BETTY CHAMBERS

Narcissism for Black Women: The Very Good and Healthy Expression of Deep Self-Love, and Extreme Self-Devotion. Why? Because It's Good For Ya! And Sometimes I Write about Natural Hair, Among Other Things


pithy quote goes here

The Difference Between Rev Martin Luther King Jr and Barack Hussein Obama

Posted on | August 29, 2013 | 11 Comments

One man served as a humble servant of the people and this nation.

The other thinks he’s the king of humbled servants, this nation, and the world.

Share

Comments

11 Responses to “The Difference Between Rev Martin Luther King Jr and Barack Hussein Obama”

  1. Nysee
    August 30th, 2013 @ 9:08 AM

    Dear Betty, I am glad you are back and I know everyone needs a much needed vacation. Martin Luther King had BACKBONE FROM DAY ONE. The other needs backbone. Martin Luther King put people first and himself second. The other put himself first and you better like it in their mindset. One was a legend of his time. The other is a legend in his own mind.

    GoldenAh: Thanks for the “welcome return”, Nysee. I think a hiatus is necessary. Although one could get carried away and not return. But I realize I really enjoy reading what people think, so I come back. I could write more, but I like to restrain myself. Cause I could spend post after post ranting. And what good would that do?

    Like your wording – indeed, he is a legend in his own mind. Unfortunately, I suspect before he even leaves office negroes will be naming streets, buildings and whatever after him. I wouldn’t be surprised if they demand a national holiday on his birthday, want his likeness on Mt Rushmore or the currency. I can see it now: an Obama bill equal to .02¢ even though it’s $3.

  2. Oshun
    August 30th, 2013 @ 2:05 PM

    I can’t… There is a lot not to like. This man was never a friends to AAs. Khadija was right yet again.

    GoldenAh: I don’t think Senators can ever make good Presidents, unless they have an instinctive knack for being an executive. Next, even if to some degree he’s ignorant about stuff – a US President has over 1000, in staff, not including our fine universities full of “experts” along with a bunch of hale, experienced and knowledgeable ex-presidents to get feedback from. If someone can be that much of a f**k up after 5 and a half years, I’d take Joe Biden. I suspect he’s a bit more competent than the joker we have in office now.

    One of the myths the media sold me on this guy was that he was willing to listen to advice. It turns out he really believes he knows it all. There’s no one around this guy to tell him he’s full of s%&t.

    And Oshun, an ex-staffer said the man doesn’t like people at all. No surprise there.

  3. Truth P.
    August 31st, 2013 @ 2:08 AM

    At first I thought that the black majority would eventually come to see the err in President Obama’s ways.Now I’m starting to think that even after all the damage Barack has done he will still be revered. If you think about it Obama is to the black majority what Reagan was to white Conservatives.Both groups are happy to live in their delusions and will forever speak glowingly of their Gods.

    GoldenAh: I feel like when it comes to politics black people operate from a different perspective of other groups. We know the history starts with fighting to be recognized as humans, US citizens with the right to vote, and live as freely and fully as everyone else. However, we’ve gone from “open the doors to opportunity so we could participate freely” to “we are always victims, we’re not too bright, we’ll always need special considerations, because we’re so stupid, and we’ll always need a black male leader to worship and follow.” And if he’s not black, a white person who is condescending and “talks pretty” to us will suffice.

    As voters we no longer look for anything of value – just whether that person seems to “like” us. I suspect none of them like, love or respect us, which is why I prefer an evil SOB who improves the economy over a clown who people believe is “nice”, cool or hip.

  4. JaliliMaster
    September 1st, 2013 @ 5:40 PM

    Truth P, I actually disagree with you. MANY white folks actually benefited from Reagan being president (hence the growth of the white middle class during his tenure). THAT is why he is still revered. If he was alive today, they (well conservative Republicans) would label him a ‘RINO’, but almost all is forgiven if it is perceived that you ‘fixed’ an ailing economy. Despite all of Clinton’s wrongdoings, he is still praised today because he left office with a strong economy, just as Reagan did. Obama, unfortunately, isn’t going to have that benefit. He is going to be judged very poorly by history. I have no sympathy for him. The fact is that he just isn’t (and wasn’t ever) up to the job (and for the record, neither is Hillary). The only people I feel sorry for are his two daughters, because they are the ones who will have to live with his legacy of little to zero achievement in office. The one commonality that Obama has with Reagan and Clinton is that Black folks were, by and large, on the losing end every single time. There are fools out there who still carry on with the lie that Clinton ‘helped’ Black people. These same fools will praise Obama, even after he leaves office, and will then foolishly vote in Hillary, continuing the cycle of giving their votes to folks who only give them peanuts in return, if at all!

    GoldenAh: You pretty much express how I think on political matters, and I enjoy your analysis and historical take as well. US presidents are judged by job growth, especially when explosive they are nearly given a blank check for everything else. Obama got a blank check without doing anything and that account has been drawn down.

    Sadly, the way black people vote and are so easy to use – no one respects our “power” as a voting block at all. We’re only useful when certain people need to shakedown others for money: racism chasing is a great money maker for a tiny group of people.

    And you bring up a great question: if every policy of nearly every US president or admin has concocted hasn’t really helped, why not? Is the inability to succeed a black problem? Something in the way black culture or overall society is holding folks back?

    Great points you’ve made!

  5. FoxyCleopatra
    September 5th, 2013 @ 8:54 PM

    If we are being honest what did Obama ever promise black people? He offered things to practically every other group, but when black folks come knocking, it becomes ‘well he’s not the president of only black America’. I’m like wth does that even mean???

    As Jalilimaster said, these fools will be deceived into coming out for Hillary ‘no-actual-achievement-in-office’ Clinton.

    Black people need to stop being emotional voters.

    As for Obama, history will judge him very harshly. The only time presidents will ever be forgiven for leaving the economy in shambles would be if there was serious war on home soil and you won the war. One cannot do the kind of shambolic job the Obama administration has done and expect to be revered or respected. Right now, its mostly republicans coming down hard, but I will actually chuckle when the liberals/democrats start on him. Black folks however, will continue to worship their chosen one, even while their unemployment numbers are the highest.

  6. Dreadnaught
    September 6th, 2013 @ 10:53 AM

    Welcome back !!

    and starting with one of my favorites things to complain about politics hehe.

    1) I am a White conserative and I dislike Regan so :P

    2) Clinton contrary to the media’s battle cries did not leave as strong as a economy as it seems. If you dig a bit we were in for trouble down the road. Bush however was a inept and bumbling fool, who took too much advice.

    3) Obama – I could spend days on my issues with him. But I will stick to current problems, the warmongering that is going to lead to serious issues in Syria. He is following the same path as Bush but with less help from our allies, so we will go to war again…for lies..again and now the cost in American lives and funds and standing for something that we frankly could have avoided had we not armed, trained and funded the terrorist FSA.

    The unemployment numbers in the US are a lie, they are easily manipulated as they do not count people who have given up looking, today a much more real number came out. 63% of Americans are working..which means 47% are not lowest since 1978 kind of scary.

  7. JaliliMaster
    September 6th, 2013 @ 2:25 PM

    GoldenAh said:You pretty much express how I think on political matters, and I enjoy your analysis and historical take as well. US presidents are judged by job growth, especially when explosive they are nearly given a blank check for everything else. Obama got a blank check without doing anything and that account has been drawn down.

    That is what many of his black supporters do not understand. They keep on blaming racism as the main (or even only) source of the strong opposition he gets, but they are refusing to see that he was given the chance to do some really great things in such a way that other recent presidents were not. Others usually had to earn their blank cheque (so it usually came three-quarters into a first term, after a good two to three years of a decent economy, or at the beginning of a second term, after a big re-election victory). Obama, on the other hand, got his right from the start (i.e. he did not have to earn it via actually doing any good work as president). If he were a serious individual, he would have started with the most difficult/controversial issues right away, i.e. healthcare, when his popularity was still high. That way, he would have had more leeway when negotiating with the opposition. Unfortunately, he wasn’t willing to risk any political capital. It was only when his popularity hit the high notes of around 45%-ish that he then decided to tackle it. This man’s main focus is on being popular. During his first presidential campaign, I can vaguely remember him and his folks talking about single-payer healthcare, reduced cost of medicines, being able to buy drugs from Canada (or was it Mexico), and supporting the increased production of generic drugs. Compare that to the omnishambles that is ‘Obamacare’. Even he knows that it’s a joke, but he is fighting so hard to keep it alive because it is his legacy. If you get rid of it, what else does have to point to as his achievement during his tenure? Not to be rude, but Barack Obama is a fool! It is worth noting that in recent times, every other president that won re-election did so by a larger margin than when they were first elected. Every president except Obama.

    Sadly, the way black people vote and are so easy to use – no one respects our “power” as a voting block at all. We’re only useful when certain people need to shakedown others for money: racism chasing is a great money maker for a tiny group of people.

    Nobody respects black people in general. I’m talking about the black collective as opposed to individuals.

    And you bring up a great question: if every policy of nearly every US president or admin has concocted hasn’t really helped, why not? Is the inability to succeed a black problem? Something in the way black culture or overall society is holding folks back?

    I’m not one of those who think it is just a matter of hard work, and one will definitely succeed. The fact is that there are certain hardships that one faces, be it due to race, ethnicity, gender, class, etc, which could hinder one’s success. However, I believe that the biggest of these is class/socioeconomic background. It affects where you live, the quality of education one gets, the opportunities one is exposed to and can take advantage of and so on. Black people in the West are far more comfortable with the idea of race being the biggest factor, because it means that it is someone else’s fault. Hence the reason why the majority of (poorer) blacks get angry when one starts talking about class differences. They don’t like the idea that another black person might have had an easier ride purely because their parents were well-to-do.

    FoxyCleopatra said: As Jalilimaster said, these fools will be deceived into coming out for Hillary ‘no-actual-achievement-in-office’ Clinton.

    In all the discussions I’ve had, I have yet to hear anyone able to mention even one thing that Hillary achieved as SoS. The world went up in flames under her watch, and she had no answer for it. Her supporters keep telling me that ‘hey, she promoted the education of girls wordlwide’, ‘she increased the status of America’, etc. The only ‘good’ thing Madam Hillary brought to the table was her surname. World leaders only paid attention to her because of that. But when the time came for serious discussions, they weren’t looking to chat to Hillary. Many Americans don’t understand, that having a certain amount of ‘celebrity’ is not enough in other parts of the world. When it came down to it, she was just Bill Clinton’s wife. She had a far smaller portfolio than any previous SoS (i.e. there were others in charge of the Middle East, North Africa, the most trying geopolitical regions), so she didn’t have to do too much heavy lifting. Granted, part of it was due to the fact that even Obama didn’t have much faith in her (and coming from Obama, that says a lot ). In hindsight, he was right not to. When she left office, the only praise her supporters could muster up was that she was the ‘most travelled’ SoS in history. Good for her and her air miles I guess. Still, nothing tangible to show for it. Personally, I think that Obama and Clinton are the same type of person. They want the reward without the hard work. The authority of office, but without the responsibility. The one difference is that Hillary is far more dishonest and amoral than Obama ever could be. Oh yeah, and one of them is white and the other is black-ish, and one of them is a male, and the other is a female. The sad thing is that when she first became SoS, I had high hopes for her as she finally seemed settled and content, after so many years. She even started making more of an effort with her appearance. I now realise that it was her coming to terms with/accepting the fact that she was never going to be president. Now that it seems the opportunity may once again arise, she has gone back to being the usual old Hillary.

  8. JaliliMaster
    September 6th, 2013 @ 3:16 PM

    Dreadnaught said: 1) I am a White conserative and I dislike Regan so

    I have always wondered about this. I know that if Reagan were in office today, he would not be a favourite of the Republican base. I always assumed it was because he was far more willing to compromise than many (particularly in the Tea Party) were ready to. Is that why, or is there another reason.

    2) Clinton contrary to the media’s battle cries did not leave as strong as a economy as it seems. If you dig a bit we were in for trouble down the road. Bush however was a inept and bumbling fool, who took too much advice.

    I give both Reagan and Clinton credit for the economy, even though neither of them really addressed it the way their party platforms would. They had to get rid of ideology, and get practical. Extremes rarely ever work. When I hear ‘libruls’ praising Clinton and saying Obama should do what Slick Willy did to fix the economy, I find myself thinking: but if he did, y’all would be calling him a traitor . Clinton (and Reagan) had to adopt a far more centrist approach when it came to the economy because the free market doesn’t care about politics!

    As for Bush, a part of me actually feels sorry for him now. He was never the brightest bulb in the pack, so he had to depend on others for certain things. The difference between Bush and Obama is that deep down, Bush knew he was an idiot. Obama is yet to realise it. One thing I hate is when only the President gets the blame, but his advisors get off scot-free. Cheney (who was probably the most powerful VP to date), Rumsfeld, and that idiot Karl Rove, were the ones who whispered into Bush’s ear. It even created tension between Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice, when she thought a more measured approach to certain things was better. Whenever I see Cheney, I always think of Darth Vader, I don’t know why. I thought it was poetic justice during Obama’s first inauguration, when Cheney, after having just had an operation, had to be wheeled out, with his pet cat on his lap. You couldn’t have written a more fitting villain; (I realise that it is possible that it is my imagination, as opposed to my memory, that put the cat on his lap) . The fact that Rove is still taken seriously as a political commentator, even after the fact that he wastes about $300-400 million and still couldn’t get a single one of his candidates elected on 2012, says it all. I laughed quite a bit on election night when Ohio was called for Obama, and Rove was in a Fox News studio ranting that it was a mistake, and that Ohio was going to go to Romney because not all the votes had been counted, particularly those from districts that are more conservative. Even the Fox ‘News’ host were looking at him in confusion.

    3) Obama – I could spend days on my issues with him. But I will stick to current problems, the warmongering that is going to lead to serious issues in Syria. He is following the same path as Bush but with less help from our allies, so we will go to war again…for lies..again and now the cost in American lives and funds and standing for something that we frankly could have avoided had we not armed, trained and funded the terrorist FSA.

    If he wanted to get involved in Syria, he should have done so ages ago, when there was a far greater likelihood of a diplomatic settlement. Instead, he chose to run his mouth about a ‘red line’, and is now scrambling to avoid any further embarrassment. I hope Congress votes against his plans for a military strike. The man is just such a coward. He obviously wants to strike Syria, but doesn’t have the balls to admit it. So instead, he tables it before Congress, all the while insisting that he has the legal and constitutional right to go to war without their backing (so why bother in the first place? Didn’t he criticise Bush for that sort of thinking). He is playing politics with a very serious issue. If congress backs him, and things go sour, he will blame congress, and say it’s their fault, as they are the ones who voted in favour of the war. If congress votes against it, and he is then criticized for failing to act, after all his empty threats to Assad, he will still blame congress for not supporting him. The way I see it, Congress should just vote against it. If he then decides to proceed (since he claims that it is within his powers as US prez), then let him. If he decides not to act, so be it. Whatever decision he makes, it has to be on his own head! To anyone reading this, bear in mind that, yes, Assad is a brutal dictator; but a good chunk of the so-called ‘rebels’ that are fighting are foreign, non-Syrian Al-Qaeda folks. That is who your president now wants to use American military power to support. He is worried about the outcome if Assad is overthrown. If militants are able to get into power, he needs someone to blame. Currently, the White House is trying to set Congress up to be the fall guy.

    The unemployment numbers in the US are a lie, they are easily manipulated as they do not count people who have given up looking, today a much more real number came out. 63% of Americans are working..which means 47% are not lowest since 1978 kind of scary.

    Here’s my deal. You get the government you deserve. When polled, most people said that they agreed with Romney far more than they did with Obama, and shared his values more. However, when voting, more voted for Obama because he was more ‘relatable’, i.e. they felt that Romney looked down on ‘poor people’ . For the record, I didn’t like Romney any more than Obama. Nevertheless, if you vote someone in for a second term, after seeing their stupidity on display the first time round, you need to shut up and put up because you got what you deserve. If the opposition couldn’t mount a decent enough campaign, with a decent enough candidate, they need to put up and shut up. As I said, we all get the government we deserve.

  9. FoxyCleopatra
    September 7th, 2013 @ 4:33 PM

    @ Jalilimaster,

    I couldn’t have put it any better myself!

  10. Dreadnaught
    September 9th, 2013 @ 7:07 AM

    @JaliliMaster

    Morning, Well stated, and well written.

    The reason I dislike Regan is rather odd for most of my fellow conseratives ready – He was too busy putting his nose in other countries and not about investing in our own future. The 1980s were a time of money wealth and rebounding form the issues of the 1970s we should have been focused on reinvesting in public schools, improving the infastructure of the our nation. Other then allowing the CIA to whack out Escobar foreign policy was a serious weak point.

    The Tea Party is a odd lot, I have been to meetings and I have met alot of good folks, and I have been to meetings I have been forcefully removed. The truth of the matter on this group is interesting, The founding of it really is a grass roots group of people, more Libertarian ( YEA!!) then Republican’t ( boo), very idealistic and surprisingly center of the road. Then there is a off shoot/spawn the Tea Party Republican’ts…these guys are massive jerks.

    Cheney scared the hell out of me. Rove is a four letter word I can not use on this forum it begins with a t and ends with a t.

    Rice should have been Mccain’s running mate and not Palin, the reason being she was a much much better choice and can formulate a thought without a cue card. The rest of bush’s aides are sadly still in place. alot of the stuff that falls on bush should be thrown back on the Democrap congress and senate as they had both houses for the last 4 years he was in office.

    Obama is style over substance, much like Clinton the only real thing seperating them is Willie was able to play sax and always seemed like your cool uncle. However I will always hold some serious hate for bill, his role and the US role in the butcher of Serbia is unforgivable.

    Obama and Romney were the same guy one just has a better spin machine.

  11. bwmm
    October 17th, 2013 @ 7:01 PM

    The thing is Bush is blamed for losing manufacturing jobs that were lost because policies that Clinton created. The economy got better not because of Clinton, but because of the republicans gaining more seats

>>comment subscribe:

Leave a Reply







  • Pages

  • Archives

  • Categories





  • BWE.Links