From the category archives:

Cowardice

(This almost encourages us to start watching CNN again.)

Jack Cafferty Rips Obama on Failed Openness Pledge: ‘Just Another Lie Told for Political Expediency’

C-SPAN CEO: White House Has Allowed Only ‘One Hour’ of Health Care Coverage
Sorry C-SPAN, say Dems

A day after House Democratic leaders rejected C-SPAN’s request to allow television cameras in the room during the negotiations over health care reform, Senate Democrats also said no to the idea, agreeing with the assertion made by their House counterparts that the bill has been publicized enough.

“The drafting of this health care insurance reform bill has set new standards for transparency,” said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

White House Press Corps Clash With Gibbs Over C-Span Promise

White House: We will NOT discuss broken C-Span promise

On Tuesday, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs declined to answer questions about the president’s campaign commitment to hold health-care negotiations on C-Span. Gibbs said he had not seen a letter from C-Span’s Brian Lamb to congressional leaders requesting the coverage and thus could not comment on it.

On Wednesday, Gibbs was asked again about the C-Span commitment. The story had gotten pretty big in the intervening time, and presumably Gibbs had had a chance to familiarize himself with it. So reporters tried for a second day to get him to comment on the president’s commitment to holding televised health-care talks. Gibbs’ answer? “We covered this yesterday.” Gibbs referred reporters to the transcript of Tuesday’s briefing and said, “The answer I would give today is similar.”

But of course, he hadn’t answered the question at all. Here is the transcript from the Tuesday briefing:

QUESTION: C-Span television is requesting leaders in Congress to open up the debate to their cameras, and I know this is something that the President talked about on the campaign trail. Is this something that he supports, will be pushing for?

GIBBS: I have not seen that letter. I know the President is going to begin some discussions later today on health care in order to try to iron out the differences that remain between the House and the Senate bill and try to get something hopefully to his desk quite quickly….

Later in that same briefing, a reporter raised the C-Span issue again:

QUESTION: Okay, just lastly, why can’t you answer the C-Span question –

GIBBS: I did.

QUESTION: You didn’t, because you said –

GIBBS: I said I hadn’t seen the letter, which I haven’t –

QUESTION: do you need to see a letter? I mean, this is something the President said during the campaign and he talked about he wants everything open on C-SPAN –

GIBBS: Dan asked me about the letter and I haven’t read the letter.

QUESTION: Well, I’ll just ask you about having it on C-Span –

GIBBS: I answered Dan’s question and I answered this before we left for the break, Keith. The President’s number-one priority is getting the differences worked out, getting a bill to the House and the Senate…

QUESTION: There are a lot of reasons not to do it on C-Span — people could showboat. Does he regret making that statement during the campaign?

GIBBS: No.

Fast forward to Wednesday’s briefing. Another question from another reporter:

QUESTION: During the campaign the President on numerous occasions said words to the effect of — quoting one — “all of this will be done on C-SPAN in front of the public.” Do you agree that the President is breaking an explicit campaign promise?

GIBBS: Chip, we covered this yesterday and I would refer you to yesterday’s transcript.

QUESTION: But today is today and –

GIBBS: And the answer that I would give today is similar to the one –

QUESTION: But there was an intervening meeting in which it’s been reported that the President pressed the leaders in Congress to take the fast-track approach, to skip the conference committee. Did he do that?

GIBBS: The President wants to get a bill to his desk as quickly as possible.

QUESTION: In spite of the fact that he promised to do this on C-Span?

GIBBS: I would refer you to what we talked about in this room yesterday.

QUESTION: But the President in this meeting yesterday –

GIBBS: And I addressed that –

QUESTION: — pressed for something that’s in direct violation of a promise he made during the campaign.

GIBBS: And I addressed that yesterday.

Another reporter took up the questioning:

QUESTION: Well, does the President think it would be more helpful if this process were more transparent, that the American people could see –

GIBBS: Mike, how many stories do you think NBC has done on this?

QUESTION: Speaking for myself –

GIBBS: Just a guess.

QUESTION: That’s not the issue. The issue is whether he broke an explicit campaign promise.

GIBBS: So the answer is –

QUESTION: I deal with the information that –

GIBBS: So the answer is hundreds, is that correct?

QUESTION: Right, but that’s got nothing to do with it. I deal with the information, however much or little of it, there is. I’m saying would people benefit by having more information?

GIBBS: Have you lacked information in those hundred stories? Do you think you’ve reported stuff that was inaccurate based on the lack of information?

QUESTION: Democrats ran against the very sort of process that is being employed in this health care –

GIBBS: We had this discussion yesterday. I answered this yesterday. Is there anything –

QUESTION: But the President met with members of Congress in the meantime –

GIBBS: And he’ll do so today.

QUESTION: — and pressed them to –

GIBBS: Do you have another question?

And that was the end of that. If the public wants to know why President Obama didn’t keep his pledge to hold televised health-care negotations, they’ll have to look for answers elsewhere. The White House isn’t talking.

Here’s a great cartoon from Michael Ramirez

More Health care Coverage on Liberty’s Army

Contact Your U.S. Representative

Contact Your U.S. Senators

Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act. ~ Dietrich Bonhoeffer

“In a time of universal deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” ~ George Orwell

Share This With Friends:
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • RSS
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Live
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • MySpace
  • Mixx
  • Netvibes
  • NewsVine

{ 0 comments }

Share This With Friends:
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • RSS
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Live
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • MySpace
  • Mixx
  • Netvibes
  • NewsVine

{ 0 comments }

Liberals behave as if there is a rule that states: “If you did not question your government when Republicans were in charge, you are not allowed to question it while the Democrats are in charge.”

Huh?

That is typical liberal logic. Informed citizens will typically have questions about any government. A healthy skepticism toward government has kept us free for for over 230 years.

Conservatives generally, had many concerns during the Bush administration and perhaps even more concern was warranted. But to call what informed Americans are feeling towards the Obama Administration’s policies “concerns” would be akin to referring to Hurricane Katrina as an inconvenience.

I hate unaccountable spending under any president

Share This With Friends:
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • RSS
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Live
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • MySpace
  • Mixx
  • Netvibes
  • NewsVine

{ 0 comments }

Should integrity have a price?  In politics that seems to be the case.

Three Towels and a 25-Cent Newspaper

Bishop Richard C. Edgeley tells this story of arriving home after a summer of working at Jackson Lake Lodge in Wyoming between college semesters:

arriving home, my father came out and happily greeted me. After a hug and a few pleasantries, he looked into the backseat of the car and saw three Jackson Lake Lodge towels—the kind you cannot buy. With a disappointed look he merely said, “I expected more of you.” I hadn’t thought that what I had done was all that wrong. To me these towels were but a symbol of a full summer’s work at a luxury hotel, a rite of passage. Nevertheless, by taking them I felt I had lost the trust and confidence of my father, and I was devastated. The following weekend I adjusted the plywood floorboard in my car, filled the radiator with water, and began the 370-mile round trip back to Jackson Lake Lodge to return three towels.

He then gives an example of how this lesson stayed with him:

Some 30 years ago, while working in the corporate world, some business associates and I were passing through O’Hare Airport in Chicago.

As we were passing a newspaper vending machine, (A very wealthy associate) put a quarter in the machine, opened the door to the stack of papers inside the machine, and began dispensing unpaid-for newspapers to each of us. When he handed me a newspaper, I put a quarter in the machine and, trying not to offend but to make a point, jokingly said, “Jim, for 25 cents I can maintain my integrity. A dollar, questionable, but 25 cents—no, not for 25 cents.” You see, I remembered well the experience of three towels and a broken-down 1941 Hudson. A few minutes later we passed the same newspaper vending machine. I noticed that Jim had broken away from our group and was stuffing quarters in the vending machine. I tell you this incident not to portray myself as an unusual example of honesty, but only to emphasize the lessons of three towels and a 25-cent newspaper.

There will never be honesty in the business world, in the schools, in the home, or anyplace else until there is honesty in the heart.

~~~~~

The Second Louisiana Purchase

Today Senator Mary Landrieu, D-La., voted with the rest of the Democrats to begin debate on the Senate healthcare overhaul bill. We’ll call her The Deciding Vote. She was one of three centrists giving Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, heartburn. He needed support from every single Democrat to pass the cloture motion and move the bill to the floor for debate. Reid had to woo Landrieu for her vote, and that put her in a convenient position of power.

While the merits of Louisiana’s predicament are debatable, one thing is quite clear: Mary Landrieu held out for goodies and got rewarded with $300 million reasons to vote for the healthcare bill.

This cost the taxpayers $300,000,000.00!  I wonder if she would have sold out for a $500,000 campaign contribution or a $100,000 under the table direct bribe?  But hey, those were just  “pork dollars”…

Share This With Friends:
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • RSS
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Live
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • MySpace
  • Mixx
  • Netvibes
  • NewsVine

{ 0 comments }

Can you believe people continue to vote for the likes of John Murtha?

Share This With Friends:
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • RSS
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Live
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • MySpace
  • Mixx
  • Netvibes
  • NewsVine

{ 0 comments }

Investigators Follow Hasan’s Money for Possible Terrorist Links

A federal law enforcement source told Fox News that investigators have not uncovered evidence so far to suggest Maj. Nadal Malik Hasan was wiring money to Pakistan. The FBI refused comment.

With evidence growing to support a terror link to the Fort Hood massacre, federal investigators are looking at whether Maj. Nadal Malik Hasan, charged Thursday with 13 murders in the shooting, was sending money to Pakistan to support a jihad.

Michigan Rep. Pete Hoestra, the senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, said his contacts are voicing concern about that possibility.

“I know that there are people who are very concerned about it,” he said in a phone interview with Fox News. “They think it’s a real lead. They think it’s something that really needs to be investigated.

The FBI is not commenting on the investigation, but a federal law enforcement source told Fox News that investigators have not uncovered evidence so far to suggest Hasan was wiring money to Pakistan.

Military investigators said they still believe there was only one gunman at the scene.

Hasan, a 39-year-old psychiatrist assigned to Darnell Medical Center at Fort Hood, has been charged in the military’s legal system with 13 counts of premeditated murder, making him eligible for the death penalty if convicted.

Investigators now report that private business cards in Hasan’s name were found inside his apartment near the base. The cards include the acronym “SoA,” which means “soldier of Allah,” according to those who track jihadist Web sites. The acronym “SWT” also appears on the business cards, referring to a phrase that translates to “glory to God.”

In addition to Hasan’s apartment, his computer, his cell phone and bank records also are being scrutinized by federal investigators.

Annmarie McAvoy, a former federal prosecutor and expert on terrorist financing, told FoxNews.com that investigators most likely will send out subpoenas to all the banks and financial institutions where Hasan held an account and then “pore through every transaction” and track every ATM withdrawal.

They won’t be looking necessarily for any illegal transactions but for unusual activities, such as wire transfers, she said, explaining that most people don’t transfer money to other individuals unless they’re relatives.

“It’s enough to raise questions to warrant further investigation,” she said. “They’re going to shake every tree that they can to get more information.”

McAvoy also said they won’t be looking for a million-dollar wire transfer.

“It’s going to be small transfers, small amounts,” she said, recalling past cases of money laundering by terrorists.

McAvoy also said that if Hasan was part of a jihadist movement, it wouldn’t be unusual that he reportedly was living in a $350-a-month apartment despite making a base pay of $93,000 as a psychiatrist.

“That’s what the 9/11 terrorists did,” she said. “They lived very poorly and sent whatever extra money they had back to the cause. They’re not looking for gain here on earth. They’re looking for gain in the afterlife.”

McAvoy added that the money investigation is crucial, not necessarily to gather evidence against Hasan, but to determine whether there are others connected to him planning another attack.

Hasan Called Himself ‘Soldier of Allah’ on Business Cards

Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan called himself a “soldier of Allah” on business cards found in his apartment after the shooting rampage at Fort Hood in which he is accused of murdering 13 people.

Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, reportedly obtained the business cards over the Internet. In addition to listing his profession and contact information, the cards contain a discrete reference to his religion: “SoA(SWT).”

Watchdogs say the first letters are shorthand among militant Muslims to “soldier of Allah.” The last letters refer to “Subhanahu Wa Ta’all,” which means “glory to God.”

The business cards were among numerous discoveries in Hasan’s apartment of interest to investigators, who also are looking into whether Hasan wired money to Pakistan before last week’s massacre.

Denying the obvious

As soon as Major Nidal Hasan finished shooting down American soldiers while shouting “Allahu akbar!”, we were warned not to jump to conclusions — by people who promptly jumped to a series of silly and irresponsible ones.

First, many journalists leapt for the “mad vet” stereotype, portraying Maj. Hasan as just one more sad character who snapped under the intolerable strain of military life. The underlying, and insulting, assumption seemed to be that if you were not necessarily insane to want to be a soldier, you probably would be by the time you’d done it.

A second, related snap conclusion was that even if Maj. Hasan gave a deeply convincing impression of a jihadi, it would be hasty and intolerant to read anything of significance into it. On Remembrance Day The Globe and Mail said, “Whether Major Hasan was motivated by extremist Islamic calls to jihad or broke under the stress of attempting to reconcile his faith with orders to go to war in a Muslim country remains unknown.” OK, I’ll bite. How do we tell when a guy slaughtering infidels yelling “Allahu akbar!” is a real jihadi and when he just broke under stress? I doubt the bien-pensant would call all jihadis deranged; it might seem culturally insensitive. Do only domestic cases automatically qualify, to forestall any discussion of fifth columns? Let’s at least ask.

Top Republican says White House hiding info on Fort Hood

The ranking Republican on the House intelligence committee on Tuesday night accused the White House of withholding information on the Fort Hood attack.

Rep. Pete Hoekstra (Mich.) said administration officials delayed briefing members of Congress about the alleged gunman, raising “red flags” about what the White House was hiding.

“When they withhold information, you always start asking questions,” Hoekstra told Fox News. “That’s what raises red flags. What do they know that they don’t want us to know?”

Hoekstra linked President Barack Obama’s handling of Fort Hood to a chain of other GOP criticisms of the president, including the administration’s treatment of detainees and an investigation into possible CIA abuse.

“It is a political correctness that is making it unable for us to identify the real threat of homegrown terrorism,” he alleged.

Hoekstra warned that “we have similar Hasans” in the country. The Michigan Republican has called for his committee to investigate the incident. Chairman Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas) has so far declined, preferring to wait for the conclusion of the joint FBI-Army investigation.

Liberal Idiocy on Fort Hood – by David Horowitz

Why is it that when a so-called liberal opens his mouth about the Ft. Hood massacre by a Muslim jihadist I know that I’m going to feel less safe? The corrupt mayor of Chicago (and presidential patron) blames the shooting of 41 soldiers — at the deployment center for the wars against Muslim jihadists in Afghanistan and Iraq — on the alleged fact that “America loves guns.”

As if the traitor Hasan had not clearly and unequivocally renounced his American citizenship and declared war on his own country because it was not a Muslim state. As if there were not in fact NO GUNS ALLOWED on the Fort Hood base, which is why his soldier (!) victims were unarmed and therefore someone didn’t shoot him dead after his first blast. What is wrong with American so-called liberals that they proudly expose themselves in public as idiots when it comes to the holy Muslim war that has been declared against us? That they just don’t get it? And they don’t.

Media’s Coverage of the Fort Hood Massacre:

Share This With Friends:
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • RSS
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Live
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • MySpace
  • Mixx
  • Netvibes
  • NewsVine

{ 0 comments }

The investigative team from the soon to be released documentary Not Evil Just Wrong joined the Society of Environmental Journalists and attended their annual conference held this year in Madison, Wisconsin.

Former Vice President Al Gore who never allows journalists questions was giving his first Q & A in 4 years. The results were surprising and alarming for the future of journalism.

Share This With Friends:
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • RSS
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Live
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • MySpace
  • Mixx
  • Netvibes
  • NewsVine

{ 0 comments }

On September 24th,
The Hill reported that Pelosi commits to 72-hour wait before health vote

A spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) suggested Thursday that Pelosi’s promise should be taken with a grain of salt.

“House Democrats actually voted to post the trillion-dollar ’stimulus’ bill online for 48 hours before a vote and then broke that promise, so this should be taken with a large grain of salt,” said Boehner spokesman Michael Steel.

Looks like Congressman Boehner was right.

The Washington Examiner is reporting that Democratic leadership, House Speaker Nancy Pelois and Senate Leader Harry Reid, are discouraging members from signing a petition that would force a vote on the 72-hour rule.

Congress. Reps. Brian Baird, D-Wash., and Greg Walden, R-Ore., are circulating a petition among House lawmakers that would force a vote on the 72-hour rule.

Nearly every Republican has signed on, but the Democratic leadership is unwilling to cede control over when bills are brought to the floor for votes and are discouraging their rank and file from signing the petition. Senate Democrats voted down a similar measure last week for the health care bill.

The reluctance to implement a three-day rule is not unique to the Democrats.

The Republican majority rushed through the controversial Patriot Act in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks as well as a massive Medicare prescription drug bill in 2003 that added hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit.

Please read the entire article here:
Congressional leaders fight against posting bills online

Share This With Friends:
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • RSS
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Live
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • MySpace
  • Mixx
  • Netvibes
  • NewsVine

{ 0 comments }

If conservatives are serious about retaking congress in 2010, we had better ACT quickly and effectively. This will happen only if we find a way to unite in action, and do it fast.

True, “We The People” are all stirred up, angry and frightened.  This seems to be the ideal time to make our voices heard.  However, we all seem to march to the beat of our own drum.  Our voices sound more like a cacophony of a million rusty hinged doors of junkyard cars closing independently in a random rhythm, than the precise chord of a disciplined, harmonious choir with everyone doing their part.

Too many of us are depending on a national political party to save our country in the 2010 elections.  In many cases it is the Republican party being relied upon.  This is the same party whose arrogance and lack of clear values got us into this mess in the first place. Others depend upon the Libertarian Party or the Independent Party.

I am sorry but this gives me NO comfort.  This WILL NOT get the job done!

For the most part political parties are run by political hacks with personal agendas and ulterior motives that are not necessarily in line with the needs of our country.  This is evidenced best by the Republican party’s nomination of Bob Dole in 1996 and John McCain in 2008 because “it was their turn”.  As a result of the Dole nomination we enjoyed a second four years of Bill Clinton, with the accompanying scandals, impeachment hearings and serious damage to the Office of the Presidency itself.

The McCain nomination has given us the disastrous past nine months of Barack Obama (with only 39 more to go). The GOP made the decisions to back Dole and McCain based upon some obscure political protocol that gave no thought to who could really win or who would actually be best for the country.

We cannot delegate the fate of the United States of America to any one political party.  Like it or not, the fate of our beloved country lies in the hands of “We The People”,  just as it did in the time of the American Revolution.  This is not the time for patriots to hide themselves in complacency.  Either we unite and sing together in a single harmonious chorus or our liberty perishes.  It really is as simple as that.

The 2010 elections are just over one year from now.  We should ALREADY have a united strategy!  We should already have chosen target house and senate seats where we have a realistic chance to replace treacherous, self serving incumbents with true lovers of the USA, its constitution and liberties.  We should have already vetted and chosen candidates to unite behind for each of those seats.

We must discard political boundaries, for who is elected in North Carolina is just as important to someone living  in Texas as the representative sent to Washington from the home district.

We must discard political stereotypes and political labels.  There are clear thinking, courageous patriots in the GOP, the Libertarian Party, The Independent Party and yes, in the Democratic Party as well.

We must put on hold personal political ideologies that divide us and focus on the things we all agree upon.  In some cases we will feel so strongly about these issues that it will actually be painful to set them aside, even temporarily.

We must forget about selfish territorial interests and “pork” we can argue about that later.  We must forget about political debts and focus on saving the country.  We must be willing to think outside the box and elect people who are not insiders and have no political experience.

What is critical at this point is saving the United States of America and our Constitution.  We need to focus on that issue!  I believe our agenda must be very simple:  We must re-enthrone our constitution and redefine the role and size of our federal government.  We must put that federal government firmly back in the place in which our founders created it.  It must return to the role of servant of the people and the sovereign states, NOT the master.

We are going to have to dig deep into our pockets at a time when we can ill afford it.  We must financially support candidates across the USA.

This raises some basic questions:

How do we organize? Does the organization already exist that we can fall in with and trust to put aside the politics and help us vet the candidates?  One that we can trust to use our hard earned money wisely?  One that we can trust to resist temptation for personal gain and private agendas and pursue the fully disclosed and agreed upon agenda of “We The People”?

If this organization does not currently exist how on earth do we create one quickly and soundly enough to get the job done in 2010?

If you care about this country, We would like to have your suggestions.  Tell us which existing organizations we might be able to trust to pursue our agenda of re-enthroning our constitution and redefining the role and size of the federal government.

I suspect there is no single organization that conservatives will agree can be entrusted with this mission.  If that is the case, then I suggest that the following approach be adopted:

Establish a  volunteer governing board of proven conservative patriots who have NO connection to either The Trilateral Commission, The Council on Foreign Relations or the Bilderberg Group.

I suggest that the first three board members be organized from among clear thinking and influential conservatives at least two of which are NOT Washington “insiders”;  people like Thomas Sowell and Glenn Beck.  The third member might be a proven conservative elected official such as Michele Bachmann or Jason Chaffetz. The first three members will then choose an additional four to six members, consulting with conservative organizations such as The Heritage Foundation, The Cato institute, etc.

This board of Trustees would

  • Recruit volunteer staff
  • Hire staff with specific expertise as necessary
  • Develop overall project strategy
  • Target specific house and senate seats
  • Vet candidates to back
  • Oversee the raising and allocation of campaign funds

There is not a lot of time for those of us who love the America we inherited from our founders to act to take our country back.  Please give us your feedback and suggestions.  If patriots lack the passion and commitment  to step forward and join the debate, the fight is lost already, before we begin.

Share This With Friends:
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • RSS
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Live
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • MySpace
  • Mixx
  • Netvibes
  • NewsVine

{ 2 comments }

politicalmavens.com published an article entitled “Dems will stoop to any depth to tar Obama critics”  By Mark Davis

In the article, the author brilliantly illuminates the pusillanimous effrontery of the slanderous attacks by leftist politicians, commentators and media on critics of the policies of the Obama administration. Mr. Davis skillfully develops the theme voiced by Thomas Jefferson when he said, “Resort is had to ridicule only when reason is against us.”

…sometimes losing in the political arena brings out the lowest depths of behavior. This sad fact is on display now in the form of the slanderous mischaracterization of President Barack Obama’s critics.

Even before his election, there was speculation of how much negative reaction there might be to his ascendancy – and how much might be based on bigotry. Fair enough. It remains an intriguing question: What effect will a black president have on racism, and what effect will racism have on a black president?

But as soon as the Obama agenda met opposition, presumptions arose about racist motives.

Let’s stipulate that among Obama’s detractors are some folks who just don’t like black people. That’s self-evident. But it is a reckless leap to assert that his skin color is a major driving force behind the political challenges he faces.

I first heard this from black scholars and activists with an obvious agenda of painting America as far more racist than it is. ~~~

Guilt-ridden whites on the left soon joined the chorus, realizing this was a handy device to discredit conservatism as racially tinged.

When the president’s health care plan met strong opposition from town halls to tea parties, its advocates stooped first to insulting denial, asserting that the outpouring was not mainstream passion but some peculiar product of fringe paranoia. And that was only the beginning.

As it became clear that the number of Americans objecting not just to Obamacare but to other Democratic big-government urges was growing, guardians of that agenda brought out the big guns: It’s because he’s black.

The falseness of this ploy is exceeded only by its gutlessness. The last debate tactic of the scoundrel is to falsely wave off the opponent as unworthy of engagement. Tar the opposition as racists, and they don’t even deserve a place at the table of rational debate.

Jimmy Carter famously gave in to that temptation, joined by pundits like Maureen Dowd of The New York Times, who invented from thin air a racial motive for Rep. Joe Wilson’s infamous outburst as she sought to dismiss anti-Obama sentiment as bigotry-driven.

Anyone stupid enough to buy that argument is saddled with the belief that the Americans who have recoiled from the notions of socialized medicine, government-run banks and auto companies and trillion-dollar debt would have embraced such outrages if only they had come from a white president.

In a nation where black America loves Ted Kennedy and white conservatives love Clarence Thomas, it has long been clear that politics dwarfed race long ago.

Perhaps sensing that the race-baiting was not succeeding, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi now seeks to ramp up the calumny with her forlorn recollections of the 1978 killings of Harvey Milk and George Moscone in San Francisco, seeing a similarly murderous flavor in the tone of opposition to Obama.

Shame on her and anyone engaging in this contemptible behavior. Whether it is exaggerating the prevalence of racism to explain the president’s troubles or using a few admittedly unhinged critics to smear the opposition as assassins-in-waiting, these are the tactics of desperate souls.

It’s curious, considering the one-party rule they currently enjoy. Even when these people are on top, nothing is beneath them.

It is very disorienting to discover that our government cannot be trusted.  I have, in times past, questioned the competency of our government, but never its intentions or motives.  It has become apparent that we are now governed by politicians who cannot be trusted to adhere to their oaths, and who share dark agendas that violate our Constitution and threaten our liberties.  Our country is now in the hands of those with no respect for the values upon  which it was founded and made us the greatest nation on the planet earth.  This realization, not the color of Mr. Obama’s skin, is what motivates the widespread dissent from the policies of this administration.

Please read Mr. Davis’ entire article at:
Dems will stoop to any depth to tar Obama critic

Share This With Friends:
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • RSS
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Live
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • MySpace
  • Mixx
  • Netvibes
  • NewsVine

{ 0 comments }