They begin by saying that any question of Obama's citizenship and legitimacy to be President during the 2008 campaign was "blatantly racist..." - "reminding people that Mr. Obama was black, suggesting he was African, and planting the false idea that he was secretly Muslim."
If I recall correctly, which is fairly easy these days due to digital video and the internet, it was then-candidate Barack Obama and then-candidate Joe Biden who reminded the nation that Obama was black.
Biden made his infamous remarks to the New York Observer during an interview in 2007. "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," Biden said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man."
Biden later apologized to Obama and said that his words were taken out of context. Uh huh.
Obama himself, not to be outdone, played the race card during his campaign.
So what they’re going to try to do is make you scared of me," Obama said in a campaign speech. "You know -‘he’s not patriotic enough, he’s got a funny name,’ you know -‘he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.’
If that's not playing the race card what is it? And let's not forget the remarks of good ol' Harry Reid in 2008, concerning Obama.
Obama himself, not to be outdone, played the race card during his campaign.
So what they’re going to try to do is make you scared of me," Obama said in a campaign speech. "You know -‘he’s not patriotic enough, he’s got a funny name,’ you know -‘he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.’
If that's not playing the race card what is it? And let's not forget the remarks of good ol' Harry Reid in 2008, concerning Obama.
"I believe that the country is ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama -- a 'light-skinned' African American 'with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.'"
I don't remember a single Republican candidate or politician who made Obama's skin color an issue. I don't remember any Republican candidate questioning his citizenship. Certainly it was challenged by people around the country. Given the fact that he initially refused to release any documents about his life (birth certificate, college transcripts, etc.) there were people who questioned what he was hiding. many of those things still have not been released. One can only wonder why.
As for his religious beliefs - many questioned his heart after learning about Reverend Jeremiah Wright and the hatred he preached in the church Obama attended for 20 years. Obama touted Wright as his long-time friend and mentor and said in the entire 20 years he (Obama) was in that church he never heard Wright preach anything hateful. Right. And you can keep your doctor.
I wasn't really concerned about his religious beliefs until after he took office and it suddenly seemed like everything he did was detrimental to the United States and/or our allies and boosted Islam. From his apology tour to Islamic countries, to his failed partnership with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, to his appointment of numerous Muslims to White House positions (some who are closely associated with the Muslim Brotherhood), it appears more and more that perhaps he really is a Muslim. He even shut down our space program and charged the director of NASA to "find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering."
What kind of a Christian President does that?
Fast forward to this morning. The editorial staff at the Times says that Republicans' opposition to things such as the Iran nuclear deal and executive amnesty is just subtle racism. They somehow believe that everything Obama is doing is wonderful and that regardless of the reasons they articulate, they are merely covering up their racial animosity toward President Obama.
"The current offensive is slightly more subtle, but it is impossible to dismiss the notion that race plays a role in it," the Times writes.
"Perhaps the most outrageous attack on the President's legitimacy was a letter signed by 47 Republican Senators to the leadership of Iran saying President Obama had no authority to conclude negotiations over Iran's nuclear weapons program."
The Times editors say there is no difference between what Obama is doing in Iran and what Ronald Reagan did with Russia when the arms deal was negotiated. They fail to mention the fact that Reagan was negotiating with Russia with the complete approval of Congress. That's the difference. And it's a big difference. And either the Times editors are stupid or they simply choose to ignore the truth. My guess is the latter.
They also cite a bill being pushed through the Arizona legislature that says it "prohibits this state or any of its political subdivisions from using any personal or financial resources to enforce, administer or cooperate with an executive order issued by the President of the United States that has not been affirmed by a vote of Congress and signed into law as prescribed by the United States Constitution."
Of course, this has nothing to do with the fact that Obama unilaterally granted executive amnesty with the stroke of his pen, completely ignoring a wide open border and the huge problem the state of Arizona has with illegal immigrants. Nope. It's about racial animosity toward the President. The Times said so.
Their big argument about executive orders is "Well, Bush signed executive orders and they're all the same." Uh... no - they're not all the same.
Oh - and climate change deniers are racists as well. Never mind that the "science" behind climate change is flawed at best and fabricated at worst. If you oppose Obama's climate change goals for regulating carbon emissions (because the science just doesn't prove it to be true) - you're a racist. The Times said so.
They conclude with "If this insurrection is driven by something other than a blend of ideological extremism and personal animosity, it is not clear what that might be. But it is ugly, it deepens the mistrust of government and it harms the Office of the President, not just Mr. Obama."
Perhaps they should take a closer look at what President Obama is doing while in that office. They should throw away the liberal blinders and look at the truth. Maybe then they'd figure out that it's not about race but about policy. And tyranny.
I don't remember a single Republican candidate or politician who made Obama's skin color an issue. I don't remember any Republican candidate questioning his citizenship. Certainly it was challenged by people around the country. Given the fact that he initially refused to release any documents about his life (birth certificate, college transcripts, etc.) there were people who questioned what he was hiding. many of those things still have not been released. One can only wonder why.
As for his religious beliefs - many questioned his heart after learning about Reverend Jeremiah Wright and the hatred he preached in the church Obama attended for 20 years. Obama touted Wright as his long-time friend and mentor and said in the entire 20 years he (Obama) was in that church he never heard Wright preach anything hateful. Right. And you can keep your doctor.
I wasn't really concerned about his religious beliefs until after he took office and it suddenly seemed like everything he did was detrimental to the United States and/or our allies and boosted Islam. From his apology tour to Islamic countries, to his failed partnership with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, to his appointment of numerous Muslims to White House positions (some who are closely associated with the Muslim Brotherhood), it appears more and more that perhaps he really is a Muslim. He even shut down our space program and charged the director of NASA to "find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering."
What kind of a Christian President does that?
Fast forward to this morning. The editorial staff at the Times says that Republicans' opposition to things such as the Iran nuclear deal and executive amnesty is just subtle racism. They somehow believe that everything Obama is doing is wonderful and that regardless of the reasons they articulate, they are merely covering up their racial animosity toward President Obama.
"The current offensive is slightly more subtle, but it is impossible to dismiss the notion that race plays a role in it," the Times writes.
"Perhaps the most outrageous attack on the President's legitimacy was a letter signed by 47 Republican Senators to the leadership of Iran saying President Obama had no authority to conclude negotiations over Iran's nuclear weapons program."
The Times editors say there is no difference between what Obama is doing in Iran and what Ronald Reagan did with Russia when the arms deal was negotiated. They fail to mention the fact that Reagan was negotiating with Russia with the complete approval of Congress. That's the difference. And it's a big difference. And either the Times editors are stupid or they simply choose to ignore the truth. My guess is the latter.
They also cite a bill being pushed through the Arizona legislature that says it "prohibits this state or any of its political subdivisions from using any personal or financial resources to enforce, administer or cooperate with an executive order issued by the President of the United States that has not been affirmed by a vote of Congress and signed into law as prescribed by the United States Constitution."
Of course, this has nothing to do with the fact that Obama unilaterally granted executive amnesty with the stroke of his pen, completely ignoring a wide open border and the huge problem the state of Arizona has with illegal immigrants. Nope. It's about racial animosity toward the President. The Times said so.
Their big argument about executive orders is "Well, Bush signed executive orders and they're all the same." Uh... no - they're not all the same.
Oh - and climate change deniers are racists as well. Never mind that the "science" behind climate change is flawed at best and fabricated at worst. If you oppose Obama's climate change goals for regulating carbon emissions (because the science just doesn't prove it to be true) - you're a racist. The Times said so.
They conclude with "If this insurrection is driven by something other than a blend of ideological extremism and personal animosity, it is not clear what that might be. But it is ugly, it deepens the mistrust of government and it harms the Office of the President, not just Mr. Obama."
Perhaps they should take a closer look at what President Obama is doing while in that office. They should throw away the liberal blinders and look at the truth. Maybe then they'd figure out that it's not about race but about policy. And tyranny.
No comments:
Post a Comment