Who's the Extremist?

Let me see if I get this right. Democrats passed a 2000 page radical overhaul of health care, a 2000 page radical overhaul of our financial system, spent nearly $1 trillion to "stimulate" our economy, and almost passed a 2000 page radical overhaul of our energy policy. Yet, it's the Tea Parties that are extremists because they want to reign in government, cut spending, and lower taxes. Good luck with that strategy.

What's So Bad About a Political Civil War

All we're hearing today is how Christine O'Donnell's election is yet another example of the Tea Party eating its own and subverting electable candidates in favor of fringe candidates. By so doing, the movement is snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

This is curious. After, whether you're a Democrat, Republican, or Independent, one thing is certain. You are unhappy with D.C. politicians. You're unhappy with the status quo. You're unhappy with the establishment.

So, what does the Tea Party movement do? It challenges all that. More often than not it wins. Isn't that a good thing? Isn't the Republican Party doing exactly what the voters are demanding and purging itself of the political class that caused the cynicism. In the process, we've seen voter turnout boom, excitement increase, and fresh faces have shown up.

Furthermore, it's created a well needed debate over the future of the party. Meanwhile, facing an unprecedented electoral disaster, what has the Democratic party done? It's reelected, almost entirely, the exact same folks. Even the man facing a series of ethics violations, Charlie Rangel, got nominated.

So, the voters are disgusted with career politicians, the status quo, and the establishment. The Republicans have responded by a full out war over all this in the primaries and the Democrats have done nothing. Yet, if you read some so called smart people, it's the Republicans with the problems.

Republicans in Delaware faced a very simple choice in Tuesday's primary: Did they want to win Joe Biden's old Senate seat in November, or did they want to lose it?

They went with the latter option, and if that really surprises you, then you haven't been paying close enough attention to Republican Party politics in the age of Obama.

The 2008 election, the second straight election in which it suffered a crippling national defeat, left the Republican Party drained of its hangers-on -- less ideological voters who had, in the past, broadly agreed with the party's philosophy, even if they dissented on individual issues. What was left was an angry, restive base that resented (and even feared) Barack Obama and that believed the GOP had lost power because it hadn't been conservative enough. This base quickly found a catchy name -- the Tea Party movement -- and dedicated itself to cleansing from the GOP's ranks politicians who reminded them of the party's pre-2008 spirit.

So, Republicans use the primaries to respond to all the concerns of the voters and the Democrats do nothing, and it's the Republicans that have the problems.

O'Donnell Talks the Talk...

Last night's big winner Christine O'Donnell certainly says all the right to endear herself to most conservatives. The question will be would she really be the fiscal conservative that she claims if elected.

That's a question that remains murky. O'Donnell has several income tax issues, a student loan issue, and mortgage issue. It doesn't appear as though O'Donnell is fiscally conservative with her own money. So, how can she be trusted with other people's money.

That's a question most of her ardent supporters not only won't answer but likely don't ask of themselves. Her main supporters at Tea Party Express are fond of calling her a true conservative.

On Tuesday night, Conservative Republican Christine O'Donnell won the nomination for U.S. Senate fair and square in the Republican Primary.

How did the Tea Party Express determine that O'Donnell is the conservative? It's certainly not from her voting record? After all, she has none. It's certainly not from her deeds. After all, her personal financial issues raise those questions. So, the only determination that she's a conservative is what she's said.

In that case, she's been determined by some in the conservative movement to be a conservative because she says what they want to hear. That's a huge problem. If all it takes to be considered a conservative is saying the right thing then anyone can jump in. It also means the vetting process leaves a lot to be desired.

I'm not saying that O'Donnell is not a conservative. My problem is just how easily some will swallow her conservativism without asking any questions of her. Sean Hannity is a cheerleader and not much else. Her scandals are nothing more than background noise.

Telling someone what they want to hear is what sales people do. It can be done by anyone. The inability to think critically is what zombies and sycophants do. Dismissing all of O'Donnell's problems because she talks like a conservative creates a situation where anyone can con their way into the movement.

Pavlov and the Progressive Tax

The Green Party has as part of its platform the support of the progressive tax system. The logic behind it is that the progressive tax is based on need. In other words, you need all of the first $20,000 you make. You need a lot less of the last $1 million of the $5 million you make, if you're fortunate enough to make that much.

I am a big believer in the principles of Ivan Pavlov. Pavlov did experiments on mice and dogs that showed that you can influence behavior based on what you punish and reward. The progressive tax system punishes success. In fact, Ronald Reagan, when he first became an actor, got a first hand taste of its corrosive nature. When he was first an actor, many of his colleagues recommended that he only make two movies a year. That's because by making a third he'd wind up in a higher tax bracket and actually take home less.

The progressive tax system is an incentive to make less because the more you make the less of that you keep. We want to encourage everyone to maximize their income and the progressive tax system does the opposite.

Nancy Pelosi Wants an Investigation into the Ground Zero Mosque

No, it's not about the funding for the Mosque. Instead, Speaker Pelosi wants to investigate those that are funding the opposition to the Mosque.

The house speaker is calling for an investigation into groups protesting the building of the Ground Zero mosque.

"There is a concerted effort to make this a political issue by some," she told San Francisco's KCBS radio on Tuesday.

Pelosi added that she joins "those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded."

Many Republicans have said they are against the building of the mosque, and have demanded Democratic candidates and incumbents to publicly choose a side.

Just think, some are concerned about who's behind the funding of the Mosque. That's not what Nancy Pelosi is concerned about. Instead, she's concerned about who's funding the opposition.

Here, I thought the opposition was spontaneous and organic. Pelosi must think that 64% of the population is being driven and funded by a secret group all behind the scenes. Talk about a conspiracy theory. Somehow, a secret group of wealthy bankers was able to fund an opposition that has turned into a grass roots opposition. I'd like to know their marketing guru.

Gay Marriages Still on Hold in California

My head usually spins trying to follow the appeals process of any case in which constitutionality is at issue. The case of Prop 8 in California is one such case. Here's the latest.

Same-sex "weddings" in California are on hold indefinitely after a federal appeals court blocked them while it considers the constitutionality of the state's ban on homosexual unions.

The decision, issued Monday by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, trumps Judge Vaughn Walker's order that would have allowed same-gender marriages to begin on Wednesday.

Walker had previously ruled that the ban, known as Proposition 8, violated the constitutional rights of homosexuals, who he said should not face discrimination based on "moral and religious views." The ban's sponsors appealed that ruling and also asked the 9th Circuit to block same-sex weddings in the meantime. They claimed in papers filed with the 9th Circuit that homosexual marriages would harm the state's interest in promoting responsible procreation through heterosexual marriage.

You may recall that weeks ago a district judge ruled that the ban on gay marriage in California, Prop 8, was unconstitutional. That was immediately appealed. In the meantime, the appeals court, the ninth circuit which is the most liberal in the country, has put all gay marriage ceremonies on hold indefinitely while they look at the district judge's ruling.

Obama Backtracks Leaves Supporters in Lurch

How must Glenn Greenwald be feeling today? After all, here's what he wrote immediately following Obama's pronouncement on Friday.

This is one of the most impressive and commendable things Obama has done since being inaugurated:

President Obama delivered a strong defense on Friday night of a proposed Muslim community center and mosque near ground zero in Manhattan, using a White House dinner celebrating Ramadan to proclaim that "as a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country" . . .

...

What makes this particularly commendable is there is virtually no political gain to be had from doing it, and substantial political risk. Polls shows overwhelming opposition to the mosque nationwide (close to 70% opposed), and that's true even in New York, where an extraordinary "50% of Democrats, 74% of Republicans, and 52% of 'non-enrolled' voters, don't want to see the mosque built."

Greenwald wasn't the only one. Here's a sample of the comments on the Huffington Post following a story about this on Friday.

Once again Obama does the right thing. Conservatives only care about the constitution when it aligns with their ideology/goals. As usual.

....

America cannot let the demagogues win this one. Sarah's "win" will be the terrorists' win. It is sickening and disheartening that part of this great country will let this woman lead them. However, we must persevere. America is infinitely greater and better than her.

...

The headlines should state, President defends the Constitution. Come on HP!! stop trying to compete with Faux News headlines, it is below you. Well, I used to think it was below you, but I am beginning to wonder.

Of course, not a day after taking what some liberals called a principled stance, Obama backtracked.

I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there," he said. "I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding.

So, now, most of those same liberals have egg on their face. It turns out that Obama's "principled stance" lasted all of one day. Now, liberals are taking Obama on for blinking.

A mere 24 hours after he threw his presidential weight behind the proposed mosque near New York’s ground zero—in a display of statesmanship that was delicious as much for its rarity as for its apparent cojones—Obama recalibrated his position in a frightened, mealy mouthed attempt to placate the anti-mosque opposition (which, depressingly, appears to comprise almost the entire Republican Party).

On Friday, Obama said, in words that were plainly at war with the conventional wisdom that holds that the mosque is offensive to popular American sentiment: “As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America.”

All those that reflexively defended him are stuck licking their wounds. No word yet from Glenn Greenwald.

Obama Clarifies?

President Obama seeked to clarify his comments from Friday vis a vis to controversy over the Ground Zero Mosque.

Speaking Friday night at a White House dinner to honor the holy month of Ramadan, the president said, "Muslims have the right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country," an apparent show of support for the mosque.

On Saturday, while spending the day in the Gulf, the president clarified, "I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding. That's what our country is about."

Later in the day, spokesman Bill Burton issued a statement saying "the president is not backing off in any way from the comments he made last night.

"It is not his role as president to pass judgment on every local project. But it is his responsibility to stand up for the constitutional principle of religious freedom and equal treatment for all Americans," Burton said.

This morning former White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said it best

if you're explaining you're losing.

The president will be doing an awful lot of explaining over this issue because it's very confusing exactly what his position is.

More Bleeding Heart Liberalism

The Las Vegas Journal Review has an excellent piece breaking down the Senatorial campaign between Harry Reid and Sharron Angle. It will likely come down to the public's perception of Harry Reid's clout.

Locked in a dead heat, both U.S. Sen. Harry Reid and Sharron Angle picked up support in the past two weeks, according to a poll for the Las Vegas Review-Journal and 8NewsNow that shows Nevada voters sharply divided on whether Reid's Senate seniority is too valuable to lose.

More than half of those surveyed, 51 percent, said the Senate majority leader's influence is not too valuable to give up, while 45 percent said Nevada can't afford to lose his clout, said the survey by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research. Another 4 percent weren't sure.

It's one of the comments that was most interesting to me.

What really bothers me about Sharron Angle is she has no compassion. Nobody can get an abortion, even if their father rapes them. People looking for a job shouldn't be given unemployment checks because it's pandering to them. Kids shouldn't have the number of teachers they need because it's paying a teacher who might belong to a union. Old people should fend for themselves and not have Social Security. Also: those of us expressing our opinions don't have to be employed by Harry Reid to want to do it. She is SOOOO irritating all by herself. Glad to see she's behind in the last 5 or 6 polls.

Clearly, this individual thinks it's government's job to pay for all these compassionate endeavors. That's why we call such people bleeding heart liberals.

Obama Supports the Ground Zero Mosque

Speaking at an outreach event to the Islamic community President Obama said this.

As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country," Obama told an intently listening crowd gathered at the White House Friday evening to observe the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.

"That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances," he said. "This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable."

The mosque is overwhelmingly, by 60% plus, not favored to be built at Ground Zero. It's especially opposed by most of the families of the victims of 9/11. High profile Republicans like Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin oppose the mosque. The Anti Defamation League also opposes it issuing this statement.

We regard freedom of religion as a cornerstone of the American democracy, and that freedom must include the right of all Americans – Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and other faiths – to build community centers and houses of worship.

We categorically reject appeals to bigotry on the basis of religion, and condemn those whose opposition to this proposed Islamic Center is a manifestation of such bigotry.

However, there are understandably strong passions and keen sensitivities surrounding the World Trade Center site. We are ever mindful of the tragedy which befell our nation there, the pain we all still feel – and especially the anguish of the families and friends of those who were killed on September 11, 2001.

The controversy which has emerged regarding the building of an Islamic Center at this location is counterproductive to the healing process. Therefore, under these unique circumstances, we believe the City of New York would be better served if an alternative location could be found.

This continues a pattern by Obama of taking the overwhelming minority's side on the issue of the day.

More coverage of the issue here, here and here.

A Split with the Watchers of Weasels

I've been asked to leave the Watcher's Council, of which I've been a part since about this time in 2008.

This week I've nominated this piece on the Chicago poet Kevin Coval. Coval holds some strong opinions on Palestine and Israel and the Council doesn't agree with those opinions. I was told that by nominating this piece was "hitting a raw nerve" and "rubbing their faces in it."

Ironically enough, Coval himself has been uninvited from several scheduled performances for these views. More ironic however is this. In November of 2009, the Watcher's Council had this set of nominees. Included in the nominations was this piece by Michael Gaynor (we each nominate one of our own weekly and one from another source) That is a hit piece on ME. Council member Terry Trippany thought that was the best piece he'd read all week by outside sources.

In other words, writing a hit piece on a member of the council is appropriate but writing about a poet with anti Israel views hits a nerve and is worthy of being expelled. The audience can decide if that sounds right.

Here again is Coval's pinnacle performance.

Breitbart Digs In

If you were waiting for an apology from Andrew Breitbart for his role in the Shirley Sherrod affair, you'll still be waiting. This morning has a series of stories on Big Government attacking others in the media for missing context in the story and one about Congressman Steve King demanding an investigation into the hiring of Shirley Sherrod.



In fact, on his show, Bill O'Reilly did apologize for initially getting it wrong.




That's something that Breitbart still refuses to do. He says that the video was released to show the reaction of the NAACP and not an attack on Ms. Sherrod. Furthermore, he says that two clips were shown initially and the second clip did show Ms. Sherrod talking about her redemption. That's dubious. Here's how Breitbart introduced the first video.

In the first video, Sherrod describes how she racially discriminates against a white farmer. She describes how she is torn over how much she will choose to help him. And, she admits that she doesn’t do everything she can for him, because he is white. Eventually, her basic humanity informs that this white man is poor and needs help. But she decides that he should get help from “one of his own kind”. She refers him to a white lawyer.

Sherrod’s racist tale is received by the NAACP audience with nodding approval and murmurs of recognition and agreement. Hardly the behavior of the group now holding itself up as the supreme judge of another groups’ racial tolerance.

The second video includes a caption that says this,

There is no accountability in government and you can't get fired.

Furthermore, Breitbart has also admitted that he never reached out to Sherrod for comment nor did he attempt to get the full video. Meanwhile, Ann Coulter was on Sean Hannity last night claiming that the real villain is the individual that gave the edited tape to Breitbart.

Finally, since we've learned more about Ms. Sherrod, she also appears to be a far left radical with her own set of questionable statements including this one about FNC.

I am just a pawn. I was just here. They are after a bigger thing, they would love to take us back to where we were many years ago. Back to where black people were looking down, not looking white folks in the face, not being able to compete for a job out there and not be a whole person.

So, it appears as though there will be few heroes here.

Shirley Sherrod's Statement on FNC

In an interview with Media Matters, here's what Shirley Sherrod said about Fox News Channel.

they (Fox News) are after a bigger thing, they would love to take us back to...where black people were looking down, not looking white folks in the face, not being able to compete for a job out there and not be a whole person.

On the O'Reilly Factor tonight, Bill O'Reilly pointed out that this story is only getting started. Meanwhile, Dick Morris said the administration now owns this woman. The woman was taken totally out of context but she's far left and I suspect that, once fully examined, we're going to find all sorts of language like this particular quote.

This will be a long term problem for the administration and the gift that keeps on giving for those that love political theater.

Vilsack to Reconsider Sherrod's Resignation

First it was the NAACP that backtracked and now it may be Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said Wednesday he will reconsider the department's decision to oust a black employee over racially tinged remarks after learning more about what she said.

Vilsack issued a short statement early Wednesday morning after Shirley Sherrod, who until Tuesday was the Agriculture Department's director of rural development in Georgia, said she was pressured to resign because of her comments that she didn't give a white farmer as much help as she could have 24 years ago.

Sherrod said her remarks, delivered in March at a local NAACP banquet in Georgia, were part of a larger story about learning from her mistakes and racial reconciliation, not racism, and they were taken out of context by bloggers who posted only part of her speech.

This story continues to evolve and Sherrod canceled her appearance with Megyn Kelly yesterday afternoon. At some point, the attention will focus on Andrew Breitbart who first publicized the edited video.

Here's the full video.



Breitbart is holding firm.

The funny thing is, according to Tuesday’s statement issued by the NAACP’s Benjamin Jealous, it’s now all Fox News and Andrew Breitbart’s fault that the NAACP and the White House got ’snookered’ and Ms. Sherrod became an inconvenient speed bump:

With regard to the initial media coverage of the resignation of USDA Official Shirley Sherrod, we have come to the conclusion we were snookered by Fox News and Tea Party Activist Andrew Breitbart into believing she had harmed white farmers because of racial bias.

Having reviewed the full tape, spoken to Ms. Sherrod, and most importantly heard the testimony of the white farmers mentioned in this story, we now believe the organization that edited the documents did so with the intention of deceiving millions of Americans.

The NAACP’s after-the-fact back pedaling can’t hide the fact that they knew there was a contextual problem and they still condemned her (and the audience) anyway, making her the roadkill on their path to demonize average Americans.

Speaking of context, Big Government played two minutes of a nearly forty five minute speech and made someone look like a racist when they were telling a story of racial reconciliation. The white farmer in the story, Roger Spooner, has come to her aid.

Her husband told her, 'You're spending more time with the Spooners than you are with me,' " Spooner told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. "She took probably two or three trips with us to Albany just to help us out."

She said she called Sherrod — "a friend for life" — this morning. "She's very sad about it," Spooner said. "She told me she was so glad we talked. I just can't believe this is happening to her."

...

What a Difference a Day Makes

Yesterday, Shirley Sherrod appeared to be a racist working for the USDA and it was all based on this video.



Today, it appears that Andrew Breitbart has a lot of explaining to do. It appears that Breitbart selectively edited that video to make it seem as though Ms. Sherrod is a racist. In reality, that was a story about an incident that happened 24 years ago and Ms. Sherrod realized the error of her ways and helped this farmer. It also made her realize that she viewed the world through the prism of race. She evolved as a result.

Breitbart isn't backing down. If in fact this is true, Breitbart is through as someone that has any mainstream appeal. Conservative ideologues will continue to love him but if he did what Sherrod claims he did, it's totally despicable.

Meanwhile, both the White House and the NAACP rushed to condemn her and the comments and neither bothered to get her side before they did. The NAACP has since issued a retraction to their initial statement calling the remarks racist.

With regard to the initial media coverage of the resignation of USDA Official Shirley Sherrod, we have come to the conclusion we were snookered by Fox News and Tea Party Activist Andrew Breitbart into believing she had harmed white farmers because of racial bias

The whole thing is a mess and continues to be fluid. Here's video of the full speech.

Real Clear Politics and Health Care Reform

Today's health care section of Real Clear Politics is a microcosm of the problems that the administration faces on health care reform. Today, it links to three different stories and each is a problem for the Democrats. The first story is about how health insurers are pushing for plans that will limit the choices patients will have in choosing their doctors from the New York Times.

As the Obama administration begins to enact the new national health care law, the country’s biggest insurers are promoting affordable plans with reduced premiums that require participants to use a narrower selection of doctors or hospitals.

The plans, being tested in places like San Diego, New York and Chicago, are likely to appeal especially to small businesses that already provide insurance to their employees, but are concerned about the ever-spiraling cost of coverage

But large employers, as well, are starting to show some interest, and insurers and consultants expect that, over time, businesses of all sizes will gravitate toward these plans in an effort to cut costs.

The tradeoff, they say, is that more Americans will be asked to pay higher prices for the privilege of choosing or keeping their own doctors if they are outside the new networks. That could come as a surprise to many who remember the repeated assurances from President Obama and other officials that consumers would retain a variety of health-care choices.

Of course, President Obama billed health care reform as a way to cut costs and expand choice. The reality is of course very different.

The second story, also from the New York Times, is about how the Obama administration has taken to calling the mandates a tax.

When Congress required most Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, Democrats denied that they were creating a new tax. But in court, the Obama administration and its allies now defend the requirement as an exercise of the government’s “power to lay and collect taxes.”

And that power, they say, is even more sweeping than the federal power to regulate interstate commerce.

Administration officials say the tax argument is a linchpin of their legal case in defense of the health care overhaul and its individual mandate, now being challenged in court by more than 20 states and several private organizations.

It's true that the power to tax is a constitutional mandate of the federal government. The problem is that if this mandate is a tax, then that's a tax on everyone. Yet, President Obama so famously promised that 95% of the country wouldn't be taxed under his administration.

If this mandate is a tax, then it also means that everyone's taxes are going up.

Finally, there's this story from Politico in which both the left and right are pushing back against his abortion policy in health care reform.

The key lines are these: "The Obama administration has decided that no woman in the new high-risk insurance pools will be allowed to obtain abortion coverage beyond limited cases (rape, incest, endangering the life of the woman). Not even if she pays for that coverage with her own money...

"...The president committed his administration to preventing any federal funds from being spent on abortion care. But the fact is, this announcement from HHS goes well beyond that. Nothing in the new health care reform law requires a ban on abortion coverage in the high-risk pools. No law passed by Congress forced this decision. The Obama administration has chosen to place a new burden on ill and medically vulnerable women seeking abortion coverage."

...

Talk dominated conservative news outlets over the last few days that New Mexico and Pennsylvania were going to allow elective abortions as part of their applications for access to the new federal insurance pools. Among the sparks for that round of stories was an AP report in which New Mexico officials initially said elective abortion would be covered under its policies, then started walking that back.

But the National Right to Life Committee sparked an uproar by claiming a similar issue was arising in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania officials strenuously denied that and Democrats accused the NRLC of creating an issue out of whole cloth aimed at testing an executive order President Obama signed last March.

It still remains unclear if the new health care reform will use federal tax dollars to fund abortions. The president said no and even signed an executive order to stop it. We don't live in a dictatorship and so an executive order is largely useless.

The Ghettoization of Obama

That's a term that Dick Morris used on the O'Reilly Factor last night. First, a recent Bloomberg survey has found that Obama and the Democrats are on the losing end of nearly every issue.

A majority or plurality disapproves of Obama’s management of the economy, health care, the budget deficit, the overhaul of financial market regulations and the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, according to a Bloomberg National Poll conducted July 9- 12. In addition, almost 6 in 10 respondents say the war in Afghanistan is a lost cause. The Senate is scheduled to begin voting on the financial regulation bill today.
Almost two-thirds say they feel the nation is headed in the wrong direction, an even more sour assessment than in March when 58 percent felt that way. Two-thirds of independent voters are pessimistic, while just 56 percent of Democrats offer a vote of confidence.
“They don’t see any solutions in sight,” said J. Ann Selzer, president of Selzer & Co., a Des Moines, Iowa-based firm that conducted the nationwide survey. “They have been hammered by the economy and there is a disconnect between the lives Americans are living and Washington. They seem to have lost hope.”

There are all sorts of theories as to why the Obama administration is so forcefully attacking Arizona over its anti immigration law, not prosecuting the New Black Panthers, and why the NAACP has recently called the Tea Parties a racist organization.
One theory is that all of this is part of a strategy of energizing minorities. With the country headed in the wrong direction, and the people generally unhappy, the administration may be looking to gin up racial tensions for the cynical notion of energizing their base. Now, that's only the theory but the perception is that the "post racial" President is now deep in the middle of race.
Not 24 hours before the NAACP censured the Tea Parties as racists, Michelle Obama spoke in front of the group.




Now, Michelle Obama's speech was about child obesity and had nothing to do with the Tea Parties, but the optics couldn't be worse.

Michelle Obama’s participation as keynote speaker could prove toxic to the Democrats in the run-up to the November elections—even though she confined her remarks to obesity and the like, and steered clear of references to the Tea Party. Many in America already believe that she is a black militant in mufti, and her headlining of a gathering which cast the Tea Party as racist will have been noted by a good many ordinary, non-radical, middle-of-the-road Americans—not to mention Tea Party activists, who will be sure (and who can blame them?) to put together little YouTube packages from the NAACP shindig, cutting from Michelle O to Ben Jealous, the NAACP president who was the resolution’s prime mover.

As if the optics of naked racial tensions weren't bad enough, there's the Black Panthers case. The idea that these guys aren't being prosecuted despite there being video evidence is simply head scratching. No one has been able to explain it. What it has done is put these guys in the spotlight and we've learned that the New Black Panthers traffic in racism.



Finally, there's the Obama administration's full frontal assault on the Arizona law. How else can you explain the administration going against public opinion, against any logical policy sense, but that this is a naked play to gin up the Hispanics? It's all part of the Ghettoization of Obama.

Argentina Becomes first South American Country to Legalize Gay Marriage

The Argentine legislature just passed this fairly narrowly.

Argentina's senate passed a same-sex marriage bill today, clearing the way for the country to become the first in South America to allow gay couples to marry.

Following more than 14 hours of charged debate, during which thousands of Argentinians protested outside the congress, the upper house voted 33-27 for the proposal, with three abstentions.

"I believe this has advanced equal rights," Senator Eugenio Artaza said after the debate, in which many senators invoked their Catholic beliefs to explain their stance.

Argentina's president, Cristina Fernández, supports same-sex marriage on human rights grounds and is expected to sign the bill into law after her return from a state visit to China. It cleared Argentina's lower house in May.

The vote was 33-27 in favor of the passage. There's no word on whether this will spread throughout the rest of South America.

Brad Sherman: Black Panthers Who?

On that note, here's a transcript of back and forth between Bill O'Reilly and Bernie Goldberg. Just as Brad Sherman isn't aware of the Black Panthers story, so too the MSM are also totally oblivious to it. FNC is number one mostly because they cover all the stories that everyone else won't cover because of ideology.

The fact that the Justice Department refuses to press charges against the Black Panthers even though there is video evidence of voter intimidation is news. If everyone covered it, FNC would not have an advantage. Instead, the network gains an advantage simply because they do their jobs.

As for Sherman, all Democrats will be in a tough spot. The behavior of the Justice Department is indefensible. So, Democrats will either distance themselves from the White House are attempt to defend the indefensible. In the case of Brad Sherman, he played dumb and that's what he looked like.

Athletes Aren't Slaves

Dan Gilbert was rather emotional following the announcement that Lebron James wasn't returning to his hometown Cleveland Cavaliers.

Dear Cleveland, All Of Northeast Ohio and Cleveland Cavaliers Supporters Wherever You May Be Tonight;

As you now know, our former hero, who grew up in the very region that he deserted this evening, is no longer a Cleveland Cavalier.

This was announced with a several day, narcissistic, self-promotional build-up culminating with a national TV special of his "decision" unlike anything ever "witnessed" in the history of sports and probably the history of entertainment.

Clearly, this is bitterly disappointing to all of us.

The good news is that the ownership team and the rest of the hard-working, loyal, and driven staff over here at your hometown Cavaliers have not betrayed you nor NEVER will betray you.

There is so much more to tell you about the events of the recent past and our more than exciting future. Over the next several days and weeks, we will be communicating much of that to you.

You simply don't deserve this kind of cowardly betrayal.

You have given so much and deserve so much more.

In the meantime, I want to make one statement to you tonight:

"I PERSONALLY GUARANTEE THAT THE CLEVELAND CAVALIERS WILL WIN AN NBA CHAMPIONSHIP BEFORE THE SELF-TITLED FORMER ‘KING’ WINS ONE"

Now, we can all argue whether or not this rant showed the class worthy of an NBA owner. It's certainly going to give pause to other NBA players. Jesse Jackson sees this rant as something more sinister.

He speaks as an owner of LeBron and not the owner of the Cleveland Cavaliers. His feelings of betrayal personify a slave master mentality. He sees LeBron as a runaway slave. This is an owner employee relationship — between business partners — and LeBron honored his contract.

LeBron James made north of $60 million in salary while playing basketball for the Cleveland Cavaliers. He made exponentially more than that in endorsements over the same period. In fact, he's made so much money so quickly that James plans on being a billionaire and even befriended Warren Buffet who gave him some financial advice.

Almost as unbelievable as the comment itself, Michael Wilbon showed support for Jackson on his show Pardon the Interruption. Fortunately, not all African American sportswriters are as dopey as Wilbon and Jason Whitlock called the comments for what they are.

I could pretend Jesse Jackson speaks for such a tiny minority that his inflammatory, predictable and misguided remarks about LeBron James and Dan Gilbert are unworthy of rebuke.

But then, I’d have to ignore the mountain of e-mails that poured into my laptop from African-American brothers and sisters making the same argument.

Jesse has a constituency, a passionate group of idiots who believe the best way to combat white-wing political bigots such as Limbaugh and Hannity is with black-wing political bigotry.

And so, in defense of LeBron’s narcissistic ego explosion and Gilbert’s emotional reaction to it, Jesse compared Gilbert to an 18th-century slave owner.

Race relations will never take another step forward if comments like this are not only allowed but endorsed.