There’s a brouhaha brewing over a parody composed and performed by Paul Shanklin for the Rush Limbaugh show. Albeit liberals across their “conflicted” divide are in a blather, feigning insult and indignation, in the mind of this essayist, liberal Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama must be a “magic Negro” if we are to believe certain of his claims and things on which he is still unchallenged.
We understand that the idea of elutriating the airwaves of those they deem unfit is not “dernier cri” amongst the pantheon of liberals who have given themselves to defending America against rational, cogent and factual information – their membership having received a shot of adrenaline in the aftermath of the Don Imus firing for misapplying three words to the Rutgers girls basketball team instead of toward Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice or Justice Janice Rogers Brown.
I suggest, before liberaldom gets their “Hanes” tied in too large of a knot, and before Republicans of good conscience (sarcasm intended) get too far down the road of denunciating Limbaugh, that they do their homework. Because even allowing for the duplicitous double standards of liberals, they cannot attack Rush without first attacking one of their own. It was David Ehrenstein who resurrected the phrase “magic Negro” (“Obama the magic Negro”; Los Angeles Times; March 19, 2007).
The phrase has its etymological beginnings in the post Brown v. Board of Education period. The reference refers to a Negro who has no past – he simply appears one day to help the white protagonist. As Ehrenstein wrote, “He’s there to assuage white guilt” over their involvement in slavery and racial segregation in American history, while “replacing stereotypes of dangerous, highly sexualized, black men with a benign figure, for whom interracial sexual congress holds no interest.” The translation being, Obama doesn’t behave like “Cool Moe D,” Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson – white women will be safe around him.
And while the term as used by Ehrenstein was intended as the pejorative it is, it was clearly not the intent of Shanklin or Limbaugh, who are guilty only of poking fun at self-righteous bigoted liberals.
But to my point, I view Obama as a “magic Negro” because of his ability, thus far, to emerge unscathed from the types of questionable tall tales (read lies), misrepresentations, religious affiliations and political positions that should have voters and the media demanding answers.
Only a man of magic (Negro or otherwise) could tell the story of a “revelation,” a “violent” awakening, an incident that “permanently altered” his “vision,” as Richard Cohen wrote, and as the Chicago Tribune called into serious question the truth of Obama’s statements – and thus the integrity of the man. And yet no one in the public or media demands an explanation (“Obama’s back story”; Washington Post; March 27, 2007).
Hillary Clinton’s making $100,000 in 10 months on a $1,000 investment is understandable because she is the smartest woman on earth. But no one has labeled Obama the smartest man. So one is left to deduce magic is the reason the media are not demanding explanations about his ties to the indicted dealmaker Antoin “Tony” Rezko and a questionable (read shady) land deal.
It must be magic that prevents the media from probing the “internship he provided to John Aramanda, whose father, Joseph Aramanda – a key Rezko business associate, was named an unindicted co-conspirator in a federal corruption case against Rezko. Aramanda has also contributed $11,500 to Obama since 2000” (See: “Obama’s Rezko ties deeper than land deal”; Dec. 23, 2006; Frank Main; Chicago Sun-Times).
And it can only be the most powerful of the dark sciences that allows its practitioner to convince the people of his adopted race, that he is one of them and interested in their well-being, even as he advocates the genocide of their future generations vis-?-vis abortion.
It can only be that old black magic that directs the media to challenge a Republican presidential candidate about his Mormonism, but overlooks Obama’s affiliation with a church that is of questionable theology at best.
Combined with questions that are not being asked about his wife’s questionable alleged pay raises, certain aspects of his time at Harvard and questionable accounts in his memoirs, as stated before, only a man of great “magic,” Negro notwithstanding, could have so much to be questioned about, with no one asking the questions.
Related special offer: