"Here's my problem with this, I'm just going to come out and say it. If I have anything to say against Obama it's not because I'm a racist, it's because I don't like what he's doing as President and anybody should be able to feel that way, but what I find now is that if you say anything against him you're called a racist," Harmon told Tarts at Thursday’s Los Angeles launch of the new eyelash-growing formula, Latisse. "But it has nothing to do with it, I don’t care what color he is. I’m just not crazy about what he's doing and I heard all about this, and he’s gonna do that and change and change, so okay … I'm still dressing for a recession over here buddy and we've got unemployment at an all-time high and that was his number one thing and that's the thing I really don't appreciate. If I'm going to disagree with my President, that doesn't make me a racist. If I was to disagree with W, that doesn't make me racist. It has nothing to do with it, it is ridiculous."
This is standard operating procedure. Locally, Democrats use this tactic against anyone who criticizes the corrupt Center Township gang. If you opposed former U.S. Rep. Julia Carson or now her grandson, Andre Carson, you're a racist. If you want to eliminate township government, you're a racist because some of the township trustees are black. We've even got a couple of radio talk show hosts who play the race card every time it suits their needs. The only way to transcend the race card is to push back. Those who whip it out at the drop of a pin simply don't want to debate their ideas or defend their actions. They use it to intimidate you from criticizing them. People have to push back. There are too many decisions being made that will effect the permanent future of this country. The American people and media cannot shy away from criticizing Barack Obama when his policies and actions merit our dissension.
7 comments:
Racism is one of the tools that media uses to keep us politically divided. This Angie Harmon story is a perfect example - not just of the use of racism - but also the use of the false left/right doctrine that the media has implementted to frame our thinking.
Rather than reporting on issues that are central to everyone - deployment of federal forces throughout the US for example, or Executive Branch appointments of Wall Street CEO's to oversee the SEC and the UDS Treasury (by both parties), and the subsequent regulatory lapses that have led to economic collapse - the media instead focus's on issues that divide.
That's pretty much why stories like this are a non-issue to me. It's elementary school playground banter that gets promoted by CNN and FOX in order to keep up the false dividing lines.
"So-and-so said so-and-so about so-and-so. Some people think that so-and-so is ______ because of blah blah blah - and you need to be VERY VERY concerned and you need to focus on this instead of asking real questions, because you need to understand that half of this country are your enemy."
Sorry Gary, but that's what I see in this kind of blog post. A perpetuation of the false left/right paradigm that the media has been overtly implementing for the last 15 years. This story has no tangible value. It's sole purpose is to deepen the divide.
If you don't report the fact it happens and why it is being used, you can't address it, shorebreak. Obama got a commplete pass in last year's election from the media, while Sarah Palin got raked over the coals. The media vetted her far more than they ever attempted to vet Obama. Anyone who attempted to raise any objection to Obama was automatically labeled a racist. When the Clintons were labeled racists during the primary, it was a sure sign of things ahead.
Didn't Abdul play the race card against you yesterday, Gary?
Let me rephrase, then.
When it happens, the "why racist comments are used" is interpreted at face value rather than for the actual reasons.
At face value, the reason is to detract one party or another. In reality, the reason is simply to deepen the divide. Party doesn't matter to those who control media, because their party (the Redemopublicraticans) is always in power. Their agenda moveds forward while the people squabble over he-said she-said.
For example - look at what took place under the Clinton watch, was allowed to perpetuate by Bush, and is festering now under Obama. With zero change, and our economy is collpasing because of it:
http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/Financial_Tsunami/Geithner_Secret/geithner_secret.html
The left/right paradigm - and the racism that's used to perpetuate it - is used to prevent us from ever finding unity on the most serious matters that will bring down all of us. That is there design. The argument "we need to know about it" holds as much water as Hannity telling Oliver North "you're a great American". We don't need to know about something that is only perpetuated as a means to divide us - unless that hidden purpose is clearly stated as part of the report.
I get the biggest kick out of people saying that Obama was given a free pass by the media. Au contraire, mon frere. Obama announced his candidacy in January 2007 as I recall, and the media had much more time to vet him than they did with Governor Palin---who was a basic unknown to most Americans when Senator McCain picked up as his VP choice. So, anyone who says Obama got a free pass just isn't paying attention. It was spread out over nearly 2 years versus 2 months for Palin.
Not only was Obama given a pass during the entire campaign, it still continues.
Here is a sentence buried deep in an article about the new tobacco tax increase. "Obama, who has agonized over his own cigarette habit, said he woule sign such a bill."
As you may recall, Obama and his loyal subjects all LIED about his smoking habit during the campaign.
WHY does a presidential candidate LIE about something like this? Or better yet, if he would LIE about smoking, what ELSE would he lie about?
He would lie about war. He's placing thousands of additional US soldiers in harms way in order to establish tighter control of strategic corridors through Afghanistan and Pakistan. He's also establishing long-term plans for a permanent presence in Iraq, he's maintaining Bush's status quo in the White House's relationship with Israel and against Russia. That's just the beginning.
The American people wanted change - and change is what they're getting. The biggest change is in the nouns and verbs used to describe policy that has remained constant despite the transition between administrations.
Post a Comment