Well, it’s never too late to say you’re sorry.  A newly launched website aims to provide a forum for Obama voters who are currently experiencing buyer’s remorse.  So, if you voted for The Messiah, and you want to contribute a story of about yourself or about someone you know that tells America that you are sorry you voted for Obama, or that that other someone is sorry he or she voted for Obama, post it here! 

Not an Obama voter?  No sweat!  

You can still sign the form and tell the website about a friend or co-worker who is now ashamed of how he or she voted. Given the latest debacle over health care, there must be plenty of these types of people. Oh those poor souls.

The bottom line is that everyone knows someone who is avoiding telling people how they voted. You have probably seen people take off their Obama bumper stickers, banners, and pins. You might have noticed they are rather quiet these days.

This website is your chance to provide an intervention and rehabilitate these former Obama voters!

Remember, it’s never too late to say you’re sorry!

• View 6 Comments...

For those liberals who maintain that former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is less than intelligent or a non-factor in 2012 (or both), they should consider what just occurred over the past two weeks regarding the debate over ObamaCare.

Palin not only hijacked the debate over health care, she practically forced the Democrats to reconsider the very foundation of their bill with a silkiness that would make Ronald Reagan proud. She also earned a legislative victory over Obama despite being an unelected official who some pundits have written off as irrelevant.

On Friday, August 7, Palin claimed, on her Facebook page, that “[t]he America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.”

The section Palin referred to, Section 1233 (titled “Advance Care Planning Consultation”), authorizes advanced care planning consultations for senior citizens on Medicare every five years and requires that physicians explain “the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice,” and the government benefits available to pay for such services.

Since that statement, the focus in the health care debate shifted from protests regarding a government takeover of health care to a deafening cry that the elderly would be euthanized. (See, for example, here and here.)

Several columnists addressed the “death panel” allegation, including a few—like Charles Lane, Mickey Kaus, and Eugene Robinson—who lent it some legitimate credibility.

Even our favorite funny men, including John Stewart and Stephen Colbert, addressed the topic.

Then . . . hell froze over when, out of left field, President Obama attempted to discredit Palin’s “death panel” claim. In a town hall meeting last week, he stated, “The rumor that has been circulating a lot lately is this idea that somehow the house of representatives voted for death panels that will basically pull the plug on grandma because we decided that we don’t – it’s too expensive to let her live anymore. I am not in favor of that.”

Look, when the President of the United States says the words “death panels” and “pull the plug on grandma” in the same sentence, he is obviously losing the battle.

Palin didn’t shy away from the criticism. She doubled down on her “death panel” assertion last week.

Then, this past Friday, just two days after Palin’s latest comments, and just about a week and a half after her initial “death panel” allegation, there was chatter that the Democrats decided to remove section 1233. And, just today, it appears the Democrats are dropping the public option altogether.

How does an unelected politician from Alaska who was ridiculed ad nauseum by liberal bloggers, columnists, anchors, and commentators and skewered on Saturday Night Live shift the health debate with just a few words? Moreover, how does she actually WIN the debate? And against an allegedly brilliant politician like Obama?

This woman clearly has the charisma many politicians wish they could buy. She rejuvenated Senator John McCain’s campaign, and many conservative voters believe she significantly helped the ticket. Yet who would have thought she could have such a dramatic effect on American politics without an official pulpit from which to lead?

The answer lies, first, in her ability to attract attention from both sides. When Palin speaks, people listen. Those on the right love her charisma and adherence to conservative values. Those on the left jump at the chance to ridicule her. (Why? What are they so afraid of?)

In addition, Palin chose the right words to ignite the debate. She vividly described an Orwellian future that most Americans fear. Couple that with the fact that section 1233 comes dangerously close to creating a framework similar to Britain’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), which sets cost controls on health care based on how much one year of a person’s life is worth, and you have a foundation upon which ordinary Americans will make their opposition felt.

These past two weeks, Palin demonstrated a keen understanding of how to communicate an effective message that alerts and persuades the American people. If she can do this with any regularity (and if Obama continues to attempt to ram socialist policies down our collective throats), she can take the country by storm in 2012. Whether liberals think she is stupid or irrelevant, they had better take notes. Palin is more relevant today than she was when McCain selected her as his running mate.

Oh, and given what happened the past two weeks, liberals might want to try a different strategy because ad hominem attacks like calling her “stupid” clearly haven’t worked.

• View 3 Comments...

A heated exchange ensued today between Fox News White House Correspondent Major Garrett and Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.

The issue was the following: Garrett received e-mails forwarded by citizens who claimed they received the e-mails from the White House (specifically, David Axelrod) re: health care.  The problem is that these citizens claim they had never signed up for anything via whitehouse.gov, the Obama campaign, or any other Obama entity or outfit with their own e-mail addresses.

So . . . how did they get these e-mail addresses?  It’s a question worth asking, and Garrett gives Gibbs everything he’s got and more.  And Gibbs does his slithery best to get out of the conundrum:

• Be the first to comment...

Lost amid the battle between opponents of Obamacare and the Democrats is an explanation of why single-payer health care is a bad idea.  Protesters at these town hall meetings refer to government rationing of care and the argument that the government is incapable of running our health care system, but no one has offered the reasons why a movement towards a single-payer health care system would be a disaster.

Make no mistake: this health care bill will eventually move us towards a single-payer system.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi admitted as much.  And President Obama favors such a system.

Yet here are the specific reasons why single-payer health care does not and will not work:

Problem 1: It inevitably must ration care.

A single-payer system is a “free-for-all system,” where costs are driven up.  Patients over-consume health services because they don’t have to pay for them, and, thus, providers must oversupply those services.  The only way a government can deal with overconsumption and oversupply is to ration those services through waiting lists.

Canada’s health care system, for example, illustrates this very point: everyone in Canada’s public system must wait for practically any procedure or diagnostic test or specialist consultation.  Moreover, in the long term, access to care will decrease more substantially because the prospect of lower compensation (see below) and lower lifetime earnings reduces the incentive for talented people to choose careers in health care.

Problem 2: It would not save money.

When has our government ever saved money?  Social Security is essentially bankrupt.  Medicare will soon be bankrupt.  So will Medicaid.  These programs don’t save money and, instead, lose a lot of it because of the amount of fraud and, more importantly, the overuse they incentivize.  Overuse is the real cause of rising health care costs.

After all, when something is free and you feel like you need it, would you ever stop asking for it?  Moreover, as long as doctors are paid for providing you with that free service, why would they stop providing it?  The same scenario would exist with a single-payer health care system.  Overuse of services (again, because they are free) would limit any potential savings and eventually bankrupt the system.

Moreover, any analysis of costs savings by a government-run system is always misleading.  Comparisons between private sector costs and the costs of a single-payer system usually exclude many government administrative expenses, such as the costs of collecting the taxes needed to fund the system and the salaries of politicians and their staff members who set health care policy.  By contrast, the salary costs of executives and boards of directors who set insurance companies’ policies are included in private sector costs.  A government is somewhat immune to the free-market bottom lines that private sector companies deal with annually.  Government doesn’t have to account for every penny, and, thus, a lot is lost through the cracks.

Problem 3: Compensation for physicians and health care providers would decrease.

A single-payer system would substantially lower payments to physicians and health care providers compared to our current system.  For those of you who embrace class warfare and think this is a good idea, consider this: human beings are only so charitable.  Many will draw a line somewhere.  An individual spends almost an entire decade (and hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loans) studying to become a doctor, and that doesn’t even include college.  These people expect to be (and should be) compensated adequately for their effort and expertise.  Whatever you think of what they should be paid, if they don’t feel they are paid enough, they will find something else to do.  If doctors leave a profession that no longer pays well, the system will experience a reduction in the supply of active physicians.

That reduction, in turn, will impair access to health care and the quality of health care for everyone.

Problem 4: The quality of care would decrease.

Lower compensation for doctors will limit their ability to invest in advanced medical equipment and new technology, as well as the time they need to stay up to date with medical developments.  These limitations, too, will impact the quality of health care for everyone.

Problem 5: It would take medical decisions away from doctors and patients.

A single-payer system will insert the government into private decision-making.  Many provisions within the health care bill will slowly chip away an individual’s ability to make choices about everything from his or her private health insurance to actual decisions about medical care.

Now, who wants Uncle Sam telling you what insurance you should have or what treatment you should receive?  These are private decisions made by an individual and, often, with the private advice of a physician.  The government has no role or expertise in this area and should stay out.

Problem 6: It would hamper medical research.

A single-payer system would also reduce the rate of medical progress.  Recall (from above) that, because doctors will be compensated less, fewer talented people will pursue careers in medicine.  Fewer people receiving medical training decreases the supply of talented medical researchers and, thus, impairs medical research and progress.

Problem 7: The countries that have had single-payer systems for decades are slowly moving towards more private systems.

Canada, the United Kingdom, and even Sweden are slowly moving away from public systems of health care and allowing the private sector to take over.  In each of these countries, particularly Canada, their single-payer systems have been disasters.  Five-year cancer survival rates are higher in the U.S. than those in Canada.  Americans have greater access to preventive screening tests and have higher treatment rates for chronic illnesses.  Only half of emergency room patients are treated in a timely manner.  The physician shortage is so severe that some towns hold lotteries, where the winners gain access to a local doctor.

The most vivid indictment of Canada’s system might be the fact that Canada’s provincial governments rely on American medicine.  Between 2006 and 2008, Ontario sent more than 160 patients to New York and Michigan for emergency neurosurgery.  If Canada’s single-payer system is preferable to our own, why would they send us their patients?  (Hint: Because our system is better.)

These problems are likely only the beginning of what would happen to our health care if the Democrats have their way.  I believe a majority of the country already understands the dangers of this health care bill.  Details, however, are very important, and opponents of this bill must emphasize (to their Congressmen and fellow voters) the fatal drawbacks inherent in a single-payer system.

• View 1 Comment...

I would have refused President Obama’s invitation to have a beer at the White House.

Why?

Because I don’t want to be a pawn in Obama’s publicity stunt.  Let’s be clear: this is an opportunity for Obama to save face.  Regardless whether you think Crowley acted “stupidly,” or whether Gates acted irrationally, most people in the media and general public agree that the President of the United States has no business commenting on a small, local, and largely immaterial police arrest.  Yet he did, and it backfired, and now Obama feels the need to break bread with both sides in this dispute and massage egos in order to rehabilitate his own image.  I would rather let Obama make a fool of himself on his own and keep it from rubbing off on me.

Because Obama clearly has more important things to do.  This country is falling deeper into a recession.  Jobs are evaporating.  North Korea is firing missiles.  Iran is building a nuclear weapon.  We still have those two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The dollar continues to lose value.  Deficit spending is out of control.  We still don’t have a plan for finding alternative sources of energy.  And Obama has the time to have a beer at the White House with two private citizens?  Is he not as worried as we are about where the country is heading? 

Because I don’t want to be a distraction.  The President and the country have a lot on their plate.  I have no problem going on my merry way and allowing Obama the opportunity to do his job.  I also would rather not be part of the 24-hour news cycle for an extra couple of days.  I don’t mind my 15 minutes of fame, but 10-15 days of it is a little too much.

Because I am not going to apologize to Professor Gates.  The esteemed professor expects that I am going to apologize to him at the White House.  I will never apologize for doing my job.  Nor will I allow some insulated Harvard professor lecture me about how to perform it.   

Finally, because I don’t think Obama truly likes beer.  He is an elitist who has lived a charmed life and had everything spoon-fed to him.  I am a blue-collar, hard-working police officer.  I have worked for everything I’ve earned.  If I want a beer, I’ll go buy one.  Moreover, if I want to drink beer with someone, I’ll go throw a few back with my buddies in Cambridge, not some “hope and change” Messiah who thinks he can change the world simply by showing up.  People like Obama and his Ivy League circle of friends drink triple mocha lattes and wine, not beer.  Why should I help Obama pretend that he’s one of us when he’s not?

Thanks, but no thanks, Mr. President.

• View 2 Comments...

Imagine a scenario in which, in your old age, you are required to make periodic visits to your doctor to discuss your “end of life” options, including hospice and palliative care, powers of attorney, and how to modify or terminate life-sustaining treatment.  Moreover, if you have a serious or terminal illness, you are required to make these visits more frequently. 

This probably sounds like a scene from George Orwell’s 1984, but it’s actually a provision from the health care bill (H.R. 3200).  Section 1233 to be exact.

Is it any wonder that Rahm Emanuel was trying to get the House of Representative to vote on the health care bill this week: he and other top-ranking Democrats (including President Obama) wanted to ram the bill through before anyone knew what was in it.

Provisions like section 1233 would make George Washington throw up in his grave.  It effectively mandates physician consultations with the elderly that will educate them on how to die with dignity.

On page 425 of the bill, it requires an “advance care planning consultation” for the elderly if a similar consultation has not been conducted within the past five years.  This consultation concerns “the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice.”  It also focuses on “orders regarding life-sustaining treatment or similar orders.”

It also states, on page 428, that this consultation “may be conducted more frequently . . . if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual,” and then proceeds to list various general descriptions of terminal illnesses and conditions.

Section 1233 is a slick way of mandating consultations that educate the elderly on how to die with dignity.  In other words, euthanasia.

That is not a far-fetched interpretation of the bill.  Recall that it mandates these consultations and focuses on “end-of-life services,” including “orders regarding life-sustaining treatment.”  One of my liberal friends emphasized that this language specifies “life-sustaining treatment” and not terms like “euthanasia.”  But the complete phrase describes “orders regarding life-sustaining treatment.”

When someone goes into cardiac arrest at a hospital or falls into a coma, a doctor’s natural and legal inclination is to “sustain” that person’s life.  That effort continues until a person properly designated pursuant to a will or a will itself orders the doctor or doctors to cut off life-sustaining treatment.  These “orders” modify or terminate the treatment that is given, and they represent what section 1233’s language refers to: “orders regarding life-sustaining treatment” or orders that modify or terminate the life-sustaining treatment given to someone who is terminally ill. 

There may be nothing wrong with such orders.  But there is something sickeningly wrong when the federal government mandates consultations that educate the elderly regarding such orders.  Why do liberals feel the need to exert control over someone’s end-of-life planning?  What is behind this?

The answer is simple.  This health care bill has nothing to do with helping the uninsured.  Such compassionate motives do not appear to exist when you actually read this bill.  And I don’t think they ever existed at all.  This bill is about control.  And it makes perfect sense.  Any health care plan that dumps 100+ million people into a government-run, public option and that does not add a corresponding number of doctors into the mix inevitably has to ration out care.  Such a system must eliminate waste, and the most “waste” in the system results from the elderly, who account for most of the costs via their frequent checkups, tests, surgeries, and multiple life-sustaining devices (e.g., pacemakers, oxygen tanks, etc.).

Given the costs incurred by the elderly, I am not surprised that provisions like section 1233 were included in this bill.  It helps the government eliminate much of the “waste” in the system and attempt to bridge the gap between what this bill would cost and the revenue the government currently has.

One of the ways to bridge that gap is to place the elderly on a “fast track” of sorts when their days become numbered.  It is a perverted role for the government to assume, and it illustrates how important it is for Americans to understand what is in this bill and why it must be defeated.

• View 4 Comments...

I am not one for conspiracy theories, but where, exactly is the Barack Obama birth certificate?  Well, this wouldn’t be a conspiracy theory because we actually have proof of something here, (while no proof exists for the people who claim that 9/11 was an inside job).  The proof here is the absence of proof: we don’t have a birth certificate for the President.

World Net Daily provides an excellent rundown of the outstanding issues and facts regarding Obama’s birth certificate.  Among them are the following:

• Obama hasn’t produced an original birth certificate;
• The “certification of live birth” he did produce can also be executed for individuals not born in the U.S. . . . thus, it’s meaningless;
• He has claimed to have been born in two hospitals; and
• His grandmother claims he was born in Kenya.

It’s only logical that, if a growing movement of people and independent journalists and writers is questioning your eligibility to be President, you would simply produce the birth certificate and shut them up, right?  Right??  Am I missing something here? 

There is currently an online petition with close to 400,000 signatures demanding the release of the now-famous Barack Obama birth certificate.

Like I said, here at Conservative Command, we don’t advance conspiracy theories, but the silence from the Obama camp is deafening.  This is supposed to be an historic presidency: America’s first black president.  Why not silence the doubters and show that, not only can America elect a black president, but it can also elect a legitimate and eligible black president.

As this engine for Obama’s birth certificate gains steam, I continue to wonder just who this man in anyway.  We don’t know nearly as much about him as we did about our past presidents.  What is it about this guy?  He championed transparency during his campaign, and now he’s playing everything close to the vest.  Is he some sort of Manchurian Candidate?

I certainly hope not.  

But, seriously, where is the Barack Obama birth certificate?? 

If you like this post, please consider subscribing to my full RSS feed.  You can also subscribe by e-mail and have a copy of each new post automatically delivered to your inbox.

• View 4 Comments...

Let me make this clear.  Here, at Conservative Command, we love Sarah Palin.  We love her for many reasons.  She is one of the first politicians in recent memory with whom you could identify.  She didn’t hail from some Ivy League bastion of elitism.  Nor did she pretend to.  She didn’t try to impress anyone with her vocabulary.  She was a wife, a mom, and a grandmother.  She believed in life and lived out her moral code by giving birth to a Down syndrome baby, Trig.  More than anything, she was just so freakishly normal. 

Friday’s announcement is painful because it seems we’ve lost the most normal politician on the market.  Mark Steyn said it best: “National office will dwindle down to the unhealthily singleminded (Clinton, Obama), the timeserving smirs of Incumbistan (Biden, McCain), and dynastic heirs (Bush).  Our loss.”

It is, indeed, our loss.  She electrified a conservative base in 2008 that desperately needed energy.  And she did so despite a media machine intent on destroying her at every turn.  She may have looked like a fish out of water at certain junctures but that simply heightened her appeal to voters and exposed media lapdogs like Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson for what they were and still are: Obama cheerleaders. 

Had she run in 2012, she certainly would have been a frontrunner for the top of the Republican ticket.  By stepping down as Alaska’s governor, some say she may have foreclosed any chance at 2012 and beyond.

Or did she?

If there is one thing Palin isn’t, it’s conventional.  She challenged a corrupt political machine in Alaska, including her own fellow Republicans, and won.  She connected with voters (including the 20,000 that showed up to her campaign rallies with McCain) because she was nothing like your typical politician.

That is why I don’t think we’ve seen the last of her.  I believe that for two reasons:

First, by resigning, she remained consistent with her own political philosophy: fiscal restraint and putting the people first.  In her statement on Friday, she claimed that, by defending herself against the 15+ ethics complaints filed against her, “[t]he state has wasted thousands of hours of [taxpayers'] time and shelled out some 2 million of [taxpayer] dollars to respond to opposition research.  Moreover, her family was “looking at more than half a million dollars in legal bills just in order to set the record straight.”  She also stated that her “staff and [she] spend most of our day dealing with this instead of progressing [Alaska].  I know I promised no more ‘politics as usual,’ but this isn’t what anyone had in mind for Alaska.”  Devoting so much time to these ethics complaints prohibits her from performing her own job as governor. 

If all this is true, I don’t blame her for stepping down because continuing along this path doesn’t benefit Alaska.  To do what’s best for Alaska, perhaps the most logical thing is to walk away, as strange as that sounds.  The best way to explain this is through Palin’s own basketball analogy: A “good point guard drives through a full court press, protecting the ball, keeping her eye on the basket… and she knows exactly when to pass the ball so that the team can win.  And I’m doing that-keeping our eye on the ball that represents sound priorities-smaller government, energy independence, national security, freedom!  And I know when it’s time to pass the ball-for victory.”

I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt.  She’s not quitting politics or running away from the job.  She’s merely doing what’s best for Alaska.  Which leads me to my next point . . .

Second, in her remarks, she also stated that she wanted to “effect positive change outside government at this moment in time, on another scale, and actually make a difference for our priorities-and so we will, for Alaskans and for Americans.” 

This sentence represents clear proof that she isn’t leaving politics.  She has her eyes on something much higher.  Maybe before August 2008, she didn’t think she had a chance because no one knew who she was.  But, after McCain picked her as his running mate, she probably realized that, given her philosophy and her appeal, she has a chance to make a difference right away for conservatives and the country.

Let’s be honest: she can’t make an immediate difference thousands of miles away in Alaska.  (No offense to Alaska.  I’ve been there, and it’s a beautiful place.)  To those who say she should have finished out her term, my question is why?  Why should she finish her term and limit her effect to Alaska when she can have a wider impact on all Americans.  Moreover, she now has the freedom to focus on the rest of the country without neglecting her job as governor.

Bill Kristol makes a great point: “If Palin wants to run in 2012, why not do exactly what she announced today?  It’s an enormous gamble-but it could be a shrewd one.  After all, she’s freeing herself from the duties of the governorship.  Now she can do her book, give speeches, travel the country and the world, campaign for others, meet people, get more educated on the issues-and without being criticized for neglecting her duties in Alaska.  I suppose she’ll take a hit for leaving the governorship early-but how much of one?  She’s probably accomplished most of what she was going to get done as governor, and is leaving a sympatico lieutenant governor in charge.”

Well said.  And I agree that conservatives will continue to adore her despite the perception that she has left Alaska out to dry.

I think Palin wants to change America . . . for good, that is.  And she doesn’t want to wait.  2012 is a golden opportunity to throw these liberals out of office and return this country to its founding values: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Why plan for 2016 or 2020 when there is such a void right now? 

I think Palin will be a major player in 2012.  Friday’s announcement, while risky, could be a brilliant move. 

If you like this post, please consider subscribing to my full RSS feed.  You can also subscribe by e-mail and have a copy of each new post automatically delivered to your inbox.

• View 6 Comments...

In my hometown newspaper, The Miami Herald, I derive some joy every now and then from one of its many liberal columnists, Leonard Pitts.  I experienced one of those moments about two weeks ago. 

In Pitts’ June 21st column (GOP blind to its race problem), he misrepresented the truth about racism in America by advancing baseless myths.  Contrary to his assertions, racism in the U.S. has traditionally been practiced and preached by the Democrat Party.   

Pitts argued that President Lyndon Johnson’s signing of the 1965 Voting Rights Act motivated racist Southern Democrats to leave their party and form the “modern GOP.”  In The End of Southern Exceptionalism, political scientists Richard Johnston and Byron Shafer debunk this myth and establish that the south’s transformation into a Republican stronghold resulted from economics, not race.  The south saw the growth of an upper middle class whose members believed their economic interests were better served by Republicans.  Thus, perceived racial prejudices were mere economic preferences, which many Republicans use to inform their votes today.

Pitts also argued that the GOP is racist, relying on comments from unidentified persons that do not represent any such party-wide racism beyond the bigotries of those few trivial individuals.  Pitts ignored American history, which illustrates that Republicans persistently fought racism while Democrats actively promoted it. 

The Republican Party was founded in 1854 as the anti-slavery party.  It was Republican President Abraham Lincoln who signed the Emancipation Proclamation and a Republican-controlled Congress that introduced and passed the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery, and passed the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, the 1866 Civil Rights Act, and the 1867 Reconstruction Act to protect the rights of blacks.

In the 20th century, it was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed Congress to pass the 1957 Civil Rights Act and opposed segregation in Arkansas schools and the military.  It was Republican Senator Everett Dirksen who drafted several critical civil rights legislations.  In fact, President Johnson could not have signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act without the support of congressional Republicans, who broke the Democrats’ filibuster and 80% of whom voted for the bill.  (Just 63% of a large Democrat majority voted for it.)    

Republicans also founded the NAACP and many black colleges and universities, including Howard University, Spelman College, and Morehouse College.  And it was Republican President Richard Nixon’s 1969 Philadelphia Plan, (crafted by Arthur Fletcher, a black Republican known as the “father of affirmative action”), that implemented America’s first affirmative action program.

Democrats, by contrast, fought to keep blacks enslaved, passed the Jim Crow laws and Black Codes to segregate blacks and limit their rights, started the Ku Klux Klan, and opposed every civil rights law from the 1860s to the 1960s.  Democrats also produced a 20th century president (Woodrow Wilson) who was a white supremacist.

The civil rights efforts of Dr. Martin Luther King, whose niece confirmed he was a Republican in a 2008 article, met bitter opposition from well-known Democrats.  Public Safety Commissioner Eugene Conner unleashed dogs and fire hoses on King and other protesters; Georgia Governor Lester Maddox waived ax handles to keep blacks out of his restaurant; and Alabama Governor George Wallace blocked the doors of an Alabama schoolhouse with supportive shouts for segregation.  It was also President Johnson, who referred to King as “that Nigger preacher.”

Even John F. Kennedy, lauded today as a civil rights proponent, voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act as a senator.  So did Democrat Senator Al Gore, Sr.  President Kennedy also opposed King’s 1963 March on Washington (organized by A. Phillip Randolph, a black Republican) and ordered the FBI to wiretap and investigate King.

Even today’s racist rhetoric belongs to Democrats.  It was Democrats who consistently asked whether President Obama was authentically black, and it was our current Vice President who referred to Obama as “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean.”      

Pitts is entitled to his opinion, but ignoring history and disparaging the party that fought relentlessly for his ancestors’ rights is irresponsible and offensive.  He should thank the GOP and its emphasis on freedom for the rights he enjoys today.

If you like this post, please consider subscribing to my full RSS feed.  You can also subscribe by e-mail and have a copy of each new post automatically delivered to your inbox.

• View 1 Comment...

I’ll raise my hand sky high.  Paul Krugman fashions himself as an elite intellectual pushing new and innovative financial and economic ideas on the Op-Ed page of The New York Times.  Yet every time he puts pen to paper, he comes off sounding like any other daft liberal with nothing to offer except partisan insults.

Take Sunday’s column for instance, in which he trashes the numerous tea parties being held tomorrow across the country.  Krugman doesn’t offer any substantive critique or opposition to these tea parties or the GOP’s counter-argument to the Obama administration’s insane spending.  Instead, he comfortably resorts to calling the GOP “crazy” and mocks the tea parties.

Krugman labels the Republicans “embarrassing to watch” and, with a breath of rarified air, claims that the “real policy debates . . . are all among Democrats.”  Really?  Like the debate over whether to implement the same spending and entitlement programs that failed in the 1930s and 1960s?  Or like the debate over whether to force businesses to pay up for their “carbon emissions” (i.e., cap-and-trade) all based on a hoax known as man-made global warming?  Or like the secret debate over whether to include a provision in the stimulus bill that would protect the retention bonuses AIG gave to its employees, which then would come back to bite the Democrats in their collective asses when several of them found out about it?  Or like the debate over whether to rush a thousand-page bill through Congress without anyone reading it? 

I never knew liberals had such a monopoly on “real policy debates.” 

Then, focusing on a handful of extreme comments and criticisms being thrown around about Obama (i.e., he wasn’t born in America, etc.), Krugman makes it seem as if the people attending these tea parties are disconnected lunatics.  When will liberals learn that you can’t just call the opposition “crazy” and expect to persuade them of your point of view? 

Krugman doesn’t bother to focus on why these tea parties have gained such force.  It’s no coincidence when tea parties in 500 cities are scheduled for one day.  He takes a swipe at Fox News, noting that the tea parties “are, of course, being promoted heavily by Fox News.”  “Promoted” is quite an exaggeration.  I would argue that Fox News is covering these tea parties (again, there are 500 such demonstrations in one day) because they are a national news story.  That’s what a credible news network is supposed to do. 

Krugman doesn’t just confine his column to shallow name-calling of Republicans and tea party attendees.  Nope, relying on his vast intellect and experience, he also takes issue with Rush Limbaugh and–surprise!–the 2000 election.  By the end of the column, he sounds like he’s whining, and you can’t figure out what he’s targeting.

But I’ll take a gander at it.

It seems as if Krugman has a real problem with how quickly these tea parties were put together and how united voters have become against Obama’s spending agenda.  Paul, it’s not abnormal for voters to oppose (quite vehemently) a spending agenda that adds a trillion dollars to the deficit every year for the next ten years and places such an extraordinary burden on our children.  The politicians in Washington are supposed to represent us.  They’re supposed to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution, not trash it and spend money like drunken sailors. 

About the only reasonable thing Krugman writes–at the very end, no doubt–is that, despite the GOP’s recent struggles, it could well end up back in power very soon.  That is absolutely correct.  

Krugman doesn’t understand, however, that it’s the tone of his column and of Democrats in Washington (including Obama) and the government’s persistent intrusion into our economic and private lives that will put the GOP back in power.   

Perhaps when that happens, it will light a fire under Krugman, and he will start working harder on these columns and offering some substantive ideas and arguments.  The fact that Obama is in power has made him a little lazy. 

Or maybe he’ll just get worse.

If you like this post, please consider subscribing to my full RSS feed.  You can also subscribe by e-mail and have a copy of each new post automatically delivered to your inbox.

• View 1 Comment...