Obama’s racial divide: more is less

It’s all relatively racial and relatively divided, but less so. (in Obama’s reality)

In an interview with NPR.:

“When asked if the U.S. is more racially divided than it was when he took office six years ago, the President responded:

No, I actually think that it’s probably in its day-to-day interactions less racially divided.

Wow, after about 16 years we are back to the meaning of ‘is’. And of course having a president trying to publicly defy reality. However, when convenient, he alludes to the police having systemic problems related to race.

A CBS poll says:

“More than five years later, the latest CBS News poll shows, views on race relations have dimmed dramatically. Just 45 percent say race relations are generally good, the lowest figure in CBS News polling since 1997.”

Read details on CBS’ racial divide poll here.(21 points less favorable than ’09)

“A new CBS News poll finds stark racial differences on views of the police and the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner. While four in five whites say their local police make them feel mostly safe, that drops to 52 percent among blacks. Forty-three percent of African Americans say the local police make them feel mostly anxious.”…/

“This racial divide persists on the broader question of whether police, in general, are too quick to use deadly force.”

Then Obama said in a BET interview:

“I’m being pretty explicit about my concern, and being pretty explicit about the fact that this is a systemic problem, that black folks and Latinos and others are not just making this up. I describe it in very personal terms.”

He went on to say:

“We have a history and a legacy of people not being treated fairly in all kinds of walks of life. It is particularly important for people to feel like they’re being treated fairly by law enforcement and police, because the consequences when they’re not treated fairly can be deadly.”

So, under Obama and according to him, we have systemic racial problems, but we are less divided over racial issues than when he took office.

So much less that he has appointed Al Sharpton the de facto race Czar. If Obama wanted to increase the racial divide, then he absolutely picked the right person. (Farrakhan must have been booked)

If you call progress in race relations having militant Black Panthers intimidate voters at polls without prosecution. Then Eric Holder has done a bang up job of increasing the racial divide. And if you think sending a regiment of FBI agents to Ferguson to investigate and making personal appearances, speeches, and pandering to rioting racist thugs is increasing the racial divide, then call it all success.

While his own administration can overlook and ignore the random assassination of cops under this new/improved racial division, and spawned from this protest movement. Then he can speak about fairness under the law, with De Blasio, as they dismiss the chants to kill cops. So he calls this being “less racially divided” than when he took office. I’d hate to see what more would look like.

Or maybe, in Obama speak, more is less? Just think, he would never try to claim that about the political divide today.

RightRing | Bullright

Obama’s pass being revoked by card-carrying Leftists

…its sort of looking that way.

NPR Admits Opposition To Obama May Not Be Due To Racism But Because He’s Terrible

By Brian Anderson on May 13, 2014

We’ve been told over and over that opposing President Obama’s socialist anti-American agenda is due to deep-seated racism and not any conservative values one might hold. Now, the National Public Radio (NPR), of all media outlets, has posted a piece on their blog saying that there might be something more to disliking Obama than just racism. I know, I’m shocked too.

This refreshing revelation from a decidedly left-leaning news source starts out with a great premise:

There’s no question we’re living in a time of divisive politics, when roughly half the country is likely to hate the president, no matter whom he or she might be.

And back it up with a good quote:

“If any white Democrat had pushed through a billion-dollar stimulus plan and a takeover of the health care industry, he would have been equally detested by conservatives and Republicans,” says Whit Ayres, a GOP pollster and consultant.

Continuing with this line of thought, the writer puts in a little historical context. Obama doesn’t have a trademark on being hated:

But modern presidents have all triggered strong negative reactions. John F. Kennedy met with rhetoric from the John Birch Society that in some ways mirrors Tea Party responses to Obama. Militia movements expanded and grew during the presidencies of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, while George W. Bush’s presidency inspired hatred on the left and a novel fantasizing about his assassination.

“Bill Clinton was vilified and hated more, with more passion,” says David Carney, a Republican consultant. “It was much more personal and negative than anything about Obama.”

This is actually true. Clinton was impeached and Obama has not been even though he deserves it more.

More:  Downtrend.com

Now maybe they are finally catching on, after 5 and a half years. That’s something I questioned about Obama for years. First, why was he so passionate about running when he knew the consequences of being president? He wasted no time either, starting in ’06 right after getting elected Senator.

And why he expected he would be different from any of those, Democrats or Republicans? Right off the bat were his ties with Wright and a slew of other radicals, achem terrorists. That’s always an icebreaker with any crowd. Yea, the speech where he said “we are not a red America, we are not a blue America” to plead his case. Yea, a speech changes all that “history”– is that a derogatory word now? Then again in his “race speech” saying “words, just words?” Those were just words, to Obama anyway.

But no other president has been afforded the privilege of a built-in excuse he (or those around him) flaunted by playing the race card to explain any opposition to him. I predict no future president will have that same opportunity, given how Obama overused and abused it. He kept it in front of him as a shield ready to hoist against any critics. That is a shallow character who does that.

The main point was always: “Obama, have you noticed how just the last few presidents were treated?”

It wouldn’t even be as much of a contradiction or hypocrisy if Obama was not leading the charge in attacking the last president. He assumed the role in the Senate in ’05 . Then he ran against an outgoing president, not McCain, when Bush wasn’t even on the ballot. How none of this ever occurred to the minds of the Left is baffling. If he were anyone else, he would not have gotten that far. He would have been voted out of American Idol based on performance. And this guy who was granted such wide berth hasn’t even appreciated all that effort, including from the media. The media did not lock horns, it lock-stepped right down Obama’s path. Show me the precedent for that.

His disconnect with most of America is because of his own radical ideology and actions. What others think never was Obama’s real problem. No, he believed he was guaranteed the prize for being “present”, like his record in Illinois, despite any facts. Let’s not even mention the records, and zero experience at anything even in the Senate. Pitiful that only now some in the left media admit the “racism” charade. Now if they could find a way to justify what they’ve done for the last five years.

It may be just a start, as they didn’t throw “racism” completely out the window. Well, who wants to throw a perfectly good race card away? But the possibility of the race card as the sole explanation for opposition might be on life support.

RightRing | Bullright