Saturday, August 23, 2008

The Ruse of Race - Revisited

Although I commented on the matter of race as a ruse in Obama's campaign (March 22, 2008), I am now clearer as to what is going here.

Race is a ruse, a decoy, in his campaign. I published this comment at Pajamas Media:

I’m now persuaded that the issue of race is a ruse in Obama’s campaign. The blacks are “the masses” used for Communist/Socialist purposes. (I plan to enumerate the positive evidence for this purpose in a future post.)

This is going to get distinguished because I don’t think for most people the election is about race. It may be for some blacks (and some whites) and it is being underscored by Congressman John Lewis here in GA when he says that “he never thought he would see the day when a black man was a candidate for President” like that by itself is a value. (If it is, then racism is a value.)

Obama has a history of walking on the backs of blacks to get political power. The results for the blacks he claimed to want to help have been negative and injurious. I’m thinking of the worsened condition of the public housing after his work to get Rezko funded, the increase in crime in black neighborhoods following the bill he advocated and voted for to stop “profiling” when police were acting to stop crime in those neighborhoods, and the absence of results in his education project.

Notice further how he is stressing that the middle class, comprised of millions of blacks, is not going to pay higher taxes, ignoring the effects (because the economy is an integrated whole) of higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy. His actions will hurt them as any other person in the economy and he could give a damn. It’s not the point of his candidacy. There’s no evidence that blacks have ever been anything other than a means to HIS power.

Notice that many of the directors at the top of his campaign are white. If race were the issue why would he have axed his black mentor, Reverend Wright? Or if race were the issue why didn't he go to Kenya or South Africa for his world debut? It is the ideological base of his campaign that has him choose his associates in the past and he continues to do so.

Obama, if he wins, is set to be a huge disillusionment for the thriving and success oriented blacks. In their completely valid desire for a black to become President as evidence that any remaining barriers to their full political freedom are now demolished, they will learn eventually that once more Obama gained power by stepping on their backs as his means. He is consistent everywhere in his record. "How could one of our own kind do this? How could success be so bitter?"

Leaving unchallenged Obama to make charges or erect defenses based on race allows him to keep his cover in place. The real issue is his political philosophy and drawing him back to this will be the most revealing of his essence in this political race.

I predict this to be a growing major issue in this campaign.


Rob Diego said...

Obama is going to have to abandon blacks in order to win the election. He can no longer make race an issue by accusing others who are not making it an issue of making it an issue.

The more it is an issue, the more white people will see him as a race baiter and not vote for him so he has to stop commenting about race at all.

He is trying to win by appealing to demographics that he needs but because of his elitism, most Americans will never buy what he is selling. Also, some people actually know that his economic policies have no chance of working because they are a violation of individual rights. Most of those people are hard working middle class Americans. It is not that they disagree with him; it is that his policies will not work; they will create more poverty.

principlex said...

George Will points out the folly of Obamanomics. Obama says these things because he is a hardline socialist/communist. Mr. Will also points out the use of the word "require." A socialist/communist is first and foremost about FORCE and the eradication of YOU as an individual. His use of words meaning FORCE (against the conclusions of your own mind) pepper his talk everywhere.

principlex said...

This morning, an op-ed from the NY Times on why the election is not about race.

I argue from philosophy and character which are the underlying reasons this race is not about race. The NY Times article argues from concretes.

Rob Diego said...

In George Will's article, he quotes Obama: "I will set a hard cap on all carbon emissions at a level that scientists say is necessary to curb global warming -- an 80 percent reduction by 2050."

Does this mean that Obama plans on still being dictator in 2050? How is he going to achieve the position of dictator with a Constitution in place? Will he just set a hard cap on the constitution too? He would have to be dictator in order to ensure that no one else changes his hard cap.

Let's just say he realizes that he is only elected to run one branch of the government, not all others, how is he going to set this cap? Is he going to mandate it? The President doesn't have that power. There may be other branches of government that disagree and they do have a say. They might also disagree if he decides to send the army out to shut down a bunch of evil factories that are providing our cereal and cream of wheat. Is he going to issue an executive order? Would it be constitutional? What would happen to a challenge to that executive order? Aren't there rules that determine what the President's limits are in issuing executive orders? Or does Obama think that once he is President he owns the country...he is the ruler who can just decide anything and everyone has to follow it, kind of like King George of England. Does he even know how our government works? Maybe we should ask him in an upcoming debate to define a Republican form of government and see if he passes citizenship, elementary school level.

Who will be given the power to enforce our carbon emissions cap for the next few generations? And what if the forced reduction of carbon emissions destroys our economy? Do we have to put up with starvation and bicycles for the sake of the planet that doesn't appear to be changing?

Will climate dictatorship be an elected positon, an appointed position or one handed down from father to son (or daughter)? Also, why an 80% reduction? Where are the studies that support this number? Are they settled science or just a wild guess of some psuedo-scientist. Why not a 100% reduction - if we really want to save the planet?

What percentage a drom in US production will create an 80% reduction in emissions? What if China's global emissions continue to go up to wipe out our emission reductions? Will we settle for a rich China while we are starving?

Will the dictator fight a war with China in order to destroy their industrial capacity? Won't he need carbon emissions to even fight the war, and where will he get his munitions since there are no factories capable of producing them? This is not madness...this is crazy madness.

History will record that our generation was bamboozled by a bunch of radical socialists into believing that our planet was changing due to our own activity. They will call these the darkest days of American stupidity and the image of all that stupidity, the symbol for this age will be Barack Obama, the failed President who thought he could just raise his hands and the world would magically change before his eyes.

principlex said...

The Wall Street Journal ran an opinion on the issue of race being set up as an excuse if Obama doesn't win.

This will be available today and later if you have a subscription to the paper.

Rob Diego said...

The Dems are the victims of their own hype. Early in a campaign the press tells us there is a big surge of excitement and support for the Democratic candidate. All indications are that the people are so unhappy with the Republicans that the Dems will sweep into power. Then reality hits on election day.

Socialism is dead as an ideology and the Dems can do everything they can to deny that they are socialists, they can masquerade as true Americans who love America but everyone knows they are socialists and that socialism does not work. It happens almost every election.