My wife and I recently saw “THE HELP.”  It is a terrific movie and a stark reminder of the racism in our not-too-distant past.  One very interesting scene was when one of the most racist people in the story spots a pamphlet about the Mississippi race laws in her friend’s purse.  She warns her to be careful who sees that because: “there are real racists out there.”  It caused me to reflect on racism today.

I think most people would agree that we have come a long way since Mississippi in, 1963.  But sometimes I fear we have simply traded one form of racism for another, more subtle and, perhaps, more dangerous type.  As Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, “we should judge people not on the color of their skin, but the content of their character.”  Dr. King didn’t ask for preferential treatment, he asked for equal treatment.

The people most likely to be accused of racism are Republicans and Tea Party members.  I find that interesting when throughout history it was the Republican Party that fought against racism and it was the Democratic Party that was the party of racism.  The following rant from Jeneane Garofalo is typical of the lies and distortions by the liberal left that are sadly left unchallenged by the main stream media: 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/09/29/janeane_garofalo_racist_republicans_support_herman_cain.html

 When you think about it, calling people racist for supporting a black candidate is pretty astonishing, even for someone as off the wall as Garofalo.

 But regardless of the spin by the Democratic Party and the main stream media, the Republicans have the facts on their side.  It is long past time to expose the racist past of the Democratic Party and the long history of Republicans standing up for civil rights against Democratic opposition.  I really think Republicans should be demanding that the Democratic Party finally recognize its racist past and apologize.  Democrats have no problem asking for everyone else to apologize, and we have a President who apologized for the entire country. 

 Following is from the Republican Party Platform of 1956:

 The Republican Party accepts the decision of the U.S.. Supreme Court that racial discrimination in publicly supported schools must be progressively eliminated. We concur in the conclusion of the Supreme Court that its decision directing school desegregation should be accomplished with “all deliberate speed” locally through Federal District Courts. The implementation order of the Supreme Court recognizes the complex and acutely emotional problems created by its decision in certain sections of our country where racial patterns have been developed in accordance with prior and long-standing decisions of the same tribunal

 The Democratic Party Platform of 1956:

 Recent decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States relating to segregation in publicly supported schools and elsewhere have brought consequences of vast importance to our Nation as a whole and especially to communities directly affected.

Democrats “talked” about racial equality, but in reality they caved to the Southern Democratic coalition that was deeply opposed to both civil rights and desegregation.  While there were Northern Democrats, like Hubert Humphrey, who were civil rights champions, the party was dominated by Southern Democrats who were determined to keep segregation at all cost.

 It was Eisenhower who appointed Earl Warren Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and it was the Warren court that ended segregation in our public schools with the Brown vs. the Board of Education decision.  It was Eisenhower who ordered Federal Troops into Little Rock Arkansas so nine black children could enroll in school.  It was Eisenhower who signed the 1957 Civil Rights Act, which was voted against by Senators John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson.  Both Kennedy and Johnson also criticized Eisenhower for ordering the 82^nd Airborne into Arkansas.  But if Eisenhower had not done that, the entire civil rights movement may have collapsed. 

 Civil rights legislation in this country was blocked by Southern Democrats, including party stars like Estes Kefauver and J William Fulbright.  This is ignored by the main stream media that has helped perpetuate the myth that all of the racist Dixiecrat Democrats became Republicans after passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  That, like much of the Democratic Party history with regard to racism, is a lie.  Following are the Dixiecrats who remained in the Democratic Party after 1964:

 Orval Fabus

Benjamin Travis Laney

John Stennis

James Eastland

Allen Ellender

Russell Long

John Sparkman

John McClellan

Richard Russell

Herman Talmadge

George Wallace

Lester Maddox

John Rarick

Robert Byrd

Al Gore, Sr.

Bull Connor

Only two Dixiecrats switched to become Republicans, Strom Thurmond and Mills Godwin.  Both of them had to renounce racism before the Republicans would take them.  A lot of people assume Jesse Helms was a Dixiecrat, but he wasn’t.  He also didn’t vote against the Civil Rights Act, as was claimed in the following article for CNN by Roland Martin:

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-07-09/politics/roland.martin_1_helms-lester-maddox-african-americans?_s=PM:POLITICS

Jesse Helms wasn’t even in the Senate in 1964.  However, Martin got it dead on when he wrote the following:

But when you stand in opposition to a bill that would, for the first time, give African-Americans from border to border the constitutionally guaranteed right to cast a vote, then I refuse to call you a stand-up person for the rights of every man, woman and child.

He just got the wrong political party.  He failed to point out that every Senator who voted against the Civil Rights Act, with the lone exception of Barry Goldwater, was a Democrat.  (To the best of my knowledge no one ever accused Goldwater of being a racist.  His opposition was based on States rights.)

 The real question is did all those Southern Democrats suddenly morph into anti-racism freedom loving Americans?  Or did they just change tactics?  Democrats only accept African Americans who are liberal Democrats.  Other African Americans, regardless of ability, are scorned.  Compare the way Clarence Thomas was treated when he was appointed to the Supreme Court to the treatment given Obama’s two extreme liberal appointments.  Thomas’s real crime was being black and being conservative.  If he had been black and liberal, the main stream media would have been outraged at the way he was treated.

 Look at the disrespect for Collin Powell who has been called an Uncle Tom, and the main stream media indifference to Condoleezza Rice.  Now add in the discounting of Herman Cain as a legitimate Presidential candidate.  Whether you like him or not, Mr. Cain is a very serious person who was CEO of two major corporations.  Yet he continues to be treated condescendingly by the main stream media.  Ms. Garofalo accidently said it right when she said in the minds of the liberal left, supporting a conservative black candidate is the moral equivalent of racism.  The message is clear.  It is ok to be black, as long as you are a liberal Democrat.  But if a black man dare raise his hand and say he is a conservative the wrath of hell will descend upon his head.  African Americans are only accepted if they tow the party line like loyal sheep.

 Perhaps this is just me, but I have a theory about this.  It is based somewhat on the following two (in)famous quotes from Lyndon B. Johnson.  (Keep in mind that it was the United States Senate, when Johnson was majority leader, which blocked any attempt at passing civil rights legislation for several years):

 I’ll have those (n word) voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” LBJ on Air Force One

 “These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.” — LBJ

 A lot of African-Americans view John Kennedy as a hero of the Civil Rights movement.  But 25 years after his death, Robert Kennedy In His Own Words, was released.  This contained several interviews given by Robert Kennedy before he was assassinated.  The following article illustrates some of the significant things said by Robert Kennedy that were totally ignored by the main stream media, by the Democratic Party and by African American leaders in general:

 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17550

 The pattern is clear.  Kennedy was more interested in politics that he was in civil rights.  He was more concerned about losing the support of Southern Democrats than he was about promoting civil rights.  It is impossible to reconcile the actual words of Robert Kennedy and the myth of Kennedy being a civil rights champion.  When you combine these interviews with the recently released Jacki Kennedy tapes, the picture comes into focus.  At best, John Kennedy was a reluctant “Johnny Come Lately.” 

 We did have a President who deserves credit for bringing about fundamental change with regard to civil rights in this country.  His name was Dwight D. Eisenhower.

 I don’t think that the racists in the Democratic Partychanged their opinion of African Americans one iota.  Idon’ t believe they got a religious conversion and I don’t believe they dropped their racist outlook.  They just changed strategies by implemented programs designed to keep African Americans satisfied and under control, while avoiding having to ever treat them as equals.  Think about this.  What has been the impact of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society?  What has been the impact of his War on Poverty?   The following chart shows the poverty levels in this country since 1969, allowing 4 years for the “War on Poverty” to have full impact:

 Year       Poverty Rate

1969       13.7%

1979       12.4%

1989       13.1%

1996       13.7%

2000       11.3%

2007       12.5%

2008       13.2%

2009       14.3%

2010       15.1%

 When you consider the billions of dollars spent on anti-poverty programs over the past 47 years, we really haven’t made much progress.  It is significant to note that poverty dropped after Bill Clinton reluctantly accepted welfare reform in 1996.  It was also lower during the Bush administration than during the Clinton Administration.  It has obviously shot up significantly since Obama was elected.  Perhaps, instead of taking cheap shots at Republicans and the Tea Party for non-existent racism, it is time for African Americans to take a long hard look at real record of the Democratic Party.

 African Americans have supported the Democratic Party by wide margins for decades.  What have they gained, except for temporary hand-outs that did nothing to reduce the level of poverty, but did manage to destroy our economy?.   

When African American’s supported Republicans they got an end to slavery, an end to segregation, civil rights legislation and a Federal government determined to enforce it.  In spite of all the rhetoric, it was George Bush, not John F. Kennedy, not Lyndon Johnson, not Jimmy Carter and not Bill Clinton who appointed the first African American, Collin Powell to a major cabinet position.

 The Democratic Party was dragged kicking and screaming to the civil rights altar but they now try to claim all the credit for the legislation they had fought to the bitter end.  Sadly, it worked.  It is long past time for Republicans to set the record straight! 

 TDM

Hillary Clinton is the master at lying to congress, under oath, and still avoiding the perjury trap.  When confronted about the White House Post Office firing scandal, Hillary developed amnesia and said she couldn’t recall about 250 times.  Ultimately, the Special Prosecutor determined that Hillary’s answers were inconsistent with the facts, but he did not charge her with perjury.

Erik Holder apparently didn’t get the memo about how to lie without committing perjury.  When questioned by Darrell Issa, on May 3, 2011, Holder gave an evasive answer, but it wasn’t evasive enough.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/04/house-republicans-to-request-special-counsel-to-probe-holder-on-fast-and/

Here is the question asked by Darrell Issa on May 3, 2011 and Holder’s answer:

 ISSA: Mr. Attorney General, we have two Border Patrol agents who are dead, who were killed by guns that were allowed, as far as we can tell, to deliberately walk out of gun shops under the program often called Fast and Furious. This program, as you know — and the President’s been asked about it, you’ve been asked about it – allowed for weapons to be sold to straw purchasers, and ultimately, many of those weapons are today in the hands of drug cartels and other criminals. When did you first know about the program, officially, I believe, called Fast and Furious? To the best of your knowledge, what date?

HOLDER: I’m not sure of the exact date but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks.

Last Friday, the White House pulled the standard Friday afternoon document drop of potentially embarrassing information, and finally released more e-mails.  These e-mails prove that Holder was lying.  It’s not just one or two e-mails, either.  There is a consistent paper trail.  Only a naïve fool, or a liberal Democrat, would believe that Holder wasn’t heavily invested in this sordid affair.  Holder is reduced to saying he did not understand the question!  Even CBS is not buying that:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20115038-10391695.html

Republicans have formally asked President Obama to appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate Erik Holder.  Don’t be surprised to see some Democrats start to join in on the chorus.  It is hard for anyone to spin this puppy away.  I wouldn’t be surprised to see Holder pull out the race card, but that won’t work.  For one thing, Herman Cain will crucify the White House if they try that.  It sure looks like this story is going to go viral. 

TDM

I just got my first set of hearing aids this week.  It has been an ear opening experience.   My hearing has been terrible for years, but recently it deteriorated to a level I could not tolerate.  So, I finally made the plunge.  I quickly discovered a world of full of sounds to which I had been oblivious.   For example I now know that my computer keyboard makes a loud noise every time I hit a key.  I didn’t know that.  In many ways, this is a good thing.  I can certainly understand people better when they talk.  To be honest, there were a lot of times when I didn’t understand and was too embarrassed to admit it so I just nodded my head and hoped that worked.  If you combined a high female voice in a crowded room, I didn’t have a prayer.  But there are also sounds that are frankly annoying.  I scraped my fork on the dinner plate last night and jumped about three feet.  Now I know why my wife griped so loudly about a sound I could not hear.  I am still adjusting to the new world of sound.  Although sometimes I miss my world of silence, life is better when you can hear.

This morning, while watching the news, I heard something even more startling.  I heard a President of the United States admit to an unprecedented abuse of power.  No one is unhappy that Anwar al Aulaqi is gone.  The man was a terrorist and he was a threat to the U.S.  But he was also a U.S. citizen and that really matters.  If Obama had ordered a mission to try and arrest him and he was killed in the attempt, that would be perfectly acceptable.  But Obama never pretended that this was anything other than an assassination.  Obama has granted to himself sole discretion with regard to the execution of a U.S. citizen without even the pretense of due process.  President Obama has been very careful to avoid calling this a war on terror.  If it is not a war, then what exactly is the source of his authority to take this action?

There are several things he could have done.  He could have had Anwar al Aulaqi tried, in absentia, in a U.S. court or even a military tribunal.  He could have asked congress for authorization to eliminate a known terrorist.  He could have done a lot of things, but he did not.  He just decided Anwar al Aulaqi was a threat so he ordered him eliminated.  The problem is with regard to the precedent this sets for this President and for other Presidents in the future.  This time, most Americans agree with the decision to eliminate this terrorist.  But, there is a reason for the rule of law.  The rule of law is not designed to protect the guilty; it is designed to protect all of us.  Once we give this type of indiscriminate power to anyone, including a President of the United States, we are entering dangerous new territory.  If Obama can target Anwar al Aulaqi, he can target anyone.

President Obama was speaking at the retirement ceremony for Admiral Michael Mullen, who is retiring as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  He referred to him as Mike.    This shows a lack of respect for the office held by Admiral Mullen.   It also shows a lack of respect for the office of President of the United States.  I couldn’t help imagining the following phone call:  “Hi Mike, Barry.  This  al Aulaqi guy is becoming a real nuisance.  Why don’t you go ahead and take him out!”  Really?

According to reports the ACLU is all over this.  Normally, I find the ACLU on the wrong side of every issue.  But in this case, perhaps we should pay a little more attention to what they say.  I don’t know what you heard this morning, but I heard abuse of power.  I also heard that a despicable terrorist is no longer with us.  The question is, which matters more?

 TDM

A lot of liberals believe that Jesus would support socialism.  At a minimum, they assume Jesus would support raising taxes on the rich and giving more money to the poor.  They like to use words like “social justice.”  But, social justice is found in the dictionary, not the Bible.  If one actually reads the scriptures, one can make a strong case that while Jesus did command us to help those in need, He most definitely  did not believe in redistribution of wealth. 

It is important to read passages of scripture in context.  Obviously, Matthew 25:14-30 comes before Matthew 25:31-46.  One would have to assume, being the Bible and all, that this was deliberate.  For that reason, we will go to Matthew 25:14-30 first:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A14-30&version=NIV

Note that the master gives money to people based on their ability.  He didn’t give the same amount to everyone.  The person who was considered to be more capable was given the most money.  The person who was considered least capable was given the least money.  Not much social justice there!  Then the big shocker:  when the master returned, the rich had gotten richer and the poor had gotten poorer.  This is quite similar to what happens under capitalism.  According to liberals, Jesus should have recommended taking the extra money away from the rich guy and giving it to the poor guy.  But Jesus did the exact opposite.  He took the money away from the poor guy and gave it to the rich guy.  Wow!

But the story did not end there.  Later, in the same chapter, Jesus reminded us that those people who are able to earn more have an obligation to help those in need.  Now read the rest of the chapter, verses 31-46:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A31-46&version=NIV

When you think about it, Jesus understood the difference between liberals and conservatives a long time ago.  Liberals want to raise taxes on those who earn money to give to those who are unable, or unwilling, to earn it themselves.  So a lot of people assume that liberals are more generous and caring than conservatives.  However, this is not necessarily true.  ABC did some research and ran the following story in 2008:

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1

It turns out that while liberals are generous with other people’s money, they aren’t necessarily generous with their own.  And while conservatives are definitely out to earn more money, they are much more likely to be generous. 

After reading these two passages, it is pretty hard to argue that Jesus was a liberal.  Actually, he would probably fit in really well with the Tea Party. He would give more money to those who are ready, willing and able to make a profit.  He would give less money to those who are less capable.  And he would take it all away from those who just want to sit on their buns and wait for a hand out.  He would also expect those who do well to help out those in need.  This looks remarkably similar to the Tea Party Platform.

TDM

There was a country that stupidly elected a new, naïve, inexperienced radical President.  He blamed all of our problems on the debt incurred under his predecessor.  But, instead on cutting spending, he borrowed even more money and spent it wildly and foolishly.  Billions were spent bailing out the richest firms in the country who had caused the problem in the first place.  Billions more were spent bailing out the unions whose bloated contracts were making it impossible for companies to compete.  He promised to lower unemployment, lower the deficit and grow the economy.  He promised hope and change.  He delivered record unemployment, a double-dip recession and an unprecedented increase in our debt.

But unlike the prodigal son, who eventually realized the errors of his ways, this President wants to double down.  He wants to take even more money away from the few people who have any left and give it to those who have proven themselves incapable of handling it the first time.  It is sort of the prodigal son in reverse.  He has learned nothing. The point of the prodigal son is one of forgiveness, but it is not one of stupidity.  It is important to read the last verse of this parable:

 Luke 15:31-32  (NIV)

   31 “‘My son,’ the father said, ‘you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. 32 But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’”

 In other words, I love your brother, and I forgive him, but I’m not about to give him any more money.

 TDM

There are few things in life more enjoyable than watching a habitual liar get caught in the act.  At first the Obama administration considered SOLYNDRA to be one of the greatest ideas in the history of man.  They ignored the fact that it was the Bush administration that first considered this.  Obama shoved them aside and took all the credit for himself.  He either didn’t notice or didn’t care that the Bush administration rejected the proposal as a really bad idea.  There were speeches, photo ops, an appearance at the ground breaking, and even a joint appearance with Arnold Schwarzenegger.  This was Obama’s show piece of how investing in green energy would create jobs and move America forward into a prosperous and glorious future. 

 Unfortunately, the great idea has morphed into a financial disaster.  Instead of creating all those great new jobs, SOLYNDRA ran out of cash and had to lay off 1,100 people.  The Obama administration is stuck trying to explain why it threw away a half billion dollars on a half-baked venture, conveniently financed by a big Obama supporter.  At best, this is incredibly stupid.  At worst, it is outright fraud. 

 What’s a guy to do?

 Easy; in the deluded world of Obama, find a way to blame everything on Bush.  So, under this brilliant strategy, SOLYNDRA was transformed from an Obama show piece to a really bad idea inherited from the Bush administration.  It is sort of the “devil made me do it” defense.

 But, in their haste to dodge this bullet, they missed a few minor details.  Like those inconvenient documents proving that the Bush administration rejected the project before Bush left office.  In addition, the Bush administration analysis predicted SOLYNDRIA would run out of funds around September, 2012.  Seems pretty darn accurate to me!  No one is buying the blame-Bush argument on this one.

 SOLYNDRA is going to change everything.  SOLYNDRA is so bad, it is so obvious and there is so much direct evidence against the Obama administration that it can no longer be ignored.  In a bizarre twist, ABC News broke the story, but then ignored it.  So, Brian Ross from ABC News went on Fox News last night and gave a devastating interview:

 http://nation.foxnews.com/abc-news/2011/09/15/abc-breaks-then-ignores-own-scoop-obama-administration-and-solyndra

 He said the controversy goes right to the door of the White House.  (It is hard for Obama to pretend he never heard about SOLYNDRA when there are all these videos of him bragging about SOLYNDRA.)

 No matter how much the main stream media love(d) Obama, they love a good story more.  Don’t be surprised to see this turn into a feeding frenzy.  There is more than enough blood in the water to draw the sharks.

TDM

I am relatively sure the Washington Post views this article as a hit piece against Republicans.  Everything here is true, but as with most things written by the liberal left it gets everything exactly wrong:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/republicans-rewriting-state-election-laws-in-ways-that-could-hurt-democrat/2011/09/15/gIQApcuhVK_story.html

This is actually a pretty good explanation of the difference between people who vote for Democrats and those who vote for Republicans.  Liberals consider themselves to be intellectually and culturally superior to conservatives.  Conservatives are routinely put down as being stupid and uninformed.  It would seem that if this was true, it would be liberals who want to limit voting to better educated and more capable people.  After all, don’t all the smart people think like liberals?

Instead liberals want an extended time for early voting so they have more time to round up people who otherwise wouldn’t remember to vote.  They desperately need the coveted convicted felon support.  And they absolutely need support from people who are somehow working their way through life without any photo ID.  I am sure these are all really nice people, but I wouldn’t exactly describe them as being better educated and more capable.  Oops, that would be Republicans.

  TDM

Three things are certain.  Death, Taxes and Democrats winning elections In Districts where there is an effective Democratic machine.  Yet Turner, a Republican, just won the special election to replace Anthony Weiner in the 9^th New York congressional district.  It has probably happened before, but the last time I remember was in 1979 when Jane Bryne beat the Daly Machine candidate during the Chicago Mayor election.  There had been several major snowstorms and the citizens were less than pleased.  But, remember that Bryne was a liberal Democrat who had previously been connected with the Daly Machine herself.  In addition, she won a Democratic primary, so ultimately the Republican still lost.  A Republican actually winning an election in this type of district is rarer than the sighting of an Ivory Billed Wood Pecker. 

Obama carried this district by 11 points and this is the home turf of Charles Schumer.    Democrats poured $700,000 into this race during the last week, compared to $13,000 spent by Turner.  In addition, Weprin himself outspent Turner two to one on this race.  Democrats knew the significance of this election.  The following article describes the all-out effort by the Queens Democratic Party Machine:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63436.html

Inside its headquarters — which doubles as the Weprin campaign’s nerve center — get-out-the vote workers rushed to pick up manila folders containing block-by-block layouts of the district; others sat at the phones, methodically working through voter-contact lists. Volunteers fanned out across Queens, handing out glossy placards highlighting Weprin’s endorsement from the New York Times editorial page.

If you go outside your home, turn your head toward Washington D.C. and sniff carefully you will detect a new odor.  “Democratic flop sweat.”  It is now common in all Democratic circles but noticeable stronger on the left.  If things continue on the current course, expect the stench to increase significantly.

You will also notice the faint sound of footsteps.  That is the sound of the Jews in District 9 deserting the Democratic Party.  Expect the sound to increase and more and more people desert the sinking ship of state.  We will soon be calling it the Democ Party, because the rats are leaving the ship.

TDM

The Washington Cathedral planned to hold a major interfaith 9/11 Memorial service.  They invited Leon Panetta and Barack Obama, but did not invite George W. Bush or anyone else from the Bush administration.  They invited a Buddhist Nun and an Imam, but no evangelical Christians.  The explanation given was that since the Cathedral itself is an Episcopal church they felt their own clergy would be more than adequate to serve as the Christian representatives.

Perhaps it is just coincidence, but it appears that God was not impressed.  First there was a rare East Coast earthquake on 8/23/2011 that damaged the Cathedral.  The Cathedral ignored this warning and continued on.  Then, on Wednesday, September 7, 2011, a crane fell over at the Cathedral:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/sep/7/crane-falls-washington-national-cathedral/

The service has to be moved to the Kennedy Center:

http://www.nationalcathedral.org/press/PR-5BC6E-LN0001.shtml

Just saying!

TDM

Sometimes a picture is worth much more than a thousand words.  This is from the Wall Street Journal today.

One President is praying to God, the other thinks he is God.

TDM