There is, understandably, plenty of outrage today after hearing MSNBC host Touré accuse Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney of what he called the “niggerization” of President Obama.
MSNBC’s Touré … has now declared that Mitt Romney is engaged in the “niggerization” of Barack Obama. What exactly did Romney do to earn this reprehensible slur? He said that Obama, whose campaign has already called Romney a racist, a sexist, a felon, and a murderer, should “take [his] campaign of division and anger and hate back to Chicago.”
Why, precisely, did this comment constitute “niggerization,” and what did that vile word mean? Why was Touré invoking one of the most egregious slurs ever to enter the language? Well, let Touré explain:
“That really bothered me. You notice he said anger twice. He’s really trying to use racial coding and access some really deep stereotypes about the angry black man. This is part of the playbook against Obama, the ‘otherization,’ he’s not like us.
“I know it’s a heavy thing, I don’t say it lightly, but this is ‘niggerization.’ You are not one of us, you are like the scary black man who we’ve been trained to fear.”
Appropriately, the level of disgust for such an outrageous slander has been great. But there is one person who may believe Romney got off relatively easy for being accused of the “niggerization” of one man.
George W. Bush wasn’t similarly slandered for his actions towards any one person rather, he was accused of the “niggerization” of the entire “American people”. And it wasn’t just that he was smeared with such a disgusting term, but that he was accused of using the events of 9/11 to achieve that goal.
So was it some hack blogger on the left who used such terminology? Nay.
Bush was accused of promoting the “niggerization of the American people” by frequent guest of the Bill Maher Show, host on CNN, C-Span and PBS, and esteemed Professor at the University of Princeton, Cornel West.
In a piece for the Atlantic, West wrote:
Since the ugly events of 9/11, we have witnessed the attempt of the Bush administration—with elites in support and populists complacent—to promote the niggerization of the American people. Like the myopic white greed, fear, and hatred that fueled the niggerization of black people, right-wing greed, fear, and hatred have made all of us feel intimidated, fearful, and helpless in the face of the terrorist attacks. And, as in the 19th century, we’ve almost lost our democracy.
Additionally, West can be seen in this video comparing the backdrop of the Attica Rebellion to attitudes fostered by the ruling government party after 9/11.
West: The Attica Rebellion was a counter move in that direction – I call it the “niggerization” of a people. Not just black people because America been “niggerized” since 9/11.
In the end, there’s nothing new to see here. Just as it was acceptable for George Bush to be accused by liberals of “niggerizing” America, so too will it be acceptable for liberals to state that Mitt Romney is “niggerizing” Obama.
Update: Kira Davis provides a great video response to Toure. The YouTube description:
Toure says Romney’s tactics are the “niggerization” of Obama. I take HUGE issue with that term and accusation, as someone with intimate knowledge of racism.
Newsweek has hearkened back to their old school liberal days, replicating a cover story in 1987 which referred to then President George H. W. Bush’s “wimp factor”; except this time it was meant for Republican nominee Mitt Romney.
In 1987, we were asked by Newsweek to believe that a World War II Navy fighter pilot and former CIA head was too much of a “wimp” to be president. Today, the W-word seems very much at odds with the image that Obama had been attempting to paint of Romney as a Gordon Gekko-esque corporate raider. Additionally, the subtext of the article asks, “Is he just too insecure to be president?”
The Newsweek article, written by Michael Tomasky, makes the case:
He’s kind of lame, and he’s really … annoying. He keeps saying these … things, these incredibly off-key things. Then he apologizes immediately—with all the sincerity of a hostage. Or maybe he doesn’t: sometimes he whines about the subsequent attacks on him. But the one thing he never does? Man up, double down, take his lumps.
In 1987, this magazine created a famous hubbub by labeling George H.W. Bush a “wimp” on its cover. “The Wimp Factor.” Huge stir. And not entirely fair—the guy had been an aviator in the war, the big war, the good war, and he was even shot down out over the Pacific, cockpit drenched in smoke and fumes, at an age (20) when in most states he couldn’t even legally drink a beer. In hindsight, Poppy looks like Dirty Harry Callahan compared with Romney, who spent his war (Vietnam) in—ready?—Paris. Where he learned … French. Up to his eyeballs in deferments. Where Reagan saddled up a horse with the masculine name of El Alamein, Mitt saddles up something called Rafalca—except that he doesn’t even really do that, his wife does (dressage). And speaking of Ann—did you notice that she was the one driving the Jet Ski on their recent vacation, while Mitt rode on the back, hanging on, as Paul Begala put it to me last week, “like a helpless papoose”?
The ‘wimp’ attack is sure to make little headway as it did against President Bush back in ’87, since Newsweek isn’t even a fraction of the media powerhouse it once was.
And the Romney campaign isn’t sweating it either, with a spokesman telling the Mental Recession that it’s “not relevant, considering the source”.
The spokesman added, “No one but out of touch liberals care.”
The timing of the ‘wimp factor’ story for Newsweek couldn’t be any worse. The rest of the mainstream media has been referring to Romney as too tough on Iran during his weekend visit to Israel.
Reuters: Romney talks tough on Iran during visit to Israel
Miami Herald: In Israel, Romney talks tough against Iran
CNN: Romney talks tough on Iran
Los Angeles Times: Romney takes hard line on Iran in Israel speech
Not to mention as we reported here earlier, the Daily Caller has revealed that President Obama’s gusty call on Osama bin Laden proved to be anything but. The waffling on pulling the trigger could be considered … well … wimpy.
Perhaps Newsweek is also forgetting that this man is the one currently in office…
Remember when President Bush and Vice-President Cheney were constantly being portrayed by the left as blood-thirsty war criminals? Remember when the media was counting off U.S. military deaths during the Iraq and Afghan wars as some sort of celebratory testament as to how terrible Bush and Cheney were?
So I ask you, why is the man who has conducted military operations in four countries – two of which he conducted without congressional authorization (Libya and Central Africa) – and a man who has now been Commander-in-Chief while overseeing 70% of the military deaths in the Afghan War, currently getting a free pass while he polishes up his little Nobel Peace Prize back at the White House?
Via CNS News:
Of the 1,912 U.S. military personnel who have died in the now nearly 11-year-long war in Afghanistan, 1,343 have died since President Barack Obama was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2009.
Seventy percent of the Afghan War casualties have happened on Obama’s watch…
… The three years of the Obama have been the three deadliest for U.S. forces in Afghanistan. In 2009, 303 U.S. service members perished there. In 2010, 497 did. In 2011, 399 U.S. military personnel died in Afghanistan.
Obama has also presided over the top five deadliest months of the war, which include: August 2011, when there were 71 deaths; July 2010, when there were 65 deaths; June 2010, when there were 60 deaths; October 2009, when there were 58 deaths; and August 2010, when there were 55 deaths.
Where is Cindy Sheehan? Where are the Code Pinkos?
I know, I know, much like the economy, the war was much worse than anyone could have ever expected. And President Obama actually prevented many more deaths through his foreign policy actions.
Pathetic. Hold the man accountable.
The teacher in this clip (seen below) is a point-blank unhinged propagandist.
Breitbart News obtained information from a source claiming that the student recorded the classroom discussion to “prove to his parents what he has been trying to tell them for some time.”
According to the source, “The teacher in this video has a long history of pushing a liberal agenda, by shouting down students. She is very intolerant of other points of view that she does not share.”
When you listen to the audio, you get the sense that perhaps the student should have been teaching the class about First Amendment rights.
From the Salisbury Post:
After reviewing a video in which a North Rowan High School teacher tells a student he can be arrested for speaking ill of President Barack Obama, the Rowan-Salisbury School System said it can be a learning experience.
Meanwhile, an expert on politics at Catawba College says the social studies teacher just doesn’t have her facts straight when she insists speaking your mind about a president can get you charged with a criminal offense.
Although two students provided the name of the teacher, the Post is not publishing it because officials within the school system would not confirm her identity and she could not be reached for comment.
The video captures audio of the dispute but does not show the teacher or anyone else. It appears to have been shot with a phone or other device as the camera pointed at the ceiling the entire time.
Rowan-Salisbury spokeswoman Rita Foil confirmed the teacher is still employed with the district and has not been suspended for disciplinary reasons. Foil emailed this statement to a Post reporter Friday on behalf of the school system:
“The Rowan-Salisbury School System expects all students and employees to be respectful in the school environment and for all teachers to maintain their professionalism in the classroom. This incident should serve as an education for all teachers to stop and reflect on their interaction with students.
“Due to personnel and student confidentiality, we cannot discuss the matter publicly.”
Here are some excerpts provided by Breitbart:
The video shows a classroom discussion about the Washington Post hit piece about Mitt Romney bullying a kid some five decades ago. One student says, “Didn’t Obama bully someone though?” The teacher says: “Not to my knowledge.” The student then cites the fact that Obama, in Dreams from My Father, admits to shoving a little girl. “Stop, no, because there is no comparison,” screams the teacher. Romney is “running for president. Obama is the president.”
The student responds that both are “just men.”
The teacher yells — literally yells — that Obama is “due the respect that every other president is due … Listen,” she continues, “let me tell you something, you will not disrespect the president of the United States in this classroom.” She yells over the student repeatedly, and yells at him that it’s disrespect for him to even debate about Romney and Obama.
The student says that he can say what he wants.
“Not about him, you won’t,” says the teacher.
The teacher then tells the student – wrongly – that it is a criminal offense to say bad things about a president. “Do you realize that people were arrested for saying things bad about Bush? Do you realize you are not supposed to slander the president?”
Holy hell. It’s criminal to slander the President in this country? If so, there’d be an awful lot of people in jail for holding up Bush is Hitler signs.
What’s worse? She is a Social Studies teacher with seemingly no concept of recent history, or the Constitution.
Now it’s one thing if you think the kid is being a punk in his delivery (and he is), but as a teacher are you not better equipped to counter that with something other than shrill, screaming, propagandizing?
In the most lopsided poll we’ve ever conducted here at The Mental Recession, a vast majority of readers believe the economy has gotten worse since President Obama took office. It is clear, that our readers no longer believe the President has the right to continue blaming his predecessor for his economic failures. This is, after all, a man who said that if he can’t turn the economy around in three years, then he will be a one-term President.
Let’s hope that’s at least one prediction that will actually come true.
Has the economy under Obama:
Improved – 7%
Worsened – 92%
The readers have spoken…
Of course, we all know that had President Bush entered into a second military action without Congressional consent, nobody would really care.
Via the Daily Caller:
A Republican congressman has introduced a bill that appears to warn President Obama that he could be impeached if the United States gets involved militarily in Syria without congressional approval.
The bill introduced last week by North Carolina Rep. Walter Jones declares that it is an impeachable offense for a president to authorize military action against another country without consent from Congress…
… Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said during testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee last week that “our goal would be to seek international permission” — and not necessarily congressional approval — before taking any military action in Syria…
… The bill calls “the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress” an “impeachable high crime and misdemeanor.”
Both Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul and Ohio Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich last year called Obama’s authorization of military intervention without congressional approval in Libya an impeachable offense.
Obama reportedly set to blame the results of the study on Bush.
Via the Washington Examiner:
Most of the soaring $1 trillion federal deficit is the blame of President Obama’s spending and political deals according to a pro-Obama think tank that pegged former President George W. Bush’s responsibility at just 35 percent.
While opening its analysis by blaming Bush and showing pictures of Senate GOP leaders, the Center for American Progress said that the other 65 percent of the deficit surge came on Obama’s watch, a combination of high spending, extension of the Bush tax cuts and additional defense spending.
“The analysis reveals that events that occurred before January 2009, including the onset of the Great Recession and increased spending—especially on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq—attributed to 35 percent of the swing from surplus to deficit,” said the center founded by long-time Obama advisor John Podesta.
“The remainder of the deterioration did happen after 2009…”
File that under ‘duh’.
To be sure, Bush is not without blame for abandoning free-market principals, but Obama’s European-style socialism has made the economy infinitely worse.
The man apparently believes he was contacted by the former President ‘spiritually’.
The Secret Service agents reportedly stopped a man who tried to get past the security gate leading into Bush’s neighborhood. He tried to follow a car that had opened the gate, sources told FOX 4 News.
The sources said the man claimed he was there to pick up a package that Bush told him to come and get. That message was conveyed spiritually, according to the man.
Dallas police are holding the man and apparently still trying to decide what to do with him.
He was carrying a gun in a locked box in his car, but he does have a concealed handgun license.
Officals are concerned about his mental state, the sources said.
At this time, the Dallas Police Department says it has no reason to hold the man, however the Secret Service is continuing to question the man for more information. They do not believe the man was a threat to the former President.
Weekend poll results are in and they demonstate a clear and overwhelming economic resentment towards our current President. (Well, overwhelming for us… We’re a young site so cut us some slack!)
Whose economic policies are most responsible for the country’s current fiscal problems?
The results follow…
President George W. Bush 25%
President Obama 75%
There was also some spirited debate amongst Mental Recession readers on both sides of the aisle.
James wrote the following:
“Actually it would be much more accurate to say that Reganomics started this mess. Clinton ignored the problem. Then Bush contributed to the downward slide with his ridiculous spending and Obama’s inability to get the Republicans in congress to stop playing their stupid games and work toward a solution is how we got to where we are now.”
While Michael responded with:
Obama owned both houses of Congress for the first two years of his term. Give up beating that dead horse. Try letting the man have some ownership of his economic problems instead of blaming someone else.
The biggest critic may be Obama himself, however. For it was the President who famously told Matt Lauer that (paraphrased) ‘if I can’t turn the economy around in three years, then I’ll be a one-term President.’
What do you think?
|Whose economic policies are most responsible for the country’s current fiscal problems?|
|President George W. Bush|
|pollcode.com free polls|