Light of Liberty

Some Things Will Stay in Iraq

Thu, 2 Sep 2010 23:50:43 -0400

[COLUMN] 14th Amendment is not the problem

Sun, 29 Aug 2010 00:00:00 -0400

When the War for Southern Independence ended in 1865 and the 13th Amendment to the Constitution was enacted, some 4 million slaves were freed from bondage.

While it is difficult to imagine today, such a monumental shift in demographics came with myriad problems, not the least of which was white resentment, especially in former slave states, of suddenly having to treat blacks, not as property, but as equal citizens.

Of course, we know that did not happen. Many states, right from the start, began the process of trying to reduce blacks to slavery in all but name.

This led to the enactment of the 14th Amendment in 1868, perhaps the most significant change ever to our charter.

Today, that amendment is under attack by xenophobes, racists, isolationists and other anti-immigration groups.

There are generally three ways to become a citizen of a country, citizenship by blood (jus sanguinis), by soil (jus soli), or through some naturalization process.

In the 14th Amendment, the United States adopted the philosophy of jus soli, sometimes referred to as birthright citizenship. The Citizenship Clause reads: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

What this means, with a few exceptions, is that if you are born on U.S. soil, regardless of the citizenship of your parents, you are an American citizen.

About one-fifth of the world's nations adhere to some form of jus soli, including Mexico and Canada.

While no court ruling has addressed the issue directly, several have suggested, and it is generally assumed, that the clause applies to undocumented immigrants as well as documented ones.

So if a Mexican woman crosses the border illegally, has a child on U.S. soil, that child is a U.S. citizen. That is the law of the land and cannot be changed without a constitutional amendment.

While several Republican senators have called for hearings on whether the 14th Amendment needs to be rewritten to curb this birthright citizenship, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., has called for a constitutional amendment.

"They come here to drop a child. It's called 'drop and leave,'" Graham told Fox's Greta Van Susteren. "To have a child in America, they cross the border, they go to the emergency room, have a child, and that child's automatically an American citizen."

Unfortunately, conservatives such as Graham either do not know the facts or are simply ignoring them for their own political gain.

The reality is that birthright citizenship in this country is not a problem. There is no widespread drop-and-leave.

This is simply nonsense.

Most babies born to undocumented immigrants are to parents who have been in the country for more than a year, which shows they come here to work and later become pregnant.

Most of the women who come to the United States just to have a baby are doing so legally because they have the financial means to do so and choose to pay for the better health care.

There is a better solution than turning the Constitution on its head.

The United States, Canada and Mexico should adopt the European model and create a pan-American labor market where people in North America are free to cross borders and work and live where they wish.

Such an action would immediately eliminate the illegal immigration problem, given that 59 percent of undocumented immigrants are from Mexico.

Such a move would acknowledge the cultural, economic, and geographical unity of northern Mexico and the American Southwest.

The border is an arbitrary line drawn by politicians. Historically, northern Mexico and the American Southwest have long been intertwined, with much of the American Southwest having been a part of Mexico at one time.

That is why it is always amazing to hear people complain or act surprised about the number of Hispanics in the American Southwest. They were there first.

The answer to our immigration problem is not more laws, more identification cards and more deportations. The answer is finally recognizing the reality of immigration and creating sensible policies to further that reality.

When the 14th Amendment was adopted, there was no such thing as illegal immigration. All were welcome. That should be the case again.

tags: immigration,, 14th, amendment

Obama Invites Confusion About His Faith

Tue, 24 Aug 2010 00:00:00 -0400

Just wanted to share this great column by Dr. Paul Kengor on President Barack Obama's faith in light of the recent Pew poll showing Americans do not know to which religion Obama adheres. I think it is easy to see why many people would suspect Obama of being a Muslim as most people belong to the faith in which they were raised.

Enjoy.

By Dr. Paul Kengor
August 23, 2010

Editor's note: This article first appeared in USA Today.

The recent poll by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life is generating much discussion over its provocative finding that an increasing number of Americans (nearly one in five) believe that President Obama is a Muslim. The survey was completed before Obama's recent comments endorsing the construction of a mosque near Ground Zero.

While this no doubt is a fascinating development, consuming most media coverage of the poll, and unprecedented in presidential history, the figure of greater interest to me-and not surprising-is the percentage of Americans unsure about whether Obama is a Christian, or, more generally, about his faith at all.

"[T]he proportion saying [Obama] is a Christian has declined," reports Pew. "More than a year and a half into his presidency, a plurality of the public says they do not know what religion Obama follows." Pew added: "Only about one-third of adults (34 percent) say Obama is a Christian, down sharply from 48 percent in 2009. Fully 43 percent say they do not know what Obama's religion is."

This confusion is not confined to Republicans. Pew notes: "fewer Democrats today say he is a Christian (down nine points since 2009)."

The numbers among Democrats are telling. Indeed, it's easy for Obama defenders to lash out at this data as allegedly reflective of narrow-minded anti-Obama conservatives. In truth, there is confusion about what Obama believes because, in fact, there is — rightly so — confusion about what Obama believes.

Uncertainty builds

I say this as someone who studies faith and politics, and who has written books on the faith of Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and Hillary Clinton-books that hit upon the faith of just about every president.

For the record, in one of those books — the 2007 one on Hillary Clinton, who I described as a "lifelong, committed Christian" — I wrote briefly about an emerging political dynamo named Barack Obama. "Obama is a Christian," I reportedly confidently, seeing no reason to say otherwise.

As November 2008 approached, I wrote similar things, though acknowledging the growing uncertainty about Obama's beliefs. I recall speaking at a church near Pittsburgh where one liberal couple practically jumped out of their seats when I dared mention a June 2008 Newsweek poll that found 12 percent of Americans believed Obama is a Muslim.

Those perceptions, already evident then, have only intensified. And for those Obama supporters enraged by this, please try to understand the legitimate confusion, including for someone like myself who carefully studies these things:

Generally, when it comes to faith, Americans accept whatever self-designation offered by a president, especially as his background leaves little doubt. President Jimmy Carter called himself a "born-again" Baptist from Plains, Ga., which the record easily supported. President Woodrow Wilson referred to himself as a Presbyterian in the "Reformed" tradition, and a mere cursory examination revealed precisely that.

Sometimes, we dig deeper. My experience in the case of Ronald Reagan is especially relevant now, as I'm being cited by liberals who point to Reagan's infrequent church attendance as support for their insistence that Obama's infrequent church attendance doesn't mean he lacks faith. (Ironically, in the 1980s, it was liberals who questioned whether the president was really a Christian.) That comparison, however, is misplaced, for reasons that underscore the questions about Obama. Consider:

Reagan attended church his entire life, from the First Christian Church on S. Hennepin Avenue in Dixon, Ill. in the 1920s, to churches in Iowa in the 1930s, to varying churches in California from the 1940s through the 1970s, and again after his presidency. As a new president, he immediately began attending the National Presbyterian Church, present for all but one or two services prior to when he was shot by John Hinckley. I interviewed the pastor of that church, the Rev. Louis Evans, at length, plus other witnesses. Reagan's attendance declined only after the assassination attempt. He cited security reasons, and the record supported his explanation. Beyond that, Reagan's personal life, family background, writings, speeches, and much more, revealed a deep, pervasive Christian faith throughout his entire life.

The record

For President Obama, a similar evidentiary record does not exist. Unlike Reagan, Obama was not raised by an intensely pious mother, nor was there an extremely influential pastor in his adolescent years. As noted by an excellent Newsweek piece during the campaign, Obama was reared by a "Christian-turned-secular mother"-herself a product of "two lapsed Christian" parents-and was the son of a "Muslim-turned-atheist African father" and a stepfather with a "unique brand of Islam."

As Obama himself candidly admits, he meandered his way through Islam, Buddhism, Catholicism, Protestantism, asceticism, with, along the way, smatterings of Augustine, Graham Greene, and Nietzsche, just for starters.

Amazingly, the only Christian church to which Obama could have been considered a consistent member was the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's church. And if we are to believe the disclaimers of Obama and his supporters, he rarely attended Wright's services, and even more rarely listened or paid attention.

Likewise, Michelle and the girls have not attended church regularly, if ever. Newsweek reported a remarkable fact for a major presidential candidate who would win the presidency: "Obama is a little spiritually rootless again."

Our puzzling president

All of this, from rare church attendance to the lack of other conventional displays of faith, has persisted well into Obama's presidency. Think about the oddity of this one fact alone: The current president has neither a church, nor, to my knowledge, even a denomination. When I'm asked questions about his faith, by sincere people not looking to attack, I sincerely can't give a good answer. It's a problem I didn't have with any of the Bushes, the Clintons, Reagan, Carter, and on and on.

In short, and I don't mean this to be disparaging, with Barack Obama we are witnessing the most unconventional faith profile of a president in arguably 200 years. The assessment we're getting from a curious public is not a crass misperception by a bunch of intolerants, but, rather, natural puzzlement.

Of course, it shouldn't be difficult to rectify misperceptions. Throughout American history, presidents have been asked about their faith and sat for lengthy interviews sharing their thinking, explaining precisely what they believe. Why doesn't Obama simply do the same? This isn't rocket science.

Will some people still not believe him? Of course. But Obama's problem isn't a tiny fringe that believes he faces Mecca to pray five times a day, but an increasingly large number of Americans that aren't sure what he believes. Until he makes that clearer, confusion will understandably reign.

V & V

If you are interested in learning about supporting the efforts of The Center for Vision & Values, please click here. Thank you.

Dr. Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College and executive director of The Center for Vision & Values. His books include "God and Ronald Reagan," "God and George W. Bush," and "God and Hillary Clinton."

tags: obama,, islam

[COLUMN] Mosque criticism sheds bad light on America

Sun, 22 Aug 2010 00:00:00 -0400

Let them build the "mosque."

Whining over the building of a $100 million Islamic cultural center - known officially as Park51 and informally as Cordoba House - just blocks away from where the World Trade Center towers once stood before being destroyed by Islamic terrorists nine years ago is the perfect example of why I gladly became a libertarian.

This is really a nonissue. Still, I find the debate amusing, and a little shameful.

First, from a legal standpoint, those opposed to the center have no standing to stop it from being built. Period. There is no exception to the First Amendment pertaining to Islam. Additionally, property rights are the cornerstone of a free society. Without a strong property rights regime, there is no hope for liberty.

Those opposing the center will argue this is not about legality but rather about the wisdom of the location and a lack of sensitivity on the part of the planners.

Wrong.

It is all about legality. Even if 99.99 percent of the American people believe it unwise or insensitive to build the center at that location, it would still be wrong for the government to block the project or to throw obstacles in the way of the developer.

I find it amusing, however, that liberals, such as President Barack Obama, who have been ignoring and violating the Constitution for years, suddenly want to hide behind it when it comes to Cordoba House. Obama's sudden support for the Constitution lacks credibility. It's more likely that Obama, who studied the Quran as a child and once told The New York Times that the Islamic call to prayer is "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset," is a closet Muslim.

That being said, let's consider the "wisdom" argument put forth by those who know Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has every legal right to go forward with his plans.

First, I must say I do not want to see a mosque near ground zero or anywhere else in the world. I have nothing but disdain for Islam, a disdain that arises from knowledge of its founding by the warlord Muhammad, its bloody history of conquest, and its lackluster efforts to curtail or condemn the activities of radicals. Additionally, the idea of Shariah is disgusting to anyone who values human liberty and civil rights.

Regardless, I support Rauf's right to build this center because it is the right thing to do. I suspect many of those opposed to the mosque simply do not know the facts.

First, it is not a mosque. It is a cultural center open to the public with space set aside for Muslim prayer services. It will have a swimming pool, basketball court, meeting rooms, a 500-seat auditorium, banquet facilities and many other things, including a memorial to the victims of the terrorist attacks and a meditation room for all to use. It is equivalent to a YMCA.

This center is not, as opponents like to claim, at ground zero. It is about two blocks from the edge of the 16-acre World Trade Center site and about six blocks from where one of the towers sat. Comparatively, the Manhattan Mosque is about five blocks from the World Trade Center site and the imam's former main place for prayers, Masjid al-Farah, is about 12 blocks from where the towers sat.

How far away must it be before Americans will no longer complain?

Besides, the location of the proposed center, a former Burlington Coat Factory warehouse, is already being used for Islamic prayers by Rauf for spillover from Masjid al-Farah.

Nor did we hear a similar outcry when Pentagon officials began allowing daily Islamic prayer services at a chapel just 80 feet from where terrorists slammed a plane into that building.

Then there is the idea that the World Trade Center site is somehow hallowed ground.

Hogwash.

It was the site of a great tragedy, certainly, but it is not hallowed ground. Erect a sign noting the historical significance and move on.

Perhaps the most ridiculous argument comes from Newt Gingrich, who I otherwise like and respect.

"There should be no mosque near ground zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia," he said.

Should we really be intolerant because the Saudis are intolerant?

Many have asked why we should put up with this when the rest of the world does not.

That is what makes America great. The key to freedom is tolerance, something with which Americans have always struggled. It's easy to live in a free society surrounded by like-minded people. The real test of liberty comes when you live among different people with different values and different traditions.

In other words, freedom demands a thick skin.

In the end, the proposed center is being built on private property with private money. Any complaints about the wisdom of building the center is trumped by the property rights of Rauf, a respected Sufi cleric who has denounced terrorism, has worked extensively to advance interfaith understanding, and is on a United States-funded 15-day tour of the Middle East to promote religious tolerance.

Some conservatives dislike Rauf because he speaks the truth about terrorism pointing out that U.S. foreign policy is the reason the country is targeted by Islamic terrorists. That is a fact that conservatives and many Americans refuse to face.

Rauf says the center is meant as a statement against terrorism.

"Muslims must feel they are welcome in New York. Alienated people are open to cynicism and radicalism. Any group that believes it is under attack will breed rebellion. The proposed center is an attempt to prevent the next 9/11," Rauf wrote in the New York Daily News in May. "What could be a better use for the citizens in lower Manhattan? What could be a better monument to the victims of that tragic day?"

If we hold any value to what being American is supposed to mean, we must give him the benefit of the doubt.

tags: mosque, islam, obama

[COLUMN] Federal workers growing fat in recession

Sun, 15 Aug 2010 00:00:00 -0400

The Bureau of Economic Analysis released its annual report on compensation levels by industry and it should come as no surprise that wage disparity between federal workers and the rest of us has continued its upward climb.

In 2009, the average wage for 1.95 million federal civilian workers was $81,258, which compared to an average $50,462 for the nation's 101 million private-sector workers.

The disgrace does not end there.

The chasm between federal workers and normal people is greater when worker benefits are included. In 2009, federal worker compensation averaged a whopping $123,049, which was more than double the private sector average of $61,051.

That 101 percent difference in compensation has grown from a 66 percent difference in 2000, which means federal workers have been getting larger and more frequent wage increases than those in the private sector who actually pay those federal wages. In fact, in many segments of the private sector, wages have actually decreased for a variety of reasons such as wage freezes and pay cuts.

Federal pay has grown in the last decade at a rate 33 percent higher than inflation. Federal compensation has grown 36.9 percent since 2000 compared with a meager 8.8 percent for private workers.

Additionally, while private sector employees are facing increasing unemployment and layoffs, federal employees continue to grow fat. In fact, according to the government report, a private-sector employee in 2009 was more than three times more likely to be laid off or fired than a federal employee.

Federal workers know they have a great deal, too. In 2009, private-sector employees quit at a rate that was more than eight times higher than federal employees. After all, why quit when you are growing fat at the expense of real workers in the real world?

The gap between real employees and government workers at the state and local level is not as wide, but it still exists. The average salary for state and local government employees is $53,056 with total compensation at $69,913, indicating that state and local workers have a slightly better salary base but the real difference is in the benefits they receive when compared to private workers.

Union officials claim the gap exists because of the higher level of skill and education required in government jobs. While that might explain a small part of the gap, it certainly does not account for the large difference that exists.

A USA Today story in March reported that the federal government pays an average of 20 percent more than private firms for comparable occupations.

And back in December, the newspaper reported that "federal employees making salaries of $100,000 or more jumped from 14 percent to 19 percent of civil servants during the recession's first 18 months - and that's before overtime pay and bonuses are counted. Federal workers are enjoying an extraordinary boom time - in pay and hiring - during a recession that has (through 2009) cost 7.3 million jobs in the private sector."

A recession, by the way, that is largely the fault of the federal government in the first place.

The truth is, federal workers contribute absolutely nothing to the economy, they do not produce a single widget, and can only collect those extreme salaries by stealing the money from those of us who work in the real world.

Federal workers only create debt.

So what does President Barack Obama want to do? Give federal workers a raise, of course! Obama has proposed a 1.4 percent across-the-board pay hike as well as seniority pay hikes.

Inexcusable.

When the economy is in shambles and the private sector is freezing wages and laying off workers, it is unfathomable that government workers can continue to receive raises.

If the federal government were to cancel that across-the-board raise, it would save $2.2 billion.

Federal workers are supposed to be servants of the people. There is nothing wrong with the masters - we the people - demanding an end to exorbitant salaries for those who produce nothing while taking as much as they can from the rest of us to fund a government that is spending, loaning and giving away money we do not have.

Marie Antoinette had nothing on today's federal work force. Please pass the cake.

VIDEO: The ABC's of Virginia Alcohol Law

Tue, 10 Aug 2010 00:00:00 -0400

You could probably make a video like this in every state in the union.

If you can't see the above video, find it at http://bit.ly/byxgNL

[COLUMN] Time to end tax withholding

Sun, 8 Aug 2010 00:00:00 -0400

While it will go nowhere, one Republican Ohio congressman has drafted a bill to institute something for which I have long advocated: Require taxpayers to pay their tax bills directly and put an end to the unconscionable practice of forcing private employers to act as tax collectors.

U.S. Rep. Bob Latta last month introduced H.R. 5959, the Tax Education and Accountability Act. The bill would end the law that requires employers to deduct federal taxes from an employee's paycheck, therefore requiring individuals to pay their own tax liability on a quarterly basis.

"With this legislation, taxpayers will have a much better concept of exactly how much money Washington is taking from their paychecks," Latta said. "Armed with this knowledge, it is my sincere hope that more taxpayers become interested in knowing exactly what their taxes go towards and how severe the out-of-control spending is under the Obama administration and the Democrat Congress.

The bill was referred to the House Ways and Means Committee where it will probably die.

Still, Latta's point is valid.

If the United States is going to survive the 21st century and remain a somewhat free nation, then the people of this country need to wake up to the biggest national security threat in recent memory.

"As our nation faces a record deficit of over $1 trillion for the second straight year and a $13 trillion debt that will hit $20 trillion by 2020, we are on a path toward fiscal disaster and the only way to stop it is for more people to be aware of what is happening right now with the taxes they send to Washington," Latta said.

By forcing Americans to write checks to Uncle Sam, the people will quickly understand exactly how much of their hard-earned money is being stolen by the government and redistributed to others.

The idea of using employers as surrogate tax collectors came from the Great Destroyer of constitutional government, President Franklin D. Roosevelt. He thought up the scheme to allow the government to steal our money before we even had it.

Withholding, more than anything, turned the income tax from a tax on the rich to a tax on the masses. Not only that, the masses have been trained to rejoice when the government gives a refund check as though it were a gift.

Because of this withholding scheme, the income tax has moved from funding core government responsibilities to a vehicle for wealth redistribution and social engineering as lawmakers use tax breaks as a way to reward people for doing certain things.

Those wrongheaded people who think withholding is a good idea are good government slaves. They argue that people will not be responsible enough to pay. Therefore, their illogic goes, we need withholding.

This is the same argument leftists make for Social Security, i.e., people are not responsible enough to save for retirement so we need the nanny state to do it for them.

Most Americans today are responsible enough to file their tax forms and pay additional taxes once a year. That would not change.

Still, there will be those who are too irresponsible to pay their taxes. They will have to suffer the consequences. Also, private organizations, for a fee, would help those unable to save for their taxes by creating escrow accounts.

Besides, this argument misses the point. When Americans are forced to write quarterly checks to the federal government, they will suddenly be less cavalier about those taxes and how the money is spent.

For example, it will become harder for government to spend money on things such as $181,406 to study how cocaine enhances the sex drive of Japanese quail; $762,372 on software to help produce interactive dance routines; $1.9 million to send researchers to the Southwest Indian Ocean Islands and east Africa to capture, photograph, and analyze thousands of exotic ants.

If we are ever going to put an end to runaway government spending, then we must do so by making Americans keenly aware of how much it is really costing them. Forcing them to write checks four times a year to Uncle Sam would be the quickest route to lower taxes and a more fiscally responsible federal government.

[COLUMN] Obama leading us down the road of ruination

Sun, 25 Jul 2010 00:00:00 -0400

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen, U.S. Navy, answers questions during an all hands call with soldiers assigned to the 2nd Infantry Division stationed at U.S. Army Garrison Red Cloud, Republic of Korea on July 21, 2010. (DoD photo by Petty Officer 1st Class Chad J. McNeeley, U.S. Navy.)

Americans are fighting the wrong war.

The greatest threat to national security is not Islamic extremism. Nor is it a Chinese military buildup, nuclear weapons in Iran or climate change.

"I think the biggest threat we have to our national security is our debt," said Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

How right he is.

The national debt under President Barack Obama has grown by $2.62 trillion in his first 18 months in office.

In June, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued its annual long-term budget outlook and it is dismal. As the reported noted, "the federal government has been recording the largest budget deficits, as a share of the economy, since the end of World War II."

The report said that at the end of 2008, the national debt was about 40 percent of the nation's annual economic output as measured by gross domestic product, which was slightly higher than the 40-year average of 36 percent.

Under Obama's watch, the CBO predicts the federal debt will reach 62 percent of GDP by the end of this year, which marks the highest percentage since shortly after World War II.

By 2012, the annual interest on the debt will be more than $600 billion.

"And that's, notionally, about the size of the Defense Department budget. It's not sustainable," Mullen said.

Ironically, the largest item in the federal government's budget is the Defense Department. At about $700 billion a year, the United States spends more on defense than the rest of the world combined even though we represent less than 5 percent of the global population.

The United States has been on a war footing since World War II. Even the end of the Cold War did not produce the expected "peace dividend." The federal government continues to invent new boogeymen for Americans to fear and thus justify spending $700 billion a year on security.

Are we really that afraid of the rest of the world that we have to waste $700 billion a year on defense?

If we are going to tackle this debt problem and avoid a Greek-style economic disaster in the near future, we need to significantly pare down our defense spending.

That, however, will not be enough. We need to put an end to this ridiculous fallacy that we can spend our way to prosperity. Unfortunately for us, Obama has adopted the economic theories of John Maynard Keynes, who, simply put, advocated governmental deficit spending to mitigate recessions and depressions. President Franklin D. Roosevelt also subscribed to his theories, but in the end, the Keynesian economic model was debunked by the 1970s.

Until Obama.

You don't need to be an economist to see that you can't spend your way to prosperity.

While deficit spending in the United States has been a problem from the beginning of the Republic (with only a brief debt-free period in 1835), only in the last 18 months has it taken on dangerous proportions. Obama's spending, rather than taking us down the path of prosperity, is taking us down the road of ruination.

Obama is repeating the same policies undertaken by the Roman emperors: deficit spending to pay for entitlements such as welfare and health care. It was governmental spending that led to the collapse of the Roman Republic, clearing the way for the dictatorships of the Roman Empire, which eventually collapsed because of government spending and led to the Dark Ages.

It is a vicious cycle.

It proves Kershner's First Law, formed by economist Howard E. Kershner, which tells us: "When a self-governing people confer upon their government the power to take from some and give to others, the process will not stop until the last bone of the last taxpayer is picked bare."

The best advice for our nation comes to us from more than 2,000 years ago from that great Roman statesman, Marcus Tullius Cicero:

"The budget should be balanced, public debt should be reduced, the treasury should be rebuilt, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and assistance to foreign hands should be curtailed, lest Rome fall."

We know what happened when Roman rulers failed to heed that advice. Shall we repeat their mistake?

tags: Obama, spending, debt

[COLUMN] The pot is calling the kettle black

Sun, 18 Jul 2010 00:00:00 -0400

Benjamin Jealous, president and CEO of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

LIMA, Ohio - The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People passed a resolution at its national convention Tuesday condemning the tea party movement for tolerating racism.

Is that not the pot calling the kettle black?

The NAACP has to be one of the most racist organizations on the planet and its attacks on the populist tea party movement make it a hypocritical one as well.

The flap between the tea party and the NAACP began when NAACP President Benjamin Jealous told the tea party: "You must expel the bigots and racists in your ranks or take full responsibility for all of their actions."

Perhaps he should learn that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. Until the NAACP cleans the bigots and racists from its own ranks it really has no business condemning others.

Tea party officials realize the hypocrisy of the resolution and Jealous' unfounded accusations.

"You're dealing with people who are professional race-baiters, who make a very good living off this kind of thing. They make more money off of race than any slave trader ever. It's time groups like the NAACP went to the trash heap of history where they belong with all the other vile racist groups that emerged in our history," said Mark Williams, a national spokesman for the Tea Party Express.

Williams also pointed out that the NAACP is very selective about which hateful political speech it condemns.

"I don't recall the NAACP speaking out when George Bush was portrayed as Curious George or as The Joker," Williams said. "I don't recall the NAACP ever standing up and saying we need to civilize discourse when Republicans were in the White House."

The NAACP and Democrats have been trying to saddle the tea party movement with the racism yoke ever since the movement began shortly after President Barack Obama took office and began dismantling our capitalistic system in favor of a socialistic welfare state.

The problem is that the Democrats are unable to counter the truth that Obama's policies are dangerous to the future of the Republic and our personal liberties. So, rather than try unsuccessfully to counter the arguments put forth by the tea party movement, it is easier just to brand all those who oppose the Obama regime as racists. After all, if you oppose a biracial president, it must be because you are a racist.

Let me give you an example of that attitude. I attended a debate in September between Mark P. Fancher, staff attorney and director of the Racial Justice Project at the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, and Ilya Shapiro, the senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute.

Fancher, who is black, made the appalling claim that all Americans are racists and anyone who opposes Obama is simply showing that racism.

Another example is when charges of racism were leveled against the tea party when some black congressmen made the dubious claim that they were heckled, spat at and assailed with racial slurs during a demonstration at the U.S. Capitol in March.

Yet, astonishingly, not a single one of the hundreds, possibly thousands of cameras at the rally recorded this alleged exchange, including a videographer from a liberal blog who was there specifically to catch tea partiers behaving badly.

While the resolution and Jealous' comments are astonishing given the history of the NAACP, the real motive has less to do with racism and more to do with the November elections.

There is a real possibility that the Republican Party will win control of the House of Representatives and possibly even the Senate, thanks in part to the tea party and its rallies for limited government.

Jealous and the NAACP hope the increased rhetoric will spur its members to vote in November.

While Obama's poll numbers are way down, especially among independents, polls show that black Americans still overwhelmingly support the president with approval ratings of about 90 percent. Many of those polled, however, do not vote so the NAACP is trying to motivate them to do so.

Americans should find it disgusting that the NAACP is enflaming racial tensions in hope of garnering a few more votes for Democrats. Now that is racist behavior.

Lessons From LeBron: What Clevelanders Should Really Be Pissed About

Mon, 12 Jul 2010 00:00:00 -0400

Another great video from my friends at Reason. I am tired of all the whining about LeBron James.

Who cares where he plays. It simply is not that important.

Find the original at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yP7HCKweZiY

tags: Lebron, James,, taxes,, reason