Race, Sherrod, and Victimhood

Racial issues ought to be receding in America. Yet they have once again intruded onto the national consciousness. It all started [at least the latest round] when the NAACP passed a resolution calling on the Tea Party to excise the racists in their midst. No real evidence was presented that racism was a major problem within the movement, but that apparently was beside the point. I commented on this in my July 14 post, if you want to review it.

Let’s be honest: the NAACP’s only reason for existing is to fight racial discrimination. If it isn’t a big threat, its reason for being is called into question. Consequently, it is necessary to manufacture a racial divide to maintain relevance as an organization. Sad, but true.

Obama was supposed to be the harbinger of racial healing; he was going to usher in a post-racial society. That was before he accused the Cambridge police of acting foolishly [without real evidence] in regard to his friend Louis Gates. That was before his Justice Department decided to drop the case against the New Black Panthers and accusations that the department was not going to enforce any laws for white defendants in racial cases.

So, at this point we have the Obama administration and the NAACP making race an issue.

Then, in response to what the NAACP had done with its resolution, Andrew Breitbart, who is the brainchild for the Big Government site and many others, broadcast a video of a Dept. of Agriculture employee named Shirley Sherrod apparently showing her racism toward whites. Sensitive now to the charge of racial politics, the administration immediately fired her. When the full tape was eventually seen, it showed that she was trying to say she had gotten beyond race as the determining factor in life. Then they fell all over themselves to hire her back.

In either case, no one did much checking. Getting all the facts didn’t seem to be a priority.

Was Breitbart wrong to do what he did? Many are jumping on him for releasing a partial video, yet he says the point was made no matter how the video ended—the audience [an NAACP crowd] liked her comments about not wanting to help a white farmer. He says that reveals the attitude of the organization, which was his main point.

Meanwhile, Sherrod has become somewhat of a celebrity. Yet it is obvious she is not really a heroine. Her Marxist approach to policy is highlighted in the video, and it appears she not really over her focus on race. She is now calling for the Big Government site to be shut down by the government. So there is no longer a First Amendment?

She’s also accusing Fox News of wanting to push blacks back into segregation days. On what basis is she making this accusation? As one commentator has noted,

Despite Glenn Beck being one of the very first people to stand up for Sherrod; despite the Obama administration dismissing Sherrod before Fox ran the footage; despite Bill O’Reilly being the first cable news host to show the FULL video to reveal its context; and despite Fox’s Bret Baier inviting Sherrod to appear on the network a number of times, she has declined and instead given exclusive interviews to the likes of Media Matters and MSNBC–groups who are seizing this opportunity to attack Fox News. 

Media Matters calls the “Sherrod smear” a “wake up call” not to trust Fox.  Sherrod’s so cozy with the far-Left, she granted the propagandists an exclusive interview to play up the “victim” card against Fox and Breitbart, all the while ignoring the people who actually fired her.

Sherrod was not treated properly by the administration, and she should not have lost her job for the reason cited. Yet, as the facts above show, she was not the victim of a Fox agenda to roll back civil rights. No one bothered to get the facts straight when she was fired. Now she doesn’t care to get the facts straight regarding how Fox handled her story.

If this is the path she has chosen to take, she doesn’t deserve anyone’s sympathy.

Words & False Perceptions

Historian Victor Davis Hanson has an excellent post in National Review where he questions the common perception that Republicans are the party of the rich while Democrats are for the “little people.” It’s a perception I’ve spoken against previously, but he makes the point so much better. I’ll let him make the case:

It’s surreal to see President Obama play the class-warfare card against the Republicans while on his way to vacation on the tony Maine coast, and even more interesting to note that now gone are the days when the media used to caricature Bush I (“Poppy”) for boating in the summer off the preppie-sounding Kennebunkport. The truth is that the real big money and the lifestyles that go with it are now firmly liberal Democratic.

If one were to ask for more evidence, he is ready to provide it—in abundance:

One can use an entire array of evidence — the preponderance of Wall Street money that went to Obama over McCain in 2008, the liberal voting patterns of the high-income blue-state congressional districts, the anecdotal evidence of a Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, or George Soros, or the ease by which an eco-populist like Al Gore buys estates and creates corporations, or the rarified tastes of men of the people like John Edwards of two-nations fame, or John Kerry of multiple estate residences.

All of this makes Obama’s constant rhetoric against elitism seem more than a bit hollow. How can you speak out against yourself?

The more the polo-shirted Obama seems obsessed with golf, and the more he seems to prefer the landscape of the elite (who navigate the Ivy League, Silicon Valley, Hollywood, Upper East Side, Cambridge, etc.), the more we wonder whom exactly he’s railing about. … In short, Obama had better get the populist photo-ops down a lot better, since his calls to soak the rich from the 18th hole or the coastal vacation home look increasingly ridiculous.

Progressives/liberals have been quite adept at using words to create perceptions. Class-language warfare has always been a staple, as has the use of the word “racist” to defuse any real discussion of issues. Has that last one worn out its welcome yet? One can hope. However, there’s always another word that can be inserted:

Isn’t it time to call them on their reprehensible rhetoric? Perceptions created by cultural/political foes are not reality.

The Real Victim of Racism

So the NAACP has voted to condemn the Tea Party for its racism? Where did they find that racism? Some will point to the infamous “walk” by Democratic leaders from their House office building to the Capitol when some of them claimed to hear racist remarks from the crowd—remarks that no one else heard, that were never picked up by any microphone or in any video.

When you want to believe something, you just will, regardless of the facts.

Deroy Murdock, a black commentator who has participated in Tea Party rallies, had this to say in National Review yesterday:

The NAACP today is expected to adopt a resolution denouncing the alleged “racism” of the tea-party movement. Presumably this is the same tea party that has expressed its “bigotry” by repeatedly showcasing black conservative and libertarian speakers at its rallies, including, among others, yours truly, Deneen Borelli, Niger Innis, Mychal Massie, Kevin Martin, Bob Parks, and David Webb (who leads New York’s tea party). The tea-party movement focuses on cutting taxes, spending, and government debt. Promoting fiscal responsibility is neither black nor white. It’s green.

Rather than peddling lies, the NAACP should deploy such credibility as it may possess to denounce the New Black Panther Party. The NBPP is as loud, vocal, and unvarnished a pack of racists as exists in this country.

It’s not just the NAACP that is ignoring the New Black Panther Party. The media, as I’ve noted previously, seems to be missing this story as well—you know, the one where one of the leaders tells people to kill “crackers” and their babies.

There is one very distinguished victim in this whole affair:

Will we ever see the return of real justice while this administration remains in office?

Based on the evidence, it’s not looking hopeful. Christians, though, see beyond what is currently happening and work and pray for true change. There is always hope if there are faithful people who still believe in a God of justice and the bedrock constitutionalism of the rule of law. It’s not time for despair; it’s time to get to work.

Perversion of Justice

What does “justice” mean to the Obama administration? The Justice Department under Attorney General Eric Holder has now followed through on its threat to sue the state of Arizona over its illegal immigration law.

Keep in mind that the Arizona law merely puts some teeth into what is supposed to be federal law. The only reason the Arizona legislature saw fit to pass it is because the federal government isn’t doing its job enforcing the law.

Incidentally, it was revealed yesterday that Rhode Island has been inquiring about immigration status in the same way Arizona has legislated for quite some time now, and no one’s civil rights have been violated. Neither has anyone complained. This lawsuit is frivolous.

If President Obama and Mr. Holder really cared about illegal immigration, they not only would stop the flood of people coming into the country illegally, but they would prosecute cities that have declared themselves “sanctuary cities,” which means they will not obey the federal law to report on illegal immigrants.

To show the amazing disparity in law enforcement under the current attorney general, all that is necessary is to listen to the testimony of a career justice department lawyer who resigned last week because he could no longer in good conscience serve under this administration.

J. Christian Adams testified that he was told to drop the prosecution of individuals from the New Black Panther Party who stood outside a polling place during the 2008 elections, intimidating the white voters who were arriving. One had a club in his hand and made threatening comments.

Just yesterday, a video surfaced of the man with the club. Here’s what he says in this video:

I hate white people. All of them. Every last iota of a cracker I hate him. … You want freedom, you going to have to kill some crackers. You going to have to kill some of their babies.

Nice, huh? Why is this man not being prosecuted for his actions and his inflammatory language? This is not the kind of speech that is protected by the First Amendment. Anyone who goes around encouraging others to kill people—including babies—is a threat to the community.

What does this say about the ideology of the Obama people?

Eric Holder has put the full weight of the Justice Department behind this racist, protecting him from prosecution. This is not what the phrase “justice is blind” is supposed to mean. It’s a perversion of the concept.

Highly Recommended

In the past few weeks, while writing a book, keeping up with this daily blog, posting on Big Government, teaching a class every Sunday, and continuing to watch over the department I chair at the university—I actually read a couple of books, too. I’d like to recommend them.

Back in January, I wrote about a novel called Deadline by Randy Alcorn. It was thought-provoking and decidedly Christian in its philosophy. You can go back to January 9 to see that review. I’ve now completed that trilogy; I can say without hesitation that the second and third books are just as good, and perhaps even better.

Dominion takes readers into the world of gangs and racial animosities. It does so through the eyes of its protagonist, a black newspaper columnist still struggling with the discrimination of his upbringing, yet rejecting the liberal welfare state as the answer. He’s also groping his way toward a genuine relationship with God after the disillusionment of the “prosperity gospel” he had adopted.

His sister has been killed and he pushes for answers, sometimes in appropriate ways, other times with questionable tactics. His heart has gone cold, but he has to deal with the spiritual questions that intrude into his mind, as well as their application to the city and neighborhood where he lives. It’s a theological, social, and political combination that makes readers grapple with their own attitudes and reactions to injustices.

Deception, the final offering in the trilogy, is written in the first person, through the eyes of a detective who is trying to unravel the mysteries surrounding a murder that seemingly has no answers. The detective has recently lost his wife and carries a grudge against a God who won’t stop people from doing evil. Again, readers are drawn into a theological question that has very practical ramifications for life.

Alcorn uses a technique in all three books that is unique, at least in the books I’ve read to date: he intersperses the action on earth with the experiences of those who have died and have entered into heaven. His ideas of how heaven operates is fascinating. On a couple of occasions, he also takes us down to hell to see what it’s like for a character who has rejected the love of God.

Sound too preachy? Perhaps a little too fanciful? If I were reading this review and hadn’t experienced the books myself, I can see where you might think so. Believe me, though—both books are rooted in earthy reality. Alcorn’s gift is to combine the gritty, seamy side of life with spiritual concepts and make heaven more real than what takes place on earth.

I highly recommend both books, but you might want to read Deadline first to maintain the continuity of the characters and follow their development.

True & False Tea Partiers

This evening I will be attending our local Tea Party. Will the event be reported accurately? There’s some doubt about that nationwide. A movement is underway to sabotage Tea Party rallies by infiltrating them with opponents posing as supporters. These fakers will attempt to act in such an outrageous manner, or carry signs with hateful messages, that the media will present them as the rank-and-file Tea Partier.

Michelle Malkin penned an article yesterday that pinpoints the disrupters’ strategy. For the entire article, go here. She begins this way:

One of the popular signs spotted at Tea Party protests across the country over the past year goes like this: “It doesn’t matter what this sign says. You’ll call it racism, anyway!”

That has been the cry from the Democratic Party and their friends in the media from the inception of this movement.

President Obama’s community organizing allies whispered “racist,” “fascist” and “fringe” in the earliest days of the stimulus demonstrations in January and February 2009, when hundreds of first-time protesters turned out on the streets in Washington State, Colorado, Arizona and Kansas. The whispers turned to hysterical screams as hundreds became thousands and thousands became millions of peaceful marchers who gathered for the first nationwide Tax Day Tea Party. Some fringe, huh?

Malkin then shares what happened to her:

I speak from direct experience about the underhandedness of Tea Party smear merchants. On Feb. 17, 2009, at one of the country’s first tax revolt rallies in Denver, a man approached me amid a throng of bona fide anti-stimulus protesters and thrust a camera in my face. I obliged cheerfully, as I usually do after such speaking events. I later learned from the character assassins at Progress Now, a left-wing outfit that just happened to be there and just happened to snap a close-up photo of the interaction, that the man pulled out a sign at the last minute (which I didn’t see until later) sporting Obama’s name with a swastika on it. He held the sign away from me, but in direct view of the Progress Now cameraperson.

That cameraperson just happened to be a former CNN producer, whose blog post on the photo just happened to be immediately disseminated by the local press and to the hit men at the radical-left Media Matters website. The narrative was set: A conservative supporter of the nascent Tea Party movement posed for a photo with a man holding up a swastika at a protest against out-of-control spending! Ergo, the anti-stimulus protesters and the entire Tea Party membership are all racist, fascist menaces to society!

So if you hear about those “awful Tea Party people” in the coming days, please keep in mind what’s happening behind the scenes. The most amusing part of this for me is that those who are used to being the protesters are befuddled when confronted with legitimate opposition to their policies.

Yes, the current protesters aren’t the typical fare: they work, raise children, and believe that God will only bless a nation that honors Him.

Random Thoughts

Some days I don’t have a unified thesis for what I want to share. How about if I just offer a few random thoughts—with a little help from my friends, the political cartoonists?

A couple days ago, I commented on the attitude toward the Tea Partiers, and how some politicians and media outlets do their best to smear them as racists. Personally, I think some of this is due to their utter lack of knowledge of American history.

It’s interesting what qualifies as hate speech nowadays.

Yesterday I focused on Obama’s new nuclear policy, such as it is. Here’s a pretty good representation of it.

Don’t overlook the notice in the center. It’s the essence of the policy.

Education is another of my favorite topics.

A win-win for whom?

The other day Sarah Palin critiqued the Obama nuclear policy. His response was to ridicule her as someone who has no experience in foreign policy—you know, like a certain community organizer who was raised to a position above his pay grade. I’m reminded of his sharpness from time to time, like the occasion when he told his audience how many states he had visited.

I guess that’s what a Columbia political science degree and a Harvard law degree get you—daunting intellectualism.