The Obama Deck

President Obama apparently saw nothing wrong with publicly charging all Latinos and blacks with the solemn duty to come out in support of his congressional colleagues seeking reelection. During midterm elections he appeared not too concerned that such brazenly racist summonses are not only unbecoming of the office he holds, but very inappropriate. And why should he? The sword of today's tolerance movement cuts only one way, and that is against conservatives or perceived deserters of the liberal cause. If you doubt that, just ask Juan Williams, formerly of NPR.

Unfortunately, this has always been the norm for Mr. Obama.

I am Hispanic, as you may have been able to tell by the peculiar way in which I despoil my adjectives. But I would not vote for Obama if he had been born and raised in the heart of Venezuela. I would have voted for him if he believed in limited government intervention in the lives of citizens, the defense of the unborn, and the self-correcting tendency of a capitalism-based economy. In other words, if he shared the same values as I do -- or at least some. That is the point of choosing a representative government.

Suffice it to say that in my mind, Obama's blackness in no way diminishes the fact that he stands diametrically opposed to these principles. And for Obama to suggest that it is my duty to vote for any candidate, including him, simply because of the color of his skin is not only the height of arrogance, but a supreme insult to my intelligence.

This vulgar clarion call to people of color to support his party's candidates as they supported him in the last presidential election also shows a few other things about the way Obama, and many of his democratic colleagues, really think. 

Firstly, it suggests that a candidate who is not black or Hispanic would endorse policies that run contrary to the interests of people of color. This means, conversely, that he would work for the benefit only of people who share his genetically transmitted physical traits, namely race. And it also suggests that without the support from people of his own race, a black or Hispanic candidate would have no chance of being elected. These are the assumptions Obama makes when he calls the opposition "enemies" and urges blacks and Hispanics to ignore the record and simply cast their votes based on the color of the candidate's skin. And if you thought our current commander in chief would never stoop that low, you thought wrong.

But the cold, hard truth is that Obama, the great "Uniter," is well aware of the fact that the overriding criteria many African-American voters employ when casting a vote are the candidate's skin color first and his or her real qualifications second. Ah, but who would dare say it out loud and risk being labeled a racist, instead of a good observer of political trends, which can be easily confirmed by simply looking at the overwhelming statistical data on voter behavior? Indeed, Obama himself is a product of this verifiable trend.

Thus, this appeal to his supporters also serves as an unintended indictment of those who actually do vote in a manner that betrays an unwillingness to take their civic duty seriously, not to mention a blissful  ignorance of what is truly at stake when the wrong leader is given the reins of power, albeit temporarily.

But what is even worse, it reveals that Obama thinks blacks and Hispanics can be very easily manipulated.

This is why I can't help but think that this president interprets the fact that I am Hispanic to also mean that I am naïve, because that sure is what he sounds like when he implies that I am obligated, strictly by virtue of my race, to vote for him. Consequently, I find it very strange that it is always the other side that gets accused of racism.

Consider for a moment what would happen if the following scenario became a reality. Picture Sarah Palin or Mitt Romney, for example, speaking to an audience of supporters and uttering the following words: "I want all of you white folk who voted for me in the last election to come out in force on voting day and support my colleagues. Remember that all those other folk are counting on you staying home on Election Day. You need to go out and show our enemies that we are going to punish them, and that we reward our friends."

Everyone knows that even in an alternate universe where there are no liberals, Mrs. Palin would never say anything like that. She is a little smarter than people think -- and in most cases, a lot smarter. But assuming that she would, for how many weeks do you think that story would grace the front pages of virtually every single major media outlet in the country? And how long before either politician's career is over, due to a poor choice of words?

And yet Obama continues to operate in this manner with impunity. The only difference is the demographic groups he has targeted.

So it seems to me that Obama doesn't have just one race card to play; apparently he owns the entire deck.
President Obama apparently saw nothing wrong with publicly charging all Latinos and blacks with the solemn duty to come out in support of his congressional colleagues seeking reelection. During midterm elections he appeared not too concerned that such brazenly racist summonses are not only unbecoming of the office he holds, but very inappropriate. And why should he? The sword of today's tolerance movement cuts only one way, and that is against conservatives or perceived deserters of the liberal cause. If you doubt that, just ask Juan Williams, formerly of NPR.

Unfortunately, this has always been the norm for Mr. Obama.

I am Hispanic, as you may have been able to tell by the peculiar way in which I despoil my adjectives. But I would not vote for Obama if he had been born and raised in the heart of Venezuela. I would have voted for him if he believed in limited government intervention in the lives of citizens, the defense of the unborn, and the self-correcting tendency of a capitalism-based economy. In other words, if he shared the same values as I do -- or at least some. That is the point of choosing a representative government.

Suffice it to say that in my mind, Obama's blackness in no way diminishes the fact that he stands diametrically opposed to these principles. And for Obama to suggest that it is my duty to vote for any candidate, including him, simply because of the color of his skin is not only the height of arrogance, but a supreme insult to my intelligence.

This vulgar clarion call to people of color to support his party's candidates as they supported him in the last presidential election also shows a few other things about the way Obama, and many of his democratic colleagues, really think. 

Firstly, it suggests that a candidate who is not black or Hispanic would endorse policies that run contrary to the interests of people of color. This means, conversely, that he would work for the benefit only of people who share his genetically transmitted physical traits, namely race. And it also suggests that without the support from people of his own race, a black or Hispanic candidate would have no chance of being elected. These are the assumptions Obama makes when he calls the opposition "enemies" and urges blacks and Hispanics to ignore the record and simply cast their votes based on the color of the candidate's skin. And if you thought our current commander in chief would never stoop that low, you thought wrong.

But the cold, hard truth is that Obama, the great "Uniter," is well aware of the fact that the overriding criteria many African-American voters employ when casting a vote are the candidate's skin color first and his or her real qualifications second. Ah, but who would dare say it out loud and risk being labeled a racist, instead of a good observer of political trends, which can be easily confirmed by simply looking at the overwhelming statistical data on voter behavior? Indeed, Obama himself is a product of this verifiable trend.

Thus, this appeal to his supporters also serves as an unintended indictment of those who actually do vote in a manner that betrays an unwillingness to take their civic duty seriously, not to mention a blissful  ignorance of what is truly at stake when the wrong leader is given the reins of power, albeit temporarily.

But what is even worse, it reveals that Obama thinks blacks and Hispanics can be very easily manipulated.

This is why I can't help but think that this president interprets the fact that I am Hispanic to also mean that I am naïve, because that sure is what he sounds like when he implies that I am obligated, strictly by virtue of my race, to vote for him. Consequently, I find it very strange that it is always the other side that gets accused of racism.

Consider for a moment what would happen if the following scenario became a reality. Picture Sarah Palin or Mitt Romney, for example, speaking to an audience of supporters and uttering the following words: "I want all of you white folk who voted for me in the last election to come out in force on voting day and support my colleagues. Remember that all those other folk are counting on you staying home on Election Day. You need to go out and show our enemies that we are going to punish them, and that we reward our friends."

Everyone knows that even in an alternate universe where there are no liberals, Mrs. Palin would never say anything like that. She is a little smarter than people think -- and in most cases, a lot smarter. But assuming that she would, for how many weeks do you think that story would grace the front pages of virtually every single major media outlet in the country? And how long before either politician's career is over, due to a poor choice of words?

And yet Obama continues to operate in this manner with impunity. The only difference is the demographic groups he has targeted.

So it seems to me that Obama doesn't have just one race card to play; apparently he owns the entire deck.

RECENT VIDEOS