The Blockbuster Video: Obama’s Racist Speech

October 2, 2012 at 9:39 pm (Hampton University, Hurricane Katrina, Jeremiah Wright, New Orleans, President Obama, Racism, Video, Virginia)

The most striking thing about this video, other than the full-throated defense of the controversial Reverand Jeremiah Wright, is the manner in which Obama is speaking.  This doesn’t even sound like the President who we’ve heard speaking over the last four years.

This is a Daily Caller exclusive, please read the full report here…

First, watch an edited version of the video (full version below) in which snippets of the President’s speech where he was forced to give to quell the controversy around the reverend, combined with snippets from the new video in which he lavishly praises Wright.

As the DC points out, the speech is charged with inherently racist tones and anger.

The racially charged and at times angry speech undermines Obama’s carefully-crafted image as a leader eager to build bridges between ethnic groups. For nearly 40 minutes, using an accent he almost never adopts in public, Obama describes a racist, zero-sum society, in which the white majority profits by exploiting black America. The mostly black audience shouts in agreement. The effect is closer to an Al Sharpton rally than a conventional campaign event.

Obama also adds that Wright is, “my pastor, the guy who puts up with me, counsels me, listens to my wife complain about me. He’s a friend and a great leader. Not just in Chicago, but all across the country.”

The reason this has never seen the light of day is because transcripts of the campaign speech do not match the actual rhetoric used.  As the report indicates, Obama frequently goes off script and ad libs at length, injecting his own fiery sermon into the speech.

One such example:

In the prepared version distributed to reporters, Obama’s speech ends this way:

“America is going to survive. We won’t forget where we came from. We won’t forget what happened 19 months ago, 15 years ago, thousands of years ago.”

That’s not what he actually said. Before the audience at Hampton, Obama ends his speech this way:

“America will survive. Just like black folks will survive. We won’t forget where we came from. We won’t forget what happened 19 months ago, or 15 years ago, or 300 years ago.”

Obama of course, has been true to his word.  Ge has not forgotten the ‘black folks’ from 300 years ago, introducing one of the most racially polarizing administration’s in American history.

Here is an excerpt from my AIM report on Obama’s racial agenda:

During a 2010 interview for the book, Family of Freedom: Presidents and African Americans in the White House, President Obama spoke of his desire to build a “race-neutral administration,” while also claiming that race doesn’t drive decision-making in the White House. When asked about race and how he conducts his business, the President responded, “You just don’t think about it, you really don’t.”

But the Obama administration’s agenda has been anything but race-neutral, and has to be considered race-driven when looking through a history of unprecedented prejudiced actions and rhetoric. Here is but a brief sampling:

In one of his more high-profile comments on race, President Obama waded into the charged waters of the Henry Louis Gates case, an incident which saw Gates, an African-American, arrested in his own home after reports of a possible break-in. Gates and police on the scene gave conflicting reports on the level of cooperation between individuals, and the facts of the case remained murky. That said, after confessing to being limited on facts, Obama acted as judge and jury, declaring that “the Cambridge police acted stupidly” in their haste to arrest Gates. To back up the suggestion that the police officers had acted inappropriately, the President cited “a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately.”

The signature achievement of this administration, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, is not devoid of racial components. In 2009, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights had already declared that the Obamacare plan was laced with race-based incentives, including giving “preferential treatment to minority students for scholarships,” and was littered with “sections that factor in race when awarding billions in contracts, scholarships and grants.” A few months after it was signed into law, the American Civil Rights Institute (ACRI) pointed out that the new healthcare reform had provisions in place to provide monetary rewards doled out on a criterion of racial preference. One such provision stated, “In awarding grants or contracts under this section, the Secretary shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of the following:…Training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds.”

As AIM has disclosed, even some of the Obama stimulus dollars have gone for racial purposes. Joshua Correll, a University of Chicago professor, received $154,563 in stimulus grant money for what is called a collaborative project at the University of Chicago which “outlines a series of studies investigating the role of individual differences in executive functions (EFs) in expression of implicit racial bias.” This appears to be academic jargon for identifying and naming alleged racists. In fact, Correll operates a “Stereotyping & Prejudice Research Laboratory” that has been working since 2000 to develop and refine a first-person-shooter video game that was originally designed to ferret out allegedly racist cops in order to re-educate them.

The President’s policy on terrorism seems to play the race card when convenient, but very inconsistently. In the summer of 2010, Obama suggested that race is what motivates the actions of Al-Qaeda, as opposed to blind, radical ideology. The discussion was in stark contrast to several months earlier, when the administration was unable or unwilling to mention race, religion, or creed when reporting on the motivations of Fort Hood terrorist, Major Nidal Malik Hasan. The Pentagon had released a report on the shooting rampage which failed to mention the word “Islam” or “Muslim.” In turn, while Obama did not wish to stir up anti-Muslim sentiments in the Hasan case, he was more than willing to play up anti-Muslim sentiments when he claimed that Israel is suspicious of him because his middle name is Hussein.

The Latino community has frequently been targeted as a key demographic in elections, but has equally been targeted by this administration in their attempts to racially divide a group through government policies. When Governor Jan Brewer and the state of Arizona tried to defend their borders, the President quickly tried to demonize them, insinuating that racial profiling could result in someone without papers being harassed while engaging in the simple act of having ice cream with their family. This approach led former presidential candidate Newt Gingrich to proclaim that Obama had engaged in “a racist dialogue to try to frighten Latinos away from the Republican Party.”

In March of 2010, the Obama administration filed a brief with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that supported the University of Texas’ use of racial preferences in their undergraduate admissions process. The brief had been filed by then solicitor general and current Justice, Elena Kagan, and stems from a battle over a 2003 ruling that narrowly permitted race-conscious policies in public higher education. Such blatant support for the exploitation of race in education was panned by the National Review’s Roger Clegg, when he described the brief as “a full-throated endorsement of such discrimination.” The Supreme Court has opted to review the affirmative action case, which is expected to occur in October—placing it squarely in the minds of voters just weeks prior to the presidential election.

Here is the blockbuster video in it’s entirety…

Permalink Leave a Comment

Bombshell: Did the White House Cover Up Ambassador’s Murder Because They Were Warned of Attacks Months in Advance?

October 2, 2012 at 8:17 pm (Ambassador, Ambassador Stevens, Benghazi, Christopher Stevens, Hillary Clinton, Libya, Susan Rice, Terrorism)

We know the Obama administration has been actively engaged in a cover-up as to why the U.S. consulate in Benghazi came under attack on September 11th, killing Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other diplomats.  How else to explain the weeks-long campaign to convince people that the attacks were not terrorism.

Now we’re finding out more details as to why they may have engaged in such a wide-ranging cover-up.

Via the Telegraph (emphasis mine):

Now that Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, has confirmed there was an explicit link between al-Qaeda and the attack, questions are being asked about the role Dr Rice played in trying to play down the significance of the attack. The Republicans have already called for her to resign from her post for misleading the American people.

But the real smoking gun is whether the Obama administration was warned in advance that al-Qaeda was planning an attack. A number of Israeli newspapers have suggested that Washington was warned as early as September 4 – a week earlier – that the environment in Benghazi was becoming increasingly hostile and anti-American, while in London the Foreign Office took the decision to withdraw all its consular staff from Benghazi two months before the murders. This decision was based on an intelligence assessment made by MI6 that al-Qaeda was openly operating in the area following a failed assassination attempt on Sir Dominic Asquith, Britain’s ambassador to Libya, in June.

It is well known that British intelligence works closely with its counterpart in America, and if MI6 knew al-Qaeda was operating in the Benghazi region, then it is highly likely that the CIA did too.

Suddenly the Administration’s “it’s nothing to do with us, guv,” defence is starting to look rather thin, with potentially disastrous consequences for Mr Obama’s re-election prospects.

If indeed, Washington was warned about an “increasingly hostile and anti-American” environment in Benghazi on September 4th, it makes this State Department memo (since scrubbed from their website) on September 6th even more curious:

Gateway Pundit explains how the administration tried hiding this memo after the fact:

Here’s what they did – They scrubbed a damning State Department memo from the internet–

On Wednesday September 12, 2012 blogger Speak With Authority discovered that five days before 9-11, the US State Department sent out a memo announcing no credible security threats against the United States on the anniversary of 9-11.

But now it’s gone.The State Department scrubbed the letter from its OSAC website.

At the time that this was revealed, their had been reports that the U.S. knew of potential threats a single day ahead of the actual attacks on September 11th.  But this latest report from the Telegraph demonstrates that the White House knew al-Qaeda was operating in the area in June, had specific reports of increasing hostility on the 4th, and then reported that there were no credible threats on the 6th.

That is criminal.

To have lowered security expectations despite their knowledge of threats is criminal.

This is a cover up of the highest order.  The Obama administration knew that attacks were possible and left U.S. consulate buildings unprotected.  The administration is directly responsible for the magnitude in which those attacks became successful.

And now, they are aware that there is evidence something could have been done to prevent the deaths of these four Americans.  There was blood on their hands, and instead of admitting mistakes they’ve been trying to scrub the crime scene clean ever since.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Paul Ryan: It’s Time For Eric Holder to Step Aside

October 2, 2012 at 7:26 pm (Attorney General, Department of Justice, Eric Holder, Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, President Obama)

That time was long, long ago.

Paul Ryan earlier today sent this e-mail to Romney supporters, calling for Attorney General Eric Holder to resign, and urging voters to replace both he and President Obama in November.

It’s time for Attorney General Holder to step aside.

He’s misled Congress, and entirely botched the investigation of the Operation Fast and Furious debacle — yet he still leads our nation’s Justice Department.

It’s just another example of the Obama Administration’s transparent hypocrisy that despite the tragic and very human toll of this scandal, Attorney General Holder refuses to resign — and President Obama refuses to remove him.

It’s up to the American people to replace both of them on November 6. Let’s call it “The Clear Choice.”

Donate now to vote Barack Obama and Attorney General Holder out of office on Election Day — so that Mitt Romney and I can restore justice to the Justice Department.

Thank you,


Paul Ryan

Meanwhile, as we all wonder why Holder hasn’t already resigned as a show of respect to the lives his department have permanently destroyed, Univision is continuing to report on guns from Fast and Furious being used in other murders, possibly as late as the summer of 2011.

Via the Daily Caller:

When Mexican authorities took Juarez drug cartel carnage king Jose Antonio Acosta Hernandez — better known as “El Diego” — into custody, he had weapons from Operation Fast and Furious on his person, the English-language transcript of the Spanish-language television network Univision’s special investigation into the scandal shows.

“According to investigations, ‘El Diego’ forms the link between this massacre and Fast and Furious,” an anchor read on air in Spanish Sunday evening, referring to two different mass killings drug cartel operatives used Fast and Furious weapons to conduct as Univision reported.

“When he [El Diego] was captured in Chihuahua in the summer of 2011, he was found with weapons that the American government had allowed to enter Mexico,” the anchor added.

El Diego was, until he was taken into custody, the leader of the Juarez drug cartel’s La Linea — or “enforcement arm.” According to the El Paso Times, El Diego told Mexican authorities after his capture that La Linea’s mission was, among other things, to “eliminate the members of the Sinaloa cartel in Ciudad Juárez.”

Holder should indeed step aside.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Official Obama Campaign Website: ‘Vote Like Your Lady Parts Depend On It’

October 2, 2012 at 1:50 pm (2012 Election, Biden, Campaign, Lady Parts, Mitt Romney, Obama, President Obama, War on Women, Women)

Well this seems mildly inappropriate for a presidential campaign website.

It is an e-card with a woman’s image and an attached caption which reads, “Vote like your lady parts depend on it.”

And a comment which accompanies the image states, “because they kinda do.”

You know, because the Republican war on women extends to banishing and/or controlling your lady parts.

Here is the description of the campaign site:

This is the Obama 2012 campaign’s official home on Tumblr. Have a story, photo, or video you’d like to share here? Go ahead and submit it today.

If this were on Romney’s campaign website, it’d be plastered all over the media.  But not so for the Obama campaign, where you will hear nary a peep from mainstream journalists.

The childish attempt at humor would seem to be beneath the dignity of the President, but then we’ve learned that little is actually beneath the moral character of this administration.

UPDATE:  The campaign has scrubbed the image from their website.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Middle East Scholar: Obama Considered ‘Weak, Feckless’, Bush ‘Feared’

October 2, 2012 at 11:03 am (Arab Spring, Benjamin Netanyahu, Brookings Institute, Foreign Policy, George W. Bush, Israel, Middle East, President Obama, Shadi Hamid)

Yea but … Obama killed Osama.  Hadn’t you heard?

Via Bloomberg: 

… all we have from Obama is passivity, which is a recurring theme in the administration’s approach to the Middle East. So is “aggressive hedging,” a term used by the Brookings Institution’s Shadi Hamid to describe Obama’s strange reluctance to clearly choose sides in the uprisings of the Arab Spring.

“There’s a widespread perception in the region that Obama is a weak, somewhat feckless president,” Hamid, who runs the Brookings Doha Center, told me. “Bush may have been hated, but he was also feared, and what we’ve learned in the Middle East is that fear, sometimes at least, can be a good thing. Obama’s aggressive hedging has alienated both sides of the Arab divide. Autocrats, particularly in the Gulf, think Obama naively supports Arab revolutionaries, while Arab protesters and revolutionaries seem to think the opposite.”

Leaders across the Middle East don’t take Obama’s threats seriously. Neither Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu nor the Arab leaders of the Gulf countries believe he’ll act militarily against Iran’s nuclear program in his second term.

Not to fear, we don’t take it very seriously here either when the President pretends to be a tough foreign policy advocate.

When it comes to foreign policy, it looks like it was actually George Bush who had the big stick.

Permalink Leave a Comment