Obama Has Disowned The Black Community?

...or has he actually not disowned that racial arsonist Jeremiah Wright? It can't be both, since he said in his supposedly historical Philadelphia speech that he could no more disown Wright than he could disown the black community. If the media do not hold Obama to account for this contradiction, and make him choose one or the other, this demonstrates both dishonesty and a subjective commitment to that candidacy, which is most unseemly and alien to our nation. Combining yesterday's post: Obama Needs An Anti-Snitch Rule To Be Strictly Observed
...especially by the major media. His connections to terrorists like Ayers, and professional race-baiters, like the black-liberationists, and so much more, have to be kept quiet. This is also the meaning of the oft-cited public 'revulsion' against negative campaigning, even when it is more than justified. A large part of the public has the anti-snitch hatred, often to the exclusion of moral values of significance. Recall that, the worse someone is, the more he gets out of a refusal to bring up negatives. It's hard to think of a more anti-moral proceeding, than one which rewards the bad in proportion as they are bad, and power-greedy.
Combined 6-16-08 from: Monday, June 2, 2008

Wild Leftists Were Obama's Springboard & He Remains Beholden
to them, but not to those who are so easily tricked that they will obviously accept any excuse for non-performance. He will remain beholden, not only to the hyper-racialized New Left nihilists, but especially, to the racial patronage quota system that propelled him to proximity to the top. His chump change followers will get to keep hope alive. Rick Moran says:"Obama's relationships with radicals should be setting off alarm bells in every newsroom in America. The question of how the press can continue to portray Obama as a 'bridge' between the races when his closest spiritual advisors are out and out bigots is amazing - and frightening. If the press is that much in the bag for Obama, what else would they be capable of hiding for the candidate? It isn't just Obama's radical associations. It is the fact that on several occassions in his political career he has made actual political alliances with radical groups. I detail his involvement with a Marxist 'New Party' as well as the anti-capitalist group ACORN here. " Source via OBAMA WATCH
Combining this of mine from: Saturday, May 31, 2008
Obama Applies For The Highest Security Clearance With These Marxist Political Associations
Obama Sought Endorsement of Marxist Third Party in 1996 No major media outlets are going to report this without extreme obfuscation; therefore one must conclude that they put covering-up for leftists above our national security. There needs to be a national boycott of advertised brands, as far as is practical, until the major media are driven down.
Combining from: Wednesday, June 11, 2008
The Natural Bridge Of Hybrid Vigor Opposes Referenda Against Quotas...for the disadvantaged in their population-genetic groupings. If the natural bridge is so valuable, and the hybrid vigor so strong, surely someone will be surprised by this development?
From Discriminations:« Obama [...] Supports Preferences-"Obama answered that he opposes efforts to pass constitutional amendments this year in Arizona, Colorado and Nebraska to ban affirmative action in state contracting and college admissions."Using state power to force places to act as if they value openness to diversity, is somehow a source and sign of strength, not weakness?
Posted by John S. Bolton at 11:37 PM

2 comments:
Audacious Epigone said...
If the mainstream right-leaning media outlets (WSJ, Fox News, Newsmax, etc) weren't so reflexively disdainful of Hillary Clinton, they could point out how stunningly pro-Obama and anti-Clinton major left-leaning media sources have been in covering the Democratic Presidential campaign. I know it's tabloid-ey of me, but I daydream of being able to talk to Hillary Clinton candidly for 15 minutes or so, to prod her on her reaction to it. I'm hoping, quixotically, that the ascension of Obama will remove the wool from many white Democratic eyes and reveal that the party really is going to become one for non-whites, by non-whites, and that there's no place for them at the table.
June 4, 2008 12:44 PM
John S. Bolton said...
Geraldine Ferraro has in a way, already given that interview. What amazes me is the way these media people seem to act as if they believed that they control what is observable, when they don't. There is an independent array of accessible facts, which is not open to liberal make-believe. In 1972, these same sort of media elements were believing their own propaganda that the majority is on their side. But black supremacy, and anyone who says that's no good is a racist as redefined for the convenience of the moment? The cowardice of the moderate right before nothing more fearsome than liberal smearing, that will happen regardless, is very weak looking. They'll need to get over it soon.
Added 6-26-08 from: Sunday, June 22, 2008

Obama's Nomination As World-Historical Disgrace
This would be our first presidential contest to be all about race. Perhaps the polity might be renamed the racial states of Un-America; this represents such a watershed, to have a racial election for the presidency. I'm not the only one to find fault with this appearance of racial politics at the level of the highest security clearance.
[Lt. Col. Allen] West Answers Obama: "...the Presidential candidate who was supposed to be such a 'uniter' and transcend race is the one talking about it the most. If Senator Obama was confident in his abilities and character, he would not need to create a crutch for failure. Senator Obama has just tipped his hand, any criticism of him and his policies will be directly attributed to racism.
"If the valuing of openness to diversity had good arguments in its favor, why would there be continual and pervasive recourse to smearing all opposition, as driven by racial hatred against the 'diversity'? Those with strong arguments generally don't use such methods, as they don't need to.
I posted this on: Friday, June 20, 2008The Left Picks Issues So As To Smear Opponents As Motivated By Racial Or Population-Genetic Hatred
The power-greedy in general do this, with the left in the forefront always, because there is no sensible argument for a move to the left, nor for any such move, which would greatly increase the power of officials domestically. This is how Obama got favored, and the meaning of it:
Choose an issue so as to smear opponents (as in the title). The issue chosen is whether there should be a black president, yes or no, and no other issues allowed (through major media), and prove you're not racist, and no evasions unless you're running scared. See how this works, and how viciously helpless and incompetent the right is before this approach? Will even one of them, before a large public, say:
You (or they) HAVE to smear opponents (of e.g.-Obama) as driven by racial hatred, BECAUSE there is no argument for more power to be granted (to officials domestically)? No other answer will work though, or none, which is not a variant of the above. Defensiveness and acting wounded looks weak, evasion will be pursued, and so on. Added 21st of 6-08: Now it seems that congressional candidate Col. West may have a reasonably good answer, that will work, though probably not to the extent of stopping the left from using such rhetorical approaches.
Posted by John S. Bolton
Added 9-27-08 from Thursday, September 25, 2008

Look At Some Pictures Of Young Americans In Uniform, There's No Way You Could Want Terrorist-Friendly Obama...
as their commander-in-chief. Stanley Kurtz (Author Archive) has been showing how deeply intertwined the self-admitted terrorist Ayers and Obama have been, and it looks as though the convicted terrorist Dohrn, working at Obama's lawfirm employer with him, was the go-between. Terrorist-friendliness and being commander-in-chief of the armed forces are not compatible, and the people will not vote for that combination. The major media news blackout on Obama's terrorist-friendly rise from obscurity, is the reason that there isn't already a landslide defeat showing up for him in the polls.
Quoting from Roger Clegg:"For starters, it really cannot be seriously contended that Obama would have been nominated in the first place had he been white. A key part of his attraction, which is his charisma, is his race. Does anyone really believe that he would have attracted the same passionate support had he not been African American, or that any comparably qualified white state legislator would find himself the presidential nominee less than four years later? You don’t have to be Geraldine Ferraro, you don’t have to call this affirmative action, and at this point you don’t even have to oppose Senator Obama, to admit that this happens to be true.Second, and for similar reasons, while there are those who will not vote for Obama in the general election because he is black, there are many who will be voting for him precisely for that reason...." [found on Discriminations]