The Socialist Judge: Elena Kagan and the Teachable Moment

"We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America"! How naïve was America when Barack Hussein Obama shouted those words on the brink of his election. What an education we have had in the past tumultuous 18 months, with a new transformation occurring on an almost daily basis. It has been quite a ride, reminding me of the Disneyland Tea Cup ride where I watched my little boy lose his cookies. As disturbing as this ride as been, you have to admit -- this is the ONE statement Obama has made truthfully.

In the early months of his regime, one was apprehensive to call his actions out for what they were, but with every move he and his team have taken, there is no mistake he is on a path to transform our democracy into his supreme socialist state. The most current horrifying transformation taking place today is taking place in the form of a lifetime appointment to the third branch of our government, the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is where this transformation to socialism in eminent. If properly placed, the Supreme Court is the last and final bastion to change, and ultimately replace, our Constitution. The buck stops there. Once placed, there is no election, no votes, no repeal to stop the transformation for decades, if ever.

Slowly, but (thank God) surely, the beliefs and views of Obama's latest nightmare appointment are being revealed. The question is -- do the few remaining elected conservatives in our congress have the stones to stand up against this powerful takeover. You can't get more socialistic than Elena Kagan, and in fact she is a clone of Barack Hussein Obama. So, if you approve of what Obama has been doing as president, you will love this woman. (h/t Hot Air)

We can stop this, America, by letting our senators know how we feel about her appointment. If socialism is to be stopped, it starts with us -- the American People. As Mr. Lord says, this is, without a doubt, a blessed teachable moment.

Jeffrey Lord has his own ideas, and writes a brilliant piece in the American Spectator. He carefully lays out this socialist takeover step by gruesome step:


The Socialist Judge: Elena Kagan and the Teachable Moment
by Jeffrey Lord, May 12, 2010

"In our own times, a coherent socialist movement is nowhere to be found in the United States. Americans are more likely to speak of a golden past than of a golden future, of capitalism's glories than of socialism's greatness."
-- Elena Kagan, Obama nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court

"This is a great opportunity to find out what's in this woman's mind."
-- Rush Limbaugh

The teachable moment on socialism is here.

Courtesy of Barack Obama and Elena Kagan..

The issue -- the issue -- of this confirmation hearing for a Supreme Court Justice should be not Ms. Kagan, but socialism. Socialism, the philosophy she professed such admiration for in her 1981 Princeton thesis titled "To the Final Conflict: Socialism in New York City, 1900-1933."

"The Final Conflict." Think of that.

Why focus on an undergraduate college paper written almost thirty years ago?

Because we are in the middle of a massively controversial presidency led by a man who has exhibited every intention of "transforming" America in the socialist image -- leading the country away from its capitalist heritage. This Supreme Court nomination does not, after all, come in a vacuum. Since taking office, the Obama administration has taken control of everything from car companies to financial institutions to banks to your health care.

And no, the obvious intent of Princeton's Sean Wilentz, her thesis adviser and himself a notable progressive, is not missed. In saying in the New York Times that "to study something is not to endorse it" Wilentz telegraphs that is exactly what Kagan -- and he himself -- thought then and now of socialism. They liked it. They like it still. A lot. It helps to understand when reading this particular bit of fantasy that the American Prospect has described Wilentz as "a distinguished historian active in Democratic politics." His defense of Kagan is the plain attempt to engage in a little storytelling with a considerable partisan design -- to convince the unwary that Kagan is not what her words and actions demonstrate she in fact is.

Around America, whether it is the struggles of California or New York, or abroad in Greece, the chickens of socialism are coming home to roost. And Solicitor General Kagan -- by all accounts just peachy as a person -- is an on the record believer in the philosophy that is behind all of this.

Socialism.

There is precedent for a fight of this nature.

In 1993, with Democrats in control of the Congress and the media wrapping the new President Clinton in the standard media gauze of affection and let's-all-work-together, something happened. Something important.

While it is not often remembered, before there was a Weekly Standard, Bill Kristol in his inimitable style calmly lit the bonfire that signaled the launch of the historic 1994 election of a GOP Congress. He began by rejecting outright the intention of Congressional Republicans to respond to the introduction of HillaryCare -- the health care debate of the day -- by agreeing to the premise and tinkering and bickering around the edges. Serving as chair of a group called the Project for the Republican Future, Kristol wrote a memo that wound up shaking the political foundations of the day. Kristol's startling recommendation: "kill" the bill. Don't bicker about the details. Don't fiddle at the margins. Just plain kill the bill outright and stand on conservative principles.

The reaction so startled, so clearly drew a bright line between conservatives and liberals, that in fact the decades-long somnolent establishment Republicans woke up. Prodded hourly by the rebellious Newt Gingrich, the case for opposing HillaryCare was made. And as a result the first Republican Congress since 1952 -- 42 years earlier -- was elected in the "Gingrich Revolution."

Now comes President Obama's nomination of his Solicitor General, former Harvard Law School Dean Kagan, as a replacement for Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.

With the nomination barely 24-hours old, Senate Republicans are already doing their standard head-nodding "we'll have to look at Elena's record" blah-blah-blah. She's nice. She's swell. And, chime in her supporters helpfully, she's a moderate. What a gal.

And in proceeding along those lines, the Senate GOP and the conservative movement are missing entirely what might be called a Kristol-clear opportunity.

The nomination of Elena Kagan is not about that nice Kagan woman. It is about her well and crisply stated views about "socialism's greatness." Views that, based on the actual record of the Obama presidency, this administration shares.

So. Got that? We have a Supreme Court nominee who believes in "socialism's greatness."

Socialism, then, is a highly relevant -- the highly relevant -- issue of this confirmation of an Obama nominated Supreme Court Justice.

This nomination fight must be about exactly what Ms. Kagan was thinking when she spent a lot of ink writing about "socialism's greatness." And how that thinking will affect her conduct on the bench.

Will she be confirmed? Maybe. Even probably. But her confirmation is quite beside the point. The notion that this President of the United States is a committed socialist is decidedly not beside the point. And as a symbol of the Obama administration Elena Kagan is a gift from the political MasterCard.

Priceless.

Why?

What needs to be discussed and debated, confirmed or rejected in this Supreme Court nomination is not Elena Kagan -- but socialism itself.

This hearing and the debate that swirls around it should be one very slow-motion educational moment about every socialist thought, movement and result, from the Haymarket Riot of May 4, 1886 (which gave rise to the socialist and Communist celebration of "May Day"), to the policies of the National Socialist Party (the Nazis) of Germany, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (the USSR) and countries such as the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea (ruled by the socialist "Korean Worker's Party"). How did major American cities like Los Angeles, Detroit and New Orleans get into such deep trouble that everything from bankruptcy to a hurricane pushes them to the brink? What about socialism can be found in the policies of states like California, New York, and Michigan -- all three which are ravaged by high unemployment and, yes, the looming shadow of bankruptcy?

Witnesses should be called to testify about the socialism Ms. Kagan praised. What kind of witnesses? Who, exactly? Why, some of the most prominent socialist advocates on the American scene today.

• Reverend Jeremiah Wright -- the now-retired pastor of the Trinity United Church of Christ, in whose pews President Obama sat for 20 years is well on the record in favor of socialism presented as "Black Liberation Theology"

• Bill Ayers -- the famous Weatherman whom Sean Hannity calls "the unrepentant terrorist" describes himself as "a radical, Leftist, small 'c' communist," as reported by Stanley Kurtz in this article in the Wall Street Journal. Come up to the Hill, Bill. (Can we leave the bombs behind on this round?)

• Van Jones -- the self-described Communist who served as the Obama administration's "Green Jobs Czar" until his very verbose video history was unearthed by Glenn Beck. Van -- your old colleague needs a little backup here. Come back and chat. We've missed your pearls of wisdom!

• Carol Browner -- the "global warming czar" of the Obama Administration. Ms. Browner, as Sean Hannity has yet again reported, was one of fourteen leaders of an outfit called the "Commission for a Sustainable World Society," an arm of the Socialist International.

So Carol, how about shedding some light on your buds? Come on now, don't be shy.

• U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders -- Mr. Sanders, who votes with the Senate Democrats, is a proud -- and the only open -- socialist member of the United States Senate. Representing Vermont, his fellow Vermont Senator being Senate Judiciary Chairman and Democrat Patrick Leahy. Senator -- you are never shy. Your Vermont friend runs the show -- have him give you some time to educate the rest of us.

• U.S. Representative Maxine Waters -- Ms. Waters has openly pined for the government to take over oil companies. To socialize them. Never a dull discussion to be had with Ms. Waters -- walk on over to the Senate, Congresswoman, and let 'er rip. We're all ears.

• Andy Stern -- the now resigned president of SEIU (the Service Employees International Union) famous for saying in the style of Karl Marx, "Workers of the world unite -- it's not just a slogan anymore. It's the way we're gonna have to do our work." Come back, Andy. Come back! Open up!

• Ron Bloom -- the Obama "manufacturing czar" and ex-SEIU aide on the record as believing "the free market is nonsense." OK Ron, make your case. Elena agrees -- come defend her.

• Bertha Lewis -- the ACORN CEO who addressed a meeting of the Young Democratic Socialists and said "I'm a socialist." Bertha, Bertha, Bertha. There will be more cameras here. Front row seat. We want to listen. Come on in!

• Mark Lloyd -- a disciple of Obama hero Saul Alinsky, the author of Rules for Radicals, Lloyd is a well-professed admirer of Venezuela socialist strongman Hugo Chavez. And an Obama appointee at the Federal Communications Commission. Hey -- things are stirring over at the FCC, Mark. Let's hear how you see the role of socialism on the Court in dealing with communications.

While we're at it, let's throw in a few celebrities. Let's listen to Sean Penn on the subject, he the admirer of Hugo Chavez. Michael Moore loves Fidel Castro's Cuba and professes his hatred of capitalism. Mike, babe, come be a witness for Elena Kagan.

Doubtless there are other potential witnesses who can testify as to just why someone of General Kagan's smarts would so fervently believe in "socialism's greatness." Yes, the White House would surely put up a fierce fight to keep its own appointees from being grilled by Senators -- thus illustrating the point that there is something to hide. They would do everything they possibly could to keep the topic of socialism as far removed from the Senate Judiciary Committee as possible. Which in turn sets up for Team Obama a classic "lose-lose" proposition. If socialism is so great, and the nominee is on the written record about this, then let's have the discussion. If the Obama White House and its allies refuse to have the discussion -- the question becomes: what's to hide?

But make no mistake. This is not about juicing the TV ratings for a Court confirmation.

If the United States Senate is about to vote for an avowed admirer of socialism for the job of Supreme Court Justice, the obvious question is: how does socialism deal with American concepts of law and the Constitution?

What about free speech? Already stories are appearing that Kagan "argued to the court in September that Congress has the constitutional right to forbid companies from engaging in political speech such as publishing pamphlets that advocate the election or defeat of a candidate for federal office." Socialism is, of course, famously hostile to corporations and the rights of private individuals, a hostility that comes out in Kagan's animus to free speech by corporations in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. This was the case, of course, for which President Obama famously scolded the Supreme Court as it sat before him during his State of the Union address.

Here are a few other issues to be aired in a discussion about a pro-socialist nominee to the Court:

• What about socialism's views of the role of corporations under the Constitution? Let's discuss.

• What about the limits of government in a socialist state?

• If the Constitution is simply a "living document" as liberals love to insist, not to be read as written, what about the real-life of socialism in practice around the world should be injected into any interpretation of the Constitution? If foreign law is something that should be taken into account by American judges, another liberal favorite, which of the laws of socialist states from North Korea to Communist China to the old Soviet Union should be adapted when making Supreme Court decisions?

• What is the nominee's view of capitalism?

• Should the Court be deciding how much money Americans are entitled to earn?

• Should the government run corporations and banks?

• What is the role of the FCC in regulating the Internet?

Unintentionally, President Obama has handed conservatives a golden opportunity to educate Americans on the hard cold facts of the age-old, always failed socialist agenda -- all neatly presented in the nomination of the very nice Elena Kagan.

A better teachable moment could not be had.

Will Senate Republicans understand the Obama White House gift to their cause? Are there actually members of the Republican Senate Caucus who will vote for a nominee who has so resolutely stated her support of socialism?

Is that you Lindsay Graham?

Can anyone in the Republican Senate Caucus say these four words?

Former Senator Bob Bennett.

The teachable moment for conservatives and all those tea partiers has arrived. At exactly the right time.

Thank you, Mr. President. Bless you for giving us Elena Kagan. Let the debate begin.


Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director and author. He has worked on the nominations of seven Supreme Court nominees. He writes from Pennsylvania at jlpa1@aol.com.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Senate phone and fax numbers:
Page 1, Page 2, and Page 3

"GOD BLESS AMERICA"

One of the best renditions ever .... Martina McBride at the 2002 Rose Bowl Parade. Gets me every time! Love our boys in the sky.... goosebump time.




... and then there's the Great Kate Smith

WHAT MOTIVATES OBAMA: LEFTIST TURNOUT

The best way to catch a fox is to understand their lay of the land. Obama is one crafty dude, not that intelligent, but very cunning. By now, we know how well he sets the stage: race baiting; strawmen à la the big bad banks, the awful insurance companies, those thieving pharmaceuticals, and let's not forget Goldman Sachs, who single-handedly caused the economic downfall of 2008. Strawmen.

I fear we have just seen the tip of the iceberg, if you can believe that. In the desperate weeks and months before this November's elections, we will see some pretty amazing new moves, but wait til 2012. I shudder to think, but we must -- because it's just too critical. Knowledge is power, and we can succeed, the smarter and more prepared we get.


Dick Morris gives us some useful insights worth saving for that rainy day:

WHAT MOTIVATES OBAMA: LEFTIST TURNOUT
by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann, May 5, 2010

Why is Obama vilifying FOX News? Why does Harry Reid push an immigration bill he knows can't pass? Why won't Schumer compromise on regulatory reform and why does he try to hang Goldman Sachs around the GOP? Why did Bill Clinton blame conservatives who oppose big government for the Oklahoma City bombing?

All share one motivation: To increase their base's turnout in the off year elections of 2010. Going after FOX News stimulates a feeling of victimization on the left. The immigration bill and the new Arizona law catalyzes a Latino turnout. Goldman Sachs enrages liberal anti-Wall Street populists. By characterizing the Tea Party activists as dangerous, liberals are aroused to vote in November.

There are two ways to win any election: energize the base or appeal to the center. Obama is, predictably, choosing the former, deliberately pushing policies that drive Independents into Republican arms as the price for generating passion on the part of his supporters.

Turnout in presidential year elections averages about 20 points higher than in off-year legislative races. Normally, the decrease in turnout is primarily among the least educated voters -- African-Americans and Latino-Americans -- and among young voters. These groups are, of course, precisely those that rallied to back Obama and put him over the top in 2008. A falloff in their turnout would be fatal to Obama's hopes of continuing Democratic control of Congress.

So Obama is doing all he can to generate a turnout, even going to the lengths of fostering racial tensions over immigration to energize his base.

Ultimately, the two events of this past week -- the oil spill and the Times Square terror attack -- will work in opposite political directions. While Obama may lose the day to day effort to convince us that he acted in a timely way to contain the spill, the more damage the oil does, the more environmentalists will be activated and fears of off shore drilling will be stoked. Advantage: Obama.

And the reverse is true of the Times Square attack. While Attorney General Eric Holder and the Homeland Security folks may win the day to day coverage of how they located and arrested the terror suspect, pulling him off a plane on the runway at JFK, the entire episode will raise fears of terrorism. Voters will ask why we have had three attempted attacks on US soil since Obama took office (Ft. Hood, Detroit airplane, and Times Square) while we had none in the seven years of Bush after 9/11. Advantage: Republicans.

The more either story has legs, the more the spill spreads and the more terror fears escalate, the more the respective political parties will benefit.


Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns, and signup for his email!
See his 2 informative books, "Catastrophe" and "2010"

ERIC CANTOR SPEAKS OUT

House Minority Whip Eric Cantor from Ohio speaks out against Obama policies and speaks up for American Exceptionalism. He is an inspiration, and would make a good leader. He is obviously not intimidated by this 'regime':

DEFENDING FREEDOM IS A CHOICE

When I listen to Obama lately, or even Eric Holder, it is so apparent how negative and angry they are. Listening to Holder last night, making his grand appearance at the capture of the latest Islamic terrorist (as if he had anything to do with it), my heart was saddened. How long has it been since we have heard praise, good will, blessings, and above all -- encouragement from our leaders? This administration is pathetic when it comes to leadership, foreign or domestic.

Obama has never left the campaign trail, focusing on his priorities, while avoiding our drastic unemployment situation, worsening our already unstable economy, leaving our borders unprotected, and weakening our position in the eyes of our enemies. With such an ego, how could he be encouraging, or gracious or humble, and any pathetic attempt to do so is as transparent as glass.

America desperately longs for another Ronald Reagan, who had nothing but love for our country, believed in her exceptionalism, and every speech or appearance was filled with it, standing up for freedom, for all people everywhere. One couldn't help but feel his positive outlook, even in the direst of circumstances. Somewhere out there is a leader, unafraid to stand up to this 'regime', and fill up our hearts again.

The Heritage Foundation write a moving piece about freedom, and does a fantastic job at comparing the positive to the negative (guess who?), with links to some excellent Reagan speeches. Heritage also announces their not-to-be-missed "Project America Month":


Defending Freedom Is a Choice
The Heritage Foundation, May 4, 2010

In April 2009 in Strasbourg, France, President Barack Obama was asked at a press conference if he "subscribe[d], as many of your predecessors have, to the school of American exceptionalism that sees America as uniquely qualified to lead the world, or do you have a slightly different philosophy?" President Obama then responded: "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism."

In other words, the President does not see anything unique about America's role in history or the world. Some of our past Presidents have seen it differently, including President Ronald Reagan who once explained to Soviet President Leonid Brezhnev:

When World War II ended, the United States had the only undamaged industrial power in the world. Our military might was at its peak, and we alone had the ultimate weapon, the nuclear weapon, with the unquestioned ability to deliver it anywhere in the world. If we had sought world domination then, who could have opposed us? But the United States followed a different course, one unique in all the history of mankind. We used our power and wealth to rebuild the war-ravished economies of the world, including those of the nations who had been our enemies.

So strongly did Reagan believe in American exceptionalism that he often described our country as "this experiment in liberty, this last, best hope of man." But President Obama disagrees. He sees the United States as just another declining power like Britain or Greece. These were telling examples for President Obama to choose since both countries are facing crushing government debt crises due to profligate welfare state spending. And President Obama's budget puts us on the exact same path. It would: 1) borrow 42 cents for each dollar spent in 2010; 2) leave permanent annual deficits that top $1 trillion as late as 2020; and 3) dump an additional $74,000 per household of debt into the laps of our children and grandchildren.

All of President Obama's aggressive welfare state spending leaves little left over for national defense. Heritage Vice President for Foreign and Defense Policy Studies Kim Holmes, Ph.D., writes:

We are headed down a European path. ... According to the President’s budget, defense spending over the next few years will continue to fall relative to the economy, from 4.9 percent to 3.6 percent of GDP by 2015. Indeed, defense was the target of roughly half of the Administration's $17 billion in spending cuts in 2010. Some 50 defense programs were truncated or eliminated, compromising not only our future air and naval superiority, but also our defense against ballistic missiles.

Are Americans really ready to abandon President Reagan's "peace through strength" doctrine and replace it with President Obama's strength through apology tour? We think not. That is why starting today The Heritage Foundation is promoting Protect America Month, starting with a speech this morning at 10 a.m. by Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA). You can watch the event live, here.

And then for the next four weeks, join The Heritage Foundation as we examine defense spending and foreign policy in our nation, by releasing special publications and hosting events that showcase why we must commit to protecting America in an increasingly dangerous world. Events and products will include speeches by former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, former Ambassador to the UN John Bolton and former Attorney General John Ashcroft, as well as special commentaries from Members of Congress and Heritage scholars regarding the need for a strong national defense.

Dr. Holmes concludes: "Freedom and prosperity at home and abroad depend on America’s continued projection of power around the world. But that will depend on our commitment to national defense, which is the first obligation of the federal government listed in the U.S. Constitution. We have been here before. We have seen darker days ... We may well be at that moment again. After Jimmy Carter, we elected Ronald Reagan. He restored not only our belief in America, but our commitment to defense. Conservative principles and traditional American values prevailed then. They can prevail again."

The Real Reason Liberals Accuse Tea Partiers of Racism

An obvious reason why the Left resorts to accusations is because they cannot debate on facts. They lose every time. So many of the Tea Partiers have lived through a few recessions, and have learned that entitlements are the main cause, in one way or another. The Left does not want to hear this, so they attack the truth tellers with name calling. The media has gone so far left, they are complicit in perpetuating the lies.

One of the reasons to pull back on these endless entitlements, is nobody has the right to somebody else's labor. It's the basis to Marxism, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Never, in world history, has this ever proven to be a success. Tea Partiers know their history, and the Left can only resort to name calling.

15 million people out of work will get a lot of Americans involved, and this time, all the ranting and name calling by the Left will not kill the messenger. Remember November now has a Facebook page worth noting. Roger Simon writes another jewel in his Pajamas Media:


The Real Reason Liberals Accuse Tea Partiers of Racism
by Roger L. Simon, April 29, 2010

I have said something like this before, but at the risk of being a bore, and because of the times in which we live, I will repeat myself:

The real reason liberals accuse Tea Partiers of racism is that contemporary American-style liberalism is in rigor mortis. Liberals have nothing else to say or do. Accusations of racism are their last resort.

The European debt crisis — first Greece, then Portugal and now Spain (and Belgium, Ireland and Italy, evidently) — has shown the welfare state to be an unsustainable economic system. The US, UK and Japan, according to the same Financial Times report, are also on similar paths of impoverishment through entitlements.

Many of us have known this for a long time, just from simple math. Entitlements are in essence a Ponzi scheme. Now we have to face that and do something serious about it or our economy (the world economy) will fall apart.

Liberals, leftists or progressives — whatever they choose to call themselves — have a great deal of trouble accepting this. To do so they would have to question a host of positions they have not examined for years, if ever, not to mention have to engage in discussions that could threaten their livelihood and jeopardize their personal and family associations.

Thus the traditional wish to kill the messenger who brings the bad news: the Tea Partiers. And the easiest way to kill them — the most obvious and hoariest of methods – is to accuse them of racism. Never mind that there is no evidence — or what little evidence proffered has been shown to be manufactured prevarication — liberals must continue the racism meme at all costs. There is no other. To engage the Tea Party Movement in a battle of ideas would be suicidal for them, because the basic economic tenet of American liberalism — an increase in government spending and consequent increased national debt is good for society — seems nonsensical to the vast majority of our citizens at this point in history. And for good reason.

This situation could be looked at as an awakening or reawakening for our country, but it is far from completely good news. You don’t have to be Nostradamus to see that relations, in the immediate future at least, between ideological adversaries are going to be increasingly hostile. In the battle to maintain power — and equally as importantly to maintain self-image — many strains of the left will redouble their efforts to define the Tea Party movement as racist, further splitting our society and racializing it. They will seize on any isolated incident of the slightest prejudice as a pretext. And it is not unlikely that they will find what they need somewhere, because any movement of millions contains someone who exhibits some form of racism some time. Again, it’s simple math.

Unfortunately, not much can be done about this other than what already has. We have to be constantly vigilant, especially with the mainstream media so deeply in the liberal camp, often to an extent those media themselves don’t realize. It’s imbued in their DNA and their unconscious.

An interesting small case in point is the new Christian Science Monitor report “Why ‘tea party’ defenders won’t let N-word claims rest,” superficially a much more sympathetic (to the tea partiers) article than most. It’s an attempt to be even-handed and yet reporter Patrik Jonsson writes of the now famous accusation of multiple N-word use by Tea Partiers from members of the Congressional Black Caucus: Without hard evidence for either side, the conventional wisdom might be for tea partyers to let the incident slide and to blame the movement’s more radical elements.

Say what? Without hard evidence from either side? In the US of A, where I live, we are supposedly innocent until proven guilty. There was no proof at all offered for this accusation of racism. Indeed, some of the accusers have even walked away from it; the originator has gone silent. In a court of law, there would be no need whatsoever for the Tea Partiers to offer evidence of innocence of any kind in their defense. This accusation would be thrown out in a trice. But of course, the Tea Partiers did offer a defense, because the mainstream media has unconscionably stacked the moral deck against the Tea Party movement. And the world knows it. And so does Mr. Jonsson, who, most probably without thinking, employed the rhetoric of “moral equivalency” for his article where there is not even remote moral equivalency. There is only an accusation without proof. I could just as easily accuse Mr. Jonsson of racism — and I don’t know him. He, at least, had the courage to report on this matter with some honesty.

Andrew Breitbart has done a brilliant job of pointing out this profound bias by offering his one hundred thousand dollar reward for provable instances of Tea Party racism, which, thus far and not surprisingly, has not been claimed. I wouldn’t have Andrew’s guts, because I know people make mistakes. But he has certainly made his point — and then some.

So I will return to mine. These are not great times. We may be headed for that double-dip recession or even worse. The administration is going to be proposing legislation like Cap and Trade II that not only hurts the economy but enriches their cronies in the name of bogus science. A VAT — that most regressive of taxes — will ironically be proposed by a purportedly “progressive” administration. (When will that word be returned to where it really belongs — poker?) They will do this in support of expanded government programs that cost billions, probably trillions, more than they will ever admit to themselves or to us.

Yes, as the Chinese curse goes, we do live in interesting times. If they get any more interesting, they will kill us. As they say in that great Dos XX’s ad, “Stay thirsty, my friends.”


The blog of the mystery writer, screenwriter and CEO of Pajamas Media, Roger L. Simon

WHY LEFT TALKS ABOUT "WHITE" TEA PARTIERS

Now that the Democratic Party is back in power, it's beginning to feel like the 1960's all over again. Depending on which side of the fence you resided at the time, free love or responsibility, there is one outcome worth noting -- it turned the tide on respect.

As Bruce Walker wrote brilliantly in American Thinker:

Conservatives -- those who wanted to conserve the values of America going into the 1960s -- stood on one side of this battlefield. These Americans viewed our land as the best candle of hope in a stormy world. They strongly favored equal rights for blacks, despite an Orwellian rewriting of history painting them as racists. The Republican Party, the principle vehicle for conservatives, had a very long and clear record of opposing Jim Crow and the disenfranchisement and segregation of blacks.

Those of us who were taught old school; respect your elders, respect your parents, respect your neighbors, respect for the human race, and, heaven forbid - respect authority, are appalled at our current state of affairs. Granted, respect cannot be demanded, it must be earned, but for the sake of humanity, decorum must be preserved.

You see so much of this disrespect now in politics, which overflows into our everyday lives. What kind of example do these politicians set for people, much less a younger generation that is gradually losing any semblance to real life?

Listening to these puffed up politicians pontificating on the floor of our congress, or panning for the cameras can make one sick. A perfect example is the idiot, Carl Levin, swearing repeatedly at a Goldman Sach's senate hearing for heaven's sake. The hypocrisy of the left knows no bounds.

As much as one would like to look positively towards the future, the likelihood of "all things being equal", such as dissent being a form of patriotism, will not happen anytime soon. The Left insists on looking at everything through the prism of race. And, so it goes....

Dennis Prager writes a moving piece this week:


Why Left Talks About "White" Tea Parties
by Dennis Prager, April 27, 2010

Opponents of the popular expression of conservative opposition to big government, the tea party, regularly note that tea partiers are overwhelmingly white. This is intended to disqualify the tea parties from serious moral consideration.

But there are two other facts that are far more troubling:

The first is the observation itself. The fact that the Left believes that the preponderance of whites among tea partiers invalidates the tea party movement tells us much more about the Left than it does about the tea partiers.

It confirms that the Left really does see the world through the prism of race, gender and class rather than through the moral prism of right and wrong.

One of the more dangerous features of the Left has been its replacement of moral categories of right and wrong, and good and evil with three other categories: black and white (race), male and female (gender) and rich and poor (class).

Therefore the Left pays attention to the skin color -- and gender (not just "whites" but "white males") -- of the tea partiers rather than to their ideas.

One would hope that all people would assess ideas by their moral rightness or wrongness, not by the race, gender or class of those who hold them. But in the world of the Left, people are taught not to assess ideas but to identify the race, class and gender of those who espouse those ideas. This helps explain the widespread use of ad hominem attacks by the Left: Rather than argue against their opponents' ideas, the Left usually dismisses those making the argument disagreed with as "racist," "intolerant," "bigoted," "sexist," "homophobic" and/or "xenophobic."

You're against race-based affirmative action? No need to argue the issue because you're a racist. You're a tea partier against ever-expanding government? No need to argue the issue because you're a racist.

As a Leftist rule of thumb -- once again rendering intellectual debate unnecessary and impossible -- white is wrong or bad, and non-white is right and good; male is wrong and bad, and female is right and good; and the rich are wrong and bad, and the poor right and good. For the record, there is one additional division on the Left -- strong and weak -- to which the same rule applies: The strong are wrong and bad, and the weak are right and good. That is a major reason for Leftist support of the Palestinians (weak) against the Israelis (strong), for example.

This is why, to cite another example, men are dismissed when they oppose abortion. The idea is far less significant than the sex of the advocate. As for women who oppose abortion on demand, they are either not authentically female or simply traitors to their sex. Just as the Left depicts blacks who oppose race-based affirmative action as not authentic blacks or are traitors to their race.

In this morally inverted world, the virtual absence of blacks from tea party rallies cannot possibly reflect anything negative on the black and minority absence, only on the white tea partiers.

But in a more rational and morally clear world, where people judge ideas by their legitimacy rather than by the race of those who held them, people would be as likely to ask why blacks and ethnic minorities are virtually absent at tea parties just as they now ask why whites predominate. They would want to know if this racial imbalance said anything about black and minority views or necessarily reflected negatively on the whites attending those rallies.

And if they did ask such un-PC questions, they might draw rather different conclusions than the Left's. First, they would know that the near-absence of blacks and Hispanics no more implied racism on the part of tea partiers than the near-absence of blacks and Hispanics in the New York Philharmonic implies racism on the art of that orchestra.

Second, they might even, Heaven forbid, conclude that it does not reflect well on the political outlook of blacks and Hispanics that they so overwhelmingly identify with ever-larger government. Leftist big-government policies have been disastrous for black America just as they were in the countries that most Hispanics emigrated from. But like the gambling addict who keeps gambling the more he loses, those addicted to government entitlements keep increasing the size of the government even as their situation worsens.

Finally, if one eschews the "racism" explanation and asks real questions, one might also conclude that America generally, and conservatives specifically, have failed to communicate America's distinct values -- E Pluribus Unum, In God We Trust, and Liberty (which includes small government) -- to blacks and Hispanics.

Unfortunately, however, no real exploration of almost any important issue in American life is possible as long as the Left focuses on the race, gender and class of those who hold differing positions. And that will not happen. For when the Left stops attacking people and starts arguing positions, we will see what the Left most fears: blacks and Hispanics at tea parties.


Read more Dennis Prager columns here.