Palin: Obama Seems To Want To Go Back To The Days Of Slavery


Palin: Obama Seems To Want To Go Back To The Days Of Slavery

by Liz Colville

Sarah Palin went on Heinity on Thursday to do some sort of to-the-core-of-the-earth analysis of something Obama-related, god knows what, but perhaps hugs? (Hannity describes it as a “sort of bit of information,” which is the closest any conservative has come to admitting how flea-sized this incident is.) And the gist was Sean Hannity asking Palin what all “this” “means.” Something something, Obama’s hug of a guy, “class warfare” and attempts to help the broke suggest that the president is “bringing us back” to the era in which blacks were considered to be 3/5 of a person. It’s true, this — wanting equality, supporting others who do — is a true replica of slavery, you can’t even tell the two apart.

Some of the exchange:

Hannity: Bleebloopityblahblah?

Palin: He is bringing us back, Sean, to days, uh — you can harken back to days before the Civil War when unfortunately too many Americans mistakenly believed that not all men were created equal.

What a thing. What a day. Palin goes on to say (WARNING: CRAP ENGLISH FOLLOWS):

Palin: And it was the Civil War that began the codification of the truth that here in America, yes we are equal, and we all have equal opportunities, not based on the color of your skin. You have equal opportunity to work hard and to succeed and to embrace the opportunities, god-given opportunities to develop resources, to work extremely hard, and to, as I say, to succeed. Now, it has taken all these years for many Americans to understand that — that gravity, that mistake took place before the Civil War, and why the Civil War, had to really start changing America. What Barack Obama seems to want to do is go back to before those days when we were in different classes based on income, based on color of skin. Why are we allowing our country to move backwards instead of moving forward –

Hannity: Whu–

Palin: — with that understanding that as our charters of liberty spell out for us, that we are all created equally.

Incuriouser and incuriouser! Whatever could this white lady be talking about? That welfare encourages people historically deprived of opportunities to continue to not have them? That rich people are more sensitive than others and poor people should be considerate of that? That health care saves people’s teeth from falling out, which causes them to be too elitist? Please let us know, if you know. [Media Matters]

Right Wing Watch | Sarah Palin Neo-Confederate Racist Cheerleader


Obama Campaign Ad: Sarah Palin and the Far Right

“Back to the days before the Civil War

An official Obama campaign ad directly confronts the ugly race-baiting of Sarah Palin, who claimed yesterday that the President wants to “bring us back to the days before the Civil War.”

More Ron Paul Craziness


Video: Ron Paul Gives Speech on Civil War in Front of Giant Confederate Flag
One of the remaining Republican Presidential candidates spouts Civil War revisionism, standing in front of a Dixie flag
Here’s Ron Paul in a video recently posted at YouTube by one of his fans, explaining why the South was the right side in the Civil War — in front of a huge Confederate flag.

Any more questions about Ron Paul?

(h/t: Andrew Kaczynski.)

Note: in the comments for the video at YouTube, I noticed that Ron Paul followers were urging that the video be deleted before it could damage Paul’s reputation any further — so I downloaded a copy just in case.

UPDATE at 1/20/12 5:05:50 pm

And another crazy new story about the Crazy Uncle: Ron Paul Was Implicated In Attempted White Supremacist Island Invasion | News One.

In 1981, a lawyer tried to subpoena Ron Paul to testify in the trial of Don Black, a Grand Wizard for the Ku Klux Klan who would later go on to found the white supremacist, neo-Nazi website, Stormfront. Black was charged along with two other Klansmen with planning to violently overthrow the small Caribbean country of Dominica in what they called “Operation Red Dog.” While a judge refused to subpoena Paul, Don Black would come back to haunt him many years later.

In 1981 a group of American and Canadian white supremacists lead by Klansman and mercenary, Michael (Mike) Perdue planned on taking over a small West Indian country called Dominica by overthrowing the government and Prime Minister Eugenia Charles and restoring its previous prime minister, Patrick Johns into power. The group planned to create an Aryan paradise in Dominica and make money through casinos, cocaine and brothels.

On the day the group of white supremacists were supposed to travel to Dominica, they were arrested by ATF agents and were found with over thirty automatic weapons, shotguns, rifles, handguns, dynamite, ammunition, a confederate flag and a Nazi flag. The plan would be dubbed “The Bayou Of Pigs” after the failed invasion of Cuba.

The leader of the group, Michael Perdue, would plead guilty to planning the coup and turned state’s evidence. Perdue would testify that several other people helped organize and fund the coup and that two Texas politicians were aware of the plan. Among those Perdue implicated were infamous white supremacist, David Duke, former Texas Governor, John Connally and Congressman, Ron Paul whom he claimed knew about the plot. Connally was credited with helping Paul win his first congressional election.

A judge refused to subpoena Paul and Connally despite the fact that Perdue had claimed that both of them were aware of the plot.

In symbolic gestures they trust


In symbolic gestures they trust

“This is simply an exercise in saying, ‘We’re more religious than the other people, we’re more godly than the other people, and by the way, let’s waste time and divert people’s attention from the real issues that we’re not dealing with,’ like unemployment,” [Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.)] said.

A GOP-backed resolution reaffirming “In God We Trust” as the national motto passed overwhelmingly in the U.S. House this week when all but eight Democrats (and one Republican) refused to step into a culture-war trap.

Given that there’s no movement afoot to alter the motto, is it an act of piety or a blasphemy to use the name of God for a cheap political stunt?

But beyond that, why is it the proper business of a nation with a secular government to officially declare that its people trust in God, particularly when the laws are quite clear that you’re no less an American if you don’t trust or even believe in God?

The U.S. Department of the Treasury explains  that Salmon P. Chase, who headed the department during the Civil War, responded to calls from the clergy to “relieve us from the ignominy of heathenism” by asking the director of the U.S. Mint to craft a motto for coinage suggesting that “no nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or safe except in his defense.”

You don’t have to be an ignominious heathen to think a freedom-loving government oversteps its bounds when it issues an opinion like that, then, in 1956, cements that opinion by making “In God We Trust” the national motto.

But you have to be prepared to be portrayed as an ignominious heathen if you say so. The Republicans on Capitol Hill are well aware that many voters, even those who pay lip service to freedom of religion, feel that true patriotism and good character are impossible without a belief in some sort of God.

They are fine — more than fine — with an official, implicit endorsement of religion that marginalizes the minority of nonbelievers. They would freak out at the idea of replacing the motto with “In Reason We Trust,” even though a reliance on reason is fundamental to the crafting of our laws and the daily functioning of our society.

But anyway. What is it that the collective “we” are supposed to be trusting God to do or not do, as the case may be?

I put this question to one of the sharpest theological minds I know, Phil Blackwell, senior pastor of the First United Methodist Church at the Chicago Temple.

“At best, it implies that we trust God to provide a context of meaning by which we can make sense out of public life,” he replied, of “what matters most, what is of highest value, how we trust one another and what we do with all that we have.

“At worst, it suggests that God will help us to win battles, dominate economically, be immune to natural disasters and assume a privileged place in the world.”

Split the difference and you have a banality — a ceremonial, vaguely smug watchword that strips faith of just enough real meaning to let it squeeze under the constitutional bar.

Those who oppose it don’t have a prayer.

Via:- http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2011/11/in-symbolic-gestures-they-trust.html