President Obama who has through out his presidency “misspoken”, failed to live up to most campaign promises and has on numerous occasions spoken apparent untruths, is now being criticized for what most say cannot be described any other way than outright lying.
In one of the previously unreported and never aired segments of the 2007 video the mainstream media insist we had all seen, then Sen. Barack Obama seemingly Impersonated a stereotypical ‘old wise Negro’ with step-and-fetch it accent (as many describe it) in front of a group of Black ministers, suggesting that race influenced that government’s supposed slow or meager response to Hurricane Katrina, unlike the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and Hurricane Andrew. ”Somehow the people down in New Orleans they don’t care about as much,” Obama said to the crowd, criticizing the government for not waiving the Stafford Act for New Orleans as it had for the disasters in New York and Florida.
Obama as we see now was again less than truthful, the federal government had in fact waived the Stafford Act’s requirement that New Orleans contribute 10 percent toward the cost of reconstruction and cleanup efforts just 10 days before Obama delivered his speech. Not only that — Obama was among 14 senators who voted against the bill.
H.R. 2206 (U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007 )
{ 11 comments… read them below or add one }
That’s Stepin Fetchit
Great info but it’s Steppin Fetchit a real person
You must be to young to remember. He was a prominent character in the 50's and 60's and portrayed the stereo-typical image of a subservient black man. A lot of slow movement, shuffling with "Yassir, master" responses. Yes he was real in the characterization as a composite of what the media wanted the blacks to feel even though there was real progress being made by the Republicans under Lyndon Johnson who voted for the civil rights with very marginal assistance from the Democrats. When are people going to realize who the champions of humanity, advancement and self respect have been. It sure isn't the Democrats.
@Joel Hart…You are correct. The Democrats were in control of much of the South from the Civil War times until right around the time of the 60's and 70's. People associate the Civil Rights movement with Kennedy/LBJ (Democrats)…but most staunch Democrats opposed this idea. After the advent of the Civil Rights movement, the South became more and more conservative as Republicans aided and assisted in helping Black Americans get out of poverty. Most in the KKK and other radical groups were Southern Democrats. The Republican party has "almost always" supported the downtrodden…especially in times of trouble. BHO is only looking out for how he can destroy America and if left unfettered and unvetted and wins the election, we are in deep trouble!
Actually, if you look at the vote record for the Voting Rights Act it didn't break down on political party lines, but geography.
Most Democrats voted FOR the Act, as did most Republicans.
But in the South (which was mostly Democratic, but not totally), pretty much every member of Congress voted against the VRA, INCLUDING the Southern Republicans!
And no, the South did not become "more" conservative; it's always been very conservative. What happened, as Lyndon Johnson famously remarked when he signed the Voting Rights Act, "I fear we've lost the South for a generation!" All those Democrats in the South who opposed the Voting Rights Act left the Democratic party, initially trying a 3-rd party approach (i.e. George Wallace running for President). But when that accomplished nothing, almost all those ex-Democrats joined the GOP! Think Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond, and the like, all of whom started political life as Democrats but finished as Republicans.
They rolled it into a massive fucking bill. Seriously, click the link and read the actual bill. It did a ton of objectionable things, and waived one requirement for Katrina aid. Standard GOP tactics during the Bush era.
Weeks earlier Congress passed the same bill, including the Stafford waiver, by strong majorities in both houses of Congress, INCLUDING SENATOR OBAMA, but the bill was VETOED BY GEORGE W. BUSH because the bill contained a requirement that we have some sort of timetable to get out of Iraq. Only 5% of the appropriation in the bill went to Katrina relief. That was not what the bill was about. When the bill was reintroduced without the timetable requirement, Senator Obama (along with Republicans like Tom Coburn) voted against the bill NOT because of anything to do with Katrina but because they believed that Bush's endless waste of our tax dollars and the lives of American soldiers in a useless war based on lies had to end.
In addition, the bill was a stopgap bill that had no effect on supplying our troops anyway. There were enough funds on hand to carry all of our military operations forward for the four months until the next annual appropriation (which Senator Obama voted for) came up in September. (This vote was at the end of May).
You really will just accept what they tell you, won't ya… try reading the actual transcript of that day's proceedings. You'll see that while Katrina was mentioned in the appropriations bill, it was never brought up as a talking point after the reading, and they focused more on sending a message to the president about the Iraq conflict.
That should tell you where their priorities were.
Then Reid and the other Democrats that voted for it must be stupid dumb…… right Margie?
Did she call anyone stupid or dumb? Is there anything factually inaccurate in her discussion of the background on this vote? If you have more information, please share.
The issues is Obama was lying to the "folks" as he so often likes to call people in his condescending way. Worse, he was lying in order to garner political and personal gain at the expense of race relations. Go ahead O fans, defend that.
Where did he lie?
The column headline implies that Obama voted against Katrina aid, but now demands it for Sandy. But the facts are, Obama voted FOR Katrina aid in one bill, while opposing it in another. The bill, with his support, passed.
So the falsehood here is the headline, which tries to say he opposed something he actually supported. So, true, Obama DID vote against a bill with Katrina relief, but only because he also voted FOR a bill with Katrina relief…
Having the full story and context makes all the difference…
Meanwhile, I'm noticing that all three House members from my state (all Republicans) voted against Sandy relief. But two of them were in the House since before Katrina, and surprise, surprise, they both voted for ALL the Katrina relief bills, which have spent now over $80 BILLION!!!!
The first Katrina bill was introduced on Sept 6, 2005, just 12 days after Katrina hit, and was passed and on Bush's desk on Sept 8, 2005, a whole TWO days for major legislation (based on spending). That bill allocates more than $50 billion in spending!
Apparently Republicans have no objection to spending tens of billions on Republican states with disasters, but think Democratic states in need should just suffer and die…
{ 3 trackbacks }