Skip to main content

Where's the post-racial presidency?

Many Democrats, and now Jimmy Carter, have claimed that opposition to Obama's government takeover of the US health care system are "racist" or "motivated by racism":

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/16/carter-racism-claim-draws-widespread-criticism/

This is complete and utter nonsense, Carter, and you know it. Yes there are some racists out there. Who cares? When hundreds of thousands of people descend on Washington DC to protest Obama's socialized medicine proposals, it's about socialism, stupid!

The real story here should be, why does anyone still pay attention to anything Jimmy Carter says, when he is widely held as the worst modern president? Why does the media continue to feature Carter prominently? Why do they seek his input and advice on economic issues when under Carter we had double-digit inflation, double-digit interest rates, and shrinkage of real income across the nation? Because he's a socialist and the media is biased, maybe?

The second real story here is that the supposed "post-racial president" is sitting back and letting his lackeys play the race card for him. He hasn't said a single word in opposition to these claims of racism. It seems clear that Obama is content to let others silence dissent through the argument from intimidation ("if you disagree with Obama you must be a racist"), while he himself pretends to be "post-racial" and above that sort of thing.

Did we expect anything other than the Big Lie from an administration that takes its cues and most of its key personnel from the Clinton administration? This is Bait and Switch in a big way, and the president's tanking approval numbers are starting to show it.




Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Murder in the US

In 2011, I calculate the overall US murder rate as 4.6 per 100,000 population.

But if you recalculate this, and assumed that black men murdered at the same rate as everyone else, the overall rate would drop to 1.9 out of 100,000 population. That would give the United States the 147th highest murder rate in the world - or, the 60th best.

The insane disproportionate murder rate among US blacks is why the overall US murder rate seems so high.

I don't understand why liberals refuse to talk about this. I don't understand why blacks refuse to talk about this. Blacks are just as often the victim as the offender - almost SIXTY PERCENT of murder victims in the US are black. Shouldn't they care about this? Where are Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to talk about this? Yet they are silent.

And it's not like this is any secret. This culture of violence, abuse of women, and plain thuggery is paraded around daily in pop music. It's glorified on TV shows like "The Wire…
3 comments
Read more

The Root of Violent Extremism

We are too flippant about writing off violent extremists as "crazy", "psychopathic", etc.

Just because *we* have a hard time conceiving of doing violence to others, does not mean that those who do are insane.

Hitler was not insane. Hitler was evil. There is a distinction.

To be insane, to be "crazy", means you cannot understand the difference between right and wrong.

People like Hitler, like ISIS, these people are *evil*. They have, in what they believe to be a rational process, *chosen* to embrace a death-worshipping morality.

Such thinking is going to lead us down wrong alleys in dealing with violent political extremism.

Unless we understand the various reasons why such people embrace philosophies of death, we cannot combat the root causes and defeat violent extremism.

Obama's "they need jobs" is a juvenile approach at this. But you simply cannot ignore and dismiss the reality of life in the countries that are the flash-points of extremism…
Post a Comment
Read more

Is Government "just the name we give to things we do together"?

"Government is just the name we give to the things we do together." Well, no. This is a truly deceptive statement. Because look here, there are many, many human institutions where people get together to do things. Churches.
Clubs.
Corporations.
Non-profits.
Families. And these all have their own unique characteristics. If government was simply a variety of these, or vice-versa, why would we bother to have a unique word for it? If government were *merely* a charity, wouldn't we just call it a charity? What is it about government then that makes it unique? I'll tell you. It's the use of force. Government is the sole human institution that legitimately exercises physical force against others. Churches don't commit violence. Corporations don't use physical coercion to get you to buy their products or to work for them. Families don't (shouldn't) do that. BECAUSE government's essence is the use of force, government simply should not do many things, eve…
Post a Comment
Read more