by Joseph DeMaio, ©2022

(Oct. 3, 2022) — Recently, your humble servant offered here at The P&E a post captioned, “The Tragic Mulatto of Martha’s Vineyard.” Some commenters took issue with the use of the term “tragic mulatto” in the title of that post, calling it a slur despite the fact that it comes from Obama’s own Dreams From My Father in describing how he was viewed in the eyes of others. 

He could have used other terms, such as “mixed-race” or “bi-racial,” but neither he nor his editors strayed from the term he ultimately intentionally selected and used.  This only underscores the oft-repeated observation here that, hypocrisy being the mother’s milk of liberals and the radical left, if it did not already exist, they would invent it at breakfast merely to survive until lunch.

The post was intended to highlight the racial hypocrisy of Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. in slandering Republicans in general and their “agenda” as being racist for fear that the United States was becoming populated by too many people of “darker shades,” ignoring, of course, the inconvenient fact that while he occupied the Oval Office, his regime deported thousands upon thousands of people of the same skin tone…, with nary a peep of protest by his sycophants.  But that, of course, was when the laws against illegal immigration still meant something and were enforced.  Oh, and coincidentally, it was a Democrat of a “darker shade” doing the deportations.

The commenter’s objection was that the term “tragic mulatto” was, purportedly, an offensive “slur” and “only [gave]… further ammunition to those who see critiques of Obama as veiled racism.”  Soooo…, any “critique” of Obama is …, racist?  He is to be somehow immunized from criticism?  Really?

If your humble servant cared one peso about whether Obama supporters viewed the term as ammo supporting a conclusion of “veiled racism,” that would be one thing.  But he does not.  Obama’s acolytes – sometimes colloquially referred to as “Obots” – see racism everywhere, from words to roads to condiments to mathematics to Dr. Seuss.

Thomas Sowell, now 90, did not complete high school traditionally, but rather, joined the U.S. Marine Corps, serving in the Korean conflict. He later obtained bachelor’s, master’s and doctorate degrees and has written nearly four dozen books (public domain)

As the brilliant African-American economist Thomas Sowell once observed: “The word ‘racism’ is like ketchup.  It can be put on practically anything – and demanding evidence makes you a ‘racist.’”   For a partial list of the things Obots and their propaganda arms in the mass media deem to be “racist,” see this. Ahhh…, if only everyone shared the intellect of the “darker shaded” Sowell.

But again, I digress.

The purpose of the prior post was twofold.  In addition to Obama’s hypocrisy, it also sought to call him out on his refusal to address the continuing issue of his usurpation of the presidency because of his likely ineligibility as a “natural born Citizen” under the Constitution.  

Despite the cries of “misinformation” from the Obots and the censoring of the opposing view that he was (and remains) something other than a “natural born Citizen” as contemplated by the Founders, the matter still lurks unresolved – and decidedly “unsettled” – in the background of his prior occupation of the Oval Office.  And thus far, the Supreme Court has not been of much help.

However, to address the use of words less likely to be seen as “slurs,” your humble servant has entitled this offering as “The Usurper of a Darker Shade.”  The “darker shade” term, of course, was used by Obama – without objection by those deeming “tragic mulatto” to be offensive – when slandering Republicans over their purported fears that the character of the nation would change because there were “too many people of a darker shade” now here. 

Stated otherwise, if it is permissible for Obama to use that term to describe folks seen by Republicans as purportedly adversely changing the United States, why is it improper for your humble servant to use the same term to describe an individual he sees as having not only – as promised – “fundamentally changed” the nation, but in the process endangered it as well?  After all, did he not groom and bring us – maybe with the help of 2000 mulesBrandon the Goof?  Huh?

If Obama cannot prove that he was eligible to the presidency as a “natural born Citizen” as contemplated by the Founders rather than as concocted by the Congressional Research Service and his cadre of Obots, then the term “Usurper of a Darker Shade” should enter the lexicon of the debate.  Moreover, the issue is not moot: recall that Obama still receives – and for the rest of his life will continue to receive – a six-figure presidential retirement stipend.  If he usurped the presidency, those payments should stop…, and a refund of prior payments should be demanded.  

As by now faithful readers of The P&E well know, your humble servant believes that Obama was not and is not a “natural born Citizen” as contemplated by the Founders.  If he is, as his apparatchiks contend, a natural born Citizen as intended by the Founders, he should answer the questions posed in the prior post in an attempt to put the matter to rest.

Until then, he should also try to avoid the vulgar descriptions of President Trump attributed to him here. If true, it would be oh-so-violative of the Martha’s Vineyard mantra that “hate has no home here…,” would it not?  Or he could deny having uttered them. Your humble servant will wait for those responses. 

In the meantime…, please pass the ketchup.

Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. Rudy Lee,
    Grow-up and learn to stand on your own two feet and stop whining like a squaw who didn’t get asked to the Pow Wow because she has a wicked tongue, reminding one of Hillary.
    Barry Soetoro (aka Obama) should be locked-up in a cage in GITMO.
    Face the FACTS: you probably believe in the “Russian Hoax”, the “COVID-19 Lock-Down, Mask, and Vaccine Hoax”, and that the “Election Was Honest Hoax”, which means that you believe Biden-Harris won fairly.
    No doubt you applauded the name change of the Washington Redskins and the Cleveland Indians.
    Me? Indian Chief.
    There was no racism stated nor implied in the above editorial, and for you to suggest otherwise is to cry “wolf” or “rape” 30 years after the fact and can’t remember if there was snow on the ground or not, and/or not able to define what a woman is.
    You, Rudy Lee, will never be asked to any Pow Wow by any warrior at anytime. Get used to it and go whine somewhere else and leave us adults alone.
    Thank you.

    Chief New Leaf

    1. There’s no evidence you are a chief of anything, so your appeal to your own self-asserted authority it especially unpersuasive.

      Regardless, actual dictionaries define the unnecessary yet repeated slur in this article (and others) on this site as a slur. And the continued effort to defend using slurs only further proves the validity of Obama’s point.

      Especially considering the rather clumsy use of this fictional “Chief” persona.

  2. fuhrer obama used his staus as a foreign exchange student to get tax dollars to put him through college so he either used FRAUD to obtain college funds, a crime that would keep him out of public office or he IS NOT a “natural born citizen”!!!!! His father was a British subject of Kenya and his mother under the legal age at his birth so any way it is cut obama WAS NOT ELIGIBLE to be president!!!!! They all knew he wasn’t eligible but the Constitution means nothing to the globalist, satanic devildemocommiecrats!!!!!!!!!!

  3. ‘The Usurper of a Darker Shade’
    Obviously, using a Usurper of a Darker Shade made the usurpation of America’s presidency much easier. No research or background check of Obama was done and made public by the so-called main stream media because Obama was protected by his race. Fear of being called racist spread through America like terminal cancer and when the ineligible, identity fraud Obama was sworn-in the cancer metastasized to the pancreas and Obama became ineligibility protected, meaning a cure was almost impossible. The planning and use of Obama to destroy America from the inside was brilliant and has passed the test of time in spite of a glitch or two, and America is almost finished……..

  4. Usurper, interloper, imposter, impersonator, fraud, charlatan.. Call him what you
    like… Barack Hussein Obama wears many shoes, and they all fit..

  5. Once sworn-in Obama also gained “ineligibility protection”. No member of Congress from either party was going after Obama’s eligibility after they, at the very least, did /said nothing to try to stop Obama’s usurpation. Congressional leadership told members of Congress what to believe and what to say about Obama and they obeyed, and even today they still do. A bigger criminal act against America citizens and her Constitution than effectively giving America’s government and her military to her enemies….and then covering for that HUGE crime forever is hard to imagine. That’s what happened and it was never hard to see or understand. Instead, it was and is, “too big to prosecute”. The destruction of America from the inside was well planned and carried out with one exception, Hillary, the planned and promised in 2008 after Obama cover president was not supposed to lose….and certainly not to Obama’s nemesis, Donald Trump in 2016. President Trump was kept under siege by both parties with totally made-up charges in failed attempts to impeach him. When that did not work the 2020 election was stolen using, “cheating on the go” to insure the winner was the “lousy” replacement for Hillary who was supposed to take office in 2016……..Joe, “where am I today” Biden, and his Obama picked, ineligible V.P. who checked “diversity” boxes of her own, and an intellect they believed would protect Biden and keep him in office to avoid the word salad winning Kamala Harris.

    Today, both parties fear Trump will return to office and this time he might actually be able to expose and act on The Obama Fraud, sending many of them to prison or worse. This is why they are so desperate to keep Trump from ever being president again. What will they do to stop that from happening??

    One of the most frustrating things about all of this is how easy to see and understand, but has been made so complicated to do anything about that apparently nothing will ever be done to the criminals who planned, and are still in control of The Obama Fraud. Control of the media and use of fake news by all complicit in The Obama Fraud is still covering for the biggest criminal act against American citizens and her Constitution in history…………..and they are desperate to prevent the return of President Trump.

    1. Bob68, every word is correct, especially about both parties, or as I call them the donkey and elephant wings of the new world order socialist party!!!!! The gop establishment has committed just as much TREASON as have the devildemocommiecrats and they fear Trump because they believe he will correct his past mistake of allowing swamp rats in his administration!!!!! If he gets back in office he has promised to bring in outsiders to punish the swamp rat TRAITORS in both parties!!!!!!!!!!

  6. This article also has the opposite effect, as it continues the dog-whistle racism from the previous article while unnecessarily repeating a racial slur.

    1. Can’t blame you for whining again.
      Meanwhile, I will cling to my First Amendment rights of free speech and consider my opinion over what you claim is a racial slur and let God be the judge.

    2. Define “racial slur”, list every one you can think of, then explain why each of them is a racial slur rather than a factually descriptive noun.

      1. James, very good!!!!! “racial slurs” are any words the left doesn’t like, mostly because the words they don’t like speak to truth and truth is the enemy of the satanist left!!!!!!!!!!

      2. A slur is an insulting, disparaging, pejorative, or disrespect description. A racial slur would be one based on person’s race.

        If you cannot discern whether a word is a slur, and your desire is to be taken seriously and not dismissed as a racist, the smarter practice would be to simply refrain from using suspect language. Consulting a trusted dictionary or other reference work would be another possible solution. Or simply avoid unnecessarily commenting on race altogether

        This is especially so when writing on sites that have rules prohibiting attacks on people’s ethnicities.

        1. Since you didn’t list even one racist slur and explain why it is a racial slur rather than a factually descriptive noun/term, you left me no option other than to believe you have no desire to be taken seriously.

          It is you who needs to consult a trusted dictionary regarding the actual, rather than your perceived, meaning of the noun mulatto — “a person of mixed white and black ancestry, especially a person with one white and one black parent” — or simply avoid playing the race card altogether.

        2. I don’t need to list slurs: they seem to appear regularly enough in articles and comments here.

          Like yours, for example: You chose to ignore your source’s express warning that that term is offensive and outdated.

        3. Response from the author:
          “…simply avoid unnecessarily commenting on race altogether.”

          After noting that a “slur” is “an insulting, disparaging, pejorative, or disrespect[ful] description” and that “[a] racial slur would be one based on [a] person’s race,” the commenter advises that in order to not be seen as a “racist,” one should simply avoid “unnecessarily commenting on race altogether.”

          This naturally invites the question: does the commenter believe that Obama is himself a racist for using the phrase “persons of a darker shade” in slandering Republicans and their purported immigration “agenda” here (John Cooper on Twitter: “Obama says Republicans are “racist” for opposing illegal immigration, but he did nothing to house 50 migrants in his Martha’s Vineyard mansion.” / Twitter)? Or, instead, does the fact that Obama is a Democrat of “mixed ethnicity” immunize him from criticism for such language which, if uttered by, say, Donald Trump, would constitute a “racial slur?”

          It is difficult to not love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning…., or, for that matter, in the afternoons or evenings too.

          John Cooper on Twitter: “Obama says Republicans are “racist” for opposing illegal immigration, but he did nothing to house 50 migrants in his Martha’s Vineyard mansion.”

          Obama says Republicans are “racist” for opposing illegal immigration, but he did nothing to house 50 migrants in his Martha’s Vineyard mansion.

        4. Noting that an agenda has a disproportionate impact on certain racial groups isn’t racist.

          Obama’s comments about this particular agenda didn’t use any slurs.

          Unlike the wholly unnecessary commentary here about Obama’s race.