So writes Will Collier in his reflection in Jimmy Carter’s latest attempt at relevance.  The failed former President seems to know that he’ll only get media attention if  he says something outrageous since few people, few responsible people that is, take seriously his pontification on world affairs:

Jimmah’s empty slander is just another sign of the unbecoming moral vanity at the heart of the modern Left, to say nothing of its overweening intolerance for any hint of dissent. People know good and well that being opposed to socialized medicine or trillion-dollar deficits doesn’t make them racist. Calling them ugly names isn’t going to make them cower away in fear–it’s going to make them more convinced than ever that they’re in the right.

And it won’t do anything to convince undecided Americans to support the proposed Democratic overhaul of our health care system.  Indeed, the latest polls confirm John Hinderaker’s hypothesis that the left-wing strategy of demonization would help promote their plan:

One of my themes lately has been that the Democrats’ strategy of trying to demonize opponents of socialized medicine rather than honestly debate the merits of their proposal–whatever it is–is a political mistake. People care about health care, they don’t want their insurance taken away, and they aren’t impressed by assertions that everyone who disagrees with Barack Obama must be a racist.

He cites the latest Rasmussen poll to confirm his point:   Opposition to Obama’s Health Care Reform Reaches New High at 55%.

Liberal blogger Pam Spaulding posted today about the brutal beating of a black woman by a white man in Georgia. The attack on this woman by itself would spark outrage, but the fact that it was done to the victim in front of her terrified young daughter only makes it worse. Add to this that the victim is a military servicemember and the alleged perp comes across as being quite the lowlife, which his mugshot does nothing to dispel. Spaulding is right to feel outraged about this attack. Anyone with a shred of decency would. What confuses me about Spaulding’s post on this is the conclusion she draws that “we see yet again that a post-racial society is nowhere to be found”. She follows this comment with a link to a “related” post:

Former President Carter charges racism is behind Wilson’s – and teabagger/birther – outbursts

Interesting, though the connection between the attack in Georgia and the ex-President’s odd remarks escapes me. If this particular attack shows that we are still not in a “post-racial society”, which I presume from the “related” link is the fault of the “teabagger/birther outbursts”, what are we to make of this attack a couple of days ago on a white student by fellow classmates who are black? Is this too the result of “teabagger/birther outbursts”, which would seem to be counter-productive of supposed white racists? Finally, why did Spaulding select the attack on the Georgia woman alone as her example and not include the attack on the Illinois boy? Hmm… curious. Certainly there couldn’t be selective outrage here motivated by partisanship, could there be? Naaaah. Of course not. That would like claiming that thousands of people who turned out to protest a president’s policies were all motivated purely by racism and not because of, say political disagreement.

Oh wait.

– John (Average Gay Joe)

About those who use the “teabagger” slur to describe those protesting the President’s big government policies, I wrote last month

That term, a sexual slur, shows they would rather deride us than engage with our heartfelt opposition to the ever-increasing size (and ever-encroaching power) of the federal government.

Today, Jim Geraghty offers a thought in a similar vein:

I think I saw on Twitter the other day someone making the case that “teabaggers” is the new Godwin’s Law. Once you see someone using the term, it’s a marker that they’re not interested in exchanging ideas or persuading the opposition; they just want to call someone names.

That does seem to describe huge segments of the left nowadays.  Just look at all the leftists claiming those protesting Obama’s proposed overhaul of our health care system are racist.

UPDATE:  Althouse takes issue with Jimmy Carter’s unfounded accusations:

Jimmy Carter’s supremely sleazy accusation requires a solid, sound rebuke. It is an effort to place the President of the United States beyond criticism.

Imagine if, before last year’s election, someone had argued: If a black man becomes President, anyone who dares to criticize him will be called a racist.

(H/t Glenn)

This is liquid-spitting material.  Not because it isn’t true (and most of us knew it already)… but because CBS News of all outlets is the one reporting it!

The Obama administration has privately concluded that a cap and trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent.

A previously unreleased analysis prepared by the U.S. Department of Treasury says the total in new taxes would be between $100 billion to $200 billion a year. At the upper end of the administration’s estimate, the cost per American household would be an extra $1,761 a year.

A second memorandum, which was prepared for Obama’s transition team after the November election, says this about climate change policies: “Economic costs will likely be on the order of 1 percent of GDP, making them equal in scale to all existing environmental regulation.”

WHOA. Mr. President — what happened to “tax cuts for 95% of all Americans”?  Or at the very least — “tax hikes for those making above $250,00.  This doesn’t even count the hidden tax of healthcare reform that most middle-class families will pay.

It turns out that US Rep. Joe Wilson was right.  The President and his fellow organizers in the White House DO LIE.  Repeatedly.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Observing the “a trace of a hint of a shadow of a smile” on the normally taciturn face of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s face as President Obama spoke to the nation about health care, George Will quipped that “the president’s rhetoric was becoming CPR for the Republican Party.“  (H/t:  Instapundit.)  Just as CPR helps restore the heart’s normal rhythm, the president’s rhetoric has helped bring the GOP back from the brink.

It hasn’t, however, given the party the strength it needs to become America’s majority party once again.  Dan Riehl reminds us that to regain that status, it’s not enough to oppose the President’s statist proposals, we must also come up with new ideas on how we want to govern the country:

We need to start thinking seriously about what it is we would propose and push, not only tear down whatever opposition we realize we are up against. I watched the Left go a very long time seemingly without that mission. Even when Bush was in his second term, one it was always clear he would get to serve out – they continued to attack in ways that actually hurt them in the eyes of many moderates and centrists that exist. It wasn’t until Obama captured that energy and put it to positive use that they actually found themselves getting anywhere.

I’ve no desire to sink into the pit of anger and unhinged attacks they found themselves sinking and looking so ugly in for so long a time.

To prevent us from becoming like the angry left, Dan wants us to consider this question

So, how can we turn ourselves toward a more constructive direction, beginning to support and push the positive ideas, agendas and people that can deliver us the actual results we want and America needs?

(more…)

If a member of the United States Senate, you know, serving in a branch of government which is supposed to be overseeing the executive branch, doesn’t know how many czars there are, that suggests these officials are operating without adequate legislative oversight.

Over at Nice Deb‘s blog, I chanced upon this statement from Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander:

Commenting on the same video, Ed Morrissey observes that the GOP has begun to pushback on czars, starting “in the Senate, the legislative body Barack Obama has bypassed with his proliferation of unaccountable commissars in government.”

Morrissey links a Washington Post op-ed by Alexander’s colleague from Texas, Kay Bailey Hutchison, who raises the constitutional question:

Unfortunately — and in direct contravention of the Framers’ intentions — virtually no one can say with certainty what these individuals do or what limits are placed on their authority. We don’t know if they are influencing or implementing policy. We don’t know if they possess philosophical views or political affiliations that are inappropriate or overreaching in the context of their work. (more…)

Thanks to Anderson Cooper, I got an extra few minutes of cardio last night.  As I was cooling down on the stairmaster, his CNN program came on one of the television monitors.  Breathlessly, he was reporting something I had just read on Gateway Pundit, the worst president in U.S. history (well, at least since the Civil War) had told NBC’s Brian Williams that there was “Racist Tone” to a Tea Party protesters rallying against President Obama’s policies.

I was curious to see how much time Cooper devoted to Jimmy Carter’s remarks:

An overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he’s African-American

I live in the South, and I have seen the South come a long way. And I have seen the rest of the country that shared the South’s attitude toward minority groups at that time, particularly African-Americans.

With this unfounded accusation as the lead-in, Cooper devoted the first quarter hour of his program to probing the supposed “Race Factor” in the protests.  Of course, he didn’t have any evidence of the racial motivations of the Tea Party protesters, just the ramblings of a doddering, bitter old man.

But, there is evidence showin that Mr. Carter tapped into the “South’s attitude toward minority groups” in his successful campaign for the Democratic Georgia gubernatorial nomination in 1970:

Carter won the governorship of Georgia in 1970 via a race-baiting campaign. In his 2004 book The Real Jimmy Carter, Steven Hayward writes that Carter’s campaign staff sent an anonymous mailer “to barbershops, country churches, and rural law enforcement officers containing a grainy photo of [his Democratic opponent Carl] Sanders, part owner of the Atlanta Hawks NBA franchise, at an after-game locker room victory celebration. Two black players were pouring champagne over Sanders’s head. The Atlanta Constitution noted, ‘In the context of the sports pages, it was a routine shot … But in the context of this political campaign it was a dangerous smear that injected both race, alcohol, and high living into the campaign.’ Carter’s senior campaign aides Bill Pope, Hamilton Jordan, and Jerry Rafshoon were behind the mailing; Pope was even spotted passing out the flyers at a Ku Klux Klan rally … The Carter campaign also produced a leaflet noting that Sanders had paid tribute to Martin Luther King, Jr. (more…)

My junior Senator may dismiss her constituents’ concerns with great regularity, but my state’s senior Senator, despite her liberal inclination, has almost always shown respect for her ideological adversaries.

And now, instead of marching in lockstep with her party’s leadership, Dianne Feinstein shows that she’s been listening to her constituents, expressing skepticism about her party’s proposed health care overhaul:

I just find that if you’re going to remake a sixth of the American economy, it’s very difficult at this time of great economic angst. . . .

There is real concern over debt and deficits, and whether this bill will create additional entitlements.

This is not to say Senator Feinstein opposes all of then rovisions of the various Democrat health care bills (indeed she supports many), but only to show that she understands that the cost of this programs concerns her, especially during the difficult economic times.

It’s too bad more Democrats have not acknowledged some of the concerns of Obamacare opponents as has Mrs. Feinstein.  She honors our state by her civility and by the respect she shows for those not on the same page with her politically.  And indeed, often incorporates their ideas into her program.

Via Don Surber who observes:

[Feinstein] is actually with Republicans in wanting to open up insurance. Currently, states control health insurance. Under the Interstate Commerce Clause, Congress could indeed open insurance competition across state lines.

Look, I believe one should show respect for the President of the United States, but I don’t believe the respect makes him immune from harsh criticism.

I also appreciate the balance of powers that James Madison established in our Constitution, creating a tension between the executive and legislative branches.  But, when you regulate the language House members can use in criticizing the President, that seems to show undue deference to the executive.

Paying little heed to the brilliance of Madison’s design,

House Rules Committee Chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D-NY) has released a helpful, updated primer for members regarding their conduct on the floor and in committees.

Especially useful: The section on how to properly insult the executive branch in the in the chamber.

Via Jim Hoft who opines:

House Democrats have decided to ban free speech in the US House of Representatives.
House members will no longer be able to call President Obama a “liar” even when he’s lying.

Welcome Instapundit Readers!!

Wonder how many media outlets in the Golden State will investigate this story.

In the latest video taken by James O’Keefe, the freelance investigative reporter posting as a pimp as he seeks housing assistance at various ACORN offices, he talks with Tresa Kaelke in the organization’s San Bernardino, California office.  Ms. Kaelke not only boasts of killing her husband, but also of talking regularly to our state’s junior Senator, Ma’am Barbara Boxer.

Look, I doubt this Ms. Kaelke actually talks with Ma’am on a regular basis (indeed wonder if she ever has).  She is likely just boasting of her access to enhance her statute.

That said, you can bet if the official of a corrupt right-wing organization with extensive ties to the GOP and to a Republican President had made such a claim, various media oulets would immediately launch an investigation.  So, I ask our Golden State readers who follow local media to alert me should they see any followups to this exposé.

(NB Edited post since initially publication to improve flow.)

UPDATE:  I just spoke with someone in Ma’am’s Los Angeles office who was unaware of the story.  He also said there is “no record” of California’s junior Senator holding any townhall meetings.  He suggested I call Mrs. Boxer’s Washington press office where I asked them if Ms. Kaelke’s contention (of regular contact with Ma’am) was accurate.  They promised to get back to me.  I’ll let you know as soon as I get a response.

FROM THE COMMENTS: Leah, who called Ma’am’s LA office after I did, got a response I didn’t get:

Initially I was told by the very nice guy who answered the phone that they have no comment on this. But I should know that ma’am Boxer voted against funding Acorn in the senate.

Seems our calls are having an effect.

FROM THE COMMENTS #2: Seems Ms. Kaelke wasn’t boasting about her ties with California State Senator Gloria Negrete McLeod .  So, perhaps I was too hasty in questioning her credibility.

UP-UPDATE:  Just received this from Natalie Ravitz, Senior Advisor to Mrs. Boxer:

I got your message regarding this tape of the ACORN worker “Teresa”:   Not only has this woman never talked to Senator Boxer, but we’ve checked with our staff here in Washington and in each of our California offices, and no one has ever heard of her or spoken to her.

Since the U.S. House of Representatives “voted to admonish Rep. Joe Wilson over his ‘You lie’ outburst to President Barack Obama during the president’s health care speech to Congress last week,” I encourage GayPatriot readers to join me in contributing to the South Carolina Republican’s campaign.

Looks like Democrats are making a martyr out of this Republican for behaving in a manner similar to that of many of their fellow partisans just four years ago when a Republican President addressed a joint session of Congress.

I agree with Congressman Mike Pence, Chairman of the House Republican Conference, who blogged:

Our economy is struggling, families are hurting. And yet, this Congress is poised to demand an apology from a man who has already apologized. It’s a disappointment to millions of Americans. Last week the Speaker of the House said, ‘It’s time to talk about health care.’ I say Speaker Pelosi was half right. The American people want less politics and more jobs. They want this Congress to put aside petty, partisan politics. To put aside this plan for a government takeover of health care and focus on what we know has always worked to get this economy moving again. That’s fiscal discipline in Washington, D.C. and immediate tax relief for working families, small businesses and family farms.

With unemployment and federal deficits skyrocketing, House Democrats take precious time to vote on censuring a man who has already shown his contrition.  Don’t think this is the change people hoped for when they voted for Democrats last fall.

If House Democrats go forward with their “Resolution of Disapproval” of the honest Joe Wilson, not only will they look petty, but they will cause this citizen of California to make a contribution to the South Carolina Republican’s campaign and have him encourage his blog readers to do the same.

Hey, Nancy, the guy apologized.  The President accepted his apology.  Isn’t it time to move on and focus on the issue at hand, you know, like the President said?

The Democrats intend to milk this for all it’s worth, to, in Jennifer Rubin’s words, “to paint the opposition to ObamaCare as unhinged—or, as the Democrats have described their fellow citizens, ‘silly’ or ‘evil-mongers’ or ‘un-American.’“  (Rubin’s short post is well worth your time..)  But, in the end, largely because Wilson apologized immediately after his outburst, it will likely backfire on the Democrats, strengthening the man (and the movement) they seek to destroy, much as Obiwan foretold:

Oh, and, let’s hope some intrepid reporter asks Speaker Pelosi why she won’t offer similar condemnation of her fellow Democrats for booing President Bush back in 2005.

Obama calls Kanye West a Jackass.

If you just want to see how polticized and full of hate the leadership of gay organizations has become, take a gander at the 9/11 letter of Kate Kendell, Executive Director of the National Center of Lesbian Rights.  Instead of remembering the victims of the terrorist attacks, instead of condemning the perpetrators (who hold women and gay people (you know those for whom a center for lesbian rights concern themselves) in particular scorn), she lashes out at the “far right”:

As I listened to President Obama’s health care address to Congress Wednesday night, it felt so good to be proud of our President again, yet the legacy he inherited is proving to be almost too much to overcome. The most toxic, racist, mean-spirited fringe of the far right have more power over our national discourse than ever in modern history. Rep. Joe Wilson’s unprecedented breach of civility in his “uncontrolled” outburst is just the tip of the iceberg. But if we fail to steer clear of this virulent political atmosphere, our agenda of human and civil rights for LGBT folks in this country will be the Titanic. If Obama’s plan for reforming health care runs aground, you may as well head for the lifeboats. (Okay, I’ll stop now with the ocean disaster metaphors.)

The same forces who are apoplectic at the idea (THE IDEA!) that health care would be provided to undocumented workers are the same forces who fight against any progress or reform in favor of rights and security for LGBT folks. A lack of humanity and compassion does not suddenly emerge with the appearance of a U.S. birth certificate. If you are queer in this country, these folks hate you every bit as much as they hate an undocumented laborer worried about how she will get medicine for her baby. Obama must win on health care reform—because as LGBT people, we need that reform as much as anyone, and because his entire national agenda of greater inclusion, security, and humanity for all of us hangs in the balance.

Emphasis added. WOW.  Just wow.  On 9/11, throwing a temper tantrum against the far right while ignoring Islamic extremism.  (You know those people who want to destroy America and kill homosexuals.)  I’m almost speechless at her politically correct intolerance.

This is how she chooses to remember 9/11 by dressing up Obamacare as gay rights and launching into a broadside against the right?!?!? (more…)

The Catholic Church speaking up forcefully about its teachings on same-sex marriage is clearly protected under the First Amendment, a right I strongly support even though I just as strongly disagree with their view. However, how is their collecting money during Mass for a political campaign even legal? The tax exempt status churches and other organizations enjoy is not a right, but instead is a privilege we as a society extend for valid reasons. This privilege is one I personally see as a bulwark against government intrusion into freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment. Yet I do not see such direct intereference in the political process by such tax exempt churches and organizations as being part of the bargain. Certainly this isn’t unique as the Catholic Church isn’t the only such organization to take such bold steps, one can undoubtedly find many examples on all sides of the political spectrum over the years. This leads me to question though whether tax exemption in modern times has become nothing more than a subsidy of sorts which religious and secular organizations exploit in order to further their own agendas, whether liberal or conservative, something that groups not having such a luxury are at a disadvantage in countering. Perhaps it’s time to re-examine our laws concerning tax exemption, but I must admit to concerns about even such a move as this because given the partisan use this “re-examination” could be put to the reason for even having this privilege could be put into jeopardy.

I’d be interested in hearing everyone’s thoughts on this…

- John (Average Gay Joe)

In a week where the MSM misses many of the big stories (an Obama adviser’s radical views, the growing grassroots opposition to big government), at a time when many media outlets downplay major scandals of the majority party, it should come as no surprise that

The public’s assessment of the accuracy of news stories is now at its lowest level in more than two decades of Pew Research surveys, and Americans’ views of media bias and independence now match previous lows.

Just 29% of Americans say that news organizations generally get the facts straight, while 63% say that news stories are often inaccurate.

It’s not just the changes wrought by the internet which account for declining newspaper circulation smaller audiences for network news. It’s also the bias practiced by the (once-)leading news outlets. Don Surber agrees that the changes are more than just new technologies:

My take is that people are better educated and older today than they were 24 years ago. The technology has changed. And the media is more partisan today, perhaps because there is more competition — and perhaps because objectivity is so darned hard.

People are better informed than they were a quarter-century ago and hence more skeptical of what they hear from the supposed non-partisan purveyors of information.

Barely one-quarter of Americans “say that news organizations are careful that their reporting is not politically biased.”  Jennifer Rubin thinks it might helped if news organizations ‘fessed up: “Perhaps if mainstream news outlets owned up to their bias rather than hunker down in willful ignorance, there might be a chance to recover the public’s trust.”

And this is why blogs are becoming a better source of news.   You know where we’re coming from.  We bloggers don’t pretend we’re something we’re not.  We here at GayPatriot make quite clear that we’re gay conservatives.  It’s right there on our masthead.

Maybe the New York Times should change its motto to All that News that Liberals Find Fit to Print.

Nate Silver may well be the Michael Barone of the left.  He has a gift for analyzing polls and pulling out the significant nuggets to show trends in popular opinion.  He finds that the Washington Post makes a mess in its analysis of its own poll on health care reform.

And even as Silver finds indications of support for the public option, Jennifer Rubin observes

Obama made no statistically measurable difference in the health-care debate. Before the speech, Americans (not voters, as other polls generally measure) opposed ObamaCare by a margin of 50-45 percent. Afterward, by a margin of 48-46 percent. (The margin of error is +/- 3 percent). Fifty-four percent say the more they learn the less they like it. (The poll numbers for ObamaCare are virtually identical in that regard to those for HillaryCare.)

Emphasis added.  In short, the speech didn’t change many minds.  Maybe Obama really does lack the power to persuade.

Even former Bill Clinton aide George Stephanapolous finds that the President’s Speech aas no game-changer.  Like Rubin, he notes that voters have barely budged on the issue.

Yeah, he got a modest bounce, but that’s pretty much what conservative bloggers, including yours truly, were predicting.

UPDATE:  Support for Health Care Plan Falls Back To Pre-Speech Levels.

UP-UPDATE:  Gallup and Rasmussen: No Bump for Obama on Health Care

All at the same time, in fact.

Can we officially declare Kanye West as “Douchebag of the Century”?

And Beyonce as “Goddess of the Century”?  She is talented, smart and classy.

The Leftists that embraced him when he said “President Bush hates black people” should be ashamed of themselves now.  *crickets chirping*

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Having appreciated the spirited campaign Hillary Clinton waged in the late spring of 2008 for the Democratic presidential nomination, I wondered last January if she could become a great Secretary of State.  But, yet, in the nearly eight months since she has taken office as the nation’s top diplomat, she has faded into the background, becoming, in the words of a liberal-leaning writer, “invisible.”

Mrs. Clinton doesn’t seem to be wielding much influence in U.S. foreign policy, perhaps the first time a president has used his most important appointment to silence one of his rivals.  You just don’t see him turning to her for advice as past presidents have turned to their secretaries of state.

And I wonder if it was she or the President who ordered the State Department to deny visas to the interim President of Honduras as well as 17 other top officials of his government, all chosen in the manner stipulated by the nation’s constitution:

Washington has revoked the visas of Honduras’ interim president and 17 other top officials to pressure the Central American nation to reinstate ousted leader Manuel Zelaya, Honduras’ government said Saturday.

The interim government expects the United States to revoke the visas of at least 1,000 more public officials “in the coming days,” Information Minister Rene Zepeda told The Associated Press.

(H/t:  Rick Richman.)

Refusing to grant visas to those who exercise just and lawful authority in an allied nature while calling a man, who won a second term as President of a nation openly hostile to the U.S. by clearly fraudulent means (as his government puts down a popular protest with an iron fist), “the elected leader” of Iran.

This is not smart diplomacy, this is diplomacy by the Keystone Cops.

N.B. Read Nick’s recent post for background on the situation in Honduras.

UDPATE: Abe Greenwald finds that the Obama foreign policy has helped distance the U.S. from our Eastern European allies.  Wonder if that’s the leaders of those nation’s have a particular affinity with the United States because of their recent experience with Communism, you know, that notion of shared ideals.

So, let’s see a guy named Joe Wilson shouts out during President Obama’s address and accuses him of lying. But, another guy named Joe Wilson makes a name for himself by lying about President Bush.

Guess which one apologized? The one whose outburst, boorish though it may have been, had at least a grain of truth.  And more, so much more as he articulates below.

(H/t Gateway Pundit who calls the South Carolina Congressman “Truth Czar”.)