by Dee Fatouros
I remember
Obama’s speech in the 2006 Democrat Convention. It sounded so promising, so
enlightening, so healing, and so unifying for a nation that had long born the
albatross of racism around its neck. It was such a feel good speech that I had
a sense of foreboding—was he too good to be true? I was correct, he was.
We had not
heard too much about him until he ran for Senator from the state of IL. Prior to that time, he was just an obscure
State Senator who voted “present” most of the time.
“During
his eight-year career in the Illinois state senate, Barack Obama avoided making
controversial votes approximately 130 times -- which, according to other
Illinois state senators, is much higher than average. Rather than vote
"yea" or "nay" on the legislation in question, Obama on
those occasions simply voted "present." In the Illinois state senate,
this was the equivalent of a "nay" vote when tallying up support or
opposition to a given bill. But, as David Freddoso points out:
"[F]or
rhetorical purposes, a 'present' vote is different in that critics and
journalists must discuss it differently. For example, Barack Obama did not vote
against a bill to prevent pornographic book and video stores and strip clubs
from setting up within 1,000 feet of schools and churches -- he just voted
'present.' Obama voted 'present' on an almost unanimously passed bill to
prosecute students as adults if they fire guns on school grounds. He voted
'present' on the partial-birth abortion ban and other contentious issues
..."[1] source
In other words, he never really stood for much
of anything. His Republican opponent was an attractive, intelligent man by the
name of Jack Ryan who would have mopped the floor with him in the general
election but for one thing—his here-to-fore sealed divorce records were
unsealed due to MSM persistence. Details of a somewhat nasty divorce were made
public, and Ryan was excoriated and forced off the ballot. He was replaced by
Alan Keyes, a staunch conservative, but who was also seen as being rather
extreme at the time. (We later
discovered that Keyes was largely right, but that is another essay). Nevertheless,
the Soros dominated MSM, some heavy financiers, and the ever increasingly more
powerful progressive/socialist corps was behind Obama. The fix was in.
As a Senator,
the only thing that distinguished Obama was his pretty face and eloquent
tongue. People became entranced. When he decided to run for president, the
nation swooned. Hillary probably would have defeated Mc Cain only because
people were voting against Bush—even though he was not the one running. But could she have pushed through the Socialist Agenda as easily as Obama did. Hmmm, a possible deal behind the scenes?
At any rate, through
intimidation, chicanery and outright fraud, Obama won the first general election as well as his re-election. Those of us who knew
exactly what he was, (an empty suit under the control of the extreme left, a
closet Muslim, and possibly ineligible for the presidency) gritted out teeth
and hoped for the best.
What did we
get? Among other calamities, a nation
more divided along racial lines that it had been since the sixties. There were
many harbingers of what was to come.
When Eric Holder refused to prosecute the New Black
Panthers for voter intimidation which was a slam dunk because it was recorded.
Were not the NBP actions a violation of the Civil Rights of those whom they
intimidated?
Remember the beer summit? A white officer questioned Henry
Gates having difficulty in trying to get into his own home and looking
suspicious. The situation was resolved, but Obama fired it up by accusing the
police of acting “stupidly”. What did the beer summit do other than create a
bigger divide?
We had the Jena Six One of the more egregious cases of distortion and ignoring the facts: "Jena, Louisiana is a mostly white town of approximately 3,000
people. On August 30, 2006, Jena's local high school held a back-to-school
assembly for its male students only, where the boys were briefed on such
matters as basic school rules and dress codes. At one point in the proceedings,
an African American student jokingly asked whether blacks were permitted to sit
with whites under one particular shade tree on campus. His fellow students
laughed heartily, and the assistant principal who was running the assembly
answered that, of course, there were no restrictions on where anyone could sit.
Numerous other questions were asked as well, and the assembly was entirely free
of rancor.
The
next day, the first few students to arrive at Jena High School found three
(some reports said there were only two) nylon-rope nooses hanging from the tree
that had been referenced by the black questioner during the assembly.
Administrators immediately removed the nooses from the tree, and the vast
majority of the students never saw them. But the story nonetheless found its
way into the media…
Before
long, Jena High administrators learned that three white students had
hung the nooses as a “prank” which had no racial motivation. The local police
and FBI agents interviewed the boys responsible, and likewise concluded that
race had nothing to do with the incident. As Charlotte Allen reports in The Weekly Standard,
“The three students maintained that the nooses were a school spirit-prompted
prank directed at a rival school's Western-themed football team (the youths
said they were inspired by a hanging in the 1980 mini series Lonesome Dove.
Still, Jena High
administrators were disturbed by the perception that the boys' actions may have
been racially based. As a result, the three perpetrators were forced to
attend an alternative school for one month, after which they served
a two-week suspension from their regular school...
The
noose incident was followed at Jena High by a couple of on-campus interracial
confrontations over the next few days -- a heated argument between two girls,
and a fight in which a white boy suffered a head wound that required
stitches. These were unusual events at a school with no history of racial
conflict. From September 9 through November 30, there were no further racial
incidents either at the high school or in the town of Jena. Then, on the night
of November 30, the main high-school building was set on fire and was badly
damaged. No perpetrator was ever found, and the motive was unknown.
After the fire, the school was closed for a few days, during which time two racial incidents occurred in the town of Jena. At a December 1 private party (attended by mostly whites as well as a few blacks) at a social hall known as the “Fair Barn” a fight erupted when five black Jena High students tried to crash the event. The next day at a convenience store, there was a fight between three black students and a white man...
When the school reopened on December 4, football player Mychal Bell led a gang of eight to ten fellow black students in pummeling a white 11th-grader named Justin Barker. (It should be noted that Barker had had nothing to do with either the August 31 noose affair or the aforementioned fights of December 1 and 2.) The assailants beat Barker into unconsciousness in what the Jena Times called “one of the most violent attacks in Jena High School’s history.” Witnesses would later report that Barker’s attackers had “stomped him badly,” “stepped on his face” while he was “knocked out cold on the ground,” and “slammed his head on the concrete beam.” The media promoted the notion that the attack may have been provoked by the noose incident. Yet not only did Barker have nothing to do with that incident, but it had occurred more than three months earlier.
Six of Barker’s black assailants were originally charged with attempted second-degree murder. (These were the individuals who became known collectively as the Jena Six.) Mychal Bell, who was 16 years old at the time of the attack, was charged as an adult because he already had been on probation since being convicted of a December 2005 battery; moreover, he also had been convicted of two subsequent violent crimes and a property crime prior to his assault against Barker.
On August 5, Al
Sharpton went to Jena and declared: “You cannot have some [white] boys
assault and charged with nothing, some [white] boys hanging nooses and finish
the school year, and other [black] boys charged with attempted murder and
conspiracy.
On
September 10, Jesse Jackson went to Jena and threatened to organize a
“major demonstration” of perhaps 40,000 angry protesters unless Bell’s sentence
was thrown out and the charges against the remaining attackers were reduced to
misdemeanors. Four days after Jackson’s threat, Judicial District Court Judge
J.P. Mauffray Jr. vacated Bell’s adult conviction and ordered that he be
retried as a juvenile.
Nonetheless
on September 20, 2007, tens of thousands of (mostly black) demonstrators
from all over the United States descended on Jena to protest the
allegedly unfair legal treatment of the six black assailants. Key
organizers of the demonstration included Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Comparing the case to seminal civil-rights
moments like the Montgomery bus boycott of 1955, Jackson said: “In Jena, for
those who have been under the illusion that changes have occurred, this is a
wake-up call." source
The Duke rape case another travesty, which ruined the lives of the accused
La Cross players who turned out to be innocent. The prosecutor was later
disbarred, because the “case’ fell apart from the beginning. The truth mattered
not, the race baiters needed a racial incident and the prosecutor needed the
votes.
We all
remember how Holder and Obama fanned the flames of the Trayvon Martin shooting/killing by a “White Hispanic”.
More
recently, we had a replay with the Michael
Brown shooting by a white police officer who will probably not get a fair
trial because the Black community has been whipped up into a frenzy, by the
usual suspects—Sharpton/Jackson with the undoubted blessing of Obama/Holder
duet.
And
now we have a terrorist beheading, er, act of workplace violence by a black man
who converted to Islam while in prison. No response from Obama/Holder on this
or indeed any instances of Black on White
crime or Black On Black crime. From what
we get in the MSM those do not exist. They are not reported on because they do
not fit the narrative. Period.
In Conclusion
This
WH desperately needs to divide this nation along racial, ethnic, gender, sexual
orientation, and class lines in order to maintain leftist power. Keeping control over several ill-informed
fractious groups who feel victimized is a cake walk. Controlling a united,
well informed, well educated, and self-reliant electorate is impossible for
those who seek to control and oppression for their own nefarious agenda. Dumb down
the education system, slant media coverage to favor leftists viewpoints,
excoriate those who disagree, and above all, convince the populace that they
have indeed been victimized and only the “authorities” can save them.
Will we ever see this fraudulent narrative for what it is?
