Skip to comments.Obama, Shakira Join Forces at Colombian Cultural Event [vanity]
Posted on 04/16/2012 7:16:23 AM PDT by edge919Edited on 04/16/2012 8:51:37 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Obama has just made a Freudian slip in Colombia; maybe it's because of hanging out with Shakira. He was participating in "a cultural event to recognize the historically marginalized Afro-Colombian communities and to grant the descendents of slaves the formal title to their land." In part the story says:
Standing alongside President Santos of Colombia and singer Shakira in the Plaza de San Pedro, Obama reflected on his own ancestry.
"Early in my presidency, my family and I visited Ghana in West Africa and we visited the historic Cape Coast Castle and I'll never forget my two young daughters, the descendents of Africans and African-Americans, looking out through the door of no return where so many Africans began their forced journey to this hemisphere," he said.
First this says Obama was reflecting on HIS OWN ancestry. What exactly does Obama's ancestry have to do with his comment?? He was not born to African-Americans in the United States. His father's family weren't slaves, plus they were from East Africa, not West Africa. His mother's family weren't slaves either.
And second, see how he describes his daughters. What's missing??
The question is what Obama left out.
“0bama0 is a descendent of African SLAVE TRADERS!”
Imagine that. Obama’s ancestors selling Al Sharpton’s ancestors into slavery. Of course Sharpton’s ancestors were probably easy to catch and had to be sold at a discount.
The problem with this analogy is that Obama is not visiting a country in which he is a descendant ... unless you know something we don’t.
That's close, but there's another way to look at this that really tells us what Obama thinks of himself.
No, it isn’t an exact correlation, but very similar.
Always has a Hollywood star, singer or musician to prop him up.
Again, invoking the “my daughters” topic when it portrays them as victims of something. Otherwise, “...my daughters and wife are off limits!”
I’m sorry, but these questions aren’t really what this thread is about.
That’s an interesting thought, but this is about how Obama identifies himself. Remember, the reporter said Obama was talking about his own ancestry ... which obviouisly wasn’t true, but in the comment, Obama gives something away. It’s a lot like his “my Muslim faith” comment from a couple of years ago.
I don’t think this was a “Freudian slip.” Instead, I think it was something that he deliberately said because he thought it would make him look good - similar to the time Hillary Clinton told the people of New Zealand that she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary, a national hero in that country (even though she was born a few years before anyone ever heard of him.)
You said it perfectly my friend. Obama comes from the very Muslim Blacks that sent other non-Muslim Blacks into forced slavery across North America, South America, the Caribbean, the United Kingdom and the entire Middle East and North Africa, where Muslim slave trade goes on today, unabated. American Blacks live in forever denial, but....it’s the Obama kind that captured and chained them into forced slavery. Sad.....but true!!! Shucks, the Obama years have put millions of American Blacks in permanent economic slavery on the Obama slave plantation!!! Go figure!!!
Well gee, forgive me for reading the details...and then why didn’t you tell us what it’s all about or what you wanted to discuss about this article when you had the chance to comment at post #1? That was your chance...
You have zeroed in on the most frightening aspect of Obama’s pronouncement. What, exactly, does it mean? Does it mean that whoever owns the land now (one hundred-plus years later) is going to be forced to give it up to “the descendants of former slaves” — who likely never owned the land in the first place?
And, significantly, what does this portend for the US if Obama is reelected? He has now said he favors taking land from its current owners to “return” it to the “descendants of former slaves.” If — no, make that when — applied in the US, it will mean that the government will dictate what land it decides should belong to “the descendants of former slaves.”
And then, the tyrannical confiscation and redistribution of land will begin with ruthless ardor.
Pictures of Shakira, for one thing.
I quoted exactly what was relevant and set it up in the header. There wasn’t anything to add in Post No. 1. The reporter said Obama was talking about his own ancestry ... which has little if anything to do with slaves and the history of slave trade. That’s part of the point. The other point is that Obama makes a self-identification that is goes against the nature of one being a U.S. president.
I’m going onto explain it is also not good etiquette not to comment, or tell us about what you think of an article you have posted, at the given post #1, for the initial poster’s comment.
Unless it is a situation similar to where you wish to pass some important information and have to leave for work. Clearly not the case here. Let me compare it to what Rush terms the “drive-by-media”.
Don’t be offended, just understand where others are coming from. Some don’t have time to read entire articles because they are leaving for work, and others don’t like leaving this web site to read an article in it’s entirety at an unknown web site. And you wish to make a point, and this is where you have cheated yourself, by not using the opportunity given at post #1.
Aw shucks, maybe his hips will do what hers do now...not lie? Ha! She’s a radical socialist, and he’s one too.
We so desperately need him outta office in November...
The greater probability is his muslim side was probably involved in trading of slaves....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.