Skip to content

The Real Cause of all the Hatred Toward Obama

September 10, 2014

Seeing some people on Facebook rail on against Obama and Obamacare, acting as if their whole lives (and the nation) are ruined because of his policy, and thinking how these people so disclaim “racism”, yet are unaware of the “Shadow” (which is the unconscious; so of course they are unaware); I decided I needed to further articulate on how this works.

People identify with their forefathers, who settled and built up America, and share their VALUES. (There is likely a “participation mystique” involved, where people today introject almost wholesale, the values of the fathers as their own, at least partially unconsciously).

•The settlers mostly believed a “Manifest Destiny” that authorized them to capture the land and build it up with slave labor.
•There was a great outcry against this, and it was forced to be ended.
•People holding on to the original values (including the privilege afforded by their race) appealed to the Constitution, and claimed their rights were being violated.
•Ever since, progressive forces have been demonized by those most strongly waving a banner of “patriotism”.

Obama is both apart of the progressive wing of politics, as well as being a member of a people whom the original “values” declared not even worthy of freedom, let alone holding the highest office of the nation, of all things!

Today’s patriots are in a bind, because they grew up in generations where blacks were free and gained equal rights in theory, so they have learned to live in society with them and [in theory] accept them as equals. But they still feel an allegiance to the values of their forefathers.
So to begin with, they see many blacks are still dysfunctional and blaming racism for it (which they figure has changed, and so should be “gotten over” already), so they begin making character judgments on “the community” to begin with. (Which conveys a kind of superiority supposedly based on the “facts” of crime and other statistics, with themselves assumed to represent the “par”. Their counter-criticisms to all claims of “racism” become “they should do something about their own killings of each other, rather than complain about others”. Hence, the focus on “Chicago” and “Detroit”).

Yet “racism” is now frowned upon, and looks bad in the public eye. Yet they feel parts of “the truth” are being suppressed as “racist”.

Hence, no matter what he does, or how much his policies even compare to other liberal Democrats before him,* Obama has taken on a connotation of “evil” that is totally unjustified by the factual data. It’s purely an archetypal evil that they are not even aware of (archetypes are products of the “collective unconscious”), and they try to rationalize it with facts (like his ACA is SOOOO “radical” in a fiscal and an “authoritarian” sense, compared to what anyone else has EVER done), but it just doesn’t add up in reality.
When they look at him, they are seeing something else. He embodies everything they see as “unAmerican”. It’s just this deep resentment, that was already there, and only filled out with stuff he’s done they don’t like. [And then; should have added, they look at his personality and find him not “humble” enough, hence all the stuff about him being “emperor” or “king”; see later comment].

*(And many leftists can argue he’s pretty conservative! Like bailing out the auto giants instead of Detroit, and several other policies. The conservatives simply change their tune, and condemn him further as a “socialist” for these things, while they previously upheld the principles behind them, such as “trickle down” theory)

I see people talk about how all their freedoms are ending, but I do not see them saying they’re foreclosing, losing their house, car and everything. You hear about unemployment, but it’s usually not the same people doing most of the complaining (which include wellpaid political pundits and candidates).
They’re all still living this cozy American life. Some are even retired, or at least further along in their career, and not dealing with job market difficulty. (And thus often use their own testimony of “pulling themselves up from scratch” as private business owners to compare to all these people they see as getting a “free ride”).

So what are they talking about? What exactly is this ACA program doing to them, personally? They’ll point to what we’re “heading” to, but that’s up in the air. What affect this is having on you is angering you so much NOW?

What it looks like, is if Obama is a valid president, then the forefathers, the founders, the authors of the Constitution etc. are all proven wrong on several fronts, and the patriots aren’t ready to accept this.
So he becomes (sneeringy) “Soetero the Kenyan”.
[Edit: I should have added, part of this is the view that the nation would never legitimately elect a black president, so it was bleeding heart egalitarians, and “racist” blacks themselves who elected him only because of his race. (We can see this insinuated in the comment below). So even if not always saying this, it’s in the back of their minds and used to bolster the conclusion that on all counts (his policies, his birth, the ulterior “racial” motives of supporters) he is not a legitimate president].

(They’ll hold up black conservative leaders, but when one of them got close to nomination, other GOP leaders dug up dirt on him, and got him out of the race. Another one, years ago, possibly sensed this coming and refused to run).

Another big part of it is because as this article points out: “America’s first black president was expected to usher in a new era of racial equality.” He then goes on to blame both Obama and Holder for “the bonds that hold Americans together becom[ing] more frayed, and us becoming “more polarized and more divided along racial lines than the day you took office”, solely because of their “recklessly accusing your opponents of racism”. They have single handedly “turned back the clock on race relations in this country” and now “We are all worse off as a result, and weaker as a country”. (In that vein, you have this). Never mind the people with the slogan “2012: Don’t Re-Nig”. I guess since that was the second term election, the damage had already been done. Obama and Holder made those people coin that slogan and carry it around. They couldn’t help themselves.
Another one mentions “the signs comparing Obama to an ape, the lynch posters, the Confederate flag unfurled in front of the White House”, which someone then defends as having nothing “to do with the chaos he has created on our border, his lack of action against ISIS, running guns to drug dealers in Mexico, and his IRS targeting political opponents”, and that “Calling people names is part of our 1st amendment rights”; and while assuring us that the racist names are “disgusting”, they are “not nearly as bad” as Holder Sharpton trying to “railroad” Zimmerman for being “half white”.

No matter what he does; how much he actually compares to other liberals, Obama has taken on a connotation of “evil” that is purely archetypal, and unaware of. When they look at him, they see something else. He embodies everything they see as “unAmerican”, including the spots on the nation’s “exceptionalism”

These people for one do not understand the unconscious, as well as the fact that racist sentiment has thrived in the form of blaming blacks for economic problems (“they just elect people who give them ‘freebies'”, etc.). All anything Obama and Holder (and Sharpton who he then also mentions) and the “promise” to unite the nation (e.g. by improving race relations) may have done is at most stoke people’s guilt; bring it to the surface.

So people who had long stuffed their sentiments have this subconscious reaction (“What you do mean ‘unite’ us?! We’ve already given blacks equality and more”. This then leads to the feeling that the tables have now turned, and in fact, blacks are being favored, and white males now oppressed, or at least the “minority”.
While you can try to blame Obama for Limbaugh and others saying that, you can hear such sentiments going all the way back to the 80’s, and culminating in the 90s’ “angry white male” backlash. Obama or Holder were not nationally known enough to have created that!

So while they figure they have already yielded and conceded enough, if not too much for the cause of racial equality (and thus should, if anything, be given something back for it), the guilt is there; because the sense of “American exceptionalism” being marred by historical race relations and reproved in favor of people trying to unfairly get a free ride, has been under the surface the whole time. (He aso claims the hatred of Holder is solely “everything to do with your failure to explain how the United States government provided guns to Mexican drug cartels that were eventually used to kill Border Patrol agent Brian Terry in 2010.” But the “Fast and Furious” plan this is referring to was actually a George W. Bush policy; from before Holder was in office! And isn’t that similar to the old Contra scandal under Reagan that the Right justified?)

This latter issue I am seeing a lot, of “the border crisis” is perhaps the biggest thing that has become tagged on Obama (but I too saw how conservatives were already screaming about it before Obama got in office), and thus directly tied into the fear that they are quickly becoming the “minority”. This likely caries with it an underlying fear that what was done to African slaves, and native Americans, including the Mexican tribes, will be done to them. They are so anticipating this, like getting themselves ready for it, by seeing it as an already starting trend in every news story that touches upon race or immigration.

This is a large part of why they see Obama as a foreigner who has come to measure this judgment upon them. Even though, again, the border policies they are so upset by were in place before him; it’s like the see him get into office, and then look up and see all these people coming across the border, and then put those two things together, and add them to the old issues of “welfare”, and there you have it; they’re finally trying to get us back for racism.
But of course, we’ve already made our amends for that, so they must really want more. They are the ones who want to wrongly take what’s ours now!

People in the comments of the two linked articles acually claimed “He would love nothing more, than to open wide the borders, and inundate this country with the masses of uneducated, unvaccinated hords of people from South America, south sudan, or any other place where there are masses of people with no education, no skills, and their hands out. He would love to weaken and destabilize and ultimately bankrupt the US by taking care of people that are not the US’s responsibility. He is an American hating vengeful, infantile, thin skinned Marxist radical! He wants open borders, because he does not believe in our nations sovereignty. That is the only thing that is transparent about this president.”

When one of the commenters simply accuses the author of the article (who is black) of being a “sellout”:
“you are pathetic, brainless, racist slug for suggesting that someone has a responsibility to their ‘people.’ Martin Luther King would shake his head in disgust at you for placing a meaningless physical characteristic such as skin color over the content of one’s character. You are a prisoner of your pigment, powerless to think as a human being. And you insult all blacks to suggest that they behave as a mindless zombie like you, driven only by skin tone, not a brain.”

So now, all of King’s work is reduced to that one statement, hurled back at blacks, yet doesn’t figure when people want to scold the black community as a whole (as essentially, lacking in character). The division is clearly, already on the table. (Another commenter even pointed out that what the author was doing amounted to Pee Wee Herman’s “I know you are, but what am I”? “This is not a conciliatory opinion piece, it is full of the accusatory phrases and condemnations that Christie takes offense to himself. Rather than seek cooperation, he relishes the fight. Rather than mitigate that which he claims to despise, Christie just adds more fuel. THAT is hypocritical. It’s like saying ‘stop calling me a jerk, you stupid jerk.'”)

Another one:

“There are names for blind, hateful, ignorant black sheeple such as yourelf- Gives a true definition of the word- Niggr. You still be on the plantation- boy! You carry your chains around as surely as you mimic what your government masters tells you to! You will always be slave, because you dare not free your soul!”

So, in a topic whose whole premise is that racism is over and a black leader is the one fomenting it, this person sees a green light to hurl no less than the “N” word at someone. (And as if simply omitting the “e” really means something).
As I would see someone try to rationalize elsewhere, a person like this probably figures the N word now only means “bad” people, not the whole race. This was part of an old idea to neutralize it back in the aftermath of Civil Rights. But that transformation was never completed, especially when coming from the other race. So what happens, is we end up left with the old “good ones” exceptions, with the word still characterizing the whole race, since these people see the whole race as acting bad.

Yet again, from last month (see

“They seem to want to flaunt their racism while denying it at the same time… They are not racists, but are ashamed of their racism. All the hate…is just confirmation. Hate against blacks, liberals, democrats…Obama, and anyone else who does not accept the conservative view of the world. But they are not racists.”


From → Politics

  1. Totally agree with you.

  2. Bob permalink

    This article is pretty rediculious. There may be some truth to it for some people. But lets get real here, people who don’t like obama as president don’t like him because he is just a terrible president. This article greatly confuses what conservative ideas really are. Cash for clunkers was not a conservative idea, bailing out auto companies or anything for that matter is not a conservative idea. They may be Republican ideas, for sure, but Republicans are about as conservative as Democrats. Yes there are many who will support these kinds of things and claim to be “conservative”, perhaps they do not understand what it means to be a conservative. Or perhaps that is just what they feel they have to label themselves in order to gain support.

    Bush increased the debt by 6 trillion, Obama increased it by over 7 trillion and he still has a few years left. This does not make bush better, it just means they both suck at controlling there spending and balancing the budget. Now that is conservative idea, having a balanced budget and being financialy responsible. When you take an honest look at both presidents, they really aren’t that much different when it comes down to it (and not just with debt). If you really want to split hairs you could call Bush a fascist and Obama a socialist/communist, but basically this just means they both support big government (or total government). Republicans and Democrats have the same goal, make government bigger and give it more control. There really is no difference, the difference that people see is an illusion.

    I feel like this article is more of a representation of the people who think Obama is sooooo great and perfect that they couldn’t possibly see how anyone would not like him. So when someone speaks out against him the only conclusion they can come up with is that they must be racist.

    On the other end of racism you could also say that people who support Obama are just as racist because they are only supporting him because he is black. I call this reverse racism. I wonder how many Americans voted for Obama just because he is black? This is still racism.

  3. It’s not that Obama’s so “great”; the way I look at it, all of these presidents are at best figureheads [in practice]. (A Christian writer I quote, Michael Horton ⦅Beyond Culture Wars⦆ points out how we love to “create idols and smash them”). We put so much on them, and NONE of them can deliver what they promise and/or what we expect.
    To call one fascist and the other socialist/communist is simply to acknowledge that they are opposite on the right/left scale, but both authoritarian (as opposed to “libertarian”). But it seems there’s been no one libertarian enough to anyone’s satisfaction for some time. There’s obviously reasons for that that lie beyond the office of the Presidency.

    To me, it’s been all pretty much the same thing, ever since Reagan, at least, when I was old enough to have some interest in politics. He was the one who was supposedly so great, and I imagine the “true” conservative, but even when he was in, everything was the same as now, and even the conservatives didn’t seem any happier. They still complained taxes and spending were too high, and it was all going to these lazy minorities; the communists were trying to take over, the deficit was too high, etc. Meanwhile, for us, it was the same as well; money was forever tight, prices went up, quality went down, jobs were hard to come by.

    And back then, so-called “corporate welfare” WAS seen as the truly “conservative” value, under the premise of “trickle down”: “they ‘produce the most value’, so reward them for it, and they’ll invest back into the economy”; “Rising tide floats all boats”. It wasn’t just about cutting high taxes; it was also all the rewards and loopholes in the system for them. But when it didn’t work, it was blame “social programs”, as usual.

    So of course, under Reagan, conservatives blamed the Congress. Obama is excoriated for blaming today’s congress for “not working with him”.

    Point is, there are many people involved in government who make things this way, and one president by himself cannot just wave his hand and fix it.
    And let’s not forget all the powerful private enterprises that have their hands in the pot, and on whichever side is in power. They’re the ones probably really pulling the strings, and their goal is to have scapegoats, to deflect and distract everyone, have them blaming each other, as they skate off, under the banner of “freedom”, hard work and “producing value”. It’s not them who take all the money; it’s the lazy poor.

    So if it’s really just the same ol, same ol, then what makes Obama so “terrible”?
    I wouldn’t even go by those “deficit” numbers, because the money’s all imaginary anyway. Notice how when Clinton was in, we overnight went from “deficit” to “surplus” (trillions, even!), and then quickly fell back into “deficit”. This is not real money; it’s just electronic or paper figures, and that’s usually pointed out as precisely the problem. (I’m not pushing for the gold standard or anything like that, as I don’t know what all the drawbacks of that might be). So to judge a president purely on that doesn’t fly.

    As for blacks voting for him just because of his race, I don’t know how many have done that, and it sounds more like another deflectionary tactic coming more from people’s own heads than any blacks actually saying that (and some old video of some caricaturized black “race”-voter doesn’t mean much).
    If people do vote because of race, part of it is from feeling shut out of many things in this country, and now we have finally reached the highest office, so it’s like a feeling of finally becoming more equal. (So of course, when people try to shoot him down as so bad, it’s going to raise questions). Part of it is feeling he may better represent them, and understand their experience. The whole point of democracy is to be able to vote for who you think best represents you.

    I would say racist voting is when you have a choice between two people, and race is the deciding factor. (And also, not liking one just because of his race).
    I do not think it has been so in the black community. For most of our history, they have had the same choices between white candidates as everyone else. They chose whoever represented their interests, which particularly focused on gaining equal rights.
    At first, this was the Republican party, but then when Democrats began advancing Civil Rights faster, a lot of Democrats defected to the Republicans, and brought their blaming of blacks and their “problems” with them. So then, blacks in turn switched to the Democrats, who now were the closest to representing them (and of course, their policies were not able to fix all of the problems. Some may have made certain things worse).
    So now, when the party nominates a black candidate, the community will naturally be behind him.

    What would have been interesting is if it had been the Republicans who nominated a black candidate. If the black community suddenly switched back just because of that, then you would have an argument. Even more interesting would have been Obama vs Cain.
    Really, with people like Cain, West and Carson and some of the stuff they say (especially the last two), I still don’t think they would have voted for them. They show they do not represent us. (Hence the certain names blacks often call them).

    Powell and Condoleezza, I’m not sure how were perceived in the community.

    And again, the GOP it seems won’t allow them to get that far. I wonder what they would have dug up against Carson and West, (and then what those two would think of that, since they seem to think so much like the rest of their party). Or, if they had managed to get elected, then, they would be seen as “no better than the Democrats”, and fill Bush’s role as “the worst” in the party, just like Obama was seen as replacing Carter.

  4. And this utterly disrespectful screed shows that it’s all about racism, as much as they fiercely deny. He starts off on the “leadership”, “the forefathers” and “Constitution”, but that is shown just to be a cover for their true hatred for what he stands for (it’s not so much what he DOES, because most other recent administrations were accused of violating the Constitution, having too much govt., taxes, etc. it’s what he REPRESENTS, and what he IS. Tell us now, that whole mockery “chk chk chk, African language” wasn’t true racism, and that ‘it’s just his “policies” you hate!’

    Of course, according to the original principles of the forefathers, he should not leading at all, because of his race. But they can’t admit that much, so they just keep throwing up “the forefathers; the Constitution” etc. as the code for the real issue.
    And again, many may not be fully conscious of the real motivation. They figure they were “good” enough to “give blacks a chance”, and will accept any “good” ones they meet, so by that criterion, they cannot be “racist”; but according to crime and welfare statistics, the blacks overall keep blowing it, and the observers can’t help that; it’s just “fact”, and so the likely conclusion that their fathers were forced [by the evil leftists bent on destroying the country] to turn these lowlifes loose on the good nation (instead of “letting the good people work out [solutions to slavery or Jim Crow] slowly” as they insisted back then), and now one was illegally promoted to leading the country, so everything he does automatically HAS to be evil and “the worse in history”.

    It again would be interesting to see how they would really respond to a black GOP president who thinks like them, and they claim to like, such as Carson, West or Cain. They would probably still find fault once in, but the tactic, as Cain ultimately experienced, and Powell had feared, was that they would dig up something and get him out of the race before being nominated).

  5. Super-‘Patriot’ Who Hates Liberal ‘F*ggots’ Got Himself a Visit From the Secret Service After Threatening President (Video)
    We may have “freedom of speech”, but a rant like that does raise concerns.

    Also foundthis article, which is very balanced:

    Someone finally who is consistent with the whole “providence” concept.
    He also mentiones one of the excuses used to disrespect him:
    “I am always amazed by those Christians who will dispute the command to honor, arguing that “kings” in our system are the people, and therefore we’re called to honor the Constitution but not elected officials.”

    Never heard that one before. But it figures, and explains perfectly their whole attitude! (He could have mentioned the “He’s not MY president” statements Christians have shared in).

    And these are the same people who complain about the loss of “biblical absolutes” in society, but don’t realize that when their coming up with interpretations like that does exactly what they’re blaming others for!
    In the comments, some people continued to make excuses, like “what about Hitler”, “what about abortion”—”The abortion holocaust has actually now surpassed the Jewish holocaust.”

    He continues:

    And yet, the Apostle Peter specifically calls the people of Christ not only to show submission to the emperor “as supreme” but also to “governors” (1 Pet. 2:13-14). The Apostle Paul calls on the churches to pray and to show thanksgiving for “kings” (plural) and for “all who are in high positions” (1 Tim. 2:1-2).

    After all, unlike those who see politics as ultimate, we recognize that our political structures are important, but temporal, before an inbreaking kingdom of Christ. We don’t then need to be fomented into the kind of faux outrage that passes for much of contemporary political discourse. And, unlike those who see history as impersonal or capricious, we see behind everything a God who is sovereign over his universe.

    So let’s pray for President Obama. Let’s not give ourselves to terms of disrespect, or every crazy conspiracy theory that floats across the Internet

    Moreover, we can teach our children to respect our President, starting with referring to him as “President Obama” or “Our President,” not as “Obama” or “the guy our parents voted against” or what have you.

    [let alone all the “Obummer”; King Zero”, etc].

    And then this good one, from last year:

    America – He’s Your President for Goodness Sake!

  6. who are you [to golf like other presidents]

    Here’s a good article, the day of the election (long before any results were in of course):

    Democrats have not defined the agenda or narrated the story. Like frightened children Democrats run from Obama’s record, as defined by the right, rather than championing his amazing successes as defined by fact. Much to the credit of the Republican political machine, and with equal shame to the Democrats, the far right has been able to convince the public that everything bad is Obama’s fault, but that Obama is responsible for nothing that is good. When that does not work, they create the illusion that what is good is bad; health care comes to mind.

    Democrats have ceded the territory of reality to Republican fantasy. Need a specific example? The media of late have been touting the story of “Obama’s dropping approval ratings” noting that his “approval ratings have plunged to record lows” and have “plummeted” and are “sinking to historic lows.” Only one problem with this narrative: it is factually and demonstrably false. Here is the verifiable truth: from January 1, 2014 to October 30, 2014, Obama’s approval rating fell from 42.6 percent to 42 percent. The year’s peak was 44 percent, and the low of the year was 41 percent. A drop of about one-half of one percent does not constitute numbers that are “plummeting” or “sinking” or even “dropping.” Yet the Democrats sit by and let this nonsense flow forth with no fight.

    We can do the same analysis for past GOP claims about unemployment, the war in Iraq, saving the auto industry, bailing out Wall Street and the banks, instituting meaningful health care reform… just about anything major issue that has improved significantly over the past 7 or 8 years. You remember when unemployment exceeded 10 percent; that was Obama’s fault. There was a daily drumbeat denouncing the president. But with unemployment now under 6 percent, Obama gets no credit, or the positive statistic is dismissed as unimportant (the same statistics with the same numerators and denominators that were critical when the numbers looked bad for Obama). Obama is responsible for all of our ills and deserves credit for none of our successes. This is a childish, bogus outlook, yet remains central to everything conservative. This lack of depth and nuance, and the absence of the art of compromise (actually praising Obama for something), is precisely what led to the extremism of shutting down our government and threatening default on our debt. This lopsided, one-sided, one-dimensional world view is morally and intellectually bankrupt. Hating Obama should not be an effective political organizing strategy, but is indeed in the absence of any effective Democratic backbone to counter right-wing absurdities. Democrats deserve their losses; they ceded the battle before it began. Hoping for failure has become the right’s most effective political platform; creating the appearance of failure in the face of Democratic success is now a Republican sport played to victory by default because the opposing team never showed.

    So what happened when the price of gas fell? What now that the price has declined into the $2 range? Silence. Total, complete, deafening, maddening, huge, gaping, mind-bending silence. Where was Obama’s commitment to making prices higher? Where were the impacts of Obama’s failed energy policies? Where were the disastrous consequences of delaying the Keystone pipeline? Where were the catastrophic energy shortages due to overzealous EPA regulations? Yet not a single word from the right praising Obama for lower energy prices. He was responsible for them going up, but not coming down. Everything prominent Republicans and wing-nut pundits said about gas prices and Obama’s policies proved to be wrong.

    What happened when Obama cracked down on oil speculation (an activity much supported by free-market zealots in the GOP), driving down the price of gas by 12 cents at the pump? Not a peep from the right. What happened when gas prices fell to a two-year low, with expectations that the price will continue to decline? Nothing on Fox News about that.

    Everything that the GOP claimed caused high gas prices are still in place, as we watch prices decline.

    (Allen West is then cited, appealing to “what the military taught me”, as saying “Leaders don’t take credit, leaders take responsibility”, meaning the president “should take responsibility for anything that’s occurring in this country, and you should not want to seek to get praise”. But it’s not about what HE “seeks”; it’s about what certain people give [and deny] him whether he “asked for” or “took” it or not.
    I would have also liked to see the article address the answer the Right’s finally came up with on unemployment, which is that it’s because of people “giving up” and “dropping out” of the work force).

  7. Democrats Duped by the Caucus Room Conspiracy

    If there’s any truth to this, I hope some documentation, recording, etc. comes out, and let all of those involved, from the top down, take their fall!

    Back on the night of January 20, 2009, when most US citizens were out celebrating the end of the Bush years, and Barack and Michelle were dancing at the inaugural balls, a group of powerful Republicans was planting the seeds of your loss this week.

    At the Caucus Room restaurant here in Washington, DC, Republican leaders drew up a plan to sabotage President Obama at every point possible and deny him any sort of legacy.

    Over juicy steaks and fancy cocktails in a private room in the back of the restaurant, the Republican bigwigs promised each other that they would filibuster and obstruct any and all legislation supported by President Obama.

    Congressman Pete Sessions, who was at the four-hour long dinner, even promised to use “Taliban-like” tactics to achieve those goals.

    Kevin McCarthy, now the Majority Whip, said that they’d obstruct every single piece of legislation. That includes things the Republicans used to support.

    The Caucus Room conspiracy had three major objectives.

    The first was to use obstruction – knowing the corporate media would call it “gridlock” as if the Democrats were responsible, too – to prevent President Obama from having any legislative success.

    The second was to sabotage any legislative victories that the president did manage to win – like Obamacare – and convince US citizens that they were actually failures.

    And the third was to blame all the economic damage caused by Republicans on BOTH parties and then come out in a critical election like 2014 and say that Republicans are the party that will make things right in Washington as if the state of the economy was the Democrats’ fault.

  8. While I’ve long heard conservative detractors complain that Obama was acting like a “king” or “emperor”, it fit right in with their typical dissatisfaction with the “big government” liberals have become associated with.
    But now, seeing people’s reactions to the the Democrat’s midterm loss, and how they began speaking of him not being “humble” enough or something like that, and then others who like him mentioning a certain “swagger” he has about him; it’s suddenly dawned on me. They basically are seeing him as an “uppity” negro! (Like for one, they never complained about Reagan’s obvious swagger).

    This of course is subconscious, but it is a big part of what they don’t like about him, that they probably couldn’t quite put their finger on, as I mentioned. Perhaps, if he was at least more “humble”, then they wouldn’t express so much hatred toward him.

  9. So now, they go after the children:
    Picking on the Obama Girls Isn’t Smart, Especially if You Work for a GOP Congressman
    [as communications director]

    “Dear Sasha and Malia: I get you’re both in those awful teen years, but you’re a part of the First Family, try showing a little class. At least respect the part you play.Then again, your mother and father don’t respect their positions very much. Or the nation for that matter, so I’m guessing you’re coming up a little short in the ‘good role model’ department. Nevertheless, stretch yourself,” she demanded of the Obama girls. “Rise to the occasion. Act like being in the White House matters to you. Dress like you deserve respect, not a spot at a bar. And certainly don’t make faces during televised, public events.”

    Ever seen or heard of any other official talking to the President’s children like that? Reminds me of something straight out of “Roots” and other portrayals of pre Civil Rights era.

  10. Rudy Giuliani: Obama ‘Doesn’t Love’ America

    What stands out to me is:
    “He wasn’t brought up the way you were brought up and I was brought up through love of this country.”

    In other words, he’s black, and they know good and well, “the way they were brought up” has led many to be critical of the nation! As my wife just commented, he’s making him the “other”.

    And of course: “with all our flaws we’re the most exceptional country in the world. I’m looking for a presidential candidate who can express that, do that and carry it out.”
    There’s that “exceptionality” again. That’s ultimately what it’s all about.

    They say he’s being too “critical” toward the country, but what they just don’t understand is that “love” does not mean never being critical. What they want is not love for the country, but rather worship!

    Whoopi Goldberg was ranting on this, this morning on The View, and made a sarcastic remark about it “surely” not being “racial”, given who it’s coming from. She also voiced being tired of accusations of not loving the country always being leveled at opponents.

    And let’s not forget this person, really showings some racist “true colors”:

    Dinesh D’Souza On Obama: “You Can Take The Boy Out Of The Ghetto…”

    On one hand, you can understand somewhat conservative white Americans’ resentment toward blacks (in light of the stuff they complain about and demonize us over, like “crime”), but I can’t help thinking; what did we ever do to this guy?

  11. Wayne Barrett: What Rudy Giuliani knows about love — a response to his ‘doesn’t love America’ critique of Obama

    Wayne Barrett: What Rudy Giuliani knows about love — a response to his ‘doesn’t love America’ critique of Obama

    Editorial: Rudy Giuliani’s disgusting attack on Barack Obama: Appearing at a dinner for Gov. Scott Walker, the former mayor drips with hatred for the President

    Also, his cop-outs in the following days were that it’s not race because his mother was white and his upbringing was not “particularly a product of African-American society or something like that.”
    The real reason is because of his “communist” influence. So it’s the old right-left division, that ultimately is used to justify this isolation of others.

    A response to this is:

    Paterson on Giuliani’s racism defense: ‘The president is still black’

    “Gee, you look at a lot of African-Americans, you can tell, that some place there was some white lineage — and guess what, they got discriminated against just like everybody else”.

    Also, their big defense is “They called Bush unpatriotic”. But the key, again is the reference to his upbringing. I’ll bet no one ever said that about Bush! Again, it’s about “isolation”, of him into “other”; NOT US”.

  12. Merle Haggard – It’s ‘Almost Criminal’ What They Do To Our President
    Jerry Myers: Obama has endured the vilest sort of disrespect...

    Ferguson Officials Suspended After DOJ Report Have Resigned, City Confirms

    The Justice Department report, released earlier this week, highlighted seven racist emails sent by police and court employees.

    Among them were one depicting President Barack Obama as a chimpanzee and one mocking blacks through speech stereotypes, using a story about child support. A third described a man trying to get “welfare” for his dogs because they are “mixed in color.”

    Again, these are likely the same people complaining that a “race card” is being played on them (so that blacks can get “free stuff” just as they’re touching upon here!)

    The “chimpanzee” comments continue to prove the racial sentiment underlying their impression of him, issuing straight from the “shadow”(unconscious; i.e.; they’re not thinking of the definite connection between these sorts of sentiments and the “race card”, which is really others simply calling out what is obvious!)


    Repeating that statement over and over should show their utter desperation.

    It’s one thing to say that your political opponents are wrong, that their plans will fail, that they are unconcerned about problems that you believe demand immediate action, or even that their values are misguided. But it’s quite another to think that they are intentionally seeking the destruction of the country.

    Yet that is just what Rubio argues. In his bizarre telling, Obama didn’t pass the Affordable Care Act because he wanted to provide health insurance to the millions of Americans who lack it and rein in runaway costs; he passed the ACA because he wanted to ruin the American health care system. He didn’t pass Dodd-Frank to avoid a repeat of the Great Recession; he passed it in the hopes of sabotaging the American economy. Obama, in short, wants his presidency to be such a catastrophe that we can never recover, because he is so driven by his hatred of America.

    If you’re saying, “That’s ridiculous, nobody really thinks that,”…it means that you’ve never watched Fox News or listened to conservative talk radio. Because these ideas have been staples of right-wing media for Obama’s entire presidency. The audiences for those programs have been told constantly that whatever problem Obama claims to be trying to solve, his actual intention is not to solve problems but to create them, so that out of the chaos will come a twisted, unrecognizable version of the country we once knew.

    And there’s no escaping the racial undertones of this argument, because that’s where so many on the right find the explanation for Obama’s supposed hunger to bring woe and misery down upon us. “Obama has a plan,” Rush Limbaugh tells his listeners. “Obama’s plan is based on his inherent belief that this country was immorally and illegitimately founded by a very small minority of white Europeans who screwed everybody else since the founding to get all the money and all the goodies, and it’s about time that the scales were made even.”

    Or as Newt Gingrich said in 2010, “What if he is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anticolonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]? That is the most accurate, predictive model for his behavior.”

    This ties into this perfect meme:

    Republican Campaign ads are all bashing Obama. Has anyone told them, he's not running?

  14. This folks, sums up the background (and largely subconscious) feelings in a nutshell:
    January 27t 2017 Everything You did will be erased like you never existed
    They have never said anything like this about any other president; not Carter, who they previously thought was the “worst”, not Clinton, with the sex scandal in the White House, and him seeming so “radical” at the time.
    Just like them saying “He’s not my president”, they want to be able to say we’ve never has a black president. (And again, the ones that have run on their side, including the current one, would likely never be nominated, though they claim to like them so much).

    Also saw this today:

    An open letter to the people who hate Obama more than they love America

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: