Phony in Chief

So, did everyone get the message from the media, over the past couple of weeks, that the Obama speech at Hampton College in 2007, the unedited version of which was recently found, was old news? Already covered? Nothing interesting, nothing to see here, just move along?

If, that is, one heard about it at all?

Thomas Sowell begs to differ:

In his speech -- delivered in a ghetto-style accent that Obama doesn't use anywhere except when he is addressing a black audience -- he charged the federal government with not showing the same concern for the people of New Orleans after hurricane Katrina hit as they had shown for the people of New York after the 9/11 attacks, or the people of Florida after hurricane Andrew hit.

Departing from his prepared remarks, he mentioned the Stafford Act...Senator Obama, as he was then, pointed out that this requirement was waived in the case of New York and Florida because the people there were considered to be "part of the American family." But the people in New Orleans -- predominantly black -- "they don't care about as much," according to Barack Obama.

If you want to know what community organizers do, this is it -- rub people's emotions raw to hype their resentments. [LB: As we now know, this is also what Presidents who were formerly community organizers do...]

...

less than two weeks earlier, on May 24, 2007, the United States Senate had in fact voted 80-14 to waive the Stafford Act requirement for New Orleans, as it had waived that requirement for New York and Florida. More federal money was spent rebuilding New Orleans than was spent in New York after 9/11 and in Florida after hurricane Andrew, combined.

Truth is not a job requirement for a community organizer. Nor can Barack Obama claim that he wasn't present the day of that Senate vote...The Congressional Record for May 24, 2007 shows Senator Barack Obama present that day and voting on the bill that waived the Stafford Act requirement. Moreover, he was one of just 14 Senators who voted against -- repeat, AGAINST -- the legislation which included the waiver.

Think about that the next time Obama, or anyone on his team, or any Obama supporter, accuses Mitt Romney - or anyone else - of dishonesty.

Bob Is A Racist

This would be funny if there weren't so much truth to it.

Ok, it's funny anyway...

Latest racist self-identifies...

We all know that the term "cool" is the newest racist slander, according to the CBC. Well, here's the latest example of someone using that particular racist slur:

The latest campaign email to supporters of President Barack Obama's reelection effort tries to capitalize on the president's coolness. "From coaching basketball to knowing how many Jonas brothers there are, Barack is a pretty cool dad," writes First Lady Michelle Obama in an email to supporters.

For whatever reason, Angela Rye was not quoted in the article...

"Obama Shrinks America"

Kathryn Jean Lopez is quoting Bill Kristol this morning on the President's response to the proposed ground zero mosque.

For Obama, 9/11 was a “deeply traumatic event for our country.” Traumatic events invite characteristic reactions and over-reactions–fearfulness, anger, even hysteria. That’s how Obama understands the source of objections to the Ground Zero mosque. It’s all emotional. The arguments don’t have to be taken seriously. The criticisms of the mosque are the emotional reactions of a traumatized people...Obama (like Bloomberg) doesn’t feel he even has to engage the arguments against the mosque–because he regards his fellow citizens as emotionally traumatized victims, not citizens who might have a reasonable point of view.

Kristol's absolutely right, of course, as far as he goes. But he could go much further. Obama's approach to this is the very archetype of the Liberal "Progressive" response to every concern of American citizens with which the left differs.

Gun control? We don't have to respond to their arguments, because they're just "bitter, clinging to God and guns..."

Abortion? We don't have to respond to their arguments, because they're just misogynists.

Affirmative Action? We don't have respond to their arguments, because they're just racists.

Gay Marriage? We don't have to respond to their arguments, because they're just bigots.

Illegal immigration? We don't have to respond to their arguments, because they're just racist bigots.

Deficit spending? We don't have to respond to their arguments, because they're just greedy and heartless.

(And, oh yes, the President is black and they're racists and bigots.)

Health care reform? We don't have to respond to their arguments because they're just greedy and heartless racist bigots.

Taxes? We don't have to respond to their arguments because "taxes" is a racial code word and they're just greedy and heartless racists.

If your political opponent is a racist or a bigot or a misogynist, you don't need to explain yourself - his point of view is worthless by default, so you don't have listen to it, never mind address it. Nearly every "argument" from nearly every Democratic politician is a linear descendant of Teddy Kennedy's inane, insane, but unfortunately effective Robert Bork statement.

It's easy to understand the appeal, of course. If all of your arguments are ad hominems, well, you always win! And, of course, winning the ad hominem argument automatically makes you the better person, and relieves you of actually having to construct logical and intellectual arguments. As Andrew Klavan put it, the liberal argument reduces to "shut up." And if the interface between you and the American people - the media - agrees with you, well, you never, ever get called on it.

JournoList: Is 'call them racists' a liberal media tactic?

JournoList: Is 'call them racists' a liberal media tactic?

Excerpts published Tuesday by a conservative online news site suggest that a group of journalists from the mainstream media discussed ways to shield Barack Obama from criticism during the 2008 presidential election.

Among the strategies put forward: call conservative critics racists.

...

The Daily Caller writes that Spencer Ackerman, then of the Washington Independent, "urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama's relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama's conservative critics, Mr. Ackerman wrote, 'Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares – and call them racists.' "

Think about that, the next time someone frets about the "racism" of the tea party movement. Where does that idea come from? It comes from the media. Why does it come from the media? Because it's about the only page that they've got left in their playbook. "Hey, let's call them racists!"

A strange encounter

The following is a true story.


I was standing in the welcome center at church this morning, between services, visiting with a friend, when we saw a middle-aged woman come walking through, looking as if she needed something. There were a lot of people around, but they tend to be bunched up in groups, and it can feel awkward to try to get someone's attention. But we noticed her, and she, seeing us looking, walked towards us. We said, "Good morning," and asked if we could help.

"I'm new here," she said, "and I need to get my mother over to the elevator, but I need to park the car. Can you help and walk my mother to the elevator?"

"Sure," I said, "I'd be happy to." So I walked with her back to the other lobby, and met her mother, a black woman (I'd not mention her race were it not relevant to the story) who looked to be in her mid-70s, standing there with her walker. The woman introduced us, and went out to park the car, while I started walking her mother through the welcome center towards the elevator. As we walked, we chatted, and she told me that she lived in New Jersey, but had been born and raised in Mississippi. She told me that she had been a teacher for years, and that she was very concerned about the educational system. Hey, I'm concerned about the educational system, too. I'm a white man from Maine and she's a black woman from Mississippi, but in addition to the fact that we're both in the church, that sounds like some common ground. So I told her that my wife and I were home-schooling our kids, and, as we were getting on to the elevator, she told me that didn't approve of home-schooling, "the way you do it up here in Boston."

"OK," I thought. I didn't know what, exactly, she thought was "the way [we] do it up here in Boston," but that's her problem, not mine, so I just kind of nodded and smiled. At which point, alone in the elevator, she told me that, and I quote, "my people in Mississippi were better off when they were slaves."

How do you respond to that? If there's a good response to an elderly black woman who says that "her people" were better off as slaves, I'd never actually taken the time to figure out what it was. It was not a situation and comment which I'd ever anticipated dealing with, or spent any time preparing for, and it caught me unawares. While I think my eyebrows went up, I just kind of smiled and nodded. What can you say to that? And after telling me that she didn't actually approve of slavery (what a relief!) she continued:

"Martin Luther King, Jr.," she said next, "sold them out."

A brief pause. I found that I had nothing to add to that comment, either.

My habit, in conversation with strangers with whom I'm unlikely to meet again, is to be generally agreeable, to smile a lot (although I suspect that smiling is more of an intention than a habit) and to genially agree with what the other is saying, or, very politely, suggest that my opinion might differ on this topic or that. Nothing in my arsenal seemed adequate for this situation.

"We haven't had a good President in this country since Abraham Lincoln."

"So," I thought, "she's not an Obama fan." Smile and nod. Nod and smile. Praise the Lord.

We got off the elevator while she was, I believe, quoting Lincoln to me. I didn't catch the quote, as I had found myself eager to get her safely, and quickly, to a pew. Which I did, with her explaining to me that there was not enough preaching about hell, and the best way to reach people was through tracts, and people weren't doing enough of that, but she had a couple, and wanted to give them to me. Smile and nod, nod and smile, murmur polite nothings as she digs through her bag, thank her for the tracts which I'm now sticking in my pocket and smile and nod and "I hope that you enjoy the service," and I don't remember ever being at quite such a loss for words as I am right now.


But I do hope that she enjoyed the service...

liberals' racism-colored glasses

Sometimes, things are really obvious, but someone needs to say them anyway. Like this comment from Ace of Spades, on Chris Matthews' observation at a Palin book signing that "they look like a white crowd to me...I think there is a tribal aspect to this thing, in other words, white vs. other people.":

Liberals are fond of claiming their thinking is more nuanced, more multidimensional, more wide-ranging, than conservatives' thinking.

So why is it at every opportunity they indulge in retarded reductivism and reduce everything to the single variable of racism?

People don't want to give up their health care? Must be racism.

People don't want to pay more in taxes? Must be racism.

People don't want to import millions of new needy poor which they are then obligated to support through social welfare? Must be racism.

Racism, racism, racism. There seem to be no other variables in this equation or inputs in this program.

(As always, be aware that the language at Ace's site tends to be a bit rough.)

Race arsonist at it again

We're never going to overcome our racial issues in this country until race hustlers like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and the like are marginalized, shamed, embarrassed and driven from the public stage:

“We even have blacks voting against the healthcare bill,” Jackson said at a reception Wednesday night. “You can’t vote against healthcare and call yourself a black man.”

Silly me. I always thought that "black man" referred to skin color...

The race hustlers win again...

News leaked out late last week that Rush Limbaugh was a limited partner in a group being put together to purchase the St. Louis Rams. It makes all kinds of sense - Limbaugh's a Missouri native, a passionate NFL fan and a deep-pocketed businessman.

He's also a conservative. Who speaks energetically three hours a day for public consumption. There are many who react like Pavlov's dogs when Limbaugh's the topic - the mere mention of his name causes them to foam at the mouth. And indulge in the worst kind of casual slander.
NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell:

"I've said many times before, we're all held to a high standard here," Goodell told reporters, via the New York Times.

"I would not want to see those comments¹ coming from people who are in a responsible position in the NFL –- absolutely not."

Apparently, the NFL has no clout with NBC, where Keith Olbermann ("...all thanks to the total mindless, morally bankrupt, knee-jerk, fascistic hatred, without which Michelle Malkin would just be a big mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it") is still part of the Sunday Night football show.

Mark Steyn, who occasionally guest hosts on Rush's show, was typically brilliant this morning:

So where are these racist soundbites? Where's the audio? Where's the transcript? Name the year. Heigh-ho, say CNN's Rick Sanchez and the rest of the basement-ratings crowd. Not our problem: It's for Limbaugh to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he's never said it. We're too busy fact-checking anti-Obama jokes to fact-check our own reporting...

Stephen Spruiell takes a quick look at what's acceptable and what's not in the NFL.

And the sad news comes tonight that Limbaugh's almost certainly going to be dropped from the group. Sad, because once again, the rabble-rousers and racial arsonists on the left intimidate others into giving them a trophy. In a just world, the "Reverend" Al Sharpton would be a cloutless joke, and his opinion on any moral topic should be presumed wrong or, at the very least, ignored. In Barack Obama's "post-racial" America, the race pimps and hustlers are still winning the shakedown war. What has the "Reverend" Jesse Jackson done in the last 40 years to make America a better place? Nothing.

And it's sad because we get yet one more example of the flourishing of the double standard which would not be allowed to stand if we had anything like an unbiased, objective media in this country. That Jesse "Hymietown" Jackson is allowed to lecture anyone on race issues or prejudice, and people listen with straight faces, is indicative of a serious societal breakdown somewhere along the way. Once again, we see these guys roll out their protection racket, and people pay off in acquiescence. It's offensive.




¹ - The story does not make it clear whether he's talking about real comments here, or the fake comments that the media is propogating...

Mark Levin. Stephen A. Smith. Virulent racists. Or not...

According to the likes of Jimmy Carter and Maureen Dowd, this is the new face of racism in America:



H/T - Ace of Spades

Race arsonists at it again

Former President Jimmy Carter:

I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American. I live in the South, and I've seen the South come a long way, and I've seen the rest of the country that shares the South's attitude toward minority groups at that time, particularly African-Americans.

That racism inclination still exists, and I think it's bubbled up to the surface because of belief among many white people -- not just in the South but around the country -- that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country. It's an abominable circumstance, and it grieves me and concerns me very deeply.

Here is what's actually abominable, Mr. Carter. The casual slurring of millions of sincere, concerned Americans, with no evidence whatsoever, by the single most inept, ineffective and sanctimonious chief executive of the last 60 years. It isn't just you, of course. This slur is being perpetrated by many members of the leftist and pundit class in this country, and again, there's not a shred of supporting evidence.

Let's be brutally frank for just a moment. This President is President of the United States primarily because he's a black man. Otherwise, the tea parties would still be going on and the likes of Jimmy Carter would be talking about the animosity towards President Hillary Clinton being based on the fact that she's a woman. And Maureen Dowd would be writing about how the unspoken word after "you lie" was b--ch instead of boy. If Barack Obama weren't black, he'd be John Edwards. Without the resume. And the hair. A white man with Barack Obama's particular skills and background isn't even an interesting story in the primary. No, he's President because the press fell in love with the idea of electing a black man, and it superseded their love for the idea of electing a woman.

The opposition, though, is based on his policies. Does Jimmy Carter have any recollection of what happened when Bill Clinton attempted to "reform" the health care system? Does he remember what happened to the Democrats after two years of the most liberal Presidency since Carter's own? And does he have any conception of how much more radical Obama's administration has been than Clinton's?

Jimmy Carter, Maureen Dowd, Eddie Bernice Johnson and all of the others throwing out the "racist" label are setting back the cause of "racial equality" in this country by a generation or more. And it's going to be a long time before another black man is elected to the office. Why would anyone want to support the candidacy of a President who cannot be criticized? The people of the United States are citizens, not subjects, and a President with whom one cannot honestly disagree without being accused of racism is a President that doesn't belong in office.

Obama's election was hailed, even by many of us who thought he'd be an awful President, as a good sign, a major step forward in the story of race relations in America. It looks right now as if we were very wrong. It was a horrible mistake, and it's entirely the fault of the race-arsonists on the left who plead for race-blindness while clinging to racism as primary prism through which they view the world.

Great question

Joseph C. Phillips:

How many Marxists, Communists, Domestic Terrorists and raving racialists does the President get to associate with before reasonable people can assume that the president on some level shares their particular vision of America?

Give it a rest, already

One of Chris Lynch's pet peeves is also one of mine. Nick Cafardo of the Boston Globe is doing the obligatory "as good liberals, we yearn for a color-blind society, and we'll get there by obsessing over race whenever possible" yearly MLB African-American count. (Because there's nothing condescending or humiliating about going out to count them, like environmentalists keeping track of the endangered Siberian tiger or Northern Spotted Owl.)

By our count, there will be 73 African-American major leaguers on Opening Day - about 9 percent of rosters. The breakdown:

Seven - Los Angeles Dodgers...

Five - Los Angeles Angels...

Four - [6 teams]

Three - [4 teams]

Two - [8 teams]

One - [9 teams]

None: Boston.

None: Boston

None: Boston


I've said this before (more than once) - I'll say it again. There is no useful definition of the term "African-American" which does not include David Ortiz. Or Ramon Ramirez. Or Manny Delcarmen.

Remember, the ostensible purpose for counts like this is that in the past, there were problems with racial discrimination, which prevented players with dark skin from being allowed to play in the game. Remember that "African-American" is used to refer to Americans of African ancestry with dark skin, because the terms "black" and "negro" are now considered offensive. So in order for that "None: Boston" to be true, you can't talk about "African-Americans" - you need to talk about "African-Americans whose African ancestors didn't arrive in the Carribean or Latin America, African-Americans who were born in the continental United States AND don't have some variant of Spanish as their first language."

Does that sound particularly enlightening or important or interesting to anyone? Because it sure doesn't to me. Does anyone want make the case that African-Americans trying to play Major League Baseball in 2009 face any kind of inherent racism or prejudice that hampers their ability to get a level playing field? Seriously, are there any teams anywhere choosing "white players" because they're white, or rejecting "black players" because they're black? Of course not - teams are looking for the best players whenever and wherever they can. This is pointless and offensive, racial profiling simply for the sake of racial profiling.

Baseball and race again - again...

Chris Lynch has an interesting take on the Johan Santana to Boston speculation.

"...if it is Coco Crisp then that means there is a very good chance that the Boston Red Sox's Opening Day 25-man roster will have ZERO African Americans. I know, I know - who cares? I care only that the Red Sox field the most competitive team possible but I bring this up because some people will make an issue out of it. Make no mistake. And yes I'm talking about the Boston Globe here.

It's a stupid issue but something the Boston Globe made a big deal out of 4-years ago. If Coco Crisp is traded - I'm betting they make it an issue once again."

I think that Chris is probably right, so even though I've said this before, I'll say it again.

If someone from the Globe does make that point, it will be wrong. Incorrect. False. A lie. Calumny and slander.

There is, obviously, a racial history to Major League baseball in general, and the Red Sox in particular. But there is no relevant or useful definition of the term African-American that does not include David Ortiz. Or Manny Ramirez. Or Manny Delcarmen. Or Johan Santana. All four of whom have dark skin, presumably had African ancestors and are from the Americas. Somehow, because their first language is Spanish, they don't count for noxious racial profiling purposes? Baseball's racial history deals with race, with skin color, not with country of origin. Manny Ramirez grew up in New York City, Manny Delcarmen grew up in Boston. How strained and petty and dishonest with the English language would you have to be to comment that the Red Sox wouldn't have any "African-Americans" on their roster?