let me ask you, have you seen women walking around in burkas? Is there public stoning of “infidels”? Are the school children praying to mecch throughout the day?
Of course you don’t mention Texas. As to New Jersey, our government is now divided. Chris Christie has gotten a few things through a Democratic legislature. And Nevada? They re-elected Dingy Harry! What kind of Republicans are those?
More about New Jersey: I haven’t seen stonings for adultery. Yet. I have seen the burka-like garments. And I wonder how long before I hear of an honor killing. You’ll see the honor killers skating through the courts long before you see those courts sentencing women to death by stoning. (In Arizona, an honor killer was convicted of murder—in the second degree. It should have been the first.)
And the school children? Two years ago I heard of them praying to Obama. Someone taught them to sing a panegyric to him. A sitting President. (Obama isn’t a Muslim. He’s an Obamist.)
My reference to religion has nothing to do with Costitutional eligibily. I do contend that the islam religion is totally incompatable with our Constitution
and our American values.
One only need to read a portion of the koran to see the
killings it promotes along with its other twisted virtues.
The koran’s end time eschetology is like a bizarro
reflection of the “Book Of Revelations” from the christian
Bible.
Hmmm, learn about femminism from a conservative. I’ll do that right after I learn about Star Trek from a guy who dosn’t live in his parents basement.
What you assume about femminism makes no sense. If femminists are Atheists and Marxists, why do they hate Atheism and Marxism?
I don’t just assume that about feminism. I remember it. I remember bitter debates with those who called themselves feminists. I remember reading the writings of some of the most celebrated advocates of feminism. And I know who their fellow travelers were—and still are.
The problem is you are seeing the world in black and white. Not all feminists are the all or nothing millitants that right those books. Many of them just wanted to be in the position Bachman and Palin are in now.
That would be like me saying you spend your days stoning all the gay people you find because the bible said so.
Maybe the definition of the word feminist that you choose (for now) to use is broader than mine. I go by those who called themselves “feminist” that I had the misfortune to meet while at Yale. It got so ugly that the moderate “feminists” dropped the name. Or rather, the militant feminists took the name away from them, saying that they were not worthy of it. Ever heard of the designation, “cafeteria Christian”? Well, what you describe is what Susan Brownmiller, Kitty MacKinnon, Ellie Smeal, Molly Yard, or Gloria Steinem would call a “cafeteria feminist.”
Or would you rather I use the word Femi-Nazi, a word that Rush Limbaugh coined to describe the most extreme (and logically consistent) exponents of feminism? (Rush estimated their numbers at twenty-four nation-wide. He could probably name them all, but never bothered to publish a list.)
Something else happened in the intervening years. Many of these women started their careers and then had no further time, or use, for the politics.
So your judging all femminists based on the few you met? I’ve known some Christians who have been intolorent bible thumpers, but it would be unfair of me to assume that they all were. And yes, maybe my view of femminism maybe considerably broader then yours, but there are all diffrent kinds of femminists, like there are all diffrent kinds of christians
I judge feminism by the most honest (by my definition: straightforward and consistent) presenters, practitioners, and exemplars of feminist philosophy and politics with whom I have had the (mis)fortune to deal.
Since when are feminists NOT atheists and marxists? Religion teaches that a woman’s place is in the home, serving her husband and children. How could that possibly jibe with anything feminists purport to believe? And since feminists cry for gov’t intervention in order to right the wrongs of a male-dominated capitalist system in the form of equal pay/equal job status/equal opportunity–forcefully, if necessary–how in the world can feminists not be marxists? They believe our existing system is systemically and hopelessly corrupt, at least in the form of sex discrimination, and would prefer to rely on a centralized government to guarantee “fairness.” Next you’ll tell us the Black Panthers aren’t racist or better yet, Farrakhan loves Jews. Freakin’ leftists irk me with doublespeak, but it’s often an indicator of doublethink.
As I read this, I was reminded of what my (now, deceased) friend would say (sometimes) of certain people who showed their true malevolent colors. He would plainly remark with two words: “Sick bastards!”
However, be that as it may, I would not be surprised if these extremist libs reach into their well worn nasty playbook and continue with impunity to play the race card.
Personally, I think that they will be itching to utilize the same tactic that won initial election for Obama: “If you are a white voter, you can prove to yourself and to your family and friends, that you are free of prejudice and bigotry by voting for American’s first “black” “president.” And, there may be enough stupid and gullible white voters who will again fall for that propaganda “line.”
By the way – Obama, is not America’s first black president. Here are two reasons:
1) Obama has not yet met the eligibility requirement to be, legitimate president. He (simply) is not a Constitutional “natural born citizen.”
2) Obama is not an American black. He is a mulatto – half white and for the most part, half Kenyan………….
The White House “[censored] in Residence” has been playing the race card from the very beginning….and I despise the white half too.
The violence thing has been in the works all along as either a back-up plan or as part of the “Down from the top, Up from the bottom and Over from the middle” strategy right from the Alinsky playbook. Why do you think they built several “detention” centers and trained troops for “Civil outbursts”?? Ron Paul and Christie have both admitted that the plan is violence. Time to watch your [six o’clock]!
Approved, but watch your language in my comment space.
I wonder how many real Black-Americans [or African-Americans as some now like to use] understand that Mr Obama is neither a Black-American or African-American based upon how the terms are defined? Mr Obama by the hyphenated ethnicity rules is a Kenyan-American [or Kenyan-White-American].
The Kenyan-American (from Kenya itself) I had as a professor in college back in the 1980s viewed Black-Americans as lazy, ignorant and selfish. And he added a few more derogatory terms when some one referred to him as a Black-American by mistake. So I wonder how Mr Obama really views Black-Americans.
As described to me by a Black-American, a Black-American is someone who has in their ancestry a slave or free-Black brought to the American colonies in the slave trade. An African-American is one brought to this hemisphere. So Mr Obama does not qualify in any way. Thus his proper “ethnicity” is Kenyan-American.
As a further question how many Haitian-Americans consider themselves Black-Americans or Africans-Americans? The ones I have met are proud of being Haitian-Americans andin no way consider themselves Black-Americans.
Lots of race-baiters try to make it seem like only Black-Americans are the only ones who have bee discriminated against. In this Country the Irish, Native American, Jews and other groups, including women, have been discriminated against. Blacks even discriminate against other Black based upon differences in education and philosophy.
When one looks behind the curtain one finds the basic reason – power and control! Or worse. How many people know what an “early 20 century Progressive” really believed in? Look at the philosophy being pushed – freedom or dependency.
When someone starts pushing emotional buttons it is important to step back and find what the underlying agenda is. It usually is something detrimental to everyone.
And how many people actually read the first two paragraphs of the article before they started attacking?
So let me get this straight: a community organizer from Chicago–one who used race specifically in his endeavors to force banks to make risky loans based on affirmative action policies–the candidate who claimed opposition would point out that he “doesn’t look like previous presidents”–the guy who sat in front of Rev. Wright, racial hate preacher, every weekend for 20 years–is going to try to use race to either scare or guilt white America into voting for him or, at least, not voting for the other guy? Do you mean to tell me the guy who made sure the New Black Panthers were not prosecuted for [clearly] intimidating voters during said election? A guy who knows 96% [or more] of black voters voted for him even though he knew he could offer them nothing may stoop to the level of inciting them to violence in order to keep the job he’s failed at miserably? Terry, are you trying to convince us that the first Affirmative Action President in history will try to divide the American people based on race, all based on the words of some political insider that has been right before? /sarc
Terry, I think this is the second article from you I’ve read in two days, the other being “Science, The Left, and Hypocrisy,” and I must tell you that I’m very thankful for both. Just as good as the substance of the articles are your thoughtful responses to skeptical commenters. Thank you and please keep up the good work! I’ll be reading everything with your name on it from now on.
Don’t forget that Affirmative Action has not existed since the 1960s. What we have now is a misappropriated term being used to describe quotas since the people subject to the quota are apparently no longer qualified to compete for the various positions on their own – sounds like racism to me.
Affirmative Action was the reaching out to qualified individuals, regardless of race or other meaningless criteria formally used to disqualify the applicant, and have them compete on an equal footing with everyone else. From what I understand it came out of the 1960s in California and was twisted into quotas in the 1970s.
Hypocrisy….I would just like to know if they would also consider it “racist” if over 90% of black people vote for Hussien O.
[…] Obama promoting 2012 "Race Riots"? This is a little old, but very interesting. He's not letting this Florida matter go to waste, but it will surely waste him (and a lot of his followers). FM Race riots in 2012 campaign? – Conservative News and Views […]