The Color of Your Character

[Geee]

American Spectator:

Liberals really are a single-minded lot: In their view, the only possible explanation for a person hoping that Barack Obama loses his next election is racism. All things political are analyzed through a filter of skin color, putting today's left directly at odds with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream that his children "will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

Conservatives might argue that leftists are hypocritical on this score, that they are judging Obama by his skin color and judging his critics by what they perceive to be the content of our characters -- based on nothing but our opposition to a far-left president who happens to be black.

But what they are demonstrating is not hypocrisy, it is projection. Liberals assume that since race is so important to them, it must be equally important to the rest of us, that it must, if you'll pardon the pun, color our every political thought. This is of course particularly true of the liberal elite who suffer deeply from what Hayek termed the "fatal conceit," a symptom of which is believing that all intelligent people must think as "Progressives" do -- and that all people not intelligent enough to think as they do are suited to be ruled by them.

The moral yardstick for the American left is now "the color of your character."

To liberals, when it comes to non-leftist critics of Barack Obama, the fact that many of us are not black means little less than that we wish the South had won the Civil War.

But when the subject is Barack Obama, the fact that his skin is black (despite his mother having been white) trumps all; nothing that our president does or says reflects any conceivable flaw in character, intellect, wisdom, or even policy.

As most of President Obama's fundraising seems to come from Hollywood and Manhattan, two opinions from the former are instructive as to liberal, and particularly black liberal, thinking. In an interview with Ebony magazine in February, actor Samuel L. Jackson made clear the depth of his political analysis: "I voted for Barack because he was black. Cuz that's why other folks vote for other people -- because they look like them." Project much, Samuel?

Apparently Mr. Jackson forgets that in the 2008 election, by getting 43 percent of the white vote, Barack Obama did better among whites than any Democrat had in more than three decades. Presumably few of those roughly 30 million white voters who cast ballots for Obama did it because they thought he looked a lot like them.

[Draggingtree]

The American Spectator:

 

 

The Color of Your Character

 

By Ross Kaminsky on 7.9.12 @ 6:09AM

 

Liberals have a racial answer to everything they find inconvenient about our president.

Liberals really are a single-minded lot: In their view, the only possible explanation for a person hoping that Barack Obama loses his next election is racism. All things political are analyzed through a filter of skin color, putting today's left directly at odds with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream that his children "will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

Conservatives might argue that leftists are hypocritical on this score, that they are judging Obama by his skin color and judging his critics by what they perceive to be the content of our characters -- based on nothing but our opposition to a far-left president who happens to be black.

But what they are demonstrating is not hypocrisy, it is projection. Liberals assume that since race is so important to them, it must be equally important to the rest of us, that it must, if you'll pardon the pun, color our every political thought. This is of course particularly true of the liberal elite who suffer deeply from what Hayek termed the "fatal conceit," a symptom of which is believing that all intelligent people must think as "Progressives" do -- and that all people not intelligent enough to think as they do are suited to be ruled by them.

The moral yardstick for the American left is now "the color of your character."

To liberals, when it comes to non-leftist critics of Barack Obama, the fact that many of us are not black means little less than that we wish the South had won the Civil War.

But when the subject is Barack Obama, the fact that Read More

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/07/09/the-color-of-your-character

[Geee]

*

[NCTexan]

Yeeehaw!

 

If Obama were only white...

 

I'd love him the same as I love Clinton, Kerry, Reid and Pelosi.

[Draggingtree]

You’re Mad As Hell – I Know. Now Use It To Win.

10 Rules For Using Your Anger As An Asset To Winning

By: Michael Berry

 

Howard Beale’s speech in the movie Network was a fine moment in cinematic history. The frustrated newsman, about to lose his job, was frustrated over the state of the country, and he gave voice to our national discontent by encouraging viewers to go to the window, stick their heads out, and announce, “I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not gonna take this anymore.” Watching Barack Obama and the Democrats every day, we’ve all felt this way.

We no longer trust the politicians to fix our country’s problems, even in our own party, because many lack a spine, and some don’t truly share our willingness to do what it takes.

We are mad as hell, and we’re not going to take it anymore. We want to persuade others to join us in this cause.

We’ve grown tired of liberals and their politics, their policies, and their playground tactics. We don’t care if they call us racists, sexists, or use any of their silly terms against us.

We’ve seen the media campaign for Obama. We’ve seen them slant the news, and insult those of us who truly love this country. We know the media has an outsized influence in this country, particularly when our neighbors still think they are objective. We’ve watched them insult our faith, our military, and our peaceful protests against liberal tyranny. We’ve watched black racists cry racism, we’ve witnessed their divisive ways, and we know all to well this has to be stopped. We are mad, and we’ve been mad, and it builds daily. We’ve not succumbed to hopelessness, we’ve instead gotten mad and resolved to do something about it. As James Russell Lowell said, “When people are sad, they don’t do anything about it. They just cry over their condition. But when they get angry, they bring about change.” We are angry, and we are ready to bring change.

If, though, we let our anger crowd out our message, we lose our ability Read more: http://www.ktrh.com/pages/michaelberry.html?article=10254245#ixzz2094ly2nI

[Draggingtree]

Sure