SWINGING WITH OBAMA
>> Monday, January 04, 2010
Obama's another guy the BBC will need to work hard for in 2010, and true to form we have the news that The One has been hung in Plains. Georgia. Most be those white supremacists, I guess. Or just a stupid puerile prank unworthy of international news? Or a useful way to ensure that critics of Obama are categorised in the right way? Good to hear the secret service is looking into this, it's not as if they have anything else to distract them these days....
15 comments:
If it's true to form, it'll turn out to be either leftists (even more extreme than Obama) or Democrat operatives.
2009 saw a spate of false-flag attempts to create racist incidents that were to be blamed on those wacist wepuwicans or conservatives.
Including a crazy Federal employee who committed suicide by hanging himself in such a way at to blame Tea Party activists. Wish that was a joke.
Now how many posters or effigy's of George W Bush were burned or had hate comments on them?
Don't think any of them were ever give the sympathy treatment by the camp beeboids.
He'll be even more revered by Beeboids now - he's just appointed a 'member of the transgendered community' :ahem: to act as a Commerce Advisor! >:o
<span>The Telegraph cover the story in exactly the same light:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/6929284/Barack-Obama-effigy-found-hanging-in-Jimmy-Carters-home-town.html
As do the Daily Mail:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1240506/Effigy-Barack-Obama-discovered-hanging-noose-ex-president-Jimmy-Carters-hometown.html
None of them say any more or less
</span>
When you say 'false flag', you sound a bit like a conspiracy theorist. There a wingnuts on both sides of the political spectrum (though there are several orders of magnitude more on the left). Why is it so hard to beleive that this might be the real deal?
Real deal or not though, this isn't worth reporting. If the BBC had reported each time Dubya's effigy was hung, burned or abused, they'd've had to've spend all of their monstrous budget on that alone.
Has anyone read the latest pile of steaming excrement from Mark mardell about Avatar? Can anyone make any sense of it? It just seems to be a pile of leftie student politics bollocks to me.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/01/is_blue_the_new_black_why_some.html
ALS -- you'll note I inserted the modifier ...
If it's "true to form" -- because there IS form.
There have been a significant number of supposedly "racist" incidents in the United States...
Nooses hung on the doors of black studens and professors, Professor Gates, et al, perpetrated by leftists and other to "discredit conservatives as racist.
Almost to an incident all these have proved to have been the product of the so-called "victim."
I used "false flag" because this indeed is the nut phrase du jour of leftist nutjobs. I like tweaking the Trots and other Marxists.
But to make my position clear, I condemn ANY disgustingly racist imagery used to hurt black folks with a sad history of being subjected to slavery and lynching.
This is why this "noose" and "lynching" in effigy is such a hot button topic in the States. Unlike here.
Yes, I've read it. A similar sort of debate gets carried on in this country about whether black characters in BBC programmes, e.g. East Enders or other drama productions are merely token presences with no real individual character, substance or major role etc.
Mark Mardell gets in the usual Beeboid genuflection to anti-racism, plus a sweeping claim for race as a historic and continuing force in American politics, before feeling able to declare that he doesn't consider it a question of race in the film.
He also manages that old familiar staple, a dig at America as insular - quite gratuitous, I thought, and stretching beyond the simple and most likely interpretation. It is interesting, nevertheless that he feels safe enough to make that jibe without any qualifying remarks such as those he feels are required before declaring that race is not the operating factor in Avatar.
I must read that article he linked to in the LA Times about Obama. It sounds intriguing.
Just one example...
Unhinged update: Left-wing hate-crime hoaxer pleads guilty in Denver
By Michelle Malkin • December 22, 2009 10:46 AM
In August, Democrats in Denver tried to blame conservative Tea Party activists and Obamacare foes of vandalism at the party’s downtown headquarters.
Remember?
Even after the hammer-wielding suspect was revealed to be a far Left anarchist nutball who had worked for the SEIU-tied 527 group Colorado Citizens Coalition and once canvassed for a state Democratic candidate, state Democratic Party chair Pat Waak clung to her bogus indictment of conservatives:
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/12/22/unhinged-update-left-wing-hate-crime-hoaxer-pleads-guilty-in-denver/
This is a bogus story, but this time it's not the BBC's fault. Here's the full report from local TV news in Georgia, which has the look and feel of hype and fabrication. The very, very young BBC sub-editor trainee, who is paid very, very low wages, basically copied and pasted from the WALB website. The problem is that it's not in fact an effigy of the President. It's an "alleged" effegy.
Notice that in the video the black doll is still hanging over the storefront, but there is no sign. Nobody says what happened to the sign, or asks why it's not there or where it is now. All we know is "witnesses" say they saw a sign that said "Obama". The one "witness" willing to talk on camera is not enough, and hardly comes across as a model of credibility.
Where is the sign now? Did someone take it down? Why take the sign down but not the doll? I smell fraud. Obviously some idiot hung a black doll over the storefront, but I see no evidence whatsoever that it had anything to do with the President.
The only connection this incident has to the President is that it's a much-needed distraction and Narrative assist in a time of plummeting Presidential popularity and faith in Him. So of course this is going to be hyped to the hills, no questions asked, by all media. And since racism is involved, not even Fox News is allowed to question it.
As for the Mail and Telegraph, they're also lazily copying and pasting from the same thing. It's too bad none of them are brave enough to ask what happened to the sign. I wouldn't be surprised that the average Telegraph and Mail employee harbors similar anti-US prejudices to those so often displayed by Beeboids, so they, too, simply believe the report and dutifully reproduce it.
Now, I grant you that a particularly clever pranskter could have simply hung an untitled black doll over the Carter sign, intending it as a subtle representation of the common criticism that The Obamessiah is just a black incarnation of Jimmy Carter.
No sign = no effigy. Something else is going on here, but we'll probably never learn the truth because it conveniently fits a beloved media Narrative.
I would also add that it's not a fair comparison between all the effigies of Bush that the BBC never bothered to report because of the specific racial and historical connotations of a hanged black man. Of course, that's why this is being reported as an effigy, no questions asked. No one would dare.
It is news, partly because of location in Jimmuh's home town and partly because it is a sign that Obama's halo may be slipping. This is true whether or not it was a false flag operation. There would have been no need to stage something like this had there not been a disasterous fall in popularity.
"<span>The very, very young BBC sub-editor trainee, who is paid very, very low wages, basically copied and pasted from the WALB website."</span>
Applies to all other media sources as well i hope ie. Daily Mail and Telegraph?? Or are we supposed to show bias against the BBC?
Perhaps in your rush to blindly defend the BBC and score points against us, you skimmed over, rather than actually read my comment. Please read my comment again, only this time pay particular attention to the bit where I say that the Telegraph and the Mail did exactly the same thing.
I shall unironically copy and paste the relevant portion of my comment here, which you can easily corroborate by scrolling up to make sure I'm not just lying to cover my ass:
<span>So of course this is going to be hyped to the hills, no questions asked, by all media. And since racism is involved, not even Fox News is allowed to question it.
As for the Mail and Telegraph, they're also lazily copying and pasting from the same thing. It's too bad none of them are brave enough to ask what happened to the sign. I wouldn't be surprised that the average Telegraph and Mail employee harbors similar anti-US prejudices to those so often displayed by Beeboids, so they, too, simply believe the report and dutifully reproduce it.
</span>
I will also state once again that my opinion is that this is a bogus story that is being falsely hyped by all media as an effigy of the President, when in fact there are glaring questions about the complete absence of the only damning bit of information.
Yes, I managed to get in two separate digs at the BBC. One was a slap at both Helen Boaden's pathetic defense about factual errors in BBC reporting and at Mark Thompson's equally pathetic defense about BBC salaries being outrageously high. The other dig was about certain anti-US sentiments held and occasionally encouraged by British media in general including, but not uniquely by, the BBC. Neither of these criticisms can be characterized as you claim.
In fact, had you truly read my final paragraph with an open and honest mind, you might have gleaned that I was actually defending the BBC against charges that they shouldn't have reported this incident at all because they hardly ever reported on the endless Bush effigies burnt, hung, Nazified, etc.
I don't see this as something staged by ACORN or Obamessiah worshipers just to distract from all the negative press. A proper false flag would have included the actual flag. There was no sign. Without the sign, it's a local racist story, not a national one.
Mark Mardell is not only heavily, blindly, biased, but also not very bright. The main criticism of Avatar is the exact opposite of what he's babbling about: that James Cameron has made a clumsy anti-Bush/anti-neo-con/anti-Capitalist-Imperialist exploitation metaphor.
The real criticism of this film making the rounds is that it's a bleeding-heart liberal tale about how the noble blue savages are going to be wiped out by nasty US military for their resources. No blood for oil, etc. Mardell is a tool who completely misses the point, even while accurately writing it down:
the story centres on a conflict between greedy corporate human invaders and the planet's inhabitants
Because he's a Leftoid tool, all he knows about are criticisms from the Left. So he babbles leftoid student politics bollocks because that's all he knows.
Who the hell is talking about a "magical negro", other than race-hustling ax-grinders? All on the Left, fellow travelers of Mardell, naturally.
Examples of far more intelligent and legitimate criticisms or revealing reviews of this film can be found here:
Avatar: Fun Fantasy or Political Statement?
The Suicide Fantasy
Avatarocious
There's even a Leftoid celebrating that the movie is a triumph of Leftoid student politics bollocks.
Instead, Mardell reveals his personal bias and reading habits by digging at the bottom of the Leftoid barrel.
Post a Comment