barack obama african americans for obama youtube google sad hill news

UPDATE: From SHN reader, Patty on FaceBook –

It’s a losing war, alright. True Americans don’t see race, they see Americans.”


So, back in January our ‘post-racial’ president launched his racist ‘African-Americans For Obama‘ website, then promoted it on YouTube. Check out the amount of ‘dislikes’ (yesterday’s screen capture above). That’s right, 15,600+ as compared to 1,400 ‘likes.’

While I’m cautiously citing the often manipulated YouTube (i.e. Google) counters as ‘proof’ of something, the massive Obama supporters at Google are obviously doing a horrible job of staying on top of Obama’s anti-white snafu.

What if Obama’s minions at Google already removed the bulk of ‘dislikes?’

Either way, let’s hope the visible amount of ‘dislikes’ is a small indicator – a glimpse of hope – that folks are sick of forced diversity (aka ‘reverse discrimination’; aka ‘racism’) and are starting to wake up.

Be sure to read some of the comments on Obama’s YouTube page. Ouch!: HERE

And you can thank me for saving you a painful trip to OUR RACIST PRESIDENT’s website (screen capture below):

barack obama african americans for obama youtube google sad hill news-1


Here’s the video if you have the stomach…

Check out the Google-Obama ‘strategic alliance’: HERE

FBI ‘Racial’ Murder Chart: HERE

Obama’s not racists, he’s just discriminatory: HERE

US Military is too white and too male — needs big ‘change in leadership’: HERE

Obama pushes $2.15 billion black farmer reparations: HERE and HERE

Black Farmer’s Pigford case causes severe blindness in MSM: HERE

Eric Holder’s DOJ forces US police departments to lower test standards for blacksHERE

Obama’s new book, ‘Race was key component in rising opposition to my presidency — especially right-wing activists in the Tea Party: HERE

The hyphen American, by John Wayne: HERE

Affirmative Action bake sale at Berkeley anger Liberals: HERE

Google gags: HERE and HERE

Obama’s first 2012 campaign ad: HERE

Google YouTube’s Obama: HERE

Gay Google: HERE

Hat tip: Trish

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
Tagged with:  

14 Responses to Our ‘Post-Racial’ President Is Losing His Race-Based War On America

  1. One Guy 2012 says:


    Let’s get even more dangerous. Let’s see what happens when a sitting President blatantly uses churches to campaign for him and the media ignores it, knowing that if a non-America-hating person did that, the Freedom from Religion Foundation would be screaming, “Separation of church and State, separation of church and State!!”

    For your perusal and enjoyment:

    This lines up with your post here about Africans for Obama, or whatever the hell they call it.

  2. MJ says:

    Hes such a dang gasbag

  3. I'm Your Huckleberry says:

    SadHill, couldn’t watch the 1st Puke open his mouth…I just had breakfast…
    as for his job description, this might help clarify EXACTLY what the job entails, …

    A Very Simple Job Description
    By Jim Yardley
    President Obama complains constantly that his job is made harder because of the negative slant of the Constitution. The job description of the president of the United States, as described in the Constitution, consists of only 322 words (Article II, Sections 2 and 3). That’s it. Three hundred and twenty-two words.
    Not 322 pages, not 322 paragraphs, not 322 sentences. Three hundred and twenty-two words. Period.
    More than twice that many words (664, to be exact) are used in Article II, Section 1 just to define the process of choosing the president, and they include even the exact language of his oath of office.
    This short job description covers only five areas:
    The president is the commander-in-chief of the military.
    The president is responsible for insuring that the laws passed by Congress are executed and enforced as written.
    The president is allowed to grant pardons for crimes other than impeachment.
    The president can also make treaties, but only if two-thirds of the Senate agrees to the terms of those treaties.
    The president can nominate ambassadors, Supreme Court justices, and other officers (most commonly cabinet secretaries and federal judges). But he can only nominate them. Again, the Senate has final approval on any nominations.
    That’s it. That is all the person who is president is allowed to do by law. He or she can persuade, lecture, and speak publicly, using, in Teddy Roosevelt’s phrase, his “bully pulpit” to encourage Congress to act. In fact, he is required by the Constitution to do exactly that. The theatre which is the State of the Union address made annually by the president is specifically required in Article II, Section 3, which begins:
    He shall from time to time give to the Congress the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient[.]
    It should be noted that governance of the nation by executive order or by administrative regulation is not mentioned in those 322 words.
    There was a very understandable rationale for the members of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 to describe very limited powers invested in the president. A major source of contention between the colonies and Great Britain which led to the War of Independence was the behavior of King George III. George believed that as king, he was an absolute monarch rather than a constitutional monarch. As far back as the year 1215, with the Magna Carta, the absolute authority of the British sovereign was purposefully limited. King George, with support from a majority of Parliament, who agreed that the king’s authority should be effectively absolute, aided and abetted this set of circumstances against nearly 600 years of precedent establishing limited sovereign authority.
    With George III providing such a powerful example of what not to allow the head of government to do, the Constitutional Convention was adamant in limiting the unilateral scope of action of the president. With the inauguration of Barack Obama, we can see clearly that these men were not paranoid, but prescient.
    Obama has acted in a way that is very similar to actions taken by George III in ignoring hundreds of years of tradition and legal precedent to enforce his whims. This is particularly ironic behavior from a man who has written that he was greatly affected by his biological father’s anti-colonialist and anti-monarchal attitudes. One has only to look at Obama’s own behavior to see that he himself tries to rule like a monarch in the mold of George III or Louis XIV, who famously said. “I am the State.” (Of course, ol’ Louis actually said “L’état, c’est moi,” but then he was French, after all.) Obama governs as if Washington, D.C. was the mother country and the 50 states are just colonies that he too can rule according to his whim while ignoring hundreds of years of our history, tradition, and legal precedent.
    Perhaps Barack Obama should examine what he is actually allowed to do and what he is actually supposed to do, and limit himself to those only. If not, there is a very strong chance that history will repeat itself, as it does from time to time. Over two centuries ago, the American people threw off a despot, and there is a high likelihood that such might be repeated on November 6. One hopes this second removal from power will be accomplished with significantly less violence and loss of life than the first one was in 1776.
    I would also like to hear from all the remaining Republican candidates a list of what they guarantee they will not do if they become president. For example, they will not kill American citizens without arrest, indictment, and trial. They will not try to allocate resources within the economy because they feel that the market’s allocation of those resources is not as efficient as they might like. They will not sign legislation that is of questionable constitutional validity. If each of these candidates made a speech telling Americans what they will not do, not only would it be one helluva speech, but it would draw a strong contrasting picture of how they see the job as president when compared to how Barack Obama sees it.

  4. Gary says:

    On the right we’ve been using churches to campaign for a long time which has always made me feel uncomfortable. I guess we shouldn’t be surprised that liberals learned something from us. It works. As far as your assessment that Obama is racist….sorry I just don’t see it! There certainly isn’t anything racist in that video.

    • Sad Hill says:


      Agree 100% with the Right using church (all possible means) to sell their agenda; including nation-building, infiltrating education, etc. See here:


      Respectfully disagree with ‘isn’t anything racist.’

      It’s fairly obvious (to me) that our ‘post-racial’ president is attempting to round-up all blacks and/or African-Americans [specific skin color/complexion/culture, aka 'segregation', aka 'discrimination'] for no other reason than their race, and therefore should vote for Obama.

      Launch a ‘White Americans For ANYTHING’ website [no one I know desires to do something so preposterous], better yet, George W. launch a ‘Caucasian Americans For Bush’ and watch what happens… I’d agree with anyone labeling it, ‘racist’ or ‘elitist.’

      Question: Are the predominate subscribers to BET (Black Entertainment Television) and/or Ebony Magazine considered ‘Black’ or ‘African-American’ or both?

      Are the majority of African-Americans black (part black)? If so, then Obama’s site may as well be called, ‘Black Americans For Obama.’ If not, then why are all of the people pictured on Obama’s ‘African-American’ website black?

      My business colleague is from South Africa – born and raised. His skin is white. He is a US Citizen. He calls himself an ‘American.’ No hyphen.

      As Patty stated, “True Americans don’t see race, they see Americans.”


  5. Michael Collins, Esq says:

    I went, gave a dislike, 16,874 and counting. YouTube geeks haven’t reset yet, last comment 1 month ago.

  6. Mcgoobersons says:

    This is the reason he got involved in the Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman case. He thinks it will bring him the “black” vote. This whole video is BS. How did a man with a terrorist name ever get elected in the United States in the first place? If you would have told me the day after 9/11 that a man with this name would be president of the United States I would have laughed in your face. I think I just read that he admitted to his birth certificate being fake. I don’t know. Google it!

    By the way, comments are being deleted from the video that are against Obama.

  7. [...] Because ’written tests’ are discriminatory against blacks???! [...]

  8. [...] Our ‘post-racial’ president is losing his race-based war on America: HERE [...]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>