David Brock, the conservative turned liberal advocate, has recently garnered a considerable amount of press coverage for his attacks on Fox News for, among many other things, allegedly taking over leadership of the Republican Party. What the news coverage has ignored is his use of tax-free funds for his organization, Media Matters for America (MMA), for these attacks — a form of government support for activities that clearly do not merit tax-exempt status and that as a result infringe on Fox News’ First Amendment rights.

MMA was originally established as an Internal Revenue Service Section 501(c)(3) organization, that is, an organization that can receive tax-deductible contributions to engage in educational activities. The more precise purpose was to counter alleged media bias and so to “identify occurrences of excessive bias in the American media, educate the public as to their existence, and to work with members of the media to reduce them.”

What MMA actually is doing, however, moves far afield from identifying possible bias to mounting a campaign to undermine a major media outlet and to promote the Democratic Party and progressive causes associated with it. Mr. Brock himself has described this new strategy as “a war on Fox,” an effort “to disrupt [Rupert Murdoch‘s] commercial interests” and look for ways to turn regulators against News Corp.’s media outlets. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

It does not matter if you like Fox, or hate it, but for taxpayer dollars to go to support an alleged non-profit that has a clear political agenda is unacceptable, regardless of whose political agenda it is. There are laws in this country against that sort of thing, after all. And there is that pesky matter of the US Constitution and the First Amendment. Taxpayers should NOT be funding this organization. If George Soros wants to fund it, that’s his decision, but Media Matters sure should not receive our money as a “non-profit.” That is just ridiculous.

And speaking of money, Obama was in New York Thursday night at a few fundraisers, trying to fill his coffers. I just have to ask – who is it that can afford a $35,800 a plate dinner?? That is not a typo – there are five numbers there on purpose. Just wondering.

While Obama was at it, he did a little pandering to the LGBT community, claiming he thinks we should have the same rights in this country as everyone else. I agree with that, but what CNN was not so great about reporting was that Obama also said he thought it should be a state matter. Huh – that’s the same thing Michelle Bachmann said in the recent debate (to give you a comparison).

Meanwhile, DADT is STILL the law of the land over 6 months later after the big hoopla in December. Yep, the government has not finished what it needs to do to change that. Big surprise, huh? Yeah, I didn’t think so…

Add to that Obama misspeaking about a Medal of Honor recipient while pandering at Fort Drum:

[snip] “Throughout my service, first as a senator and then as a presidential candidate and then as a President, I’ve always run into you guys. And for some reason it’s always in some rough spots.

First time I saw 10th Mountain Division, you guys were in southern Iraq. When I went back to visit Afghanistan, you guys were the first ones there. I had the great honor of seeing some of you because a comrade of yours, Jared Monti, was the first person who I was able to award the Medal of Honor to who actually came back and wasn’t receiving it posthumously.”[snip]

Except it was. Oops…

There is more going on, and feel free to discuss whatever you wish!

A team of 250 federal investigators and 130 local detectives trying to understand why Jared Lee Loughner went on his alleged killing spree has conducted more than 300 interviews with family, friends and neighbors since the shooting. But they remain stumped about what ultimately prompted the 22-year-old’s descent into violence. [snip]

What? There wasn’t a ton of Tea Party pamphlets in Loughner’s bedroom? He didn’t have an “I Heart Sarah Palin” tattoo or anything? Out of all of those interviews, explosive rhetoric from the Right did not jump out at all of these investigators??

Wow. Imagine that.

The article continues:

Investigators have had little success gaining information from either the uncooperative Loughner or his parents, who have told authorities that they had little recent contact with their son, law enforcement sources said.

With so little help coming from the immediate family, investigators are probing associates and witnesses for details that could help them fill out a portrait of Loughner, a task one source described as completing a “jigsaw puzzle.”

[...]

It could take weeks for investigators to fully determine Loughner’s state of mind in the days leading up to the rampage, the sources said. Virtually every member of the FBI’s 200-person Phoenix field division, coupled with 50 additional agents from Washington and Tucson and more from the Capitol Police and the U.S. Marshals Service, have fanned out across southeastern Arizona. About 130 detectives from the Pima County sheriff’s office also are involved.

Investigators have had little success gaining information from either the uncooperative Loughner or his parents, who have told authorities that they had little recent contact with their son, law enforcement sources said. [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

There is a clear answer as to why this young man did this – he is mentally unstable. That is the only snap assumption to be made. It had nothing – nothing – nothing to do with any of those folks targeted by the Left. What they did was cruel, irresponsible, and amounted to hate mongering.

Sarah Palin was on The Hannity Show, Sean being another target of the Left. I do not watch him, as a rule, but do make exceptions, like when Sarah Palin is on, which she was on Monday night. Despite the immediate framing by some on the Left that she has now been made small (gee – I wonder who set out to do THAT?), she seems resolute, clear, articulate, and, well, sad. In case you missed it, here is part of the interview:

I have to say, whenever I see her speak, I gain more respect for her. Who among us could be so reasoned, so calm, so solemn, after the vicious, hateful, mean spirited attacks on not just HER, but her family, as well. After what she went through just in the past 10 days, after being demeaned and belittled for defending herself, being accused of “interjecting” herself after those on the Left falsely accused her of contributing to this heinous crime, her tone was just right.

And to hear that her children have also received death threats is nothing short of shocking. What the hell is wrong with people???

Wow. I must say, when Gov. Palin said, “If the Left didn’t have double standards, they would have no standards at all.” Well, it sure seems that way, doesn’t it?

Love her, hate her, be indifferent to her (I swear, I said the same thing about Hillary Clinton, didn’t I? The media/Leftists did the same thing to her to a degree.)), she does not deserve this kind of horrendous treatment. No one does. The hue and cry if this kind of attack was directed at any one news personality or Democratic governor would be deafening. But when it comes to Palin, the only thing that is deafening are these hellacious attacks on this woman with the sole purpose of destroying her, and her family as well. It is reprehensible.

It will be a relief is when this meme, this lie, about what caused Loughner to go off, is put to rest once and for all. Since so many FBI agents and local personnel have found no link whatsoever to Palin, Hannity, the Tea Party, or others, surely this must put an end to this lie. Those who continue to perpetuate this false, destructive, meme should get their comeuppance, and it cannot come soon enough for me.

Frankly, I think Palin should sue the shit out of the ones who put this out there. What they have wrought against her, and her children, is obscene, and they should be held to account.

Yuck. I don’t know about you, but after hearing about the kinds of attacks Palin, and her family, have endured, I feel like I need a break. In case you need a bit of a break, too, I have another way in which you can view your taxpaying dollars at work. I got the following from my niece, whose husband is a Gunnery Sergeant, and stationed in the Middle East for a year. Anyway, I hope you enjoy:

After dealing with this craploa, the raging hatred, the cruelty, of those who, unfortunately, have access to the MSM, and are using it to attack someone, this was a welcome relief. Or at least it was for me. How about you?

Once again, revising history, and having their baseless meme become the theme of the week. That would be the Left, beginning with “Heckuva Job” Sheriff Dupnik, who kicked off the “report” of the shootout in Tucson as being the result of rhetoric.

Oh, yes, you may not know this, but President Obama called Sheriff Dupnik to thank him. I just bet he did, since Sheriff Dupnik got the ball rolling blaming Gov. Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and other Conservatives, for this heinous crime. There continues to be no evidence whatsoever that rhetoric had anything to do with this – in fact, quite the opposite.

Surprisingly, though, some of the bigger media outfits refuse to correct the original unsubstantiated claims against Palin, et. al. I am not kidding. People like George Stephanopoulos refuses to issue a correction. Sadly, pathetically, he is not alone. How about this one:

[snip] CNN’s Piers Morgan, who takes over longtime television newsman Larry King’s timeslot next week, tweeted, “This now deleted image from Sarah Palin website will be reason this terrible shooting has huge political ramifications,” linking the map Palin made of targeted congressional districts for the 2010 midterm elections. [snip}

Or this from Candy Crowley to Dick Durbin:

[snip] CNN’s State of the Union anchor Candy Crowley asked Senator Majority Whip Dick Durbin, Illinois Democrat, “I guess that the undertow — and certainly it’s not an undertow on the Internet — but the undertow with politicians now speaking publicly is, well, the Republicans and the Tea Party and Sarah Palin have gone way too far in their rhetoric; it’s been violent rhetoric, and therefore this sort of thing happens. Are you making that direct connection?”

She asked Durbin that in response to Durbin saying, “we live in a world of violent images and violent words, but those of us in public life and the journalists who cover us should be thoughtful in response to this and try to bring down the rhetoric, which I’m afraid has become pervasive in our discussion of political issues. The phrase ‘don’t retreat, reload,’ putting crosshairs on congressional districts as targets, these sorts of things, I think, invite the kind of toxic rhetoric that can lead unstable people to believe this is an acceptable response. And I think that we all have an obligation, both political parties — and let me salute the senior senator from Arizona, John McCain, whose statement yesterday was clear and unequivocal that we are not accepting this kind of conduct as being anywhere near the mainstream.” [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

Uh, yeah. Way to walk back this fallacious meme there, George, Candy, and Piers.

Yet now, “Civility” has become the catch phrase of the week, used by Obama in the so-called “Memorial Service” on Wednesday night. Yes, it is being used as a way not to encourage civil debate, but to stifle any debate at all.

This is quite a coup. Especially as the House is getting ready to begin a new session, with their first order of business being the repeal of Obamacare. Now the discussion by the pundits is how the Republicans are going to handle this, will everyone be separated at the State of the Union, or will they break with tradition and sit all together, and on, and on, and on.

I am not opposed to civility in the least. I am a Southerner, after all, and many of us do still have manners down here. We know it is better to bite our tongues sometimes instead of giving a tongue lashing. But that is done out of respect, not out of a desire to censor. It seems to me that what is going on post-Tucson is more of the latter, than the former, especially given the way the entire discussion (if one can call baseless, horrendous allegations a “discussion”). For some reason, it only seems to apply to one side. Guess which one? Again, that is not being civil, that is silencing – there is a world of difference.

Speaking of Obama’s campaign speech in Tucson, I have to say this. I am beyond disgusted that the whole event has been framed as being about HIM, about what he will say, will this bump up his approval numbers, etc., etc. This service was SUPPOSED to be in honor of those whose lives were senselessly taken from them. Not about President Obama and if he could take yet another shot at “defining” his presidency. Because you know Fort Hood didn’t count.

And not that it should – I don’t think ANY funeral/memorial service should be used for this kind of political gain. It is disturbing how so many are comparing this speech to Clinton’s Oklahoma City bombing speech, a clear ideological attack on our government. Or Bush’s speech after 9/11, a clear, orchestrated, attack on our country. This heinous crime was neither of those things. Rather, it was the actions of one deranged man, who, by all accounts, had no ideological gripe.

Obama is getting praise heaped upon him for taking advantage of this horrible shooting by giving a campaign speech. Sarah Palin, on the other hand, the primary target of Paul Krugman, Keith Olbermann, DailyKos, and too many other personalities and blogs to list here., is getting nothing but scathing attacks for her attempt to defend herself from these scurrilous attacks. She is not supposed to speak out, she is not supposed to respond, she is supposed to shut up and go away. That was the point of these baseless assertions in the first place, to so discredit her, to claim, as Michael Daly did, that she had “Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ blood on her hands…”

Ah, yes – so civil this discourse from the Left.

This is so disturbing to see how this tragedy has been shaped. My ridiculous “representative,” Jim Clyburn, had the audacity to play the race card in putting down Sarah Palin’s response. Oh, yes he did, and he was sexist to boot:

[snip] “You know, Sarah Palin just can’t seem to get it, on any front. I think she’s an attractive person, she is articulate,” Clyburn said on the Bill Press radio show. “But I think intellectually, she seems not to be able to understand what’s going on here.”

“I have some experiences that maybe she does not have,” he said. “When I see and hear things today that are reminiscent of that period of time, I am very, very concerned about it, because I know what it led to back then, and I know what it can lead to again.” [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

Wow. Let me just say, Clyburn is by far NOT the sharpest knife in the drawer, so for him, of all people, to make that assertion about Palin is just laughable. Clyburn continues to stoke the flames that the Tucson shooting had anything to do with Palin at all. That is not just wrong-headed, it is plain wrong to incite people against someone based on lies, rumor, and innuendo. Clyburn is the worst kind of “offender,” too, attacking her for her rhetoric while not minding his own. What a piece of work he is.

But Clyburn got what he wanted, with Obama’s willing assistance – to transform this tragedy to essentially be a put down of Sarah Palin, and conservatives in general. The media is their willing accomplice, from Fox to MSNBC (not surprisingly, the viewers of MSNBC are far more likely to believe Palin, et. al, ARE responsible for what happened to Rep. Giffords and the other victims. And they claim Fox is biased? Spare me.).

To think this all started by an unprofessional sheriff placing blame where it didn’t belong, and a bunch of opportunists jumping on the bandwagon. Wow. And no amount of facts to the contrary will alter THEIR rhetoric. That is unethical, immoral, cruel, offensive, and hypocritical. But they got their way, so what do they care?

At least the majority of Americans see through this political ploy, yet it continues to be played up to the hilt by the media, and the politicians. Unfortunately, they are the ones with the loudest voices, and they won’t leave this alone until we all accept their lie as the truth…

There is no need to rehash the numerous assaults on Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, or those lumped together and labeled “Conservatives” (presumably, anyone who does not have a LD – Lefty Democrat – after their name), in the wake of the Tucson shooting. From the very first press conference with Sheriff Dupnik, rhetoric, presumably only conservative rhetoric, was blamed for this horrible tragedy. Many, many blogs, news organizations, and pundits, including the economist, Paul Krugman, jumped on the “Blame Palin!!!” bandwagon (though Mr. Krugman might do well to stick to his area of expertise). Yes, even as they claim, “we don’t have any evidence to support this yet, BUT it is all Palin and Limbaugh and Beck’s fault…”

Indeed, we have heard it all, from my ridiculous representative Jim Clyburn calling for the restoration of “The Fairness Doctrine,” which isn’t all that fair, to calls for limited Freedom of Speech (who gets to decide what can and cannot be said?), to insisting Palin used “Crosshairs!!!” on her map, akin to the bullseye used by the Democrats, but essentially meaningless in a culture that frequently uses military imagery (“war room,” “marshal our forces,” “hit the target,” etc.) as common parlance, particularly in the political arena. We heard it over and over again: it is all the fault of Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, Beck et.al, that this heinous act was committed in Tucson.

After all these blatantly false charges have been levied, what does Time Magazine’s Mark Halperin think Palin and the Conservatives should do about these offensive comments being hurled their way? Turn the other cheek. That’s right, he thinks they should do nothing about it, not stand up for themselves, not defend themselves, not retort, not say a peep. Ah, yes – that Freedom of Speech thing gets another gratuitous hit from those in the media.

Now I know people might think, me being a minister type and everything, that I would concur with Halperin’s assessment. I do not. There is such a thing as disparaging another person’s character, abusing them with words, bullying them, all of which has happened in the public arena, with the mindless assistance of the MSM. For someone to then expect that person, in this case, Palin, to just take it, remain silent, be mute, is an insult to the divine within the person who has been maligned. No victim of abuse, of lies, of rumor and innuendo, should be expected to take the abuse silently. No one. And that is just what he is asking Palin to do.

Thankfully, Palin refused to accept the silencing Halperin (and others) wanted to impose upon her. No. This morning, Governor Palin made a statement regarding the recent tragedy in Tucson, and the attempts to connect her to the actions of a madman:

Well said. And a very measured response, I might add. No wonder they are so afraid of her.

But of course, those on the Left are not happy with this statement, oh no. Piling on with Halperin is former Clinton/Gore advisor, Peter Mirijanian, who just this morning attacked this statement because Palin didn’t APOLOGIZE for what happened in Tucson. Not only that, she waited too long to come out with a statement (I guess he missed that she said she took time to reflect on the tragedy that had occurred). Most importantly, though, she didn’t grovel for forgiveness for the actions of someone who took matters into his own hands out of his own mental illness.

Again – there has been ZERO connection between what Loughner did in Tucson and ANY political rhetoric. None. Absolutely none. Yet that is not stopping some of these folks from continuing to demand Palin apologize.

But apologize for what? Seems to me, they are demanding that she apologize for her very existence. And once she has done that, she needs to be quiet, and just go away.

This is the same thing they did to Hillary Clinton, by people in her own party. This is the same thing too many women in this country endure: the powers-that-be wanting to silence us. If there is any correlation between what happened to Giffords and Sarah Palin, it is that they are both strong, outspoken women. And for that, Giffords has paid a horrendous price, though one from which we all hope and pray she recovers (thank HEAVENS doctors now think her survival is guaranteed).

Palin is paying a price, too, at the hands of those who claim they are now speaking out for civility. In their very claims, they are being uncivil, leveling false charges against a political opponent in an attempt to silence, demean, destroy her. But she will not be silenced. And for that, I salute her.

So, what do you think? Is Mark Halperin smoking something? What did you think of Palin’s statement? Is it a leap to make this about women? Let’s hear it!

UPDATE: So while those on the left are sanctimoniously calling for more “civility” in language, would you like to guess what the result has been of their followers toward Sarah Palin? If you guessed DEATH THREATS, you would be right. Below is a video compilation of some of the threats Palin has received. I warn you – this is NOT for the faint of heart:

Such “civil discourse,” indeed. This is just frightening. Talk about “unhinged” (President Clinton) and ratcheting up political discourse. If something happens to Sarah Palin, will Markos be apologetic? Arianna Huffington? Sheriff Dupnik?? Yeah, I didn’t think so, either…

Does Pakistan suffer today because of his death? Yes. Does it change anything on the ground? No. 

He was slain because he called the notorious blasphemy law as black law. He stood up for a Christian woman who was accused of blasphemy and was sentenced to death by a local court. Taseer wanted his government to repeal the blasphemy law that was incorporated in the 1980s by the military dictator General Ziaul Haq. It was a legitimate demand. In his own words, “these are man made laws and men can correct this”. 

These black laws will now be repealed or not? This does not change anything on the ground either. 

Nothing will change on the ground because nothing changed a decade ago when a Christian cricket player on the national team was allegedly forced to convert. Nothing changed when pop singers one after another started denouncing their own careers and joined the elite mullah ranks. Not a thing changed when two boys were lynched publicly just last year. These were the obvious symptoms of a society turning intolerant, self-righteous, and violent. A society without the respect for law and order. 

It changed nothing back then, it will not change anything now. Hence, the events that followed Salmaan Taseer’s gruesome murder are disturbing. These events have nothing to do with a religion, or its preaching, but everything to do with the mindset that has been developed over the years. Evidently, this mindset is irrespective of class. The jubilant response on Facebook and YouTube was not by the uneducated and madrassa clan. A Pakistani blogger summed it up well: “If you go through the profiles of Qadri supporters on Facebook, you’d think Justin Bieber was the cause of extremism in Pakistan.” 

The killer’s overwhelming welcome at the courts by men who know how and why a law is made demonstrates that the liberals – a minority in Pakistan – have been reduced to an endangered species.  

And that is what has changed. And that is what matters today on the ground in Pakistan. 

Do a little math. The killer is a 26 year old man and hails from a semi-urban area. He joined the Elite force in 2003 which means he was 18 then. General Musharraf toppled a democratic government in 1999, and the killer must have been 14. And this is the age group that’s using the Internet, Facebook, YouTube and blogs more aggressively. This is the age group that went through a whole “moderate enlightenment” phase fully sponsored by Pervez Musharraf and shamelessly supported by George Bush for almost over a decade. And this is the group that has the street power in Pakistan. This is the group that is the future of Pakistan. Its mind has been infiltrated by private television, launched during Musharraf’s era. Instead of promoting freedom of speech, it promoted violence, illiteracy and conspiracy theories. It produced the “I-know-more-than-you-know-coz-I-like-that-anchor-and-you-dont-watch-that-show” minds, whereas before young men from the same age group used to extract influence from their family heads. 

The dual game of the military government ten years ago, fully supported and encouraged by the US government, produced a whole generation that detests its own constitution and Western freedom of speech values. This generation is the raw material available to and exploited by religious groups, ready to kill and get killed. My philanthropist friend Manzur Ejaz believes that the right wing in Pakistan is organized and has ideological strength. It has been supported by the State machinery through an education system and infested state institutions, while its opposition lacks committed people, organization and a cause. 

This sorry state of Pakistan is pretty much an example of Martin Niemoller’s ‘First They Came.’ 

They came first for the Communists,

and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.



Then they came for me

and by that time no one was left to speak up.

This existing situation has nothing to do with the drone attacks carried out today or the policy changed in favor of Pakistan. The ruling party was once considered a liberal group, but now its own members and sitting ministers publicly announced that they will shoot a blasphemer themselves. They align themselves with so-called “moderate” Muslim politicians like Imran Khan who have practiced Western values but sympathise with the Taliban. 

This indicates that now the dominant political philosophies are right, center to right and very right groups. It has men that have a soft heart for fundamentalists. The absence of a left–because the representative parties or groups were systematically dismantled by military dictators–will bring more extremism. 

Persons with liberal thoughts need protection, which requires some strategy as well as strength. It has to organize itself and build an anti-mullah manpower. It’s a war now, and decisions taken today will reflect the systems adopted in the future. And that will change everything on the ground.

–
Crosspost: ThePakistanUpdate.com

An old friend of mine sent me an article recently from NPR, “Teacher Suspended After Stopping Anti-Gay Talk.” My friend was a high school teacher for many years (and now teaches on the community college level), so naturally, this would pique her interest. Mine, too.

But the headline is a bit misleading, I think. It makes it sound like a kid was bullying by using homophobic language. That was not the case:

[snip] On Oct. 20, McDowell told a student in his classroom to remove a belt buckle with the Confederate Flag, the symbol of the southern confederacy that seceded from the United States over slavery, kicking off the Civil War in the 1860s.

She complied, but it prompted a question from a boy about how the flag differs from the rainbow flag, a symbol of pride for the gay community.

“I explained the difference between the flags, and he said, ‘I don’t accept gays,”’ said McDowell, 42, who was wearing a shirt with an anti-gay bullying message.

McDowell said he told the student he couldn’t say that in class.

“And he said, ‘Why? I don’t accept gays. It’s against my religion.’ I reiterated that it’s not appropriate to say something like that in class,” McDowell said Monday.

McDowell said he sent the boy out of the room for a one-day class suspension. Another boy asked if he also could leave because he also didn’t accept gays.

“The classroom discussion was heading in a direction I didn’t want it to head,” McDowell said.

McDowell soon received a reprimand letter from the district that said his actions violated the students’ free speech rights as well as school policy. It also said he “purposefully initiated a controversial issue” by the wearing the T-shirt featuring the anti-gay bullying message.

“I thought it was a really great, teachable moment,” McDowell said of his decision to remove the student from class. [snip]

I have a few problems with the way the teacher handled this situation. It did not seem to me that the young man was gay-bullying, but giving his religious belief, which he is allowed to have, much as I (and apparently, the teacher) disagree with him. As long as he was not bashing anyone, that is. A number of mainstream religions teach that homosexuality is a sin, and a number still do not ordain LGBT people. That this student holds such a religious belief is his right, as long as he does not take it out on anyone. Again, much as I disagree with that religious belief, the student has the right to his beliefs.

I think the more “teachable moment” would have been to keep him in the classroom. Maybe discuss how, even if our religious beliefs differ, we can, and should, treat people with respect, and stand up for “the least of these,” to couch it in language the young man may have understood. It was a perfect opportunity to discuss the bullying that has been occurring in our school across the country, and how it isn’t just against gay kids, but “nerds,” small kids, etc. That was the teachable moment in my mind.

I think the t-shirt the teacher wore was provocative, even if it was in support of ending the recent bullying cases making the headlines. Given that he was clearly stating a position, he should have expected that some people might have taken umbrage with it. And, he should have been willing to engage, and really TEACH, rather than dismiss.

And I think this was a discussion more suited to a Social Studies class than an Economics class. While I appreciate – very much – the teacher’s intent, he infringed upon the young man’s rights by, well, being intolerant of the student’s beliefs. In his attempt to stop bullying, he, in essence, bullied this kid. Since the teacher had the power, he was able to toss out someone with whom he disagreed rather than have a real discussion.

That is to say, this teacher seemed to violate the student’s right to free speech, which is also the conclusion of ACLU attorney:

[snip] Jay Kaplan, staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan’s LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) Legal Project, credits McDowell for trying to create a “welcoming environment for all students.” But Kaplan said the “teachable moment” would have come if the students stayed in the classroom.

“We believe, based on those statements — as offensive and upsetting as they were — they were protected speech,” Kaplan said. “The only way we’re going to create a better environment in schools is to start talking about this.”

Kaplan said Howell schools have expressed interest in accepting the ACLU’s offer to provide in-person training to students, faculty and staff. He said such training could provide a better understanding of what can be said and done. [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

That sounds like a positive step for the Howell schools, and a better way to go about creating an atmosphere conducive to these kinds of discussions. I am glad to learn they are open to this

I’m glad Md. McDowell is aware of this issue, and doing what he can to end gay-bashing/bullying in his school, but there are ways that are more effective than others to accomplish that goal. The kind of intolerance he demonstrated by kicking the student out sends the wrong message, and will simply breed resentment, not enlightenment.

At least that’s what I think. What do you think?

Many have written about the abrupt firing of NPR and Fox News commentator, Juan Williams, for comments Mr. Williams made regarding Muslims on a recent Bill O’Reilly program. There is no need for me to duplicate their worthy efforts (Bronwyn’s Harbor of NQ has two very good posts on the incident, and some of the fall-out of the firing. Logistics Monster has two great posts, too, one highlighting the issue of free speech, and following the money with C.A.I.R., the other has Bill O’Reilly speaking out.).

I do not always agree with Mr. Williams, but what happened to him is simply unacceptable, especially since NPR apparently caved to pressure from the Muslim organization, C.A.I.R., about which Uppity Women commented in her inimitable style:

You remember CAIR don’t you? The organization whose founder said he thought SHARIA Law in the USA would be great and Islam is not in America to be equal but to dominate? CAIR, the organization accused of having ties to Islamofascism? That CAIR?

Yep. That C.A.I.R.

Well, it turns out that not everyone is so happy with C.A.I.R’s insistence, and NPR’s caving, as this article in the Daily Caller by Caroline May indicates, Muslims Speak Out Against NPR’s Political Correctness:

While a Muslim advocacy group, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), was instrumental in getting National Public Radio (NPR) to fire Juan Williams, some Muslims are speaking out against succumbing to the censorship of political correctness.

Tarek Fatah, founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress, took issue with those who wrap themselves in feel-good sensitivity, while denying the fact that the majority of terrorists are Muslim. (Emphasis mine.)

Indeed, the threat is real enough even for Fatah, a liberal Muslim, who looks at women in burkas with skepticism. “I am scared when I see women in burkas, how do I know what is behind that?” Fatah said, noting that many Muslims share his concerns.

“We are victims of these guys. A number of suicide bombers who have attacked have killed people [while] wearing the burka,” Fatah said. “This is the truth, we should be speaking the truth rather than what people expect us to say. ”

Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, told The Daily Caller that though Williams could have been more tactful, his ouster is symptomatic of the problems Americans continue to face when discussing Islam.

“As much as the way he said it was poorly chosen, the era we find ourselves — of political correctness — we are not able to address what this fear is,” Jasser said. “Anybody that starts talking about this fear gets shut down.”

No kidding. Those of us who have tried to discuss the building of a mosque chosen for both its proximity to the World Trade Towers and because it had part of one of the planes fall on it, know this all too well. Heck, Bill O’Reilly (of whom I am not a fan) had Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg storm off the set of The View for his FACTUAL comment that the atrocities of 9/11 were perpetrated by Muslims. What the heck? 9/11 WAS committed by Muslims – there is simply no denying that reality! What does it serve Behar and Goldberg, or anyone, for that matter, to try and revise that reality? They were extremists, sure, but they committed these acts as a RESULT of their Muslim beliefs. Not all Muslims support that belief, but to deny that many do is just childish.

So, how are all of these “politically correct” folks going to deal with MUSLIMS saying they, too, get nervous when they see women in burkas because there is no telling what they might be hiding? When Muslims acknowledge that, yes, the people who committed these acts, these people who continue to plan and plot against us, are Muslims?

How in the world can NPR legitimately report news if they are unwilling to accept that, say Major Nassan, the Army psychiatrist who gunned down a number of his fellow soldiers, did so as a Muslim? Or the Times Square bomber, who, despite failing at his task, “spoke with pride” about his attempt to kill people because he is a Muslim? You know the one, Shahzad, just sentenced to life for this attempt, who said, “Brace yourselves, because the war with Muslims has just begun” (emphasis mine)?

If NPR (and others) are willing to subject free speech, how in the WORLD can they be considered a reputable news source, especially when the opinions expressed by Mr. Williams are some shared by liberal Muslims themselves? Or when there are Muslim extremists flat out telling us to brace ourselves?

The reality of Muslim extremists targeting us was emphasized again in this article:

[snip] According to Jasser, the fact that the vast majority of national security threats emanate from the Muslim world makes Williams’ fear reasonable. Without open discussion, however, those concerns will never be conquered.

“I think that ultimately what we find when many thought leaders try to talk about it, [they say] ‘well there are some common elements to those who threaten national security,’ and the only one so far they have been able to nail down is that they come from some form of Islamic theology,’” Jasser said. “And because we have not become skilled in discussing theo-political threats, you’re having a lot of these little skirmishes happening.”

[snip]

Stephen Schwartz, executive director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism, echoed Fatah and Jasser. Schwartz told TheDC that he and his organization opposed NPR’s reaction to Williams’ comments.

“Mr. Williams is basically an opinion journalist and he offered an opinion based on an undeniable reality: American Muslims have so far failed in our duty to prevent negative perceptions among our non-Muslim neighbors, and many, unfortunately, have taken the existing concerns among non-Muslims as a challenge to assert Muslim identity more aggressively, through forms of dress as well as speech that are often extravagant and excessive,” Schwartz wrote in an e-mail to TheDC.

“Mr. Williams spoke to this reality in an understated, candid way. He did not express hatred or incite violence against Muslims. He should not have been dismissed.” (Click HERE to read the rest.)

What does it serve NPR, or Joy Behar, or any of the other “PC” people to deny the realty with which we are currently living? It is one thing for Behar and Goldberg to storm off the set of an opinion show, but NPR is SUPPOSED to be a reputable news outlet, not one subject to the so-called politically correct demands of a radical organization. The reaction of NPR says WAY more about them than Juan Williams’ comment says about him. They have allowed themselves to be manipulated, and seem intent on revising our history of just who attacked us on 9/11, and why.

Should we fear all Muslims? Certainly not. But should we deny that it was, indeed, Muslims who attacked us on 9/11, shot our soldiers down at Fort Hood, tried to cause serious damage and loss of life in New York City’s Time Square? Hell, no. And that is basically what Juan Williams was saying. Perhaps he said it inexpertly, but his reasoning was sound. We have legitimate reasons to be suspicious of certain groups from their own mouths (Shahzad, for example), and to pretend otherwise is sheer folly.

NPR should be ashamed of how it handled this situation, and that it allowed itself to be used by one organization whose motives are well documented. They are an embarrassment.

Okay – I have to stop right there. Can I just tell you how much I resent it when men tell women how they should talk? That would be a big pet peeve of mine. So, from the get-go, I am already irritated with this man. You might be, too, after you hear what he has to say:

Am I right? What a piece of work Trumka is. Never mind that Palin resigned her position because of the incessant, ceaseless hounding by Democratic operatives filing frivolous lawsuit after frivolous lawsuit, taking her time and money, as well as taking her attention away from the state for which she was supposed to be working. I imagine if someone hounded Trumka mercilessly for every word he had spoken, every deed he had ever committed, he, too, would have resigned his position, be it a mine worker or AFL-CIO president. But he has never experienced anything along those lines, not even close. Easy for him to pass judgment.

And passing judgment is exactly what he is doing. This seems to be the theme for the week with Vanity Fair publishing the worst kind of baseless smear masquerading as an article by Michael Gross on Sarah Palin, using anonymous sources, and operating from the most misogynistic point of view. Even her most outspoken detractors find this article sexist.

Just who is Richard Trumka that he feels he can arrogantly condescend to Sarah Palin and tell her to watch her mouth? Well, he’s an ally of Obama’s, for starters. I am sure that is not a surprise, is it? There is more to him, to be sure, as the following video highlights:

Yep – this frequent visitor to the White House also calls for a world-wide tax, and is a great “progressive” of the country. Great.

Well, as you can imagine, Gov. Palin didn’t exactly take his words lying down. As the Christian Science Monitor reported in its article by Dave Cook, “AFL-CIO President to Sarah Palin: “Change Or Be Linked With McCarthyism,” she had plenty to say back to Mr. Trumka:

[snip] Palin, Alaska’s former governor, responded to Trumka’s comments last week on her Facebook page. She noted that her husband is a proud former union member. Addressing his criticism of her language, Palin said, “It’s kind of ironic that a union boss has the gall to accuse anyone of threatening violence. After all, we remember the violent attempts by [the Service Employees International Union] to intimidate those who wanted to make their voices heard in last year’s town halls. And unlike Trumka, I never threatened that any effort to break a picket line would lead to violence.”

Palin added, “I never called union members ‘thugs.’ You lie. I called some union leaders ‘thugs.’ And I refuse to apologize for that because they have acted like thugs – at least in this day and age.” [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

Oh, SNAP – I think Palin took this round, don’t you?

McCarthyism – good grief, how did Trumka possibly make THAT leap? No doubt, he expected a ratchet response from her, that she would tone down her rhetoric lest she be compared to someone of McCarthy’s reputation. She didn’t bite, and gave it right back to him.

Love her or hate her, that woman has more intestinal fortitude than most of her detractors could even imagine. What it really says to me is that they are afraid of her, hence the constant desire to tear her down, whether by the president of the AFL-CIO or some Vanity Fair writer.

We’ve seen this before. It is the MO of those who are threatened by powerful women. Hillary Clinton gets this a lot, too. Who can ever forget the treatment she received from her husband’s presidency through the 2008 election? Only now is she starting to get her due, after so many years of doing an incredible amount of work.

It begs the question: why? Why are these people so threatened by powerful women? Powerful men are treated like gods (just look at Obamessiah), even if they have done little or nothing to have that power. It often seems that powerful women must be torn down at all and any cost. If you can use their kids to do it, so much the better. It is a disturbing trend, one I cannot wait to see end. One day, some day…

But I’m not talking about any of that. Nope, I have some interesting little news tidbits for you.

First up, Rep. Maxine Water’s attorneys are irritated that she is still being investigated. Yes, they want the Ethics Committee to “Leave Maxine ALOONNNEEE!” They assert that since the formal probe is over, the Ethics Committee should knock it off. But as The Hill article indicates, they aren’t the boss of the Ethics Committee:

[snip] Unlike criminal proceedings, however, the ethics committee itself, not a judge, determines whether Waters’s legal arguments are accepted or dismissed. For that reason, it’s unlikely the panel will halt its activities after receiving the letter from Brand and Herman. [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

So, there’s that. Perhaps it didn’t occur to them that Rep. Waters might have committed additional ethics violations. Just a thought.

Second up, and you’re going to love this, is Ed Schultz, of MSNBO and Air America fame, had himself a little “Mel Gibson” moment, as this NY Post article, “MSNBC’s Ed Schultz Goes Bonkers.” Just wait until you read why:

MSNBC talk show screamer Ed Schultz had a meltdown in the network’s 30 Rock newsroom, shouting at staff, “I’m going to torch this [bleep]ing place.”

The hot-tempered anchor of “The Ed Show” lost it during a phone call in the packed studio and slammed down the phone before exploding.

As astonished MSNBC staff members fell silent, Schultz glared around the room and yelled, “[Bleep]ers!”

A witness told us, “Ed was furious the network was running election-night promos and he wasn’t in them. He’d been arguing on the phone with marketing, then he slammed down the phone and exploded. It was like Mel Gibson had entered the newsroom.” [snip]

But wait – there’s more:

[snip] Our source added, “Schultz was told: ‘If you do that again, you are fired.’ He broke down crying.”

Sources say the hothead was pushed over the edge by MSNBC’s catering to bullying fellow anchor Keith Olbermann and its focus on golden girl Rachel Maddow. [snip]
(Click HERE to read the rest.)

Poor Ed – not feeling the love. Just breaks your heart for him that the MSNBO Execs love Keith and Rachel more, doesn’t it? Oh yeah, my heart bleeds for him.

Finally, did you know that the other name by which the Tea Party should be known is the KKK? Oh, yes, indeedy. Check out this OBC, I mean, ABC, report:

Did you catch that quote at the end? Apparently, Rev. Fauntroy didn’t since he justified his remarks with this explanation:

[snip]Fauntroy attempted to explain the comparison to white supremacists by saying that organizers behind the “Restoring Honor” rally are the same people who cut audio cables from a sound system the night before the historic March on Washington and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech at the Lincoln Memorial. (Click HERE to read the rest.)

Well, that certainly makes it all better: Tea Party = White Supremacists. I mean, c’mon, who could possibly take offense at that connection? Never mind that it is completely false, but hey – you know, that’s all he meant by it. No big deal or anything.

Good grief. All because the Tea Party dared to hold a rally around the same time they are being compared to KKK members? I have to say it – Rev, Fauntroy completely missed the message Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. was trying to impart. His son said it all – his father “would not want to limit voices.” So, why is Rev. Fauntroy attempting to do so with this incendiary speech? That’s what I would like to know.

I am sure there are more stories out there that we may have missed. Let’s have them!

Remember how Obama went on and on about the mosque-builders and freedom of religion, as if this had anything whatsoever to do with freedom of religion? I know, I know, how could anyone forget THAT little debacle.

But get this. Now the concern is about those of us who are speaking OUT about building the mosque near Ground Zero are inciting terrorists. Yes, if we have the audacity to be upset that Imam Rauf wants to build his cultural center and mosque at a site he picked SOLELY for its proximity to Ground Zero and as a site that was hit by part of the jet that disintegrated flying into the Twin Towers, we are empowering the terrorists.

Oh, how I wish I was making this up, but it was reported by no less than NPR in this piece by Dina Temple-Raston, “Rancor Over Mosque Could Fuel Islamic Extremists.” Oh, oh – someone didn’t get the memo that we don’t use that term anymore – “Islamic Extremists.” What, are they bigots or something? Ahem. Anyway, yes, by us utilizing our Constitutional Right Of Free Speech, we are giving ammunition to the Islamic Extremists who want to do us harm, according to this article:

Experts worry the controversy surrounding an Islamic center near ground zero in Lower Manhattan is playing right into the hands of radical extremists.

The supercharged debate over the proposed center has attracted the attention of a quiet, underground audience — young Muslims who drift in and out of jihadi chat rooms and frequent radical Islamic sites on the Web. It has become the No. 1 topic of discussion in recent days and proof positive, according to some of the posted messages, that America is indeed at war with Islam.

“This, unfortunately, is playing right into their hands,” said Evan F. Kohlmann, who tracks these kinds of websites and chat rooms for Flashpoint Global partners, a New York-based security firm. “Extremists are encouraging all this, with glee.

“It is their sense that by doing this that Americans are going to alienate American Muslims to the point where even relatively moderate Muslims are going to be pushed into joining extremist movements like al-Qaida. They couldn’t be happier.”

Ah, yes. It is all our fault that we want just a little sensitivity from this Muslim cleric. How dare we. (And if you want to read the rest of the NPR piece, click HERE.)

Hmmm – what does it say that there is a concern that even “moderate Muslims” in the US, because people are asking for sensitivity, not a pox on all things Islamic, could be coerced into acting against the country in which they live? I can’t decide if that is a backhanded slap against moderate Muslims that they could so easily be pushed, or an attempt to silence critics in general.

But here’s a little newsflash: We don’t have to do a damn thing but be Americans to incite these Islamic Extremists. I’m serious. All we have to do is be who we are, and that is sufficient. Remember the first WTC bombing in 1993? I don’t recall anyone going out of their way trash-talking Islam to incite that event. Remember 9/11? The WTC, the Pentagon, and whatever the target was of the plane that was wrested away from the terrorists and crashed into a field in Pennsylvania? Was anyone going out of their way to talk smack about Islam? No, I don’t think so. How about the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000?

If you want to get an idea of how much Islamic terrorists have wanted to attack us for a period less than a decade, click here to read a statement to the Joint Chiefs from 2002 listing the numerous terrorist attempts on the US or our territories. That is just from 2/93 – 9/01.

Unfortunately, I could go on and on and on. No amount of political correctness, or respect for Islam in general, can negate the reality that there are Islamic radicals who want to attack Americans here and abroad. And if we stop exercising our rights as American citizens to try and pacify them, to not raise their ire against us, then THEY HAVE WON.

If that is the case, then all of those who died in the attacks on the US Embassies, those 17 sailors who died on board the USS Cole, and the thousands who died on 9/11, did so in vain. And that cannot stand.

We cannot allow the threat of more violence to silence us, whatever the issue is. We cannot be coerced to give up our Constitutional rights on the possibility that our fulfillment of these same rights might feel antagonistic to those who wish us harm. We cannot stop being Americans lest we somehow, whether consciously or not, enrage a group by our sheer existence.

Can we?

*Update* Check out this interview of Andrea Mitchell and Ambassador Ahmed. Apparently, what we should be concerned about is how those of us who oppose the mosque in that location are going to impact President Obama’s desire to reach out to the Muslim World. Oh, wow…

George W. Bush. No, really – I’m serious. They want George W. Bush to weigh in on the building of this particular mosque near Ground Zero. Would I lie to you? No. And wait until you see who a couple of the writers are requesting Bush’s input in this Byron York article in the Washington Examiner, “Mosque supporters beg George W. Bush to come to Obama’s rescue“:

It’s time for W. to weigh in,” writes the New York Times’ Maureen Dowd. Bush, Dowd explains, understands that “you can’t have an effective war against the terrorists if it is a war on Islam.” Dowd finds it “odd” that Obama seems less sure on that matter. But to set things back on the right course, she says, “W. needs to get his bullhorn back out” — a reference to Bush’s famous “the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!” speech at Ground Zero on September 14, 2001.

Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson is also looking for an assist from Bush. “I…would love to hear from former President Bush on this issue,” Robinson wrote Tuesday in a Post chat session. “He held Ramadan iftar dinners in the White House as part of a much broader effort to show that our fight against the al-Qaeda murderers who attacked us on 9/11 was not a crusade against Islam. He was absolutely right on this point, and it would be helpful to hear his views.”

And Peter Beinart, a former editor of the New Republic, is also feeling some nostalgia for the former president. “Words I never thought I’d write: I pine for George W. Bush,” Beinart wrote Tuesday in The Daily Beast. “Whatever his flaws, the man respected religion, all religion.” Beinart longs for the days when Bush “used to say that the ‘war on terror’ was a struggle on behalf of Muslims, decent folks who wanted nothing more than to live free like you and me…”

Come on, isn’t that hilarious? These are the same people who vilified Bush routinely, routinely!!! And now, now that the man they supported after consuming massive amounts of Kool Aide, and smoking tons of Hopium, and shoved down our throats, refusing to do any vetting whatsoever, has made such a mess of this issue, they want BUSH to weigh in? This is one of the funniest things I have heard in a while. Maureen Dowd?? Eugene ROBINSON?? Oh, wow.

Well, someone else who has weighed in is Debra Burlingame, from the 9/11 Families. Did she ever have something to say, especially about Madam Speaker Pelosi’s remarks about funding:

Well, Ms. Burlingame certainly didn’t mince words. Agree with her or not, there is no misunderstanding from where she is coming on this issue.

There is one group from whom we have not heard on this whole mosque business. And that would be moderate Muslims. What is their take on Imam Rauf’s building the mosque near Ground Zero? They, too, are quite clear: don’t build it. That is the upshot of this Daily Caller article by Caroline May, “Moderate Muslims Oppose Location of Cordoba Mosque – On Religious Grounds.” This article is well worth the read, but a few salient quotes:

[snip] Tarek Fatah, founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress, told TheDC that moderate Muslims have been silent on the matter, despite possible disagreements, due to religious concerns. According to Fatah, however, the need to avoid causing another person pain should trump such conflicts.

“There is a widespread belief among Muslim teaching that anyone who opposes the construction of a mosque, which is the house of God, is committing a sin,” he said. “So a lot of people who want to voice their opinion do not want to become a part of the controversy. But especially during the month of Ramadan it is important that our actions not cause pain to anyone. Any action by a Muslim that causes any pain to anyone else should be halted!” [snip]

That explains a lot – the widespread belief, that is. It helps to know why moderate Muslims have been quiet throughout this discussion. There is more:

Fatah believes the mosque plans are moving forward because they have the support of the American government. “I think they have an official green light either from the State Department or the White House telling them to, ‘Go ahead, you have our full backing,’ and they want to use this Islamic center as a place for diplomacy to the Middle East to demonstrate that the United States is a place where Muslims thrive. But that has backfired because this could have been done in many other ways.”

Jasser said that the building of this mosque is ‘fitna,’ a religious term meaning mischief-making, which is severely frowned upon in Islam. “‘Fitna’ is anything that causes chaos in society,” he said. “This mosque is causing chaos, it is causing ‘fitna’ and that is not the Islamic thing to do … This is ‘fitna’ and ‘fitna’ is wrong.”

Fatah agreed saying that ‘fitna’ is an ethical and moral issue that ought not be taken lightly. “If a step taken by an individual causes disharmony then it is ‘fitna.’ [The mosque] has caused so much pain. There are many mosques already in New York, nobody has ever opposed a mosque, if there is opposition to a mosque on grounds of hatred I would be the first to confront it. But over here it is a matter of sensitivity and there is no residential community even near the community center.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

“Mischief-making.” Yes, that seems to be a good term for what Imam Rauk is doing, along with Obama, I might add. And yes, the State Department sending Imam Rauf on a tour of the Middle East on our dime, at a cost of $16,000, certainly appears to condone the building the mosque by essentially endorsing Rauf.

But Fatah said it all. This is not about hatred. It is about sensitivity (about which I wrote recently, too). This decision is causing pain, to a number of people. Two thirds of New Yorkers oppose building the mosque there. Two thirds of Americans oppose building the mosque within two blocks of Ground Zero. Not because they/we/I oppose building mosques in general, but because we oppose it being built THERE, overlooking where Ground Zero stands, a hallowed ground to New Yorkers, to our nation.

George W. Bush can say something or not, doesn’t really matter to me. As far as I am concerned, the opposition is about sensitivity to those who lost loved ones, and to a nation that suffered a devastating attack there. It is not a matter of “freedom of religion,” or “freedom to practice religion.” It is about ceasing the mischief making, an “ethical and moral issue” of some weight.

I think that pretty much says it all, don’t you?

Michelle Obama did a little more than hang out with the NAACP, though. She gave the keynote address at their convention. Oh, and she knew the resolution charging the Tea Party with racism was being planned. Raise your hand if you are surprised she went ahead with the keynote speech anyway. * Crickets * Yeah, that’s what I thought.

Back to the NAACP. Apparently, they think people are racist if they dare to not acquiesce to everything Obama says, wants, does, and that he, unlike every other president we have ever had, must be free of any kind of disagreement or discord. If anyone dare oppose a massively expensive healthcare law, or oppose the rapid expansion of government under Obama, then, of course, they are racists.

Okay, okay, the NAACP did walk it back just a tiny bit when they acknowledged maybe ALL Tea Partiers are not racists, but not by much:

The NAACP passed a resolution Tuesday night condemning Tea Party activists, or at least some Tea Party activists, as racists who want “to push our country back to the pre-civil rights era.”

Tea Party groups across the country have vehemently denied that charge, calling Tuesday’s resolution a hypocritical act on the part of the NAACP — which has traditionally fought against stereotypes.

In a session that was closed to the media, the resolution that ultimately passed was toned down, according to the NAACP, to just “ask the Tea Party itself to repudiate the racist elements and activities of the Tea Party.” An original draft appeared to suggest — and many Tea Party leaders inferred — that the resolution accused the entire movement of being motivated by racial concerns.

“We take no issue with the Tea Party movement,” NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous said in a statement released late Tuesday night, after the vote. “We believe in freedom of assembly and people raising their voices in a democracy. What we take issue with is the Tea Party’s continued tolerance for bigotry and bigoted statements.”

Nonetheless, the St. Louis Tea Party is calling for the civil rights group to lose its tax-exempt status. “The NAACP is closely aligning with a partisan political campaign strategy,” said Bill Hennessy, a leader of the St. Louis Tea Party. [snip]

Interestingly, though, it isn’t just Tea Party members who are making this claim about the NAACP’s being a political tool for a partisan ideology. Some black activists are also making that claim as this press release highlights:

[snip] “As a frequent speaker at tea party rallies around the country, I can assure the NAACP that the tea party movement’s concerns are about President Obama’s policies and not his race,” said Project 21 fellow Deneen Borelli. “I’m deeply concerned that the NAACP is being used as a political tool to do the dirty work of the progressive movement. Instead of criticizing tea parties, the NAACP would be better served denouncing the racist comments made by a member of the New Black Panther Party and their voter intimidation outside a Philadelphia polling place in the last presidential election.” (Emphasis mine.)

According to a report in the Kansas City Star, the NAACP, which is conducting its 101st annual convention in that city, will take up a resolution as early as Tuesday to urge “all people of good will to repudiate the racism of Tea Parties, and to stand in opposition to its drive to push our country back to the pre-civil rights era.”

[snip]

Project 21′s Borelli added: “I urge the delegates to read the Contract from America – a list of policy objectives for Congress that was developed by tea party members nationwide. These objectives are clearly about limited government and liberty. In fact, the NAACP should be very concerned Obama’s cap-and-trade energy policy will lead to higher energy prices and higher unemployment – particularly among poor and minority households.” [snip]

Evidently, the NAACP failed to investigate these “racist” signs. Had they, they would have known that these were infiltrators into the party to discredit them. A simple Google search brings up a host of articles. It isn’t like the infiltrators were exactly clandestine in their actions, either.

I am just weary of the charge that everyone who does not buy what Obama is selling lock, stock, and barrel, who does not give him their utmost devotion, and sworn allegiance, is a racist. And now the NAACP is painting an entire group with a broad brush while ignoring the racist behavior of groups like the New Black Panther Party. Telling. Very telling indeed.

I guess we’re getting our “Change” after all, don’t you think?

UPDATE: NQ regular, Teakwood Kite, asked me about a video from a previous post that showed a number of African Americans present at a Tea Party. I don’t know if this is the one he meant, but the people speaking out here are pretty freakin’ awesome:

Democratic officeholders should be afraid.

Republican officeholders, too.

For many a year now, officeholders of both major parties have worked hard to earn the distrust of ordinary Americans. It appears that they finally have succeeded.

If only ordinary Americans hadn’t been so inattentive. If only ordinary Americans hadn’t been so trusting. If only ordinary Americans hadn’t been so damnably nice, the country would be in a better position to manage its finances today. [snip]

Better late than never, a lot of ordinary Americans are waking up to the sobering reality that there really is no one they can trust. Not Democrats. Not Republicans. Not government. Not corporations. And certainly not corporations in league with government.

The people who are angry today are more in tune with this nation’s founders than ordinary Americans have been in decades.

While there are those who make fun of a few tea partiers dressing up in costumes reminiscent of our founding fathers, those costumes are designed to make a point:

The United States has an intricate system of checks and balances, and a government structure based on a separation of powers, and a Bill of Rights that safeguards the rights of states and the rights of the people precisely because the greatest collection of political talent and philosophical insight ever assembled on this continent — and maybe anywhere on this planet — looked at the concept of government and said, “We need to make a really small cage for this thing, then be careful not to overfeed it.”

We seem to have lost the care-and- feeding instructions about a century ago. We let government out of its little cage and it has been consuming everything it can lay its paws on ever since. In the last 45 years, it has been on a real binge, and in the last year and a half, it has taken bigger bites than a lot of people thought possible.

Ordinary Americans who care about freedom are finally getting a clue and — horrors! — they’re hollering at members of Congress. That’s right: Nice, trusting, formerly inattentive Americans are getting in the faces of the political class and calling them names.

…If members of the political class are too tender to endure a little well-earned rudeness from the people whose hard-earned money they like to “spread around,” then they ought to get out of politics. Maybe their successors will find the voice of the people less irritating.

While O’Brien is correct in stating that this righteous anger needs to be expressed without violence, he also states that this administration and our media as taking to shutting down criticism with tactics of demonization (just like the administration before it):

Don’t doubt for a second that the left is hoping desperately for someone to step all the way out of line. They thought they had their man — and early news reports said they did — when Joseph Stack crashed his Piper Dakota into an IRS building in Texas.
As it turned out, Stack proved to be a Marx-quoting lefty — the wrong flavor of nut.

So the left has to settle for a little name-calling of its own: “ignorant,” “racist,” “homophobes,” “hooligans,” “extremists.” The list, as you know, goes on and on.

It’s bunk, but it’s the script.

Tea Party folks are just patriots worried, with good reason, about the future of the country they love. They’re vocal and they’re inspiringly unaffiliated.

They scare the hell out of both political parties, because they’ve embraced distrust.

The Democrats fear them because they see through the left’s empty promise of utopia in exchange for freedom. The Republicans fear them because they’re pushy and because they’re loyal to their principles rather than to a party.

They make everyone uncomfortable. That’s healthy.

While I’ve never been to a tea party protest, I got good and angry when the bailouts started at the end of 2008 and the pork laden non useful Stimulus package passed in 2009 and the bailouts of car companies that couldn’t run themselves properly happened, too. The 2700 page health care monstrosity, whose ugly details are now just coming to light, was the last straw.

I was taught to play by the rules only to discover my taxpayer dollars were used to bail out those using our investments as a giant ponzi scheme. And too many politicans who exempt themselves from the rules and policies we are expected to follow take pork for their districts as an inducement to continue to sell taxpayers down the river.

So crooks and liars are rewarded for their folly while the rest of us are told to pay the bill – and keep playing by the rules. That is but one reason for the groundswell of anger sweeping the country.

What are yours?

The answer, of course, is fear.

And fear, when stoked by demagogues and poured over a volatile flammable mass only needs one match to create a frightful conflagration.

Witness the American “Tea Party” movement, a ragtag group whose initial goal of protesting the bank bailouts has devolved into a mass movement featuring silly costumes, misspelled signs glorifying racism and paranoia, and sometimes weaponry.

Those who wish to turn away from the Tea Parties and their embarrassing antics will find little solace in the Republican party. A recent Harris poll reveals that two-thirds of Republicans think Barack Obama is a socialist, 57 percent a Muslim—and 24 percent say “he may be the Antichrist.” Not surprisingly, respondents without a college education are vastly more likely to believe such claims, while Americans with college degrees or better are less easily duped.

To quote the 19th-century educator Horace Mann, “Ignorance breeds monsters to fill up the vacancies of the soul that are unoccupied by the verities of knowledge.”

Of course, the media don’t help.

It’s easy to blame FOX News and talk radio for this sorry and dangerous state of affairs. Their right-wing propaganda draws a large and loyal audience. But CNN, MSNBC and other mainstream networks are also to blame. By treating the more mentally unstable and incoherent members of the lunatic right with deference and respect in order to present “balanced” coverage, they have bestowed a kind of legitimacy on paranoid hate-mongerers, racists and the flat-out ignorant. Having a person on to argue that Barack Obama is not a native-born citizen of the United States serves no newsworthy purpose. It is an act of sheer provocation and showmanship.

Consumers of Pakistani media are probably familiar with this phenomenon – demagogues blathering nonsense from their media perches; the spreading of rumor and conspiracy as fact; an apparent lack of editorial control on the irresponsible material being broadcast or printed; blaming outside forces (Jews, the CIA, the Mossad, RAW) for internal problems, thereby alleviating the public of any responsibility for an ensuing catastrophe; suspicion of The Other…the list goes on and on.

So to those who think the Kerry-Lugar Bill is a Trojan Horse masquerading sinister imperialists scheming to erode your sovereignty, meet your comrades in arms: The Tea Party attendees who think passing universal health care will lead to death panels, fascism and Nazi death camps.

–
Crosspost: ThePakistanUpdate.com

This boy, though only 10, is well, amazing. He outshines millions of adults in this country, that’s for sure. The article makes that point clear:

Will Phillips isn’t like other boys his age.

For one thing, he’s smart. Scary smart. A student in the West Fork School District in Washington County, he skipped a grade this year, going directly from the third to the fifth. When his family goes for a drive, discussions are much more apt to be about Teddy Roosevelt and terraforming Mars than they are about Spongebob Squarepants and what’s playing on Radio Disney.

It was during one of those drives that the discussion turned to the pledge of allegiance and what it means. Laura Phillips is Will’s mother. “Yes, my son is 10,” she said. “But he’s probably more aware of the meaning of the pledge than a lot of adults. He’s not just doing it rote recitation. We raised him to be aware of what’s right, what’s wrong, and what’s fair.”

Will’s family has a number of gay friends. In recent years, Laura Phillips said, they’ve been trying to be a straight ally to the gay community, going to the pride parades and standing up for the rights of their gay and lesbian neighbors. They’ve been especially dismayed by the effort to take away the rights of homosexuals – the right to marry, and the right to adopt. Given that, Will immediately saw a problem with the pledge of allegiance.

“I’ve always tried to analyze things because I want to be lawyer,” Will said. “I really don’t feel that there’s currently liberty and justice for all.”

Out of the mouths of babes – or a child, in this case. Preach it, Will.

I love how deliberate this child is in his considerations. Again, would that many adults were capable of such rational thought:

After asking his parents whether it was against the law not to stand for the pledge, Will decided to do something. On Monday, Oct. 5, when the other kids in his class stood up to recite the pledge of allegiance, he remained sitting down. The class had a substitute teacher that week, a retired educator from the district, who knew Will’s mother and grandmother. Though the substitute tried to make him stand up, he respectfully refused. He did it again the next day, and the next day. Each day, the substitute got a little more cross with him. On Thursday, it finally came to a head. The teacher, Will said, told him that she knew his mother and grandmother, and they would want him to stand and say the pledge.

“She got a lot more angry and raised her voice and brought my mom and my grandma up,” Will said. “I was fuming and was too furious to really pay attention to what she was saying. After a few minutes, I said, ‘With all due respect, ma’am, you can go jump off a bridge.’ ”

Ahahahahahahaha. I love that, “with all due respect…” It seems he had been showing her more respect than she was showing him. This was the quintessential “teachable moment,” and this teacher wildly missed the mark.

Well, you know what happened next, as will happen when a child backtalks a teacher (at least in Arkansas):

Will was sent to the office, where he was given an assignment to look up information about the flag and what it represents. Meanwhile, the principal called his mother.

“She said we have to talk about Will, because he told a sub to jump off a bridge,” Laura Phillips said. “My first response was: Why? He’s not just going to say this because he doesn’t want to do his math work.”

Eventually, Phillips said, the principal told her that the altercation was over Will’s refusal to stand for the pledge of allegiance, and admitted that it was Will’s right not to stand. Given that, Laura Phillips asked the principal when they could expect an apology from the teacher. “She said, ‘Well I don’t think that’s necessary at this point,’ ” Phillips said.

And why not? In this case, this teacher was wrong, as the principal acknowledged. The issue was one of justice and liberty, again, a great teaching moment for these children. The discussion could have been quite enlightening, but no:

After Phillips put a post on the instant-blogging site twitter.com about the incident, several of her friends got angry and alerted the news media. Meanwhile, Will Phillips still refuses to stand during the pledge of allegiance. Though many of his friends at school have told him they support his decision, those who don’t have been unkind, and louder.

“They [the kids who don't support him] are much more crazy, and out of control and vocal about it than supporters are.”

Given that his protest is over the rights of gays and lesbians, the taunts have taken a predictable bent. “In the lunchroom and in the hallway, they’ve been making comments and doing pranks, and calling me gay,” he said. “It’s always the same people, walking up and calling me a gaywad.”

Unfortunately, we we could see that coming, especially from Fifth graders, and other school age children who routinely say, “Oh, that’s so gay.” What am I talking, some teachers do it, too (unfortunately). Still, this young man has some backbone:

Even so, Will said that he can’t foresee anything in the near future that will make him stand for the pledge. To help him deal with the peer pressure, his parents have printed off posts in his support on blogs and websites. “We’ve told him that people here might not support you, but we’ve shown him there are people all over that support you,” Phillips said. “It’s really frustrating to him that people are being so immature.”

At the end of our interview, I ask young Will a question that might be a civics test nightmare for your average 10-year-old. Will’s answer, though, is good enough — simple enough, true enough — to give me a little rush of goose pimples. What does being an American mean?

“Freedom of speech,” Will says, without even stopping to think. “The freedom to disagree. That’s what I think pretty much being an American represents.”

Somewhere, Thomas Jefferson smiles.

Okay who wants Will to run for president in 35 years??? Yeah, me too.

No doubt Thomas Jefferson IS smiling at this wonderful young boy, and I am thankful for parents like the Phillips. We could sure use more like them. We DEFINITELY could use more young people like Will. What a thoughtful, grounded, boy he is. I hope for his sake, for our sake, he will be able to stand and say the Pledge of Allegiance before he goes off to college…