The deck is stacked

Posted: September 28, 2009
1:00 am Eastern
© 2009

Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., told Barack Obama he was speaking a "lie" as the president defended the proposed health-care bill, insisting illegal aliens wouldn't be covered.

It was during the special joint session of Congress called by Obama to provide a platform for his ongoing, desperate blitz to get the bill passed.

The words had barely escaped Wilson's lips before Democrats, liberals and the media piled on with the big word of the day – racism, in addition to his breach of senate protocol sensibilities, of course.

Ah yes, any perceived criticism of the new president or his policies is now always labeled racist. That's the way it is in this post-racial age. There's a black man in the White House – well, half black and half white, if you want to be technical – but because of that, he is untouchable.

And we were told things would be different.

Democrats seem to love race cards. In fact, they have a whole deck of them and have no compunction about using them.

After Wilson's two word accusation – "You lie" – the real racists came out of the woodwork. Jimmy Carter first, but perhaps the worst was Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., who said that Wilson was the face of the Klan, and we could look forward to the Klan on the streets again.

Obama quipped that he's always been black, but the reality is, as "dealer in chief,'" he has the clout to shut this down. For the sake of the country, he should. Unfortunately, he's not so inclined.

Remember how he handled the Cambridge, Mass., police investigation of a possible break-in at the home of his buddy, black Harvard professor Henry Gates and Gates' arrest?

Even as the president admitted he knew little about the case, Obama took Gates' side, insulted the police department and insinuated racism in how law enforcement treats blacks.

The insidiousness of what the "dealer in chief" is doing – or not doing – is that the mentality of racism and prejudice accusations is filtering through every level of our society and will surface in ways that are as destructive as what we endured during the civil rights years of the '60s.

A couple of small but telling examples:

On my KSFO radio program last weekend, we talked about racism and that careless accusations are dangerous. A black man from Oakland called and angrily disagreed. He expounded how racist this country is and especially, that all white people are racist.

I asked if blacks or other minorities can be racist and he said no, only whites. I asked what he meant by "racist" and why it only applies to whites.

He said all whites are racist because they have "the power" over everyone else. I asked if blacks have any power at all. He said no.

I wonder how the "dealer in chief" feels about that; he is, after all, the president. And he is black.

The inherent danger of such beliefs by any group is that it presents a clear danger to government and societal stability.

A few days later, I saw something equally as dangerous during a meeting of a small-town government.

The police department asked the town to support an anti-hate crime resolution they'd drafted. It was the result of the recent discovery of a fabric-wrapped cross left in the driveway of a white couple whose son is married to a black woman. The couple was visiting that weekend.

That's all the public knows. There are no public reports of any threats or any further antagonistic actions, just the cross. Local police are investigating along with state officials and the FBI.

It's understandable that the town doesn't want a public image of "racist," although anyone concluding that would be painting with a pretty broad brush. To my knowledge, there's no history of such acts in the town.

This incident could have been deliberate racism or it could have been some teens acting stupidly after a few beers or some weed. At this point, no one knows.

Yet, at the meeting, a man claiming to be a neighbor on that block said he's concerned and wants to "rid the city of hate crimes." He said he's "aware of one individual with a hate mentality," and he's "thinking of going to his door and talking to him about it."

He added any public gathering might "invite that element to come and create havoc."

Whew! People decide what others think and decide to confront them.

And do what? He sounds like a vigilante which, of course, he denies but what about the person he believes has that hate mentality? Clearly, that person is targeted.

The town discussed the resolution wording. One member wanted to emphasize there's racism in the community and used the jargon, speaking of dominant groups promoting anxiety and fear in marginalized groups or ethnic minorities. He wanted all "hate" crimes included along with sexist thoughts and xenophobia.

I don't think it's out of line to note that the individual promoting this was Asian. He spouted political correctness to the nth degree and urged the force of law behind it.

He said such hate is taught and people have to be essentially "untaught." Some might say, re-educated. He didn't – but the message was there.

We're not talking inner city. This is a comfortable, low-crime, suburban community in a very liberal area.

And yet – the town was told it's in denial and that "this is a community full of people with hate crimes in their minds.

He's sowing the seeds of rules, regulations, laws and punishments for what some people think other people are thinking.

The thought police.

You need the courage to speak out against it.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=111272