March 20, 2008

Throw Grandma Under The Bus

Printer Friendly

By: Ann Coulter

Obama gave a nice speech, except for everything he said about race. He apparently believes we're not talking enough about race. This is like hearing Britney Spears say we're not talking enough about pop-tarts with substance-abuse problems.

By now, the country has spent more time talking about race than John Kerry has talked about Vietnam, John McCain has talked about being a POW, John Edwards has talked about his dead son, and Al Franken has talked about his USO tours.

But the "post-racial candidate" thinks we need to talk yet more about race. How much more? I had had my fill by around 1974. How long must we all marinate in the angry resentment of black people?

As an authentic post-racial American, I will not patronize blacks by pretending Obama's pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, is anything other than a raving racist loon. If a white pastor had said what Rev. Wright said -- not about black people, but literally, the exact same things -- I think we'd notice that he's crazier than Ward Churchill and David Duke's love child. (Indeed, both Churchill and the Rev. Wright referred to the attacks of 9/11 as the chickens coming "home to roost.")
Imagine a white pastor saying: "Racism is the American way. Racism is how this country was founded, and how this country is still run. ... We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority. And believe it more than we believe in God."

Imagine a white pastor calling Condoleezza Rice, "Condoskeezza Rice."

Imagine a white pastor saying: "No, no, no, God damn America -- that's in the Bible for killing innocent people! God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human! God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme!"

We treat blacks like children, constantly talking about their temper tantrums right in front of them with airy phrases about black anger. I will not pat blacks on the head and say, "Isn't that cute?" As a post-racial American, I do not believe "the legacy of slavery" gives black people the right to be permanently ill-mannered.

Obama tried to justify Wright's deranged rants by explaining that "legalized discrimination" is the "reality in which Rev. Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up." He said that a "lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one's family, contributed to the erosion of black families."

That may accurately describe the libretto of "Porgy and Bess," but it has no connection to reality. By Rev. Wright's own account, he was 12 years old and was attending an integrated school in Philadelphia when Brown v. Board of Education was announced, ending "separate but equal" schooling.

Meanwhile, at least since the Supreme Court's decision in University of California v. Bakke in 1978 -- and obviously long before that, or there wouldn't have been a case or controversy for the court to consider -- it has been legal for the government to discriminate against whites on the basis of their race.

Consequently, any white person 30 years old or younger has lived, since the day he was born, in an America where it is legal to discriminate against white people. In many cases it's not just legal, but mandatory, for example, in education, in hiring and in Academy Award nominations.

So for half of Rev. Wright's 66 years, discrimination against blacks was legal -- though he never experienced it personally because it existed in a part of the country where he did not live. For the second half of Wright's life, discrimination against whites was legal throughout the land.

Discrimination has become so openly accepted that -- in a speech meant to tamp down his association with a black racist -- Obama felt perfectly comfortable throwing his white grandmother under the bus. He used her as the white racist counterpart to his black racist "old uncle," Rev. Wright.

First of all, Wright is not Obama's uncle. The only reason we indulge crazy uncles is that everyone understands that people don't choose their relatives the way they choose, for example, their pastors and mentors. No one quarrels with the idea that you can't be expected to publicly denounce your blood relatives.

But Wright is not a relative of Obama's at all. Yet Obama cravenly compared Wright's racist invective to his actual grandmother, who "once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe."

Rev. Wright accuses white people of inventing AIDS to kill black men, but Obama's grandmother -- who raised him, cooked his food, tucked him in at night, and paid for his clothes and books and private school -- has expressed the same feelings about passing black men on the street that Jesse Jackson has.

Unlike his "old uncle" -- who is not his uncle -- Obama had no excuses for his grandmother. Obama's grandmother never felt the lash of discrimination! Crazy grandma doesn't get the same pass as the crazy uncle; she's white. Denounce the racist!

Fine. Can we move on now?

No, of course, not. It never ends. To be fair, Obama hinted that we might have one way out: If we elect him president, then maybe, just maybe, we can stop talking about race.

Posted by redguy at March 20, 2008 06:42 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.redstatesusa.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/905

Comments

One of your points is wrong. It was not a "nice speech" as you posit. Despite its buttery-smooth rhetoric the speech was in essence pedantic, condescending and self-indulgent.

Moreover, it was downright insulting to millions of non-black Americans who have practiced true compassion, non-discriminatory hiring, education and commerce, without being asked or ordered to do so.

No, Miss Coulter, it was not a nice speech. Not a nice speech at all.

Posted by: Dick's Deli [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 20, 2008 07:55 AM

For those of you unaware, on Ann's Human Events site, she has repeated the same blog. This thread has the longest line of comments that I have ever seen. This matter with Obama is a very heated issue. You can see for yourself if you check that site. There are over 1400 comments within a matter of hours from people who are pissed off about the whole issue.

For myself, I think the race card will always be played. Obama and his Pastor are not a lot different from others in their position. But if this man is to be President, I want the same kind of explanation on his "True Faith in God" that he gave about the race issue.

I want to know if he is a Christian or a Muslim. Is he a follower of Mohammed or Jesus Christ. Just saying 'God is my strength' won't cut it. As a Christian nation we know that the true belief of The One True God is the path through a Jewish man named Jesus Christ. If Obama believes any differently then he not the man to be President of the greatest nation in history which was founded on Judeo-Christian principles.

More directly said. "Mr Obama, if you are to be sworn in as President, will your hand be on a Bible or a Koran?" His answer would be very telling especially if he says 'Both'.

As President, will he respond with the wisdom of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus or will it be with the politicism of words to scratch the itchy ears of selfish agendas?

Posted by: LAMadDog [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 20, 2008 07:57 AM

I need Ann to contact me!
you have my e-mail.
Thank You.

Posted by: Know57 [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 20, 2008 10:36 AM

Mr Obama claims to be able to unify us all. The way he'll do that is to inspire us to abandon our hate. But wait! He had 20 years to get Wright to abandon his, ...and he failed miserably. So, if he can't succeed in his own back yard, how on earth does he want us to buy into the notion that he can succeed nationally?

Posted by: yonason [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 20, 2008 01:03 PM

The chickens are coming home to roost, Wrights chickens. But they are coming home to roost with Obama. He tries to say they're not his chickens, but to no avail. The retoric coming from Rev. Wright is very much like that coming from radical Islam after 9/11. They called Bill Clinton the teflon candidate, Obama could be the velcro candidate.

Posted by: snowmane [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 20, 2008 07:06 PM

1) As an Obama supporter I agree with most of what Ann Coulter has to say regarding his speech and his relationship with Rev. Wright. There are no excuses for Rev. Wright's hateful and racist comments. I have been to Black churchs that discuss Black oppression but in a more acurate, sane and balanced view.

2) I believe that as a bi-racial AND African person, Obama joined this prominent black church to prove to pure-bloods that he is "Black Enough". Although the "1-drop" rule from the days of Black slavery claim you as being non-white, bi-racial children do face a lot of discrimmination in the Black Community. Additional, being part African and educationally successful labels you as being an oreo (Black on the outside but White inside where it really matters).
Even with those barriers to election as a Black candidate, I think Obama could have found another more moderate prominent Black church.

There is no comparison between what he may have heard from his grandmother and the ignorant comments from Rev. Wright.

3) "Dick's_Deli: Your urban legend regarding Obama being a muslim are just as paranoid and ignorant as Rev. Wright's repetition of the Black urban legend that the CIA infected the Black community with AIDS. Both are beliefs are people lacking in adequate education: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp

I actually remember hearing the AIDS urban legend from a classmate in college-I actually thought he was a paranoid schizophrenic at the time and never spoke to him again.

The lack of scientific thinking in basic education can fix a lot of these problems.

Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. as with most 1st born sons of African fathers, usually get their father or grandfather's name. If you ever travel in African countries or meet Africans, you will find that most have "traditionl" muslim names. In these countries, your name is not an indicator of your religion. You will meet thousands of Catholic women named Fatima who are not muslim.

It's very similar to the amount of Americans with Jewish or catholic names who have nothing to do with either religion and will be unable to tell you the part of the Bible containing their name.

Additionally, a 6-grade U.S. history textbook will explain that the U.S. was founded by people escaping religious prosecution. Thus the reason for the existance of the U.S. is for freedom of worship/ religion. If you believe only Christians and Jews should be citizens and presidents then you are in the wrong country, what you are actually seeking is communisim. I would recommend China, Cuba, and Russia (when it reverts back to communism in 10 years).
U.S. citizens who oppose the election of citizens of other faiths to presidency such as Sikhs, Hindus, buddhists, muslims or atheists do not believe in our constituition, our laws, or our government. A consider such beliefs of religious intolerance as acts of treason. You either change the constituion and "unfind" our nation or commit to communist way of life. Simple.


3) The only part of Ann's statements I disagree with are the ones making false claims:

"Consequently, any white person 30 years old or younger has lived, since the day he was born, in an America where it is legal to discriminate against white people. In many cases it's not just legal, but mandatory, for example, in education, in hiring and in Academy Award nominations."

a) First of all the Academy Awards have been around for 80-years. In 80-years, only 10 Black Actors/Actress have won an oscar. That's 10/900 awards. I am no math genius but I believe that means that 99.99% of academy awards have been given to Whites. If winning 890/900 means discrimmination, I'm sure that 100% of Black actors/actress will happily switch places with Whites.

b) In terms of valued university positions, positions of power, media jobs, corporate american, over 90% of those positions are held by White Americans.

c) Being White in American means being "normal" or main-stream so most Whites feel that they are not treated specially, don't have special ethic clubs, etc. The reason for that is when you are the dominate culture, you do not stand out and can easily PRECEIVE the few non-dominant folks are getting more than you. Traveling to another culture were you are a minority in the culture is the best way of understanding dominant.


If Ann's statement's were true (and backed up by facts), when she dies and is given the choice to return as a Black male, White male, or White female, then I'm certain she would believe that being born a Black Male is the most priviledged position in the U.S.

The facts are unfortunately against her.


4) Again, I do not disagree with her fundamental point regarding Rev. Wright being a racist, just as I agree that Hiliary Clinton and her supporters are sexist (old school feminist who believe that women are SUPERIOR to males). Both camps have turned me off the Democratic party.

However, I still believe that Obama has more integrity, honesty, and class than Hiliary Clinton. In terms of foreign policy, I strongly agree with Obama over McCain. The old policy of overthrowing governments, backing U.S. friendly Dictators who abuse their own people, and over-throwing said dictator when they get too big for their own heads and snob the U.S. hasn't worked in over 50-years. It won't work in the next 50 either. We have to come up with new ideas.

If Obama loses to Hiliary, I will cross over and vote for McCain. I don't believe in electing people based on their husband's resume and Hiliary's Healthcare plan is as bad as her last one.

Posted by: tellthetruth [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 20, 2008 08:17 PM

sorry, there are some errors in my statement below. I love the iphone but my big thumb does not.

my apologies again to the forum.

Posted by: tellthetruth [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 20, 2008 08:22 PM

It would appear that much of what is being talked about relates to African American's being bitter about their ancestors being slaves.

I think that most people would agree that African Americans are a lot better off than their African counterparts. So in some way slavery eventually gave the slaves' progeny a better life.

If one actually looks at the history of slavery one would find that it is wrong to blame "white" people for slavery. Africans were selling their captives as slaves long before the slave trade to the Caribbean and the Americas began. Zanzibar was the capital of slavery and history records the Arab slave routes. In fact many white europeans were slaves of the Arabs, Romans and others.

Nowadays people think of slavery as wrong, which it is in a civilised society, but back then you did not have democracy, but tribes and nations were ruled by Chiefs and Kings, and the whole population was subservient to their power and rule. In America it was common place for native American tribes to make slaves of their captives.

However one thing is for sure, and that is it was white men who passed the laws that stopped slavery.

Posted by: Redrex [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 20, 2008 09:46 PM

To tellthetruth...YOU BET THERE ARE SOME ERRORS. That stupid insinuation that Obama may be a Muslim was made by LAMadDog NOT by Dicksdeli. The posters' names are at the bottom, not the top of the post.

A shall await your apology.

Posted by: Dick's Deli [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 21, 2008 07:27 AM

Excellent column, Ann!

If B. Hussein Obama joined Rev. Wrights church because he wanted to be accepted as "black enough" but did not subscribe to this churches message (i.e., the message of its leader, pastor Rev. Wright), then Obama only did it for his own expediency and nothing more.

If this is the case, then Mr. Obama did not join Rev. Wrights’ church for its inspiring, uplifting, positive Christian message.

If this is the case, then Mr. Obama has been tolerant for 20 years of the hate-filled, angry, inflammatory and inaccurate rhetoric of Rev. Wright and the message that rhetoric has conveyed.

The only positive reason B. Hussein Obama had joined Rev. Wrights church was for his own personal agenda and not for its unifying message across racial divides.

Only now that it's no longer expedient for B. Hussein Obama and his presidential ambitions does Obama find any problem with Rev. Wright and Rev. Wrights hate-filled diatribes.

Only now when it's expedient for B. Hussein Obama to be seen as a "unifier" does he now find problems with Rev. Wright and his sermons.

B. Hussein Obama readily threw his white grandmother “under the bus” for simply stating her fears of blacks and the fact that she had uttered “racial stereotypes”. It didn’t matter that his grandmother never preached to a congregation, inciting a crowd with her fears and stereotypical utterances.

Yet, B. Hussein Obama can’t seem to find it in his heart to throw a black hate-mongering racist pastor named Rev. Wright, a pastor that Obama chose to follow, “under the bus” for his blatant hate-filled, angry, inflammatory rants that incite an entire congregation.

It certainly appears that B. Hussein Obama isn’t very proud of his white heritage at all – only his black heritage. And we are supposed to believe that he is a unifier.

B. Hussein Obama isn't black or white - he's a chameleon constantly changing his colors based upon his surroundings – or more accurately – based upon what vote he wants to impress and court to gain the White House.


Posted by: LynnJG [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 21, 2008 09:39 AM

Very good, Ann: I noted (and copied below) two very insightful, poignant and applicable quotes from this column.

"How long must we all marinate in the angry resentment of black people?"

"As a post-racial American, I do not believe 'the legacy of slavery' gives black people the right to be permanently ill-mannered."

Thanks for illuminating, via your dissections, that which most of us would otherwise not see.

As for Obama: I've never listened to anything the man has said. Our political system has got so far from what it was originally intended to be, and the entire election process has become such an insane display of hysteria--or is it a hysterical display of insanity?--and the illusionary noise emanating from our national, interbred, political/social/economic/military mutt has become such a nauseating miasma of oily double-talk and slimy deception, and it's become so obvious that just about everything we see and hear isn't real and we can't do anything to correct the situation, it's become clear that the most sensible thing to do is bury my head in the sand, because my awareness did nothing but clutter my life with pointless concern for a hopelessly corrupted system.
Being concerned about social, political, economic or military issues in the US is like trying to drive a car filled with Jell-O.

Posted by: Florida Cane [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 23, 2008 06:01 PM

Dicksdeli,
please accept my apology. In my post from March 20, 2008 at 08:17 PM, I read the poster's name incorrectly. My comments were addressed to LAMadDog. I apologize for writing your name.

--------------------------------------------------
From: Dicksdeli
"To tellthetruth...YOU BET THERE ARE SOME ERRORS. That stupid insinuation that Obama may be a Muslim was made by LAMadDog NOT by Dicksdeli. The posters' names are at the bottom, not the top of the post.

A shall await your apology."

Posted by: tellthetruth [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 26, 2008 12:02 AM

"I think that most people would agree that African Americans are a lot better off than their African counterparts. So in some way slavery eventually gave the slaves' progeny a better life." Posted by: Redrex at March 20, 2008 09:46 PM ----------------------- Redrex, I'm willing to bet that if given the option of 200 years of slavery, 100 years of segregation and Jim Crow laws, followed by 50 plus years of living as a second class citizens that those original slaves would choose freedom any day and 10 times on sunday. As people in New Hamshire say: live free or die Your attempt to promote the benefits of slavery is beyond insane. There are rumors that White Slavery is currently occuring where White women are taken and sold to wealthy men and given lavish lifestyles, jewels and money. According to your theory, in 350 years, the ex-white slavery generation will be thanking their lucky stars and better off than free White Women. Insane! ------------------- Anyway, the difference with the U.S. slave trade is that these people were purposefully separated from family, friends, children, spouses, etc. in order to erase their sense of self and identity. They were not allowed to marry and would separate mothers from their children after birth. Generation after generation, they were systematically dehumanized, devoid of culture, memories erased. Essentially, after 200 years the became a new ethnic group, that of "slave". Whomever you are I'm willing to bet you have a family tree that can be easily traced from generation to generation. You have familial and ethnic identity. For the most part African-Americans do not have any of that. They were breed to have no past, no memory, no culture. They have spent the 300 years being non-persons. The U.S. was about 100 years behind the world in banning slavery. ------------------------------------------- "However one thing is for sure, and that is it was white men who passed the laws that stopped slavery." (Redrex)
Let me see.....100% of the congress, senate, executive office positions were held by White Men. But you are right, pets could have over-thrown the government and passed a bill to free the slaves. Those lazy pets!

Posted by: tellthetruth [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 26, 2008 01:19 AM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Remember me?


Regular Columnists

David Limbaugh
Debbie Schlussel
Rachel Marsden
Chris Adamo

Interesting Reads