Quack, quack, Mr. President.

If it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck - maybe, just maybe, it is a duck.

Racism

I consider racism to be someone that permits stereotypes of racial actions and qualities to overcome their perceptions of people as people. A racist is one that prejudges people because of racial characteristics.

Is Glenn Beck racist? Beck calls B. Hussein Obama racist, with deep seated hatred of white people or white culture. Does that make the President racist? The Ed Show, MSNBC's Chris Matthews calls Glenn Beck racist - does that make these people or networks racist?

Is there a fundamental difference between attributing qualifications and character to a race - or an ideological label, and acting in hate-filled and dismissive manner toward all that identify them selves with the opposition on a spectrum of liberal / conservative?

So why is it that hating Glenn Beck is great, and worthy "news" and opinion fodder, yet expressing concern (as Glenn Beck did) that B. Hussein Obama is racist is hate speech?

The Ed Show takes off on bashing Glenn Beck. Starting with charges that Beck is "hiding behind his plastic Jesus", Ed paints Beck in an awful light.



Glenn Beck's quoted words are that B. Hussein Obama appears to have a deep hatred for white people or the white culture, Beck isn't sure which. This is a very long ways from declaring that Obama is acting in a racist manner, which is illegal.

In part two video, the Ed show gets a guest that disputes Ed's continued assertion that Beck doesn't cite any reason for the accusation, when Beck clearly cites Obama's 20 year membership in the Rev. Wright's church, with Wright's repeated white-bashing rhetoric. Personally I find the number of radical and violent and criminal figures of racial militants that keep showing up surrounding President B. Hussein Obama to be significant - of a deep opposition to the rule of law, if not hatred of the established structure or white culture or white race.

Chris "tingle down my leg" Matthews discusses the issue.


Matthew's guests, if not Chris himself, champion the extremist interpretation that the nation hates Obama because of his race, and pays no respect to those that oppose Obama's abuses of office. And Matthews and guests overlook completely the number of avowed racial hatred-centric people B. Hussein Obama has brought to Washington, D.C.

And that is what makes this look like official, sanctioned, orchestrated by the White House - Spin Control.

Spin Control

Those towing the Obama line seem to be reading from the same play book. Instead of looking at the opposition as helping to identify weaknesses and problems, they instead make the excuse that the opposition is hateful, is destruction-minded, and motivated by unthinking hatred.

Divide and conquer, isn't that how strategy is supposed to work?

When Glenn Beck states what many loyal and true American citizens observe, that our President appears to harbor hatred for whites and the America that is the result of 230 years of history, I believe Beck is correct. I do not hear Beck, or any conservative, challenge Obama's right to feel and think as he does. What I hear is an expression of concern, an erosion of the "hope and change" that was promised, that seems to be hope for some, change for the rest.

For the Tea Party tax protesters, for the gun rights advocates, for those wanting to keep America at work, watching B. Hussein Obama has been a necessary and arduous burden since before the inauguration. Fears that Obama and the rabid gun-control phobics he surrounds himself will attempt trickery, extra-legal tricks, legislation proposals, regulation changes, and any other means available to pursue their agenda - regardless of whether the legal means of proceeding indicate that the nation's consensus is that the proposals are wrong and harmful to America.

I find Fox and Friends' interview with Glenn Beck, when he made his "Obama has a deep hatred for white people or white culture, I don't know", merely places the concerns about underhanded and harmful and obnoxious dealings many have already experience from the Obama administration, into perspective.

Should we call the President racist, if we believe his actions and words are consistent with a deeply defining identity with one race in opposition to one or more other races? Yep. If I believe that the President's prejudices and history are pertinent, and racially motivated, then keeping that aspect pertinent and prominent may benefit those trying to understand those actions - and defend their own interests and / or the best interests of the United States.

Should someone stop us from calling the President a racist? Yes, if we advocate others hating him for that reason. Yes, if we advocate acting based on hatreds.

But we cannot identify and address hatred-based issues, if we are not permitted to discuss them. Obama supporters must admit to the racist actions, words, and companions of the President. Obama detractors must be clear that opposition is based on healthy disagreement with policy, or with disagreement of values, and not based on perceived or imaginary issues related to race.

bim: Irrational assumptions - gun control and term limits

Bill at Billll's Idle Mind raises the issue of term limits. Bill laments the wasted opportunity, that the tea party movement might have made short work of getting term limits instituted.

Gun Control assumption

I watched The American President again last night. Same old Michael Douglas, Annette Bening story. Same rich tapestry of majesty of the Presidency, the White House, and the offices of the Government, reverently presented by Rob Reiner.

Michael J. Fox, White House Chief of Staff, comments after being told that handgun restriction measures were being left out of a proposed anti-crime bill. "Can we return to the subject for just one moment? It would be easier to fight crime if we weren't arming the drug dealers."

This far into the Obama administration, after their clandestine as well as public moves to thwart, limit, and abolish ownership of all guns, not just handguns - well, this assumption of the movie and Mr. Reiner caught me pretty clearly.

Those proposing eliminating or limiting handguns assume that 1) the benefit of removing handguns from criminals is worth the inconvenience of taking guns from law abiding citizens; and 2) implementing laws limiting or eliminating handguns will remove handguns from criminals.

Term limit assumptions

I have come across proposals for term limits many time.

I think the assumptions proponents make about term limits is similar to the anti-gun assumptions. 1) The benefit of removing powerful legislators that no longer serve their constituents is worth the loss of good men that might have served longer; and 2) implementing term limits will remove the very powerful and unresponsive legislators.

I don't see the connection.


If a legislator were not representing the interests of the people of the district that elects them - surely we can count on an opponent to woo enough votes next election to unseat the incumbent. And nothing I have seen establishes to my satisfaction the supposition that the cost of losing a good legislator too soon, due to term limits, is in any way worth tossing out other people that hit the term limit.

And I don't see that term limits will necessarily end the influence of powerful people.

Sorry, Bill. I just don't see that your assumptions are valid.

Brain drain a'coming

So, lets assume that the wreck is on it's way, that ObamaCare is coming in some way, shape, or form.

How does the President hire enough paper pushers to fill all the offices that haven't been built yet?

Where do all the people come that will pursue a career in government service - and be unavailable to participate in the national economy?

One estimate has that 45 million, plus or minus, are uninsured. That ObamaCare disrupts everyone's health insurance while leaving 35 million still uninsured.

Are those 35 million uninsured to be drafted, to work civil service jobs and thus fall under civil service health insurance?

Remember, the government claims that unemployment is what, 9 or 10%? That is, not counting the additional 10% that aren't collecting unemployment because there aren't any jobs, but Washington, DC didn't like the numbers so they stopped counting them.

Unemployed and underemployed people are a problem for the economy - but they are also a vast and rich resource. Many are people that have educated and skilled backgrounds. As the economy improves, hiring should increase - will there be any left, after staffing Big Government, that will be ready to hire, ready to produce products and wealth that will feed families and pay taxes?

Will the managers and specialists needed to run the government's health care plan, by their absence, cripple companies wanting to increase production, to provide new services, to meet increased regulations?

Or is B. Hussein Obama planning to pull a gangster style packing operation, putting all his patronage chips in the hopper, putting all his cronies and ACORN and illegals and others into slots they aren't - and won't be for years - qualified to fill?

Oath or convictions - choose, Mr. President

So, ok. We saw or read about or heard about the inauguration when B. Hussein Obama took an oath to uphold the US Constitution, and execute the office of President.

That is, he took an oath. A pledge, a promise. He gave his word. This was a big-deal ceremony - remember the tons of trash afterwards? Lots of trash to pick up - because he wasn't President until he finished with the oath.

So, now we have B. Hussein Obama doing what he thinks he should, acting as if he were President of the United States. As long as those in authority act like he is President, he has a certain cache in claiming the title, privileges, and responsibilities.

But what happens if there is dissent about whether he has failed his duties - or flat out broken his promise to uphold the Constitution?

I could point to the ex-CEO of General Motors, and claim that no President is allowed to step outside the prescribed authority of his office to do that. B. Hussein Obama has taken public and legislative steps to ban or restrict gun ownership, and also a few clandestine and underhanded moves. Recall the snafu a few months ago, when the Department of Defense told the ammunition manufacturers buying back the millions of pieces of brass - the leftovers after firing weapons in training - that they changed their procedures, and instead of being useful for reloading and selling at moderate expense to civilian shooters, the brass would now be shredded first.

The DoD shredded cartridge brass decision was changed, almost overnight. It turns out that that civilian market for less expensive brass - also supplied most training ammunition for many police and sheriff organizations. This clear intent to crater the market for ammunition was deliberately intended to drive the availability of ammo down, and inflate the price of ammo for shooters wanting to train or keep a quantity on hand.

When the President sets out to deliberately interfere with the amount of ammunition available to gun owners in America - is he in fact violating the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms? Arguably, preventing gun owners from obtaining ammunition pretty much blocks their ability to bear those arms. As they guy in Arizona said, if your gun isn't loaded, it isn't much good.

I still want to know what B. Hussein Obama did to cause Supreme Justice Souter to leave the bench. We know why - Obama wanted the cache of putting a chosen pick on the Supreme Court, and squandered that by selecting Sotomayor. Now-Justice Sotomayor has the advantage of being a liberal Democrat; her detractions include disparagement for the wording and history of the Court and the Constitution. There is likely room to be concerned about her competence in her chosen profession. Getting Sotomayor named and sworn in to the Supreme Court makes her a Supreme Court Justice. It does not answer questions about her competence, or whether she is an example of affirmative action, and not a symbol of the rise of someone based on overwhelming merit.

So, at what point is it imperative the question be asked - is B. Hussein Obama still true to his oath of office, and if not, does he actually hold that office?