Thursday, January 22, 2009

Forget the liberals thinking that Obama is the Messiah, now they want to be black!

Blogger makes 27 racial references without mentioning Obama’s character or qualifications, and accuses me of being the racist just for pointing it out

by Larry Simons
January 22, 2009

Blogger Andy Ostroy, like the rest of the liberal left in the media, has completely lost it. Yesterday on his blog The Ostroy Report, he wrote a ridiculous story called, “I Want To Be Black”, a 485-word article that, although sections of it are obviously tongue-in-cheek, it reflects a mind-blowing obsession the liberal left have with our new President, Barack Obama.

Don't misinterpret the title of this story. I am in no way implying that there is anything wrong with being black, but because of Obama? Why not because of Frederick Douglass? Why not because of Martin Luther King? Why not because of Jackie Robinson, Richard Pryor or Tony Dungy? All of the above were groundbreakers who went through struggles only to rise to the top, but after these men achieved their feats, did you see a tidal wave of obsession like we are witnessing with Barack Obama? The irony here is that Obama is receiving a Messiah-like welcoming when, in fact, he was placed in the White House by the global elite. The others I mentioned actually worked their way to the top, all by themselves.

Enter Andy Ostroy. Ostroy’s usage of what would appear to be tongue-in-cheek comments like “I mean, is there anything duller than being white right now? Now black....that's the new white!”, get lost in its intention when he mixes them with more serious comments like, “Yes, on this joyous, emotional and historic day and on those to come, I want to be black. I feel black. Today we are all black. And I'm very proud of our great nation in its pivotal moment in history. Once again, as it has so many times in the past, America has demonstrated its true greatness. Better days are ahead...”

Another serious comment is this one, “Just 50 years ago blacks we're hung from trees, beaten in the streets, and denied access to "white" restaurants, bathrooms and other public establishments. Jump to 2009 and we have a 46-year-old black man named Barack Hussein Obama elected president…” After reading this, I wondered how Ostroy, being the obsessed Obama supporter that he is, could get his age wrong (Obama is 47). It may seem like nitpicking to point out that error, but I mentioned it to illustrate that even smart pundits like Ostroy occasionally write a ridiculous story and fail to research the most elementary of facts like someone’s age, which can be accomplished by doing a 5-second wikipedia search.

Here is a screen shot of the article showing Obama's incorrect age (click to enlarge)

Ostroy is right. 50 years ago black people were being beaten and hung from trees and couldn’t go into the “white” establishments. But although Ostroy makes a good point that 50 years ago it would have been unheard of for a black man to become president, he fails to give one example of why those facts alone makes Obama the right man for the job as president.

I noticed in Ostroy’s entire piece that he used the word “black” 16 times and made many more race-related comments but failed to provide any information on Obama’s character or policies. Ostroy’s message seemed to be “who cares what Obama believes about the issues and who cares about how he will execute his job…..we have a black man in the White House!” How absurd.

So absurd, that I wrote this comment:

"This article, even taken in its context (which is, I'm assuming, satirical) is ridiculous. It’s an exploitation of race. (You can exploit a race even by praising it too.) This article is not only ridiculous because, 1.) after your incessant love affair with him, you get his age WRONG (he's 47), but, 2.) because you make it appear as if the ONLY reason he got where he is is because of his race! Nowhere in this article did you mention his qualifications, his policies or any talents he might possess, but ONLY his race. Your article is just as ridiculous as if you would have said, "He's president because he's black" (which is the very thing that Rush Limbaugh has uttered on several occasions). I know you won’t "approve" of this post, because it's 100% FACT, but it's enough that you at least READ it."

I was wrong about one thing. Andy did approve and post my comment. But, he commented back and said this:

“ you please show me specifically where I said Obama won "only because he's black?" Might we have a little case of classic Freudian projection going on here??"

For those who don’t know, a Freudian projection is a defense mechanism in which a person will attribute their unacceptable thoughts or beliefs onto the other person. In this case, Ostroy was accusing me of holding the belief that Obama only got elected because of his race and then I was accusing him of saying it instead. So, I posted this response:

"Andy, apparently you can’t read, because I specifically said, "Your article is just as ridiculous as IF YOU WOULD HAVE said, "He's president because he's black". My main point was that it is an exploitation of race, no different than when Rush Limbaugh has made the claims that Obama has been endorsed by people like Colin Powell because he's black.

My goodness Andy, if you're NOT trying to say it's ONLY because his race, then mention something OTHER than race in the article. How many times did you use the word "black"? I'll tell you....16. There's 485 words in your article. I counted 27 words in reference to race (words like 'black(s)', 'white', 'caucasianhood' and even the word 'race' or 'racial'). That's a racial reference once every 17 words. There's ZERO references to Obama's character, qualifications, policies or talents. Isn't it odd that you mentioned MLK's "I Have a Dream" speech in which he specifically says, "Let us not be judged by the color of our skin but by the content of our character", but in your article you disgraced MLK by doing the complete opposite of his dream, mentioning ONLY the color of Obama's skin and not ONCE mentioning the content of his character. And you claim that you didn't at the very LEAST imply it was only his color that got him to the highest office in the land? Unreal.

Black people who read your blog should be HIGHLY offended by you saying, "I feel black". Tell us Andy, how does black FEEL? "Today, we are all black"? My goodness Andy, who do you think Obama is? Jesus Christ? Tell us Andy, how does electing a black man president, in and of itself, make America great just for doing so? What if he's a terrible president and sinks this country deeper in the hole? Shouldn't the greatness of America be measured by its citizens electing who is more Constitutional and who is the most faithful to our founding documents?

Obama has vowed to be the complete opposite of Bush in his policies. Well, let's see if Obama begins to spearhead investigations into George W. Bush's war crimes, or if he pardons him. Let's see if Obama begins to immediately end this war and start speedy withdrawals of troops. Let's see if Obama plans to begin a "national civilian security force" which basically ends freedom as we know it for American citizens.

He is not a savior or the Messiah, Andy. His color means absolutely nothing to me. What I care about is whether he upholds the Constitution or not. The civilian security force he wants to start is not Constitutional. It's the end of freedom. After an inauguration speech, I don't want to "feel black"; I want to feel AMERICAN."

This entire article, partly tongue-in-cheek or not, was an exploitation of race…and Ostroy couldn’t see that fact.

Ostroy has been a strong critic of Rush Limbaugh’s hypocrisy and racism in the past. Now that the liberal pundits have their man in the White House, they feel they can exploit race by saying, Obama got elected despite his race’.

In October 2008, Rush Limbaugh accused Colin Powell of endorsing Obama only because both were black men. The liberal pundits went apeshit, and for good reason. Limbaugh is a racist. Now that Obama is officially president, people like Ostroy can write articles chock full of references to race and it’s perfectly OK.

The most ridiculous segment in Ostroy’s article is the final paragraph, which reads:

“Yes, on this joyous, emotional and historic day and on those to come, I want to be black. I feel black. Today we are all black."

He “feels black”? What does being black feel like? One black president out of 42 other white ones makes him “feel black”? What would make him feel Mexican? Eating a taco? George Lopez becoming president?

“Today we are all black”? When George W. Bush was elected, were we all white? I bet that was news to the black community! Call me old fashioned, but I still like it better that we are all Americans.


Ostroy posted my comment and responded with this:

“Larry, you seem like a very tightly wound fella. May I suggest a deep breath, a glass of scotch, and a little humor. Lighten up, man!

Now as I always try to do with my readers, I will briefly answer your question: "How does black feel?" This week, it feels, as it should to any American, to be enormously joyous, proud, accomplished, and most of all equal. If you really need me to explain this to you then you haven't truly been comprehending anything I've written.”

My response back (no longer pending approval; Ostroy did not post this comment. Hmm, I wonder why):

“So, you're now the spokesperson for ALL black people, Andy? You, a white man, are telling me how it feels to be black? Why don't you tell me how it feels to be a kangaroo? You're not one of those either! You said, "This week, it feels, as it should to any American, to be enormously joyous, proud, accomplished, and most of all equal."----so, Obama just reversed hundreds of years of black persecution because 53% of the American people picked him over JOHN McCAIN? I would have chosen Dolly Parton over John McCain if she would have ran for President! That wouldn't have made me feel like a woman with really big tits if she had won!

Therein lies the irony Andy. You blasted John McCain (and rightfully so) for a year, calling him the big, flip-flopping, aged idiot he is and then when Obama beats him in the election, you act like it was an accomplishment on Obama's part because he defeated the big idiot!

Oh, and by the way Andy, your entire story wasn't tongue-in-cheek humor. You were serious throughout most of it. Even through your "humor" I can detect the Messiah complex you bestow upon Obama. Quite frankly, I think Frederick Douglass' accomplishments FAR FAR outweigh Obama's. It's not even comparable. Douglass' achievements happened while we still had slaves! A black man in the White House was inevitable. It was just a matter of when.”

The amazing thing about all this is, I'm not even a conservative. I hated John McCain. I mean, really hated him...still do. So, I wasn't approaching this from an "anti-Obama, pro-McCain" angle. I even like Andy Ostroy (most of the time). I even posted some of his articles on my site over the past few years. But a funny thing happened when Obama was elected president. The liberal left Democrats showed us who they really are.......spitting images of the far right (in whom they've attacked over the past year).

They defended Obama tirelessly throughout the entire Bill Ayres 'Obama is a terrorist because Ayres is one too' saga, yet when I have mentioned on liberal blogs that Benjamin Emanuel, father of Obama-appointed Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, was a Zionist terrorist as a member of the militant group Irgun in the late 1940's, I was banned from the liberal blog Crooks and Liars (from even accessing the site) and banned from posting comments on liberal Dave Neiwert's site, Orincus. I guess the truth was just too unbearable.

Now Ostroy, although he has 'approved' some comments, does not approve all of them, despite the fact that my comments did not violate his posting rules he issued a few months ago when a flurry of bloggers went on his site making vile and threatening comments. Seems Ostroy is taking his marching orders from the Crooks and Liars, Orincus playbook.....'don't like the comment? Delete it!'

When I have mentioned that Obama promised "change" throughout his campaign, even to the point of plastering the word "CHANGE" everywhere he went, and then question where the 'change' is when most of Obama's appointees to his cabinet are former Clinton administration staff (not to mention appointing Bill Clinton's wife, Hillary Clinton [in whom he had bitter disagreements with during his campaign], to Secretary of State), I get conveniently ignored as well. But, when John McCain was involved in similar contradictory acts, like condemning ACORN when he himself was the keynote speaker at an ACORN event in 2006, the liberals were on it like flies on shit.

This is why I will never be a pundit or a TV journalist who gets paid a million a year. Because I care too much about facts and I take no sides. I can't be labeled and I can't be classified into a particular ideology. I believe abortion is murder but I don't care if gay people marry each other. I believe 9-11 was an inside job and I believe in true Constitutionalists like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. I believe that Abraham Lincoln was one of the worst presidents we ever had and I believe that FDR was a communist sympathizer. I don't critique things by whether they are Republican/Democrat, conservative/liberal or left-wing/right-wing. My only litmus test is whether it is right or wrong. How do you label that?


Messianic Akratist said...

I did enjoy Leno's remark last night that Jack-O was so excited about Obama that he had decided to be black again. No reference was made to his preferred gender.

the_last_name_left said...

How to label you?

Well, just because you judge things on whether they are "right or wrong" in no way means you escape left/right paradigm.

Your basis for deciding what is right and wrong is the determination: you are left or right based on your ideology - not because you judge what is right and wrong. Everyone judges right and wrong - not just you.

Check your links, Larry - and your views. You are obviously right wing. So you're easy about what? You believe FDR was "a communist sympathiser". There's a red-flag that you're right wing. You support Ron Paul - there's a waving flag that you're right wing. You love prisonplanet - that's another waving flag that you're right-wing. Link to AFP - that's a major flag wave that you're right-wing. Small government - anti-taxes - big flags that you're right wing. Bilderbergs, illuminati, freemasonery - more (kooky) right wing stuff.

There's absolutely nothing to provide any evidence you are anything except right-wing.

And let's face it - you loathe the left. So what on earth are you on about, not left or right?