Go down, Lincoln, and liberate America!

(Based on the old American Negro slave song, “Let My People Go”)

When Israel was in DC Land,

Let my people go,

Dems made peace with old Ayn Rand!

Let my people go!

(Chorus)

Go down, Lincoln,

Way down in DC Land,

Tell Obama,

Let my people go.

Thus saith Lincoln’s ghost, he said,

Let my people go!

Else I’ll return from the dead!

Let my people go!

Lincoln knew just what to do,

Let my people go.

Even though he’s not a Jew!

Let my people go.

Lincoln’s people now are lost,

Let my people go,

Under intellectual frost,

Let my people go.

As Israel stands by Potomac’s side,

Let my people go,

Obama’s party does provide,

Let my people go.

While on Lake Michigan’s dead shore,

Let my people go,

Obama made himself a whore,

Let my people go.

Barak doesn’t give a toss,

Let my people go,

For White Trash followers of the cross,

Let my people go.

Baghdad’s Green Zone, behind walls,

Let my people go,

Barak funded after all!

Let my people go.

Barak’s white enough to be bland,

Let my people go,

So he will never take a stand,

Let my people go

So while REAL niggers perish, he…

Let my people go

…cares only that the RICH are free!

Let my people go.

The ghost of Lincoln grieves, for woe,

Let my people go,

Of how his heir is a cracker* ‘ho,

Let my people go.

Go down, Lincoln,

Way down in DC land!

Tell Obama,

Let my people go.

* (“Cracker” is old southern Black American slang for a White man, diminutive of “whipcracker”. “Ho” is current American slang for “whore”. Obama is half white, and was born into considerable privilege, and none of his ancestors ever suffered under American slavemasters’ whips, but he is literally the relative and cultural heir of White American slavemaster whip-crackers – and that fact, combined with his de facto whiteness, is what made him a perfect recruit as a Ho for one of the wings of America’s ruling party.)

This entry was posted in Ned Kelly's Pub and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to Go down, Lincoln, and liberate America!

  1. justrecently says:

    Well, you knooow… If the Republicans had a real convincing candidate, I might be angered by the sustained media flurry about Obama – but even then, I wouldn’t be too sure. It’s true – if Obama hadn’t been relatively privileged, he would probably not be the Dem nominee, and most of the middle class wouldn’t even consider to vote for him. But I don’t expect any election campaign in a Western country to work without some show effects, and certainly not in America.
    I think the Dems (Clinton and Obama alike) are pretty focused on the economy.
    And the right words in the right place – see this speech, for example – doesn’t hurt.
    And the rest is an income question, as far as I’m concerned. Obama makes an important point. He makes topic of the “trickle down” effect that the Republicans like to preach – give more “to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else”.
    Besides, I think most US voters are aware that Obama is no Messiah. If his economic policies don’t come too short of what president Clinton achieved until eight years earlier, I think he’ll turn out to be a good choice – if elected.
    Do you dislike the show or the agenda?

  2. Ned Kelly says:

    I dislike the pretense that Obama represents the disadvantaged.

    Sung to the tune of “Puff the Magic Dragon”:

    (Sharpton impersonator): “Barack the Magic Negro lives in D.C.

    The L.A. Times, they called him that

    ‘Cause he’s not authentic like me.

    Yeah, the guy from the L.A. paper

    Said he makes guilty whites feel good

    They’ll vote for him, and not for me

    ‘Cause he’s not from the hood.

    See, real black men, like Snoop Dog,

    Or me, or Farrakhan

    Have talked the talk, and walked the walk.

    Not come in late and won!

    [refrain] Oh, Barack the Magic Negro, lives in D.C.

    The L.A. Times, they called him that

    ‘Cause he’s black, but not authentically.

    Oh, Barack the Magic Negro, lives in D.C.

    The L.A. Times, they called him that

    ‘Cause he’s black, but not authentically.

    Some say Barack’s “articulate”

    And bright and new and “clean.”

    The media sure loves this guy,

    A white interloper’s dream!

    But, when you vote for president,

    Watch out, and don’t be fooled!

    Don’t vote the Magic Negro in —

    ‘Cause — ’cause I won’t have nothing after all these years of sacrifice

    And I won’t get justice. This is about justice. This isn’t about me, it’s about justice.

    It’s about buffet. I don’t have no buffet and there won’t be any church contributions,

    And there’ll be no cash in the collection plate.

    There ain’t gonna be no cash money, no walkin’ around money, no phoning money.

    Now, Barack going to come in here and –”

    http://timworstall.typepad.com/timworstall/2007/05/barack_the_magi.html

  3. Ned Kelly says:

    And here’s an audio clip of that song, which is more subtly intelligent than most of its detractors are willing to think about:

  4. justrecently says:

    One of the comments there on youtube:
    its not the color of the skin but the far left liberal thinking that is the problem with obama

    I’d just like to rephrase that: It’s Obama’s agenda that I would vote for, and that’s pretty much the reason why I’d vote for Hilary Clinton if she had been nominated.
    If a “magic negro” is what it takes to win the presidential elections and to get some policies right, so be it, and Congratulations.

  5. lirelou says:

    If Obama does get elected, it won’t be because he’s Black. It will be because he’s American. And he won’t be the first American ever elected president of the U.S.. To put this in a context you may understand, No “Abo” will ever be chosen Prime Minister of Australia. But when an Aboriginal politician does get chosen as PM, it will be because he’s an Aussie. And if you happen to agree with his (or her) politics, you’ll be among those voting for him (or her).

  6. Ned Kelly says:

    Lirelou,

    I think I understand your point, which perhaps good be better stated (not to put words in your mouth) as “Obama’s policies and perceived character will be more determinative in this election than his race.” Do I read you correctly?

    However, considering how being “American” is a requirement for the Presidency while being “Black” is not, then it would seem, logically, that Obama’s being “American” will have zero impact on this election, while his being Black might have at least some secondary or marginal impact – I think more than marginal, and not only among Black voters – but in either case, more impact than the essential fact of his American citizenship.

    Or, by “American”, do you mean something other than citizenship? A “real” American? I disagree with that kind of definition of “American”, which all too closely resembles the sloppy rhetoric of the Republicans.

    Now as for Australia, yes I think it’s improbable that any Aborigine will become PM in the forseeable future, although Australian law does allow it. But then again, the history of Aboriginal relations with non-Aboriginal Australians is more like that of Native Americans, not Black Americans. Black Americans have by and large chosen to participate in American politics – after they were permitted to, of course – while Native Americans have tended to choose to remain separate, for good reasons. The same applies generally to Australian Aborigines. Another difference is that the proportion of Black Americans is over ten percent of the population, while the Aborigines are around two percent; so, statistically they’re just less likely to be elected than Black Americans are.

    And a minor correction: The Australian PM is not directly elected like America’s Imperial President. The PM is the leader of the majority party. In other words, Australians don’t choose a Prime Minister; they choose one party or another.

  7. C.A. Yeung says:

    Ned,

    You may be correct in suggesting that it’s improbable we’ll have an Aboriginal PM in the foreseeable future. However, should Australia become a republic in the near future, I have an impression that our “President” would most likely going to be either female or someone of Aboriginal background (or both). At least this was the opinion of people who participated in a Sydney Morning Herald survey a while ago. The most popular preferred candidate was Lowitja O’Donoghue. Give it time, I see no reason why Aboriginal Australians such as Noel Pearson would not play a key role in mainstream Australian politics.

  8. Ned Kelly says:

    Catherine,

    But haven’t you heard? America is less racist than Australia. Because, you see, America is, well, America. And America is “Number One”.

    Just wait until America elects a female President. Never mind how New Zealand has a female Prime Minister – and so did Britain almost 30 years ago – the Americans will be very impressed with themselves when they elect a female President, and they will believe that they’re leading the world in gender equality. Because America is number one, and California in particular is the engine of all social and political progress on planet earth.

    Come on, Nancy Pelosi is from California. Now she’s the Speaker of the House. Please be impressed! Why aren’t you impressed? America has a prominent FEMALE legislator! Isn’t that a MIRACLE, an example for the rest of the world to follow?
    WHY ARE YOU NOT IMPRESSED?

  9. C.A. Yeung says:

    Ned,

    I AM impressed. I am EXTREMELY impressed. I am impressed by the way how some Americans, particularly the “champagne liberals”, are totally ignorant of their own split-mindedness when it comes to politics (both domestic and international). This fetish with “the first female president” is one of them.

    They say they are ready for a female president. And yet they vote out Hilary Clinton. It is understandable why they are spitting chips about the McCain’s nomination of Sarah Palin as his running mate, but I can’t understand why some of them are spending so much of energy vilifying Cindy Sheehan for running against Nancy Pelosi.

    So does it mean that Americans are only ready for certain kind of female president, in the same way as how they are only ready for certain kind of African-American president – the kind that is black but not too black, the kind that won’t scare them with their black attitude, the kind that Comrade Obama personifies??!!

  10. lirelou says:

    Ned, some very good counterpoints. In re an Abo PM, you’ll note I said “chosen” as opposed to “elected”. While race has been injected on occasion into the election, Obama has not run as a “Black”, as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have on the past. He’s run as an American, who just happens to be half Black. The majority of voters who vote against him will do so because they see him as from the “wrong half” of America, i.e. the Liberals. I suspect that the percentage of those who vote for him merely because he is black will about equal out to those who vote against him for the same reason.

    C.A., Interesting. I was just up in Quebec two weeks ago, and discovered that Canada’s GG is a female Haitian immigrant. Heard much to-do about “diversity” from all the talking heads. My own thought was that they should have picked a “real Canadian”, who could very well have been a female Haitian immigrant, but she would have been one who knew damned well why she chose to become a Canadian. To quote my Irish grandfather, who refused to return to the “Ould Sod” with his daughters as a tourist. “I never had a decent meal the entire time I lived in that godamned country, and I’ve never missed one since I’ve been here (Canada, then the U.S.)”.

    On Hillary Clinton, I believe the sex of a candidate is irrevelant to most American voters, but many do tend to be single issue oriented. I was happy to see Hillary lose, because what had made this election to interesting is that both candidates came from outside their respective party’s inner circles, which all the wags said was a prerequisite to receiving the nod to run for national office. I voted for McCain, but under the right conditions, I could have voted for Hillary. And my mind was far from made up between McCain and Obama right up until the time I cast my (early in FL) vote.

  11. Ned Kelly says:

    Lirelou,

    “While race has been injected on occasion into the election, Obama has not run as a “Black””

    He hasn’t done so expressly, but his being Black has been a major aspect of his appeal, including to Whites, as a (superficial) symbol of racial harmony and transcending America’s original sin of slavery.

    “The majority of voters who vote against him will do so because they see him as from the “wrong half” of America, i.e. the Liberals.”

    Objection: assumes facts not in evidence. You can’t get into the heads of millions, and their complex motivations. And you can’t assume that voting for McCain will be a vote “against” Obama. I don’t like McCain, but he does have some good qualities, and (I hear the champagne liberals ripping their hair out when I say this) Sarah Palin is much more talented than McCain. I know this is counter to what the mainstream media have been telling everyone to think (including the SO-CALLED “conservative” Fox News, who have really dropped the ball on the matter of Palin), but I believe Palin’s problem is that she’s TOO intelligent! She’s too intelligent and too independent-minded.

    “To quote my Irish grandfather, who refused to return to the “Ould Sod” with his daughters as a tourist. “I never had a decent meal the entire time I lived in that godamned country, and I’ve never missed one since I’ve been here (Canada, then the U.S.)””

    Being of considerable Irish descent, I agree that Ireland is a nasty place (for most) to live. If the IRA really want to punish England, they should just give all of Ireland back to England – a “gift” which the English really do NOT want! 😉

  12. lirelou says:

    Ned, perhaps “was a nasty place” is more accurate, as the Irish economy did much better after joining the EU and opening up their economy. I’ve only been once, and it was a very nice place to visit, but thank God most of the family climbed on the boats for Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the U.S.

  13. Ned Kelly says:

    Lirelou,

    You might appreciate this piece, “My Crappy Irish Childhood”, by Dermot O’Connor the (Irish) “Angry Nut Cartoonist” who is on my blogroll. It’s a satire of Frank McCourt’s “Angela’s Ashes”:

    http://idleworm.com/rnt/spf/crp/crpyc.shtml

  14. Ned Kelly says:

    PS, Lirelou, I assume you’re also familiar with the contemporary Irish icons (well, puppets), Podge and Rodge? Here they are, telling the story of the “Ardagh Phallus”:

    http://idleworm.com/rnt/spf/crp/crpyc.shtml

  15. Ned Kelly says:

    PPS, sorry, wrong link. The Ardagh Phallus link is here:

    http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=3kPvV1WXQ0s

  16. nanheyangrouchuan says:

    Here’s an interesting little tidbit for non-Americans, in my elementary school we learned several slave songs. My school was across the street from the largest federal housing project in my part of the state. “Swing low sweet chariot” was a favorite of mine especially when all of the kids (black, white, vietnamese and puerto rican) would deliberately mock the baritone and try to pull off a Barry White. Our lack of PC awareness did not go over well, especially in front of our elderly black principle.

    But you know what else? For all of the anti-Obama feelings that seem to exist in Australia, Germany and a few other western countries, you guys have no idea how thoroughly the neo-cons, led not by Bush but by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Karl Rove and now unabashed robber barons like Paulson have given the US a solid squeeze and yank.

    The WSJ just ran a story today about Wall St. banks owing $40 billion in back compensation to execs and all of them, including those in the bailout or buyout process, have stated they plan to pay these pick pockets and Paulson is doing nothing to stop them.
    Congress can’t do anything to stop them, they’ve already handed over the money.

  17. C.A. Yeung says:

    Nanhe,

    I don’t know what gives you the impression that there is anti-Obama feeling in Australia. In reality, mainstream media in Australia have been embracing with great enthusiasm the possibility of having the first Black American US president. It is also widely acknowledged here that a regime change in the US is probably inevitable because the neo-cons have done such a shitty job with the economy.

    Here at this blog, Ned and I, as usual, are playing the devil’s advocate when we are making fun of this “Obama phenomenon”. We are amazed at how a politician with so little to offer in terms of a coherent platform can get away with just promising CHANGE. We are even more amazed when no one in the US (or in Australia) is questioning the nature of this CHANGE that Obama claims he’ll deliver. And yet, the personal worshiping cult around him is growing by the day.

    I invite you to watch this Youtube clip: http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=ghSJsEVf0pU

    Surely many Americans should be able to see the ridiculously funny but potentially dangerous trend that’s brewing around this “Obama phenomenon”. The fact that many Americans are taking this kind of shit so seriously suggests to me that many of them have lost their sense of humour, an ingredient that many Americans will need if they want to survive difficult times ahead.

    Let me also invite you to watch this video which was broadcast last year close to our Federal election. At that time many Australians realised we had to have a change of government. The video is called “Stairway to Kevin”. It was a political satire, not so much about Kevin Rudd (who was our choice and our only chance for a change at the time) but about the kind of political choices that Australians did not have. We knew that there was not much we could do about it. But at least we could laugh at it:

    http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=5dXwv4i6I_c

  18. justrecently says:

    Well… if Nanhe is pro-Obama, here at last is something where we agree. Besides, when looking how ill-prepared the otherwise very respectable (and I mean it) Senator McCain was for the financial crisis, and how ill-prepared he was for the obviously looming task of choosing a running mate, I must say that Obama should be the better choice. I hope he’ll get elected.
    A footnote to your Ted Rall post: being sardonic isn’t enough for a professional cartoonist. He should be able to draw a recognizable face of Bush and Obama…

  19. Ned Kelly says:

    Obama hasn’t addressed the financial crisis at all except to acknowledge that it’s a bad thing involving a lot of unfairness. In a way I’m glad he’s won, so that the imbecilic cult of political correctness which launched him into office will become thoroughly discredited.

  20. justrecently says:

    No candidate in his right mind would address the financial crisis before winning the election. Both McCain and Obama did what I’d think was the right thing to do in that they supported the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) as Senators. That was their role to play, besides campaigning. It was not their job to “suspend the campaign” as Senator McCain did. That had to go wrong. You can’t be an honest broker in the Senate while campaigning for presidency. If someone tries to do that, I call that unprepared.
    And no – it wasn’t political correcness in the first place that launched Obama into office. It was an interesting mix of rather new fears and new hopes, and I see a realistic chance for many of those hopes to come true.

  21. Ned Kelly says:

    Well, JR, at any rate, if you believe in liberal democracy as I do, then you must agree that now the time has come for all Americans to be very skeptical of, and challenging toward, President Obama, and to make fun of him by any and all (legal) means.

    The rule of America’s neocons (whom I contemn and excoriate) is over.

    Now that the rule of Obama has begun, it’s time to criticise, and to make fun of, Obama, by any and all means within the rule of law.

  22. justrecently says:

    Actually, nay. Just as you do, I believe in liberal democracy, I do also believe in everyone’s right to make fun of elected officials by all means within the rule of law, but I’m not always making full use of that right myself because I think it isn’t always productive. When it is, I see no reason to recognize any shackles other than possible legal costs that my result from too much creativity from my part. But in most cases, I’m a very harmonious kind of guy, and believe that liberal democracy and some respect can often go hand in hand.

  23. justrecently says:

    PS: I believe in the right to make fun of unelected officials, too!

  24. C.A. Yeung says:

    JR,

    I think you have misunderstood what Ned means when he says “Obama hasn’t addressed the financial crisis”. Ned is not suggesting that Obama should step in and use his power as a Senator to make policy changes instantly. As you said, this would be unreasonable.

    However, since the financial crisis will be a major issue for the future of the USA, it would be very reasonable to expect a presidential candidate to give a detailed plan about how he is going to tackle the issue, should he be elected. It will also be essential for a candidate to tell the voters how he is going to pay for his proposed initiatives. If you consider the fact that both Obama and McCain, as senators, have all along been involved in policy making, then it is not unreasonable to expect them to be able to produce a plan with a budget forecast. They should have enough information on their finger tip to come up with a reasonably accurate estimation. It is by their projection that voters will be able to judge whether or not a candidate has what it takes to keep the crisis at bay.

    I apologize for being a bit cynical, but it really appears to me that the election campaign in the USA is nothing more than just another Hollywood style gala event. What really count are the candidates’ costumes, manner, body language, glamour, aura, stage performance, etc. Very few people will care about the content of their election platforms. Even fewer Americans will hold their president accountable for what he does or does not do. Those who do ask relevant questions will soon decide that it is a waste of time to vote. So now I can have a better idea why George W Bush can get away with his arrogance and incompetence.

  25. justrecently says:

    Catherine,

    I’m sure Obama would have had to produce a telling strategy on the financial crisis if McCain had done the same. But doing that on his own initiative while leading in the polls wouldn’t have been clever. At the beginning of his rise, many people suspected Obama of being too idealistic. I think we both doubt that anyone who counts in national politics to some degree gets there by being too idealistic of course. Let’s face it: the two main contendors in American presidential elections have usually run because they wanted to be president, and leave as many options open for themselves as they could – as long as they’d still win by that. That is cynical, but to expect more than solid governance from a public official would be naive indeed.

    Let it be a gala event if it helps. Let people dream for a while if it helps, as long as they get back to their own lives and their own work after a while. Hollywood is part of American culture, isn’t it? I’m not pleased with the Dems’ victory because they are such nice people, but because they look like a much better choice to me than the GOP in its current shape.

  26. C.A. Yeung says:

    JR and I have continued our discussions about the Obama administration at JustRecently’s Beautiful Weblog. Please check HERE for details.

  27. Ned Kelly says:

    @ JR,

    “I’m a very harmonious kind of guy, and believe that liberal democracy and some respect can often go hand in hand.”

    We agree in principle, but my idea of respect is a bit different. One of the most profound symbols in the British Parliament is that the aisle between the majority party and the opposition is exactly two sword-lengths apart, as a reminder of how the purpose of Parliament (literally, “the talking place”) is to fight with words over conflicts which otherwise would be resolved through violence.

    Liberal democracy is not about “harmony”; it’s about negotiation and compromise. And it functions best when very real and potentially lethal hostilities are acknowledged and negotiated in a courteous way – but courtesy and harmony are not the same things.

    One of my favourite anecdotes about Parliament: In the 1700s, one British MP taunted another, “Sir, you shall surely die either on the gallows or of the pox!” His adversary responded, “That, Sir, will depend on whether I embrace your morals or your mistress.”

    GIVE US MORE OF THAT! 🙂

  28. justrecently says:

    Well – we agree in principle that the anecdotal exchange of taunts was probably both funny and useful😉

    As for our more technical discussion, it seems it will go on for another while. Meantime, maybe you’ll all have some fun with that one.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s