What does RAAAACISM even mean?

This is a real website.

This is a spoof.

This is a spoof.

Click on graphics to embiggen.

Hoot (or anyone else): To get the best download to post at your own sites, embiggen the graphics here, right click and choose COPY IMAGE, then drop into a blank graphics canvas.


Filed under Barack Obama, Race Relations

7 responses to “What does RAAAACISM even mean?

  1. GP

    This was sent to me by email and I thought it went will with this topic:

    Amazing that the Wash Post would actually print this about Obama..- Fr. Peter

    by Matt Patterson (columnist – Washington Post, New York Post, San Francisco Examiner)
    Government & Society

    Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, the result of a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world’s largest economy, direct the world’s most powerful military, execute the world’s most consequential job?

    Imagine a future historian examining Obama’s pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a “community organizer”; a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote “present”) ; and finally an unaccomplished single term in the United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions. He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as a legislator.

    And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama’s “spiritual mentor”; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama’s colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?

    Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal:

    To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberaldom to have hung out with protesters against various America injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass.

    Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass — held to a lower standard — because of the color of his skin. Podhoretz continues:

    And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) “non-threatening,” all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?

    Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon — affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.

    Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely a dmit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don’t care if these minority students fail; liberals aren’t around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist.

    Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin — that’s affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn’t racism, then nothing is. And that is what America did to Obama.

    True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary. What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks?

    In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama’s oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people — conservatives included — ought now to be deeply embarrassed. The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that’s when he has his teleprompter in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth — it’s all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years.

    And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else f or his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?

    In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.

    – Fr. Peter


    • Pistol Pete

      GP: you recall both you and I tried warning people about this phony because we knew who he was and what he was.He ran for the House from the South Side in 1990 and was swamped by a former Black Panther named Bobby Rush because he wasn’t “black enough.”He got a seat in the state senate by getting all his opponents disqualified by challenging their election petitions.The only piece of legislation he offered were a couple minor bills that Emil Jones wrote for him.Whrn he ran for the seat Fitzgerald vacated he got the LA Times through the Chicago Tribune to unseal Jim Ryan’s sealed divorce records to show he once tried to get his wife Jeri to a sex club.Ryan dropped out and the only person the Illinois GOP could come up with was Alan Keyes.Obama won in a landslide.After having a cup of coffee in the Senate,he set out to fulfill what he felt was his destiny.Unfortunately we ended up with a gutless RINO named McCain who never really tried to win.What was worse was that McLame tabbed Sarah Palin as his VP because he needed conservatives’ money and enthusiasm.From day one his staff set about stabbing her in the back because she actually wanted to win.If he’d have fought as hard against Obama as he did against JD Hayworth to retain his precious senate seat he might have done better.I blame the statist GOP for foisting a phony candidate on us as much as I blame the people who were taken in by this con game and the media whores who gave up any pretense of objectivity when they hoisted this emperor-wannabe on their shoulders and literlly carried him to the White Hut.


    • chrissythehyphenated

      This is so good! But I couldn’t find it published at WaPo … maybe it’s there and I don’t have a subscription. Not sure. I did find it published at AT.


      The article includes an UPDATE:

      Author’s Note. A lot of readers have written in asking me how I came to the conclusion that Obama was an unremarkable student and that he benefited from affirmative action. Three reasons: …

      About Patterson:

      At http://mattpattersononline.com/welcome/Home.html,
      there is a list of publications where Patterson has had his stuff appear, among them the newspapers cited.

      PJTV is quoted as having called him, “One of America’s most interesting conservatives.”

      He’s also got some books out, in case anyone’s interested.


  2. GP

    You are so right. I blame the IL GOP, who define RHINO to the core and have been complicit with the dems who have destroyed our once prosperous state. I just wish the rest of the country would just look to IL more and realize the rest of the nation will go the same way if this marxist revolution is not stopped.
    Do you know that IL has a law that says the parties can put up any candidate without even vetting them? This is how Obama got on the ticket without having to prove he was eligible. The dems have checked every box here to ensure they keep power. They have germinadered in their favor, fixed the voter roles in crook county, allowed voter motor registrations so illegals and felons can vote, etc. Most people do not even know that 98% of IL counties when for Bush. The state is blue because it has been rigged. This is why voters don’t bother to vote.
    But the IL tea patriots are working to cut down on voter fraud this year. It is a start.

    Sorry for the double post. Not sure why cut and paste posted twice.
    Perhaps you can clip it?


  3. What A Hoot

    Thanks Chrissy! Excellent. I posted on facebook. I copied individually there because the Libs will look if not associated with a link to conservative site. 🙂 However, I posted a link to this page directly elsewhere around “town”. Now I am going to back up these comments and read the discussion between GP and PP. Have a great weekend.


  4. Ting

    In Gov. Palin’s speech today she said something like this: We are not red and blue, but we are red, white, and blue Americans. This was a jab at Obama’s red state/blue state rhetoric. I wondered how long it will take the Rev. Al to call that a racist comment.