…are racists calling me uppity.
No, Obama didn’t say those words, not exactly. But that’s what he said anyway.
For years I’ve marveled at Obama’s subtly clever use of the racism charge, performed while he simultaneously pretends to take the high road on race. It’s a highly developed balancing act, probably one he’s been practicing for a long time. He demonstrated fine use of it during the 2008 campaign. And of course the MSM cooperates in further disseminating the meme that all criticism of Obama is racism.
It strikes me that no other president before Obama has had this particular approach available to him, for the simple reason that no previous president has been a member of a minority group. But I also don’t think that most other politicians, of any race or religion or gender, would have had the sheer audacity to have taken this tack. They would have thought it undignified or unpresidential or divisive—because that was the prevailing opinion until Obama came along.
Remember this incident from over five years ago, when Obama said during his 2008 campaign:
It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy. We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?
Here’s what I said then about what Obama was doing, and I stand by it now:
…[T]his Presidential race (oops, I used the “r” word!!) has truly gone into a sort of twilight zone in which no one is able to mount any sort of campaign against Obama, even using his own character flaws against him, without being accused of racism.
To recap: use Obama’s photo, and you are emphasizing that he “looks different.” Therefore, you’re a racist. Mock his overwhelming and fully demonstrated arrogance, and you’re really calling him an “uppity n-word.” Mention that this almost uniquely inexperienced candidate is unready for the responsibilities of the Presidency, and you’ll find (as Hillary did) that you’re a racist as well.
Note also, both then and now, Obama is accusing Republicans in general of this, not some specific Republican who said a specific thing. It’s a general and amorphous charge, which is far more effective and versatile propaganda. In that 2008 statement, Obama was predicting it would happen and telling people to be on the lookout for it— and although in fact it hadn’t happened and didn’t happen and wouldn’t happen, that hardly mattered, because he’d placed the idea firmly in people’s minds.
In a similar way, various methods were used later on to strongly suggest that the Tea Party was a racist organization, even though there was no evidence of anything of the sort. Such suggestions work; that’s why they’re used.
And used over and over. Here’s the latest incident from Obama:
In his interview with the Times, when asked about over-enthusiastic use of executive power, Obama sneered at conservatives. “Some of those folks think I usurp my authority by having the gall to win the presidency. And I don’t think that’s a secret.”
He added: “But ultimately, I’m not concerned about their opinions — very few of them, by the way, are lawyers, much less constitutional lawyers.”
Gall, indeed—another code word for “uppity” no doubt. Those racists who hate Obama, angry at him for having the gall to have won!
Somehow Obama has managed to pack into those two sentences more offensive, twisted, narcissistic, manipulative, mendacious thoughts than there are words in them. How anyone can read those two sentences and like the man is beyond me.
But Obama knows exactly what he’s doing. He may be a knave, but as I’ve said for a long time he’s no fool. There’s not a word there that isn’t carefully chosen. Obama is not just the first black president: he is the first Orwellian president. And it turns out that charges of racism against critics make a great cover for tyranny.
[NOTE: By the way, about that "constitutional lawyers" remark---of course, some of Obama's critics are lawyers. But the implication that a constitutional lawyer would necessarily respect the Constitution is ridiculous. Some do, some don't; some learn the finer points of the Constitution in order to figure out ways to violate it or get around it.
And what's a "constitutional lawyer" anyway? There are constitutional law experts, constitutional law professors, constitutional law students, and constitutional law instructors or lecturers (as Obama was). Obama was a singular Con Law teacher in that as far as we know he never wrote a paper on the subject, although he taught it. What's more, he never taught a general course in it; he was a specialist.
All of Obama's law teaching load was concentrated in several subjects that would be of use to him in his life in politics:
Before he outraised every other presidential primary candidate in American history, Mr. Obama marched students through the thickets of campaign finance law. Before he helped redraw his own State Senate district, making it whiter and wealthier, he taught districting as a racially fraught study in how power is secured. And before he posed what may be the ultimate test of racial equality — whether Americans will elect a black president — he led students through African-Americans’ long fight for equal status...
At the school, Mr. Obama taught three courses, ascending to senior lecturer, a title otherwise carried only by a few federal judges. His most traditional course was in the due process and equal protection areas of constitutional law. His voting rights class traced the evolution of election law, from the disenfranchisement of blacks to contemporary debates over districting and campaign finance. Mr. Obama was so interested in the subject that he helped Richard Pildes, a professor at New York University, develop a leading casebook in the field.
His most original course, a historical and political seminar as much as a legal one, was on racism and law.
Please read the whole thing. It's quite illuminating.]