Today I thought about “the real Obama”, and the Batman villain, Two Face came to mind. I felt it both fitting and ironic, as Two Face, like Obama, was half black and half white. The reason for my introspection is that I just feel the Democrats haven’t met the real Obama yet. As my old Grandpappy used to say, “…we howdy’d, but we ain’t shook yet”.
Like Obama, Two Face’s background is in both law and politics. Prior to becoming Two Face, Harvey Dent was the former District Attorney of Gotham City. And perhaps an even more iconic reference of Obama as Two Face (besides the obvious definition that the name implies) is the idea that like Two Face, Obama started out good (arguable), and became evil (less arguable).
The concept of a “Two Face” politician who wanted us to forget his past, brought my thinking to another politician with a similar modis operandi as Obama – Former Louisiana state senator David Duke.
In my research, I found very interesting similarities between these two men; in fact, uncanny. So much so are the similarities, that only one conclusion can be drawn: Obama and Duke are “brothas from otha muthas”. Let’s examine.
Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?
First, they are both elegant men in their own rights; quite stately. In a word…polished. To plagiarize Joe Biden (pardon the pun), both men are very “…articulate and well-spoken”. And we also know from Biden that Obama is also “clean”. I suspect Duke is clean as well, however I do not have the research to back that up. I know. Not enough to make them brothas. But read on…
As I dug deeper, I discovered that both Obama and Duke had racist mentors in their formative years. With Obama, we know that in the late 80’s, he began “palling around” [thanks, Sarah!] with Jeremiah Wright, follower of Black Liberation Theology, and he joined Trinity United Church of Christ. In the late 60’s, Duke met William Pierce, the leader of the White separatist group National Alliance, and he joined the Ku Klux Klan. It gets better…
Both Obama and Duke wrote two books. Obama wrote Dreams from My Father – A Story of Race and Inheritance, and The Audacity of Hope. The former book was a profile of his Muslim father, and the second was titled, based on a sermon from Obama’s mentor, pastor, and advisor for 20 years, the aforementioned Reverend Jeremiah Wright.
Duke’s first book was a women’s self-help book published in 1976 by compiling information from women’s self-help magazines, and was written solely to raise money for his cause. The book was titled Finders-Keepers, and was written under the pseudonym Dorothy Vanderbilt. The book is difficult to find, however proceeds have been traced back to Duke. Duke later published his autobiography My Awakening: A Path to Racial Understanding in 1998. This book is hauntingly similar to Obama’s first book. And like Dreams of My Father exposes Obama’s social propensities, My Awakening details Duke’s social philosophies, especially his reasoning behind racial separation. The ideas of both books are centered on racial divergence (separation), something the two men share at their core.
The similarities don’t end with the books, however. In 1980, Duke left the Klan and formed the National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP). In 2008, Obama left the Trinity United church, and formed a team, according to his mentor and pastor, to become the president of the “…US of KKKA”.
Speaking of Obama’s “Uncle”, pastor, mentor, and advisor, let’s analyze Black Liberation Theology for a bit. Below are some of the ideas expressed in Trinity United Christian Church, and Black Liberation Theology. I have left the numbering intact, so you can see that there are other comments, and have added a few comments in [brackets]:
2″It is important to make a further distinction here among black hatred, black racism, and Black Power. Black hatred is the black man’s strong aversion to white society. No black man living in white America can escape it…But the charge of black racism cannot be reconciled with the facts. While it is true that blacks do hate whites, black hatred is not racism. Racism, according to Webster, is ‘the assumption that psychocultural traits and capacities are determined by biological race and that races differ decisively from one another, which is usually coupled with a belief in the inherent superiority of a particular race and its rights to dominance over others.’ Where are the examples among blacks in which they sought to assert their right to dominance over others because of a belief in black superiority?…Black Power is an affirmation of the humanity of blacks in spite of white racism. It says that only blacks really know the extent of white oppression, and thus only blacks are prepared to risk all to be free.” [Black Theology and Black Power, Pages 14-16]
“Therefore, simply to say that Jesus did not use violence is no evidence relevant to the condition of black people as they decide on what to do about white oppression.” [Black Theology and Black Power, Page 140]
“The Christian does not decide between violence and nonviolence, evil and good. He decides between the less and the greater evil.” [Black Theology and Black Power, Page 143]
“All white men are responsible for white oppression. It is much too easy to say, “Racism is not my fault,” or “I am not responsible for the country’s inhumanity to the black man…But insofar as white do-gooders tolerate and sponsor racism in their educational institutions, their political, economic and social structures, their churches, and in every other aspect of American life, they are directly responsible for racism…Racism is possible because whites are indifferent to suffering and patient with cruelty. Karl Jaspers’ description of metaphysical guilt is pertinent here. ‘There exists among men, because they are men, a solidarity through which each shares responsibility for every injustice and every wrong committed in the world, and especially for crimes that are committed in his presence or of which he cannot be ignorant.'” [Black Theology and Black Power, Page 24]
“For the gospel proclaims that God is with us now, actively fighting the forces which would make man captive. And it is the task of theology and the Church to know where God is at work so that we can join him in this fight against evil. In America we know where the evil is. We know that men are shot and lynched. We know that men are crammed into ghettos…There is a constant battle between Christ and Satan, and it is going on now. If we make this message contemporaneous with our own life situation, what does Christ’s defeat of Satan mean for us?…The demonic forces of racism are real for the black man. Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man “the devil.” The white structure of this American society, personified in every racist, must be at least part of what the New Testament meant by the demonic forces.” [Black Theology and Black Power, Pages 39-41]
“Racism is a complete denial of the Incarnation and thus of Christianity…If there is any contemporary meaning of the Antichrist (or “the principalities and powers”), the white church seems to be a manifestation of it. It was the white “Christian” church which took the lead in establishing slavery as an institution and segregation as a pattern in society by sanctioning all-white congregations.” [Black Theology and Black Power, Page 73]
“Whether the American system is beyond redemption we will have to wait and see. But we can be certain that black patience has run out, and unless white America responds positively to the theory and activity of Black Power, then a bloody, protracted civil war is inevitable.” [Black Theology and Black Power, Page 143][With Obama as president, that civil war will start]
“The revolution which Black Theology advocates …
[means] confronting white racists and saying: ‘If it’s a fight you want, I am prepared to oblige you.’ This is what the black revolution means.” [Black Theology and Black Power, Page 136]
“Black Power seeks not understanding but conflict; addresses blacks and not whites; seeks to develop black support, but not white good will.” [Black Theology and Black Power, Page 16] [[It should be noted that it does not want ‘white good will’, however Black Liberation Theology will accept white support]
Before we even discuss Duke’s equivalent to this, ask yourself this question. If a White presidential candidate was a parishioner of a church with this “theology”, how would he fare in the election process? Imagine substituting White for Black and vice versa in the Black Liberation Theology creed, and see how the media would handle that? We know the answer to that.
Now let’s look at the ideas around David Duke’s organization:
3The National Association for the Advancement of White People was a White nationalist political organization in the United States founded in 1980 by David Duke. The name was meant to mock that of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. The group self-purportedly advocates white separatism as opposed to white supremacy. It was headquartered in Metairie in unincorporated Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, a suburb of New Orleans.
The organization’s views included opposition to affirmative action programs and a strong law and order stance, such as favoring the death penalty, three strikes laws and has been known for promoting anti-African American sentiments. Its official slogan is: “Equal Rights For All — Special Privileges For None.” The slogan was presumably taken from the seventh of the Ocala Demands of the United States Populist (or People’s) Party of 1890.
So what was the long-term strategy for these two brothas? Duke formed the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan and attempted to modernize the Klan, getting rid of the Grand Wizard title, and trading business suits for the historical white robes. When Duke gained national prominence, running for the US Senate, his mantra was that he had distanced himself from his racist past. In his suit, he certainly looked like every other politician of his day. Obama, like his ‘bro’, followed a similar path. He is modernizing the message of the Black race-baters, notables being Louis Farrakhan, and James Cone whom I referenced earlier as an evangelist of Black Liberation Theology.
Obama, when faced with irrefutable evidence regarding his association with and influence from Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and his anti-American, anti-Semitic, racist views, and the likes of Bill Ayers, the “unrepentant terrorist”, et al, decided to distance himself from his racist and terrorist consorts. The difference between Obama and Duke is, Duke couldn’t convince America that he was no longer a racist, silk suit and crocodile smile, notwithstanding. The question is why?
The answer is: Obama knows how to play the race game. You see, Obama has had the latitude to straddle the fence on race issues, being bi-racial. He is White or Black, when it suits his purpose. The likelihood is that in his past, Obama was chided by Blacks for being half White, and for being smart and actually enunciating his words. And with those ears, well let’s just say that he had his nose bloodied a time or two.
But Obama is a survivor, and he figured he’d better shore up his issues with Blacks by being “more Black” than expected. And though Blacks are the most bigoted group in America, rating our own people by how “black” they are, and hair texture and other physical features, and a host of stupid idiosyncrasies, Black are quite accepting of the “smart brotha” who sides with them on the issues, whether the ideology is stupid or not. Stupid ideology? Ok, ask the average Black to choose between having Colin Powell or Snoop Dogg at their home, and see who they pick. I digress…
Obama bet on the notion that Whites would appreciate his intellect, overlooking his “blackness” for the most part. And they did, because Whites are less racist than Blacks at their core. Yes, they likely said stupid things like “…You’re not like other Blacks, Barry.” But they at least meant it as a compliment, even if it is a slap in the face to Blacks in general. So Obama’s focus again was on the securing the Black vote.
Being 12% of the population, Blacks can tilt the scale in almost any election. Now I know what you may be thinking. Blacks vote 94% Democrat, so die is already cast, and thus Obama won’t receive any real impact with the Black vote. True, to a point. The real question is “How many Blacks vote as a percentage of the Black population?”
The numbers were high in the last couple of elections, but they will be even higher in this election. All Obama needed to do was ‘energize the base’ [of Blacks], and that has been accomplished, trust me. This was done in two ways: By embracing the Black side of his culture, and more importantly by distancing himself from his White ancestry. Blacks like the idea that Obama could have selected a White wife. After all, he is half White. However he selected Michelle “Affirmative Action Princeton Educated America Hating” Robinson.
With the Black vote firmly in hand and energized, Obama is now circling back to the White culture. He took a big chance cozying up to Blacks, and likely alienated some Whites. However he is luckier than he is good, and many Whites still feed him, as he straddles that ethnic fence.
So back to the question of why is Obama successful where Duke was not? First, Whites are optimists. Most believe in the power of “change”, and have gone “Jonestown” on Obama “change” platform. After Obama hits them with the “reparations” (tax) bill, they will become lifelong pessimists.
Next, I suspect that there is a large segment of Whites who consider electing Obama as ‘payback’ for the US government’s treatment of Blacks. They have doubts about his ability to lead, they figure it is high time a Black guy got a shot. I believe that this group has a contingent who knows Obama will fail, and they see it as an opportunity to shut up the Black poverty pimps. After all, you can’t keep crying racism, when a Black man has achieved the highest office in the land!
Further, there are a group of Whites who find the idea of voting for “the Black guy” socially “cool”. “Yes, Biff, you might be surprised to know that Buffy and I helped elect the first Black president. We just thought he was so well-spoken and articulate…and clean”.
Finally, Whites are also optimistic that by electing Obama, it will somehow eradicate racism. Like the world will just wake up from its stupor, and the moon will be in the seventh house, and Jupiter aligned with Mars, and peace be on the planet…it is the dawning of the age of Aquarius! [I apologize…I traveled to the Fifth Dimension!]
Truth is, electing Obama will exacerbate the race issue, and widen the chasm! If the Aryans don’t like Blacks now, just wait. And the marginal types will be so sick of “Black and White” issues [don’t we get enough already?!], that America will be more polarized than it was circa 1960.
Contrast the Obama situation with how Blacks treated Duke. Blacks never gave Duke a chance, and rightfully so. Blacks marched against him, threatened boycotts of those who supported him, and kept the spotlight on this Brooks Brother suit wearing Neo Nazi, as if he were a cat with a gold tooth. And years later, yes to this day Duke has proven that he indeed is still a racist, and was the proverbial “wolf in sheep’s clothing”. During the time when Duke ran for the US Senate, even Whites knew that he was still a racist, and weren’t fool by his slickness. They didn’t excoriate Duke for Whites. They did it for Blacks. They didn’t want t
he type of government that Duke would bring. So it was his own race who threw him under the bus. Blacks won’t do this to Obama, if he were to admit to being Lucifer himself.
So here is the wrap. Is White America really happily willing to elect an unqualified, Black racist to the White House, just because he moves his mouth better than a $1500 call girl? There’s an old saying, “…you can put your boots in the oven, but that don’t make ‘em biscuits! White folks, wake up!…Obama, aka Two Face is a bona fide, dyed-in-the-wool Black racist. Tell all your friends, and don’t get “Duked”!
That’s my rant!