Obama was scared of black men; and more on McCain v. Obama

The latest truth about Obama that Steve Sailer has discovered from Obama’s autobiography is that Obama himself was once frightened of four young men who were black. Yet this narcissistic monster, speaking on national television, accused his own grandmother of bigotry for once having had the same feeling. As he put it in his autobiography, the discovery that the panhandler of whom his grandmother was frightened was black was like a punch in the stomach that left him reeling and changed the direction of his life, because he now realized the ubiquity of white racism. And that same “discovery” of supposed white racism is still fueling the 46 year old Obama today, driving him into solidarity with vicious black racists like Jeremiah Wright.

Right-wingers who blind themselves to this damning revelation about Obama, because they are afraid it will help McCain, are turning off their own brains.

- end of initial entry -

Brandon F. writes:

You write: “Right-wingers who blind themselves to this damning revelation about Obama, because they are afraid it will help McCain, are turning off their own brains.”

Didn’t you say it would be best for McCain to lose?

LA replies:

Not at the cost of turning off our brains like the neocons and Bushites.

However, let’s forget about principle for a second and look at it in a purely pragmatic way, since that’s your main concern here, meaning everything must serve the defeat of McCain. If Obama is rejected by the superdelegates because of the problem he has now with white voters, which the superdelegates think would doom him in the general election, then that makes Hillary the nominee, giving us a more plausible opponent to McCain. So, from a purely pragmatic anti-McCain perspective, isn’t it helpful to bring Obama down now?

But now consider it this way. Suppose the present exposure of Obama fails to stop his path to the nomination. If he is nominated, and then defeated in November because of his racial record and statements, making McCain president, do you think that Obama’s defeat would have happened because of what a handful of right-wing bloggers are now saying about him? Today a columnist wrote out that the first polls taken since Obama’s speech show his support has dropped significantly in relation to McCain’s. Do you think Obama’s support is dropping because of VFR?

My point: it is wrong to say (as some have said to me) that we shouldn’t go after Obama because this will help McCain become president. We can’t know that. The idea that we should not speak about an amazing and important public event altering the whole understanding of who Obama is, because of some possible negative consequence that it could have on our desire that McCain be defeated, is just wrong. We have no control over the outcome of elections. What we do have control over is our own minds and what we do with them. To think, or not to think. We have lived for the last seven years under the political and (anti-)intellectual regime of Bush and the neocons (and now of the even more mindless McCain) that systematically refuses to think and that suppresses thought. Rejecting that regime means rejecting its suppression of thought and thinking, not turning off our thoughts because we are afraid that somehow that might lead to McCain’s election. Which can’t know is true and over which we have no ultimate control.

Brandon F. replies:

Didn’t you say a McCain defeat was the only way to cleanse ourselves of the neocons?

LA replies:

That’s what I prefer to happen. But don’t you understand, it’s not in our power to make that happen. What’s in our power is to try to understand things and to oppose falsity. So, I oppose McCain, and I oppose Obama. If they are the nominees I would vote for neither, as I’ve said all along. I would prefer that Obama win, for all the reasons I’ve stated, but I’m certainly not going to do such a wicked thing as to vote for a left-wing treasonous Democrat in order to make that happen. My main deed to help Obama win is an act of omission: to withhold a vote from the Republican nominee. I’m not going to choose one evil over another. I’m going to withhold my vote from the Republican evil.

But here is your implied logic: (a) I (LA) have said that the only way to stop the neocons, which I said is imperative, is that McCain lose; (b) therefore I should do everything conceivable to hurt McCain and help Obama; (c) therefore not only should I not talk about stunning facts that are extremely significant and damaging about Obama and also are revelatory as to the nature of much of black America, but (d) I should vote for Obama. According to your logic, if I don’t vote for Obama, then I am contradicting my position that McCain must be defeated.

But as you know, all along I’ve said my position was to vote for neither. Do you now regard that position as contradicting my stated desire that McCain be defeated, and therefore that I am obligated to vote for Obama? If that’s your view, then it should also be your position that I should never say anything critical about Obama, no matter how true and important it is. In fact, by your logic (or rather by your understanding of what my logic is), the more important a negative truth about Obama is, the more I must remain silent about it.

Bottom line: I’ve said I want McCain to lose. But I’m not willing to sell my soul for that purpose. :-)

Brandon replies:

The whole response you posted is unnecessary. I thought you were suggesting that right wingers, meaning all conservatives, should take the information on Obama and get motivated to vote for McCain. I wasn’t suggesting that bloggers ignore these things. That’s why I read your blog in the first place.

LA replies:

Ok, there was some mutual misunderstanding here. However, I don’t think the exchange is at all useless, because there are people who do think the way that I thought you were thinking, i.e., how can I go after Obama, given my desire that McCain be defeated for the presidency?

Also, my position is complicated and seems contradictory and needs to be explained, and this gave me the opportunity to do that.

James W. writes:

This is a difficult experience. We have a front row seat for a fight in which all protagonists are despicable. But because of our natures, when we see one in a revolting act, that tends to elevate another in our minds. That lasts as long as it takes for that other candidate to remind us why we have no dog in this fight.

McCain, fortunately, does not fail to remind us he detests conservatives. That is more important to him by far than getting elected.

His twisted understanding of honor is another of his motives. It is more important to him than the Constitution, and so he took us from his Keating Five embarrassment to McCain-Feingold. His honor informs us that questioning the character of Kerry, Hillary, and Obama are off-limits. Because his own character is off-limits.

General Mark Clark commanded the invasion of Italy in the Second World War. He was of the opinion that a gentleman does not read the another’s mail, so he refused to use the intelligence gained from Ultra. That contributed to losses that nearly resulted in an American defeat in 1943. He was quietly removed.

In the same vein I honestly do not see that the little man will have an issue with losing to either of his “good friends,” and it is a simple matter to envision his concession speech right now. Because his reason for running is atypical, we may completely misunderstand it. It is to bury you.

Jack S. writes:

Regarding BHO: we can only hope this is the start of the meltdown for him. You can see the media desperately trying to change the subject. You cannot turn on the radio today without hearing: “Passport Files, Obama, Passport Files, Passport Files” repeated endlessly until it starts to sound like Nam Myoho Renge Kyo. The leftist media hopes this chant will mystically wash away BHO’s mistakes of the past week.

Richard W. writes:

Now that we’ve come down to an apparent two-way race between Obama and McCain, things are getting interesting. Who is the thinking conservative’s choice?

Obama has been revealed to be an old school black politician, peddling a slightly more articulate version of Al Sharpton’s snake oil.

McCain is hated for his embrace of unlimited immigration and his demonstrated disdain for all things conservative.

Choices, choices. You make the argument that an Obama presidency would be more helpful to the conservative movement as it would serve as an object lesson, like the OJ trial.

This week it appears that we have secured, via the Supreme Court, something I and many conservatives have felt was a deeply desired decision—that the clear language of the 2nd Ammendment acknowledges an individual right to own arms. This decision would not have happened under a John Kerry presidency. Thus, despite Bush being the most disapointing pseudo-conservative imaginable, he none the less has delivered some important victories for the movement.

It’s easy to think that a Democrat in the White House will be good. To “teach us a lesson”. But Carter’s term arguably resulted in the last 40 years of Islamic jihad—with first the rise of the Ayatollah, and then the empowerment of Iran’s shadow organizations—Hezbollah and Hamas. These are not tivial costs.

Yes, you have done a fine job of deconstruction of Obama. And your dislike of McCain has never wavered. But still we have a country to maintain.

The way forward is the question. Better a deeply flawed man who clearly is a patriot and at least speaks for conservatism, or a far left racial demagogue?

What if both men lived up to their rhetoric? McCain would strenthen the military, cut spending and budgets, lower taxes, and appoint more conservatives to the Supreme Court.

Obama would, in the name of post-racial healing, double down on affirmative action, appoint flaming liberals to the Supreme Court, and empower the executive branch to run even more of our lives.

What if both men failed to meet their rhetoric, and acted badly? McCain would be like he’s been in the Senate. Appoint middle of the road liberals to the bench. Pass his horrible amnesty bill.

But what about Obama? What if he did what Michelle thinks he should do to make her “proud to be an American”. I suppose imagining re-educaiton camps in Wyoming is going a bit to far. But it would not be a pretty sight.

Ultimately, as conservatives, we know all humans are flawed. We believe that when called upon good men rise to the tasks that God and history has assigned them. When McCain was tested, he pulled through. He is a hero.

Obama IS the Valley Girl another writer spoke of. There has been no test. Rich, guilty whites have indulged his every whim for 30 years. From his grandmother, to the DNC types who gave him a prized speaking spot, to the Harvard Law School students who elected him to the Review, everyone has made life easy for Barry.

It’s a tough call. If we could get Hillary now, that would be our best choice. If we can’t? It’s a very tough call. Does American need chemo-therapy now? Will the ‘lesson’ kill the patient? What rights will we lose in promoting a leftist, angry black to our nation’s highest office?

Is it a chance we can affod to take?

I don’t know the answer. I think you need to write more on this. The question is McCain vs. Obama. Even, after everything you’ve heard about Obama, you say he’s the better choice then I think you must explain why McCain is that bad. I’m still not seeing it. Neither are most conservatives.

We’re going to lose something, either way. Isn’t it better to lose less? Isn’t conservatism essentially about conserving what we have? Won’t McCain conserve more than Obama?

Jeremy G. writes:

McCain is doing well in the national polls right now due to Democratic infighting and the appearance of success in Iraq. However, the infighting on the left will come to an end soon and Muslims have a real influence over our internal political situation because of our poor decision to involve ourselves in their world. It seems clear that an Obama or Clinton win in the elections would be seen in the Muslim world as an important victory for Muslims. Therefore, I predict a major military offensive against our soldiers in Iraq in an effort to influence American voters against McCain. Recall that the Muslim terrorists attacks in Spain a few years ago brought a pro-Muslim leftist to power. It is important to realize this now because whoever wins the Democratic contest that is still underway has a very real chance of becoming president, including even Obama. For these reasons, it is all the more imperative that Hillary Clinton be the nominee.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 21, 2008 05:04 PM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):