Barack none shall say his middle name Obama will be shortened to B-HO on this page. That is not to be confused with B-a-HO, which would be offensive, unless of course it were uttered by a black preacher about a white woman. In that case, Whitey would just have to understand that it’s OK because Gerry Ferraro and grandma said something slightly offensive about blacks at one time or another. B-HO is shorter and easier. Besides, if Howard Johnson’s can be shortened to HoJo’s, B-HO has to be OK.
So the MSM is still agog over B-HO’s race speech.
Courageous is a word often used to describe the speech. No. It wasn’t. Michael Murphy who exposed himself to a hail of enemy fire to call for help for his trapped SEAL team in Afghanistan was courageous. Paul Smith who protected his company in Iraq by jumping up on an APC and manning a .50 cal machine gun until mortally wounded was courageous.
Giving a politically expedient speech in front of friendly audience is more self-serving than it is courageous. He might have been courageous had told the truth. Had he said:
“Many of the things Rev Wright has said about whites and America are offensive and untrue. I should have disassociated myself from this church the first time I became aware of any of them, and sadly I’ve known about them for a long time. I didn’t have the courage to do that then. I do now. And I beg your pardon.”
Instead he engaged in a long speech about moral equivalencies. Sure he used black and white moral equivalencies, but they were none the less moral equivalencies.
Then even more offensively, he suggests that anyone who continues to examine the Rev Wright’s ministry and B-HO’s association with it is a bigot. B-HO’s logic goes, “Can’t we all just move on, because there are more important issues facing this country than the lunatic rantings of Rev Wright.
I’m not so sure. I’m not so sure B-HO hasn’t internalized more of Rev Wright’s fringe G-D America, Whitey sucks, Jews suck, blacks are always the victim philosophy than even he is willing to admit.
How could you and why would you sit there for TWENTY YEARS if you weren’t taking the message on board? Why would you expose your children to that kind of anti-American, hate filled bigotry if you didn't believe it?
1 comment:
In 100 years when the rich make $110k/year and the poor make $90k/year, when everyone in the U.S. is brown but some are slightly lighter than others, when our language is a combination of Spanish, English, Creole, Chinese, and Japanese, when mass transportation has replaced cars and everyone rides in coach, when each family has 3 nuetral-brown children given to you by the state, when everyone has an allotment of 2 visits to the doctor per year, when the government takes 75% of everyone's $90k-$110k per year, when every NBA basketball team starts players based on their "brown shade ratio", when half of your daily bag limit of Lake Erie walleye are required to be given to non-fisherpersons, when your school studies and government indocrination are given you via ethernet cable connection through your left year while you sit in your government allocated apartment,and when all is as totally equal what will we have acheived? Nothing because all will still not be equal. The morality given us by our forefathers to help our neighbors and those less fortunate, is being replaced by the forced mandates and penalities of a government which has a decreasing morality and increased faith in the false idols of undeserved economic equality and extreme political correctness. It's unintended consequences discourages individualism and the desire to contribute to help others acheive their dreams. If all is guaranteed whether the individual contributes or not, what is the value of the attempt to better yourself? Soviet communism is the latest great failure at equality. It ended in mass dissatfaction and chaos. The government doled out the wealth of their society with no regard to the individuals contribution. Politicans attempt to enlighten us and I am curious to hear their thoughts and ideas on the resolution. Is it that a rising tide floats all boats (greater opportunity for all) or is it the need for redistribution of wealth (increased taxes). The latest explanation by Barak concerning Pastor Wright's damning of America is to explain the pastor's comments by holding up the inequality mirror. When you look into the mirror you then see the problem. Does this mean that Barak is dedicated to improving everyone's opportunities or would he take from me by force what is mine to give to someone else? He has said he will increase taxes. . Supporting a congregation of people with your attendance and financial resources, as Barak has done, that preach the damning of America does not entice my vote. Damning America is ridiculous when you can pursure your hopes in another part of the world. Since Barak did not leave the chuch when it was damning the nation I assume he agreed with their comments. Dividing the nations wealth without regard to contribution may make it equal but not fair or incent others. First rule is to take of yourself before you can take care of others. That is why I will not vote for Mr.Obama. The Griffin.
Post a Comment