The Osterley Times: Teabagger Mark Williams says: 'Obama is an Indonesian Muslim turned welfare thug and a racist in chief' and tries to defend it!

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Teabagger Mark Williams says: 'Obama is an Indonesian Muslim turned welfare thug and a racist in chief' and tries to defend it!

David Gergen makes a very valid point here when he states that both sides in the US appear to be talking past each other.

But then, I think the reason why they are doing so is highlighted by the insanity put forward by Mark Williams in this clip.

COOPER: But I mean, Mark, what you're saying makes sense to me here when I'm hearing what you're saying. But then I read on your blog, you say -- you call the president an Indonesian Muslim turned welfare thug and a racist in chief.

WILLIAMS: Yes.

COOPER: Is that the kind of...

WILLIAMS: That's the way he's behaving.

COOPER: But I mean...

WILLIAMS: I mean, if he cares to be...

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: Do you believe he's Indonesian? Do you believe he's a Muslim? Do you really believe he's a welfare thug?

WILLIAMS: He's certainly acting like it.

GERGEN: You think he's a racist in chief? Racist in chief? Is that what you called him? That's unbelievable. It's unbelievable....

WILLIAMS: Until he embraces the whole country -- what else can I conclude? He and guys like James are totally, totally isolating the rest of this country; if you're a working-class American, then you know, that's it.

CARVILLE: I tell you, if you're an American, and you like what you're hearing from this guy, if you like celebrating a man's death, go over there with these people.

Leaving aside the sick joke which is Republicans fighting for the good of the "working class Americans", how does one begin to have any kind of rational argument with a man who begins by stating that the president is "an Indonesian Muslim turned welfare thug and racist in chief"?

I mean, someone coming into the argument from such a fact free position renders any discussion utterly pointless. But, Williams is right when he states that this is not about health care. Because it's not.

The charge that Obama - a man with a white mother and two white grandparents - is racist, tells us a lot about what is going on in the minds of people like Williams. By stating that Obama is a racist, he is saying that this is about race.

Williams and his ilk are projecting on to Obama their own worst fears. These people have always argued that the Civil Right Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 would allow blacks to "take over."

And, as far as they are concerned, the election of Obama represents all of those worst fears coming true.

Why else would Williams state, " Until he embraces the whole country -- what else can I conclude?" He's explicitly playing poor whitey there. Implying that the election of a black man means that he is disenfranchised.

And the images they have used to berate him, such as the widely distributed one on the left, makes the fact that this is about race almost inarguable.

UPDATE:

Bang on cue Limbaugh picks up the subject of an America run only to suit blacks:

"In Obama's America, the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering, 'Yay, right on, right on, right on, right on," Limbaugh said. He continued:

"I wonder if Obama's going to come to come to the defense of the assailants the way he did his friend Skip Gates up there at Harvard."

As I say, they are not even hiding what they are doing any more, it's actually in your face.

See what electing a black president has done, according to Limbaugh's logic? It's directly led to white kids being beaten up as blacks cheer on from the sidelines. If that's not like screaming, "The Blacks are taking over" then I don't know what is.

UPDATE II:

The police chief who stated that this attack might be racially motivated has since withdrawn that remark, stating that he wrongly jumped to a conclusion and that this was simply standard schoolboy bullying.

Sullivan reports that Michelle Malkin, who jumped all over this story, now refuses to take back what she said, even now that the police have changed their minds:

The police chief himself said he jumped to a conclusion. Now what does Malkin do in response?

She refuses to remove or correct the post that says baldly that the attack was racial and her correction amounts to:

The police are backing off the racial motive claims. Given the explosive consequences of candor about such matters, this is not surprising.
No: one police chief said he had jumped to the wrong conclusion. But Malkin insists that the real reason was racial and the the chief is bowing to political correctness. Every time I think the far right won't go there, they do. The race-baiting now going on as a way to build resentment of Obama is pretty amazing.