Promoting The Racial Divide--Another Tool Of Division And Conquest

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?