posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 08:09 AM
reply to post by RealSpoke
What was objectionable in Obama's inflammatory speech? How about his fake accent that he turned on for 40 plus minutes for starters. That's just
humorous and should be insulting to those in the crowd.
Then come the facts.... Facts which then Senator Obama KNEW and completely ignored in order to fuel the fire and pour some salt into some healing
wounds. Obama spread lies about the Katrina Funding and the Stafford Act Period!!
The Katrina ravaged area (Not Just New Orleans why do people think that Katrina only hit N.O.) received Stafford Waivers and $110 Billion dollars in
Federal Funds including $6.9 billion with no strings attached....
One thing that is not new here is the president’s penchant for lying whenever it suits his purposes. As both Fox and the Daily Caller point out,
six months before this speech, the federal government had already sent approximately $110 billion to areas damaged by Katrina. Furthermore, the
federal government did waive the Stafford Act on several occasions during its reconstruction efforts. And the Bush administration also sent an
additional $6.9 billion to Katrina-effected areas–with no strings attached. Senator Obama undoubtedly knew about all of it, yet he apparently
wasn’t going to let the truth get in the way of a good speech.
Many have dubbed Obama as the "Chameleon" and they are spot on .... Which Obama should we trust and which Obama should we believe. In 2008 most of
America thought they were voting for the man who a delivered a very powerful and inspirational speech in 2004. That whole speech was pure BS when
compared to this 2007 speech. Then, in 2008 in an effort to save his ass, he delivers the famous speech in which he throws his beloved pastor (as
described in the 2007 speech) under the bus. Yet another contrasting speech. 3 key speeches that contradict themselves...
By any reasonable assessment, the Hampton University speech is miles away from Obama’s speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention that
catapulted him to national prominence. With an eye to the national stage, Obama said, “The pundits, the pundits like to slice and dice our country
into red states and blue states,” and further that we are “one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending
the United States of America.” Except when the president is dividing us by race and class in order to win an election.
Some commentators have already assailed the President as an unprincipled chameleon, saying what he thinks his audience wants to hear. For instance,
Obama began his speech with “a special shout out” to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who had already become a controversy at the time. He praised Wright
as “my pastor, the guy who puts up with me, counsels me, listens to my wife complain about me. He’s a friend and a great leader. Not just in
Chicago, but all across the country.” But soon after, when that friend and great leader finally became a political liability due to his overtly
racist worldview, Obama was able to distance himself from Wright, amazingly using his 2008 speech about race as a vehicle. And once again, just as in
2004, the president was hailed by the media as a uniter, a post-racial vision of the future — only a short time after he parroted the deeply
divisive and hateful views of Jeremiah Wright.
A chameleon though he may be, this does not change what we know for certain about Obama’s radical past, in which frequent off-script imbroglios fit
perfectly. Thus it was important, as Hannity noted in his opening segment, to hammer home the point that Obama’s ability to have it both ways — to
cast himself as a “pragmatic uniter” while espousing the ideology of Jeremiah Wright, Derrick Bell, Saul Alinsky and Communist operative Frank
Marshall Davis — is only possible because of a mainstream media more than willing to let him get away with it. To add insult to injury, as the
Caller reveals in a separate story, the Democratic National Committee was working with tweets from reporters at organizations including Politico,
BuzzFeed, The Huffington Post, The New York Times, New York Magazine and the Atlantic, to discredit the Hampton University video before it was
Which Obama do you believe and trust? I think the only Obama that I can believe is the 2007 Obama. The divisive Obama, the Obama who faithfully
followed Rev. Wright and his Black Liberation Theology, The Obama who lectured on Critical Race Theory, as taught to him by Derrick Bell, while on
the Faculty at the University of Chicago, The Obama who perfected the manipulation of Affirmative Action programs to advance his career, The Obama
who manipulated and used the poor electorate in his former Chicago District to advance his own career, ...