The Campaign Meets the Occupiers

The presidential campaign is more than up and running; it’s in high gear. Not only are Republican contenders lining up for the nomination, but President Obama is actively campaigning while officially calling it a “jobs tour.” That way all the taxpayers receive the distinct privilege of paying for it. For Republicans, the goal is clear:

Those who want more fundamental change continue to search for the anti-Romney. They’re not convinced he is the real deal. Yet oddsmakers still put their money on him. Republicans could regret that choice:

I’ll have more to say about that in later posts. The 999 comment, of course, refers to Herman Cain. If he were to get the nomination, that might make it a tad difficult to make the case that Republicans are racist, which is a favorite tactic of the Left:

Cain has been connected to the Tea Party ever since it started. Many in the media are now trying to say that this “occupy” movement is like the Tea Party. Well, there are very few similarities. Even the slogans don’t match:

Not to mention the nature and personal hygiene of the activists. Yet President Obama, on the campaign trail, is now saying, as are many Democrats, that they support the Occupy Wall Street crowd. But there is a disconnect:

By the way, have you heard that the Nazi Party and the Communist Party have officially endorsed Occupy Wall Street? You can know a movement by its supporters.

The Double Standard: Get Used to It

Herman Cain has been a speaker at Tea Party rallies across the country. You would think that would put to rest the idea that the Tea Party is a racist organization.  But here comes actress Janeane Garofalo, who refuses to bow to the obvious. Instead, she insists,

Herman Cain is probably well liked by some of the Republicans because it hides the racist elements of the Republican Party. Conservative movement and tea party movement, one and the same.

People like Karl Rove like to keep the racism very covert. And so Herman Cain provides this great opportunity so you can say, “Look, this is not a racist, anti-immigrant, anti-female, anti-gay movement. Look, we have a black man.

There’s really not much hope for changing some people’s minds. Their minds are made up; they would rather not be confused by the facts. Ever since the Tucson shooting last January, we’ve been treated to the most mind-boggling exercise in double standards I’ve ever witnessed, at least in the realm of “civil conversation.” The mainstream media hasn’t helped.

We might as well get used to it. It’s not going to change.

About That Call for Civility in Political Discourse

There are some statements made by politicians and political activists that I hesitate to comment on, particularly when they are distasteful and/or include wording I wouldn’t ordinarily want to highlight in a blog devoted to Biblical principles. Yet there are times when I feel somewhat forced to say something. This is one of those times.

Two recent rants come readily to mind. The first emanated from Congresswoman Maxine Waters of California. In a speech just over two weeks ago, she railed against the Tea Party. Her precise words?

As far as I’m concerned, the Tea Party can to straight to hell.

Well, the positive side, I guess, is that she at least believes there is such a place. Or am I giving her too much credit for simply using typically inflamed rhetoric?

Civility is breaking out all over the place. Indiana congressman Andre Carson, about a week after Waters’s outburst, did his best to leave her heated rhetoric in the dust with the following analysis:

Some of these folks in Congress would love to see us [African Americans] as second-class citizens. Some of them in Congress right now of this Tea Party movement would love to see you and me . . . hanging on a tree.

This was a broadbrush swipe at a movement whose primary goal is to call the nation back to financial common sense. I’ve been around the Tea Party. I’ve spoken to these groups. Nothing I have ever seen or heard from them smacks of the least bit of racism. Yet when called upon to reflect on his statement and to consider whether he had gone too far, he said he would not take back his words.

Then there was Teamsters president James Hoffa, at a Labor Day rally where President Obama took the stage moments after Hoffa said the following about Tea Party/Republican members of Congress:

Let’s take these sons of bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong.

I have to give credit to a political commentator in the Los Angeles Times who responded in this way:

Let’s assume for a moment, that the son of the still-missing Teamster President Jimmy Hoffa, who was taken out somewhere once never to reappear, was not suggesting the enthusiastic union crowd start dating tea party members. The living Hoffa’s statement doesn’t seem to quite fit Democrat Obama’s past pleas for and promises of a new civility in the nation’s political discourse.

Does anyone recall the feigned outrage over Sarah Palin’s map of America that showed certain districts “targeted” in the 2010 congressional elections. Does anyone recall how she was unjustly blamed for the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson last January? And finally, do we remember all the pious calls for civil discourse pouring from the lips of Democrat politicians? Well, I never took them seriously from the start. And now their hypocrisy is clearly revealed for all to see.

It is not hate speech to disagree publicly with this president’s policies. It is hate speech to tell one’s political opponents to go to hell, to threaten to take them out while using vulgarities to describe them, and to accuse them of wanting to lynch a race of people when there is no evidence of any such desire.

I agree with a call to civility in political discourse. But it can’t be one-sided. Both sides have to adhere to it.

Ruminations on the Debate

I watched every minute of Monday night’s Republican debate from New Hampshire. The seven candidates lined up on the stage, I believe, did a fine job for the most part. Yes, I can quibble with some of the answers, and those who are regular readers of this blog know I am not a fan of Mitt Romney, in particular. Yet all, Romney included, exuded a certain confidence in what they believe, and were able to communicate their own message.

Michele Bachmann used the debate as the opportunity to make it official that she indeed is a committed candidate, and I think she acquitted herself well, coming across as knowledgeable and experienced. That was probably a shock to some. Next to Sarah Palin, she has probably been the most maligned by the mainstream media. What is it about conservative women that throws them into a tizzy?

Newt Gingrich had a rough week, and I think it showed on his face and in the way he conducted himself. He seemed too forceful to me, as if he felt this might be his only chance to redeem his flagging campaign.

That Greek cruise wasn’t the brightest idea.

No one really tried to challenge Romneycare, but all focused instead on Obama. Fine for now, but someone needs to step up and make a real point about Romney’s endorsement of an individual mandate in Massachusetts. His criticism of Obamacare falls flat when you look at his history.

You can expect the big guns to come out soon even as the media continues its false appearance of impartiality.

Breaking News: I interrupt this blog post to announce that Sarah Palin’s e-mails have revealed a real scandal after all. It appears that she really wanted to be the vice-presidential nominee in 2008. This shocking revelation undoubtedly will doom her as a political player for at least the next three decades. How can we put up with such blatant ambition in a politician when no one else on the scene has ever displayed such an attitude?

We now return to the regular blog posting.

So what strategy will the media and the opposition party put into operation? Nothing new. In fact, they keep returning to a tried and true method:

That charge is going to be a little hard to level against Herman Cain, but never underestimate the ingenuity of the opposition: you see, he’s just a “tool” of the racist elite. That won’t work, right? The populace is too engaged in the political debate to fall for it, right? We’re so informed that we can’t be misled, right?

It’s going to be a very long primary season.

Funding an Abomination

Planned Parenthood was in the news this past week. An undercover sting videoed a PP clinic manager in New Jersey coaching two individuals presenting themselves as a pimp and an underage prostitute on how to cover up their illicit business.

This type of thing is not unusual at Planned Parenthood. A few years ago, someone recorded a phone conversation with a clinic employee in which the caller said he wanted to donate to the organization, but he wanted his money to go toward reducing the number of black babies being born. The employee said that would be no problem; they could direct the money as he wished.

It’s hard to believe that many people still don’t grasp the nature of this organization. It is the foremost provider of abortions in the world, yet the name itself—Planned Parenthood—sounds so good. I mean, who could ever be in favor of chaotic parenthood? Sometimes, if you win the semantic war, you can create an image that looks respectable when, in fact, you may be one of the most reprehensible agencies on the planet.

Planned Parenthood qualifies as a reprehensible agency—easily in the top ten in reprehensibility, if that is a valid word.

All one has to do is investigate the founder, Margaret Sanger. She was a full-blown eugenicist, a pseudo-science popular in the early twentieth century that believed in creating superior people through the right kind of breeding. What, specifically, did Sanger promote?

  • The elimination of what she called “human weeds.” Is that any way to talk about human beings made in the image of God?
  • The cessation of all charity. After all, if you help those human weeds, they will only proliferate, which is bad for society.
  • The segregation of “genetically inferior races.” For Sanger, blacks qualified as one of the inferior races. She started the “Negro Project,” the purpose of which was to stop blacks from having too many children. She didn’t wish to see such an “inferior race” propagate itself.
  • To accomplish her goals, she advocated birth control methods, not simply for parents to choose when to have children, but to ensure that only the “best races” would have the most children. As techniques advanced, birth control was joined by abortion as a legitimate means for controlling designated populations.
  • Complete sexual freedom, undermining the institution of marriage and promoting promiscuity. Currently, Planned Parenthood teaches young people to “explore” their sexuality without guilt. Nothing is out of bounds if you really want to experiment.
  • Socialism—she desired the government to step in and direct society.

What a list. Could she possibly be one of the worst individuals in the history of our nation? Here’s a fascinating photo of Sanger speaking to a group that should be easily recognized:

Historically, Planned Parenthood has been a blatantly racist organization. Presently, it pushes sexual immorality of all types and seeks to demolish all Christian morality in society. Yet our federal government continues to fund this abomination. As we seek to cut back on government spending, might I offer a suggestion?

There are Republican congressmen who are trying to defund all abortion providers. They need our support. Pray that they succeed.

Drawing Racial Lines

I’ve noticed there are some things that are very hard for people to do. For instance, once some individuals get into power, particularly political power, it’s fascinating how nothing they ever do wrong is their fault. They can always find someone else to blame. Charlie Rangel seems to be pretty good at this, as is Maxine Waters.

Listen to either of them speak about the ethics charges against them and you will come away believing they are victims of a massive conspiracy. In both cases, though, the evidence seems pretty clear—they are guilty of using their offices for personal financial benefit. If only they would simply admit it, but pride and arrogance forbid it.

Rangel and Waters are indicative of a whole species of political animals who can’t seem to see beyond a predetermined personal prejudice:

I’ve mentioned in previous posts the decision of the Justice Department not to prosecute the New Black Panthers who intimidated people at the polls and the atmosphere in the department that refuses to focus on any discrimination cases brought against blacks. All this does is undermine the rule of law.

Every person—black, white, and all the beiges in between—are accountable to the same law [I’ve always liked the title of one of Thomas Sowell’s books, Pink and Brown People—it’s more accurate].

Yet we continue to draw racial lines, as Harry Reid did recently:

Well, Harry, let me explain it for you: the Republican party [or at least a lot of people in that party] believes in helping individuals get off the government plantation, offering them security in their personal property, providing the liberty to achieve one’s dreams in life without undue governmental interference, and respecting the life of all unborn Hispanics. Many of those Hispanics are from Cuba, and they know how bad a socialist system can be. They appreciate American liberties.

Hope that helps, Harry.

Put Race Behind Us

Do I really want to write about racism again? Not really. But the accusations continue to spread. The latest people accused of racism are those on the House Ethics Panel. Why? Well, they have investigated Charlie Rangel [see an earlier post] and now Rep. Maxine Waters.

The charges against Waters are significant. She’s accused of trying to get TARP funds for a bank connected with her husband. He owns considerable stock in it; she would have benefited greatly financially if that had happened.

This latest accusation, though, has raised the ire of the Congressional Black Caucus. Because the latest two House members investigated have been black, they say there must be racism involved. One has to be wearing blinders to see things that way. What about all the white House members who have been investigated, all the way from former Republican leader Tom Delay to the lately departed but not mourned Eric Massa, New York Democrat? In fact, there are about thirty investigations currently being pursued. Are they really targeting black congressmen above all others?

This is really getting old. There’s a stark difference between those who are real victims and those who use the victimization tactic to avoid personal responsibility.

I believe race relations have worsened under Obama. The fine art of racial grievance has been taken to a new level. Anyone who opposes his policies is fair game to be labeled a racist.

Did you catch the asterisk? Both Farrakhan and Wright have spoken at NAACP conventions. Who’s accusing whom of racism? Yet those falsely accused continue to handle the accusations with dignity.

Knowing man’s sinfulness, I don’t expect hypocrisy to cease. However, I still have some hope that pointing out the hypocrisy on a regular basis will eventually cause some of the accusers to retreat, if only for fear of being marginalized.

I’ve said it before and will continue to do so: it’s time to put race behind us. God doesn’t view people as members of separate races. He sees us all as part of one race called “human.” The sooner the majority of citizens put that into practice, the better off we’ll be as a nation.