Tag Archives: Jim DeMint

‘Breaking’ Herman Cain

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Democrats continue to maintain that by electing Barack Obama, they alone were the pioneering influence in addressing the dark stain on our nation’s history called racism.  The day after the 2008 election, African American writer Shelby Steele penned an article entitled “Obama’s post-racial promise.”

Steele argued that one reason Barack Obama won the election was that the idea of electing America’s first black president “tapped into a deep longing in American life — the longing on the part of whites to escape the stigma of racism.”  In other words, for whites tired of being accused of racism, electing Obama provided a viable avenue of escape.

Despite the historic milestone that was reached when Barack Obama was elected, the left felt it necessary after the fact to stand guard in the “Who’s a Racist” watchtower, declaring their party the self-appointed Racism Police.  Ironically, what is more evident than ever before is that the left’s relentless defense of blacks has revealed the dark underbelly of the very intolerance they pretend to decry.

Shelby Steele argued that the election of Barack Obama assuaged a measure of white guilt; but the truth is that Democrats putting a black man in the Oval Office had little to do with skin color and everything to do with leftist political ideology. The very people who heralded the nation’s rising above a historical stigma are now instigating a deeper, wider division by redefining racism as political disagreement with Obama.

In fact, with the next presidential election hovering on the horizon, what is being proven is that while the motivation for electing Barack Obama in 2008 may have been an attempt to triumph over racism, with Herman Cain now rising in the polls, the hollow nature of racial acceptance by the left is being exposed for the ruse it is.

Presently, the bad news for African-Americans is that the only thing worse than being a white Obama detractor is being a right-leaning black. Cain’s candidacy confirms that if in 2008 Barack were a black conservative running against a white liberal, rather than being portrayed as a harbinger of “post-racial idealism” Obama would have been labeled an Uncle Tom.

What liberals fail to recognize is that, in much the same way they voted for Obama to supposedly embrace post-racism, assigning the title of racist to anyone who disagrees with liberal policies uncovers something ugly within themselves.

Democrats try to imply that black conservatives supporting Mr. Cain do so only because they identify with a deep and abiding self-loathing. The way Herman Cain is being characterized, it’s apparent the left still expects blacks to think less of themselves — an assumption that, if even suggested by someone on the right, would be immediately declared definitive proof of Republican racism.

Recently, MSNBC’s liberal race-baiter, Ed Schultz, suggested that Cain just tells racist whites what they want to hear and maligned him for mentioning potential running mates like Jim DeMint (R-SC), whose words the left have pseudo-linguistically-analyzed, finding hidden racist undertones where none exist.

In a perfect example of ideology determining the presence of prejudice, the supposedly color-blind liberal Schultz claimed that DeMint used “racist language in his opposition to ObamaCare.”  In post-racial America, the South Carolina congressman is accused of  “dark racial discourse” because he said, “If we are able to stop Obama on this [health care law], it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.”

Director of Afrikaner studies at Lehigh University, Dr. James Pearson, concurred with Schultz.  Pearson interpreted the words “it will break him” as an “old southern racist term…used to destroy, mentally and physically, slaves.”

Clearly, the post-racial left is obsessed with transforming American politics into a perpetual test. Every word spoken by critics is summarily subjected to a filter where a benign word like “break” now implies approval of oppressive slavery. What Ed Schultz and liberals like him fail to recognize is that applying the “racist” rubric to every conservative utterance is, in essence, an attempt to “break” black candidate Herman Cain.

Yet its liberals who insinuate that Herman Cain is a man so self-hating that he gives “folks a pass” on racism. Those who make such peculiar accusations reveal themselves to be the true racists that Shelby Steele suggested had chosen to vote for Obama based on an unspoken promise to not hold the perception of racism against them.  Yet racism is what shapes liberal opinion of a man whose conservative politics weaken their concepts of authentic blackness and whose race is secretly held against him by those on the left regardless of race.

By saying “It’s almost as if this guy is trying to warm up to them and tell them what they want to hear,” Schultz calls into question the black presidential candidate’s veracity, honesty, and commitment to foundational principles.

Is that how Democrats view all black men, or just Herman Cain? The left seems convinced that Cain panders to “white Republicans, who don’t like black folks,” which ends up being evidence of insidious racism that implies blacks are somehow unlikeable.  Moreover, it suggests Herman Cain can’t think for himself and hasn’t the ability or character to possess core convictions of his own.

Listening to Ed Schultz, one would think the confident, articulate Herman Cain is a race-baiting manipulator who uses empty words in his quest for power and uses as stepping-stones the overburdened shoulders of his own people.  Sound familiar?

The MSNBC drone also believes Cain does a “disservice to his race” by denying that “racism in this country today holds anybody back in a big way.” What Ed Schultz, who most certainly voted for Obama, fails to acknowledge is that if Obama had been uneducated, he would never have been elected president, proving correct Cain’s premise that education, not skin pigmentation, holds black Americans in bondage to poverty and low achievement.

The left continues to portray Democrats as something they are not, and do so by attempting to point out non-existent racial hostility on the part of political adversaries. Yet despite the effort, something the left didn’t anticipate was that the candidacy of Herman Cain, not the election of Barack Obama, would end up exposing the party where America’s true racists reside.

Liberals prove Shelby Steele’s premise to be true — their support of Barack Obama holds little weight or evidence of racial reform on their part.  It’s all about power and ideology.  If that weren’t so and lasting change had really taken place, being at odds with Obama wouldn’t be considered racism, nor would smearing potential black presidential candidate Herman Cain be so widely accepted by the left.

Organizing a ‘Barbarian’ Boycott

Originally posted at American Thinker Blog

Everyone knows that in life there are some situations where you’re “damned if you do and damned if you don’t.” Either way, in the eyes of liberals, Republicans are always damned.  Such is the case with Obama’s address to a joint session of Congress. Seems that “Several lawmakers are still determining whether it is worth their time to stay in Washington to hear the President, and some are already planning [to] skip it.”

Why should Republicans go to a jobs speech by a President who clearly blames them for an unemployment situation he’s compounded?  As it relates to labor, jobs, labor unions and Labor Day, Barack Obama, who prides himself on civility and measured tones, has yet to ask his vice president to retract his “barbarians at the gate” statement or rebuke Jimmy Hoffa Jr. for his combative, over-the-top remarks.

Now he expects to woo the “barbarians” into the arena, where he has plans to publicly humiliate them a la the 2010 State of the Union address, where Supreme Court justice Sam Alito could not help mouthing the words “Not true” in response to the president attempting to publicly shame him over a ruling on campaign advertising.

If Republicans go, they’re fools.

Moreover, being threatened by the likes of Teamsters General President Jimmy Hoffa Jr. should have every Republican who plans to attend Obama’s job-creation speech — especially those in the Tea Party caucus — checking under their seats and straining to keep a watchful eye on the back door.

In fact, if Republicans had any backbone they’d demand that Obama rebuke Hoffa for his uncivil language when he said, “President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. Everybody here has got a vote. If we go back, keep your eye on the prize… let’s take these son of bitches [sic] out and give America back (inaudible) America where we belong.”

So far, there’s been silence from the civility-minded President who, at the emotional “Together We Thrive” Tucson Memorial, at the “rebuttal of Republicans and Tea Party activists” at the University of Michigan, and at the “civility is not a sign of weakness” 2010 National Prayer Breakfast, demanded softer tones from all Americans, especially those who are critical of him.

If the Labor Day rally was any indication of the direction the joint session job creation speech may take in framing the Republicans as the reason for 9.1% unemployment, the right side of the aisle had best stay clear of the halls of Congress.

What a powerful statement it would be if right-leaning politicians publicly declared that until the President disavows Mr. Hoffa’s crude, inflammatory rhetoric; announces that he disagrees with the ‘take these sons-of-bitches out’ language; and stipulates that the Teamster president owes a large group of American citizens an apology, not one Republican lawmaker should set foot in the House of Representatives.

Paul Broun (R-GA) is one such Republican congressman who won’t be attending. Broun has made it a tradition to post his retorts to Obama’s remarks on Twitter.  Paul Broun plans to watch the long-anticipated speech from across the street in his office where he can scream at the flat-screen and, if he so chooses, blow a kazoo every time Obama floats a falsehood.

The Congressman’s Twitter practice is a safer, less controversial way to express Joe Wilson (R-SC)-style “You lie!” responses without becoming a whipping boy after telling the truth. Instead of shouting it out, Broun can tweet it out similar to how, during the State of the Union address, he tweeted “Mr. President, you don’t believe in the Constitution. You believe in socialism.”

Last week Joe Walsh (R-IL) also announced that he would not be among those in attendance.  What’s Joe’s excuse for playing hooky?  Walsh, who obviously has a realistic sense of what goes on when Obama takes to the plinth, said on Twitter that he “didn’t want to act as a ‘prop‘ for Obama’s speech.”  Wise thinking, Joe.

What Joe should do now is expand on that tweet and recommend to Republican colleagues that a Hoffa Jr./barbarian boycott is definitely called for.

If he did, Mr. Walsh would be encouraging Republican legislators to freely and peaceably assemble themselves somewhere besides the job creation joint session.  In doing so, and in response to rude language directed toward the Republicans at a Labor Day rally, the esteemed Congressman would be organizing a peaceful protest directed toward the President’s constituents and, for his failure to repudiate Hoffa and Biden’s abusive comments.

A Republican joint session no-show isn’t impossible.  Every day the Republican Refusenik movement appears to be growing. Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC), member of the Senate Tea Party Caucus, said that he “probably” wouldn’t show up either.  Way to go, Jim!

Senator DeMint said that if Obama had “sent a written proposal over first, I would go hear him explain it, but frankly right now I’m so frustrated I don’t think I’m going to go. I can’t imagine too many Americans wanting to hear another speech with no real plan attached.”

Except of course for the President, who loves to hear himself read, and because that’s where he gets to learn what it is he believes.

Nevertheless, President Obama’s lack of condemnation for Hoffa’s statement to “take out” those who disagree with failed job policies, union thuggery, and additional stimulus masquerading as job creation is a perfect excuse to justify a mass Republican protest.

On the other hand, what a perfect opportunity to band together and make a statement, because rest assured, Republicans will be publicly “damned” by Obama if they do show up.  So, how about all of them attending?  Then mid-speech, like the “barbarians” Biden says they are, the Republicans could stand up, head for the door, and save Jimmy Hoffa Jr. the trouble by voluntarily “taking themselves out.”

Author’s content: www.jeannie-ology.com

Thomas Lifson adds:

As emotionally satisfying as this plan might seem, I believe it would be a strategic mistake. Obama would be able to claim that the GOP refuses to work together, and insults the American people by boycotting a plan to save the economy. “They won’t even listen,” he could say.  The media would relentlessly pound this theme. It would be much better to let Obama’s speech flop, as it is likely to do.


INVESCO II Healthcare Summit

President Obama has scheduled a health care summit for later this month. The purpose? To offer the public promised transparency after refusal to do so until pesky Scott Brown put the kibosh on the Democratic health care overthrow.

Obama desires to, “resolve remaining differences between the House and Senate versions of their own legislation in advance of the meeting.”  Which translated means Obama, through persuasive rhetoric, will attempt to convince “uncooperative” Republicans to accept a “final bill” they were supposedly called there to discuss.

Obama will host a “Lights, camera action” thrashing out of a bill, but the whole scenario will lack genuine, productive debate.  Sort of like Obama employing fruitless tea and crumpet negotiation techniques to convince Mahmoud Ahmadinejad relinquish the march toward nuclear weapons.

Beforehand Barry, Harry and Nancy will decide what and how it’s going to go.  The trio will shuffle the Senate and Congressional bill like a deck of cards into an unbending, final version.  Then a transparent Obama will summon Republicans to Summit House, offer them the limited choice of accepting what has already been decided upon, or be portrayed as “uncooperative” and lacking concern for the struggles of the American people.

Collaborative Democrats contend, “Starting from scratch is not an option.”  Republicans [thank God] refuse to budge because they say they, the House and Senate Democratic bill is not a launching off point because both bills include tax increases, which economically would be a disastrous thing to do.

While the master of Greek column special effects positions himself as being open to discussion.  The real goal will be to present a conciliatory President strapped with the burden of immature politicians.  The hope is to again “turn the tide” and convince the public obstinate Republicans need to, “participate like mature adults, and not just say ‘no’ to everything.”

The Summit holds zero promise of compromise based on the numerous proposals Republican’s have presented to the health care debate, all have which have been ignored. Reading the teleprompter as Republicans wave varying proposals in his face Obama looks right and left purposely ignoring suggestions like those offered by Jim DeMint.

Obama discounts the smart kid in the first row raising his hand to answer every question and than penalizes the child for lacking class participation.

At the Republican retreat a frustrated Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) challenged the President saying, “Mr. President, multiple times from your administration there have come statements that Republicans have no ideas and no solutions, in spite of the fact that we’ve offered, as demonstrated today, positive solutions to all of the challenges we face.”  Security, oh security could you see this guy to the door please?

The Summit ruse has the potential to be nothing more than “political theatre” with Obama luring Republicans into a trap.  Once at Blair House Obama will present a bad and worse finalized health care bill. Republicans will be asked to concur, as to whether America should be tied to the tracks in the path of an oncoming train, hurled over a cliff or immolated?  When Republicans refuse to accept any of the three a teary-eyed Obama can turn to the camera, amidst soaring violins, and confirm the opposing party uncaring contrarians and Democrats tireless workers on behalf of the American people.

One problem Obama may also be overlooking. The nation is tuned into Obama’s INVESCO field theatrics and are sick of smoke and mirror subterfuge that benefits only Barack and hurts the American people—let’s hope Obama’s wily Summit stunt backfires.

%d bloggers like this: