Friday, March 14, 2008
Freedom of Speech, Obama, Racism and Geraldine Ferraro
Elections piece by
Mary Mostert
It all started when Democrat Geraldine Ferraro, the first woman on a major party presidential team ticket said: “Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says, ‘Let’s address reality and the problems we’re facing in this world,’ you’re accused of being racist, so you have to shut up,” Geraldine Ferraro told the Daily Breeze of Torrance, California. “Racism works in two different directions. I really think they’re attacking me because I’m white. How’s that?”
Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama responded to her comments with an immediate effort to silence her:
“I think anybody who understands the history of this country knows they are patently absurd. And I would expect that the same way those comments don’t have a place in my campaign, they shouldn’t have a place in Sen. Clinton’s, either,” Obama added.
It didn’t take long. Obama’s demand that Geraldine Ferraro be punished for exercising her freedom of speech appears to have ended her place in Clinton’s campaign. This was accomplished by truly outrageous attacks on Ferraro. She has “been called all kinds of names,” she said, and the attacks “are ageist, they’re sexist, they’re racist. It’s been very, very uncomfortable.”
In a word, she is getting hate mail. And, I believe her, because I’ve read some of it posted on the Internet.
While I disagree with Geraldine Ferraro on probably most political issues, the fact is, she was absolutely right in pointing out that “any time anybody does anything that in any way” which is critical of Obama’s campaign, and tries to address the reality of the problems facing us today, the issues are never discussed. In fact, it seems obvious that Obama will to attack ANYONE who dares criticize him. The racist name-calling is an effective way to silence a lot of people in our now politically correct era.
Actually, you don’t even have to question his politics in order to be attacked as a “racist.” All you have to do is to call him by his given name, and you are a racist. Or you can mention that he admits to illegal drug use which he mentioned in his own book, and you are a racist. Is mentioning his opponent’s name, Hillary Rodham Clinton, a racist or sexist thing to do? I grew up when the president of the United States was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. That’s what everyone called him and how his name was always printed. Having carefully studied < href=http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/>Obama’s Blueprint for Change for America, I was about to write an article about how similar his plan is to that of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s plan for change, which he called “The New Deal.”
Of course, if I had remarked, as I probably would have, that Barack Hussein Obama reminded me of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, undoubtedly that would create the kind of hate mail that Geraldine Ferraro is getting. Using all three of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s names was not an insult. In fact, it was considered more a title of honor. Like Obama, Roosevelt had a golden delivery. I can remember the hushed, almost worshipful manner my mother had as she listened intently to the persuasive voice coming from the black box plugged into the only electric plug in the house.
When I finally, some years ago, actually sat down and READ some of Roosevelt’s speeches, I also finally realized why the Depression lasted so long. Roosevelt’s “change” like Obama’s proposed “change” was based almost entirely on trying to do away with capitalism and free enterprise in America, and making the government the chief employer in the country.
For example, to this day most people remember one sentence out of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s first inaugural address, in which he said, “…the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”
That was a great start - but almost the entire rest of the speech was aimed at ENDING our economic system - not reviving it. He went on to squarely place the blame for the economic situation facing the nation on the free enterprise system: “Plenty is at our doorstep, but a generous use of it languishes in the very sight of the supply. Primarily this is because the rulers of the exchange of mankind’s goods have failed, through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failure, and abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men.”
His solution was simple. As he put it those captains of industry had been “stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our people to follow their false leadership” and the solution was to apply “social values more noble than mere monetary profit.”
In other words, the solution was socialism, which he spelled out in some detail in his speech. He would put the 30% of the workforce that were unemployed back to work by “direct recruiting by the Government itself” thereby “accomplishing greatly needed projects to stimulate and reorganize the use of our natural resources.” His plan required “national planning for and supervision of all forms of transportation and of communications and other utilities which have a definitely public character” along eliminating the “evils of the old order” through “supervision of all banking and credits and investments; there must be an end to speculation with other people’s money, and there must be provision for an adequate but sound currency.”
When I read Obama’s plan for America in the 21st Century, it sounded really familiar. In fact, it sounded a LOT like the plan advocated by the International Socialists Organization which also believes, as does Obama that “the misery that millions of people around the world face is rooted in the society we live in-capitalism.” Opposition to free enterprise seems to be the foundation for most of Obama’s other views, which socialists share. Like the socialists, Obama opposes the war on terror we are engaged in, the defense of our borders to stop illegal immigration, and he supports unlimited abortion. He voted against the ban on partial birth abortions of late term babies. He would increase the entitlement programs, increase the social security tax, and cut our national defense at a time when we face the greatest danger in at least two generations.
Yet, any suggestion of actually DISCUSSING his plans for America’s future is shot down swiftly and always with the same accusation - racism. Obama had a father who was black and a mother who was white. Seems to me he can identify with either race or identify with no race. If he is so thin-skinned about being identified as black, why, with his looks, has he chosen to become a member of a church that identifies itself as composed of “African people” who are “unashamedly black” and who plan to “remain true to our native land, the mother country.” He seems to totally reject his mother’s identity as a white woman, considers Africa, not America his “native land” and calls for the dismissal of anyone who questions his plans to change our constitutional system of government and free enterprise economy.
If he is so distraught at being told he is fortunate to be black by Geraldine Ferraro, a fellow Democrat, what would he do as president if people, foreign and domestic, started criticizing him the way they now criticize President George Walker Bush? Run away to his “mother country” somewhere in Africa?
http://www.bannerofliberty.com/BOL-2008MQC/3-14-2008.1.html
HowardWasRight 
more...
more... 
