Skip to comments.Michelle Obama Rouses NAACP Before Vote Condemning 'Racist' Elements of Tea Party
Posted on 07/12/2010 7:11:32 PM PDT by Scythian
First Lady Michelle Obama brought renewed energy to the NAACP today, delivering the keynote speech at the annual convention one day before the nation's largest civil rights group is expected to condemn what it calls racist elements in the Tea Party movement.
The nation's largest and oldest civil rights organization will vote on the resolution Tuesday during its annual convention in Kansas City, Mo.
In her speech, the first lady focused on the issue of childhood obesity and her "Let's Move" initiative, but outside of her remarks, anti-Tea Party activism has been a key focus of the gathering, which conservative leaders say is driven solely by a political agenda.
Tea Party members have used "racial epithets," have verbally abused black members of Congress and threatened them, and protestors have engaged in "explicitly racist behavior" and "displayed signs and posters intended to degrade people of color generally and President Barack Obama specifically," according to the proposed resolution.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
This headline was totally misleading. It makes it sound as if she made remarks about the tea party people. I heard her entire speech. She only spoke about obesity, exercise, good nutrition and health. I agreed with most of what she said. I raised my 2 sons in as healthy manner as possible, especially regarding nutrition. My 40 year old son is in Special Forces, and has never had a single cavity. Healthy as a horse.
Everyone is condemning FLOTUS’ remarks. She did not mention one word about tea party or politics. Her entire speech was about obesity, nutrition, exercise and health. I heard the whole speech. The headline was misleading, accidentally or deliberately? The first line says her speech was one day BEFORE NAACP is expected to condemn racist aspects of the tea party movement.
Honestly, sometimes Washington reminds me of these stupid kids you see on TV who maim themselves doing crazy stunts. They're playing with high explosives, yet treat it as though it's something that couldn't possibly blow them to bits.
It seems the thought never enters their minds that history can, and does repeat. A people can only be pushed so far. America is like a dry grass prairie under a broiling midday summer sun. It's not going to take much more to touch off something that cannot be stopped. Once it goes, the whole country will be all in, and it'll be lights out for the left in America forever.
I’ve heard it said that when someone can’t win a debate/argument, they call YOU a racist to shut you up. I want to shut them down with a effective remark and be on my way. Get what I mean?
I just commented that I heard her speech, but did not hear anything about tea party. Just thought I better double check as I had stepped out of the room a minute to find my screw driver. So here is a link of her entire speech. Some remarks about the struggle is not yet over, but nothing terribly inflammatory. Mostly about diet and health.
I just tried the link in my comment 155 and it did not work. Will try it again.
I don’t think it was about what she said.....she is there fully knowing what and who NaaCP is about....and their plan to use the race card on the tea parties. Her presence alone shot the arrow over the bow.
My hat’s off to you...you have cleverly answered my question. Ignore the remark and turn your back and/or walk away. Good advice.
the NAACP is a supporter of the Obama Junta, and who is Obama? He is a fascist. And the NAACP? They are fascists. And you might say that my language is too strong for our current political rhetoric? I say NO! We must define Obama and his supporters in order to defeat them.So here is why Obama and the NAACP are fasists:
Obamas is no communist, and he is not your usual run of the mill American president. YOU NEED TO GET THIS RIGHT, OUR SURVIVAL AS A NATION DEPENDS ON IT!
Obama is a NATIONALIST ( black power /ethnic minority nation dedicated to seizing power on behalf of the racial and ethnic minorities of America based on the idea that America’s greatness is fatally flawed because it owes its success to the colonial exploitation of black /ethnic minorities , and historic justice is required as a remedy, pretty much the same as Adolf Hitler’s ideology for the German people prior to WWII which dictated historic justice for Germany. This has been candied up and sold to the American people, who have bought it, lock, stock and barrel, and the MSM hides it’s dirty underside.THe NAACP has bought it and therefore itself has become a black power nationalist organization.)
OBAMA IS A SOCIALIST:
The economic aspect of racial historic justice requires a redistribution of wealth through subverting the present government system from within and using taxation, double dealings with Unions and industry, black mailing of traditional allies like Britain and Israel, and the abuse of other executive powers to redistribute wealth to racial and ethnic minorities rather than provide government services to ALL of the people). Obama plans to do this internationally, and he therefore abjures diplomacy with Britain ( colonial power) and others who were so called exploiters of the “black man.” The NAACP supports this approach.The Tea Party stands in its way.
Obama is a Nationalist Socialist, THATS RIGHT, A FASCIST.
His method of fascism is born of the Chicago thug school. HE IS NOT A COMMUNIST.This is important to know, for Obama cannot be defeated if we think he is a mere communist. His idea of black elitists who are racially and biologically superior to the white man in every way, a hatred of America ,goes much deeper than that of a mere communist.This is revealed by his association with Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Obamas conduct in office on racial and ethnic issues such as the New Black Panther party prosecution, and his refusal to secure our Southern Border, and his conflict with Arizonas illegal alien enforcement.GET IT RIGHT, OBMAMA IS MUCH WORSE THAN A COMMUNIST!
I find it disconcerting that people do not examine what Obama’s politics are,because that means we cannot defeat him because we cannot define him. THINK ON IT!. Obama is a fascist, a thug, a man who has no love for America and seeks to willfully destroy her if she does not do his bidding to become his twisted Utopia. He is not a Communist.Get it right. Our survival as a nation depends on it.
May 12, 2009 Barack Obama, the Quintessential Liberal Fascist
By Kyle-Anne Shiver
They fear that the development and building of Peoples (community) Organizations is the building of a vast power group which may fall prey to a fascistic demagogue who will seize leadership and control and turn an organization into a Frankensteins monster against democracy. - Saul Alinsky responding to his critics, Reveille for Radicals; p. 199
When Saul Alinsky began building his community-organization movement in 1930s Chicago, observers were watching Alinsky with one eye, while with the other eye observing the building of communist and fascist movements in Europe. It wasnt hard then to see in Alinskys programs at home, elements of the peoples revolution from Russia, as well as some of the same in your face tactics being employed by Hitlers Brownshirts.
What Alinskys critics saw was the burgeoning of a national movement, the carefully manipulated construction of peoples organizations, which all had two elements in common: (1) a collectivist creed, which denied the existence of personal responsibility; and (2) an amoral dogma, in which all means were justified by an imaginary utopian end.
While most modern Americans remember well Hitlers Holocaust and the Cold War waged by a solid U.S.S.R., many of these same Americans have swallowed some false history regarding the movements that spawned such widespread, horrendous results. In what may be regarded as the most triumphant propaganda victory of our time, fascism has been scrubbed of all its Marxist roots, while communism has been scrubbed of its millions of callous murders.
This post-WWII propaganda coup undeniably set the stage for the early Alinsky critics most feared eventuality, that the massive organizations could be shrewdly adopted by a fascist demagogue, someone who could seize leadership and control and turn them into a Frankensteins monster against democracy.
But perhaps the most cunning propaganda feat in history has been undertaken for the past 8 years. As Jonah Goldberg expertly expounds in his book, Liberal Fascism, American left-wing ideologues have managed to dissociate themselves from all the horrors of fascism with a brilliant rhetorical maneuver. Theyve done it by claiming that their opponents are the fascists.
Alinsky himself employed this method, quite deviously. Alinsky biographer, Sanford D. Horwitt provides an anecdote using precisely this diabolical tactic to deceive the people. From Horwitts Let Them Call Me Rebel:
...in the spring of 1972, at Tulane University...students asked Alinsky to help plan a protest of a scheduled speech by George H. W. Bush, then U.S. representative to the United Nations - a speech likely to include a defense of the Nixon administrations Vietnam War policies. The students told Alinsky they were thinking about picketing or disrupting Bushs address. Thats the wrong approach, he rejoined, not very creative - and besides causing a disruption might get them thrown out of school. He told them, instead, to go to hear the speech dressed as members of the Ku Klux Klan, and whenever Bush said something in defense of the Vietnam War, they should cheer and wave placards reading, The KKK supports Bush. And that is what they did, with very successful, attention-getting results.
In what may eventually prove to be a devious rhetorical feat of monstrous proportions, while the left has been indulging and fostering the Bush Is Hitler meme, they may have just put a genuine ideological fascist heir in the White House.
There is inherent danger in making scurrilous comparisons (as were perpetrated unceasingly against George W. Bush), but there seem to be some very worrisome signs in the rise of Barack Obama that we Americans would be foolish to ignore.
Obama, the Closer
As I put forth last year in Obama, the Closer, Barack Obama, did not start his movement; Alinsky did.
Nor did Obama amass the organizations that propelled him. As detailed by Heidi J. Swarts, in her book, Organizing Urban America, the movement begun by Saul Alinsky in the 1930s has morphed into thousands of secular and faith-based leftist political organizations. ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) has perhaps the highest public profile, is most reputed for radicalism, and is the organization with which Barack Obama was first aligned. But ACORN is the mere tip of a veritable iceberg of Alinsky-styled community organizations that sweep across the entire United States and make up the backbone of faith-based progressive movements as well.
These euphemistically called community organizations have next to nothing to do with improving the communities and everything to do with politics, primarily strong-arming government money to advance their political aims. Prior to Reagans election, these groups worked independently for the most part, each seeking to effect local change towards leftist ends.
But with Reagans victory, ACORN founding member Wade Rathke sent out a memo (published by Swarts; Organizing Urban America; p. 29) that would reverberate all the way to Barack Obamas moment. ACORN had been behaving as a sort of Lone Ranger of the Left for too long, wrote Rathke. Ronald Reagan had formed a coalition among the middle-class that threatened to bring greater prosperity without left-wing Statists calling the shots. Rathke put out the call to the ACORN troops to stop antagonizing those who would be allies, especially unions and church organizations, once shunned by ACORN as too placid for the real fight for power. For the next 25 years, the community organization network built, proliferated and formed a solid, nation-wide base of political strength, purely according to Alinskys original vision, and all just waiting for the right candidate to tap into it and lead it.
When folks from all corners of America proclaimed, seemingly with one voice, Barack is the One weve been waiting for, they were speaking out of the vast Alinsky-originated network.
Neither did Barack Obama invent the political ideology of change, nor design its carefully crafted propaganda. While media folks talked of the tingles up their legs and the brilliant rhetoric of Barack Obama, they were heralding the speaker only, not the creator of the movement and its slogans. That would have been Saul Alinsky, the man who took fascism and cunningly made it appear to casual observers every bit as American as apple pie.
Barack Obama is merely the movements closer, the quintessential liberal fascist with a teleprompter.
Alinskys Ideology of Change: The Third Way
Goldberg fastidiously notes the comparison between Alinskys in your face rules for radicals, studied and perfected by Barack Obama, and shows them to have profoundly fascist roots:
...theres no disputing that vast swaths of his (Alinskys) writings are indistinguishable from the fascist rhetoric of the 1920s and 1930s...His worldview is distinctly fascistic. Life is defined by war, contests of power, the imposition of will. Moreover, Alinsky shares with the fascists and pragmatists of yore a bedrock hostility to dogma. All he believes in are the desired ends of the movement, which he regards as the source of lifes meaning...But what comes through most is his unbridled love of power. Power is a good in its own right for Alinsky. Ours is a world not of angels but of angles, he proclaims in Rules for Radicals, where men speak of moral principles but act on power principles.
Saul Alinsky was the man who transformed politics in America into all-out war mode. Alinskys tenth rule of the ethics of means: You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments. Alls fair in love and war, and politics, to Alinsky, was war.
A Peoples (community) Organization is not a philanthropic plaything or a social services ameliorative gesture. It is a deep, hard-driving force, striking and cutting at the very roots of all the evils which beset the people. It thinks and acts in terms of social surgery and not cosmetic cover-ups.
A Peoples Organization is dedicated to an eternal war
. A war is not an intellectual debate, and in the war against social evils there are no rules of fair play. Saul Alinsky; Reveille for Radicals; p. 133
Alinsky includes an entire section in Rules for Radicals on The Ideology of Change. The watchword of the Obama campaign was change. Just as Hitler mobilized the masses with a calculatingly undefined demand for change, so did Alinsky disciple, Barack Obama.
Everything must be different! or Alles muss anders sein!, Hitlers own campaign slogan, morphed into Unite for Change, and the Obama transition teams change.gov. Even the idea of a vast movement was borrowed from Hitler. As Goldberg states, Hitler used the phrase, the Movement, more than 200 times in Mein Kampf.
The word movement itself is instructive. Movement, unlike progress, doesnt imply a fixed destination. Rather, it takes it as a given that any change is better.
(Goldberg; Liberal Fascism; p. 176) Perhaps the most intoxicating allure to the fascist demagogue and his movement for undefined change is its misleadingly conciliatory flavor. Barack Obama continually, throughout his campaign and even now, portrays himself as the Third Way between the cantankerous factions that have polarized America for the past 80 years, since liberal fascism took root as the Progressive Movement.
Obama claimed that Bush was too much the ideologue, that his policies were driven by the Christian right, involved false choices between all-out war on the one hand and diplomacy on the other, between the welfare state and cold-hearted, do-nothing conservatism, between absolute sovereignty and cowardly submission to the global community, between doing all and doing nothing. And if any of this gibberish were a true reflection of our political disagreements, Obama would be somewhat correct. But as any sentient person knows, this radical presentation of Obamas is absolutely false. That gets lost, though, in the leaders conciliatory tone.
What must not get lost, however, is the very real fact that this Third Way movement for change is as fascist as anything we have ever seen in the USA. As Alinsky described his own Ideology of Change, the lure is in the claim that the leader has no ideology that would confine his outlook to hard choices between what is moral or immoral, that there are no boundaries set by either religion or politics, that everything can change and the only thing that matters is ones end intention to do something good.
As Hitler, before Alinsky, proclaimed, Our program is to govern, not delve into theory and dogma. This is in itself very appealing, especially to an electorate sick of the contentiousness of the past decade. This undefined ideology of change for the sake of change, for some action that will break through the roadblocks of polarization, has tremendous allure.
But Goldberg bursts that bubble:
The middle way sounds moderate and un-radical. Its appeal is that it sounds unideological and freethinking. But philosophically the Third Way is not mere difference splitting; it is utopian and authoritarian. Its utopian aspect becomes manifest in its antagonism to the idea that politics is about trade-offs. The Third Wayer says that there are no false choices -I refuse to accept that X should come at the expense of Y. The Third Way holds that we can have capitalism and socialism, individual liberty and absolute unity. Fascist movements are implicitly utopian because they - like communist and heretical Christian movements assume that with just the right arrangement of policies, all contradictions can be rectified. (Goldberg; Liberal Fascism; p. 130)
Of course, thinking people when they are indeed thinking know this is an utterly false promise. Life will never be made perfect because all human beings are imperfect.
Unity, the Diabolical Lure
What of this longed-for unity then? Barack Obama proclaimed he was leading a movement of people united for change. What is the appeal of unity?
The modern liberal fascist seeks that state between mother and child which exists early on before the child seeks his own independence, before mother must set herself at odds with him. It is the perfectly secure state of childhood where all is lovely and peaceful and nurturing, but cannot continue indefinitely if the child is to be prepared to face a world of difficulty and hard choices. Nevertheless, the yearning continues. It is this primordial yearning which sets itself in the crosshairs of the fascist demagogue.
But in adult life, this type of unity is anything but desirable, anything but virtuous. As Goldberg states, however, elevation of unity as the highest social value is a core tenet of fascism and all leftist ideologies.
The allure of this mystical unity is so great that its demand to sacrifice reason and thought on the false altar of infantile security is seemingly lost to many. But as Goldberg also reminds us, unity is, at best, morally neutral and often a source of irrationality and groupthink.
Rampaging mobs are unified. The Mafia is unified. Marauding barbarians bent on rape and pillage are unified. Meanwhile, civilized people have disagreements, and small-d democrats have arguments. Classical liberalism is based on this fundamental insight, which is why fascism was always anti-liberal.
Liberalism rejected the idea that unity is more valuable than individuality. For fascists and other leftists, meaning and authenticity are found in collective enterprises - of class, nation, or race - and the state is there to enforce that meaning on everyone without the hindrance of debate. (Goldberg; Liberal Fascism; p. 172)
Just as the healthy relationship between parent and developing child demands friction, so does the healthy relationship between truly liberal citizens. Unity is the siren song of tyranny, not the call to genuine progress.
Fascism: The Two Birds with One Stone Approach
I think of Obamas liberal fascism as a cancer that attempts to kill the two birds of American exceptionalism with one stone. It is a deviously appealing Third Way that in the end, if allowed to triumph completely, kills both individual liberty and Judeo/Christian religion with its single stone.
And, indeed this was the precise goal of Adolph Hitler. Unlike the outspoken hatred of private property and religion espoused by communists under Lenin and Stalin, Hitler preferred the more moderate-seeming incremental takeover of private enterprise in the interest of the common good, and the slow-death of Judeo/Christian religion by chipping away at it and replacing the peoples dependence upon God gradually with reliance on the state (Hitler).
[Note: Hitlers Holocaust was based on the Progressive Eugenics principles set forth by Social Darwinist scientists and social engineers of the 1920s, widely accepted both in Europe and in the United States. Religion was not at the core of the Holocaust; race was. However, Hitlers other chief aim was to destroy the Judeo/Christian religions, which he believed had ruined the Germanic races world predominance.]
Of course, as the German people were duped into giving Hitler totalitarian powers to work his magic change, he took off the kid gloves and accelerated the program.
In the end, however slow the process, however seemingly benign the growth of the state may seem, liberal fascism has the same result of all tyrannies before it: hell on earth for most and a self-indulgent feast for the Statists in power.
As Barack Obama speaks, thinking Americans ought to hear the echoes of past fascist demagogues and remember. Remember.
When Barack Obama promises collective redemption through his profligate spending programs and vast overtures to a new world order built on love for our fellow man, we ought to shudder not swoon.
We ought to remember that healthy global relationships are built upon respect, not all-encompassing love, and that redemption for ones soul is a commodity the state is not empowered to offer.
As Pope Benedict XVI has so presciently warned:
Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much. Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes, not divine, but demonic.
Be not fooled, America. The movement, which appears most benign is instead the most malignant growth ever seen on our soil. Its a cancer that will kill, and however slowly it grows or however nice it may look on the surface, doesnt change a thing.
Kyle-Anne Shiver is a frequent contributor to American Thinker. She welcomes your comments at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Nah, she just has several Emperor’s New Clothes-type “designers” who are all laughing behind her ill-adorned back. All the while ringing up huge “wardrobe” bills on whitey’s. . .err I mean the American Taxpayer’s dime.
“They will destroy themselves and the Democrat Party in the process.”
The USA will be a MUCH better country without these LIEberal/Socialist/Marxist/Fascist scumbags mucking things up!
“Can I please be black now?”
“Maybe we can sneak in, all undocumented like.”
Why not, Obama don’t be black, he jes be claimin’ to be black. Wright ain’t black, he jes be claimin’, worl’ be full o’ peeps jes claimin’, folks useta try passin’ fo’ white, now dey jes be claimin’ to be black, ain’t nobody wantin’ to be no cracka no mo. Jes git down wit de jive turkey tawk an’ tell ‘em all u black now.
If Navin can do it anyone can.
When aspiring to be black be sure to avoid the sort of affectation displayed by this rank amateur.
She talked about the Tea Party at the naaclp meeting.
It bothers me that she repeatedly refers to “the founders” but she is talking about the people who started the NAACP. I’ve never heard anyone use the phrase “the founders” in this way to refer to anyone other than the Founding Fathers.
My data came from the 2000 Census.
“Many of you probably grew up like I did — in a community that wasn’t rich, not even middle class..” “In these kind of strong African American communities, we went to neighborhood schools around the corner. So many of us had to walk to and from school every day, rain or shine. I know you’ve told that story. (Laughter.) And in Chicago, where I was raised, we did it in the dead of winter. (Laughter.) No shoes on our feet — it was hard, but we walked! (Applause.)”
Hardly humble: Michelle’s childhood home in Chicago
“Michelle was from a middle-class family,” confirmed one of her long-time friends, Angela Acree.
“She came from a regular family. They had a nice home. It wasn’t a mansion, but it was just fine. It was a decent neighbourhood.”
No one could pretend they were rich and it is true that her father, Frasier Robinson, spent some time as a maintenance worker for Chicago’s Department of Water Management.
However, he was a good deal more than the labourer that many seem to imagine.
Indeed, according to family friends, Michelle’s father was a volunteer organiser for the city’s Democratic Party, a by-word for machine politics in America, and his loyalty was rewarded with a well-paid engineering job at Chicago’s water plant. Even before overtime, he earned $42,686 - 25 per cent more than High School teachers at the time.
No, but my Daddy was. Maybe it's in my blood :-)
Check out Glenn Beck daily to learn what his research reveals. Check out his web site and watch his videos.
no thanks. I search by subject, not author.
As the saying goes...whatever.
Would it be possible to word a more generic, uninformative website/talkshow pimping post? I don't think so.
Post content, thoughts or ideas. Not advertisements.
If only that's what they wanted, but the radicals will never be satisfied
even if they have to kill millions. And that's usually how power trips end.
“The dead of winter, with no shoes.” I heard her and she was joking, that is why they laughed. It was just like my mother telling me how poor things were when she was a girl. Going to Europe during the depression, then coming back and having to eat oatmeal for a month until her first teachers pay check came in. I wanted to laught, but I didn’t. Mom didn’t have much sense of humor about herself.
You have a right to voice your opinion, and I have a right to voice my opinion.
But, "Check out Glenn Beck daily to learn what his research reveals. Check out his web site and watch his videos," is not an opinion, it's blog pimping.
I asked you for your opinion in my initial post in #114.
I asked you what you thought Beck had nailed and why.
You responded with a "Go read his blog. Listen to his show."
You asked a question and I answered it. You’ll have to listen to his radio program, watch his TV program and read his writings.
Glenn Beck reports...you decide. You’ll have to do some of the heavy lifting yourself.
Over and out.
You didn't come to a thread to discuss your opinion, you just came hear to pimp a talk show.