Erik Rush
Is it because he's black?
By Erik Rush
Just how much — if such a thing can be reliably quantified — relating to the presidential campaign of Barack Obama can be traced to his ethnicity?
Some might assert that everything — or nearly everything — apropos the Obama campaign, save for the careful manner in which he has employed his rhetoric has to do with the fact that he is black, due to the overall cultural climate in America.
An irony exists in that Obama's oft-mentioned relative inexperience might prove to be both a strength and a weakness. In the case of his battle for the nomination with Hillary Clinton, it has been a distinct advantage. While both can articulate their vague far Left rhetoric exceptionally well, Obama is charismatic, while Clinton is a harpy. Obama is charming and disarming, while Clinton is shrill and unfeminine. Many Americans are quite sure Clinton is capricious, narcissistic and possibly larcenous. They have no idea — due to the aforementioned inexperience and by the chary designs of Obama and his handlers — of what he is really all about.
It's a classic case of choosing the devil they don't know...
Logic and the enthusiasm for Barack Obama indicate that America is and should be as prepared to elect a qualified black individual for president as any other ethnicity. An honest appraisal of the Obama phenomenon must take his ethnicity into account due to the aforementioned cultural climate.
A significant number of Americans believe that most blacks are still being ground into disenfranchisement by the white majority. Elements of the far Left establishment media have fostered this idea quite effectively, and it is embraced by untold numbers of ethnic minorities and liberal whites alike.
One must however, take care not to make blanket indictments concerning the effect of ethnicity on Obama's campaign versus the usual media bias and commonplace campaign machinations, lest one miss significant truths about the candidate, the process and the existing zeitgeist.
America appears to be ready to accept a black man as President of the United States. The contemplative voter might ask themselves then, why a Dr. Alan Keyes has been overlooked — a man who has a track record in and knowledge of government, and who possesses a command of the English language that would (figuratively) reduce Barack Obama to a babbling, incontinent psych patient? For many, this question will be rhetorical and speaks to the corruption of mind in government and in the way our electoral process has been subverted by party leadership and special interests.
Campaign Issues: I've asserted previously in this space that none of the remaining Republican or Democrat candidates have satisfactorily addressed issues important to Americans, the exception being their pleading in favor of those universally advocated by the majority of their supporters. Therefore, it would be disingenuous to declare that Obama has been given a pass on this one "because he's black."
Background: While Obama's personal background (and there are extremely important subsets to this topic that will become apparent) has been given token scrutiny, his political background has been overlooked even more. His politics and voting record (as opposed to accusations of the Right) show him to be the most liberal senator in Congress. On its face, this would appear to be a severe handicap, however his personal appeal, a detached Bush administration and the success of anti-Republican propaganda have served to neutralize this factor to no small degree. While Bill Clinton was considered a liberal, in practice he was far more of a centrist as President; having been governor of a state which faithfully upholds the death penalty speaks for itself. It was also pretty clear that he had adulterous tendencies long before November of 1992. So in this instance as well I would have to lean toward the political process being to blame for the lack of attention to Obama's background moreso than his ethnicity.
Faith/Religion: One of the major issues surrounding George W. Bush has been his status as an evangelical Christian, a point we know to be quite contentious in the eyes of our Islamofascist enemies. While it is impossible for the rational mind to believe that one's faith would have no bearing on their entire life, Bush has been compelled to convey that his faith is "personal," and that his actions as President are dictated by law and his sense of service to the American people. Still, the media has continued to infer that we have a backward, superstitious, snake-handling witch doctor in the Oval Office. Former candidates Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee were thoroughly flayed by the press vis-à-vis their religious beliefs. Yet no one in the establishment media has made a major issue of Barack Obama belonging to an unapologetically afrocentric church that is led by the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, a racist, anti-American militant who supports the likes of Nation of Islam gangster Louis Farrakhan.
This is an issue in which Obama's ethnicity plays a major part. There is still a perverted sense of parity on the part of Americans and the press. In general, and in politics in particular, racist beliefs and rhetoric are overlooked or accepted in blacks and other minorities "because they've been oppressed." This is an intellectually dishonest and dangerous view that is tantamount to allowing a man mistakenly jailed for committing a crime to commit that crime upon release as some sort of restitution on the part of the public for jailing him. If it was revealed that a white presidential candidate belonged to, had ties to, or had even spoken to the white equivalent of Jeremiah Wright, that candidate would be consigned to a life of hermitage.
Faux pas: The far Left press is always poised to seize upon any perceived improper action or speech on the part of candidates, regardless of party because 1) it makes for good ratings, and 2) the far Left has no compunction as regards "eating its own" if such action is considered expedient. In the same regard as with the above issue, I believe that Barack Obama's dispensing with wearing an American flag on his lapel and refusal to place hand over heart and recite the Pledge of Allegiance in September of 2007 relates directly to his ethnicity and the phenomenon of excusing minorities' lack of patriotic zeal due to past disenfranchisement.
Associations: Obama's ties to Chicago's Trinity United Church notwithstanding, there is the following question: Given afrocentric leanings, questionable patriotism, the advantage of America's warped sense of parity and the fact that political candidates are often less than forthright concerning their true beliefs and goals, what will Obama's position on social issues be if he is elected? More importantly, who will wind up having access to the President and to sensitive information? If Americans were concerned about the Bill Clinton administration giving political access to criminals and agents of Communist China, why do they appear to be blissfully unconcerned with such access being given to the likes of Louis Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and unforeseen agents of anti-Americanism and black separatism?
Finally, there are other Obama friends and associates who make Bill Clinton and Al Gore's highly questionable and occasionally felonious political pals look like the proverbial boy scouts: Rashid Khalidi, a supporter of Palestinian terrorists, Bill Ayers, a terrorist bomber, and Antoin "Tony" Rezko, a Syrian-American who is currently in federal detention awaiting trial in connection with appropriating approximately $6 million from Illinois taxpayers through kickback plots.
Overall: The fact that dubious aspects of Barack Obama and his candidacy have been overlooked on account of his ethnicity — whether by design or through imprudent logic — looms large, in my opinion. It is no secret that this columnist would prefer a conservative president. Unfortunately, there are no conservatives currently running for president. John McCain may be a weak Republican candidate and Hillary Clinton may be an autocratic socialist elite, but Obama could be the first American president who actually harbors ill will toward the very nation he would lead, many of its citizens, and at least one of our most loyal allies.
© Erik Rush
Just how much — if such a thing can be reliably quantified — relating to the presidential campaign of Barack Obama can be traced to his ethnicity?
Some might assert that everything — or nearly everything — apropos the Obama campaign, save for the careful manner in which he has employed his rhetoric has to do with the fact that he is black, due to the overall cultural climate in America.
An irony exists in that Obama's oft-mentioned relative inexperience might prove to be both a strength and a weakness. In the case of his battle for the nomination with Hillary Clinton, it has been a distinct advantage. While both can articulate their vague far Left rhetoric exceptionally well, Obama is charismatic, while Clinton is a harpy. Obama is charming and disarming, while Clinton is shrill and unfeminine. Many Americans are quite sure Clinton is capricious, narcissistic and possibly larcenous. They have no idea — due to the aforementioned inexperience and by the chary designs of Obama and his handlers — of what he is really all about.
It's a classic case of choosing the devil they don't know...
Logic and the enthusiasm for Barack Obama indicate that America is and should be as prepared to elect a qualified black individual for president as any other ethnicity. An honest appraisal of the Obama phenomenon must take his ethnicity into account due to the aforementioned cultural climate.
A significant number of Americans believe that most blacks are still being ground into disenfranchisement by the white majority. Elements of the far Left establishment media have fostered this idea quite effectively, and it is embraced by untold numbers of ethnic minorities and liberal whites alike.
One must however, take care not to make blanket indictments concerning the effect of ethnicity on Obama's campaign versus the usual media bias and commonplace campaign machinations, lest one miss significant truths about the candidate, the process and the existing zeitgeist.
America appears to be ready to accept a black man as President of the United States. The contemplative voter might ask themselves then, why a Dr. Alan Keyes has been overlooked — a man who has a track record in and knowledge of government, and who possesses a command of the English language that would (figuratively) reduce Barack Obama to a babbling, incontinent psych patient? For many, this question will be rhetorical and speaks to the corruption of mind in government and in the way our electoral process has been subverted by party leadership and special interests.
Campaign Issues: I've asserted previously in this space that none of the remaining Republican or Democrat candidates have satisfactorily addressed issues important to Americans, the exception being their pleading in favor of those universally advocated by the majority of their supporters. Therefore, it would be disingenuous to declare that Obama has been given a pass on this one "because he's black."
Background: While Obama's personal background (and there are extremely important subsets to this topic that will become apparent) has been given token scrutiny, his political background has been overlooked even more. His politics and voting record (as opposed to accusations of the Right) show him to be the most liberal senator in Congress. On its face, this would appear to be a severe handicap, however his personal appeal, a detached Bush administration and the success of anti-Republican propaganda have served to neutralize this factor to no small degree. While Bill Clinton was considered a liberal, in practice he was far more of a centrist as President; having been governor of a state which faithfully upholds the death penalty speaks for itself. It was also pretty clear that he had adulterous tendencies long before November of 1992. So in this instance as well I would have to lean toward the political process being to blame for the lack of attention to Obama's background moreso than his ethnicity.
Faith/Religion: One of the major issues surrounding George W. Bush has been his status as an evangelical Christian, a point we know to be quite contentious in the eyes of our Islamofascist enemies. While it is impossible for the rational mind to believe that one's faith would have no bearing on their entire life, Bush has been compelled to convey that his faith is "personal," and that his actions as President are dictated by law and his sense of service to the American people. Still, the media has continued to infer that we have a backward, superstitious, snake-handling witch doctor in the Oval Office. Former candidates Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee were thoroughly flayed by the press vis-à-vis their religious beliefs. Yet no one in the establishment media has made a major issue of Barack Obama belonging to an unapologetically afrocentric church that is led by the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, a racist, anti-American militant who supports the likes of Nation of Islam gangster Louis Farrakhan.
This is an issue in which Obama's ethnicity plays a major part. There is still a perverted sense of parity on the part of Americans and the press. In general, and in politics in particular, racist beliefs and rhetoric are overlooked or accepted in blacks and other minorities "because they've been oppressed." This is an intellectually dishonest and dangerous view that is tantamount to allowing a man mistakenly jailed for committing a crime to commit that crime upon release as some sort of restitution on the part of the public for jailing him. If it was revealed that a white presidential candidate belonged to, had ties to, or had even spoken to the white equivalent of Jeremiah Wright, that candidate would be consigned to a life of hermitage.
Faux pas: The far Left press is always poised to seize upon any perceived improper action or speech on the part of candidates, regardless of party because 1) it makes for good ratings, and 2) the far Left has no compunction as regards "eating its own" if such action is considered expedient. In the same regard as with the above issue, I believe that Barack Obama's dispensing with wearing an American flag on his lapel and refusal to place hand over heart and recite the Pledge of Allegiance in September of 2007 relates directly to his ethnicity and the phenomenon of excusing minorities' lack of patriotic zeal due to past disenfranchisement.
Associations: Obama's ties to Chicago's Trinity United Church notwithstanding, there is the following question: Given afrocentric leanings, questionable patriotism, the advantage of America's warped sense of parity and the fact that political candidates are often less than forthright concerning their true beliefs and goals, what will Obama's position on social issues be if he is elected? More importantly, who will wind up having access to the President and to sensitive information? If Americans were concerned about the Bill Clinton administration giving political access to criminals and agents of Communist China, why do they appear to be blissfully unconcerned with such access being given to the likes of Louis Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and unforeseen agents of anti-Americanism and black separatism?
Finally, there are other Obama friends and associates who make Bill Clinton and Al Gore's highly questionable and occasionally felonious political pals look like the proverbial boy scouts: Rashid Khalidi, a supporter of Palestinian terrorists, Bill Ayers, a terrorist bomber, and Antoin "Tony" Rezko, a Syrian-American who is currently in federal detention awaiting trial in connection with appropriating approximately $6 million from Illinois taxpayers through kickback plots.
Overall: The fact that dubious aspects of Barack Obama and his candidacy have been overlooked on account of his ethnicity — whether by design or through imprudent logic — looms large, in my opinion. It is no secret that this columnist would prefer a conservative president. Unfortunately, there are no conservatives currently running for president. John McCain may be a weak Republican candidate and Hillary Clinton may be an autocratic socialist elite, but Obama could be the first American president who actually harbors ill will toward the very nation he would lead, many of its citizens, and at least one of our most loyal allies.
© Erik Rush
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
