White Guilt, Media Bias Soiled the Inaugural
Once again, Obama was celebrated for the color of his skin as opposed to the character he may or may not possess.
January 26, 2009 - 6:30 am
On Tuesday, the media continued to serve faithfully their “21st-century” master. They spewed unpaid verbal editorials and disguised them as background information. Obama should thank them warmly. Their duplicity and propagandizing resulted in his becoming the ruler of the free world.
Always at the ready to project their own faux sensitivity and emotion-addled constitutions into our libraries and dining rooms, America’s pseudo-news organizations, via hagiography, portrayed Obama as a uniter and one whose weighty soul soars above the issues of partisanship and race.
The Brokaw quote preceding this article is a perfect example of the black art that is media misrepresentation. Brokaw himself has been a leftist activist cloaked as reporter for the last thirty years. On Inauguration Day he expounded upon the subjective joy he experienced after Obama won. He suggested that the gooey feelings enmeshing him were applicable to everyone: “I get very emotional. It has been hard for me to walk through the streets. And I think that the day is going to be very emotional. I think that’s good for the country.”
Well, obviously because if something is good for Tom Brokaw then it is good for the country on the whole, right? No. This statement showcases just how corrupt journalism is. The media readily douses their fellow travelers with layers of moderate paint in the hopes of tricking the disinterested into supporting their leftist stable mates at election time.
Mr. Brokaw is wrong. America will suffer mightily at the manicured hands of Barack Obama. His reign of error will turn malaise into disaster. Socialism inevitably equates with the decline and fall of whatever nation is fooled into initiating it. The real Barack Obama is a Machiavellian figure, a mountebank who labels meaningful criticism as “smears” and is so obsessed with race that he wrote a rambling memoir dedicated solely to this topic.
We hear continually comparisons between our new president and Martin Luther King and Abraham Lincoln. Unfortunately, he has little in common with either man. He is not the fulfillment of Dr. King’s dream but instead its antithesis. Throughout the entire 2008 campaign, Obama was celebrated for the color of his skin as opposed to the character he may or may not possess.
Most of the Obamamaniacs I know fathom little about their champion’s nature. They treasure his appearance, hue of skin, and speaking style. They love the hope and change, but what that exactly entails is a mystery. Yet they are confident that he will get it done, but what “it” or “done” amounts to is unspecified.
The hilarious Howard Stern street interviews illustrated that many folks had no idea what the differences between the candidates were. We repeatedly witnessed passersby confusing John McCain’s stances for those of Barack Obama and vice versa. The fact is that 95 percent of black voters backed Obama due to his being black. The only reason they trekked out to Washington, D.C., last Tuesday and crammed into Grant Park on election night was to celebrate the victory of one they regard as their brother.
This is to be expected. Despite what a thousand academics write on this subject, there is a non-controversial word that describes those with a marked predilection for close and distant relations — and that word is “normal.” That a Sicilian trusts a fellow Sicilian more than he does a Neapolitan is normal just as it is when that same Sicilian trusts a Neapolitan more than he would a Russian. That we embrace those most like ourselves is a truth older than the Bible.
Of course, whenever Caucasians display partiality towards their peers, the tolerance-and-diversity crowd is quick to condemn them as hardcore racists. Is there a double standard here at work? Of course, politically correct automatons are — for the most part — white would-be elitists for whom nothing is more contemptible than their own people, country, and heritage. They’re above group or familial loyalty and are too clever to care about what happens to conspecifics.
White guiltists are so brainwashed that they regard race as being a predictor of personality and moral goodness when it is nothing more than a superfluous physical characteristic. Correcting them is not possible. Their minds are as closed as history’s verdict on socialism.
All humans possess the habit of preferring those closest to them. This eventuality is cross-racial and cross-cultural. No pathology is to be found in favoring those with whom you share commonalities. I can argue this with clean hands as, in my own case, race is a non-issue.
Yet I too have a group identity. I would vote for a devout libertarian-conservative even if he spoke in a Martian dialect and exhaled carbon monoxide. Just as blacks view Obama as “their guy,” I’d open up my heart to the Martian. He’d be welcome to stay in my home and keep me up each night as he spent hours committing passages of The Road to Serfdom to memory. That’s the kind of change I can believe in! His views, rather than his green skin, would be the way I’d assess his worth.
No doubt that the next four years will be very bleak, but it is the duty of vocal conservatives to refute the lies of the Democratic Party along with their bootlickers in the mainstream media. Admittedly, “turn on, tune in, drop out” is a striking and attractive mantra for these threatening times, but it’s the coward’s way out.
Conservatives must offer up alternative solutions and sound analysis as a means of combating the command-and-control practices of the political left. The future is now, but there is a bright side. If character really is destiny then our prospects are far brighter than they presently appear.