|
Posted on 08/17/2012 6:22:05 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Has Barack Obama, the first black president of the United States, failed to live up to the dream of civil rights icon Martin Luther King? That’s one of several startling claims made in a new ad accusing Obama of “tacitly defending black racism before and since being elected.”
“The Obama administration has injected race into the presidential campaign,” the narrator intones at the beginning. “Obama Attorney General Eric Holder recently said, with no argument from the president, that their white critics are motivated by race.”
The voice in the commercial then turns Holder’s charge on its head: “Implying whites are too stupid to have honest disagreements with the president without being racist is, in and of itself, racist against whites.”
Both the ad and the registered super PAC behind it, FightBigotry.com, are the brainchild of longtime political consultant and opposition researcher Stephen Marks. In his autobiography “Confessions of a Political Hitman,” Marks described himself as “a strange-looking character, half librarian and half James Bond.”
“I think in 2008 a lot of people were willing to give Obama a pass on Jeremiah Wright because he seemed like a nice guy,” Marks told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “I still think the president is a nice person.”
Marks argued that after Obama took office, his administration established a pattern of behaving in a racially polarizing manner, including Vice President Joe Biden’s recent remarks to a black audience that Republicans are going to put “y’all back in chains.”
“No one else has the stomach to bring up these issues,” Marks said. “Or the balls, I guess you could say.”
Marks, who narrates the ad himself, manages to pack all “these issues” into two minutes. He mentions the president’s criticism of Cambridge police after the arrest of black Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates. Marks quotes Obama as describing his own grandmother as a “typical white person” whose “racial slurs made him cringe.”
“But Jeremiah Wright’s far more racist rants never made him cringe?” Marks asks as footage of the infamous “Goddamn America” sermon by the president’s former pastor plays.
“In 2009, the Obama Justice Department dropped charges against the New Black Panthers just as they were about to be convicted of intimidating white voters,” Marks also says in the ad. “And they’re now calling for a race war, again with no objection from the president.”
Former Justice Department official J. Christian Adams, the author of the New York Times bestseller “Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department,” said these are legitimate campaign issues.
“The Obama Presidency has been characterized by an unashamed racialist policy – whether trying to keep Abigail Fisher out of the University of Texas because she is white, or refusing to clean up the voter rolls under Motor Voter because it doesn’t ‘increase minority turnout,’ or dismissing the New Black Panther case because some defendants get breaks,” Adams told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an e-mail. “The administration thought they could do all this quietly, but millions of Americans have noticed.”
Those are the millions Marks plans to turn to get his ad on television. He said that unlike other super PACs, he is reaching out to small donors, like the ones who helped him get his 2000 ad tying Al Gore to Al Sharpton and his 2008 commercial portraying Obama as mocking the Bible on the airwaves. Marks wishes to target “blue-collar Democrats” in swing states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Florida and Wisconsin.
Not everyone is a fan of Marks or his ads. The liberal group ThinkProgress condemned the spot as “obvious race-baiting” and “riddled with factual errors,” claiming Marks is merely “using an Orwellian name to inject racism into yet another campaign through smears.”
In 2008, the Obama campaign website Fight the Smears denounced another Marks production: “The video takes 5 sentences out of a 4,500-word speech Barack gave in 2006 completely out of context to stoke division and hatred.”
“This isn’t the biggest issue in the election,” Marks allowed. “But it’s one that should be discussed.”
“Attorney General Eric Holder called us cowards because we don’t talk enough about race,” Adams said in an e-mail. “So lets talk.”
WATCH:
(VIDEO AT LINK)
"A smart person appoints people who are smarter than he is, and uses them to make himself look good. Obama appointed idiots, liberals, blacks, homosexuals,tax cheats, and other people that made him look like Chit. If it weren’t for the Media covering for him the whole gang would have been laughed at.Very good, thanks." Ronald Reagan knew how to appoint smart people then he stood back and let them do their jobs. Obama appoints idiots and then tries to micro manage them, making himself look like a fool."
But if you work for the gov't you are under contract to order from such suppliers, yes?
“He has set race relations back about 50 years.”
I disagree.
It wasn’t Obama or his lackeys that “set race relations back 50 years”.
The problem is that — for about fifty years — race relations have been going in a direction that promotes “separateness” (mostly amongst blacks), rather than “integration”. Integration may or may not have been possible after the Jim Crow era ended. I believe it was never really going to be an achievable end, because neither race wanted it, and for five decades blacks have embraced their own version of “apartheid”. By that I mean that black culture has purposely deviated from the [white] “mainstream” culture, with the results we see today (reverse racism, flash mobbin’, etc.). For many blacks, accusing them of “acting white” is the worst insult that can be made upon them — yet, in an American culture that arose -from- white Euros, it was the only behavior by which most whites might have accepted them as being “integrated”. That simply isn’t going to happen, now or in the future.
No, Obama didn’t do anything to set race relations “back”.
Rather, he is the epitome of what we get from decades of deteriorating racial progress.
He is a symptom.
He is not the cause.
Save
Obama as describing his own grandmother as a “typical white person” whose “racial slurs made him cringe.”
What if McCain had said, “A black guy I served with was lazy and dishonest, and that was a typical black sailor.”
No big deal in the MSM? Yeah, right. And recall that Zero was talking about the woman who played a large part in raising and supporting him after his wonderful Father (Dreams of My) high-tailed it back to Kenya.
I worked in an office that had three black secretaries back in 2008. One day on break we were talking politics, particularly about McCain and his time as a POW. One secretary (also office manager) said, “And I remember he was given a chance to leave, but he didn’t take it. Now, how dumb was that?”
Not being a big McCain fan myself, nevertheless I tried to explain that the North Vietnamese wanted him to accept the offer, that he was an admiral’s son, there were some other prisoners who had been there longer, there was some real propaganda value to the enemy, etc.
They didn’t want to hear about it: He was opposing Obama. There were no thoughts of trying to be fair or objective.
You can’t fix stupid. One of the happiest days of my life was walking out the door for the last time. They were terrible secretaries too. By the way, I believe this attitude is pretty much what we’re facing from Democrats this fall.
“I still think the president is a nice person.”
Tired of our side saying platitudes that are obviously wrong, such as “Islam is a ROP”. Not only is Obama not nice, I believe he’s evil. He is a racist, a corrupt official (Solyndra anyone?), and has set himself the task of destroying the Church. He should also be called the Slaver-in-chief as he actively and consciously seeks to make more people dependent on food stamps and other government heroin-like services, and he is seeking to destroy the work requirement of welfare. What do you call someone who seeks to enslave people in circumstances just above subsistence just to get votes?
She died shortly before the election in 2008 but the press was never allowed to interview her--and never complained about it.
It needs to be said.
I, a woman, ran an entrepreneurial business for 30 years without taking one thin dime from government other than a single contract with a municipal department that I earned from competing for it. There was no woman/minority documentation. I never joined any of those woman/minority set-aside programs and never let myself be characterized as a "woman business owner" or a "woman"-anything when I was frequently asked to give lectures. If I was going to do the work, I was going to do it well and compete straight on; and I did succeed.
See post 33.
“But if you work for the gov’t you are under contract to order from such suppliers, yes?”
Probably; at this point if you work for the government chances are you’re a woman or minority anyway. Governments (federal, state, municipal) have a lot less money to re-distribute all around these days; here in NJ a lot of government workers lost their jobs in the last couple of years (thanks to Governor Christie).
Congratulations; I hope people can appreciate that you did it on your own.
They didn't then and they don't now. In every new situation, I have to start over from the beginning as if none of it ever happened -- because I am a woman. I reallly, really thought it would be better by now.
So it is a truthful ad then. Why the story about it?
“In every new situation, I have to start over from the beginning as if none of it ever happened — because I am a woman. I reallly, really thought it would be better by now.”
I suspect that the expansion of programs benefiting women is the reason why people assume that; only when those programs end will you be treated on your merits. Sad but true.
“I still think the president is a nice person.”
“That which enchants may also deceive”. Plato
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.
