Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter made no secret of his radical Islamic views. He passed out business cards with the acronomyn SOA indicating he was a “soldier of Allah.” Hasan gave a bizzare PowerPoint presentation in which he quoted the Koran (slide 43): “I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah and that Mohammed is the Messenger.”

In secret, Hasan was in contact with Al Queda and and a string of radical Islamists.

As Hasan began to fire on the unarmed soldiers at Fort Hood he shouted the Jihadi war cry: “Allahu Akbar.”

So why has it been so difficult for the “news” media to call this a terrorist act?

PC News: Networks Downplay Terrorism, Muslim Connection in Ft. Hood Attack
All three networks mention ‘terror’ only after Obama hints at ideology during funeral ceremony.
By Carolyn Plocher and Dan Gainor
Culture and Media Institute
November 11, 2009

• Networks Decide Attack Wasn’t Terror: 85 percent of the broadcast stories didn’t mention the word “terror.” ABC, CBS, and NBC evening news referenced terrorism connections to the Fort Hood attack just seven times in 48 reports.
• ABC, CBS, NBC Follow White House Line: Before Obama’s Nov. 10 speech, 93 percent of the stories had ignored any terror connection. But after Obama hinted at what ABC called “Islamic extremist views,” all three networks mentioned terrorism.
• Alleged Attacker’s Muslim Faith Not Important Either: Slightly more than one-fourth (29 percent) of evening news reports mentioned that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was a Muslim. Of those, half (7 out of 14) defended the religion or included experts to do so.

Two possible explanations:

First, the recognition of this atrocity as a terrorist attack means that Obama has to take personal responsibility for the failings of his Administration to “connect the dots” to prevent this attack. The same folks who insisted Bush should have done something prior to the September 11th attacks will have a hard time defending the Obama Administration when it’s clear there were red lights flashing indicating that Hasan was a problem. It happened on Obama’s watch. If they can say it’s not a terrorist attack they can escape responsibility for failing to prevent it.

There is also a political dimension to the denial. Evan Thomas, the Editor of Newsweek gave away the game as he reacted to the news that Hasan was a Muslim:

“I cringe that he’s a Muslim. I mean, because it just inflames all the fears. I think he’s probably just a nut case but, with that label attached to him, it will get the right wing going.”

So, already the attack has become politicized by the left. But they didn’t stop there.

Second, there seemed to be an instant reaction to the attack to blame the military. All those wars and deployments were bound to make a soldier snap. But of course that explanation is hard to support given that Hasan had never been deployed overseas. The best the left can do is to blame Bush for a war which they claim radicalizes Muslims (despite the fact that Muslims were radicalized long before Bush came to office).

Now that the Muslim and terrorist connection is established beyond a shadow of a doubt the “news” media goes to it’s last resort: there are “Christian nuts” too. Maybe so, but last time I checked they haven’t flown planes into buildings, beheaded Muslims with dull knives or shot up an Army base. And there certainly has been no “Muslim backlash” despite the number of worried columns with that theme have appeared in the New York Times.

Political Correctness Shielding the Next Terrorist?

With the left and their media acolytes so willing to support the politically correct culture of denial that led to the Hasan atrocity one wonders how many other shooters or bombers or whatever are hiding in plain sight? And wouldn’t it be nice that those on the left who would accuse us of wanting to put all Muslims in internment camps cared a bit more for the safety of the citizens who might be the next target?

We on the Right knew instinctively what the media and this administration’s reaction to the most recent case of (not so) Sudden Jihadi Syndrome that occurred at Fort Hood. We knew without prompting that they would attempt to diminish the rage and anger that they knew was dwelling in the hearts of all patriotic, and life-loving Americans as they saw the event unfold. They wrongly assumed that we angered-Americans would seek out and “punish” the first Moslem we stumbled upon. This assumption on their part has angered us almost as much as the actual murders did. Are we not to be angry at whoever killed 12 of our finest, standing unarmed, and unsuspecting in their skivvies? Are we so little though-of, that they assume we are on the razors edge of abandoning of our law-abiding, Judeo-Christian culture for one of animalistic revenge? Those 20%’ers made those assumptions. They label our anger misplaced, and they label us as savages, equal or worse than the shooter, even though a grand total of ONE Moslem has been killed in vigilante-style revenge in 40 years, and only after 911, and that person is now in prison for life.

According to my numbers, the score is now 1 dead Moslem vs. approx 3500 dead Americans killed on our own soil, beginning with a certain Moslem killing a certain Kennedy, all the way through last weeks carnage.

There is certainly many Islamist’s living here at least verbally willing to continue this mayhem as taught by Mohammed. We read their words in their blogs, and we hear them on the corners of New York and Dearborn. We see them in our colleges, and yet we protect them via our laws and our customs. In some cases, we even pay their way here and pay their tuition, while our taxes help them with medical care and foodstamps if necessary.

In the minds of these tough-talkers, we do these things not because we are benevolent, but because we either “owe” them for being unbelievers, or we are simply stupid fools. In most polls taken, these verbal wanna-be Jihadi’s make up about 15-25% of Moslems worldwide. Here in America, the worse numbers show about 1-2%. Considering there are approximately 3 million Moslems living here, the potential numbers of Warriors for Allah is still significant, even if we assume only 1% of those would actually carry out jihad.

So what’s stopping them? The other 80% of us are, including the cops, and the FBI. They know full well that this isn’t England, and not only do we have armed cops, we have an armed to-the-teeth populace, and that together we can stop them fairly quickly. Strange as it sounds, Fort Hood might be “safer” for a Jihadi than my local Oak Ridge Mall is, because all of the soldier’s weapons are in lockers. But mine, and many others are on our collective hips. They may talk the big talk about martyrdom, but when it all goes down, they don’t want to die before making a big-enough splash to be counted among the “heroes” of Jihadville. They know that for as multiculturally blind as our politicians, teachers and commentators are, a big section of us still have it in us to fight, as the folks on flight 93 showed.

Some of you might be asking; Yeah, but for how long? The “long race” between those who will submit and those who will never submit is for a different discussion, but I know in my heart, the finish line is a long way off. There is another shorter, more pressing race going on between those of us who will fight when cornered, and those of us who will lash out because we perceive that our government is doing nothing to mitigate the potential for our harm. If several back-to-back episodes of solitary or small-group attacks occur, and we get the same sort of condescending pap we saw in this latest round, I sadly feel the odds of those who will lash-out against innocent Moslems will increase exponentially.

It is the race between “lashers” and the cornered that I focus on in this screed, and what our present “leaders” should be doing about it. We already know what they are NOT doing about it, and how ham-handed they’ve been in lecturing us to “behave” in light of what we’ve been seeing these past 40 years on our own soil.

More than any president we’ve ever had, Obama has the opportunity to nip two bad buds at once: The fed up zealot-vigilante, and the wanna-be holy-Jihadi.

Obama has an “in” with the Moslem populace of this country, and some say the world. His attendance of Islamic schools during childhood, and his kind words toward it, gives him credence when he talks about the faith, like no other previous president has ever had.

He needs to come out forcefully against Sunni Wahabism, and Shia Khomenism in one grand speech. (It is the speech he should have given in Egypt, but didn’t.) He can talk directly to the Moslems in this country, and give them a clear choice: Peaceful Islam, or prison/deportation.

He needs to back it up by having Congress and the Senate give the FBI, the police, and the courts the power to remove those who espouse violent Islam from our midst, instead of waiting for them to act out their twisted beliefs. He could even define all religious-based violence as akin to present (1st-amendment-questionable) hate-crime laws against minorities and gays. They hide behind our First Amendment to spread their filth, when we all know that this filth motivates others to their cause. There are some who will bring up the freedom of religion aspect of the Constitution. To those he should remind them of the history of Utah statehood, and how they had to denounce polygamy before they were admitted to the Union, and once in, they could not re-instate it. The Bushido religion of Imperial Japan is not allowed here, and neither is the virgin sacrifice of the Mayans, so there IS precedence for religious controls by the State. After all, Obama sure was quick to publicly condemn the man who shot and killed an abortion doctor, and rightfully took his religious extremism to task.

There of course needs to be solid demarcation lines within these laws, so that only calls-to-violence is prosecuted, and there needs to be zero-tolerance for this filth within our government and military. The lawyers can find a way.

Obama could pull this off, because he not only has some credibility within the Islamic community, he also will be supported by the media, and the 20%’ers. Of course the ACLU might put up some token resistance, but we all know it will be muted at best. Bush tried the tact of morally separating the peaceful from the violent, but because he was NOT a progressive-socialist, he was spit upon for even attempting it, even though he got the (un-reported) support of many peaceful Moslems in the country for shining a light on what they themselves are up against.

These religious extremists, primarily of the Islamic sort, need to be treated like the Klan was in the 70’s. Obama should emphasize their intolerance of gays, of Blacks, of women, of atheist’s. Include every bias close to the heart of Progressives everywhere. If he did all these things, he would be re-elected by a landslide by both the Left and Right, and the vigilante would be forever in his hole.

We are beginning to see what happens when the authorities treat Islamists with kid gloves. We are seeing the rise of un-healthy nationalism in England and Europe. We will see more of this, and I feel strongly, that mass violence will occur there within 5 years. It will not be pretty, and it will escalate. Multiculturalism will have failed, and good, positive acceptance along with it.

We can safely assume that Obama will not do what truly needs to be done in this regard. Some cynics might say that these Leftists actually want the rabid-nativist to rise up in a violent fashion, so that the Left can pointedly vilify them, and gain political power. I personally think that the Left is simply ignorant, and see historical Western/American culture as an impediment to their “progress”. I also see radical Islam using that same ignorance as a tool to kill us with. And by “us”, I mean moonbats and wingnuts, Black and White, gay and straight, men and women, etc and etc.

In light of the fact that Obama will never lift a finger to mitigate the fears of the fed-up among us, and that the Islamist knows he will never speak truthfully about their 7th-century outlook on life, we can expect many more incidents of solo and small-group attacks. Followed by acts of miss-directed vigilantism. Followed up with an over-reaction by government against all of us.

I wonder if someday Obama will ever come to the realization that the American/Western society he so despises and apologizes for, is the same one, and the only one, that made him possible?

Obama can’t be bothered by Islamic terrorism
By Ralph Peters
New York Post
Nov. 8, 2009

…A Muslim fanatic, known to the FBI as a fan of suicide bombers and to colleagues as an opponent of our government, coolly buys weapons, heads to a military facility he knows will be packed with unsuspecting soldiers, waits for the crowd to thicken, then shouts, “Allah is great!” and guns down 51 patriots, calmly reloading among the dead and dying.

But don’t rush to judgment.

Imagine if, instead of Fort Hood, the massacre had gone down at a mosque in Detroit — carried out by a maddened Christian or Jew. Obama would’ve been aboard Air Force One before the pilots had time to file a flight plan and he would’ve been on site before the gun smoke cleared, hugging and boo-hooing and dispensing stirring rhetoric for the evening news.

But go out of his way to rally our butchered troops? Not a chance. It’s not like they’re real human beings with Ivy League degrees. When Obama got word of the attack, he didn’t even lose his fabled cool.
…
Of course, this act of Islamist terrorism has been an inconvenience to a president whose administration insists there’s no such thing. Those dead and wounded soldiers are such an embarrassment. If only a Baptist or Lutheran had been the shooter, things would’ve been so much tidier.

What’s next? The White House is going to bring heavy pressure on the FBI, through Attorney General Eric Holder, to play down investigative results confirming that Maj. Nidal Hasan was motivated by his Muslim beliefs.

Instead, we’ll hear even more about the “harassment” Hasan suffered as the media toe the line laid down by the vile lead editorial in Saturday’s New York Times and how this calculating terrorist contracted PTSD from his patients.

Let me kill the harassment myth right now: Political correctness rules in today’s Army. We even protect our enemies these days. Had any soldier harassed Hasan because of his Islamist nuttiness, that soldier would’ve disappeared faster than a Franklin on a Times Square sidewalk.
…
Far from being harassed himself, this creep was allowed to harass the soldiers he treated for stress disorders. According to colleagues, Hasan not only argued with his patients about our wars, but preached Islam to those under his care. (Just what troubled vets needed, no doubt.)

Prejudice? You bet. In this terrorist’s favor. Nobody in Hasan’s chain of command had the sense of duty to weed this pervert out. Why? Hasan would’ve accused them of discrimination. And the officer who brought charges against Hasan would’ve been the one whose career suffered.

Since writing on this travesty in the Post and speaking out on Fox News, I’ve been deluged with supportive messages — many from soldiers outraged at the politically correct treatment of this terrorist by the media, by senior military leaders — and by the president.

How many more Americans have to die, at home and in war, before our president admits that there is, indeed, such a thing as Islamist terror? Will he ever admit that it played a role in the tragedy at Fort Hood?

Not a chance. Islam’s a religion of peace. America’s the problem. And don’t you forget it.

Many of us have scratched our heads wondering how a fine American like Flopping Aces contributor Maj. Chris Galloway could commit suicide after tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. Now, we learn that one of the men whose job it was to help returning troops deal with the reality of their deployments was an Islamist nut case. Heads should roll here and let’s start with the apparent indifference by the Obama Administration to the problem of Islamic extremists permitted to remain at their jobs in the U.S. military.

Anyone who has read Thomas Sowell’s Black Rednecks and White Liberals, knows that Garofalo’s statement is either demonstrably false, or just plain racist.

Sowell, a fellow at The Hoover Institution and a prolific author (who happens to be black himself) actually documents the origins and evolution of the redneck culture. He makes the excellent, and unchallenged point that the inner-city culture celebrated by many blacks today is, in fact, derived directly from the redneck culture – which had its origins in England.

People migrating to America’s south from the largely fringe areas of England, the Scottish Highlands and Ireland brought with them certain cultural values: Proneness to violence, aversion to work, neglect of education, sexual promiscuity, improvidence, drunkenness, lack of entrepreneurship, lively music and dance, style of religious oratory, touchy pride, boastful self-dramatization and vanity. These traits describe what came to be known as the redneck culture, and the people who exhibited these traits were labeled rednecks or crackers.

During the civil war era, 90% of blacks in America lived in the south. They adopted many of the traits associated with this ‘redneck culture,’ which they then spread across America as they migrated after the civil war.  As Dr. Sowell so persuasively argues, these cultural differences were the actual basis of what we today label racism. Originally, what we now consider racism was an objection to cultural differences, not skin color.

Fast forward to the 1960’s. Along came the liberals. Social do-gooders who ushered in the welfare state and altered the criminal justice system to conform to their own version of social justice. This allowed many of these counter-productive cultural traits to flourish. Among both blacks and whites.

Many of the traits that are associated with the redneck culture have since died out in England, and many parts of the south. But many of the black Americans who chose to follow the media anointed spokespersons for blacks, Revs. $harpton and Jackson, have kept the redneck culture alive in many parts of America’s inner-cities and ghettos. They mistakenly believe they are celebrating their own African-American culture.

Anyone who dares object to these negative cultural traits is routinely accused of racism. Which is apparently a worse offense than allowing and fostering generations of blacks to adopt racism against all whites. (As author David Horowitz outlines so well in his book, Hating Whitey.)

So Janeane, for the sake of the social justice you so ardently advocate, I expect you should publicly apologize to all blacks for calling them rednecks. You were not just dissing conservatives, you were dissing millions of black Americans, many of whom were among the tea-party protestors. As this video clearly shows.

Three very public mea culpas should be sufficient. As atonement, we suggest you attend Hillsdale College for a full semester. Being one of the only two colleges in America that accept no federal funds, you will be exposed to courses on American History, the glories of Western Civilization and the value of capitalism. And a refreshing lack of liberal orthodoxy.

We won’t hold our breaths. Most conservatives remain grounded in facts and reality. The same  reality the left continually redefines to suit their own purposes. We know that as long as one is a vocal supporter of leftist ideology, no explanations, facts, or mea culpas are required. Almost makes me want to be a liberal.

Louvon Harris (L) stands with Betty Byrd Boatner (2nd R), both sisters of James Byrd, Jr., as Boatner embraces Judy Shepard, mother of Matthew Shepard during a White House ceremony following the enactment of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Shepard was murdered in Wyoming in 1988 because he was gay. Byrd, an African American man, was dragged behind a pickup truck to his death in Texas the same year.
Saul Loeb-AFP/Getty Images

Matthew Shepard’s death was a tragedy. But I think it’s a shameful political hoax to make him the poster boy for the Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

President Obama signed this into law Wednesday:

This year, with enlarged majorities in Congress, Democrats attached the hate crimes law to a $681 billion defense spending bill this month over GOP objections. House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said the approach put “radical social policy” on the “back of our soldiers.”

The legislation extends provisions first passed in 1968 that make it a federal crime to target individuals because of their race, religion or national origin. Under the law, judges can impose harsher penalties on crimes that are motivated by such animus, and the Justice Department can help local police departments investigate alleged hate crimes.

I truly do not understand the redundancy of hate crime laws- especially at the federal level. Why punish the thoughts behind crimes rather than just the action of the crime itself?

But, it’s one of those things that make liberals feel good about themselves; that they are fighting the good fight. President Obama’s remarks:

Now, speaking of that, there is one more long-awaited change contained within this legislation that I’ll be talking about a little more later today. After more than a decade of opposition and delay, we’ve passed inclusive hate crimes legislation to help protect our citizens from violence based on what they look like, who they love, how they pray, or who they are. (Applause.)

I promised Judy Shepard, when she saw me in the Oval Office, that this day would come, and I’m glad that she and her husband Dennis could join us for this event. I’m also honored to have the family of the late Senator Ted Kennedy, who fought so hard for this legislation. And Vicki and Patrick, Kara, everybody who’s here, I just want you all to know how proud we are of the work that Ted did to help this day — make this day possible. So — and thank you for joining us here today. (Applause.)

So, with that, I’m going to sign this piece of legislation. Thank you all for doing a great job. All right.

I guess the Nobel Peace Laureate has now officially accomplished something this year. Still amounts to a big nothing for me, though. I mean….criminalizing what’s already been criminalized? C’mon….get real.

Incidentally, also attached to the bill was a revival of military trials for Guantanamo detainees, expanding their legal rights, but not to the extent that the ACLU would have liked.

Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which represented the imams, said the settlement is “a victory for civil rights.”

“The six imams are pleased,” Hooper said. “Their rights were maintained by the settlement.”

This is no victory for civil rights. These imams gave reasonable cause for alarm, based as much upon behavioral profiling as much as religious and ethnic profiling. The settlement sends a message that favors stupidity over safety:

That lawsuit has now been settled out of court for an undisclosed amount — which might serve the defendants’ short-term interests but carries a long-term price for air safety.

Consider what the pilot and police knew, or thought they knew, at the time: Passengers reported the men had been praying loudly in the terminal, chanting “Allah, Allah” and cursing U.S. policies in Iraq. Once on board, the men took separate seats in the cabin’s front, middle and back. Two imams asked for seat belt extenders, which include a heavy metal buckle that could be used as a weapon, but left them on the floor. The pilot was told that three of the men had one-way tickets. A passenger who spoke Arabic said one imam expressed fundamentalist views. All told, the imams’ actions appeared to be either intentionally provocative or clueless as to how others might perceive them in the aftermath of 9/11.

Yet, after a federal judge ruled in July that the defendants could be liable for civil damages and authorities lacked probable cause to detain the imams, the airline and airport operators settled the case last week, without admitting any wrongdoing.

While the settlement spared them the uncertainly and expense of a trial, it could have a chilling effect on the ability of airline crews and officials to protect passengers from a perceived threat. Pilots have to make quick, tough judgment calls: Take off with frightening suspicions unresolved or err on the side of caution. The only way to determine whether a real threat existed was to remove the clerics from the plane and investigate.

In this case, some of the initial suspicions proved unfounded. It turned out that the imams, who had been attending a religious conference in Minneapolis, didn’t have one-way tickets and hadn’t changed their seat assignments, as first thought. They denied making remarks about Saddam Hussein or U.S. involvement in Iraq. Even so, that was the information available to the captain when he had to make a “go/no go” decision. Airlines and airport authorities need flexibility to act in the interest of safety without worrying about being sued.

This case was especially troubling because the imams initially attempted to drag into their lawsuit an unknown number of passengers and airline employees who had raised concerns. They were dismissed as potential defendants just before Congress enacted a law to give immunity to people who report suspicious behavior.

Ethnic profiling is wrong and violates American values. “Flying while Muslim” is no more an offense than “driving while black,” the common complaint of African Americans pulled over without credible cause. In this case, though, it was primarily the imams’ behavior that led to their detention.

I would disagree that ethnic profiling is “the big evil” that it is made out to be. I think we’ve become overly sensitive on matters of race. There is a certain logic to racial, religious, and national profiling- to all types of profiling- that have nothing to do with racism, religious bigotry, or national prejudice.

If there were a terror cult whose immediate, recognizably identifiable trait was a love for wearing white t-shirts and an addiction to sporting Casio F91W watches, then it would make sense to pay attention to those wearing white t’s and Casio F91Ws. It doesn’t mean you believe every frikkin’ person on planet earth wearing white t-shirts and a particular brand of watch is part of the terror cult; you’d even concede that the majority of people wearing white T’s and those Casios are not terrorists. But they are a part of the list of traits you have every reason to be looking for in a member of the cult. It warrants further investigation.

I do however, agree with the conclusion of the article post:

It would be sad if this settlement prompted others to act out in hopes of cashing in. And it could be tragic if it prevented passengers from speaking up, or airline crews from acting, when they have reasonable suspicions.

And I also agree with Dr. Zuhdi Jasser:

countering Islamism and combating Islamist terrorism should be a greater public responsibility for the organized American Muslim community than the obsession with civil rights and victimization in which current Islamist organizations like CAIR engage, and says the credibility of the Muslim community suffers because groups such as CAIR, ISNA, and the North American Imams Federation deny the interplay between Islamism and terrorism

Case in point, Chris Good and his little diddy at The Atlantic, “It’s Not (overtly) About Race”.

Centerpiece to the headline, and content of his op-ed, is James Carville and Stanley Greenberg’s polling/strategy/research firm, Democracy Corps, and it’s 18 pg study, “The Very Separate World of Conservative Republicans: Why Republican Leaders will have Trouble Speaking to the Rest of America” released Oct 16th, 2009.

Here the disconnect between Good’s op-ed, and the actual content of the study begin. Good has chosen to focus on race and racism… and dances around the study’s finding that the discontent of “weak” partisans… Republican and Independents… appears to have nothing to do with race.

From the Carville groups research document:

Race: Get Over It

In the wake of Rep. Joe Wilson’s outburst during the president’s joint session health care address and other strident personal and political attacks against President Obama, many in the media and Democratic circles advanced an explanation that this virulent opposition is rooted in racism and reactions to President Obama as an African American president. With this possibility in mind, we allowed for extended open ended discussion on Obama (including visuals of him speaking) among voters – older, non-college, white, and conservative – who were most race conscious and score highest on scales measuring racial prejudice.

Race was barely raised, certainly not what was bothering them about President Obama. In fact, some of these voters talked about feeling some pride at his election.

They were conscious of the charge that opposition to Obama is racially motivated and that bothered conservative Republicans and independents alike. They basically could not let it go and returned to this issue again and again throughout our conversations across myriad topics.

You can’t openly criticize Obama. If you do, you’ll be labeled as a racist.

Whatever we say about Obama, no matter what we say about him, it is a racial comment so you know, we can’t say anything, we personally do not like him. I don’t care if he is purple, but whatever we say we’re racist.

As far as a person goes, I don’t want to say I hate him. I don’t like what he stands for… and I don’t like what he is doing and the choices he is making, but I mean I don’t know him as a gentleman so… You would be called a racist. You would not like him because he is black. That is what the media is saying.

They see this as a personal rights issue because the racism charge is being used to prevent them from fulfilling their duty to stand up to Obama and his agenda. They see no difference in the opposition Obama faces and the opposition other liberals have faced, because they believe it is based in the same unwavering, bedrock conservative principles that have always led them to oppose liberal policies. The only factor that has changed is the race of the leader being criticized.

Indeed, in the summary introduction from a very liberal/progressive based firm, they discounted racism as the foundation for Obama discontent.

Instead of focusing on these intense ideological divisions, the press and elites continue to look for a racial element that drives these voters’ beliefs – but they need to get over it. Conducted on the heels of Joe Wilson’s incendiary comments at the president’s joint session address, we gave these groups of older, white Republican base voters in Georgia full opportunity to bring race into their discussion – but it did not ever become a central element, and indeed, was almost beside the point.

Bad juju for the devout community organizers, masquerading as reporters or journalists, in these times. To them, removing the ability to label opposition “racist” to advance their agenda is akin to sending a soldier out on the field armed with a water pistol.

So Chris Good leaps in on behalf of the O’faithful to start reinterpreting what staunch members of his own political bent have wrought. And he lays out his game plan in his headline by inserting the word, “overtly”.

This does not mean, conclusively, that racism is absent from anti-Obama politics. Asserting that’s the case means taking up a patently false assumption about racism: that it’s always overt. Democracy Corps’ report seems to walk that line, even if it doesn’t cross it.

Racism is about complex systems of recognition, categorization, and association. If you ask someone what they think about Obama, and they don’t say, “I dislike him because he’s black,” it’s not quite safe to check the “not racist” box and move on. Quiet conclusions are often made–and they can be just as racist as the ones spoken aloud.

So the fact that no one brought up race doesn’t necessarily force a conclusion on the matter.

Yowza… do you think Mr. Good is lobbying for a slot on the Norway Nobel Peace Prize committee? (i.e. “intent” and not “actions”) It’s not conclusive because racism isn’t always “overt”??

Or perhaps Mr. Good elevates himself to a more pious position as a deity, assuming that he… or others… can gaze into a soul and pronounce them “racists” despite any attitude or evidence to the contrary, merely because those feelings may not be “overt”.

Serious chutzpah. But even more laughable is the … if I may so say myself… *overt* desperation to backpeddle on a popular O’faithful weapon of words.

That’s all the time I intend to give to a perhaps-less-than-*overt*-potential-racist. But I will say the rest of the study conducted by Democracy Corps was downright interesting, tho not surprising.

I would anticipate the next twisting of results to center not in Good’s desperate attempt to resurrect racism, but to use it to cast the O’discontent as mildly conspiratorial…. an attempt that may prove difficult in light of Obama’s own track record (now that he *has* one).

Naturally, the first to jump on the “conspiracy” bandwagon is MSNBC

Yeah… what a surprise…. But now to the source of the spin. The study itself.

The study breaks the avenues of disagreement under “pillars”, “…driven by doubt and fear over his agenda and methods”:

Pillar #1 – Deception and a Hidden Agenda (pg 5 of 18)

Pillar #2 – Speed (pg 7 of 18)

Pillar #3 – Driving Government to the Brink and Total Control (pg 7 of 18)

Pillar #4 – The Ultimate Goal: Socialism and End to Liberties (pg 8 of 18)

Rather than place extensive blockquotes for each of these pillars, I urge you to read the study in full…. aka RTFA. But I will summarize, merely for discussion purposes.

Pillar #1 reveals these participants believe as Rush Limbaugh originally said… they are rooting for the failure to implement Obama’s policies because they do not believe them to be in the nation’s best interest. Most genuinely believe Obama’s own promise to “remake” America, and see his policies designed to thwart the very foundations of our country.

There is also distrust of Obama’s associations – which he has, in his own words, invited us to scrutinize. They are speaking specifically of those that have guided and directed Obama to the highest position in the nation.

The below, however, is a worthy quote from this “deception” pillar:

These conservative Republican base voters were not just shooting off half-cocked theories about conspiracies. They actively believe President Obama is purposely lying about his plans for the country and what his policies would do, and that he is exaggerating the threats America faces in order to create support for his policies. A key component to this deception is a pattern of always telling people what they want to hear, regardless of the truth.

Pillar #2 essentially substantiates Pillar #1… the speed with which Obama pressures Congress to push thru legislation in a willy nilly fashion, and sans debate and scrutiny not only in the chambers, but among the populus.

Pillar #3 is the belief that Obama’s accomplishments of the preceding pillars is the concerted effort to induce a greater reliance on government in all facets of our lives. Such dependence, accomplished by driving the country almost impossibly deep into debt, would result in the loss of liberties merely for economic survival. 92% believe Obama is a big spender, and only 17% believed he had good plans for the economy.

Key to the beliefs was the deep aversion to government control…. or as the study wanted to put it, fear of two things… government *and* control.

Fear of government control is at the heart of virtually all of the concerns raised by these voters about Obama’s agenda, and it is literally a fear of two things – government and control. They see government as inefficient, ineffective, and corrupt and believe it preys on the middle class and ‘hard-working Americans.’

~~~

Even more concerning than the waste and corruption of government for these voters is the inexorable movement of government toward controlling an ever increasing share of our economic marketplace, as well as our individual lives.

The beliefs of the first three pillars… an agenda of deception, the speed and secrecy of that agenda, an aversion to being controlled by an inefficient and wasteful government… bring the participants to Pillar #4 – the natural conclusion that ultimate government control will result in a socialized America.

They exhaustively cite examples of this strategy at work, starting with the bank bailouts, the takeovers of Chrysler and GM, and foreclosure assistance making homeowners dependent on government for their homes. Another example repeatedly raised by conservative Republicans that undoubtedly reflects the power of FOX News and conservative commentators among these voters was their concern over President Obama’s policy ‘czars’ wielding power over every issue with no accountability.

~~~

The final, and in many ways most important, piece of evidence they cite is the planned government takeover of health care. The notion that Obama’s health care reforms represent a government takeover of all aspects of health care is an article of faith; they reject as laughable the suggestion that it might not, pointing to his arguments to the contrary as further proof of his determination to lie and deceive to fulfill his ultimate agenda. Even after a description of the health care reform plan in our recent polling, these conservative Republican base voters reject it by a 59-point margin, with nearly two-thirds (64 percent) strongly opposed to reform (77 percent total opposed).

Also buried in Pillar #4 (pg 9) is notables about non-partisan independents expressing similar concerns as the Republican, such as the speed, the spending, and the lack of a clear plan on the economy and jobs. Some of the differences lie in beliefs that Obama would work in a bipartisan fashion, and see him as a strong (if not correct and defined) leader.

Guaranteed to bring liberal disdain is pg 11, where the participants state they believe they are better informed than most Americans.

Several of the women particularly talked about becoming a sort of truth police, spending a great deal of their personal time and energy watching FOX to get the real stories, then turning to CNN, MSNBC, and the networks to document their failure to cover the “real truth.” It was unclear what they did with this information once gathered, other than share it with others within this group.

When it came to the media, only Beck received adulation… most especially among the women. Limbaugh came in with mixed reviews:

Beyond FOX News in general, they have mixed feelings about conservative media figures, but they are grateful for talk radio as the only major outlet, other than FOX, where conservative voices can be heard. Rush Limbaugh, in particular, was greeted with mixed reviews. On the one hand, they recognize his role as a pioneer of sorts and view him as a principled conservative who is willing to speak his mind regardless of the consequences.

~~~

On the other hand, they believe his sensationalism and arrogance can obscure the power of the ideas he champions. They clearly embrace the message more than the messenger.

DOH! Someone better tell the liberals that Rush has lost his de facto “head of the Republican Party” to the Independent Glenn Beck… LOL

It’s also noted that the disappointment in the Republican Party is prevalent throughout the study.

Conservative Republicans in our groups could not have been more negative in discussing their own party. They see the Republican Party as ineffective and rudderless, controlled by a class of political professionals who have lost touch with not only the people but the conservative values that should guide them.

~~~

The disconnect these partisans see between the party leadership and the party faithful is at the root of their discontent. They have no intention of leaving the party per se – they still believe it is the best and only means of opposing Obama and the Democratic Congress – but they also have little confidence in its current direction or leadership, and there is an emotional distance that can be damaging.

Yes… one interesting study. And I have to applaud the heart of capitalism. I mean, someone actually paid for these guys to interview and write up viewpoints that anyone can read for free on any conservative blog… ahem, like Flopping Aces?

But I find it refreshing that Carville/Greenberg and their research finally led them to some truths… that this is *not* about race. It’s about questioning the less than honest and (dare I say it…) *overt* agenda, the speed of that agenda, the debt creating massive government dependence, and the lack of honesty about the end game.

And these are all legitimate issues that I believe most Americans have no qualms in discussing.

In the Age of Obama, racism has no place in America. Therefore, if a white girl wins a beauty pageant at a historically all-black university, it will be celebrated as a historic first; or, not made a big deal of at all, since she would have been judged upon the merits of her beauty, regardless of the color of her skin. As the previous pageant winner, Patrece Parson, expresses it, she was

‘very shocked’ at the judge’s choice of a white woman, adding: ‘We’ve never had one before’.

Hmmm….I wonder if she had the same “very shocked” reaction at the election of Barack Obama to the highest office in the land, as “we’ve never had one before” [i.e., a "black" president].

In Kinston North Carolina, in Barack’s America, comes news of the following:

Voters in this small city decided overwhelmingly last year to do away with the party affiliation of candidates in local elections, but the Obama administration recently overruled the electorate and decided that equal rights for black voters cannot be achieved without the Democratic Party.

The Justice Department’s ruling, which affects races for City Council and mayor, went so far as to say partisan elections are needed so that black voters can elect their “candidates of choice” – identified by the department as those who are Democrats and almost exclusively black.

The department ruled that white voters in Kinston will vote for blacks only if they are Democrats and that therefore the city cannot get rid of party affiliations for local elections because that would violate black voters’ right to elect the candidates they want.

Ok, not only is this condescending toward black voters, not only is it politically partisan, but it is also absolutely a racist position and attitude for the Justice Department to hold. It’s an outrage! So if most black politicians happen to be in the Democratic Party, voters need to be made aware that the skin color of who they elect is important, as well as party affiliation? What about an individual candidate’s ideas and policy position?

It is a myth that the Republican Party has a greater history of racism. And given the race-baiting, race-profiteering, and racial identity politics that are perpetuated by the Democratic Party, I’d say the Democrats to this day are the ones with a prevalence of racist attitudes. And it is also based upon holding onto political power:

“it is a plain fact of American political life today that Democrats are completely dependent on black votes. The day African Americans stop casting 80 to 95 percent of their votes for Democrats is the day Democrats stop winning elections.”- Mona Charen, Do-Gooders

Whites can migrate from party to party; but blacks are required to register themselves on the Democrat plantation? And if an American town votes to do away with party affiliation in local elections, blacks are basically too dumb not to vote for the candidate who they can identify with ideologically and policy-wise? They have to know who is a Democrat? How condescendingly racist.

Stephen LaRoque, a former Republican state lawmaker who led the drive to end partisan local elections, called the Justice Department’s decision “racial as well as partisan.”

“On top of that, you have an unelected bureaucrat in Washington, D.C., overturning a valid election,” he said. “That is un-American.”

The decision, made by the same Justice official who ordered the dismissal of a voting rights case against members of the New Black Panther Party in Philadelphia, has irritated other locals as well. They bristle at federal interference in this city of nearly 23,000 people, two-thirds of whom are black.

In interviews in sleepy downtown Kinston – a place best known as a road sign on the way to the Carolina beaches – residents said partisan voting is largely unimportant because people are personally acquainted with their elected officials and are familiar with their views.

“To begin with, ‘nonpartisan elections’ is a misconceived and deceiving statement because even though no party affiliation shows up on a ballot form, candidates still adhere to certain ideologies and people understand that, and are going to identify with who they feel has their best interest at heart,” said William Cooke, president of the Kinston/Lenoir County branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

Mr. Cooke said his group does not take a position on this issue and would not disclose his personal stance, but expressed skepticism about the Justice Department’s involvement.

Others noted the absurdity of partisan elections since Kinston is essentially a one-party city anyway; no one among more than a half-dozen city officials and local residents was able to recall a Republican winning office here.

Justice Department spokesman Alejandro Miyar denied that the decision was intended to help the Democratic Party. He said the ruling was based on “what the facts are in a particular jurisdiction” and how it affects blacks’ ability to elect the candidates they favor.

“The determination of who is a ‘candidate of choice’ for any group of voters in a given jurisdiction is based on an analysis of the electoral behavior of those voters within a particular jurisdiction,” he said.

Critics on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights are not so sure. “The Voting Rights Act is supposed to protect against situations when black voters are locked out because of racism,” said Abigail Thernstrom, a Republican appointee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. “There is no entitlement to elect a candidate they prefer on the assumption that all black voters prefer Democratic candidates.”

So now instead of being “locked out because of racism”, they are being “locked in”, on account of racism and a desire on the part of Democrats to retain political power over “the black vote”.

Welcome to Barack’s post-racial America: An Obamanation, indeed.

Maybe they were right….racism still is a big problem:

A university student has provoked a race storm after she was crowned as the first white winner of a beauty pageant at a predominantly black university.

Nikole Churchill claimed she was subjected to racial abuse after she won the pageant at Hampton University in Virginia.

She was so outraged that she wrote to U.S. President Barack Obama complaining of her treatment, saying: ‘I feel as though you could relate to my situation’.

~~~

Hampton University is one of around 80 ‘black’ universities in the U.S., initially founded to promote diversity and education among minorities.

~~~

The five judges crowned her over the nine other contestants – all of whom were black. She was the first white woman to win the title at the university.

But the backlash began almost immediately, with some of the audience walking out of the auditorium as the announcement was made. In a traditional winners’ photograph, two of the black runners-up are seen scowling into the camera.

The next day Ms Churchill was heckled at a university football game. Previous winner Patrece Parson said she was ‘very shocked’ at the judge’s choice of a white woman, adding: ‘We’ve never had one before’.

Ya think the Sharpton’s and Jackson’s would of been in front of the nations camera’s if the roles had been reversed?

White’s walking out of a auditorium because a black woman won the contest…..oh boy, I could just hear the shrill cries of racism.

But no big deal when it’s a white person being the victim.

Racism exists and will exist until the human race is no more. But to deny, or minimize, the racism that occurs by some races, while over-emphasizing some others, does nothing to help get rid of the problem.

This is racism, plain and simple. And what do the blacks do at the college? Explain it away.

If this did take place in the U.S., I hope someone contacted Child Protective Services. There's nothing "cute" or "harmless" about this at all. Kids imitating adult behavior like this is one level of wrongness; adults actually encouraging the kids takes it to the next level of abuse and criminality.

Yadilsa Jesus:

So many parents complain about what kids are being taught in school but what about what they are learning with family members at parties?

And we express shock when children rape other children and engage in adult crimes.

Every adult present at this birthday party should have their parental rights revoked. Absolutely depraved and sickening....

NAACP fears appointment of white or Republican mayor if Dixon is convicted

Leaders of the Maryland NAACP, worried that a Baltimore mayor’s criminal conviction could result in the appointment of a white or Republican leader who may not fully represent the majority black and Democratic city, are asking state lawmakers to strip the governor of authority to permanently fill the office.

The request, made in a resolution adopted at a state meeting of the civil rights group last weekend, marks the first time a mainstream organization has raised questions about succession should Baltimore Mayor Dixon be convicted of any of the nine charges she faces. Dixon has been indicted for theft and perjury and the first of two trials is scheduled for early next month.

“There is that possibility of a conviction, and we want to know those protocols that are in place,” said Elbridge James, the political action chairman of the state National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. “If it looks like it is going to rain, I am going to buy an umbrella.”

Still, it is not clear that the resolution or a law change is warranted. According to Dan Friedman, an assistant attorney general who is counsel to the General Assembly, the governor does not have the authority to make an appointment.

Instead, the state constitution defers to the city’s charter, he said, which elevates the city council president to be mayor in case of a vacancy. That’s how Dixon became mayor in 2007 after Martin O’Malley, her predecessor, was elected governor.

Marvin L. Cheatham, the president of the Baltimore Chapter of the NAACP, introduced the resolution because he heard an attorney on a radio program discussing a lack of clarity on succession if Dixon were to be convicted and sentenced.

“Our concern is who would the governor appoint?” Cheatham said. “Here you have a predominantly African-American city. What if the governor appointed somebody white? … Would he appoint someone Irish to be the mayor?”

Cheatham also said he worried that a future Republican governor could appoint someone from his party to lead a city where Democrats outnumber Republicans 9 to 1. “Would not the Republican governor have the ability to pick a Republican mayor?” he asked. “We just think there are some unanswered questions about the process,” Cheatham said.

The resolution passed “nearly unanimously” with little debate from the 150 or so delegates who attended the meeting, James said. It lays out two options, asking either for the governor to defer to the city’s charter and elevate the city council president to mayor; or a revision to state law to prevent an emergency mayoral appointee by the governor to run for the office in the next election.

An Afghan woman carries a girl while standing in line at a polling station in Herat, western Afghanistan, August 20, 2009.
REUTERS/Raheb Homavandi

How about not feeling worthy of standing above those “transformative figures” who haven’t been honored by the peace prize? Who are the ones who stand in the shadow of “The One we’ve been waiting for”?

A record 205 nominations (72 individuals and 33 organizations) were made for the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. And President Barack Hussein Obama beat them all. Notable among these? Dr. Sima Samar:

here in Afghanistan the big story is about the nominee who didn’t win the prize. That would be Dr. Sima Samar, an incredibly courageous Afghan woman who has risked her life for much of the past decade, treating women and girls in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Dr. Samar is the chairwomen of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, a very influential organization in Kabul. She has won more awards from human rights organizations than I can list here, but you can see them for yourself on her Wiki page.

Dr. Samar was the first Hazara woman to obtain a medical degree from Kabul University, back in 1982. After a four-month residency at Wazir Akhbar Khan Hospital in Kabul, she was forced to flee for her life as Soviets and Mujahedeen fought bloody street battles in the capital. She returned to her home village of Jaghoori, where she began treating the sick in rural Afghanistan. Soon the Russians arrested her husband and, once again Dr. Samar fled, this time with her young son, to Pakistan. In Pakistan she founded a clinic to treat refugees of the war in Afghanistan and has since described the conditions in the refugee camps as “appalling.”

Dr. Samar returned to Afghanistan in 2002, where she assumed the post of Deputy President and later Minister of Women’s Affairs in the interim government of Hamid Karzai. She was forced to resign after making negative comments about sharia law and her life was constantly under threat. She is vocally opposed to the Burka, saying the the lack of sunlight on women’s skin causes Afghan women to have an unusually high instance of bone diseases.

Dr. Samar has likely saved the lives of countless women and girls who’s medical problems would otherwise have been ignored and their eventual deaths, unnoticed. Guess that’s not enough for the gang up in Oslo.

Better luck next year, Doc.

A schoolgirl sits in a classroom at Syed Pasha school, which was built by Canadian troops, near Kandahar Air Field September 8, 2009.
REUTERS/Finbarr O’Reilly

More:

In the face of threats to her own safety, Dr. Samar has defied the Taliban’s edicts that deny women and girls their basic rights to education, employment, mobility and medical care. Since 1989, Dr. Samar has been operating schools for girls and health clinics in many of the provinces of Afghanistan as well as in the refugee camps in Quetta, Pakistan. She has shown an incredible commitment towards assisting Afghan women in their struggles to end their oppression and to provide them with access to healthcare and education services. She is a strong advocate for the involvement of Afghan women in government and the reconstruction of civil society in Afghanistan.

Sima Samar was born in February 1957 in Ghazani, Afghanistan. As a child in school, she learned what it meant to be a minority in Pushtun-dominated Afghanistan. She is Hazara, one of the most persecuted of the ethnic minorities in Afghanistan that comprise some 17 percent of the population. Moreover, as a female in a conservative Muslim society, she was doubly second class. At 18, she married and began her medical education. She obtained her degree in medicine in February 1982 from Kabul University, the first Hazara woman to do so. Soon after came the Russian invasion, and as a doctor, she aided the anti-Soviet resistance movement, the mujahideen. When her husband was arrested in 1984, never to be seen again, Sima Samar and her young son fled to the safety of nearby Pakistan, where she worked as a doctor in a refugee camp in the small border town of Quetta. Thousands of refugees from war-ravaged Afghanistan lived there in appalling misery, particularly the women, who were forbidden to visit male doctors, venture from their homes to work or attend school.

With other women, Dr. Samar established her first hospital for women in 1987 and later in 1989 established the Shuhada Organization, a non-governmental and non-profit organization committed to the reconstruction and development of Afghanistan with special emphasis on the empowerment of women and children. Dr. Samar and her medical staff now run four hospitals and ten clinics in Afghanistan and another hospital in Quetta that provide much needed medical assistance and education for Afghan women and children. Worried about where the next generation of female physicians will come from, Dr. Samar also provides medical training courses at the hospitals she runs. She runs schools in rural Afghanistan for more than 20,000 students as well as a school for refugee girls in Quetta attended by over 1,000 girls. Her literacy programs are accompanied by distribution of food aid and information on hygiene and family planning. Services also include mobile health clinics and medical outreach workers who go door to door. Last year, the Taliban succeeded in closing two of her hospitals in Afghanistan but the others are still running.

Dr. Samar refuses to accept that women must be kept in purdah (secluded from the public) and speaks out against the wearing of the burqa (head-to-foot wrap), which was enforced by the Taliban. She also has drawn attention to the fact that many women in the area are suffering from osteomalacia, a softening of the bones, due to an inadequate diet. Wearing the burqa reduces exposure to sunlight and aggravates the situation for women suffering from osteomalacia.

Dr. Samar is also part of the international network Women Living Under Muslim Laws, which has links in 40 countries and a powerful voice at the United Nations. She received the prestigious Ramon Magsaysay Award for Community Leadership in 1984.

And who is it that beat out this woman and 203 other nominations for the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize? Who is it that will be the clarion “call to action” for Americans? Whose personal story and commitment to appeasement is an inspiration for everyone around the world? Why, none other than our own illustrious, dear leader who, on the same day as his win, snubbed the 1989 peace prize recipient: Barack Hussein Obama.

Mmm….mmm….mm.

And we Americans better applaud the choice and be proud of our president’s win. We wouldn’t want to be called “unpatriotic” and accused of siding with the Taliban, now would we?

Hat tip for the story: CJ

It is 2009, and a black man has reached the most powerful position in this country. How does this fact change race relations in America? What is being done differently among both races in this country? Sadly, very little. Unfortunately race is still very much an issue in this country, but not in the way a liberal might think. Enter Congressman Hank Johnson and race bating Maxine Waters asking the media to investigate “birthers and the tea baggers” at rallies for their “racist views.” So now any opposition to Socialism and out of control spending is labeled racist by the libs.

One of the most fundamental right of a democracy is the right to criticize your leaders. And these attempt by the Democratic Party to eradicate this and make Obama unable to be criticized is a very dangerous concept at best. Taken to it’s logical conclusion, then the only politician or group of people open to criticism will be white men. And at that point, not only will free speech be threatened, but Democracy will also be in danger. The reason why liberals are okay with this is the same reason why liberals embraced Chavez and for the same reason they embraced Stalin in the 30’s and 40’s. They believe in socialism and care more about that then in free speech or the welfare of their country.

Most of the rest of America understands the danger in this course of action and will refuse to cower. Race relations thus, in the next three years, will go downhill. For you cannot have it both ways. You cannot expect to end racism and then practice it by reminding people of your race when it is politically convenient and expect a double standard to be accepted without resentment. You cannot claim to want to have a colorblind society when you refuse to be colorblind yourself. This also extrapolates to our culture at large, as affirmative action, the BET, and King’s vision are on opposite sides of the spectrum of this debate. Are there two sets of standards of justice? Absolutely, especially in the media. Notice the different coverage of the Philadelphia swim club and the Marshall attack at Firestone Stadium. Without a doubt there is white racism and that is reprehensible. But a failure to treat all racism by the same moral code will only ensure our society is never colorblind.

The truth is, there is no end game for the race peddlers like Sharpton and Jackson and their ilk in the NAACP, and that should lead to some troubling questions. For instance:

Should a ethnic group with who now holds the highest office in the country still need their own institutional racism in the name of their own network, magazine, month, and institutionalized reverse discrimination called affirmative action? And how does reverse discrimination help to heal the racial divide among this country? By their very nature, I believe these groups contribute to the very problem they claim they were created to prevent. When you start off by doing (discriminating, in this case against whites by affirmative action) what you claim to be opposing (discrimination) you do nothing to solve your problem in the long term. You can’t have it both ways, it is either bad to discriminate or it isn’t. This is the same logic that makes liberals more outraged when a white guy beats up a black then when a black kills a black. This is the same logic that allows N.O.W. to march for the rights to kill babies and for gay rights but stays silent on actual abuses in the Muslim world. This is the same logic that allows liberals to march to support a relatively minor event (Jena) when their own young are being killed by the tens of thousands every year in our inner cities. Which event hurts the black community more? But that is black on black, so Sharpton does not care. It only matters if race plays a part, for there are no political points to gain on black on black crimes. And this my friends, is why liberals never fix anything and often are more destructive then any white bigot to the black community. They won’t confront any real problem that violates their simple, politically correct view of the world.

Race peddlers like Sharpton are silent on the issues of the death of the black family, the devaluation of education in the urban community, and the negative influence of gang culture. Sure, racism exists and it is a problem, but it is not just race guys. Racism was a lot worse decades ago and blacks were not killing each other by the thousands and they most likely had a dad in their family. And they were not incarcerated at the present rate. And don’t talk about slavery, because that was a lot closer to the age of slavery and again, the black on black killings, and the incarceration was a lot lower and more families had fathers. But don’t look for Sharpton to say much on that subject. Until the groups like the NAACP find the courage to fight the root causes of the plight of urban community, the current start of the black family is unlikely to get any better.

The double standard of race will, in the end, not only fail to fix the problem, but in the end will hurt blacks as it will weaken the term as many whites will tire of the race card being played when it is politically convenient. Freeman is right. The obsession with black and white are obstacles to overcoming racism. Obviously there are levels, and not all actions are equal, as Black history month is nowhere near morally equivalent to the destructive actions by some of the racists in the KKK, but I still believe it divides America nevertheless. For the simple truth is that if you stop calling a black person black, he suddenly becomes a person. And as long as either side is allowed to discriminate freely, as long as the standard of right and wrong is influenced on both sides by the color of the skin, it just sows the seeds of hate for a different generation. Dr. King had it right. People should be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. This is the only thing that will end racism. And for both sides it remains a dream.

Pelosi came near to tears when she said the following on Thursday, after a questioner wondered whether the current debate on healthcare could lead to violence and domestic terrorism:

“I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw this myself in the late ’70s in San Francisco, this kin(d) of rhetoric. … It created a climate in which violence took place. … I wish we would all curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements and understand that some of the ears that it is falling on are not as balanced as the person making the statements may assume.”

~~~

“Our country is great because people can say what they think and they believe. But I also think that they have to take responsibility for any incitement that they may cause,”

~~~

“I wish that we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made,”

Yes, we should ALL curb some of what we say and take responsibility for “any incitement” that we may cause. You wouldn’t want to sound like a hypocrite, now, would you?

In a fundraising e-mail letter from the DCCC, Nancy Pelosi blames Republicans for the shouting and the falsehoods.

Here’s the fundraising email:

Dear Friend,

If this summer proved anything, it showed how urgently we must stand together to restore civility to our politics and help President Obama seize this historic moment for health insurance reform in America.

You have already taken a stand against the Republicans’ attempt to shout down President Obama and restore civility in Washington. For that, I cannot thank you enough.

We have entered the make-or-break month. The media is closely watching to see which side has the momentum. With the Republicans already claiming victory for trying to silence respectful debate, it is up to grassroots Democrats to show the world that no amount of shouting can drown out our determination to enact health insurance reform.

Show the world that no amount of Republican shouting can drown out our determination to help President Obama reform health insurance. Contribute $5, $10 or more to our Million Dollar Match today and your gift will be matched 2-to-1, tripling its impact.

In his eloquent call for action last week before a joint session of Congress, President Obama called on us to “replace acrimony with civility.” He reiterated his call to restore civility to Washington during his interview on “60 Minutes” this weekend. Yet, our opponents continue their name-calling in a cynical attempt to derail these reforms.

The Republican defenders of the status quo are shouting because they understand that this is the toughest Midterm Election that Democrats have ever faced. They also understand that this is a critical month for health insurance reform and they are trying to deal a serious blow to President Obama’s agenda for moving America forward.

Show the world that no amount of Republican shouting can drown out our determination to help President Obama reform health insurance. Contribute $5, $10 or more to our Million Dollar Match today and your gift will be matched 2-to-1, tripling its impact.

It is urgent that we stand together as Democrats. With all eyes on the coming Midterm Elections, let us use this critical September deadline to show the world just how prepared we are to maintain a strong Democratic Majority for President Obama so he can keep America moving in a New Direction.

Thank you.

Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the House

P.S. The Republicans recognize that September is the make-or-break month for health insurance reform. That is why they have increased their shouting and their false attacks on President Obama. It is urgent that we stand together.

Contribute to our Million Dollar Match today and House Democrats will match your generosity 2-to-1, tripling its impact.

Joe Wilson’s been made the poster-boy punching bag for GOP incivility, despite the fact that Joe Wilson himself immediately called and apologized to the President for his trespass of decorum; and in spite of the fact that he was correct in the substance of what prompted his outburst.

When will Pelosi and fellow Democratic leaders take responsibility for the incitement they are causing?

Hmmm…funny when even supporters of President Obama’s agenda to remake America are making the Hitler comparison.

Harry Reid proud of his labeling protesters of Obamacare as “evil-mongers”:

the Senate majority leader invoked the e-word himself last week at an energy conference in Las Vegas, where he accused those protesting President Barack Obama’s health-care proposals of being “evil mongers.” So proud was he of this contribution to the American political lexicon that he repeated it to a reporter the next day and noted the phrase was “an original.”

Rep Maxine Waters calling some Senators “neanderthals”:

“Not only are we going to do everything we can to organize and put pressure on the senators — some of whom are Neanderthals — we’re going to say to the president, ‘We want you to use every weapon in your basket in order to get those senators to do what they should be doing,’ “

Rep. Brian Baird:

“What we’re seeing right now is close to Brown Shirt tactics. I mean that very seriously.”

Rep Pete “Get the f**k out of here or I’ll throw you out the window” Stark in a display of class and civility to his constituency:

“I wouldn’t dignify you by peeing on your leg, it wouldn’t be worth wasting the urine,”

Rep. David Scott

Scott lost his temper and began yelling at a crowd that included two people who came forward during the question-and-answer portion of the meeting to ask Scott about his stance on the health care plan proposed by the White House and being debated on Capitol Hill.

Rep Hank Johnson:

“I guess we’ll have folks putting on white hoods and robes again and riding through the countryside intimidating people.”

Former President Jimmy Carter accusing most of the protests as being motivated by racism:

Responding to an audience question at a town hall at his presidential center in Atlanta, Carter said Tuesday that Wilson’s outburst was also rooted in fears of a black president. “I think it’s based on racism,” Carter said. “There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president.”

Did I forget anyone?

And Nancy Pelosi wants to feign outrage at GOP’s ratcheting up of the rhetoric and the incivility? She can’t even control her own self, let alone her fellow Democrats in congress.