John “I’ll Be Whoever I Need To Be To Get Votes” McCain Suddenly Becomes Johnny Conservative On Immigration

John “I’ll Be Whoever I Need To Be To Get Votes” McCain Suddenly Becomes Johnny Conservative On Immigration

April 19th, 2010 Posted By Pat Dollard.

Senate Border Security Immigration


Sen. John McCain has endorsed a tough Arizona anti-immigration bill that will let police arrest people who aren’t carrying identification, the latest move in McCain’s rightward shift in advance of a tough Republican Senate primary this summer.

“I think it’s a very important step forward,” McCain said Monday. “I can fully understand why the legislature would want to act.”

It’s a dramatic switch for a senator who supported comprehensive immigration reform with Democratic lion Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) just four years ago. McCain is facing a primary challenge from the right in former Rep. J.D. Hayworth.

Immigration reform advocates were bewildered.

“He risked his political career for immigration reform, and now he is compromising his principles to fight for his political life,” said Frank Sherry, executive director of America’s Voice and a longtime immigration reform advocate.

Under the Arizona law, which passed the state House last week and is expected to be signed by Gov. Jan Brewer (R), police can arrest anyone on “reasonable suspicion” that they are an illegal immigrant. If they’re not carrying a valid driver’s license or identity papers, police can arrest them.

Hayworth called McCain’s Monday comments “political gamesmanship…born of political convenience – driven by his need for personal political gain.”

Under current law, illegal immigration is a federal crime, and state law enforcement officials can only ask about it if a person is suspected of another crime.

Backers say the package of tough new rules will give police and other law enforcement the tools they need to combat increasingly violent immigration violations.

Opponents say the law essentially legalizes racial profiling. “If you look brown, you’re going to get asked for papers,” Sherry said. If Brewer signs the bill, he said, “she’ll go down George Wallace of our generation.”

The bill passed the state’s House on a largely party-line vote last week, and is set for a vote in the Arizona Senate Monday.

McCain’s comments to reporters came as he and fellow Republican Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl unveiled a 10 step plan to secure Arizona’s border with Mexico. McCain and Kyl want to send 3,000 National Guard troops to help an overstretched border patrol curtail increasingly violent incidents along the border, among other measures.

McCain said the plan did not need to move in tandem with a potential federal immigration reform bill.

“The lesson is clear: First we have to secure the border,” McCain said. “If you want to enact some other reforms, how can that be effective when you have a porous border?”

“So we have to secure the border first,” he said.

McCain asked the federal government for more National Guard troops last year, but the request was not granted. The National Guard has been deployed to protect the border before, Kyl said, but troops were moved out as the war in Iraq escalated and their capabilities were needed elsewhere.

Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) are writing a bipartisan immigration bill the administration says it wants to push through Congress this year. Lawmakers have been meeting with business and labor interests to try and hash out an agreement.

Schumer argued Monday that his proposal is actually more stringent than Arizona’s.

“We believe our blueprint is even stronger than the Arizona senators’ proposal in stopping the flow of illegal immigrants because our plan both increases border security and prevents employers from hiring illegal immigrants,” Schumer said in a statement Monday. “The only way to combat illegal immigration is through comprehensive reform because that is the only solution that can get through both the House and the Senate. We would certainly be open to negotiating a comprehensive bill that requires completion of border security measures before any other measures take effect.”

But with the Senate still bitterly divided in the wake of health reform and heading toward a broad array of other major legislation, there is little appetite for an issue as divisive as immigration.

“There’s still a shot, and I’ll leave it at that,” Sherry said.

Iranian cleric: Women who wear revealing clothing cause earthquakes

Iranian cleric: Women who wear revealing clothing cause earthquakes


Women who wear revealing clothing and behave promiscuously are to blame for earthquakes, a senior Iranian cleric has said.

Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi’s comments follow a warning by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that a quake is certain to hit the capital Tehran and that many residents should relocate.

In a prayer sermon, the cleric said: ‘Many women who do not dress modestly… lead young men astray, corrupt their chastity and spread adultery in society, which increases earthquakes.’

june 2009A female opposition supporter flashes the victory sign during election rallies in Tehran last year. An Iranian cleric has claimed that an earthquake at the time was the result of protests… and that women who are provocatively dressed can cause more quakes

Women in the Islamic Republic are required by law to cover from head to toe. But many, especially the young, ignore some of the stricter codes and wear tight coats and scarves pulled back to show much of their hair.

‘What can we do to avoid being buried under the rubble?’ Sedighi asked. ‘There is no other solution but to take refuge in religion and to adapt our lives to Islam’s moral codes. A divine authority told me to tell the people to make a general repentance. Why? Because calamities threaten us.’

Iran is one of the world’s most earthquake-prone countries, and seismologists have warned for 20 years that one is likely to hit Tehran, which straddles scores of fault lines, in the near future. Some 12million people live in the city, which was last struck in 1830.

Two weeks ago President Ahmadinejad said ‘at least 5million’ should leave Tehran because of the earthquake threat.

Some experts have even suggested Iran should move its capital to a less seismically active location. Tehran straddles scores of fault lines, including one more than 50 miles (80 kilometres) long, though it has not suffered a major quake since 1830.

In 2003, a powerful earthquake hit the southern city of Bam, killing 31,000 people – about a quarter of that city’s population – and destroying its ancient mud-built citadel.

Referring to the violence that followed last June’s disputed presidential election, Sedighi said, ‘The political earthquake that occurred was a reaction to some of the actions (that took place).

‘And now, if a natural earthquake hits Tehran, no one will be able to confront such a calamity but God’s power, only God’s power… So let’s not disappoint God.’

The Iranian government and its security forces have been locked in a bloody battle with a large opposition movement that accuses Ahmadinejad of winning last year’s vote by fraud.

Minister of Welfare and Social Security Sadeq Mahsooli said prayers and pleas for forgiveness were the best ‘formulas to repel earthquakes’.

‘We cannot invent a system that prevents earthquakes

Read more:

Republican returns GOLDMAN donations…

US lawmaker returns Goldman campaign donations

39 mins ago


WASHINGTON (AFP) – A Republican US lawmaker vying for President Barack Obama’s old Senate seat said Monday he would return campaign donations from Goldman Sachs amid fraud charges against the Wall Street titan.

Representative Mark Kirk of Illinois’s campaign spokeswoman, Kirsten Kukowksi, said he would voluntarily return campaign contributions made by Goldman employees not accused of wrongdoing.

“We will voluntarily return this cycle?s campaign contributions from Goldman Sachs employees until we get to the bottom of what happened,” she said in a statement.

Kukowski said Kirk “did not receive contributions from Goldman Sachs’ Political Action Committee or the executives accused of wrongdoing,” and “made a personal decision to go above and beyond the reasonable ethics standard and err on the side of caution.”

The US Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil suit Friday accusing Goldman of “defrauding investors by misstating and omitting key facts” about a financial product based on subprime mortgage-backed securities.

The securities were a key contributor to the financial crisis that peaked in 2008 because many contained risky mortgages





Top Contributors

This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization’s PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals’ immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

Because of contribution limits, organizations that bundle together many individual contributions are often among the top donors to presidential candidates. These contributions can come from the organization’s members or employees (and their families). The organization may support one candidate, or hedge its bets by supporting multiple candidates. Groups with national networks of donors – like EMILY’s List and Club for Growth – make for particularly big bundlers.

University of California $1,591,395
Goldman Sachs $994,795
Harvard University $854,747
Microsoft Corp $833,617
Google Inc $803,436
Citigroup Inc $701,290
JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132
Time Warner $590,084
Sidley Austin LLP $588,598
Stanford University $586,557
National Amusements Inc $551,683
UBS AG $543,219
Wilmerhale Llp $542,618
Skadden, Arps et al $530,839
IBM Corp $528,822
Columbia University $528,302
Morgan Stanley $514,881
General Electric $499,130
US Government $494,820
Latham & Watkins $493,835

Reaching Out Quietly to Muslims in America [Why “quietly”? Who is not supposed to be aware of it?]

Reaching Out Quietly to Muslims in America [Why “quietly”? Who is not supposed to be aware of it?]


Published: April 18, 2010

When President Obama took the stage in Cairo last June, promising a new relationship with the Islamic world, [Why should we have any relations with the Islamic world? America, like other countries, has relations with other countries. Ny having official relations with the “Islamic world” w3e implicitly lend legitimacy to the Islamic division of the world into Muslim and non-Muslim.] Muslims in America wondered only half-jokingly whether the overture included them. After all, Mr. Obama had kept his distance during the campaign, never visiting an American mosque and describing the false claim that he was Muslim as a “smear” on his Web site. [This was part of Obama’s fraudulent campaign. He knew that the American people were suspicious of Moslems and of his Moslem connections, so he decided to pretend that there weren’t any such connections. That is fraud.]

Nearly a year later, Mr. Obama has yet to set foot in an American mosque. And he still has not met with Muslim and Arab-American leaders. But less publicly, his administration has reached out to this politically isolated constituency in a sustained and widening effort that has left even skeptics surprised. [Obama has met with Muslim leaders, and he has brought members of the Muslim Brotherhood into the top levels of his administration including Homeland Security.]

Muslim and Arab-American advocates have participated in policy discussions and received briefings from top White House aides and other officials on health care legislation, foreign policy, the economy, immigration and national security. They have met privately with a senior White House adviser, Valerie Jarrett, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to discuss civil liberties concerns and counterterrorism strategy.

The impact of this continuing dialogue [This is NOT dialogue! There is no attempt whatsoever to dialogue with Moslems about the ideology of Islam. In fact, Obama has prohibited the use of any words in government documents which might indicate any link between Islam and “terrorism”. That is NOT dialogue; that is prevention of dialogue. What we have is Obama seeking the input of members of the Muslim Brotherhood.] is difficult to measure, but White House officials cited several recent government actions that were influenced, in part, by the discussions. The meeting with Ms. Napolitano was among many factors that contributed to the government’s decision this month to end a policy subjecting passengers from 14 countries, most of them Muslim, to additional scrutiny at airports, the officials said.

That emergency directive, enacted after a failed Dec. 25 bombing plot, has been replaced with a new set of intelligence-based protocols that law enforcement officials consider more effective.

Also this month, Tariq Ramadan, a prominent Muslim academic, visited the United States for the first time in six years after Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton reversed a decision by the Bush administration, which had barred Mr. Ramadan from entering the country, initially citing the U.S.A. Patriot Act. Mrs. Clinton also cleared the way for another well-known Muslim professor, Adam Habib, who had been denied entry under similar circumstances. [Again, deliberate promotion of the Islamic imperialist agenda.]

Arab-American and Muslim leaders said they had yet to see substantive changes on a variety of issues, including what they describe as excessive airport screening, policies that have chilled Muslim charitable giving and invasive F.B.I. surveillance guidelines. But they are encouraged by the extent of their consultation by the White House and governmental agencies. [They have every reason to feel encouraged! Unfortunately, the rest of America should be shocked by this giving aid and comfort to the enemy.]

“For the first time in eight years, we have the opportunity to meet, engage, discuss, disagree, but have an impact on policy,” said James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute in Washington. “We’re being made to feel a part of that process and that there is somebody listening.” [Indeed! This is NOT dialogue!]

In the post-9/11 era, Muslims and Arab-Americans have posed something of a conundrum for the government: they are seen as a political liability but also, increasingly, as an important partner in countering the threat of homegrown terrorism. Under President George W. Bush, leaders of these groups met with government representatives from time to time, but said they had limited interaction with senior officials. While Mr. Obama has yet to hold the kind of high-profile meeting that Muslims and Arab-Americans seek [The Moslems want it more in-your-face. Obama understands that he cannot move to fast and openly with his pro-Moslem agenda because of the political reaction around the country. ], there is a consensus among his policymakers that engagement is no longer optional.

The administration’s approach has been understated. Many meetings have been private; others were publicized only after the fact. A visit to New York University in February by John O. Brennan, Mr. Obama’s chief counterterrorism adviser, drew little news coverage, but caused a stir among Muslims around the country. [ It caused a stir among those who are aware of the Moslem agenda, too! The press, of course, knows nothing about Islam and does not want to know. This meeting was a shocking display of submission to Moslems.] Speaking to Muslim students, activists and others, Mr. Brennan acknowledged many of their grievances, including “surveillance that has been excessive,” “overinclusive no-fly lists” and “an unhelpful atmosphere around many Muslim charities.”

“These are challenges we face together as Americans,” said Mr. Brennan, who momentarily showed off his Arabic to hearty applause. He and other officials have made a point of disassociating Islam from terrorism in public comments, using the phrase “violent extremism” in place of words like “jihad” and “Islamic terrorism.” [This is a huge problem. It is an attempt to deceive the American people as to the nature of the conflict we are facing.]

While the administration’s solicitation of Muslims and Arab-Americans has drawn little fanfare, it has not escaped criticism. A small but vocal group of research analysts, bloggers and others complain that the government is reaching out to Muslim leaders and organizations with an Islamist agenda or ties to extremist groups abroad. [Yes, small but vocal. In the forefront is Jihadwatch and David Horowitz’s Freedom Center and Pamela Geller’s Pajamas Media. And a few others, including ACT!ForAmerica.]

They point out that Ms. Jarrett gave the keynote address at the annual convention for the Islamic Society of North America. The ISNA is a Muslim Brotherhood group!] The group was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in a federal case against the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, a Texas-based charity whose leaders were convicted in 2008 of funneling money to Hamas. The society denies any links to terrorism. [Of course, they deny it, because they are liars and propagandists. They are outright supporters of Hamas, and for them, Hamas is not terrorist — even though Hamas is considered terrorist by the USA, Canada, Europe, Australia and others.]

“I think dialogue is good, but it has to be with genuine moderates,” said Steven Emerson, a terrorism analyst who advises government officials. “These are the wrong groups to legitimize.” Mr. Emerson and others have also objected to the political appointments of several American Muslims, including Rashad Hussain.

In February, the president chose Mr. Hussain, a 31-year-old White House lawyer, to become the United States’ special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference. The position, a kind of ambassador at large to Muslim countries, was created by Mr. Bush. In a video address, Mr. Obama highlighted Mr. Hussain’s status as a “close and trusted member of my White House staff” and “a hafiz,” a person who has memorized the Koran. [This “close and trusted member” is an Islamist, protector of terrorists and follower of the ideology of Islam. As a “hafiz” he surely knows all those verses in the Koran which call for violence and hatred of non-Moslems, yet he says nothing about it.]

Within days of the announcement, news reports surfaced about comments Mr. Hussain had made on a panel in 2004, while he was a student at Yale Law School, in which he referred to several domestic terrorism prosecutions as “politically motivated.” Among the cases he criticized was that of Sami Al-Arian, a former computer-science professor in Florida who pleaded guilty to aiding members of a Palestinian terrorist group.

At first, the White House said Mr. Hussain did not recall making the comments, which had been removed from the Web version of a 2004 article published by a small Washington magazine. When Politico obtained a recording of the panel, Mr. Hussain acknowledged criticizing the prosecutions but said he believed the magazine quoted him inaccurately, prompting him to ask its editor to remove the comments. On Feb. 22, The Washington Examiner ran an editorial with the headline “Obama Selects a Voice of Radical Islam.”

Muslim leaders watched carefully as the story migrated to Fox News. They had grown accustomed to close scrutiny, many said in interviews, but were nonetheless surprised. In 2008, Mr. Hussain had co-authored a paper for the Brookings Institution arguing that the government should use the peaceful teachings of Islam to fight terrorism.

“Rashad Hussain is about as squeaky clean as you get,” said Representative Keith Ellison, a Minnesota Democrat who is Muslim. [Ellison is an Islamist, close to the terrorist-linked CAIR and other Muslim Brotherhood organizations.] Mr. Ellison and others wondered whether the administration would buckle under the pressure and were relieved when the White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, defended Mr. Hussain.

“The fact that the president and the administration have appointed Muslims to positions and have stood by them when they’ve been attacked is the best we can hope for,” said Ingrid Mattson, president of the Islamic Society of North America.

It was notably different during Mr. Obama’s run for office. In June 2008, volunteers of his campaign barred two Muslim women in headscarves from appearing behind Mr. Obama at a rally in Detroit, eliciting widespread criticism. The campaign promptly recruited Mazen Asbahi, a 36-year-old corporate lawyer and popular Muslim activist from Chicago, to become its liaison to Muslims and Arab-Americans.

Bloggers began researching Mr. Asbahi’s background. For a brief time in 2000, he had sat on the board of an Islamic investment fund, along with Sheikh Jamal Said, a Chicago imam who was later named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land case. Mr. Asbahi said in an interview that he had left the board after three weeks because he wanted no association with the imam.

Shortly after his appointment to the Obama campaign, Mr. Asbahi said, a Wall Street Journal reporter began asking questions about his connection to the imam. Campaign officials became concerned that news coverage would give critics ammunition to link the imam to Mr. Obama, Mr. Asbahi recalled. On their recommendation, Mr. Asbahi agreed to resign from the campaign, he said.

He is still unsettled by the power of his detractors. “To be in the midst of this campaign of change and hope and to have it stripped away over nothing,” he said. “It hurts.”

From the moment Mr. Obama took office, he seemed eager to change the tenor of America’s relationship with Muslims worldwide. He gave his first interview to Al Arabiya, the Arabic-language television station based in Dubai. Muslims cautiously welcomed his ban on torture and his pledge to close Guantánamo within a year.

In his Cairo address, he laid out his vision for “a new beginning” with Muslims: while America would continue to fight terrorism, he said, terrorism would no longer define America’s approach to Muslims. [Brilliant! Muslims commit terrorist acts in the name of Islam, citing the same Koran and sayings of Muhammad that all religious Moslems consider sacred, but Obama will not permit American policy to recognize the linkage.]

Back at home, Muslim and Arab-American leaders remained skeptical. But they took note when, a few weeks later, Mohamed Magid, a prominent imam from Sterling, Va., and Rami Nashashibi, a Muslim activist from Chicago, joined the president at a White-House meeting about fatherhood. Also that month, Dr. Faisal Qazi, a board member of American Muslim Health Professionals, began meeting with administration officials to discuss health care reform.

The invitations were aimed at expanding the government’s relationship with Muslims and Arab-Americans to areas beyond security, said Mr. Hussain, the White House’s special envoy. Mr. Hussain began advising the president on issues related to Islam after joining the White House counsel’s office in January 2009. He helped draft Mr. Obama’s Cairo speech and accompanied him on the trip. “The president realizes that you cannot engage one-fourth of the world’s population based on the erroneous beliefs of a fringe few,” Mr. Hussain said. [This is the Islamist line. It is a lie. They want us to think that we are dealing only with a “fringe few”, gangs, like Al Qaeda. In fact, we are dealing with the hundreds of millions of Moslems who support Sharia law as sacred. Sharia law says: “Jihad means to make war on non-Muslims. Will Obama’s Moslem advisers repudiate all those calls from the sacred texts to make war on non-Moslems?]

Other government offices followed the lead of the White House. In October, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke met with Arab-Americans and Muslims in Dearborn, Mich., to discuss challenges facing small-business owners. Also last fall, Farah Pandith was sworn in as the State Department’s first special representative to Muslim communities. [Again, legitimizing the Islamic division between Moslems and non-Moslems! Where is e pluribus unum??] While Ms. Pandith works mostly with Muslims abroad, she said she had also consulted with American Muslims because Mrs. Clinton believes “they can add value overseas.”

Despite this, American actions abroad — including civilian deaths from drone strikes in Pakistan and the failure to close Guantánamo — have drawn the anger of Muslims and Arab-Americans. [Nobody stops to ask why that should be? What is the Moslem agenda here? The answer is that, according to Islamic law, an attack by non-Moslems on Moslems anywhere is considered an attack on Moslems everywhere. And, there is the matter of Islamic anti-Semitism. Moslems everywhere want Israel to disappear, and they are very upset that America, at least until recently, has been supporting Israel.]

Even though their involvement with the administration has broadened, they remain most concerned about security-related policies. In January, when the Department of Homeland Security hosted a two-day meeting with Muslim, Arab-American, South Asian and Sikh leaders, the group expressed concern about the emergency directive subjecting passengers from a group of Muslim countries to additional screening. [Of course. The very thought that our national security might be endangered by Moslems must be banished from the public consciousness.]

Farhana Khera, executive director of Muslim Advocates, pointed out that the policy would never have caught the attempted shoe bomber Richard Reid, who is British. “It almost sends the signal that the government is going to treat nationals of powerless countries differently from countries that are powerful,” Ms. Khera recalled saying as community leaders around the table nodded their heads.

Ms. Napolitano, who sat with the group for more than an hour, committed to meeting with them more frequently. Ms. Khera said she left feeling somewhat hopeful. [Only somewhat? Napolitano is the one who said that her department will not refer to acts of terrorism (let alone Moslem terrorism) but rather as “man-caused disasters”. ]

“I think our message is finally starting to get through,” she said. [Unfortunately, she is right. Obama is implementing the Islamist agend as fast as he can considering the American political landscape.]


Banning the use of the word, Islamist, Obama has turned this into the Global War on ?


Clarice Feldman

Banning the use of the word, Islamist, Obama has turned this into the Global War on ?

We’ve all heard of the love that dare not speak its name, but to turn the enemy into a nameless foe is preposterous. Sodahead thinks so, too:
In Senate testimony, Robert Mueller does everything he can to suggest that he is talking about Islamic extremists.  He cites Nidal Hasan’s mass murder of American soldiers at Fort Hood.  He cites Mumbai attacks planner David Headley.
But thanks to Obama’s banning of any reference to Islam in relation to terror threats, Mueller is unable to specify that it isn’t animal rights activists or disgruntled taxpayers who he is calling “an equally serious threat” as al Qaeda.  He can only describe the danger as “US-born extremists,” of no particular persuasion.
Not allowed to name the enemy, Mueller sounds like Ray Charles telling Stevie Wonder where to steer the car.

‘Build The Party, Trust The People,
Save The Country’–McCotter At SRLC

Posted on | April 17, 2010 | 2 Comments

by Smitty

Thaddeus McCotter is heroic. He starts off with an “simple country lawyer” reference, going back to Anatomy of a Murder, and continues through a rousing speech with punchline sufficiently arid for Steven Wright.

Thaddeus McCotter: because not all rhetoric has to be served in ALL CAPS with a shot of adrenaline.

Crying Hate, Suppressing Debate

Crying Hate, Suppressing Debate

By on 4.19.10 @ 6:09AM

Furrowing his brow at the protesters rudely demonstrating their ingratitude to benevolent old Uncle Sam, Bill Clinton decided to take a trip down memory lane. While others indulge their 1990s nostalgia by watching Seinfeld reruns and listening to Hootie and the Blowfish CDs, Clinton prefers to repeat his favorite smears of anyone uncouth enough to criticize the government from the right.

Then as now, our leaders had to deal with a fearsome tide of antigovernment extremism. Today we have Michelle Bachmann, the Republican congresswoman from Minnesota. Back then, it was Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, and a Democratic president who stood up and announced the end of the “era of big government.”

Well, never mind that last example. But Clinton is concerned that his former sidekick Al Gore made things worse with his prized invention. “Because of the Internet, there is this vast echo chamber and our advocacy reaches into corners that never would have been possible before,” Clinton told the New York Times. The unwashed masses lapping up this advocacy may be “serious and seriously disturbed.”

Protest against a Republican-run federal government, no matter how intemperate, is patriotic. Protest against Democratic-controlled government leads inexorably Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing. No matter how anfractuous the logic, the fact that such protest is now widespread is what has Clinton seriously disturbed.

Such splendid demagoguery worked wonders for Clinton back in 1995, when he shamelessly exploited McVeigh’s atrocities to turn back rising conservative and populist opposition to his agenda. But this latest rendition also serves to remind those who cannot tell the difference between a Tea Party protest and a Klan rally that things weren’t much different the last time a liberal president tried to govern, even though that president was Southern and white.

Despite Clinton’s pasty whiteness, the liberal line of attack wasn’t much different. Then as now, all conservative opposition was really just the thinly veiled racism of “angry white males.” This held true even when the issue at hand had no obvious racial connotations. Right before the 1994 elections, Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) told a Manhattan audience that the Klan’s white hoods had been replaced with “black suits and red ties.”

“It’s not ‘spic’ and ‘nigger’ anymore,” Rangel said of the new racists stalking the land. “They say, ‘Let’s cut taxes.'” (By the way, there is more evidence of old Charlie using such ugly racial slurs than the average Tea Party activist.) This was back when only Toni Morrison believed we had a black president, so the notion that it is racist to disagree with liberals about health care reform is nothing new under the sun.

Violence and genuine racism — like that seen in last weekend’s white supremacist rally in Los Angeles — should be condemned by all people of goodwill across the political spectrum. Yet when a former president makes unsubstantiated allegations that political opponents are inciting people to violence, when regular columnists for the Washington Post and the New York Times liken mainstream critics of the president to the bigotry of David Duke, when protests are denounced as racist simply because most of the people attending them are white, that kind of rhetoric — sometimes calculated, sometimes incautious — is itself a contribution to the coarsening of our public discourse.

Or perhaps it is something worse. Political passions in this country have been inflamed since at least the 2000 Florida recount, maybe the Clinton impeachment two years before. Demographically, America is becoming more diverse. In such a climate, racializing disputes that are not inherently racial in nature and inflating the profile of real hate groups is not just wrong — it is profoundly irresponsible.

“All politics are local,” Tip O’Neill famously observed. That kind of provincialism is compatible with social harmony. “All politics are identity politics” is a maxim that will tear the country apart, as it ignores any concept of the common good. It will lead to more hate and more division, not less.

Listen to Bill Clinton. “There can be real consequences when what you say animates people who do things you would never do,” the former president recently warned. On that score, he is correct.

Letter to the Editor

W. James Antle, III is associate editor of The American Spectator.

Remember That ‘Culture of Corruption’? It’s back!

Remember That ‘Culture of Corruption’?

Posted on | April 19, 2010 | No Comments

It’s back!

Politically connected staffers in Hillary Rodham Clinton’s State Department twisted arms to steer a $5.4 million contract for crystal stemware to a tiny interior-design firm without putting it out for bid . . .
Two senior State Department contracting officials, Randolph Bennett and Tandra Jones, successfully pushed for the contract to go to a firm run by Denise Mathis-Gardner as a no-bid minority “8(a)” contract, the source said — an action that one shut-out competitor complained cost taxpayers an extra $1 million.
The contracted firm, Systems Design Inc., based in Washington’s Georgetown neighborhood, had no experience making glassware, and its owner had only recently emerged from bankruptcy proceedings, the source said. . . .
“These two [Bennett and Jones] went down to the small-business office and insisted that we have an 8(a) company — have this company SDI do our contract,” the source said.
“They [SDI] don’t know how to make glass. The glassware is being made in Sweden.” . . .
Records show Bennett gave $1,000 to Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, $2,000 to the Obama Victory Fund and $2,300 to the Democratic National Committee for the inauguration.

The Obama administration: Transparent as Swedish crystal!

“I Would Hope That Our Leaders In Washington, D.C. Understand We Like To Be A Dominant Superpower”

“I Would Hope That Our Leaders In Washington, D.C. Understand We Like To Be A Dominant Superpower”

April 18th, 2010 Posted By Pat Dollard.


WASHINGTON, Ill. (AP) April 18 – – Sarah Palin criticized President Barack Obama on Saturday for saying America is a military superpower “whether we like it or not,” saying she was taken aback by his comment.

“I would hope that our leaders in Washington, D.C., understand we like to be a dominant superpower,” the former Alaska governor said. “I don’t understand a world view where we have to question whether we like it or not that America is powerful.”

“It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower, and when conflicts break out, one way or another we get pulled into them,” Obama said. “And that ends up costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure.”

Palin’s remarks came in a question-and-answer session after a speech at an event in the central Illinois town of Washington to raise money for scholarships and a community center. She spoke to a crowd of about 1,100.

The Republican criticized Obama throughout her speech – for a healthcare overhaul that she says won’t work, for the increase in the national deficit and for disagreeing with Israeli policies.

Palin said she hopes the November elections will produce winners who believe in limited government and encouraging free enterprise.