The American Spectator

jack| 9.17.09 @ 6:18AM

what nobody will admit is Obama wants this. Democrats live off of pitting groups against each other. rich against poor,old vs young as in the health bill, and of course black against white. Obama hopes the greater the divisions the more people will flock to big government for a solution. its all in the game. this is Dems and Obamas game. He is a racist at heart just like his mentor Rev Wright. He is anti american like Rev Wright. He hate everything that has made this country great. He supports and pays back unions at every chance. He supports criminal orgs like Acorn.
These are very dark days. We have taken a guy with no experience at anything,no real work history, no college records, a guy who was raised at the knee of rev wright and the sewer of chicago graft and corruption and made him President?

Steve G| 9.17.09 @ 6:44AM

"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," says Jimmy Carter, in a clear projection of his own innermost beliefs.

Darin| 9.17.09 @ 7:00AM

If white people criticizing Obama's policies is racism, by definition that means black people criticizing a white President's policies is racism. Or is someone going to try to say only white people can be racist? That black people NEVER, EVER, EVER display racist attitudes?

Racism.
1. A belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. A policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. Hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

drudge ette obama| 9.17.09 @ 7:02AM

Maureen Dowd, like many above the Mason Dixon line, automatically assume that:

1. Anyone from the South is a bigot or racist;
2. Southerners are ignorant, except some of the Southern authors with liberal views;
3. Confederate history buffs are really racists;
4. Southern blacks need special protection from Southern whites and Northern white liberals are the only ones who can help;
5. It's o.k. to call a Southern white a "cracker" or "redneck", but, dear god, don't let a white Southerner use any of the third rail words re blacks.

Personally, I think Maureen Dowd and Jimmy Carter battle their own prejudices and self-loathing by attributing/projecting their views on others. Remember, Jimmy Carter was a long-time member of the Southern Baptist church, even taught Sunday School, and only quit after his presidency because he didn't accept some of the church's views expressed in the formal letters. My question to him: What took you so long. Little Jimmy?

Lawler Nicoteri| 9.17.09 @ 7:18AM

I oppose Mr. Obama not because he is black but because he is red.

Curly Smith| 9.17.09 @ 7:29AM

The foundation of Affirmative Action is that Blacks and Hispanics are inherently inferior to Whites and Asians. In every venue the Left controls Blacks and Hispanics are held to different, and lower, standards than Whites and Asians. Every racist-bemoaning commentator is a leftist, each is fixated on Obama's race, and each knows (not just believes) that Obama cannot measure up to the standards of a White or Asian President. It's something that they "just all know". Consequently, any criticism is racist because Obama isn't capable, because of his race, to do any better than mediocre. It's a continuation of the same racist policies that have destroyed achievement in the Black and Hispanic communities over the last 50 years and it's not going to stop until the Blacks and Hispanics realize that their poverty and lack of educational achievement is a result of bigoted low expectations. It won't stop until the victims admit that they were created equal but leftist politics made them unequal. In other words, it's not going to stop.

Appleby| 9.17.09 @ 7:35AM

Same thing happens when a person dares make a comment about a shrieking, kicking, obstreporous child. ANTI FAMILY! ANTI CHILD! scream the Marching Mommies. In our paper yesterday an advice column answered a query by a neighbour as to what course of action she had against neighbours who routinely let their *challenged* child -- who clearly suffered from some mental disorder that caused it to shriek, curse and howl relentlessly -- and the columnist immediately turned on the adult and admonished her for even daring to ask such a question. She ought to run next door and offer the parents *respite care* or at the least realize they *are overwhelmed and do not know what to do.*

The correct answer of course is call the police, as you would for any disturbance.

The behaviour of Serena Williams and the bullying misbehaviour of that Black guy, West, whose behaviour would have constituted assault and merited arrest if he were White, shows that all behaviour must be judged only by the colour of the skin -- and if that is not racism, I dont know what is.

Personal responsibility, it seems, is only skin deep.

Kevin, Meath| 9.17.09 @ 7:40AM

Reading this from across the pond generally don't comment on most articles as they are Armerican issues. However it is obvious that some Americans oppose Obama because he is black and are indeed racists and would object whatever he did. But reading articles/posts here it is equally obvious that many (most? you could argue the %)object because theydo not agree with the policy he is suggesting. Whether they are right or wrong I thought objecting in peaceful protest to a policy of your government was what democracy was all about. Shouting out 'You lie' was rude and showed a lack of respect not so much for Obama but the office of President but can not see how it is racist.
As for being proud of your Confederate history, why the hell not we should all study history. Although being Welsh it always grates when I hear 'The Tredegar ironworks' pronounced.

Melvin| 9.17.09 @ 7:48AM

Living in North Carolina and being orgingally from the Northwest I clearly see in what drudge ette obama alludes to, that the Northern elites still after all these years consider that Southerners are inbred, toothless, overall wearing, barefoot, ignorant hayseeds.
One of my co-workers is from Massachusetts and during the many different water cooler conversations, she sometimes interjects the comment of, "The South lost, it needs to get over it." The reason being that we work with a native North Carolinian who is a ardent Civil War buff, and she considers this man to be a racist.
But unfortunately for at least North Carolina Northerners are moving down here in droves to escape the repressive taxation of NJ, New York, and are hell bent on recreating the same environs that they escaped from.
We have to look no further than Charlotte, Raleigh, Durham area for the Liberal enclaves that feels that they are duty bound to culturalize the Southern native heathens.

peter mohan| 9.17.09 @ 7:48AM

I, like many other tea party enthusiasts, have called BHO a liar in reaction to his health care agenda, but I do not consider myself a racist. You see I was calling that part of genetic makeup coming from his momma a liar. I realize that a black man who graduated from Columbia and Harvard Law and who has embraced a socialistic vision as the future of this country would never-ever lie to the American public, unless of course, lying to them was in their best interest.

Tom Poole| 9.17.09 @ 8:32AM

Barak Obama has fanned the coals of racism since his inaguration speech, so why is this suddenly an issue. As for Mr. Carter, peanut farmer from Georgia, raised and educated in a segregated South, educated in a (then) segregated institute of learning (U.S. Naval Academy), and bought his way out of the Navy before it was integrated, I doubt he could tell if anyone was more racist than himself.

S.L. Toddard| 9.17.09 @ 8:41AM

"Saying the president lies is now bad, even if you can show that, well, the president didn't actually tell the truth."

Ahem.

"We recently found two mobile biological weapons facilities which were capable of producing biological agents." Source: President Talks to Troops in Qatar, White House (6/5/2003).

"Here's what -- we've discovered a weapons system, biological labs, that Iraq denied she had, and labs that were prohibited under the U.N. resolutions." Source: President Bush, Russian President Putin Sign Treaty of Moscow, White House (6/1/2003).

"We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." Source: Interview of the President by TVP, Poland, White House (5/29/2003).

"We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases." - President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House (10/7/2002)

"This is a man who has got connections with Al Qaida. Imagine a terrorist network with Iraq as an arsenal and as a training ground, so that a Saddam Hussein could use this shadowy group of people to attack his enemy and leave no fingerprint behind. He's a threat." - Remarks by the President in Texas Welcome, White House

"He's a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaida. In my Cincinnati speech I reminded the American people, a true threat facing our country is that an Al Qaida-type network trained and armed by Saddam could attack America and leave not one fingerprint." - President Outlines Priorities, White House (11/7/2002)

"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help develop their own." - President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003)

"Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner." - President Bush: "World Can Rise to This Moment", White House (2/6/2003)

"He has trained and financed al Qaeda-type organizations before, al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations." - President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference, White House (3/6/2003)

"The regime . . . has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda. The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other." President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours, White House (3/17/2003)

William C. Hicklin| 9.18.09 @ 8:17PM

Sorry. There is a vast difference between telling a lie and being mistaken. Bush was reflecting the information and assessment of not just the US intelligence community, but those of every other nation with assets in the region. Even Saddam's generals believed he still had WMD. Bill Clinton declared that he believed Saddam had them on the day he left office.

By contrast, Obama was wilfully delaring that which he affirmatively knew to be false. In fact there were 13 or 14 (depending on who's counting) demonstrable, intentional lies in Obama's speech.

Michael L. Hauschild| 9.17.09 @ 9:16AM

At one time I had to both exist in and arbitrate a virtual caldron of racism by accepting the position of Human Relations Officer while our unit was “standing down” at Camp Radcliff. Trust me when I say that “racism” is not “black AND white,” it is also not black OR white. It exists on a sliding scale and having been instructed in its nuances I can conclude that I have never met a single individual who (given the specific opportunity or circumstances) does not exhibit prejudice.
The greatest obstacle to performing that job was not a rational understanding, a realistic solution or the alleviation of conflict; it was the fact that I was “white.” This is going to stun many of you here but the true measure of acceptance (our unit was seventy five percent “minority” was granted when you could address an individual using the “N” word. That “right” was the highest compliment any individual could achieve, and was envied (also reviled) by those who could not.
I do not for one short second claim the noble goal of “not a racist bone in my body.” As a student in the field of urban and cultural geography I was constantly frustrated by the “guidelines of sensitivity.” The fact that I refused to labor under seemingly arbitrary and constantly shifting “politically correct” research criteria resulted in many lost years in my academic career.
This subtle shame (in Jimmy Carters case, blatant guilt) I feel is the reason Barak Obama is now President. The sad outcome of this, as always, will be more of the same and many good people will suffer. When it is not possible to disapprove of a person’s behavior or principals without invoking prejudicial bias no dialog is possible.
Oh, by the way, the worse bias and racism I have ever encountered was not in Viet Nam, not in my political contacts, and not in my social life; it was in academia.

steponbugs| 9.17.09 @ 9:26AM

Toddard - are you too intellectually disadvantaged to actually post a cogent thought besides "Ahem", or was this just a convenient opportunity to post the Bush "lies" that you've catalogued since 2002? The argument here is not whether he did/did not lie, or whether Obama did/did not lie - it's the use of unsubstantiated charges of racism being applied in ad hominem attacks on individuals who demonstrate no bias of any sort. Except, of couse, for being biased in favor of individual liberty and being accountable for one's actions.

Jim O'Brien| 9.17.09 @ 9:39AM

Obama's mother is white and his father is black. 69 million Americans voted for him, 60 million voted against him. Conclusion: It doesn't matter what color he is. What matters is the fact that he is a socialist liar who does not respect the rule of law or the Constitution of the United States.

George True| 9.17.09 @ 9:48AM

Toddard: This discussion has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not Bush lied about the WMD program in Iraq. One thing has absolutely nothing to do with the other. This article and subsequent comments is about the routine leveling of the false charge of racism in order to stifle dissent, discussion, or debate. Try to stay on topic.

Tired Toddard| 9.17.09 @ 9:49AM

I am S.L. Toddard.

It's tough out here for a fauxcon troll.

I am very upset.

First, George Soros cut my DailyKos pay.

Then, some idiot intern got promoted over me. If he thinks I'm EVER getting his coffee for him . . .

These people don't appreciate me.

Since I get paid by the word, I think I'll just copy and paste today.

THAT'll show 'em!

Think I'll go and read HuffPo for a while . . .

reads1| 9.17.09 @ 9:57AM

WHY would, or does, anyone on this website give one thought to ANYTHING that Maurine Dowdy has to say or print in her bird cage liner. ( A disgrace to the bird,)

Tim| 9.17.09 @ 10:21AM

Melvin
You're right. They ruin once great states, then spread to economically strong ones and ruin them too. Locusts.

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.17.09 @ 10:40AM

I am deeply saddened by the fact that the Obama Presidency is going to set race relations back fifty years.
We white folks are rapidly approaching the point of saying in our hearts: "to heck with it. I'm tarred with the brush anyway, I might as well just ignore the jerks, white and black."

Let's simply face reality, folks. The facts are out there. Huge percentage of welfare goes to minorities who have learned to game the system.

The crime rate among minorities is some SIX TIMES the rate among white folks.

Minorities now growl at me all the time, and I have always treated with them with simple courtesy and dignity.

There seems to be something in the air that I have not yet quite defined, but I am very frightened...on their behalf.

It has been pointed out that some 80% of jobs are in the "small business sector". What happens if white business owners just quietly decide it is no longer worth the hassle to hire and train minorities?
Will all those otherwise nice minority persons get ground under as a result?

Folks we have an entire sub-culture embedded in our society now. Leaches? helpless? trained to be takers only? I don't know.
The only solution I can even glimpse is to somehow wean the members of that sub-culture from dependency.
Thoughts?

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.17.09 @ 10:46AM

Tim Since you are a retired? policeman. May I offer you a quote from an article I wrote?

>>In the history of the earth, no citizenry has enjoyed liberty and freedom for more than generation. We here in America have been “free” for over a hundred years. Black, white, or striped green and purple, most of us have considered the policeman on the corner our “peace officer”. Ladies and gentlemen, in all of history, and most of the world today………that has never been the case.

Louis Jenkins| 9.17.09 @ 10:46AM

Jimmy Carter: "...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. "

The problem is, Jimmy Ol' Boy, that a lot of white people are not qualified to be president either. Ignorance and socialism has no alligence to the color of one's skin, sex, creed, level of education, nor area of the country the person is from.

Reinhard| 9.17.09 @ 10:51AM

One point missed about S. L. Toddard's "Ahem"... it shows S. L. agrees that Pres. Obama was lying.

Dixie Pixie| 9.17.09 @ 11:18AM

So Maureen Dowd so dislikes the concept of “White Supremacist Government, she will fight the merest imaginary speck with the fury of a Irish Colleen. I wonder how she would like a “Black Supremacist Government”.

Tim| 9.17.09 @ 11:48AM

Ken
Well sure, it is true of all government and their militraies as well.
One thing possibly unique about the USA is that there are something like 30,000 local police agencies of one type or another, often overlapping . A liberal would say that "system" is inefficent and wasteful, a conservative that it helps preserve democracy by keeping power distributed.
Like so much else, the central government has increasingly co-opted all local governments via "grants", "aid" and court rulings.
100 years ago a local cop had no link to any authority higher than his municipality.
Some say that led to Bull Connor. After the 1960's the Supreme Court asserted a great deal of Federal control over all police. The Federal police agencies also expanded exponentially under this "mandate" to cover things that municpal police either failed to do or were considered unable to do. Some say this led us to Ruby Ridge and Waco.

100 years ago there was no FBI, DEA, BATF, TSA, IRS. Laws varied widely between jurisdictions.
Now we have what we have, and it is progressing towards ever more centralized authority and an ever more federalized agenda and methods. Are Ameriacan cities better off now than they were 100 years ago?

Tim| 9.17.09 @ 12:00PM

Or, to relate from my own experience. I more than once, walking my beat had an old timer reprimand me about kids hanging out, loitering, etc.
"Back in my day the officer would kick 'em in the ass!" he'd say.
"In this day, if I kick him in the ass, I go to jail and he gets a million dollars."
Progress, no?

Northern Rebel| 9.17.09 @ 12:03PM

Critcizing a communist agenda proposed by a white hating President is racist, but comments made by a jew hating ex-President, are not.

Oh, I get it now.

S.L. Toddard | 9.17.09 @ 12:03PM

"One point missed about S. L. Toddard's "Ahem"... it shows S. L. agrees that Pres. Obama was lying."

I'm sure he was. He is a liar. I know this, because he was elected president, and America will not elect a truth-teller. Americans will only elect someone who says they can keep huge gov't while having low taxes - i.e. a liar. I also know he is a liar because he pledged to return America to the Rule of Law, because he promised to oppose the domestic spying regime, because he promised to dismantle our torture regime, and because he promised to end rendition and lawless detention, and most of all because he promised to bring accountability under the law back to Washington. Not only did he do none of these things, he's done the exact opposite of what he pledged to do, and either actively continued or expanded all the policies he swore to reverse and undo. The man is a liar, period.

Also, I believe the charges of "racism" as levelled by Carter are bogus. I think it's fine to speculate as to whether Obama's race, background and name - in other words, his superficial "otherness" - has placed a role, perhaps subconsciously, in the level of intensity and in the way it's expressed in his opposition (certainly Clinton's healthcare plan did not bring out the absurd Nazi charges in the way this one did). But I also think - and perhaps this has been addressed here already - that when liberals look at those crowds, see angry white Americans and assume they are all "racist", that that is itself an act of bigotry.

As for Joe Wilson, I said here before that I've come to believe his act was not only appropriate but should be more common. It's time to stop treating our presidents like kings. Enough of this ridiculous business of referring to the President as "our" Commander In Chief, or fearing to criticize him in "War Time". If you are a civilian, he is not your Commander - he is your *servant*. And if his behavior is deserving of criticism, it is your *duty* to criticize him.

Apropos to the mention of Joe Wilson, here's an excellent piece by Clyde Wilson (no relation) about the "You lie" outburst and the cowardly recantation. If any of you bother to read it to the end, I believe we will have finally found something that we can all agree on - Dr. Wilson's being dead-on:

"I was mighty proud of my Congressman Joe Wilson—until he apologised for telling the truth to our sacred Chief Magistrate. I have thought well of Mr. Wilson ever since he was one of the Magnificent Seven of South Carolina state senators who refused to be bribed or browbeaten by the big money men into supporting the removal of our Southern flag from the capitol. Though my esteem has declined some in the last few years when I thought he was a bit too ready to support the schemes of the previous Executive Mansion resident.

Our two most acute foreign observers, Tocqueville and Solzhenitsyn, as well as numerous native men of perception like Mencken, have observed that the most fundamental, pervasive, and powerful motive of Americans is to be a respectable member of the herd. This defect of national character in itself severely limits the process of debate and deliberation that is necessary for genuine democratic government. And it explains the course of the Wilson/Obama controversy.

The partisan interests of the Democrats were aroused, of course, by an opportunity to bash the opposition. This can only work because of the national character defect described above. Mr. Wilson did something that frightens the vast herd of pseudo-intellectual respectables that make up a large portion of the American population. It does not matter that the Democrats and the press routinely behave in the most brutally uncivil manner to everyone in public life to the right of William Kristol. That rather qualifies as respectable, while similar behaviour by the unrespectable is a scary thing that all good men deplore.

There is a substantial though outnumbered Republican expression of the national defect, as indicated by all the bleating one hears about “My President” when a Republican is in power. Southerners, because of our memory of conquest and “Reconstruction” and our relative poverty, have a higher quotient of skepticism about politicians, perhaps. But we are by no means immune, as witnessed by the many people who called me to task for criticising that “good Christian man George Bush.”

What all this reveals is that there is no democratic debate and deliberation—i.e., no democracy—in the United States. Our public discourse is dominated by public relations, advertising, pop culture, slogans, media-created celebrities posing as journalists, and vague emotions about what thoughts are acceptable and unacceptable. It has been that way for a long time—since at least the 1960s or perhaps earlier. Rudely disagreeing with a Democratic President, and a President who is a minority member at that, is just not done.

British Prime Ministers must defend themselves in the Commons with intelligence and expertise. They must answer questions and accept catcalls and raspberries as part of the give and take of debate. That should be normal for any head of a democratic government. U.S. Presidents, especially Democrats, are never really questioned about anything. The valiant representatives of the media never raise any really important challenge. Presidential candidates enjoy an orchestrated joint press conference that is called “a debate,” a deception that only works with a population that has no concept of what “debate” means. Obama is treated more like the Queen than the head of government. Obama is not the Queen. He is not even George Washington. Not by a long shot.

Nearly submerged in all the uproar was a basic point. Joe Wilson told the plain and simple truth. Obama lied about a matter of great importance. The people need to know that and there is no better way that they could have found out."

http://www.chroniclesmagazine......ats-a-lie/

Louis Jenkins| 9.17.09 @ 12:21PM

Not only are people who hate abortion, believe in the constitution, who voted for R. Paul or Barr for President, want smaller government and balanced budgets, labeled as domestic terrorists, they are now saddled with the title of Racist.

Kerry Marvin| 9.17.09 @ 12:31PM

Sir's, and Mam's of course,

My Advice Is to Get the Book By Miles Copland:
The Game of Nations. It Covers the Mideast Conflict from the inception of Israel in 1947 through the 1967 Six day War.

The Cover Page States, for the Title of Chapters,
1. If you can Not Change the Player's, Change the rules.
2. If you can Not Change the Rules, Change the Players.

Now I'm Not Saying that the Smoke and Mirror's Concept doesn't Alway's, Work.
It has Been Blowing Up in the Face of Most of the MidEast for Generations now.
To Date, The Same Families, Fighting The Same Battle over the Same Piece of Ground,
For Over 4000 years since, Abraham Gave the Birthright Blessing to "The Wrong?" Son?

Therefore, Why, would Anyone Expect This to Be Different in this Contest?
When Good Men Do Nothing, The Evil that Men do, Proliferates, with Abandon.
IE: ACORN, The ACLU and the Rights of the Individual are Stepped on,
and Ground underfoot by the Elite and Effite Members that have Usurped, By PC Etiquit? Or Their “OWN” Bigotry?

The Rights of "WE THE PEOPLE" not Only To Voice our GOD Given Right to Free Speech, But The Expressing of that Right,
And OUR FREE CHOICE TO OPPOSE THEIR AGENDA in: " OUR", HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES" ??
And That THAT HOUSE:

So Gentlemen and Gentle Ladies, I Suggest,

"The Constitution", as A Second Reading assignment, Along with THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

For My Part, I will Protest, Write, and Picket OUTSIDE THE CONGRESS,
< MEDIA OUTLETS and ANYWHERE, ELSE I CAN>

For: The Constitution, and First Amendment, Second Amendment, 10th Amendment, Etc, Ect..

UNTILL THIS ADMINISTRATION: < HEARS U.S. and LISTENS TO U.S.> And REPRESENTS THE U.S. !!!!!!

TO REP OF (STATE) BOTH HOUSE AND SENATE: I WISH TO HAVE YOU PRESENT THIS AS A LETTER FROM A CONCERNED CITIZEN, FOR REFORM OF THIS GOVERNMENT TO: BARNY FRANK AND THE REST OF THIS ADMINISTRATION! IF, THEY THOUGHT “TEA PARTY” WAS A MOVEMENT? WELL, THEIR TERM LIMIT, IS UP IN 2010! SOONER “IF”, OF THEIR PROSECUTION AND INDICTMENT BRING CONVICTIONS FOR THIS CONGRESS AND ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS. TIME TO SEND A CLEAR MESSAGE TO WASHINGTON! "WHERE THEIR COLLUSION AND CONSPIRACY", WITH THE ACORN AND THE SEIU, UNION ORGANIZATION’S ARE CONCERNED, WITH TACIT APPROVAL OF THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN AND DEMOCRATIC PARTY THAT IS WHAT, IS ACTIONABLE IN OVER 14 STATES NOW THAT ARE PROSECUTING THEM. A VOTER RIGHTS AMENDMENT IS NEEDED NOT “JUST” FOR THE ABSENTEE BALLOTS OF WHICH 1/4 OF WHICH WE ARE NOW AWARE WERE NOT COUNTED. AND NOT JUST FOR THE MILITARY! TIME TO END THE FUNDING FOR VOTER FRAUD! SEND A BILL TO THE CONGRESS AND THE SENATE FOR VOTER REFORM NOW! HOLD ALL THESE "SERVANTS OF THEMSELVES" ACCOUNTABLE! MORE STATES ARE COMING TO THEIR SENSES, AND REAFFIRMING THE TENTH AMENDMENT! REMIND PALOSIE AND OBAMA, THAT "THE AMERICAN PEOPLE", THEY DO NOT WORK FOR THE FEDERAL GOV'T! IT IS TIME TO CALL FOR THE RESIGNATION AND IMPEACHMENT OF THESE INDIVIDUALS IN OFFICE. “IF” THEY HAVE ANY WRONGDOING, IE: "MALFEASANCE" IN OFFICE, THEY ARE ACCOUNTABLE!
THE FEDERAL GOV'T WORKS, FOR THE STATES! AND THE PEOPLE! AND THAT THEY, ARE ACCOUNTABLE TO THE "PEOPLE!" "NOT" THE OTHER WAY AROUND! "WE THE PEOPLE" NEED TO TAKE BACK THE AUTHORITY, WE DELEGATE, THERE WILL BE AN ACCOUNTING, AND THAT DAY WILL BE ELECTIONS, IN 2010, THEN AGAIN IN 2012. TAKE HEART AND REMEMBER, YOUR VOTE, COUNTS, NO MATER WHAT ACORN, AND SEIU TRY TO DO, THEY WILL "NOT" PREVAIL. "WE THE PEOPLE" WILL HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE. WRITE AND PROTEST, AND PICKET OUTSIDE THEIR OFFICES, IN YOUR HOME STATE, JUST LIKE THE TEA PARTIES, YOUR VOICE DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE, AND I THINK THEY HEAR U.S. LOUD AND CLEAR! ON APR 15TH, NOW GET OUT THERE AND MAKE "YOU" VOICE LOUD AND PROUD TO BE AN "AMERICAN" WITH "AMERICAN VALUES" AND KEEP YOUR INDIVIDUAL, RIGHTS AND DIGNITY INTACT! ACT! NOW! LIKE YOU KNOW IN YOUR HEART, IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO! WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE TO TELL YOUR CHILDREN, IF YOU WON'T STAND UP FOR THEM? YOU ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE UN? "HE11, NO! WE WON'T" GO! AND WE ARE STAYING THE COURSE! IMPEACH THEM NOW! THEN, PROSECUTE THEM TO THE FULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAW, IN ALL FIFTY STATES! I HAVE URGED MY FAMILY AND FRIENDS! THAT IT IS TIME FOR “ALL” OF U.S. - TO TAKE A STAND, CONTACT YOUR CONGRESSMAN, AND STATES REPRESENTATIVE. THEN, MAKE THE CASE FOR STATES RIGHTS AND VOTER REFORM, FOR THE SAKE OF THIS NATION! TELL THE WANT TO CONTROL, GOV'T, "WE THE PEOPLE" HAVE CONTROL! AND IMPEACH THOSE; WHO DO NOT FOLLOW THE LETTER AS WELL AS THE SPIRIT OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND OATH THEY SWORE TO UPHOLD! THEN IMPEACH THOSE THAT PLAY FAST AND SHADY WITH THE "LETTER" OF THE LAW, AND ENFORCE THE LAWS WE DO HAVE FOR ANTI-CORRUPTION, MALFEASANCE AND WRONGDOING OF OUR PUBLIC OFFICIALS! THEN PROSECUTE THEM "ALL" IN "ALL" FIFTY STATE JURISDICTIONS! AND LET THEM KNOW THAT "WE THE PEOPLE" ARE THE GOV'T THEY SHOULD FEAR! NOT THE LAWYERS FOR ACLU! 2010! NEVER AGAIN! 2012! WITH RESOLVE! OUR, PROBLEM? SOLVED! KERRY MARVIN, PENSACOLA, FLA.

GOD BLESS AMERICA and GOD BLESS OUR TROOPS in HARMS WAY!

Reinhard| 9.17.09 @ 12:46PM

S. L.,

While we don't always agree, your last post was excellent. Having spent quite a bit of time in the U. K., I was able to see what the British P. M. has to put up with at Parliament. Joe Wilson's outburst would seem polite in comparison. We, on the other hand, have to raise an outburst to absurdity.

Marc Jeric| 9.17.09 @ 1:15PM

It is the normal political practice of marxists to call names when they lose the argument. When you confront them with facts - yes, Obama lied when he said "no abortion funding" and "no health care for illegal aliens" - but then you are a racist, capitalist pig, criminal, troglodyte, uncultured, and also ugly!

S.L. Toddard| 9.17.09 @ 1:22PM

"It is the normal political practice of marxists to call names when they lose the argument"

Do you not see the irony here.

Ray| 9.17.09 @ 1:53PM

It's extremely ironic that many of the same people who voted for Obama (an election that transcended race, according to the MSM) are now being accused of racism b y the MSM because they oppose his policies. Did those people, somehow, BECOME racists recently, including African Americans, Native Americans, Latinos, Orientals, and any other racial demographic you can thing of, who now oppose Obama's policies? Are they, too, suddenly racists when a little less than a year ago they all transcended race by election Obama? Apparently so, according to the MSM and Obama's supporters (but I repeat myself).

S.L. Toddard| 9.17.09 @ 1:55PM

"It's extremely ironic that many of the same people who voted for Obama (an election that transcended race, according to the MSM) are now being accused of racism b y the MSM because they oppose his policies."

I'm sorry - are you implying that those anti-Obama rallies are chock-full of Obama voters?

William C. Hicklin| 9.18.09 @ 8:26PM

Well, I note that Obama's approval rating has fallen from 70% to about 50 in recent months. Are we supposed to infer that one in five Americans only lately discovered that the man is black?

Anneke9| 9.17.09 @ 1:58PM

"The claim is no longer about facts, but about silencing or discrediting critics."

While I know that racism still exists, I've seen too many examples where Blacks have cried racism in order to crush rivals or to make themselves appear powerful by striking fear into the hearts of coworkers. I've seen racism charges leveled in the attempt to get the competition fired and to intimidate management, ensuring that the "crier" will be the last one laid off or fired. All of this trivializes real instances of racism.

Jimmy Carter is pathetic, as are most other White race apologizers. His comment "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" can be parsed to read:

"That racism even occurs to me shows the darkness of my own heart bubbling to the surface. I may be a Southerner myself, but I'm willing to throw my own countrymen under the bus and prostrate myself before you to prove what a worthy, noble person I am. If an African-American is qualified to lead the country, then there's hope for me... there may be enough people dumb enough to re-elect me."

Ray| 9.17.09 @ 1:59PM

"I'm sorry - are you implying that those anti-Obama rallies are chock-full of Obama voters? "

I'm sure some of them are. *you
re "choked full" bs is just an attempt to derail the fact that not all of the people who voted for him are happy with the polices he's been promoting lately.) Are you claiming that every protester voted AGAINST Obama?

S.L. Toddard| 9.17.09 @ 2:08PM

"Are you claiming that every protester voted AGAINST Obama?"

I would guess that the vast, overwhelming majority did. Honestly, I would guess way over 90%.

Ray| 9.17.09 @ 2:09PM

Opposition to Health Care Reform Reaches New High at 55%
Tuesday, September 15, 2009

"Seventy-four percent (74%) of Democrats now support the plan while 80% of Republicans are opposed. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 67% are opposed. "

http://www.rasmussenreports.co.....high_at_55

26 percent of Democrats oppose Obama's health care policies! Those Democrats must be racists! It's that right, Toddard?

Ray| 9.17.09 @ 2:11PM

"I would guess that the vast, overwhelming majority did. Honestly, I would guess way over 90%. "

So, the other 10 percent, are they racists too, now that the oppose the policies of the man they elected?

BTW, how "way over" would you "guess?"

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.17.09 @ 2:21PM

Hi Ray

Well we have just about reached "saturation PERCENTAGES" in terms of objecting to Obama/congressional policies.
Heh! The other 45 percent DON'T PAY TAXES!

Tom Rowan| 9.17.09 @ 2:22PM

Let's get this straight;

Barack Obama is historically the first President of the United States to resign from his racist church in disgrace, no?

His loony paster, Rev Wright, preached that evil white folk were the cause of all ills of the black community.

Indeed; "White folks greed runs a world in need."

White folks are to modern America what the Jews were to Nazi Germany. We are the bane of all things right, fair, or just. We are evil, greedy, and souless. And we are racists. Get it?

The sign of the times said it best:

"It does not matter what this sign says, they will call it racist."

S.L. Toddard| 9.17.09 @ 2:22PM

"So, the other 10 percent, are they racists too, now that the oppose the policies of the man they elected? "

Uh, no. As I said above: "Also, I believe the charges of "racism" as levelled by Carter are bogus. I think it's fine to speculate as to whether Obama's race, background and name - in other words, his superficial "otherness" - has placed a role, perhaps subconsciously, in the level of intensity and in the way it's expressed in his opposition (certainly Clinton's healthcare plan did not bring out the absurd Nazi charges in the way this one did). But I also think - and perhaps this has been addressed here already - that when liberals look at those crowds, see angry white Americans and assume they are all "racist", that that is itself an act of bigotry. "

"BTW, how "way over" would you "guess?"

99%. 98%. I don't really know, but I would guess that any Obama voters there were anomalous.

I guess I'm referring more to the 9/12 deal than anything else, though.

S.L. Toddard| 9.17.09 @ 2:27PM

"26 percent of Democrats oppose Obama's health care policies! Those Democrats must be racists! It's that right, Toddard?"

*sigh*

No. I never said, nor implied, nor do I believe that the opposition is "racist". You should try to understand what you've read before you get all excited and start wetting your pants. It's embarrassing to watch, frankly.

Margie| 9.17.09 @ 3:03PM

One of my comments was removed at another article. I pointed out that Obama is half white. Being that he despises whites, as evidenced dramatically in his own autobiography, I quipped that he must somehow have a hard time living with himself. I also posted a link to youtube which Obama can be heard reading from his walkie-talkie book himself. He is a racist! Until I heard/read how he speaks of "white people", I had no idea. Now I will continue to preach it from the mountaintops. So, Obama is a self hating white person that is half black then? Ha! Is that poetic justice or what? Has anyone ever heard him say he is proud to be an American? Not me. I would imagine it would be excruciatingly painful for him to do that.

Kevin, Meath| 9.17.09 @ 3:08PM

Dear S.L. Toddard,
is it possible to be a Nazi and a Communist? Obama may be a 'socialist' (by American definition anyway) but I thought those two terms were mutually exclusive.

William C. Hicklin| 9.18.09 @ 8:34PM

Not really. The differences between Hitler's and Stalin's totalitarian states were more of form than of substance. Germany's was every bit as much a command economy as the USSR's, with a figleaf of 'private ownership' (but taxed at 98%, and subject to expropriation at will).

Obamanomics resemble neither so much as they do Mussolini's.

Mark Peterson| 9.17.09 @ 3:12PM

What many are missing now is that there is undeniably racism occuring. Maureen Dowd, Jimmy Carter, member of the Congressional Black Caucus, and all the MSM newspeople out there are demonstrating their racism as they project it onto conservatives. They can't help themselves. They see life through a racial prism and thnk that everyone else does too.

Conservatives need to stop defending themselves and, in the words of the President, "Call out" those making these charges as the true racists among us.

S.L. Toddard| 9.17.09 @ 3:12PM

"is it possible to be a Nazi and a Communist? Obama may be a 'socialist' (by American definition anyway) but I thought those two terms were mutually exclusive."

They are, really, but don't tell the Fox News Right that! They use them interchangeably, to mean "non-Republican".

Mark Peterson| 9.17.09 @ 3:18PM

To S.L. Toddard,

Not sure how Nazi and Communist got into this discussion on race, but you are wrong. Read Jonah Goldberg's book, "Liberal Fascism". Nazi stands for the "National Socialist Party". All of the fascists of the 20th century were on the left. Fascist simply means a system that wants to exert maximum control over the individual.

crookedwren| 9.17.09 @ 3:21PM

For those who have managed to slide over the multitudinous Toddard posts, I say --

Read Clarence Thomas' memoir. (As far as the writing goes, the first chapter was a bit "choppy.") But much of what Thomas says goes to the heart of racism, so-called government "rescues" of the poor and the marginalized, and Joe Biden will "resonate" with much of the discussion in these comments.

Racism exists. And certainly some who attend tea parties and town halls and such do so from racist enmity against Obama.

But to reduce all dissent to racism is to demonize those who object to Obama's political stance, his decisions, his rhetoric. The methodology certainly is used by Marxists.

The Left -- with their complicit Media as their staunchest ally, central spokespersons along with many educators in schools across the country, not to mention all the Leftist/Marxist professors in colleges and universities throughout the land -- thoroughly demonized George W. Bush and Co. I daresay they are using "the race card" to do the same to those of us who disagree with Obama.

And, yes, I've met many people who voted for Obama who want their votes back.

S.L. Toddard| 9.17.09 @ 3:22PM

"Fascist simply means a system that wants to exert maximum control over the individual."

No, it doesn't. It has its own meaning. As does "socialism", which has a very specific meaning. The two are not synonymous, whatever Jonah Goldberg says.

William C. Hicklin| 9.18.09 @ 8:42PM

Then I suggest you read "Nazi Economics: Ideology, Theory, and Policy" by Avraham Barkai. Hitler ran a full-blown Socialist state.

Flel| 9.17.09 @ 3:24PM

Glenn Beck gets boycotted and ridiculed fiercely for stating that Obama is racist against white people and offers up as proof his policies...and his ratings soar. Senator Wilson gets called a racist simply for pointing out the fallacies in Obama's speech...and his fundraising soars. I believe the left ought to just try to do their own thing rather than trying to demonize the right. When they do it only gets the right riled up and more determined to overturn their power.

Margie| 9.17.09 @ 3:31PM

Since it is still a free country for now, I will answer your question, Kevin, Meath. My husband's Parents were from Russia. His Father was in a P.O.W. prison camp, and his Mother was in slave labor camp in Germany. They would tell you that there is no difference. They are both authoritarian and repressive governments. They believe in the primacy of the State over the individual. The individual only exists to serve the State, as opposed to our form of government, where the State is supposed to be the servant of the people. "A government by the people, of the people, and for the people." We are supposed to tell the government what we want them to do, not the other way around. Which is why politicians are referred to as public servants! We are their boss and we get to fire them every 2 years. Or keep them if they're doing what we want. It's called Representative Republic. This is what Obama wants to "change." And he is. READ his autobiography! He is a hard core Socialist.

2bit| 9.17.09 @ 3:33PM

The race card is now considered taboo. It is always the last thing one will use to win an argument. It is a sign of desparation. Ultimately, the Democrat party has always blamed itself for its own problems, they know 2010 is gonna be ugly. The people who elected BHO dont realize that they chose the wrong party to show the world what they are capable of, I hope this is not their last chance to do so.

"Spectral Evidence" Isn't Enuf| 9.17.09 @ 3:50PM

The reckless charges of racism aren't just based on faulty logic. They're based on a faulty empiricism: the same sort that gave rise to the Salem witch trials in the 1690s. Tragically, a Puritan court was willing to accept "spectral evidence," that is, mysterious eyewitness evidence seen by interested parties but not measurable by the regular five senses. Dowd and Carter are just two of the vast number of Americans who think they can detect today's version of witchcraft---that is, racism--simply by their unique gifts of discernment. God help us as a nation if we don't soundly reject the legitimacy of this "spectral evidence."

Margie| 9.17.09 @ 4:05PM

"Of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people, commencing demagogues and ending tyrants."
—Alexander Hamilton

Margie| 9.17.09 @ 4:08PM

"The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."
—Thomas Jefferson

Margie| 9.17.09 @ 4:12PM

"A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever." -John Adams

Tom Rowan| 9.17.09 @ 6:08PM

Joe the Congressman meet Jimmy the Cop.
This is Joe the Plumber and this is Franky the Fire Fighter.

Me? My name is Tom. Apparently I am just a bum holding a sign Supporting The Troops.

The new rules of the road are:

Socialism is codeword for racism.

Resistance is racism.

Complaining to the Supreme Court is a nusience to Wise Latinas

Defending the honor of Sarah Palin on the floor of the House by the world's greatest statesment is racist.

Arresting while white is profiling.

Demanding a basic background check on our most powerful servant is downright wacky!

Move along now, the time for bickering is over!

Kerry Marvin| 9.17.09 @ 7:16PM

President Barack Obama said in Turkey : "We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation.. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values."
I found this very interesting.
Do you know the Preamble for your state? . .

Be sure to read the message at the bottom!

Alabama 1901, Preamble
We the people of the State of Alabama , invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution..
Alaska 1956, Preamble We, the people of Alaska , grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land.
Arizona 1911, Preamble We, the people of the State of Arizona , grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution...
Arkansas 1874, Preamble We, the people of the State of Arkansas , grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government...
California 1879, Preamble We, the People of the State of California , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom...
Colorado 1876, Preamble We, the people of Colorado , with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of Universe....
Connecticut 1818, Preamble. The People of Connecticut, acknowledging with gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy.
Delaware 1897, Preamble Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature, the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences...
Florida 1885, Preamble We, the people of the State of Florida , grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty, establish this Constitution...
Georgia 1777, Preamble We, the people of Georgia , relying upon protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution...
Hawaii 1959, Preamble We , the people of Hawaii , Grateful for Divine Guidance ... Establish this Constitution.
Idaho 1889, Preamble We, the people of the State of Idaho , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings..
Illinois 1870, Preamble We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil , political and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.
Indiana 1851, Preamble We, the People of the State of Indiana , grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to choose our form of government.
Iowa 1857, Preamble We, the People of the St ate of Iowa , grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of these blessings, establish this Constitution.
Kansas 1859, Preamble We, the people of Kansas , grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges establish this Constitution.
Kentucky 1891, Preamble.. We, the people of the Commonwealth are grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties..
Louisiana 1921, Preamble We, the people of the State of Louisiana , grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy.
Maine 1820, Preamble We the People of Maine acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity .. And imploring His aid and direction.
Maryland 1776, Preamble We, the people of the state of Maryland , grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty...
Massachusetts 1780, Preamble We...the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the Universe In the course of His Providence, an opportunity and devoutly imploring His direction
Michigan 1908, Preamble.. We, the people of the State of Michigan , grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom, establish this Constitution.
Minnesota, 1857, Preamble We, the people of the State of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings:
Mississippi 1890, Preamble We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work.
Missouri 1845, Preamble We, the people of Missouri , with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness . Establish this Constitution...
Montana 1889, Preamble. We, the people of Montana , grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty establish this Constitution ..
Nebraska 1875, Preamble We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom . Establish this Constitution.
Nevada 1864, Preamble We the people of the State of Nevada , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, establish this Constitution...
New Hampshire 1792, Part I. Art. I. Sec. V Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience.
New Jersey 1844, Preamble We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.
New Mexico 1911, Preamble We, the People of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty..
New York 1846, Preamble We, the people of the State of New York , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings.
North Carolina 1868, Preamble We the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for our civil, political, and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those...
North Dakota 1889, Preamble We , the people of North Dakota , grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain...
Ohio 1852, Preamble We the people of the state of Ohio , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and to promote our common.
Oklahoma 1907, Preamble Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty, establish this
Oregon 1857, Bill of Rights, Article I Section 2. All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences
Pennsylvania 1776, Preamble We, the people of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance....
Rhode Island 1842, Preamble. We the People of the State of Rhode Island grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing...
South Carolina , 1778, Preamble We, the people of he State of South Carolina grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution.
South Dakota 1889, Preamble We, the people of South Dakota , grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties ...
Tennessee 1796, Art. XI..III. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their conscience...
Texas 1845, Preamble We the People of the Republic of Texas , acknowledging, with gratitude, the grace and beneficence of God.
Utah 1896, Preamble Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we establish this Constitution.
Vermont 1777, Preamble Whereas all government ought to enable the individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, and other blessings which the Author of Existence has bestowed on man ..
Virginia 1776, Bill of Rights, XVI Religion, or the Duty which we owe our Creator can be directed only by Reason and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity towards each other
Washington 1889, Preamble We the People of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution
West Virginia 1872, Preamble Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of West Virginia reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God .
Wisconsin 1848, Preamble We, the people of Wisconsin , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, domestic tranquility...
Wyoming 1890, Preamble We, the people of the State of Wyoming , grateful to God for our civil, political, and religious liberties, establish this Constitution...

After reviewing acknowledgments of God from all 50 state constitutions, one is faced with the prospect that maybe, the ACLU and the out-of-control federal courts are wrong! If you found this to be 'food for thought', send to as many as you think will be enlightened, as I hope you were.

Tom Rowan| 9.17.09 @ 7:38PM

Tom Rowan| 9.17.09 @ 6:08PM
Joe the Congressman meet Jimmy the Cop.
This is Joe the Plumber and this is Franky the Fire Fighter.

Me? My name is Tom. Apparently I am just a bum holding a sign Supporting The Troops.

The new rules of the road are:

Socialism is codeword for racism.

Resistance is racism.

Complaining to the Supreme Court is a nusience to Wise Latinas

Defending the honor of Sarah Palin on the floor of the House by the world's greatest statesman is racist.

Arresting while white is profiling.

Demanding a basic background check on our most powerful servant is downright wacky!

Move along now, the time for bickering is over!

===========================

I miss the Spelling Cow, but ya know what I mean anyway.

Liberal Reader| 9.17.09 @ 9:26PM

I think much of this criticism of the "liberal" criticism is actually making a mistake that it accuses the "liberal" criticism of making.

NO ONE is claiming that ALL criticism of the president -- or ALL people from the south -- is or are racist.

The TONE of some criticism is extremely hateful, which causes people to wonder.

In addition, the right has REPEATEDLY associated Obama with the worst bogeys of the American psyche: the Muslim terrorist, the fascist, the communist, the illegal alien, even the racist!

Why?

There's far LESS evidence for THESE claims than for claims that there is racism on the right.

It seems to me that people on the right are now claiming that all criticism of their rhetoric is unfairly portraying them as racist IN ORDER TO LICENSE more racist rhetoric.

Catherine| 9.17.09 @ 10:55PM

Liberal Reader; "If the shoe fits, wear it" the President was lying, most times he's speaking he is lying and the people [on this exchange] are (for the most part) simply recognizing the fact that the elite in Washington (I still want to change the name of that city, not right to use his name like that!) are labeling as racists any and all who criticize, disagree, demonstrate against THEM.
It is not a matter of what the President thinks of whites/blacks/pinks/blues or greens it is what he has been trained to believe; Thuggery = control, call them racists = shut them up etc. Fortunately we have Patriots who are not cow-towing.

Liberal Reader| 9.17.09 @ 11:06PM

Catherine -

First, the Obama administration is resisting ANY discussion of racism on the right; day after day, the president and his aides deny racism is playing a role in conservative protests and criticism.

Second, when you say that the president lies most of the times he speaks, you completely lose any credibility. Think about it, Catherine: you're making a claim that is absurd.

Now, you are correct about one thing. Calling people "racists" IS an attempt to silence them, to banish them from public discourse. It is a very serious matter, and it is true that sometimes it is undertaken too casually.

That does not mean, however, that there is no racism. You seem to conclude that because some charges of racism are unjust, racism has simply vanished from our society, a proposition that is impossible to take seriously.

Lastly, about elitism. This is a charge conservatives routinely level at liberals, and there is some justice to it. Liberals can be arrogant; they can seem like they're trying to sound like know-it-alls, and there is an inherent risk of hubris in the liberal project.

However, what conservatives FORGET is that there are other elite institutions and forces in this country besides those considered "liberal."

In fact, the elite on Wall St., and in corporate board rooms, the elite that has run rough-shod over the middle class since the early 80s, the elite that has frozen wages and denied affordable health care to the middle class, has nothing to do with true liberalism.

I want you NEVER to have to worry about paying medical bills Catherine. I never, ever want that to worry to afflict you or your family, no matter how silly your politics. That is what one liberal has to say to you.

And you know what? If my taxes have to go up so that neither you nor I need ever fear we will lose our houses or our health or our lives because we can't afford medical care, that is FINE by me.

I'm interested in freedoms other than those that could be bought with a 2% decrease in my tax rates.

Credo

William C. Hicklin| 9.18.09 @ 8:57PM

The problem is, you're equally happy to raise *my* tax rates. You of course are entirely free to contribute to Catherine's medical bills on your own.

"the elite that has run rough-shod over the middle class since the early 80s" is not the sort of thing one says, if one wants to retain any credibility. You seem to be too bright to be a Kos Kid, so why repeat their brainless slogans? The middle class has seen an inflation-adjusted increase in income since 1980 of between 15 and 20 percent. By contrast, the middle class lost ground, precipitately, in the years leading up to 1980.

Where liberals go astray is focusing on the fact that the top quintile has gotten richer even faster than the middle three- but fail to see the connection between, as if one is not a function of the other. Liberals appear prone to a sort of zer0-sum thinking, under which that "excess" wealth at the top should or even could "belong" (or be redistributed) to those lower down. You seem to forget that wealth is not Newtonian matter- it can be and is both created and destroyed. All variations on Robin Hood economics slow the creation of wealth, or destroy it; and equality of poverty is not a goal to be sought.

And that doesn't even address the issue of liberty, which is another discussion.

Margie| 9.19.09 @ 12:21AM

Bravo! to your comments, Mr. Hicklin! I notice Mr. Lib isn't/ can't/won't respond to them! lol.

Interested Conservative| 9.17.09 @ 11:31PM

What seems to be missing in all this discussion is some history of the actual racism of the country, and why it is that the "right" is particularly sensitive to it.

Essentially, the democrats were the overwhelmingly racist party, up to and through the mid-60s. There is comparatively little, though some, institutional racism on the right, and among liberals and progressives. However, with the shift in political alliances from the mid-60s, the GOP gained many former individuals who were democrats, but left the democratic party for the liberals. I've long thought the modern democratic party is basically playing catch-up, and projecting its historical faults onto the nation as a whole - all the while aiding and encouraging those most adept at this.

It's not that republicans feel guilt at any of this, just enormous annoyance at the ignorance and misplacing of the anger.

Finally, the far far left doesn't really seem to have any particular standards beyond simple power politics while using these tools. Which is why it's increasingly a useless "cry wolf" strategy.

Most of us can recognize and build on success, and aren't particularly inclined to reward those of us who cannot. The White House seems to realize this, to their credit, and even to a greater extent than the Clinton white house.

Interested Conservative| 9.17.09 @ 11:35PM

PS - LR - I don't think most conservatives have a problem with "elites". Only with "elites" with governmental power to exercise. In fact, most conservatives probably regret the extent to which "elites" in government displace, destroy or eliminate otherwise non-federal-government elitism.

It's a freedom thing.

Alan Brooks| 9.17.09 @ 11:48PM

I surmise it is not only ecomomic and 'political' (that is, power), blacks men also want white women to have more sex with blacks.

Why don't the bros be more forthright and admit it? What have they to lose? Nothing. Not anymore. The ball is in their court from now on-- no pun intended.

Alan Brooks| 9.17.09 @ 11:52PM

If Obama were a genius, like Clinton was, he would appoint Thomas Sowell his #2 man.

Now, it might lose him the re-election, but he might have a shot at being elected again later.
Remember our 19th century potus-- a good one-- who did that.

Liberal Reader| 9.18.09 @ 12:54AM

Interested --

Liberal Democrats and Republicans fought against segregation in the 50s and 60s. Conservative Democrats in the south resisted.

The pro-segregation southern Democrats were fiercely disgusted by civil rights laws. They were successfully courted by an increasingly right wing Republican party, which undertook the "southern strategy" to gain their votes.

Since the late 60s, the Republicans have made great political gains in the south while entirely losing their representation in places like New England, where anti-segregation liberal Republicans once held office.

Democrats are not secretly racist, and they get the vast majority of the black vote for a reason.

Ken (0ld Texican)| 9.18.09 @ 7:20AM

LR
2+2=4
a+b=c

If you look in a mirror, right is left, and left is right.
You cannot change these realities with words.
Thanks for writing in these forums.
You remind us every day why we think like we do.

William C. Hicklin| 9.18.09 @ 9:14PM

"Democrats are not secretly racist, and they get the vast majority of the black vote for a reason."

Yes- it's by keeping minorities on a steady methadone drip of dependency.

But witness the liberal rage, and naked, overt racism, should a Condi Rice or Clarence Thaomas arise! Uncle Tom, Aunt Jemima: to liberals, blacks are *not allowed* to be other than Democrats. Those who do are denounced as, well, traitors- but I suspect the real reason is that the existence of a Nat Turner scares the plantation owners to death. God forbid minorities ever figure out they don't need the paternal State!

Could you kindly explain to me how affirmative action represents anything other than a fundamental liberal assumption that minorities are inherently inferior?

S.L. Toddard| 9.18.09 @ 7:08AM

Somewhat relatedly:

Intelligence Agencies Say No New Nukes in Iran

Secret updates to White House challenge European and Israeli assessments.

By Mark Hosenball | Newsweek Web Exclusive

Sep 16, 2009

The U.S. intelligence community is reporting to the White House that Iran has not restarted its nuclear-weapons development program, two counterproliferation officials tell NEWSWEEK. U.S. agencies had previously said that Tehran halted the program in 2003.

The officials, who asked for anonymity when discussing sensitive information, said that U.S. intelligence agencies have informed policymakers at the White House and other agencies that the status of Iranian work on development and production of a nuclear bomb has not changed since the formal National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran's "Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities" in November 2007. Public portions of that report stated that U.S. intelligence agencies had "high confidence" that, as of early 2003, Iranian military units were pursuing development of a nuclear bomb, but that in the fall of that year Iran "halted its nuclear weapons program." The document said that while U.S. agencies believed the Iranian government "at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons," U.S. intelligence as of mid-2007 still had "moderate confidence" that it had not restarted weapons-development efforts.

One of the two officials said that the Obama administration has now worked out a system in which intelligence agencies provide top policymakers, including the president, with regular updates on intelligence judgments like the conclusions in the 2007 Iran NIE. According to the two officials, the latest update to policymakers has been that as of now—two years after the period covered by the 2007 NIE—U.S. intelligence agencies still believe Iran has not resumed nuclear-weapons development work. "That's the conclusion, but it's one that—like every other—is constantly checked and reassessed, both to take account of new information and to test old assumptions," one of the officials told NEWSWEEK. It is not clear whether U.S. agencies' confidence in this judgment has grown at all since the 2007 statement.

This latest U.S. intelligence-community assessment is potentially controversial for several reasons, not the least of which is that it is at odds with more alarming assessments propounded by key U.S. allies, most notably Israel. Officials of Israel's conservative-led government have been delivering increasingly dire assessments of Iran’s nuclear progress and have leaked shrill threats about a possible Israeli military attack on Iranian nuclear facilities.

Former U.N. weapons inspector David Albright, an atomic-weapons expert who follows Iranian nuclear developments closely, said the U.S. government's current judgments will continue to provoke contention and debate. "People are looking at the same information and reaching different judgments," he said. "Given all the developments in Iran, these assessments are hard to believe with any certainty. Nobody's been able to bring total proof either way."

Israel is not the only American ally that has circulated assessments that contradict the U.S. intelligence conclusion that Iran is not currently pursuing nuclear-bomb development. According to German court documents released earlier this year, Germany's foreign intelligence service, known as the BND, reported in 2008 that “development work on nuclear weapons can be observed in Iran even after 2003."

A European counterproliferation official, who also requested anonymity, said that assessments like the one provided by the BND relied significantly on information collected by German and other intelligence agencies about efforts by suspected Iranian agents and front companies to purchase hardware and technology from Western firms that can be used to design or build nuclear weapons. Such equipment and know-how often has "dual uses"—both peaceful and military applications. But some Iranian purchases have appeared highly suspect. German authorities have been pursuing criminal charges against a German-Iranian businessman who allegedly tried to purchase for Tehran ultrahigh-speed cameras and radiation sensors that are built to withstand extreme heat—equipment that experts believe would be quite useful for nuclear-weapons development, though it could also be used for more benign purposes. The Institute for Science and International Security, run by Albright, recently published a paper on the German investigation.

When it first was made public, the November 2007 NIE was criticized by American and Israeli hardliners for playing up conclusions about Iran's having stopped work on nuclear-weapons development while playing down Iranian advances in its efforts to produce highly enriched uranium, which is the most critical, but difficult to manufacture, element of a primitive nuclear bomb. The NIE said that even though Iran had halted its nuclear-weapons program, it had made "significant progress" during 2007 in installing centrifuges used in uranium enrichment, though U.S. analysts believed that, as a result of technical problems with these machines, Iran probably could not produce enough highly enriched uranium for a bomb before 2010 at the earliest. The Iranians have consistently claimed that they are enriching uranium only for civilian purposes. Low-enriched uranium, which is all that Iran has made so far, is a common fuel for civilian power plants.

U.S. and European counterproliferation experts believe that Iran's centrifuge program has already produced enough low-enriched uranium, an essential precursor to the production of bomb-grade material, to provide feedstock to produce enough highly enriched uranium to make a bomb. However, that is an arduous and technically complicated process. Many U.S. and European experts say that Iran is still experiencing technical problems with centrifuges it would use to produce bomb-grade uranium, which could delay any Iranian bomb program for years.

An Obama administration official says that top policymakers are being told that there is no significant disagreement among U.S. intelligence agencies and experts about the latest assessments regarding Iran's nuclear effort. That may encourage the White House's efforts to continue to try to engage Iran in diplomatic dialogue, including discussion of Iran's nuclear ambitions. A spokesperson for National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair's office, which is responsible for producing NIEs and updates on Iranian nukes, had no comment.

Find this article at http://www.newsweek.com/id/215529

Nick| 9.18.09 @ 11:38AM

Mr. Toddard,

Newsweek? Ha-ha!

Why not cite Chris Matth-spews? Or Olbermann-child? Or Chomsky the Commie for that matter?

I wonder if Mr. Hosenball's two "counter-proliferation officials" were Joe and Valerie Plame Wilson?

And isn't this the same intelligence community you constantly deride for not knowing the truth about WMDs? And didn't they let the 9/11 attacks happen on their watch?

Now you believe them, huh? I wonder why?

Is it so you can attack Israel when they bomb Iran? A little pre-emptive strike of your own, Mr.Toddard? Or did Greenwald give you these talking points?

S.L. Toddard| 9.18.09 @ 11:55AM

“Newsweek? Ha-ha!”

I know. It is funny!

“Why not cite Chris Matth-spews? Or Olbermann-child? Or Chomsky the Commie for that matter?”

Man, those guys are funny too. Haha. Commies!

“I wonder if Mr. Hosenball's two "counter-proliferation officials" were Joe and Valerie Plame Wilson?”

I’m sure they definitely were. Absolutely that’s who it was. “Hosenball”! Haha.

“And isn't this the same intelligence community you constantly deride for not knowing the truth about WMDs? And didn't they let the 9/11 attacks happen on their watch?”

Exactly. That is so true.

“Now you believe them, huh? I wonder why?”

Yes – absolutely. That is totally correct. I also wonder why. You are right.

“Is it so you can attack Israel when they bomb Iran?”

Yes, it is so I can attack them when they bomb Iran.

“A little pre-emptive strike of your own, Mr.Toddard?”

Yes, it is a pre-emptive strike of my own.

“Or did Greenwald give you these talking points?”

Yes, Greenwald gave them to me. You are right.

S.L. Toddard| 9.18.09 @ 11:55AM

“Newsweek? Ha-ha!”

I know. It is funny!

“Why not cite Chris Matth-spews? Or Olbermann-child? Or Chomsky the Commie for that matter?”

Man, those guys are funny too. Haha. Commies!

“I wonder if Mr. Hosenball's two "counter-proliferation officials" were Joe and Valerie Plame Wilson?”

I’m sure they definitely were. Absolutely that’s who it was. “Hosenball”! Haha.

“And isn't this the same intelligence community you constantly deride for not knowing the truth about WMDs? And didn't they let the 9/11 attacks happen on their watch?”

Exactly. That is so true.

“Now you believe them, huh? I wonder why?”

Yes – absolutely. That is totally correct. I also wonder why. You are right.

“Is it so you can attack Israel when they bomb Iran?”

Yes, it is so I can attack them when they bomb Iran.

“A little pre-emptive strike of your own, Mr.Toddard?”

Yes, it is a pre-emptive strike of my own.

“Or did Greenwald give you these talking points?”

Yes, Greenwald gave them to me. You are right.

Nick| 9.18.09 @ 12:02PM

Ohhhh, Mr. Toddard,

I didn't take you for a quitter.

Oh well, a win is a win.

S.L. Toddard| 9.18.09 @ 12:22PM

"I didn't take you for a quitter."

Yes, you didn't.

"Oh well, a win is a win."

Yes, it is. I agree with that.

Nick| 9.18.09 @ 12:57PM

By the way, did you ever figure out that "compare" and "contrast" are synonyms?

If not, try "Dictionary.com". So simple, even a caveman can do it.

S.L. Toddard| 9.18.09 @ 3:01PM

"By the way, did you ever figure out that "compare" and "contrast" are synonyms?"

Yes, they are.

"If not, try "Dictionary.com". So simple, even a caveman can do it. "

Yes, it is. I agree.

Brian| 9.19.09 @ 11:52PM

The Republical elites consider putting liberal dems like Colin Powell in high office and funding ACORN to be "reaching out to african americans". If thats all the repubs have to offer black ppl maybe they are better off on the dems plantation locked into failing schools, drug and crime infested cities that are falling apart ie better the devil you know...

cybercorrespondent| 9.20.09 @ 7:33PM

In 1981, what passport did Obama use to travel to Pakistan?
In 1981, Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department's "no travel" list and Obama could not have used a US passport to travel to Pakistan. If he used a British passport, it would mean that he was born in Kenya. Because Obama’s stepfather that adopted him was Indonesian and both his mother and him became Indonesian citizens themselves, a country that did not allow dual citizenships, if he used an Indonesian passport, it would raise even more questions that the American people need answers to. Then there is the question of forgery. Watch these videos and form you own opinion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA6_k3NtXZs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA6_k3NtXZs
Cybercorresponden

supra skytop| 9.21.09 @ 1:08PM

supra skytop
Supra Vaider