Media Criticism, Political Commentary

Shocking Photos

78 Comments

Barack Obama appeared and marched with the New Black Panthers a year before he was elected president. Actually, I’m not shocked at all.

[Mid-afternoon update]

More from Hans von Spakovsky:

If another presidential candidate had shared a podium, marched with, and received an endorsement from the KKK, it would justifiably be front page news and we would be seriously questioning the judgment of that candidate. If that candidate got elected and his administration then dismissed a lawsuit it had already won against the KKK, it would have led to serious consequences and serious questions being asked from the mainstream media. So why, when the color of the racists is reversed, is such behavior ignored?

That’s a rhetorical question, I think.

78 thoughts on “Shocking Photos”

  1. At this point, Obama has a record as President. Has his presidency seemed to have any connection to the New Black Panthers? “The New Black Panthers are a radical Muslim black separatist group that, among other things, supported threats of violence against cartoonists in Denmark for their depictions of Muhammad. ” Seems to me Obama is more likely to authorize the killing of such of people.

    And since Perry was mentioned in the piece, did you see this?
    Texas Dems defend Perry
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65009.html

    Or

  2. Has his presidency seemed to have any connection to the New Black Panthers?

    Do you mean besides his Justice Department dropping charges of voter intimidation against them after it had won a default judgment under the Bush administration? And its leader visiting the White House after Obama became president?

  3. Yes. The piece says that the White House says it was a different guy with the same name, and after the Birther nonsense, as well as a large variety of TSA travesties involving people who shared the same name but not the same terrorist inclinations, I’m more inclined than ever to believe the White House until someone provides more evidence than a guest log with just a name on it. I don’t know the details of the Justice Department case, but I’d want more info than your source provides. Anyway, I’m answering “yes” because at worst, if everything the article says is true, you’ve got evidence of cronyism, whereas I believe you’re accusing him of something more provocative.

  4. The piece says that the White House says it was a different guy with the same name, and after the Birther nonsense, as well as a large variety of TSA travesties involving people who shared the same name but not the same terrorist inclinations, I’m more inclined than ever to believe the White House until someone provides more evidence than a guest log with just a name on it

    Funny, I’m disinclined to believe them about much of anything at this point.

    Anyway, I’m answering “yes” because at worst, if everything the article says is true, you’ve got evidence of cronyism, whereas I believe you’re accusing him of something more provocative.

    I’m accusing him of being much more radical in his beliefs than the myths would indicate. There is abundant evidence for it. This is just one more piece.

      1. They also started the practice of meeting lobbyists offsite so they wouldn’t have to be reported as visitors. Where is that transparency?

  5. The double standard exhibited here is odious. Here, we have (once again!) a sitting president openly consorting with some of the worst racists in the US, but getting a free pass because those racists were black. Meanwhile, here are reporters who carefully glean the rumors for every whiff of racism on Republican candidates.

  6. Rand, regardless of whatever is in the President’s innermost thoughts, Obama’s presidency simply hasn’t been radical. You should read more radical (or just leftist) critiques of the president. For that matter, Jim (who doesn’t seem all that radical or all that leftist) recently posted some pretty astute commentary here about how Obama probably torpedoed his presidency wasting time looking for GOP votes instead of pressing ahead a Democratic Party majority. Maybe reread Jim’s comments. And while you do, Obama will keep having radical Islamist terrorists killed.

    1. Obama could have gotten away with nationalizing Citibank and others; he didn’t. He could have gotten away with reducing, rather than increasing, the number of troops in Afghanistan. He could have gotten away with scaling back drone strikes; he accelerated them. He could have gotten away with being mildly pro-gun control; instead he has a straight-F rating from the Brady Campaign. His chief of staff could be a community organizer or union head; instead he’s a banker. When his economic team lost its most outspoken Keynesians (Romer, Bernstein) he could have replaced them with like minds; he went for centrist voices instead.

      Obama isn’t anywhere near testing the radical limits of the presidency — he’s navigating the middle of the Democratic party, just as he has his entire political career.

      1. That’s your opinion of what he could have gotten away with — it apparently wasn’t his. He did, after all (at least in theory) want to get reelected.

        …navigating the middle of the Democratic party, just as he has his entire political career.

        You mean like when he ran as a candidate for the Socialist New Party in the nineties? Or when he voted to the let of Bernie Sanders in the Senate? Do other members of the “middle of the Democratic party” march with the New Black Panther Party?

      2. Obama is plenty radical enough for me. If the left is criticizing him for not being radical enough, it just means they want to confiscate my property and put me in a forced-labor camp right now.

  8. Knowing Breitbart’s less-than-scrupulous regard for the truth, my questions are:

    1) Were the podium shots at the same event, or different events at the same place?

    2) Was the grainy photo with the so-called “uniformed NBPP member” at a NBPP rally or did these individuals just come to an Obama public event?

      1. Shirley Sherrod, ACORN (no prosecutor who looked at the tapes was able to make a case, because they were so heavily altered), attempting to wiretap a US Senator.

          1. Sherrod was not a racist. ACORN did not support prostitutes (the tapes were edited to make a false case) and his star O’Keefe was convicted of tampering with a US Senator’s phone system.

          2. Gerrib’s response? Repeat the lie. Next he’ll remind us that Palin incited Laughner to violence.

          3. Actually her story was about how she once was racist but changed when she realized it wasn’t about whites vs blacks but about rich vs poor.

            Breitbart’s point was the audience reaction. Very similar to the current attacks against the Republican debates.

            The ACORN tapes were only edited in the sense that the guy did not actually dress like a parody when he went into the offices but the woman dressed the same.

            Where is ACORN now, if they did not do anything illegal?

    2. BTW, the answers to both of Gerrib’s questions are in the Youtube video. The event was the 42 annual Selma, AL bridge crossing. Even NPR reported on the Blank Panthers being there as well as Hillary Clinton and Obama. So please Gerrib, call Breitbart a liar and pretend that what he presented isn’t confirmed by multiple sources. Then come back later to tell us how Palin incited Laughner.

      Grainy photo? It’s a screen shot from the video, which is extremely clear. Either your monitor sucks, or your too afraid to see the video for yourself and form a real opinion. I think you’re afraid to look and see the truth.

      1. The 42nd Annual Selma bridge crossing? An event that every civil rights organization in the free world attended? That’s somehow an Obama (or anybody else’s) endorsement of the Black Panthers?

        Now I know why the “mainstream media” is ignoring the story – it’s a non-story.

  9. If so, then it doesn’t matter if a leftist radical gets into the White House, because they have to imitate a centrist Democrat.

    Or maybe that’s wrong. Lets say Malik Shabazz magically became President of the United States tomorrow. A good exercise might be to contemplate how the Shabazz presidency would differ from the Obama presidency….

    1. You really want to go there? There are numerous videos of NBPP party members chanting kill whitey.

      Having Shabazz as President wouldn’t mean a more radical leftist in office unless you think the radical left wants to kill the whities.

      You are trying to defend the indefensible.

  10. Bob, presidents aren’t god. They work in a system designed on purpose to deny them such power. It’s amazing how open Obama is about his agenda, but the media has his back, so purhaps not that surprising at all.

    Obama is a very skilled liar able to say exactly the opposite of what he means. Although perhaps that just means his writers are skilled.

    He’s not just radical. He is through the looking glass radical. The fact that he’s president means their is something very, very wrong with the people in this country. That he isn’t able to be himself is due to our founders, not anything worthy of praise in him.

    I’m just tickled that Franklin, Washington, Jefferson, etc. were able to get Obama to kill some of the bastards that need killing.

    1. Ya, there are way too many examples of Obama lamenting that he has to operate in a democratic system.

      1. I learned recently it is an Israeli joke — Israeli politicians say it all the time. They don’t mean it. Maybe Obama picked it up from them.

        2. Why is it when libs/Dems/progs get caught saying something stupid, they always claim they were “just joking”? Is that supposed to make it all better?

  11. I’m sure if someone found a photo of Rick Perry marching with the Ku Klux Klan, Bob-1 would be equally diligent in excuse-making.

    1. What they found on Rick Perry is he hunted at a place which at one time had the N-word painted on a rock. The place was leased by his father, who painted over the word on the rock three decades ago upon obtaining the lease. It’s truly absurded that it’s even a story, but WaPo took 5 pages to cover it.

    2. 5 pages and all they did was create doubt as to when the rock was painted over. /mission accomplished

  12. Ken, while not God, a radical president could do an enormous amount of damage, and Obama chose not do such damage. Obama didn’t even pull out of Afghanistan, although he clearly had the power to do it. Don’t you think President Shabazz would have? Obama didn’t even close Gitmo, although he clearly had that power. Don’t you think President Shabazz would have? In what other ways would Shabazz have empowered Al Queda, while President Obama dismantled it instead.

    Closer to home: President Obama and Senator McCain saw eye-to-eye on saving Wall Street from itself. How do you suppose a radical President would have reacted to the 2008 financial meltdown?

    I’m serious: I think it is a good exercise to contemplate the powers of the Presidency and consider what a truly radical president could do, and then, maybe as an afterthought, note how Obama’s presidency is quite different.

    1. [another] radical president could do an enormous a greater amount of damage

      FIFY

      I shudder to consider although you do provide examples. Bob, he railed against Bush then kept his policies in place. Does that make a dent in your head… at all? Are you seriously trying to say every he does is because it’s exactly what he wants to do and is unconstrained in any manner? Really? I am in awe of ya Bob.

      Your exercise is horrible to contemplate since politicians and the media allow it to go this far I would never want to see how far it might go. How does this make Obama a shiny armor white knight?

      1. Iran? After all, it isn’t like secretly selling weapons to Iran is unheard of in the history of the American presidency….

        Talk about “Pal-ing Around With Terrorists was bad enough in 2007, but now, Obama has had plenty of opportunities to help terrorists and terrorist-supporting nations. It didn’t happen. The opposite happened. You guys should give it up already.

        3. So a radical leftist President would support the sale of arms to Iran, which is actively supporting a guerrilla war against our own troops in two different wars?

          Why would a radical leftist president be against their own country?

          1. Your education would be greatly enhanced by adding leftist blogs to your reading list, and you will certainly learn the answer to your question.

    2. Thank you Bob for yet again proving the left is innumerate and lacks perspective. One piece of evidence, ignoring the reality of political entanglements, is all you need to counter a mountain of contrary evidence. Well done, sir.

  15. I don’t know that a more radical President could manage to be much more radical without determined, active opposition from within his own ranks.

    Eric Holder was about as fervent about closing Gitmo as anyone could be – but they couldn’t figure out a way to do it that doesn’t involve actually -releasing- the inmates in the end. (military law and civilian law don’t mix well. Little things like “firing at an armed and aware enemy soldier” don’t equate to “attempted murder”.)

    President Eric Holder (or Shabazz) would be impeached by now, and the 2010 bloodbath would have been of even more epic proportions.

    1. I don’t know that a more radical President could manage to be much more radical without determined, active opposition from within his own ranks.

      If that’s true, you guys can relax — you don’t need to worry about radical presidents because they just turn out like regular Democrats. What a relief, Stanley Kurtz, Jerome Corsi, et al can stop digging through Obama’s past and maybe write something about what Obama’s actually doing as president.

      And yet this thread exists, evidence that the right is desperately concerned with proving that Obama is more radical than he pretends, and that this matters … somehow.

      1. This thread exists because Obama has no problem hanging out with the racist NBPP and if a Republican or someone not affiliated with any party was to do the same, their behavior would not be acceptable to the media or the PC Watchmen Democrats.

        Are the NBPP welcome in the Democrat’s big tent?

  16. I’m accusing him of being much more radical in his beliefs than the myths would indicate.

    You’re accusing him of thoughtcrime?

    Being at the same rally, and even sharing a podium, does not make two people ideological allies, much less secret soul mates. One of the pastors at Rick Perry’s prayer rally this summer preaches that Japan is literally plagued by demons because their emperor had sex with the Shinto sun goddess. What does that tell us about a President Perry’s foreign policy towards Japan? Nothing. What does the presence of NBPP leaders at a rally featuring Obama and Hillary Clinton tell us about Obama’s presidency? Nothing.

    There’s something very odd about the continued fascination with proving that Obama is really a secret radical. He’s been President for 2 1/2 years, signed lots of laws, issued lots of executive and military orders, appointed lots of people to government posts. The nature of his administration and his policy preferences are on the front page of every newspaper, every day. He’s yet to do anything more radical than what any another leading Democrat (Clinton, Biden, Reid, Pelosi, etc.) would do.

    But I suppose a fevered conspiracy theory is more fun than the boring reality that Obama is a mainstream Democrat.

    1. He’s been President for 2 1/2 years

      Good point. As Sarah Palin is fond of reminding us, he now has a record he can’t hide from. I so look forward to the day those two debate if it should ever come.

    2. You’re accusing him of thoughtcrime?

      No. I’m accusing him of lying about his true beliefs to get elected. And I’m accusing the media of being complicit.

    3. Being at the same rally, and even sharing a podium, does not make two people ideological allies, much less secret soul mates. One of the pastors at Rick Perry’s prayer rally this summer preaches that Japan is literally plagued by demons because their emperor had sex with the Shinto sun goddess.

      Fair enough but it is not like the left doesn’t think those people are Perry’s ideological soul-mates and attacked him relentlessly for it. So why does Obama get a pass?

  17. Obama’s presidency simply hasn’t been radical. You should read more radical (or just leftist) critiques of the president.

    Or we could blow that off and save a few brain cells. Leftists have a strong incentive to disown Obama now that he’s torpedoed their chances for at least a term. As I see it, Obama was a stealth candidate, a common tactic for leftists in the 20th century. Obamacare, for example, had a lot in it that would have incentivized a one payer system.

    As to Jim’s rather clueless comments, he has yet to explain how placating conservative Democrats is looking for GOP votes.

    1. Obama let Max Baucus negotiate with Charles Grassley and Olympia Snowe for months, nearly losing his chance to pass any health care reform bill at all, because he wanted at least a few GOP votes. He got one vote in committee (Snowe), none to break the filibuster, and none for passage. The bill that was passed did plenty to placate conservative Dems (e.g. no public option), but it could have been passed much sooner, leaving time for other things, if Obama hadn’t been hung up on getting GOP votes.

      1. Obama let Max Baucus negotiate with Charles Grassley and Olympia Snowe for months

        And they didn’t get those votes, despite having a huge amount of bargaining power, which implies to me that they didn’t try very hard. Meanwhile, it was well known that a number of Democrats were dragging their feet on the plan.

        The bill that was passed did plenty to placate conservative Dems (e.g. no public option), but it could have been passed much sooner, leaving time for other things, if Obama hadn’t been hung up on getting GOP votes.

        Prove it. My view is that the huge bribes to conservative Democrats, almost a full year after negotiation starts indicates that the conservative side of the party was the real problem.

      2. I guess we are all supposed to forget about Nancy Pelosi locking out all of the House Republicans during the conference committee discussions. As for the bill that passed placating anybody, we didn’t get to see the bill until after it was passed, as famously expressed by Nancy Pelosi’s, “we have to pass the bill before you can see what is in it.” And let’s not forget the most transparent administration ever decided to forget about their own campaign promise to give people 5 days to read the bill prior to the President’s signature.

        Yeah, all that down the memory hole for Jim.

  19. So why, when the color of the racists is reversed, is such behavior ignored?

    Speaking of rhetorical questions, why do people like von Spakovsky pretend that black-on-white racism is as big a problem in the US as white-on-black racism, and deserving of equal concern?

      1. And we’re now a 12% white nation, where whites have only in my lifetime been given equal legal rights after centuries of slavery and second-class status, but still trail other races in health, wealth and education, and are routinely discriminated against in hiring, real estate and law enforcement?

        Amazing thing, that pendulum.

        1. So your cure for racism is to be racist? Using statistics in this case is an example of fraud. You don’t believe in equal justice. You want ‘more’ equal than you justice.

          History is what it is. You don’t fix it with more injustice.

    2. Speaking of rhetorical questions, why do people like von Spakovsky pretend that black-on-white racism is as big a problem in the US as white-on-black racism, and deserving of equal concern?

      Black on white racism is far more likely to end up in a police blotter for one thing.

    3. Why does it matter who is being racist, shouldn’t hate crimes receive the same level of scrutiny regardless?

      Why you would use slavery to excuse current racist behavior from minorities is mind boggling.

  20. It’s hard to top O’s Annenberg gig, through which he implemented curricula drafted by Bill Ayers (in addition to non-Annenberg sources) in select Chicago public schools. That’s not palling around. That’s placing a terrorist in the position to mold the minds of schoolchildren. O.J. Simpson got off scot free, but nobody would want him writing school curricula.

    1. Show me the curricula. You can’t. You haven’t seen it. You don’t know of it. It exists only in your mind. If I’m wrong, show me the curricula.

      2. “Mr. Ayers is the founder of the “small schools” movement (heavily funded by CAC [Chicago Annenberg Challenge]), in which individual schools built around specific political themes push students to “confront issues of inequity, war, and violence.” He believes teacher education programs should serve as “sites of resistance” to an oppressive system. (His teacher-training programs were also CAC funded.) The point, says Mr. Ayers in his “Teaching Toward Freedom,” is to “teach against oppression,” against America’s history of evil and racism, thereby forcing social transformation.”

        http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212856075765367.html

        Bill Ayers isn’t just some random Chicago academic. His Wikipedia article describes him as an “elementary education theorist” before mentioning his role as cofounder of the Weather Underground. Under the heading “Civic and political life” this summary is given of his role in Chicago politics:

        “Ayers worked with Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley in shaping the city’s school reform program, and was one of three co-authors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge grant proposal that in 1995 won $49.2 million over five years for public school reform. In 1997 Chicago awarded him its Citizen of the Year award for his work on the project. Since 1999 he has served on the board of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago, an anti-poverty, philanthropic foundation established as the Woods Charitable Fund in 1941.”

        Chicago politics is way too cozy with evil. The city establishment sees no problem with involving a mass murderer in education policy, and neither does Obama.

        1. I’m asking this: what was taught in the schools because of Mr Ayers? He was one voice on a committee. What was the final product? Where was it used? I think you have no idea.

          1. Fascinating. I raise the issue of the propriety of allowing an unrepentant murderer to be involved with the development of school curricula. You totally ignore my point, and instead raise another issue: what curricula Ayers produced. We are having two separate conversations.

    1. Equally of concern? Should the NBPP and Obama being at the same rally really be treated exactly the same as the KKK and Rick Perry being at the same rally? Really?

      2. If Perry appeared at a rally with the KKK, he would be drummed out of the Republican party faster than it would take the story to hit NPR’s web site.

  22. “Should the NBPP and Obama being at the same rally really be treated exactly the same as the KKK and Rick Perry being at the same rally”

    baracky was at the rally. perry is in your imagination.

    1. Heh. Furthermore, I read this blog daily, and pal around (or at least have conversations with) many of the participants. And it is all logged. Using the logic of the initial story, what can we conclude about my political beliefs?

      1. The damning thing is that Obama was one of the speakers. Follow the link to the Breitbart article.

        Dude, learn something about context. There is a difference between hanging out at a rally – or being a comments thread dissident – and being a guest speaker invited by the organizers. People do not accept speaking gigs at demonstrations if they have moral qualms about the organizers.

        NBPP is anti-capitalist, anti-white and anti-Semitic, and even SPLC lists them as a hate group.

      2. And the fact that the original photo posts were scrubbed clean indicates that even those in the Obama camp at some point felt they needed to do some PR whitewashing.

Comments are closed.