My Thoughts on the Recent Payroll Tax Scuffle

Here are my thoughts on the recent payroll tax cut scuffle. The dirty little secret about the so-called "standoff" over the payroll tax cut is that the Republicans in the House were clearly right about wanting to extend the payroll tax cut for at least a year instead of the 2-month extension in the Democratic Senate bill. A 2-month payroll tax cut is laughable. Payroll software developers will barely have time to modify their programs to reflect the changes before those changes expire. It will have zero impact on the economy, since employers don't hire people for 2 months (or even for a year). Their hiring decisions are based on planning years ahead, not weeks or months. Of course, all such an "agreement" does is ensure we will have exactly the same argument again in 2 months, when once more the payroll tax cuts will expire and Congress will be scrambling to once more extend them. What kind of way is this to run a government?

OK, so maybe the House Republicans aren't exactly "right" on the policy aspect of this. Probably the right thing to do is to expose the fact that this supposed tax cut is really just a handout of about $19 per paycheck to middle-class employees -- taking money out of the Social Security trust fund while doing nothing to stimulate long-term economic growth. But what they are proposing makes much more sense than the 2-month extension passed by the Senate. And yet, everyone seems to agree that the GOP has thoroughly lost the debate and the Democrats have seized the tax-cutting mantle.

I'm not saying that the House Republicans couldn't have done better. They clearly walked into a political trap set for them by Obama and the Democrats. But there is still no way that the Democrats should come out smelling like a rose on this issue when their position is utterly ridiculous, from a substantive policy perspective. Obama's poll numbers have actually gone up and the Democrats are now perceived more favorably than Republicans on the issue of taxes. This is because the press has not covered this issue accurately. They have not helped Americans to understand the real substance of this debate and why a 2-month extension bill is not worth the paper it's written on. And the American people are also to blame because they have blindly accepted what has been spoon-fed to them by the media and by political soundbites. They have been bought off by simplistic solutions and easy handouts.

This is where I disagree a little bit with some other conservatives, who want to cast most of the blame on John Boehner and the Republicans in Congress. I don't exactly think Boehner is the brightest bulb in the box and I've been disappointed with a lot of his compromises in the past with Obama. But what exactly was he supposed to do in this situation? He tried to take a stand against the ridiculous 2-month tax cut bill passed by the Senate, but was pounded by the media. Even conservative talk radio hosts criticized his boneheaded political move of picking a fight in an election year that he could not win (from a political perspective). Then, he gave in and agreed to the Senate bill, and conservative talk radio hosts blasted him for not standing for his principles! It is easy for arm-chair pundits to attack elected Republicans for being politically stupid, or unprincipled, or insufficiently eloquent. But these Republicans are stuck in a morass called Washington, DC, which will often make you look politically stupid for standing on your principles and will reward unprincipled politicians. While very few possess the eloquence of Ronald Reagan, many congressional Republicans are capable of making a half-decent case for their positions if given the opportunity to speak and the audience to listen. But it is very hard for them to get their message across, given the 24/7 news cycle, a political culture where everything is reduced to 30-second soundbites, the hostility of much of the mainstream media, and the indifference of much of the public. They will never be able to make their case as effectively as Obama, with his gigantic bully pulpit and a highly-sympathetic press. It's always easy to blame politicians, but maybe it would be more accurate to blame the voters who repeatedly let themselves be swayed by empty rhetoric and deceitful promises. Not to mention a biased media that manipulates those voters into falling for such rhetoric.

Why make a case against conservative views when you can simply misrepresent them?

Liberals excel at slaying strawmen, creating false dichotomies, and generally misrepresenting the views of conservatives.  They also like to create absurd, unrealistic scenarios that would make it seem unconscionable to hold conservative views.  I see this phenomenon often in the comments sections on Pajamas Media and National Review Online.  One common argument of Internet-dwelling liberals is that conservatives want a libertarian paradise like war-torn Liberia or Somalia.  And of course, who can forget the frequent and passionate pleas on behalf of all those women who are pregnant after being raped and want to have an abortion?  (Proponents of abortion don't talk as often about the remainder of abortions, most of which are performed just because somebody doesn't want to have a baby.  See "Why women have abortions".)

Now, I wish to present Exhibit C.  Check out this totally unbiased article on Yahoo about a Republican debate, titled "Audience at tea party debate cheers leaving uninsured to die".  During the debate, CNN's Wolf Blitzer asked Ron Paul about a hypothetical, uninsured, comatose man and whether he should be left to die.  Immediately after this, a few people in the audience shouted, "Yeah!"  Personally, I think this outburst was a sarcastic response to a stupid question.  The unspoken false dichotomy is that you either have to support Obamacare in its entirety or you want poor people to die.  (And you probably hate puppies, too, you bastard.)  For all I hear about how nuanced, sophisticated, and intelligent liberals are, they sure aren't very good at making distinctions. 

I sincerely doubt that the good and generous people of the United States (and by "people", I mean conservatives) would let our hypothetical man die.  Blitzer's silly false dichotomy is nothing but an attempt to make conservative views of limited government and personal freedom seem unconscionable and ridiculous.  Harrumph!  Harrumph, I say!  End rant.

The Washington Post Slanders Pro-Life Activists

Well, the Summer of Mercy has reached the ears of The Washington Post. They have weighed in with two recent "news stories" about Carhart and the Germantown protests -- two laughably biased reports filled with deceptions and inaccuracies. The most recent contribution of the paper to the Germantown late-term abortion debate is this July 31st gem entitled "Abortion Is Topic of Dueling Protests in MD." This ostensibly innocent news report is a textbook example about how the press distorts the facts and manipulates public opinion under the pretense of objective reporting.

The astute reader will notice that the report identifies the number of pro-choice demonstrators as "around 180" but makes no mention of the number of pro-life demonstrators, presumably an attempt to marginalize the pro-life opposition to Carhart. In fact, attendance at the first pro-life rally outside of the clinic on Monday morning was significantly higher than 180 -- I attended it and am confident there were at least 300 people there. The opening rally of the Summer of Mercy at Covenant Life Church had probably twice that number. Also, participants in the "Summer of Choice" are positively described as "pro-choice" and "supporters" of local physician Leroy Carhart. By contrast, participants in the "Summer of Mercy" are never positively referred to as "pro-life" or "supporters of life," only as "abortion foes" or "antiabortion demonstrators."

It only gets worse from there. The article does everything possible to discredit Keisha, the Philadelphia woman scheduled to have a late-term abortion at Carhart's clinic but who chose to keep her baby instead after talking with some pro-life activists outside of the clinic. The author quotes Carhart as saying that Keisha was a "plant" by "antiabortion forces" and leaves the accusation hanging without further comment. Is it too difficult for a paper with the resources of The Washington Post to do a little simple investigation to verify Keisha's story and determine whether or not Carhart is lying? Apparently so. But in the meantime the author subtly pushes this angle, noting sinisterly that the woman "identified herself only by her first name," as though her wish to preserve some level of privacy for herself and her family disproves her claims. (Any other time, The Post would be trumpeting the importance of preserving a woman's right to privacy to the ends of the earth!)

No mention is made of the fact that Keisha was all smiles in the video interview as she held her newborn baby and that she expressed thanks to the pro-life women outside of the clinic for the help they offered her, mentioning two specific women by name who had befriended her. She and her boyfriend referred to the pro-life activists as "beautiful people" with "good hearts" who made them "feel comfortable." No mention is made of the fact that pro-life activists referred her to organizations in Philadelphia who provided her with free pre-natal care and resources, continued to stay in touch with her up to the present day, and raised more than $1,100 to help with her financial needs at their opening night rally (which I attended). Of course, those details would not be helpful in furthering The Post's desired narrative, so the article merely makes the curt comment that "abortion foes" "talked her out of" having her abortion. As though a group of fast-talking activists manipulated her into a rash decision.

The article repeats a blatantly false claim originally found in a fawning profile the newspaper did of Carhart a week earlier: the claim that "all of the late-term abortions Carhart has done in Germantown have involved fetuses with abnormalities." Keisha specifically stated in her video that Carhart said nothing to her about any "fetal abnormalities" prior to her scheduled abortion -- her reason for the abortion had nothing to do with any actual or perceived health problems with the baby. This example alone disproves Carhart's ridiculous claim -- and not only does the article fail to mention this very important point that Keisha's baby was perfectly healthy and normal, but it twists Keisha's words in order to mislead its readers into thinking the opposite. Completely out of context, it quotes Keisha as saying "I just thank God that I had a healthy daughter," as though this occurrence was a source of unexpected relief for her!

Further belying Carhart's claim is the pro-life activist who helped Keisha choose life, Dr. Grace Morrison. She has been standing outside the clinic every week since Carhart came to Germantown in December, and said that out of the 27 women going into Carhart's clinic for abortions that she has spoken to over the past six months, only 1 of those 27 had an unborn baby with "abnormalities." In two articles in a row, The Post chose to take Carhart's claim at face value without doing even the most basic investigation into it or bothering to present any of the opposing evidence.

After discussing Keisha, the article seizes another opportune moment to caricature the pro-life activists, using a quote from Carhart to claim that they were "subjecting" the patients to "harassment." If these activists are so threatening, then why would Keisha even have stopped to talk with them in the first place, much less have been swayed by their advice? In fact, Dr. Morrison said that since Carhart's arrival in Germantown, 13 women have chosen not to go forward with scheduled abortions, at least temporarily, after conversations with pro-lifers outside of the clinic! If these activists were the hateful, angry people The Post claims, then why would any of these women have given them the time of day?

But the most disgraceful and inexcusable slander in the article comes near the end, when the author writes, "Because he [Carhart] wants to expand services, he has become a top focus of antiabortion groups. His friend and mentor, Kansas doctor George Tiller, was fatally shot by an abortion opponent in 2009." In two simple sentences, the author presents a close link between the activists peacefully protesting outside Carhart's clinic and a crazed madman who killed another abortionist two years ago in a state thousands of miles away. Tiller's murder was an evil act committed by a rogue killer that was strongly condemned by every pro-life group in the country, including the ones involved in the Summer of Mercy. That murder flew in the face of everything the pro-life movement stands for. We believe life is precious and should be protected. I have attended numerous pro-life rallies in the Germantown area over the past few months, and I have not witnessed a single expression of hatred or violence against Carhart or pro-choice activists. Over and over again, I have heard pro-life leaders pray for Carhart and plead that God would give him a change of heart. I have not heard any vicious personal attacks or expressions of hatred against him. Over and over again, I have heard it emphasized that our protests must be peaceful and demonstrate love and compassion. Both 40 Days for Life and the Summer of Mercy banned the use of signs with graphic images and encouraged us not to respond when heckled by pro-choice activists. At a rally a few months ago, we were interrupted by loud, disruptive chants by pro-choice activists claiming we "don't care if women die." We responded by spontaneously singing "Amazing Grace." Our pro-life protests are legally and constitutionally protected and have been conducted under the watchful eye of the Montgomery County Police Department. There is no link whatsoever between any of the groups currently involved these protests and the murder of George Tiller in Kansas, and there is absolutely no reason for the author to make this false association in his news story except raw prejudice against the pro-life position.

The story about Carhart that I linked to above is just as flagrant an example of propaganda. The author, Lena Sun, writes so glowingly of Carhart one might suppose she has an actual crush on him. He is described as a "grandfather and retired Air Force surgeon general" who "speaks softly" in an "understated manner." His "voice is weary" after a long, hard day of serving patients, but he remains "committed" to his important work. Unlike most abortionists who refuse to perform late-term abortions, Carhart is a brave man who doesn't care about "social stigma." (Insert the obligatory reference to the killing of George Tiller in Kansas and the association of the entire pro-life movement with his murder.) Many other doctors look up to him and "have asked to train with him." Despite persecution from those evil pro-life activists, Carhart's "tenacity" led him to work as an abortionist full time despite living in constant fear for his safety and his life. Still, their viciousness has created a stigma which makes him and other abortionists often feel "isolated," fearful of being "targeted by protestors." Often "you feel like you're alone in the world," quoth the good doctor, whose other interests include "adoption counseling" and pap smears for gay and transgendered people. (Insert obligatory reference to how he ONLY does late-term abortions "if the medical situation warrants.") Indeed, from this article it would be hard to understand how such an All-American Grandfather and All Around Good Guy could be considered remotely controversial, much less how he manages to attract hundreds of protestors outside his clinic week after week.

In fact there are some reasons why Carhart is controversial, although you'll never find out about them from reading The Washington Post. This pdf document from the http://kickoutcarhart.com/ website summarizes much of this information. Let's start with the fact that Carhart is under investigation by the Maryland Board of Physicians for making some very specific false claims on his application to practice in the state. He claimed he was an emergency room physician, but he hasn't had hospital rights in nearly 25 years! He also claimed he was a university professor even though this information too was more than a decade out-of-date, and omitted more than a decade of pertinent information related to his controversial practice of late-term abortions in Nebraska and Kansas. He is under criminal investigation back in his home state of Nebraska, based on sworn testimony by former employees of illegal activities occurring in his clinic. This testimony includes claims of "unlicensed employees... conducting medical tasks, illegal post-viability abortions, drug violations, financial malfeasance," the use of unsterilized and unclean medical instruments, and the failure of Carhart to follow even the most basic rules of personal hygience such as washing his hands between patients. After his Nebraska clinic partially burned, apparently due to unsafe storage practices, he tried to continue to perform abortions using a generator and extension cord until government authorities shut him down! Worst of all, in January 2005, a 19-year old girl with Down syndrome named Christin Gilbert died as a result of a botched 3rd-trimester abortion. Gilbert's death resulted from an infection that could have been avoided if she had received proper care. More information on this can be found here.

Let's cut to the chase. What does Carhart actually do that is so controversial? Well, he performs a nice humane procedure known as "Dilation and Evacuation" that involves sticking a needle into a woman's belly to inject poison into the "fetus." The woman goes back home for two days to wait for the "fetus" to die. Then she returns to the clinic, where the abortionist uses forceps to remove the arms and legs of the "fetus." Then the tiny skull of the "fetus" is collapsed so it can be easily removed. Finally the remaining remnants are suctioned out of the uterus. If the "fetus" is older, sometimes it will be delivered whole into a toilet rather than being dismembered. Carhart routinely does this procedure in the third trimester, and legally he can do it in Maryland up until the ninth month of pregnancy, long past the point of viability. Sometimes the "fetus" is still alive at the time the abortionist begins the pleasant process of dismemberment, and there is abundant evidence it can feel pain. Much more information about this, including photos, diagrams, and descriptions, can be found here. Fellow late-term abortionist Martin Haskell testified in court: "Typically when the abortion procedure is started we typically know that the fetus is still alive because either we can feel it move as we're making our initial grasps or if we're using some ultrasound visualization when we actually see a heartbeat as we're starting the procedure." He goes on to say that often the "fetus's" limbs are removed while the "fetus" is still alive. Carhart himself testified back in 2004 that frequently in the process of performing these late-term abortions the "fetus" was delivered whole and alive, but added that he thought "removing the brain contents eventually would [kill the baby]." Well, thank goodness for that.

As you can see, there are a lot of relevant facts about Dr. Carhart's history and abortion practices that paint a slightly different picture than The Washington Post profile of a kindly, soft-spoken grandfather who just wants to help women. It is disheartening for those of us fighting so hard against Carhart's brutal late-term abortion practice to read such biased reporting from the most influential media outlet in the area. With news organizations like The Washington Post shaping public opinion, it is hard to believe that anyone is willing to identify as pro-life.

I suppose all those pro-choice activists carrying signs saying "Dr. Carhart is my hero" and "We love Dr. Carhart" are perfectly within their legal rights. But what kind of a sick, twisted individual would choose a man like this to be his or her hero? The pro-choice community hides behind euphemisms and vague language like "women's rights," "choice," and "reproductive services." The thing they want to avoid at all costs is any description of what is actually happening in abortion. The truth is our greatest weapon, and their greatest enemy. And so we fight on, until the whole world knows the real truth about "late-term abortions," until justice is really administered in this country for ALL.

Finally, Maureen Dowd Misses Bush!

Most of the time, liberals infuriate me. But every once in a great while, they do something that just cracks me up. This week, no fewer than three left-wing writers -- Maureen Dowd, Eugene Robinson, and Peter Beinart -- are begging George W. Bush to weigh in on the Ground Zero mosque controversy on Obama's behalf! (The Washington Examiner has the story here.) Dowd, who has spent the past 10 years of her life relentlessly ridiculing Bush's stupidity on a weekly basis in her New York Times column, now says that "W. needs to get his bullhorn back out." Robinson, who spends his weekly columns explaining how Republicans support slavery and segregation, says he "would love to hear from former President Bush on this issue." Beinart adds, "Words I never thought I'd write: I pine for George W. Bush." All three of the writers praised Bush's knowledge and sensitivity with regard to the War on Terror and Muslim issues.

Haven't we been hearing for years from these left-wing commentators that Bush was an idiot who couldn't put a coherent sentence together and had one of the worst presidencies in our history? Haven't they claimed for the past three years that Obama's eloquence and understanding of the world were unsurpassed? After doing everything possible to smear President Bush, suddenly they're worried about their beloved president's inability to argue effectively for their precious Ground Zero mosque and they want Bush to ride to the rescue! You just can't make this stuff up.

This is why it is so foolish for politicians to try to curry favor with the media. As long as you seem to be furthering their left-wing agenda, they will heap you with praise. And once they no longer have use for you, they will throw you under the bus. Remember, the press couldn't stop fawning over John McCain as a "principled maverick" back in 2000 when he was challenging Bush from the left. But just a few years later McCain was running against Obama, and they barely seemed capable of doing a positive story on him. Three weeks ago, Bush was the object of universal scorn. Now the left is begging for his eloquence and wisdom. But don't worry. In a few weeks, once the mosque story has blown over, they'll back to blaming him for the lousy economy, the Gulf oil spill, etc.

This is also why I've stopped worrying about what liberals think of me. I take plenty of heat from co-workers for defending Bush, Palin, the Tea Parties, the Arizona law, etc. It would be quite easy for me to try to distance myself from these hated individuals and groups ("I'm a Reagan conservative, not a Palin conservative!"), but I'm done bothering with it. The only conservatives liberals and the media will ever like are the ones that are no longer in power. (They say nice things about Reagan now, but he couldn't get good press to save in his life when he was president.) And the only way to get liberals to approve of your positions is to stop standing for anything.

Race-Baiters

I have been outraged in recent weeks about the demonization of the Tea Party movement by the mainstream media, but I have been working 60+ hour weeks and have not had time to post about it until now. For those readers who don't follow politics, the Democrats and their allies in the press have been working overtime ever since the passage of the health care bill to paint the Tea Party movement as a group of angry, violent white people who want to take our country back to the era of slavery and segregation. Two of the most disgraceful examples of this "j0urnalism" were March Washington Post editorials by Colbert King and Eugene Robinson. A co-worker sent me an even more pathetic article by one Robert Paul Reyes which I link to here solely to let our readers know the ridiculous claims being made about the Tea Parties and to provide entertainment value.

Let me start by saying that racism is a deeply ugly thing and shows the sad capacity of the human heart for prejudice, hatred, and evil. The overwhelming majority of Americans find racial prejudice disgusting because they recognize that it breeds a distrust between neighbors and fellow-citizens that damages the very fabric of our society. There are few things that will destroy your reputation or your career more quickly than an accusation of racism. And it is precisely for these reasons -- the ugliness of real racism and the seriousness of accusations of racism -- that all of us should be careful not to throw the word around carelessly. When racial accusations are used to score political points, innocent people's reputations are damaged and real racism is dangerously minimized. If everything is racist, then ultimately nothing is. For example, when Harry Reid compared Republican opposition to the partisan health care bill to the racially-motivated opposition of Southern Democrats to the civil rights legislation of the 1960's, his comparision merely served to cheapen the monumental achievements of the civil rights movement.

Of course, Harry Reid's speech looks like nothing compared to Colbert King's flagrant race-baiting on the pages of the Washington Post (see 1st paragraph for link). King recounts the angry crowds in Alabama and Arkansas protesting racial integration of the schools in the 1950's, and then the vitriol of a David Duke rally in the early 1990's. He then explicitly claims that those demonstrations were the forerunners of the Tea Party movement: "Today's Tea Party adherents are George Wallace legacies." With a few strokes of a pen, King brands the entire Tea Party movement as a racist organization on par with segregationists and Klan members. (Remember, these claims are not from a Louis Farrakhan rally. They're from the Washington Post, supposedly a somewhat mainstream newspaper.)

OK, let's take a step back here. Why were Tea Party activists -- tens of thousands of them -- on Capitol Hill to protest last month? You could be forgiven for assuming from King's article that they were there to protest black voting rights or desegregation of schools, but in fact they were there to protest...a controversial health care bill. A health care bill that would dramatically increase government control over our health care system, that would cost well over a trillion dollars over 10 years, that was too long and complex to have even been read carefully by Congress members, that was being rammed through in an excessively partisan and corrupt manner, that was opposed by a clear majority of voters. The rally was the conclusion of nearly a year of nearly unprecedented political involvement by ordinary citizens across the country who expressed their passionate opposition to the Democrats' health care bill through town hall meetings, large and well-attended rallies, an outpouring of letters and phone calls to Congress, and consistent poll results. Congress had decided to ignore all of these political expressions of the will of the people and move ahead with a strictly party-line vote. Is it any surprise that the demonstrators on Capitol Hill were angry? Their anger was not against African-Americans and had nothing to do with race. It was against a Congress hell-bent on controlling health care at great cost to taxpayers.

Of course, Tea Party rallies have been occurring regularly all across the country for a year now, and are about much more than just health care. Talk to any Tea Party organizer, or ask any elected official sympathetic to the Tea Party movement, or listen to a sampling of the speeches given at Tea Party rallies, and you will find that this movement has nothing to do with race or racial prejudice. This movement is a grassroots response to a government that is becoming increasing unresponsive to the concerns of ordinary citizens. The Tea Parties are concerned about government spending that is out-of-control and filled with wasteful earmarks. They are concerned about a deficit that has tripled in President Obama's first year alone and that is increasing our debt to unsustainable levels that threaten the well-being of our children & grandchildren. They are concerned about recent government takeovers of the auto industry, the banking industry, the private mortgage industry, the health care industry, and the student loan industry, as well as future proposals that threaten the independence of energy companies, financial services companies, and radio stations. They are concerned about the increasing burdens of regulation and taxation being placed on businesses which are slowing our economic growth and keeping unemployment high. They are concerned about high taxes -- and proposals under consideration to raise taxes even further -- which are putting the squeeze on the middle and upper middle classes. They constantly talk about the Constitution and the Founding Fathers, who established a strictly limited federal government in order to maximize freedom for the states and the individual citizens, and they feel that our current government is running roughshod over the Constitution in order to maximize their own power and in so doing is threatening our individual freedoms. You tell me: are those racist concerns?

So, if King, Robinson, and others are going to brand a movement as "racist" when its stated goal is explicitly non-racial and non-racist -- then they had better have solid evidence to make this claim. They had better provide proof. So let's examine their "proof":

1. The protestors are predominantly white. This does not prove anything about the racial motivations of the protestors. White voters tend to be more conservative politically than other voters, so it's not a surprise that a conservative-leaning movement would be largely white. But the fact is, there are black and Hispanic people that identify with the Tea Party movement as well. A Gallup Poll found that 79% of Tea Party members are white, 6% are black, and 15% are part of other racial categories. If the Tea Party were about white supremacy, would thousands of its members be black? Prominent black conservatives like Ward Connerly, Thomas Sowell, and Michael Steele have defended the Tea Party movement. I also saw an interview with an African-American Tea Party activist named Kevin Jackson who has attended over 80 Tea Party events, and he insists that the movement is definitely not racist, that he has never seen violence at any Tea Party event, and that he and other black conservatives have always been warmly welcomed.

2. The protestors are angry. In King's words, "They, like [George] Wallace's followers, smolder with anger. They fear they are being driven from their rightful place in America." Well, yes, the protestors are angry. Generally, if you're not upset about something, you're not going to go to the trouble to attend a rally. The anti-war protestors so ubiquitous during the Bush Administration were also angry. Were they racist too? King assumes the reasons for this anger are racially motivated, but provides no evidence for this other than mentioning a few angry signs.

3. The protestors carry angry signs. After dramatically comparing Tea Partiers to segregationists, King cites one sign as evidence: "If Brown [Scott Brown (R-Mass.)] can't stop it, a Browning [high power weapon] can." One would think at such a well-attended white supremacist rally, King could find something a little more explicitly racial than that. Another article by someone named Robert Paul Reyes (link to article in 1st paragraph) also insists that the Tea Partiers are racists and provides the following two sign messages as evidence: "Send wetbacks back to Mexico!" and "Fight Crime, Deport Illegals." The second sign is certainly not racist, unless you happen to believe that people who think U.S. immigration laws should be enforced are racist. The first sign possibly displays some prejudice against Mexicans, but the primary anger seems to be over illegal immigration coming over the border from Mexico. The article cited in the 1st paragraph by Eugene Robinson mentions the phrases "socialism," "new revolution," and "take America back" as other inflammatory and hateful rhetoric used by Tea Partiers. Again, is this the best Robinson can do? The Democrats' attempts to give the government control over entire private industries (as mentioned above) certainly at the very least takes us in the direction of socialism, not to mention the self-described socalists in high-level positions in the Obama Administration. "New revolution" and "take America back" are normal terms used by protestors and were commonly used by the Democrats against Bush in 2004 and 2006. In fact, "take America back" was a slogan of Howard Dean's. Not one of these terms are in any way racial or violent. Other opponents of the Tea Parties have pointed out signs that portray Obama as the Joker or as Hitler. This rhetoric is not racial, as these very same claims were made about President Bush repeatedly. I can't even count the number of times I have heard Bush and other conservatives compared to Hitler, the Nazis, and the Gestapo, and a cartoon of Bush as the Joker actually appeared on the cover of Vanity Fair magazine during his presidency. With all those supposedly racist people waving signs, nobody has seemed to find a single sign that is explicitly racist.

4. The protestors shout racist epithets. At the big Tea Party rally on Capitol Hill the day of the health care vote, numerous racist claims were made about the behavior of the crowd. During the rally, Nancy Pelosi and a number of other House Democrats, including several black Democrats, deliberately chose to walk right through the middle of the crowd, even though there was no need for them to do so. It appears obvious that they were trying to stir up the crowd to say or do something inappropriate so they could use it for political purposes. As they did so, one black congressman claimed he was spit on, another black congressman claimed he was called the "n" word, and another black congressman claimed he heard the crowd repeatedly chanting the "n" word. Even though many, many people were videotaping the rally and the congressmen as they walked through, including Jesse Jackson, Jr., the videotapes revealed not a single racist word or action throughout the entire rally. The videotapes clearly showed that the black congressman was not deliberately spit on as he claimed. He walked up to a protestor and the protestor was screaming at him and accidentally sprayed saliva in his direction as she was screaming. The videotapes also failed to capture even a single incident of the "n" word or of any other racial threats. If the crowd was really chanting the "n" word repeatedly as the Democrats claimed, wouldn't somebody's videotape have picked it up? Andrew Breitbart of biggovernment.com has offered a $100,000 reward to anyone who could provide video evidence of racism at the rally, but no one has been able to provide that evidence. The bottom line is that there is no evidence that anything racially inappropriate was said or done at any point in the rally, despite the best attempts of the Democrats to provoke the crowd.

5. The protestors promote and even engage in violence. Robinson makes a big deal of this in his editorial. He points to a comment by Sarah Palin on Twitter: "Commonsense Conservatives & lovers of America: Don’t Retreat, Instead—RELOAD!" The idea that Sarah Palin was encouraging physical violence against anyone with this comment is laughable. She was merely encouraging conservatives to continue to fight Obama's liberal agenda. Robinson cites a story about someone leaving a coffin in the yard of a member of Congress, which later was proved to be false. And yes, there were a few random threats against members of Congress and a few random acts of violence against political offices -- which is not all that uncommon. But there is no proof that any of these acts were connected to the Tea Party movement. And there were also threats against Republican congressmen -- in fact a Philadelphia man was actually arrested for threatening to kill Republican Minority Whip Eric Cantor. There were some more orchestrated acts of violence that occurred at the Republican Convention in 2008 which actually sent Republican convention delegates to the hospital, but the press barely covered that. Worst of all, Robinson blames Republican and Tea Party leaders for not trying to stop the violence, even though the Republican leadership and the Tea Party leadership both spoke out strongly against it. Robinson cites some unknown blogger in Alabama who has been advocating violence against the Democrats, despite the fact that this nut has virtually no following and has no connection to the Republican Party or the Tea Party movement. The fact is that the Tea Party rallies have been remarkably civil and peaceful. Unlike liberal protests such as the one at the G20 meeting in Pittsburgh last year or the one against the World Trade Organization in Seattle in 1999, there have been no documented acts of violence committed by people attending the Tea Party rallies. Democrats talk about "attitudes and speech that may encourage violence" because they can't point to any actual violence that has been committed.

6. The protestors are racist because some liberal black authors have a sixth sense that they are. I'm not even kidding. That's what Reyes said in the article linked to above. He admits they claim to merely be conservative but insists he can "sniff out" their latent racism. He assumes with no evidence that the Tea Partiers don't like health care reform because a disproportionate number of minorities lack health insurance and Tea Partiers want to keep "minorities in their place." He goes on to say that the blacks who have joined the Tea Party movement "are traitors to their race and the two ideals of democracy and liberty, and they deserve to be called 'Uncle Toms'." Apparently Mr. Reyes has appointed himself the arbiter of who is "really" black and who isn't. If you don't share his liberal political views, then you have betrayed your skin color and don't deserve to be called black. I can't believe that African-Americans don't find this kind of language deeply insulting.

The bottom line is that any kind of political speech can be painted as inflammatory. Protests, by their very nature, attract people with strongly held, passionate views. Yet, the heart of our Constitution is our 1st Amendment right to free speech. It is not wrong or dangerous for ordinary citizens to protest, wave signs, or attend town hall meetings in order to express their opinion. It is not wrong for citizens to criticize their government. In fact, it is a healthy part of our democracy. For years, liberals told us that "dissent is the highest form of patriotism." For years, we saw protestors waving anti-war signs and screaming about Bush being a threat to democracy. And we accepted that as part of what makes this country great.

But now, it seems, liberals can no longer tolerate dissent because it is against them and their agenda. With help from their friends in the media, they are doing everything they can to discredit the Tea Party movement because they know it poses a threat to their political future. And sadly, they are willing to even stoop to playing the race card in order to achieve that goal. It is sad because false racial accusations are harmful to our country. They exacerbate racial tensions and increase distrust between whites and blacks. Tea Partiers are angry because they are being falsely accused, and African-Americans are angry because they are being told that a large portion of this country is motivated by racism. These race-baiters on the editorial page of the Washington Post, as well as other newspapers around the country, are committing lies and slander that could poison race relations in this country for years to come.

Sarah Palin Goes Rogue

Sarah Palin's new book Going Rogue has hit the bookstores, and she is putting herself front and center with numerous high-profile interviews and public appearances around the country. Her book is already a New York Times bestseller, and she attracts large, enthusiastic crowds wherever she goes. Speculation is swirling about the possibility of a presidential run in 2012. Certainly, there are few political figures who attract this much attention.

But obviously, much of the attention is less than positive. Because there is probably no other political figure in recent memory who has been more viciously attacked and hated than Sarah Palin. Within days of her surprising ascension to the GOP vice-presidential ticket, the non-partisan media began slamming her. They sent hordes of journalists to Alaska to try to dig up dirt from her past (how many journalists do you think they sent to investigate Obama's Chicago thug ties?). They accused her of censoring library books while mayor of Wasilla and gleefully jumped on an obviously politically-motivated ethics investigation against her in Alaska. (Both stories were later proved to be completely bogus.) They slammed her for going back to work as governor of Alaska within days of the birth of her son, and authoritatively pronounced that she had no right to be running for vice-president when she had a special-needs child she should be attending to (remember, a woman's place is in the home!). They ridiculed her for her small town accent and her colloquialisms. The major networks got their top anchors to belittle her in condescending interviews (Charlie Gibson) and to ask her "gotcha" questions to try to embarrass her (Katie Couric). They smeared her family and accused her of negligence because her teenage daughter was pregnant. They made nasty insinuations that one of her kids was really her daughter's kid. They relentlessly attacked her for being badly unqualified for the vice-presidency, conveniently ignoring the fact that Obama was just as unqualified -- and was running for an even higher position! And of course, they enlisted a slew of Hollywood celebrities to add their opinion of her, using the requisite four-letter words. Even George W. Bush wasn't treated that badly -- and that's saying something. All this, of course, was in contradistinction to Barack Obama, The Chosen One, who got relentlessly positive press coverage despite ties to some very questionable people (Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko).

Now Sarah Palin is out to remake her reputation. She is telling the world about the way that the McCain team treated her and how they kept her from being herself during the 2008 campaign. She is speaking out on issues she cares about. And what is the result? The usual suspects are up to their old tricks. In her interview with Barbara Walters, the video camera zoomed in as close as possible to her face, a well-known device used to try to make someone appear less honest. Newsweek did a cover hit piece article on her with this even-handed title: "How Do You Solve a Problem Like Sarah? She's Bad News for the GOP -- and For Everybody Else, Too." Of course, the cover had a photo of her in short shorts taken for a running magazine -- intended to marginalize her to the status of a model rather than a serious political figure. The Associated Press hired eleven factcheckers to analyze her new book, page by page, for errors. (How many factcheckers do you think they hired for Obama's book? Zero.) Martha Stewart remarked that she was a "very dangerous" person, while comedian George Lopez showed his funny side by calling her a "piece of ****" and making obscene comments about her daughter. Oh, and of course, they slam her for daring to defend herself too. As Alan Colmes so wisely pointed out on the O'Reilly Factor, her book is full of whining and playing the victim. You see, the media has the right to declare open season on Palin, but she must never, under any circumstances, attempt to reply to any of the attacks. Because then she is "playing the victim"!

Here's the bottom line: the media and the Democrats hate Sarah Palin because she is a beautiful, successful, Republican woman. She exemplifies every value they hate: evangelical Christianity, pro-life beliefs, small-town values, a traditional family, and unapologetically conservative views. From the moment she came onto the national stage, our elite liberal institutions determined to destroy her reputation beyond hope of recovery. And they have done everything in their power to carry out that determination. She's not the first person the media has done this to -- Dan Quayle comes to mind -- but the frenzy of hate is unprecedented.

Now don't get me wrong -- Sarah Palin did not run a flawless campaign in 2008, and some of her mistakes played into the image the mainstream media created for her. They were understandable, given her sudden and unexpected thrust into the limelight, but that didn't change the harm to her reputation. Even many conservatives are wary of her. To speak up for Sarah Palin is to invite ridicule in most cases. But I think it's important for conservatives to realize that the prevailing image of Sarah Palin is not an accurate one. It's an image completely fabricated by the media. And if they can do that to Palin, they can do that to any conservative. Instead of jumping on the bash-Palin bandwagon, conservatives should speak out against the vicious and unfair attacks against her. Palin's reputation may be ruined to such an extent that it would be unwise to nominate her for president in 2012. But that certainly shouldn't stop us from fighting for truth. The embarrassment here is not Sarah Palin. The embarrassment is our mainstream media, which has given up even the pretense of objectivity.

Free Press 1; Obama 0

Another blow to Obama-style Communism....

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/23/white-house-loses-bid-exclude-fox-news-pay-czar-interview/.

Obama vs. Fox News

The good news is that Barack Obama has suddenly grown a backbone and is demonstrating his ability to get tough with his enemies. The bad news is that his administration has not gotten tough against Al Qaeda, or Hamas, or Iran, or North Korea, or the Taliban, or Venezuela, or other dangerous enemies of the U.S. No! Obama has decided to focus his administration's full attention and firepower on the REAL enemy of the U.S. -- the Fox News Channel! It's about time this administration recognized and confronted real evil in the world.

Over the past couple of weeks, numerous top-level White House operatives have taken to the airwaves and the news pages of this country to condemn the Fox News Channel. These top-level operatives include Communications Director Anita Dunn, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, and Obama's closest political advisor David Axelrod. Even Obama himself has singled out Fox News for attacks on more than one occasion (which is more can be said about his public statements about Iran). The Fox News Channel has committed an unforgivable offense. They refuse to let the White House control them and they are -- oh the horror! -- willing to report news stories that might reflect negatively on the Chosen One. How dare they be an independent voice instead of being clones of all the other "good" networks upon which Obama has graciously deigned to give his stamp of approval! The president is shocked -- shocked! -- that Fox News refuses to be a clone of CNN and MSNBC and ABC News and CBS News and NBC News and The New York Times and Newsweek and all the other lapdog media outlets. Thankfully, Obama's minions are out in full force to helpfully inform Americans which news networks they should be listening to. Obama does not yet have the full powers needed to completely shut down uncooperative news sources the way his "amigo" Hugo Chavez does, but registering his strong disapproval is a good start!

There's a reason why Fox News has become Public Enemy #1 in the Obama Administration's quest to keep America safe and sedated. Fox News is the only TV news network standing in the way of Obama's quest to "transform" America (his words, not mine). How many news networks reported the Van Jones story? One -- Fox News. (Remember, having a open racist and Communist in a top-level White House position is NOT news.) Which news network broke the ACORN scandal and was the only one to report on it and show the videos for at least the first couple of days? Fox News. How many news networks reported the truth about Obama's radical czars -- John Holdren, Kevin Jennings, Cass Sunstein, etc.? One -- Fox News. How many news networks reported Obama's dropping of charges against Black Panthers who engaged in voter intimidation tactics in Philadelphia? One -- Fox News. How many news networks are reporting the fact that a top-level Obama Administration official gave a speech praising mass murderer Mao Zedung as one of her inspirations? One -- Fox News. The list goes on and on. Fox News is simply the only network that will report news stories that are unfavorable to the White House; the other networks simply bury obvious news stories that are politically harmful to Obama. No wonder Obama wants to destroy Fox News. To destroy Fox News would be a huge step toward squelching all opposition to his policies and creating a universally docile and submissive television media. (Pravda, anyone?)

Am I the only one who finds it shocking that a President of the United States is using his power and influence to try to silence a free and independent media outlet that is simply doing its job as a public watchdog and reporting obvious news stories that the President happens not to like? I know Obama is helping the waters to recede and the planet to heal and all, but should he really be using his power and influence to go after news agencies he doesn't like? With the exception of Nixon, this is unprecedented in modern American political history (although somewhat more popular among the Soviets). Previous presidents have complained about general media bias or specific news stories - but never have we seen an all-out blitz against a specific network. And then of course, there is the Fairness Doctrine, a proposal supported by Obama and many Democrats. This is a blatant attempt to shut down free speech and destroy successful radio talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin by forcing radio stations and programs to present "all points of view" and be "balanced." And who exactly sets the standard for what is "balanced"? Why, the government, of course! Mao Zedung, the hero of Obama's Communications Director, would be proud.

The good news is: the American public is not interested in having Obama tell them who to get their news from. Fox News is CRUSHING its opposition in the ratings. I'm talking more than twice the primetime ratings of MSNBC & CNN put together! That's dominance. And half of Fox News viewers are independents or Democrats. Thankfully, Fox News is courageously standing up to the President and the rest of the media, and they are being rewarded by the American people who still believe in freedom of the press.

Rush Limbaugh & Racism

I was discussing the news story about Rush Limbaugh participating in a bid to purchase the St. Louis Rams franchise with a co-worker yesterday. (Rush has since abandoned the bid.) The thing that struck me about the conversation was my co-worker's casual assertion, "Rush Limbaugh is a racist."

Now there are a number of bogus racist quotations being attributed to Rush Limbaugh, including particularly outrageous ones where Limbaugh supposedly defends slavery and uses racially charged language about the NAACP. There is not a shred of documentation or evidence that Limbaugh ever made these comments. They were supposedly made years ago to a radio audience that numbers 20 million per week, which begs the question why they are only coming out now. Limbaugh has flatly denied ever making them. Yet CNN & MSNBC continue to report these and other unsourced quotes about Limbaugh as fact. It is not Rush Limbaugh's responsibility to prove he didn't say something. It is the media's responsibility to prove he did say it -- and to prove that it is being presented fairly in context. And they can't.

The only "racist" quote about Limbaugh that can be proved was his statement as a sports commentator for ESPN six years ago, in which Limbaugh accused the media of overlooking Donovan McNabb's incompetence as a quarterback because they wanted a black quarterback to succeed. Now I will readily concede that this statement was stupid and insensitive, but racist? This, by itself, seems very shaky evidence to build a case against Rush Limbaugh of being racist, considering that his daily radio show sidekick (Mr. Snerdley) and one of his guest-hosts (Walter Williams) are both black. The truth is, for someone as outspoken as Rush Limbaugh who has been on the radio 3 hours per day every day for decades, it is pretty easy to dig up a few old quotes, take them out of context, and magically produce evidence of racism.

I think this issue goes far beyond Rush Limbaugh. "Racism" has become a cheap word that is thrown around with little thought or evidence behind it. The New York Times accused Joe Wilson of being a racist simply for (correctly) saying the words "You lie!" to a president who happens to be black. Several famous people, including Jimmy Carter and Bill Cosby, have accused opponents of President Obama's health care plan of being primarily motivated by racism. Singer Dave Matthews has gone on record saying that large swaths of the American people are racist. Where is the evidence for any of these accusations? Is it now racist simply to oppose the policies of the president? Has "racism" now become a synonym for "Republican" or "conservative"?

There are two really bad results of this misuse of the word "racist." One is that the reputations of many good people are being destroyed. Once you are branded a "racist," it is often very hard to shake that label -- even if the accusations are completely unfair. All you have to do is make a politically incorrect joke that is misinterpreted by someone or a controversial statement that is taken out of context -- and suddenly you are a hateful bigot to be shunned by polite society.

The other sad result of this misuse of the word "racist" is that real racism is minimized and cheapened. Racism is a particularly ugly form of prejudice that is still very much present in our society. Unfortunately, when everyone is crying "racism" at the drop of a hat, it is hard to recognize and confront racism for what it really is. People are afraid to discuss racial issues honestly and openly because they think they will be accused of bigotry themselves. And so racial prejudice simmers under the surface and becomes even more deadly.