Dad threatened after blasting congressman
Wanted assurance Obamacare would care for handicapped son
from World Net Daily
Posted: August 10, 20099:44 pm Eastern
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
An irate Michigan father worried over what Obamacare would do to his handicapped adult son reports he was threatened after trying to get a direct answer from Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., and has a warning of his own for those who made the threats.
"I will use every means available to me, lethal force if necessary, to protect [my son] and my wife. My wife is terrified," Mike Sola told Fox News today.
Meanwhile, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., was confronted by some pointed questions at a town hall meeting of her own, including one referencing the ongoing dispute over President Obama's refusal to allow public access to his original long-form birth certificate, which probably could establish his eligibility to be president.
In an interview with Fox, Sola explained how he took his wheelchair-bound adult son to the front of the room to confront Dingell, 83.
Sola said he demanded information about what Obamacare would provide for his son, and Dingell responded with a statement that there is an amendment to address the needs of the handicapped.
However, Sola said that amendment doesn't exist.
The controversy erupted just as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi expressed in a commentary that those who object vocally to the health care plan are "un-American."
"I was trying to speak as an American in a free country with a right of freedom of speech," Sola said.
Then he said that "thugs" already have located his home and delivered a threat, although he did not detail its contents. He said it had been reported to police.
Sola said he would "take the risk of going to prison" if the threats were repeated.
And he challenged members of Congress to establish a health care program for themselves and their own families before imposing it on the American public, which has expressed in multiple polls significant opposition to it.
According to a report from Associated Press, McCaskill faced "shouts and jeers" even in "friendly territory."
At Poplar Bluff, Mo., the report said, an audience of 500 applauded the loudest when Obama was called a socialist.
Another audience member asked, "Where's the birth certificate?" alluding to the dispute over Obama's still-unreleased eligibility documentation.
AP reported McCaskill was visibly frustrated and at one point said, "You guys are so mean."
The Obamacare package will be handled by Congress in a month when members return from several weeks of hearing from their constituents.
As WND reported, Pelosi, D-Calif., has accused attendees at health care town hall meetings of being part of an "Astroturf" movement, saying she didn't believe the angry constituents represented a legitimate grass roots opposition – and the Democratic National Committee called citizens "angry mobs" who are "seeking to destroy Obama."
Obama's own 2008 political campaign, merged with the Democratic National Committee in January and now known as Organizing for America, is also calling on Obama supporters to show up at local representatives' offices to show support for health reform. "As you've probably seen in the news, special interest attack groups are stirring up partisan mobs with lies about health reform, and it's getting ugly," a letter from Organizing for America states. "Across the country, members of Congress who support reform are being shouted down, physically assaulted, hung in effigy, and receiving death threats. We can't let extremists hijack this debate, or confuse Congress about where the people stand."
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
True conviction: The key to victory in 2010?
by Alan Keyes
Posted: August 07, 20091:00 am Eastern
© 2009
As opposition intensifies against the totalitarian takeover of the health system, the Obama faction and its henchmen are seeking to portray all opposition as irrational, crazy extremists.
Naturally, conservatives are protesting against what one psychiatrist sees as an effort to dehumanize the Obama faction's opponents, to silence them and discourage others from openly associating with them. Yesterday's e-mail included a note from Don Wildmon of the American Family Association objecting to this strategy of intimidation. It quoted extensively from a mailing in which Gary Bauer encouraged opponents of the proposed health system takeover to take heart because, "The fact is, you are in the majority now – not the leftists trying to push European socialism on you."
Of course, I agree with Wildmon and Bauer in their protest against the Obama faction's campaign to denigrate and intimidate all opposition. It smacks of the repressive mentality we should expect from people like Obama, who were schooled in strategy and tactics by dedicated Communists like Saul Alinsky. Given what they are doing as they battle to gain and consolidate totalitarian control of our country, we have good cause to fear what they will do once their objective has been achieved. I cannot help but recall that as part of the strategy of totalitarian repression in the old Soviet Union, it became commonplace for dissidents to be committed to insane asylums after bogus psychiatric exams.
Unfortunately, while seeming to protest against the Obama faction's abuses, Bauer's words of encouragement to their opponents could be taken to suggest that the reason it's wrong to characterize opponents of the takeover as crazy is that they are now the majority. But if they were not the majority, would portraying them as kooks be acceptable? I can already hear readers objecting that it's wrong and unfair to suggest that someone like Gary Bauer would advocate the majoritarian fallacy. After all, even if a majority supported the health care takeover, many Americans would still oppose it because both the facts and America's moral principles condemn the surrender of liberty and conscience it involves. Gary Bauer is famous as a champion of faith and moral principle. Even if a majority clamored for it, he would courageously oppose Obama's totalitarian scheme simply because facts and truthful reasoning require that he do so. Wouldn't he?
Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born citizen" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, help us reach half a million on petition and sign up now!
Once I would have been sure of the answer. But in recent months too many conservative leaders have been silent as the Obama faction sought to denigrate and dehumanize people whose only fault was their unwillingness to surrender the requirements of truthful reasoning. Other reputed conservatives have gone further, gleefully joining the jackals of ridicule. Now they find themselves being dumped in the same category as those the Obama faction's media claque refers to as "birthers" and portrays as kooks and extremists.
People like me have carefully presented the analysis of fact and constitutional provision that supports our demand for an authoritative investigation and decision with regard to the question of Obama's constitutional eligibility for the presidency of the United States. Facts and reasoning have been ignored, however, as the Obama faction systematically blocks disclosure of all relevant documents and information. They have relied upon the force of repression and verbal assault to arm the bodyguard of lies assembled to expel from the public square any who refuse to accept the transparent and self-contradictory fabrications with which they have contemptuously dismissed the requirements of truth and the Constitution. Conservatives, who were silent or complicit in the face of this campaign against people who simply refuse to surrender their reason and common sense, now protest against the Obama faction's use of similar tactics in its push to establish totalitarian control. Did they not realize the accuracy of the observation found in Shakespeare's classic study of tyrannical usurpation: "Things bad begun make strong themselves by ill"?
I oppose Obama's totalitarian takeover of the health system for the same reason that I demand an authoritative investigation and decision as to his constitutional eligibility for the presidency: After careful examination of the available evidence, and in light of the constitutional or moral principles we claim to respect, I cannot with integrity do otherwise. In one case a majority applauds my conclusion. In the other it may not. But I can no more abandon the rational conviction of right to curry favor with a majority than I could to gain money, power or any other material gain. I believe that the key to the survival of republican and constitutional self-government lies in the possibility of leadership that has the heart and conscience to battle for right against the tide of opinion, with the faith that ultimately truth, courageously advocated, will move the common sense of the people. The history of our republic bears me out. The successful battles against slavery and for worker's rights, women's rights and civil rights all were begun and sustained by those who had the courage of true conviction.
(For the moment, no matter what the transient polls may say, the congressional majority the Obama faction achieved in the last election may be enough to secure passage of the takeover legislation, thus establishing the infrastructure for totalitarian control of health care. When that congressional majority speaks, must all opposition be silent? Must all dissenters quietly submit? It is human nature to retreat in the aftermath of exercised power. When unheeding ambition wins its temporary victories, what keeps the flame of righteous opposition burning? The conviction of truth and right – like the conviction that led the first patriots to declare the independence of the United States, and that sustained them through defeats and losses in the sometimes desperate battles that followed.
I believe that such conviction will move dissenters to the polls in 2010. In righteous anger, they will vote out the factional majority that now drives America to ruin. Until that election is over, we will not know whether the dissenters represent a winning electoral majority. But if those who oppose the socialist takeover act on their conviction, it will not matter when the media praises Obama to the skies in the run up to the 2010 election. It will not matter that his devoted media claque fabricates, for him and his allies, the aura of deserved victory. Instead of voting for the media-touted winners, people will vote to win a victory for liberty, conscience and the Constitution.
But which leaders will deserve their vote when so many so-called conservatives have surrendered to the majoritarian delusion that electoral victory is all that matters? Those who have proven that they think truth and the Constitution matter more. I pray that enough conservative leaders will step forward to offer such proof, before it is too late.
For more from Alan Keyes visit http://loyaltoliberty.com. Once a high-level Reagan-era diplomat, Alan Keyes is a long-time leader in the conservative movement, well-known as a staunch pro-life champion and an eloquent advocate of the Constitutional Republic, including respect for the moral basis of liberty and self-government. He staunchly resists the destruction of the American people's sovereignty by fighting to secure our borders, abolish the federal income tax, end the insurrectionary practices of the federal Judiciary, and build a banking and financial system that halts elite looting of America's wealth and income. He formally severed his Republican Party affiliation in April of 2008 and has since then worked with America's Independent Party to build an effective vehicle for citizen-led grass-roots political action.
Posted: August 07, 20091:00 am Eastern
© 2009
As opposition intensifies against the totalitarian takeover of the health system, the Obama faction and its henchmen are seeking to portray all opposition as irrational, crazy extremists.
Naturally, conservatives are protesting against what one psychiatrist sees as an effort to dehumanize the Obama faction's opponents, to silence them and discourage others from openly associating with them. Yesterday's e-mail included a note from Don Wildmon of the American Family Association objecting to this strategy of intimidation. It quoted extensively from a mailing in which Gary Bauer encouraged opponents of the proposed health system takeover to take heart because, "The fact is, you are in the majority now – not the leftists trying to push European socialism on you."
Of course, I agree with Wildmon and Bauer in their protest against the Obama faction's campaign to denigrate and intimidate all opposition. It smacks of the repressive mentality we should expect from people like Obama, who were schooled in strategy and tactics by dedicated Communists like Saul Alinsky. Given what they are doing as they battle to gain and consolidate totalitarian control of our country, we have good cause to fear what they will do once their objective has been achieved. I cannot help but recall that as part of the strategy of totalitarian repression in the old Soviet Union, it became commonplace for dissidents to be committed to insane asylums after bogus psychiatric exams.
Unfortunately, while seeming to protest against the Obama faction's abuses, Bauer's words of encouragement to their opponents could be taken to suggest that the reason it's wrong to characterize opponents of the takeover as crazy is that they are now the majority. But if they were not the majority, would portraying them as kooks be acceptable? I can already hear readers objecting that it's wrong and unfair to suggest that someone like Gary Bauer would advocate the majoritarian fallacy. After all, even if a majority supported the health care takeover, many Americans would still oppose it because both the facts and America's moral principles condemn the surrender of liberty and conscience it involves. Gary Bauer is famous as a champion of faith and moral principle. Even if a majority clamored for it, he would courageously oppose Obama's totalitarian scheme simply because facts and truthful reasoning require that he do so. Wouldn't he?
Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born citizen" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, help us reach half a million on petition and sign up now!
Once I would have been sure of the answer. But in recent months too many conservative leaders have been silent as the Obama faction sought to denigrate and dehumanize people whose only fault was their unwillingness to surrender the requirements of truthful reasoning. Other reputed conservatives have gone further, gleefully joining the jackals of ridicule. Now they find themselves being dumped in the same category as those the Obama faction's media claque refers to as "birthers" and portrays as kooks and extremists.
People like me have carefully presented the analysis of fact and constitutional provision that supports our demand for an authoritative investigation and decision with regard to the question of Obama's constitutional eligibility for the presidency of the United States. Facts and reasoning have been ignored, however, as the Obama faction systematically blocks disclosure of all relevant documents and information. They have relied upon the force of repression and verbal assault to arm the bodyguard of lies assembled to expel from the public square any who refuse to accept the transparent and self-contradictory fabrications with which they have contemptuously dismissed the requirements of truth and the Constitution. Conservatives, who were silent or complicit in the face of this campaign against people who simply refuse to surrender their reason and common sense, now protest against the Obama faction's use of similar tactics in its push to establish totalitarian control. Did they not realize the accuracy of the observation found in Shakespeare's classic study of tyrannical usurpation: "Things bad begun make strong themselves by ill"?
I oppose Obama's totalitarian takeover of the health system for the same reason that I demand an authoritative investigation and decision as to his constitutional eligibility for the presidency: After careful examination of the available evidence, and in light of the constitutional or moral principles we claim to respect, I cannot with integrity do otherwise. In one case a majority applauds my conclusion. In the other it may not. But I can no more abandon the rational conviction of right to curry favor with a majority than I could to gain money, power or any other material gain. I believe that the key to the survival of republican and constitutional self-government lies in the possibility of leadership that has the heart and conscience to battle for right against the tide of opinion, with the faith that ultimately truth, courageously advocated, will move the common sense of the people. The history of our republic bears me out. The successful battles against slavery and for worker's rights, women's rights and civil rights all were begun and sustained by those who had the courage of true conviction.
(For the moment, no matter what the transient polls may say, the congressional majority the Obama faction achieved in the last election may be enough to secure passage of the takeover legislation, thus establishing the infrastructure for totalitarian control of health care. When that congressional majority speaks, must all opposition be silent? Must all dissenters quietly submit? It is human nature to retreat in the aftermath of exercised power. When unheeding ambition wins its temporary victories, what keeps the flame of righteous opposition burning? The conviction of truth and right – like the conviction that led the first patriots to declare the independence of the United States, and that sustained them through defeats and losses in the sometimes desperate battles that followed.
I believe that such conviction will move dissenters to the polls in 2010. In righteous anger, they will vote out the factional majority that now drives America to ruin. Until that election is over, we will not know whether the dissenters represent a winning electoral majority. But if those who oppose the socialist takeover act on their conviction, it will not matter when the media praises Obama to the skies in the run up to the 2010 election. It will not matter that his devoted media claque fabricates, for him and his allies, the aura of deserved victory. Instead of voting for the media-touted winners, people will vote to win a victory for liberty, conscience and the Constitution.
But which leaders will deserve their vote when so many so-called conservatives have surrendered to the majoritarian delusion that electoral victory is all that matters? Those who have proven that they think truth and the Constitution matter more. I pray that enough conservative leaders will step forward to offer such proof, before it is too late.
For more from Alan Keyes visit http://loyaltoliberty.com. Once a high-level Reagan-era diplomat, Alan Keyes is a long-time leader in the conservative movement, well-known as a staunch pro-life champion and an eloquent advocate of the Constitutional Republic, including respect for the moral basis of liberty and self-government. He staunchly resists the destruction of the American people's sovereignty by fighting to secure our borders, abolish the federal income tax, end the insurrectionary practices of the federal Judiciary, and build a banking and financial system that halts elite looting of America's wealth and income. He formally severed his Republican Party affiliation in April of 2008 and has since then worked with America's Independent Party to build an effective vehicle for citizen-led grass-roots political action.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Preparing for war
by David Limbaugh
Posted: July 31, 20091:00 am Eastern
© 2009
I am gratified that an awakened public has sent Congress an unequivocal message not to socialize our health care system, but note that this war is just beginning. Gen. Barack Obama is not the slightest bit deterred by the public's negative reaction, because he knows more than they do about what's best for them.
As we go forward, it's imperative we recognize that the current hiccup in Obama's momentum is a result of so-called Blue Dog Democrats' refusing to go along with his plan – and this, largely because their constituents are raining down "tea party" speed bumps on their heads warning them against endorsing this disaster.
But if we're not careful, Obama will negotiate a path around this opposition, and it's important we anticipate it and prepare accordingly. The key lies in understanding the main reason for the Blue Dogs' resistance.
The Blue Dogs see themselves as being all about fiscal responsibility, even though most of them enthusiastically signed on to his budget -busting trillion-dollar porkulus scheme and his cap-and-tax debacle. Those little details aside, they have based their opposition to the bill thus far on their fear that the program wouldn't be able to pay for itself.
If that's true, then all Obama has to do to capture their support (he may already have) is to convince them it will be deficit-neutral – or better. He can do that either by manipulating the numbers or by making adjustments to create the illusion it would pay for itself.
Let's set aside for now the canard that socialized medicine could be structured to pay for itself even with the diminution in quality and quantity it guarantees. What's relevant here is that Obama might be able to convince the Blue Dogs that it could. Then the bill would regain momentum, setting in motion the inevitable destruction of the world's greatest health care system.
Here's the point. Fiscal concerns aren't the only reason to oppose this Stalinist nightmare. We have to understand that socializing our entire health care system would destroy the great things about our system, much more completely than mandates, regulation and other government intervention already have.
Health care quality, quantity, choice and cost are all in jeopardy. This message has to be communicated effectively to the already skeptical public before Obama negotiates his end run around the fiscal responsibility issue alone – as if that were the only legitimate objection.
In selling his scheme, Obama has already been promoting the myth that our system is no better than those of other advanced nations. His recent statements have betrayed his openly contemptuous attitude toward American health care and our top-flight medical profession. His attitude is consistent with his revealed general attitude about America, which he denigrates every time he gets a chance, especially on foreign soil.
He enjoys saying – incorrectly – Americans pay $6,000 more per year on health care than people of other advanced nations for no better care.
The statement is abominably false. Just as Obama is manipulating the cost and benefit numbers to enlist popular and Blue Dog support for his socialized medicine conspiracy, he distorts statistics to make the specious claim that our health care system isn't far superior to all others.
That's why we opponents of Obama's war against our health care system must bone up on the facts that put the lie to the ongoing liberal hoax concerning the quality of American health care – as well as to all their other health care myths.
A great place to start is "The Top Ten Myths of American Health Care," by Sally C. Pipes. This is an extraordinarily edifying book that should be must-reading – a health care mandate even I can agree to – for every citizen upon whom socialized medicine could be visited and every politician contemplating visiting it upon us – or properly opposing it.
This book could be so helpful to the national discussion that I intend to devote a number of columns to it. But with the remaining short space in this one, let me highlight just one of its 10 myth-busting chapters, which debunks the notion that government-run health care systems of other countries are superior or even remotely equal to the American system.
I'll address in future columns how the proponents of socialized medicine distort the statistics to hide the overwhelming superiority of the American system, but for now, I'll quote Ms. Pipes on the quality issue: "In measuring the quality of a health care system, what really matters is how well it serves those who are sick. And it's here that American really excels."
Please stay tuned, and in my following columns, I'll give you specific data backing up Pipes' claim – data that expose President Obama's disgraceful attempt to deceive Americans about American health care quality. And I'll expose you to Pipes' other nine myth-debunking chapters – and her market-based solutions. The system needs reform, but in the direction of less government, not more.
Like this columnist? Would you like to see him in your local newspaper? Call your local editor.
David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His book "Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party" (Regnery) was recently released in paperback. To find out more about David Limbaugh, please visit his website, www.davidlimbaugh.com. And to read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website.
Posted: July 31, 20091:00 am Eastern
© 2009
I am gratified that an awakened public has sent Congress an unequivocal message not to socialize our health care system, but note that this war is just beginning. Gen. Barack Obama is not the slightest bit deterred by the public's negative reaction, because he knows more than they do about what's best for them.
As we go forward, it's imperative we recognize that the current hiccup in Obama's momentum is a result of so-called Blue Dog Democrats' refusing to go along with his plan – and this, largely because their constituents are raining down "tea party" speed bumps on their heads warning them against endorsing this disaster.
But if we're not careful, Obama will negotiate a path around this opposition, and it's important we anticipate it and prepare accordingly. The key lies in understanding the main reason for the Blue Dogs' resistance.
The Blue Dogs see themselves as being all about fiscal responsibility, even though most of them enthusiastically signed on to his budget -busting trillion-dollar porkulus scheme and his cap-and-tax debacle. Those little details aside, they have based their opposition to the bill thus far on their fear that the program wouldn't be able to pay for itself.
If that's true, then all Obama has to do to capture their support (he may already have) is to convince them it will be deficit-neutral – or better. He can do that either by manipulating the numbers or by making adjustments to create the illusion it would pay for itself.
Let's set aside for now the canard that socialized medicine could be structured to pay for itself even with the diminution in quality and quantity it guarantees. What's relevant here is that Obama might be able to convince the Blue Dogs that it could. Then the bill would regain momentum, setting in motion the inevitable destruction of the world's greatest health care system.
Here's the point. Fiscal concerns aren't the only reason to oppose this Stalinist nightmare. We have to understand that socializing our entire health care system would destroy the great things about our system, much more completely than mandates, regulation and other government intervention already have.
Health care quality, quantity, choice and cost are all in jeopardy. This message has to be communicated effectively to the already skeptical public before Obama negotiates his end run around the fiscal responsibility issue alone – as if that were the only legitimate objection.
In selling his scheme, Obama has already been promoting the myth that our system is no better than those of other advanced nations. His recent statements have betrayed his openly contemptuous attitude toward American health care and our top-flight medical profession. His attitude is consistent with his revealed general attitude about America, which he denigrates every time he gets a chance, especially on foreign soil.
He enjoys saying – incorrectly – Americans pay $6,000 more per year on health care than people of other advanced nations for no better care.
The statement is abominably false. Just as Obama is manipulating the cost and benefit numbers to enlist popular and Blue Dog support for his socialized medicine conspiracy, he distorts statistics to make the specious claim that our health care system isn't far superior to all others.
That's why we opponents of Obama's war against our health care system must bone up on the facts that put the lie to the ongoing liberal hoax concerning the quality of American health care – as well as to all their other health care myths.
A great place to start is "The Top Ten Myths of American Health Care," by Sally C. Pipes. This is an extraordinarily edifying book that should be must-reading – a health care mandate even I can agree to – for every citizen upon whom socialized medicine could be visited and every politician contemplating visiting it upon us – or properly opposing it.
This book could be so helpful to the national discussion that I intend to devote a number of columns to it. But with the remaining short space in this one, let me highlight just one of its 10 myth-busting chapters, which debunks the notion that government-run health care systems of other countries are superior or even remotely equal to the American system.
I'll address in future columns how the proponents of socialized medicine distort the statistics to hide the overwhelming superiority of the American system, but for now, I'll quote Ms. Pipes on the quality issue: "In measuring the quality of a health care system, what really matters is how well it serves those who are sick. And it's here that American really excels."
Please stay tuned, and in my following columns, I'll give you specific data backing up Pipes' claim – data that expose President Obama's disgraceful attempt to deceive Americans about American health care quality. And I'll expose you to Pipes' other nine myth-debunking chapters – and her market-based solutions. The system needs reform, but in the direction of less government, not more.
Like this columnist? Would you like to see him in your local newspaper? Call your local editor.
David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His book "Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party" (Regnery) was recently released in paperback. To find out more about David Limbaugh, please visit his website, www.davidlimbaugh.com. And to read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website.
Americans have given up self-ownership
by Walter Williams
Posted: August 05, 20091:00 am Eastern
© 2009
"No one has a right to harm another." Just a little thought, along with a few examples, would demonstrate that blanket statement as pure nonsense. Suppose there is a beautiful lady that both Jim and Bob are pursuing. If Jim wins her hand, Bob is harmed. By the same token, if Bob wins her hand, Jim is harmed. Whose harm is more important and should the beautiful lady be permitted to harm either Bob or Jim are nonsense questions.
During the 1970s, when Hewlett-Packard and Texas Instruments came out with scientific calculators, great harm was suffered by slide rule manufacturers such as Keuffel & Esser and Pickett. Slide rules have since gone the way of the dodo, but the question is: Should Hewlett-Packard and Texas Instruments have been permitted to inflict such grievous harm on slide rule manufacturers? In 1927, General Electric successfully began marketing the refrigerator. The ice industry, a major industry supporting the livelihoods of thousands of workers, was destroyed virtually overnight. Should such harm have been permitted, and what should Congress have done to save jobs in the slide rule and ice industries?
How can you counter the liberal corrosion that has filtered into every issue affecting our daily lives? Find out in Mark Levin's "Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto"
The first thing we should acknowledge is that we live in a world of harms. Harm is reciprocal. For example, if the government stopped Hewlett-Packard and Texas Instruments from harming Keuffel & Esser and Pickett, or stopped General Electric from harming ice producers, by denying them the right to manufacture calculators and refrigerators, those companies would have been harmed, plus the billions of consumers who benefited from calculators and refrigerators. There is no scientific or intelligent way to determine which person's harm is more important than the other. That means things are more complicated than saying that one person has no rights to harm another. We must ask which harms are to be permitted in a free society and which are not to be permitted. For example, it's generally deemed acceptable for me to harm you by momentarily disturbing your peace and quiet by driving a motorcycle past your house. It's deemed unacceptable for me to harm you by tossing a brick through your window.
In a free society, many conflicting harms are settled through the institution of private property rights. Private property rights have to do with rights belonging to the person deemed owner of property to keep, acquire, use and dispose of property as he deems fit so long as he does not violate similar rights of another. Let's say that you are offended, possibly harmed, by bars that play vulgar rap music and permit smoking. If you could use government to outlaw rap music and smoking in bars, you would be benefited and people who enjoyed rap music and smoking would be harmed. Again, there is no scientific or intelligent way to determine whose harm is more important. In a free society, the question of who has the right to harm whom, by permitting rap music and smoking, is answered by the property rights question: Who owns the bar? In a socialistic society, such conflicting harms are resolved through government intimidation and coercion.
What about the right to harm oneself, such as the potential harm that can come from not wearing a seatbelt. That, too, is a property rights question. If you own yourself, you have the right to take chances with your own life. Some might argue that if you're not wearing a seatbelt and wind up a vegetable, society has to take care of you; therefore, the fascist threat "click it or ticket." Becoming a burden on society is not a problem of liberty and private property. It's a problem of socialism where one person is forced to take care of someone else. That being the case, the government, in the name of reducing health care costs, assumes part ownership of you and as such assumes a right to control many aspects of your life. That Americans have joyfully given up self-ownership is both tragic and sad.
Like this columnist? Would you like to see him in your local newspaper? Call your local editor.
Walter E. Williams, Ph.D., is the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va.
Posted: August 05, 20091:00 am Eastern
© 2009
"No one has a right to harm another." Just a little thought, along with a few examples, would demonstrate that blanket statement as pure nonsense. Suppose there is a beautiful lady that both Jim and Bob are pursuing. If Jim wins her hand, Bob is harmed. By the same token, if Bob wins her hand, Jim is harmed. Whose harm is more important and should the beautiful lady be permitted to harm either Bob or Jim are nonsense questions.
During the 1970s, when Hewlett-Packard and Texas Instruments came out with scientific calculators, great harm was suffered by slide rule manufacturers such as Keuffel & Esser and Pickett. Slide rules have since gone the way of the dodo, but the question is: Should Hewlett-Packard and Texas Instruments have been permitted to inflict such grievous harm on slide rule manufacturers? In 1927, General Electric successfully began marketing the refrigerator. The ice industry, a major industry supporting the livelihoods of thousands of workers, was destroyed virtually overnight. Should such harm have been permitted, and what should Congress have done to save jobs in the slide rule and ice industries?
How can you counter the liberal corrosion that has filtered into every issue affecting our daily lives? Find out in Mark Levin's "Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto"
The first thing we should acknowledge is that we live in a world of harms. Harm is reciprocal. For example, if the government stopped Hewlett-Packard and Texas Instruments from harming Keuffel & Esser and Pickett, or stopped General Electric from harming ice producers, by denying them the right to manufacture calculators and refrigerators, those companies would have been harmed, plus the billions of consumers who benefited from calculators and refrigerators. There is no scientific or intelligent way to determine which person's harm is more important than the other. That means things are more complicated than saying that one person has no rights to harm another. We must ask which harms are to be permitted in a free society and which are not to be permitted. For example, it's generally deemed acceptable for me to harm you by momentarily disturbing your peace and quiet by driving a motorcycle past your house. It's deemed unacceptable for me to harm you by tossing a brick through your window.
In a free society, many conflicting harms are settled through the institution of private property rights. Private property rights have to do with rights belonging to the person deemed owner of property to keep, acquire, use and dispose of property as he deems fit so long as he does not violate similar rights of another. Let's say that you are offended, possibly harmed, by bars that play vulgar rap music and permit smoking. If you could use government to outlaw rap music and smoking in bars, you would be benefited and people who enjoyed rap music and smoking would be harmed. Again, there is no scientific or intelligent way to determine whose harm is more important. In a free society, the question of who has the right to harm whom, by permitting rap music and smoking, is answered by the property rights question: Who owns the bar? In a socialistic society, such conflicting harms are resolved through government intimidation and coercion.
What about the right to harm oneself, such as the potential harm that can come from not wearing a seatbelt. That, too, is a property rights question. If you own yourself, you have the right to take chances with your own life. Some might argue that if you're not wearing a seatbelt and wind up a vegetable, society has to take care of you; therefore, the fascist threat "click it or ticket." Becoming a burden on society is not a problem of liberty and private property. It's a problem of socialism where one person is forced to take care of someone else. That being the case, the government, in the name of reducing health care costs, assumes part ownership of you and as such assumes a right to control many aspects of your life. That Americans have joyfully given up self-ownership is both tragic and sad.
Like this columnist? Would you like to see him in your local newspaper? Call your local editor.
Walter E. Williams, Ph.D., is the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va.
OBAMA EMBRACES RUSSIAN SCHEME TO UNILATERALLY DISARM U.S.
From the blog of Howard Phillips
"Obama went to Moscow desperate for the appearance of a foreign-policy success. He got that illusion – at a substantial cost to America’s security. …
"He agreed to trim our nuclear-warhead arsenal by one-third and – even more dangerously – to cut the systems that deliver the nuclear payloads. In fact, the Russians don’t care much about our warhead numbers (which will be chopped to a figure ‘between 1,500 and 1,675’).
"What they really wanted – and got – was a US cave-in regarding limits on our nuclear-capable bombers, submarines and missiles that could leave us with as few as 500 such systems, if the Russians continue to get their way as the final details are negotiated.
"Moscow knows we aren’t going to start a nuclear war with Russia. Putin (forget poor ‘President’ Dimitry Medvedev) wants to cut our conventional capabilities to stage globe-spanning military operations. He wants to cut us down to Russia’s size.
"Our problem is that many nuclear-delivery systems – such as bombers or subs – are ‘dual-use’: A B-2 bomber can launch nukes, but it’s employed more frequently to deliver conventional ordnance.
"Putin sought to cripple our ability to respond to international crises. Obama, meanwhile, was out for ‘deliverables’ – deals that could be signed in front of the cameras. Each man got what he wanted.
"Obama even expressed an interest in further nuclear-weapons cuts. Peace in our time, ladies and gentlemen, peace in our time . . .
"We just agreed to the disarmament position of the American Communist Party of the 1950s."
"Obama went to Moscow desperate for the appearance of a foreign-policy success. He got that illusion – at a substantial cost to America’s security. …
"He agreed to trim our nuclear-warhead arsenal by one-third and – even more dangerously – to cut the systems that deliver the nuclear payloads. In fact, the Russians don’t care much about our warhead numbers (which will be chopped to a figure ‘between 1,500 and 1,675’).
"What they really wanted – and got – was a US cave-in regarding limits on our nuclear-capable bombers, submarines and missiles that could leave us with as few as 500 such systems, if the Russians continue to get their way as the final details are negotiated.
"Moscow knows we aren’t going to start a nuclear war with Russia. Putin (forget poor ‘President’ Dimitry Medvedev) wants to cut our conventional capabilities to stage globe-spanning military operations. He wants to cut us down to Russia’s size.
"Our problem is that many nuclear-delivery systems – such as bombers or subs – are ‘dual-use’: A B-2 bomber can launch nukes, but it’s employed more frequently to deliver conventional ordnance.
"Putin sought to cripple our ability to respond to international crises. Obama, meanwhile, was out for ‘deliverables’ – deals that could be signed in front of the cameras. Each man got what he wanted.
"Obama even expressed an interest in further nuclear-weapons cuts. Peace in our time, ladies and gentlemen, peace in our time . . .
"We just agreed to the disarmament position of the American Communist Party of the 1950s."
SONIA’S FONDNESS FOR FOREIGN LAW IS A DISQUALIFICATION
From the blog of Howard Phillips:
In a Letter to the Editor of The Washington Times (7/1/09, p. A18), Dennis Teti of Hyattsville, MD, makes the following points:
"Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican, explained well why judges must not use foreign laws to interpret the U.S. Constitution (‘Our laws, not foreign laws,’ Opinion, Tuesday).
"When Supreme Court justices take office, they take an oath that includes these words: ‘I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States.’ This Constitution, which the justices have bound themselves to defend, is not anything a justice says it is – any more than an ordinary criminal might claim that, by his own interpretation, he didn't violate the law.
"The Constitution is a document with specific and binding words, and the words are relatively clear, even common sense. A specific word may become obsolete over time, but its meaning is never obsolete.
"The same Article VI that requires the justices to ‘support this Constitution’ also declares that ‘This Constitution’ – plus U.S. laws and treaties – are ‘the supreme Law of the Land.’ This article forbids justices from following any foreign law instead of the Constitution and U.S. law exclusively. For a justice to follow the law of any foreign country is to violate the oath by which the justice is bound. The majority opinion in the case of Roper v. Simmons, mentioned by Mr. Sessions, is a good example of such a violation.
"It is no answer to claim that there are different ‘theories’ of constitutional interpretation. Of course there are. It is even less of an answer that the Constitution must apply to ‘the times.’ Of course it must. The question is whether adhering to foreign law instead of to the Constitution's own provisions is an impeachable offense.
"Senators and congressmen also bind themselves by a similar oath to ‘support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.’ Senators therefore have a duty to ensure that nominees whom they vote to confirm take their own oaths seriously.
"It would be worthwhile for Mr. Sessions and others to walk Judge Sonia Sotomayor and every judicial nominee through a series of questions to test how well they understand that their official oath prohibits them from following foreign laws when deciding cases.
"It would be worth learning whether Judge Sotomayor believes that adhering to other countries’ laws is an offense for which a justice can be impeached. It also would be invaluable to remind all citizens and officeholders that we owe a moral debt to the Constitution that has made us, in Mr. Sessions’ fine words, ‘the freest nation on Earth.’ "
In a Letter to the Editor of The Washington Times (7/1/09, p. A18), Dennis Teti of Hyattsville, MD, makes the following points:"Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican, explained well why judges must not use foreign laws to interpret the U.S. Constitution (‘Our laws, not foreign laws,’ Opinion, Tuesday).
"When Supreme Court justices take office, they take an oath that includes these words: ‘I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States.’ This Constitution, which the justices have bound themselves to defend, is not anything a justice says it is – any more than an ordinary criminal might claim that, by his own interpretation, he didn't violate the law.
"The Constitution is a document with specific and binding words, and the words are relatively clear, even common sense. A specific word may become obsolete over time, but its meaning is never obsolete.
"The same Article VI that requires the justices to ‘support this Constitution’ also declares that ‘This Constitution’ – plus U.S. laws and treaties – are ‘the supreme Law of the Land.’ This article forbids justices from following any foreign law instead of the Constitution and U.S. law exclusively. For a justice to follow the law of any foreign country is to violate the oath by which the justice is bound. The majority opinion in the case of Roper v. Simmons, mentioned by Mr. Sessions, is a good example of such a violation.
"It is no answer to claim that there are different ‘theories’ of constitutional interpretation. Of course there are. It is even less of an answer that the Constitution must apply to ‘the times.’ Of course it must. The question is whether adhering to foreign law instead of to the Constitution's own provisions is an impeachable offense.
"Senators and congressmen also bind themselves by a similar oath to ‘support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.’ Senators therefore have a duty to ensure that nominees whom they vote to confirm take their own oaths seriously.
"It would be worthwhile for Mr. Sessions and others to walk Judge Sonia Sotomayor and every judicial nominee through a series of questions to test how well they understand that their official oath prohibits them from following foreign laws when deciding cases.
"It would be worth learning whether Judge Sotomayor believes that adhering to other countries’ laws is an offense for which a justice can be impeached. It also would be invaluable to remind all citizens and officeholders that we owe a moral debt to the Constitution that has made us, in Mr. Sessions’ fine words, ‘the freest nation on Earth.’ "
Which 'ism' on display at Harvard arrest?
by Alan Keyes
Posted: July 24, 20091:00 am Eastern
© 2009
Though now scrubbed from the Boston Globe website where it was originally posted, what appears to be a .pdf copy of the incident report (#9005127) filed by the officer involved in the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Gates is available online. Before being swept up in the indignant frenzy being whipped up over this supposed outrage, it's worth perusing.
The police officer responded to an apparent break-in in progress at Gates' Ware Street address in Cambridge, Mass., called in by a passing observer, who was on the scene when he arrived. She said that her suspicions were aroused when she observed one of two black males on the porch of the Ware street residence "wedging his shoulder into the door as if he was trying to force entry." After listening to her account, the author of the unofficially published incident report writes that as he "turned and faced the door, I could see an older black male standing in the foyer. … I made this observation through the glass paned front door."
The author further states:
As I stood in plain view of this man, later identified as Gates, I asked if he would step out onto the porch and speak with me. He replied "no I will not." He then demanded to know who I was. I told him that I was "Sgt. Crowley from the Cambridge Police" and that I was "investigating a report of a break in progress" at the residence. While I was making this statement, Gates opened the front door and exclaimed "why, because I'm a black man in America?" I then asked Gates if there was anyone else in the residence. While yelling, he told me that it was none of my business and accused me of being a racist police officer. I assured Gates that I was responding to a citizen's call to the Cambridge Police and that the caller was outside as we spoke. Gates seemed to ignore me and picked up a cordless telephone and dialed an unknown telephone number. As he did so, I radioed on channel 1 that I was off in the residence with someone who appeared to be a resident but very uncooperative. I then overheard Gates asking the person on the other end of his telephone call to "get the chief" and "what's the chief's name?" Gates was telling the person on the other end of the call that he was dealing with a racist police officer in his home. Gates then turned to me and told me that I had no idea who I was "messing" with and that I had not heard the last of it. While I was led to believe that Gates was lawfully in the residence, I was quite surprised and confused with the behavior he exhibited toward me. I asked Gates to provide me with photo identification so that I could verify that he resided at ___ Ware Street and so that I could radio my findings to ECC. Gates initially refused, demanding that I show him identification, but then did supply me with a Harvard University identification card. Upon learning that Gates was affiliated with Harvard, I radioed and requested the presence of the Harvard University Police.
Following this initial exchange, the officer states that he attempted to identify himself to Gates as requested, but that "Gates began to yell over my spoken words by accusing me of being a racist police officer and leveling threats that he wasn't someone to mess with. … When Gates asked a third time for my name, I explained to him that I had provided it at his request two separate times. Gates continued to yell at me. I told Gates that I was leaving his residence and that if he had any other questions regarding the matter, I would speak with him outside of the residence." After this, the reporting officer states, Gates followed the officer outside, continuing his remonstrations. There the arrest eventually took place.
If this matter is properly handled, at the appropriate stage of the legal proceedings the verified official incident report will be reviewed and the details of the police officer's account will be substantiated or refuted. As I read this unofficially published version, I found myself sharing the officer's reported surprise at the behavior he ascribes to Gates in the initial moments of their encounter. Some years ago, I found myself locked out of my home. I eventually forced my way in through the basement, feeling both foolish and a bit apprehensive as the alarm sounded. I rushed toward the basement door, only belatedly remembering that we always lock it before leaving the house. That meant that I couldn't reach the system's data entry pad in time to disarm the alarm. The police would be called, and I would have to explain things to them.
Of course, since I was in my own home, I didn't see any real problem with that. In fact, I felt reassured by the fact that, if I had been a burglar, their prompt response would have prevented a successful theft. As related in this account, no sense of reassurance and gratitude is evident in professor Gates' response. It also seems entirely absent from most of the reaction and commentary on his behalf in the media. Was it a bad thing that a passing citizen was concerned enough by the appearance of a break-in to notify the police? Would an apathetic, "it's not my business" shrug have been the preferable response? Should the police have ignored the report of a break-in at this black academic's home, as they are so often accused of ignoring reports of black on black crime in predominantly black communities?
If Gates came to the door, thanked the police officer for the prompt response and showed his ID while explaining the appearance of a break-in, how could any incident have occurred? The resident of a home has a stake in the police officer's prompt performance of his duty, so there's nothing obsequious or inappropriate about being polite and appreciative toward someone who's doing exactly what a sensible resident would want them to do.
As far as I have read, no one denies that there was the plausible appearance of a break-in. The frenzied effort to tag as racist the responding officer (or the citizen who reported the suspicious activity) can serve no useful purpose. In fact, university communities generally encourage their members to report suspicious activities, and police in those communities pride themselves on the kind of prompt response that reassures people of the safety of their persons and belongings. I have always assumed that even Harvard professors have enough common sense to agree with such policies. This whole episode reminds me of the time a black congresswoman allegedly struck a Capitol Hill police officer who stopped her because she was not wearing the congressional pin that identifies people as members of Congress (who were permitted to enter Capitol Hill office buildings without going through security). It didn't take long for many to realize that the only -ism involved in that episode was narcissism. But surely no academic has ever shown traces of that disorder.
For more from Alan Keyes visit http://loyaltoliberty.com. Once a high-level Reagan-era diplomat, Alan Keyes is a long-time leader in the conservative movement, well-known as a staunch pro-life champion and an eloquent advocate of the Constitutional Republic, including respect for the moral basis of liberty and self-government. He staunchly resists the destruction of the American people's sovereignty by fighting to secure our borders, abolish the federal income tax, end the insurrectionary practices of the federal Judiciary, and build a banking and financial system that halts elite looting of America's wealth and income. He formally severed his Republican Party affiliation in April of 2008 and has since then worked with America's Independent Party to build an effective vehicle for citizen-led grass-roots political action.
Posted: July 24, 20091:00 am Eastern
© 2009
Though now scrubbed from the Boston Globe website where it was originally posted, what appears to be a .pdf copy of the incident report (#9005127) filed by the officer involved in the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Gates is available online. Before being swept up in the indignant frenzy being whipped up over this supposed outrage, it's worth perusing.
The police officer responded to an apparent break-in in progress at Gates' Ware Street address in Cambridge, Mass., called in by a passing observer, who was on the scene when he arrived. She said that her suspicions were aroused when she observed one of two black males on the porch of the Ware street residence "wedging his shoulder into the door as if he was trying to force entry." After listening to her account, the author of the unofficially published incident report writes that as he "turned and faced the door, I could see an older black male standing in the foyer. … I made this observation through the glass paned front door."
The author further states:
As I stood in plain view of this man, later identified as Gates, I asked if he would step out onto the porch and speak with me. He replied "no I will not." He then demanded to know who I was. I told him that I was "Sgt. Crowley from the Cambridge Police" and that I was "investigating a report of a break in progress" at the residence. While I was making this statement, Gates opened the front door and exclaimed "why, because I'm a black man in America?" I then asked Gates if there was anyone else in the residence. While yelling, he told me that it was none of my business and accused me of being a racist police officer. I assured Gates that I was responding to a citizen's call to the Cambridge Police and that the caller was outside as we spoke. Gates seemed to ignore me and picked up a cordless telephone and dialed an unknown telephone number. As he did so, I radioed on channel 1 that I was off in the residence with someone who appeared to be a resident but very uncooperative. I then overheard Gates asking the person on the other end of his telephone call to "get the chief" and "what's the chief's name?" Gates was telling the person on the other end of the call that he was dealing with a racist police officer in his home. Gates then turned to me and told me that I had no idea who I was "messing" with and that I had not heard the last of it. While I was led to believe that Gates was lawfully in the residence, I was quite surprised and confused with the behavior he exhibited toward me. I asked Gates to provide me with photo identification so that I could verify that he resided at ___ Ware Street and so that I could radio my findings to ECC. Gates initially refused, demanding that I show him identification, but then did supply me with a Harvard University identification card. Upon learning that Gates was affiliated with Harvard, I radioed and requested the presence of the Harvard University Police.
Following this initial exchange, the officer states that he attempted to identify himself to Gates as requested, but that "Gates began to yell over my spoken words by accusing me of being a racist police officer and leveling threats that he wasn't someone to mess with. … When Gates asked a third time for my name, I explained to him that I had provided it at his request two separate times. Gates continued to yell at me. I told Gates that I was leaving his residence and that if he had any other questions regarding the matter, I would speak with him outside of the residence." After this, the reporting officer states, Gates followed the officer outside, continuing his remonstrations. There the arrest eventually took place.
If this matter is properly handled, at the appropriate stage of the legal proceedings the verified official incident report will be reviewed and the details of the police officer's account will be substantiated or refuted. As I read this unofficially published version, I found myself sharing the officer's reported surprise at the behavior he ascribes to Gates in the initial moments of their encounter. Some years ago, I found myself locked out of my home. I eventually forced my way in through the basement, feeling both foolish and a bit apprehensive as the alarm sounded. I rushed toward the basement door, only belatedly remembering that we always lock it before leaving the house. That meant that I couldn't reach the system's data entry pad in time to disarm the alarm. The police would be called, and I would have to explain things to them.
Of course, since I was in my own home, I didn't see any real problem with that. In fact, I felt reassured by the fact that, if I had been a burglar, their prompt response would have prevented a successful theft. As related in this account, no sense of reassurance and gratitude is evident in professor Gates' response. It also seems entirely absent from most of the reaction and commentary on his behalf in the media. Was it a bad thing that a passing citizen was concerned enough by the appearance of a break-in to notify the police? Would an apathetic, "it's not my business" shrug have been the preferable response? Should the police have ignored the report of a break-in at this black academic's home, as they are so often accused of ignoring reports of black on black crime in predominantly black communities?
If Gates came to the door, thanked the police officer for the prompt response and showed his ID while explaining the appearance of a break-in, how could any incident have occurred? The resident of a home has a stake in the police officer's prompt performance of his duty, so there's nothing obsequious or inappropriate about being polite and appreciative toward someone who's doing exactly what a sensible resident would want them to do.
As far as I have read, no one denies that there was the plausible appearance of a break-in. The frenzied effort to tag as racist the responding officer (or the citizen who reported the suspicious activity) can serve no useful purpose. In fact, university communities generally encourage their members to report suspicious activities, and police in those communities pride themselves on the kind of prompt response that reassures people of the safety of their persons and belongings. I have always assumed that even Harvard professors have enough common sense to agree with such policies. This whole episode reminds me of the time a black congresswoman allegedly struck a Capitol Hill police officer who stopped her because she was not wearing the congressional pin that identifies people as members of Congress (who were permitted to enter Capitol Hill office buildings without going through security). It didn't take long for many to realize that the only -ism involved in that episode was narcissism. But surely no academic has ever shown traces of that disorder.
For more from Alan Keyes visit http://loyaltoliberty.com. Once a high-level Reagan-era diplomat, Alan Keyes is a long-time leader in the conservative movement, well-known as a staunch pro-life champion and an eloquent advocate of the Constitutional Republic, including respect for the moral basis of liberty and self-government. He staunchly resists the destruction of the American people's sovereignty by fighting to secure our borders, abolish the federal income tax, end the insurrectionary practices of the federal Judiciary, and build a banking and financial system that halts elite looting of America's wealth and income. He formally severed his Republican Party affiliation in April of 2008 and has since then worked with America's Independent Party to build an effective vehicle for citizen-led grass-roots political action.
A teachable moment, indeed
by David Limbaugh
Posted: July 28, 20091:00 am Eastern
© 2009
The Henry Louis Gates Jr./Cambridge police flap is most significant for what it tells us about President Barack Obama, his approach to the presidency and his general attitude, including on matters of race.
In his July 22 news conference on health care, one member of the media asked Obama, "What does (the Gates arrest) incident say to you, and what does it say about race relations in America?"
Without hesitation, Obama launched into what appeared to be a pre-considered response. Had he been caught off guard by the question, we might assume he would hesitate – at least briefly – and then decline to inject himself into the matter.
We should expect Obama, of all people, given his reputation for coolness and sagacity, to act presidentially, not only in measuring his thoughts before speaking but also in declining to comment on local matters beyond his duties and about which he doesn't have all the facts.
But Obama's attitude toward the presidency is not particularly aligned with what our constitutional framers had in mind. He obviously believes it is his prerogative to micromanage any and every aspect of American life, from the catastrophic to the mundane.
He's displayed this attitude in town hall meetings, where he has given advice to attendees concerning their specific problems, as if it were his place to make personal house calls on matters ranging from people's health care problems to their mortgages. All of this is consistent with Obama's perception of government's cradle-to-grave caretaker role and his effort to cultivate a dependency mindset in Americans.
But in this case, Obama decided to weigh in, even after admitting that "Skip" Gates is his "friend," that he "may be a little biased here," and that he didn't "know all the facts." We know he made this decision with premeditation, because White House press secretary Robert Gibbs admitted they had anticipated and prepared for the question.
Obama recited a Gates-slanted version of the events, suggesting that Cambridge Police Sgt. James Crowley arrested Gates for disorderly conduct after Gates, inside his home, showed Crowley his ID. Obama pointedly added that the charges were "later dropped."
Then he gratuitously and incendiarily threw race into the mix, saying that we don't know what role race played in the incident (hint, hint) and adding that it's "fair to say ... any of us would be pretty angry." He said the Cambridge police acted "stupidly" in arresting Gates in his own home – completely ignoring Crowley's explanation that he arrested Gates for his disorderly and abusive behavior as opposed to his race. Obama exacerbated that impression by launching into a mini-diatribe about the "long history" of racial profiling by American cops. "That's just a fact," he said.
Obama intentionally exploited the incident with reckless disregard for the damage he did to Gates, to law enforcement generally, and to ongoing race relations. All in all, a disgraceful performance and not one befitting a self-described post-racial president.
Adding insult to injury, he later held a news conference, not to apologize, but to justify himself. The arrogance and presumptuousness of his original remarks were only exceeded by these follow-up statements.
He revealed that he had personally talked with both Sgt. Crowley and professor Gates. Can you imagine the media reaction if President Bush – the guy they said never admitted his mistakes – had insinuated himself to that degree in a local matter?
Obama said he had given an unfortunate impression that he was maligning Crowley or the Cambridge Police Department and could have – not even "should have" – "calibrated" his words differently. Pure weasel words when a simple, heartfelt apology would have sufficed.
Next he offered his patronizing assessment that both men probably overreacted and that cooler heads should have prevailed. How about an acknowledgment that he – Obama – overreacted?
How does Obama know whether both were at fault? He may pretend he was being noble and high-minded by declaring that each shared blame, but if it turns out that Crowley was acting appropriately, then Obama further damaged him by suggesting otherwise.
Just as importantly, why would he continue, inappropriately, to comment on the facts? Obviously because he wanted to exploit this incident as a "teachable moment" on race relations, whether or not the facts fit his template.
If there's a teachable moment here, it's that not everything between blacks and whites or Hispanics and whites is about race, and people, especially U.S. presidents when commenting on local matters that don't concern them, should not always jump to the conclusion that racism is involved. They should not yell "racism" (or any other "ism") first and examine the facts later.
Leave that to the Sharptons and Jacksons.
If President Obama truly wants to enhance race relations, he would be better served to follow the example of Bill Cosby rather than that of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
Like this columnist? Would you like to see him in your local newspaper? Call your local editor.
David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His book "Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party" (Regnery) was recently released in paperback. To find out more about David Limbaugh, please visit his website, www.davidlimbaugh.com
Posted: July 28, 20091:00 am Eastern
© 2009
The Henry Louis Gates Jr./Cambridge police flap is most significant for what it tells us about President Barack Obama, his approach to the presidency and his general attitude, including on matters of race.
In his July 22 news conference on health care, one member of the media asked Obama, "What does (the Gates arrest) incident say to you, and what does it say about race relations in America?"
Without hesitation, Obama launched into what appeared to be a pre-considered response. Had he been caught off guard by the question, we might assume he would hesitate – at least briefly – and then decline to inject himself into the matter.
We should expect Obama, of all people, given his reputation for coolness and sagacity, to act presidentially, not only in measuring his thoughts before speaking but also in declining to comment on local matters beyond his duties and about which he doesn't have all the facts.
But Obama's attitude toward the presidency is not particularly aligned with what our constitutional framers had in mind. He obviously believes it is his prerogative to micromanage any and every aspect of American life, from the catastrophic to the mundane.
He's displayed this attitude in town hall meetings, where he has given advice to attendees concerning their specific problems, as if it were his place to make personal house calls on matters ranging from people's health care problems to their mortgages. All of this is consistent with Obama's perception of government's cradle-to-grave caretaker role and his effort to cultivate a dependency mindset in Americans.
But in this case, Obama decided to weigh in, even after admitting that "Skip" Gates is his "friend," that he "may be a little biased here," and that he didn't "know all the facts." We know he made this decision with premeditation, because White House press secretary Robert Gibbs admitted they had anticipated and prepared for the question.
Obama recited a Gates-slanted version of the events, suggesting that Cambridge Police Sgt. James Crowley arrested Gates for disorderly conduct after Gates, inside his home, showed Crowley his ID. Obama pointedly added that the charges were "later dropped."
Then he gratuitously and incendiarily threw race into the mix, saying that we don't know what role race played in the incident (hint, hint) and adding that it's "fair to say ... any of us would be pretty angry." He said the Cambridge police acted "stupidly" in arresting Gates in his own home – completely ignoring Crowley's explanation that he arrested Gates for his disorderly and abusive behavior as opposed to his race. Obama exacerbated that impression by launching into a mini-diatribe about the "long history" of racial profiling by American cops. "That's just a fact," he said.
Obama intentionally exploited the incident with reckless disregard for the damage he did to Gates, to law enforcement generally, and to ongoing race relations. All in all, a disgraceful performance and not one befitting a self-described post-racial president.
Adding insult to injury, he later held a news conference, not to apologize, but to justify himself. The arrogance and presumptuousness of his original remarks were only exceeded by these follow-up statements.
He revealed that he had personally talked with both Sgt. Crowley and professor Gates. Can you imagine the media reaction if President Bush – the guy they said never admitted his mistakes – had insinuated himself to that degree in a local matter?
Obama said he had given an unfortunate impression that he was maligning Crowley or the Cambridge Police Department and could have – not even "should have" – "calibrated" his words differently. Pure weasel words when a simple, heartfelt apology would have sufficed.
Next he offered his patronizing assessment that both men probably overreacted and that cooler heads should have prevailed. How about an acknowledgment that he – Obama – overreacted?
How does Obama know whether both were at fault? He may pretend he was being noble and high-minded by declaring that each shared blame, but if it turns out that Crowley was acting appropriately, then Obama further damaged him by suggesting otherwise.
Just as importantly, why would he continue, inappropriately, to comment on the facts? Obviously because he wanted to exploit this incident as a "teachable moment" on race relations, whether or not the facts fit his template.
If there's a teachable moment here, it's that not everything between blacks and whites or Hispanics and whites is about race, and people, especially U.S. presidents when commenting on local matters that don't concern them, should not always jump to the conclusion that racism is involved. They should not yell "racism" (or any other "ism") first and examine the facts later.
Leave that to the Sharptons and Jacksons.
If President Obama truly wants to enhance race relations, he would be better served to follow the example of Bill Cosby rather than that of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
Like this columnist? Would you like to see him in your local newspaper? Call your local editor.
David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His book "Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party" (Regnery) was recently released in paperback. To find out more about David Limbaugh, please visit his website, www.davidlimbaugh.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
