As many of my union brothers and sisters are aware, AFSCME announced on Thursday for their support for Obama’s public health care option (Illinois’ largest employee union supports ‘public option,’ Bloomington, IL, Bloomington Pantagraph, November 4, 2009). Many of you also know my dislike of this bill and how much it will cost us in tax increases if it passes.
Below are my letters to Council 31 and their response to my first letter. I am close to teetering to the side of “fair share.” I cannot in good faith support an organization who do not represent their members properly, who instead prefer to bed with the federal government more than side with their own members, people I have worked with in my 13 years in this profession.
This health care option offered by the federal government is a debacle and will destruct the health care system we currently use today. When the House president, Nancy Pelosi, says Americans have only 72 hours to read a 2,000-page bill, you know that the bill is full of sinister plots. No average American can read that many pages in three days and comprehend its contents.
My biggest question is how can our union dutifully protect our private health insurance plans after grandstanding this public option as an excellent idea? Remember that the next time our representatives go to the negotiating table. Why should the state pick up the tab on our medical premiums when our very union supports the federal plan? All the governor has to say is they are “OUT” when it comes to the insurance industry, telling our union to look at the federal public plan for support. How can the union refuse since they highly supports Obama’s health care option?
After reading the correspondence between myself and Council 31, I will leave for you to decide if it is in the best interest for yourself and for your family to continue your support for AFSCME. It is hard for me to side with a union body who supports more government control and less individual freedom. Our Founding Fathers fought hard to give us those freedoms, and we must continue the fight against government oppression, and against any union who supports this type of oppression.
Thomas Jefferson once said, “Well what if he neglect the care of his health or his estate, which would more nearly relate to the state. Will the magistrate make a law that he not be poor or sick? Laws provide against injury from others; but not from ourselves.”
Should we let our government go against our forefathers? I think not. Defending their beliefs of individual freedom is the least we can do for giving us through sweat and blood the greatest nation in the world. Defending our country from an economic collapse is our duty to our children. This public health care plan will destroy our liberties and our economy.
If you wish to write to Council 31 with your grievance, go to this link:
From: Robert Day [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 5:35 AM
To: Lincoln Cohen
Subject: feedback from AFSCME 31
I am writing in regards to today’s Bloomington, Illinois article titled, “Illinois’ largest employee union supporting health care ‘public option.'” I have some very serious questions regarding the union’s position to this.
First question, if this public plan passes, will AFSCME recommend that my current health care plan (HMO) be replaced with the public option?
Second, why did AFSCME take this position without getting a vote from its members? I was never asked and just curious as to why the union is now ignoring how we feel about the government plan?
Thank you for your time.
The public option isn’t for people who already have coverage, so the answer to your first question is — of course not.
AFSCME took the position in favor of a public option several years ago. It was a democratic decision, made at union conventions, where delegates elected by the members voted on policy resolutions.
The public option has been much discussed and explained in a number of AFSCME publications, including Council 31’s On the Move.
Thanks for taking the time to write,
for Council 31
MY RESPONSE TO COUNCIL 31:
Thank you for the response. Since these matters were voted on during the past convention(s), and since my local never brought this issue up with its members, I believe that the local and AFSCME are not properly representing its members. It angers me after paying 13 years into the union, not making one infraction within my workplace, to discover that my representatives are going to these elaborate conventions at our expense without proper representation.
If your organization firmly believes the public health plan is a good choice, why would your organization contradict this by saying we can keep ours? Which plan is better, the government plan or our HMO’s? Since AFSCME supports this plan, why would any public official even listen to our demands for private health care during contract negotiations? This is hypocritical to say the least. I believe AFSCME has bitten off more than they can chew in this matter.
And since AFSCME wants to ram this public health care option down my throat, I have no choice but to hold true to my convictions and go fair share immediately. I will also encourage my co-workers to do the same. Maybe then the organization will determine that neutrality is better than supporting such a tax-induced plan.
Thank you for your time.
Note: I have not receive a response to my latest letter to Council 31. When I do, I will post it on this blog. However, don’t get your hopes up too high. It is very doubtful they will respond.
When I first heard on the radio that Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, I thought, “Oh. I didn’t know Saturday Night Live had their own radio show.” I mean, really. 12 days into Obama’s presidency, the committee was considering him as a candidate to win the Nobel? Come on people. 12 days! Really?
Well, I suppose congrats are in order. I am not sure what I am congratulating him for. Oh that’s right. The committee said they awarded the prize to Obama for “encouraging” world peace. Why don’t we give the award to every high school student who writes an essay on world peace? Or maybe to all musicians who inspired world peace through their songs. Or better yet, why not present the Nobel to every terrorist nation who, through violence, promotes world peace as long as everyone agrees to their terms?
Obama will go down in history as the first president to receive what was once a prestigious award for doing nothing except applying his rhetoric on peace before the world stage. His portrait can now hang in the “Hall of Progressive Shame” with the other two sitting presidents who were awarded the Nobel – Theodore Roosevelt in 1905 and Woodrow Wilson in 1919. Former president Jimmy Carter received an award in 2002 but after his presidency. What the heck. I’ll throw his picture up with these others, too.
If we are just looking at those 12 days, we can say that Obama won the Nobel for apologizing to the Muslim nations for our apparent transgressions. Or how about in Europe where he apologized to them for the sins Americans have committed.
A president who really done NOTHING when it comes to foreign policy.
So what is the real message the committee, and all of Europe for that matter, is sending us? Well first, they are ecstatic that our last president is no longer in office. And second, they revel on the idea that we now have a president who grovels before their very feet.
I mean, how else did he win this award? We are still in Iraq. We are still fighting in Afghanistan. There are still prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. Nothing has change since Bush left.
So, can someone tell me why this president won?
Norwegians are “slightly batty people.”
Many have said that when it comes to politics, Norwegians are kind of batty. I guess they do not understand how American achievement works and how infuriated we would become with the notion of giving someone a Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing.
Please understand, I am not attacking Obama as a person. I am not even attacking the president for having the award. I am attacking the committee for giving an award such as a Nobel for doing absolutely nothing. This act is an insult to many Americans.
It sends a message around the world that we are a bunch of cry babies if we don’t get our way.
There were five contenders that went up for consideration before the Nobel Peace Prize committee. Five who “acted” on their every day struggles. Some who gave up their freedom to fight their cause. All of them who came close to losing their lives in the name of peace:
Hu Jia (China): This Chinese dissident and pro-democracy activist had been widely expected to win the Nobel Peace Prize. An outspoken critic of the Beijing regime, Mr Hu was jailed last year for “inciting subversion” before the Olympic games. He is now serving a sentence of three and a half years.
Piedad Cordoba (Colombia): A leading figure in the Colombian peace movement, Senator Piedad Cordoba has mediated talks between the country’s Right-wing government and Marxist rebels styling themselves the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). Senator Cordoba’s efforts have led directly to the release of hostages held by the FARC in the rainforest.
Prince Ghazi bin Mohammed (Jordan): A scion of the Jordanian royal family, Prince Ghazi is a philosopher who has taken the lead in inter-faith dialogue in the Middle East. Prince Ghaz promotes reconciliation between the Abrahamic faiths of Islam, Christianity and Judaism.
Zackie Achmat (South Africa): This HIV-positive campaigner founded the Treatment Action Campaign in South Africa. Its goal was to force the previous government under Thabo Mbeki to provide life-saving drugs to all South Africans who needed them.
Community of Sant’Egidio (Italy): The Community of Sant’Egidio, an Italian Catholic organisation which specialises in resolving conflicts in the developing world. Its mediators have played a key role in ending several brutal wars, notably Mozambique’s civil conflict which ended in 1992.
And then, there is Obama.
The Nobel Peace Prize has become a joke.
In recent years, the Nobel has lost its luster when one looks at the past winners. The committee has given out this award to crackpots, moon bats and tyrants. One was Le Duc Tho who won the award in the early 1970’s for his major part of forming the Vietnamese Communist Party. They gave the award to Jimmy Carter in 2002 and explicitly said the reason he was awarded was just to tweak George W. Bush. In the 1980’s the committee gave a peace award to Mikhail Gorbachev for tearing down the Berlin Wall, which if I remember correctly, it was Ronald Reagan who demanded the Soviet Union to tear down the wall. Just a few years ago, a Guatemalan peasant woman received an award for her life story only to find out it was all fabricated. The committee never asked for the prize back. And how can we not forget Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat who won the Nobel for peace after knowing him as a terrorist and murderer, killing hundreds of men, women and children in the name of Islam.
Ah, but the one award that got my goat was to former vice president Al Gore for running a global warming racket. His moneymaking scheme of his “end-of-the-world” philosophy beat out a German woman who worked in the Warsaw Ghetto during the Nazi occupation and through many struggles, she managed to smuggle out babies by placing them inside her tool box. She knew what the Germans were planning to do. She successfully smuggled over 2,500 Jewish children before she was caught by Germans where they broke both her legs and beaten her severely. She never received the Nobel.
Of course there are a couple of notable people that you would think were sure winners to the Nobel but ended up on the “loser list.” Gandhi is one of them. The Nobel committee even criticized him for playing a dual role as a peace activist and a political leader. Albert Einstein did receive an award, but not for his already famous Theory of Relativity. Mother Theresa who practically gave the shirt off her back to feed the poor was another omission.
As you can see, the Nobel has become a real political joke.
Find your Nobel Prize on EBay.
At one time, the Nobel Peace Prize meant something. It meant you strived with blood and sweat to achieve a goal. It meant you put your own life on the line to meet a desirable objective. Winning the Nobel was recognition from the world that you achieved what was once thought to be the impossible.
Today, I believe the Nobel Peace Prize is nothing more than a gift to the most arrogant, self righteous people of the world. The idea to praise such people forces Americans to look upon the Nobel as a cheap and tawdry medal of worthlessness. We truly revile against such winners because of their “better than thou” attitudes, even if that winner is our very own president who has done nothing but thinks he has done everything. We are a nation of believing you must achieve a common good to receive some kind of recognition. No one receives an award in this country for being pouty.
So to that I say congratulation President Obama, I guess.
I guess the International Olympic Committee can learn a lot about us if they just took under advisement from actor James Denton’s quote, “I think it’s important that the rest of the world know that we’re not all the same and that we don’t all have the sort of arrogance it feels like they’re perceiving from our leaders.”
And that is exactly what happened when the first lady flew to Copenhagen to give her schpeel in bringing the 2016 Olympic Games to Chicago. Her presentation was gut wrenching to say the least. The world listened and contemplated, wondering if the games were more for her than for all of us. You may want to cut a small picture of Michelle, open your dictionary to the word “narcissist” and paste her face next to the definition.
But before I talk about our first lady’s vainglorious attitude toward the Olympic committee, there was something Michelle said prior to her jaunt overseas that made me feel this plan was doomed to fail:
“As much of a sacrifice as people say this is for me or Oprah or the president to come for these few days…”
Sacrifice? What did she mean by sacrifice? Was it too much of a sacrifice to be waited on hand and foot? Or the hardship our first lady had to face when she was fitted for custom-made outfits? I can’t begin to imagine the burden Michelle had to bear when she sat in a comfortably private Boeing 757, drinking her favorite beverage and eating her favorite delicacies resting on china dishes cooked by top chefs. How was she able to fight off the struggle? It must have been unbearable!
Give me a break!
In the hardest of times, while unemployment is skyrocketing and people are finding themselves standing in long lines of soup kitchens so their families can eat; when our soldiers are fighting in Afghanistan and being killed in the name of freedom, Michelle and her hubby were living it up in Copenhagen at our expense. But hey, our first lady wants you to believe it was “a sacrifice” and we should just suck it up, bow down before them, and appreciate their fight to bring the Olympic Games which if you think about it, the games would ultimately cost Illinoisans billions upon billions of dollars in revenue loss – in the tune of $5 billion.
Global Warming Only Applies to Us Peasants
According to FOX News, the effort and energy needed to make the president and first lady’s quick trips to Copenhagen possible could be considered Olympic-sized by some estimates. The approximate cost of flying Air Force One round trip for 18 hours calculates to more than $1.2 million — roughly $67,000 per hour.
The estimated greenhouse gas emissions of Air Force One for that trip amount to more than 1 million pounds of carbon dioxide. Compare that to a roundtrip on Amtrak from New York to Washington D.C. emits 220 pounds of carbon dioxide. The president’s trip is the equivalent to 4,500 of those roundtrips.
The Boeing 757 the first lady rode separately emits nearly 374,000 pounds of carbon dioxide.
Those figures do not include the operational costs or emissions of the several passenger and cargo aircraft that accompany Air Force One with staff and equipment.
Copenhagen, by the way, will be the location for the climate change summit in December. No word yet on whether the president will attend.
Al Gore, the “guru wannabe” of environmental protection, wouldn’t mind all the emissions the president and his wife produced in the air, He pulls the same stunt whenever he goes on his “end of the world” tour.
Does Illinoisans Want the Games
Believe it or not, most Illinoisans prefer the Olympic Games stay away from Chicago, or anywhere in Illinois for that matter. In the past, every state which held these games lost tons of revenue, their respective citizens picking up the tab through increases in taxes.
Illinois is not willing to take the chance. Chicago’s infamous corrupt mayor, Richard Daley, assured the residents of Chicago that no increases in tax revenue will occur. Crafty like a fox however, Dailey never mentions how he proposed to pay the debt if the Olympics becomes a bust. He may not raise the personal tax but he never mentions raising business taxes. He is indeed a sneaky fellow.
Its only fair play that Brazil should welcome the 2016 Games. They never had the opportunity to host an Olympic event and as one blogger who just returned from that country wrote, “Having just returned from Rio, the Olympic spirit is in the heart of everyone there. It is not only a wonderful setting to stage the games but the benefits are enormous.”
Who to Blame
So, who is to blame for Chicago’s loss? Not only that, who is to blame for picking Chicago first in elimination?
Well, according to my very own Illinois senator, Roland Burris, our lost can be blamed on George W. Bush. The number of times the president and the Democrats continuously blame Bush for their calamities, one wonders if Bush is still president. I am guessing this excuse now replaces the traditional “my dog ate it” excuse.
But let’s take it one step further. The fringe media, including the fringe newspapers, blame the loss to the republicans. Republicans? Can you believe it? A political party which has inferior power in both the House and Senate all of a sudden was able to convince the world not to pick Chicago. This conspiracy theory is just as bad as all other conspiracies.
This is a dark day for America? No Schultz, a dark day in America is the need for more troops in Afghanistan and our president is just kicking dirt around unsure if he should send troops. And as always Eddie, you lied. You have your parties confused. The republicans have never failed the troops. It was the extreme leftists who wanted the war stopped with our heads down in defeat.
And then the representative of my own state, Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), made this stupid remark when asked about her feelings that the republicans were happy that Obama was not able to bring the Olympics to Chicago:
“Well, imagine how the president not gone to Copenhagen, then of course they [republicans] would have blamed him for not working hard enough to get the Olympics.”
That is hogwash. Follow the video again. You will find that several republicans talk about the need for Obama to focus on the various issues our nation is faced with. They did not mention ANYTHING about the Olympics and his failure capturing it for America.
I tell you. These liberal no-brainers are not very good at twisting words.
Here is a primer of how the fringe media responded when the announcement came that Chicago was the first to be eliminated, especially from CNN:
“Madrid is still in. Tokyo is still in. Wait a minute. Chicago is out?” Boo-hoo.
After nine tiring months, this administration and the far left continue to find ways to fault our last president. Every time a pie is thrown in their face, all we hear is that it was Bush’s fault. Don’t you think its time for them to push aside their self righteous attitudes and finally admit guilt? I do.
No the real fault here, in my opinion, is the continued smug appearances coming from the Obama’s. Michelle stood before the committee and, like the president, pushed her pronouns of “I” and “me” down the committee’s throats. In a speech that comprised of 6 short minutes and 41 sentences long, Michelle mentions herself 44 times! When the president spoke, that number rose to 70. Maybe, just maybe, we need to change the name from the United States of America to the “United States of Obama.” How ridiculous.
And that my friend, is the underlying problem. They did not represent us. They went to Copenhagen to represent their pompous egos.
What is “Sacrifice?”
According to the Webster dictionary, sacrifice is “to surrender or give up, or permit injury.” Sacrificing is willfully extending your hand out for another in need. Sacrificing is working long hours with very little time spent with your family but knowing they have food on the table. Sacrificing is our soldiers fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq in the name of freedom.
Being catered to hand and foot every day is not a sacrifice. Having taxpayers provide you with an all-expense paid trip to Europe is not a sacrifice. Webster calls these “privileges.” I wish someone inside the White House would give Michelle the dust-collecting dictionary that is sitting on the shelf so she can learn the difference between the two.
It is sad that Americans today are experiencing same egotistical people as they did during those days ruled under King George. Americans cannot handle arrogance very well and when we are confronted with it, we turned that arrogance to make them look like fools and cowards. Showing arrogance is a way for us to say you are a buffoon.
Their pretentiousness is so out of control, and other countries are now seeing them for what they truly are. Its time for someone to tell these two to grow up and act like real Americans.
“I think he’s put Israel on the chopping block, I don’t think there’s ever been a speech by an American President at the United Nations that was so critical of Israel,” said former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton.
Obama will not only be noted as another president with the likes of Teddy Roosevelt and FDR when it comes to shoving progressive politics down the throats of Americans, he will also be known as the only sitting president to emerged onto the world stage and scorched our greatest ally, Israel. His typical rhetoric, appearing for the first time before the United Nations, was more of an embarrassment than a contingency for world peace. Obama undoubtedly communicated where his alliance was on that September day:
“We continue to call on Palestinians to end incitement against Israel, and we continue to emphasize that America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.”
President Obama addressing the United Nations
September 23, 2009
Obama’s admission of America renouncing the validity of Israel’s continued settlement in the West Bank has anti-Semitism written all over it with just a pinch of a radical Muslim attitude. Obama represents America, and America disagrees with his defamatory remarks against our greatest friend.
Believe it or not, Israelis are remaining inside pre-existing boundary lines, adding new homes to where existing homes now sit. Israel is not encroaching any peace Accords as Obama declared in his speech to the U.N. (“You lied” again, Obama.)
No, the underlining issue is the terrorist group Hamas, which currently governs Palestine. Their problem? Israel’s existence. Their solution? To exterminate the entire nation. This is the #1 problem in the Middle East. Hamas do not want peace. Their ultimate goal is the total annihilation of Israel. Yet, our weak president never makes an observation of this to all who was listening. Why?
And now we have a president that is partial to a good-for-nothing radical regime full of terrorists. Obama speech was no different than spitting on Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and decided instead to sleep with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Nauseating, isn’t it? It should be. Never was an American president’s lack of support for Israel so cowardly. Never was there a verbal assault on Israel from an American president just to win the approval of a Mickey Mouse U.N. body and the hearts of terrorists.
What a disgrace to be an American. Whose side are we really on right now?
Its apparent Obama’s lacks knowledge of the Old Testament. If only he read a couple of chapters from the Bible, he would discover his words contradict what was written by God through man.
Our grassroots were based on Christian values. After time, we recognized Israel as a state and became their greatest ally. Americans have always showed the upmost respect to the Israelis, including a long lasting recognition of Israel’s existence. Apparently our president thinks otherwise. He prefers to give that respect and recognition to terrorist nations.
The anti-semantic references Obama made in front of the U.N. reaches biblical proportions. If you haven’t done so yet, you may want to pick up a Bible and start reading the Book of Revelation.
While you are reading the Bible, you may want to scan through Genesis 15:18 and Joshua 1:4 where you will find the land God gave to Israel included everything from the Nile river in Egypt to Lebanon (North to South) and everything from the Mediterranean Sea to the Euphrates River (West to East). So, what land has God stated belongs to Israel? All of the land modern Israel currently possesses, plus all of the land of the Palestinians (the West Bank and Gaza), plus some of Egypt and Syria, plus all of Jordan, plus some of Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Israel currently possesses only a fraction of the land God has promised.
So when Obama said “America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements,” he conceded to other nations in believing that America has moved away from its Christian values and no longer believes in God’s words. And if you are thinking that this is not the case, then tell me, what is Obama’s message? The way I see it, he is challenging to what is written in the Bible.
So America, who do you side with – our divine Creator or a president who thinks he is a god? Its conclusive to what my answer is.
And speaking of desperately wanting to be part of the divine, did you know that Obama mentions himself on average every 13 seconds in his speeches, nearly 1,200 times in 41 speeches? As one blog site stated, “In mythology, Narcissus was the guy who fell in love with his own reflection. In 2009, he’s the president of the United States.”
I, for one, will never turn my back on Israel. I truly believe most Americans feel the same way. We have been allies for decades and that friendship will never change as long as both Israel and the United States hold the same beliefs. We have a president who thinks he is some kind of demigod. I have news for him – his inflammatory words will not put a single dent in the hearts of Americans.
But let’s get away from religion and look at another mindless point Obama made in front of this U.N. body:
“It’s paid by the Israeli girl in Sderot who closes her eyes in fear that a rocket will take her life in the middle of the night. It’s paid for by the Palestinian boy in Gaza who has no clean water and no country to call his own.”
Okay. Let me get this right. Obama is attempting to show balance between a little girl who is continuously fearful of being killed by a rocket attack and a boy who has no clean water and no country to be proud of? What moron compares the fear of death to the lack of pride? And why is Israel bound in making sure the Palestinians have clean water? ITS NOT THEIR TERRITORY, remember Obama?
What do you think is more upsetting for YOUR little girl? Worrying every night of being killed by a terrorist or having to boil water so your daughter can drink it? Give me a break. Really, how can anyone compare that?
Here We Go Again
Obama once again took on with his “World Apology Tour” of discrediting America’s past accomplishments. His lingering pathetic intolerance towards America is vomiting to say the least. Its obvious he has a chip on his shoulder. It also has to question anyone as to why he took the seat as president:
“I took office at a time when many around the world had come to view America with skepticism and distrust. Part of this was due to misperceptions and misinformation about my country. Part of this was due to opposition to specific policies, and a belief that on certain critical issues, America has acted unilaterally, without regard for the interests of others…
…America has too often been selective in its promotion of democracy”
I have tried very hard not to belittle our president. My diligence in this matter is wearing thin. Obama’s speech was beyond ridiculous. It was an eye-sore. I will not support a man who believes a nation run by terrorists should be given more preferential treatment than countries who serve the same principles as ours. And I especially will not support a president who has so much hatred of America and what she stands for.
Our President, the Fool
Libya’s dictator, Muammar Qaddafi, said during his speech that “we’d be content and happy if Obama can stay president forever.” Well, I can’t recall a time where this nation has been more split apart. I laughed when Qaddafi mentioned Obama as “my son.” Any American would feel the embarrassment hearing those words from a dictator, and would be justly chastised for saying it. Obama, however, remained silent.
And when Venezuela dictator and tyrant Hugo Chavez spoke, he told the U.N., “The smell of sulfur is gone. It smells of hope,” The smell of sulfur this arrogant fool mentions is from his 2008 speech to the U.N. when he said George Bush was “the devil.” It is plausible to say that Chavez refers Obama as the smell of the hope. That just makes me feel warm all inside. Ironically, most Americans don’t see that. Chavez also added that Obama should “come over to the socialist side…come join the axis of evil over here.” The direction Obama is taking our country, he just might take you up on that invitation, Chavez. He just might.
From persecuting the American dream to distancing ourselves from a faithful and loyal friend, Obama is a true buffoon. Both the House and the Senate should stand before their respective peers on the floor and with blistery words, condemn Obama for his arrogance. Once respected as the president of the free world, Obama is now nothing more than a simpleton. Only if 2012 would come sooner. As one blogger wrote, “This guy’s going to make Carter look like Lincoln.” That is for sure.
And what of Israel? With this conflict between Israel and Palestine, why should the US now become neutral? We already know what God’s will is. Israel has already insured us their friendship. While the entire Middle East, which is fundamentally Muslim, side with the Palestinians, why must Israel stand all alone?
Based on our very own Christian values, our belief that ALL of us are endowed by our Creator the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, Israel stands with us arm-in-arm. Palestinians do not. Logic dictates what comes next. America should ALWAYS be on the side of Israel. But I shouldn’t have to preach all of this to you. Its common sense.
I would like to leave my readers with what the prime minister of Israel said during his address to the U.N. It goes along of what I said about a nation standing alone against the rest of the world. Don’t just read the words. Feel the words. Then ask yourself, does our president have the right to speak with ignorance toward a nation that had to endure so much in order to survive:
“For eight long years, Hamas fired from Gaza thousands of missiles, mortars and rockets on nearby Israeli cities. Year after year, as these missiles were deliberately hurled at our civilians, not a single UN resolution was passed condemning those criminal attacks.
We heard nothing – absolutely nothing – from the UN Human Rights Council, a misnamed institution if there ever was one.
In 2005, hoping to advance peace, Israel unilaterally withdrew from every inch of Gaza. It dismantled 21 settlements and uprooted over 8,000 Israelis.
We didn’t get peace. Instead we got an Iranian backed terror base fifty miles from Tel Aviv. Life in Israeli towns and cities next to Gaza became a nightmare.
You see, the Hamas rocket attacks not only continued, they increased tenfold. Again, the UN was silent.
Finally, after eight years of this unremitting assault, Israel was finally forced to respond. But how should we have responded?
Well, there is only one example in history of thousands of rockets being fired on a country’s civilian population. It happened when the Nazis rocketed British cities during World War II.
During that war, the allies leveled German cities, causing hundreds of thousands of casualties. Israel chose to respond differently. Faced with an enemy committing a double war crime of firing on civilians while hiding behind civilians – Israel sought to conduct surgical strikes against the rocket launchers.
That was no easy task because the terrorists were firing missiles from homes and schools, using mosques as weapons depots and ferreting explosives in ambulances.
Israel, by contrast, tried to minimize casualties by urging Palestinian civilians to vacate the targeted areas. We dropped countless flyers over their homes, sent thousands of text messages and called thousands of cell phones asking people to leave.
Never has a country gone to such extraordinary lengths to remove the enemy’s civilian population from harm’s way. Yet faced with such a clear case of aggressor and victim, who did the UN Human Rights Council decide to condemn? Israel.
A democracy legitimately defending itself against terror is morally hanged, drawn and quartered, and given an unfair trial to boot.
By these twisted standards, the UN Human Rights Council would have dragged Roosevelt and Churchill to the dock as war criminals. What a perversion of truth! What a perversion of justice!”
It was repulsive to watch the democrats and the “fringe media” throwing out race cards last week like a blackjack dealer at a full table. The redundant rebukes from both the democrats and the media became more distinct shortly after the most recent Tea Party rally in Washington D.C. and the brief disruption from Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) when he barked “you lied” during Obama’s address to the joint session of Congress.
The shout out from Rep. Wilson was the breaking point as the liberals from the House, as well as some from the media, began crowing to the world that the majority of Americans who opposed any of Obama’s agendas were nothing more than racists. Such brainless criticisms are further from the truth. The grim reality is the very people who cried out such absurd overtones are, in a sense, racists themselves. As the saying goes, the proof is in the pudding. And I have the proof. But first, let’s look at some foolish remarks made by some very foolish people:
“I guess we’ll probably have folks putting on white hoods and white uniforms again and riding through the countryside, intimidating people.”
Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA)
“Some Americans have not gotten over the fact that Obama is president of the United States. They go to sleep wondering, ‘How did this happen?'”
Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY)
“The balance between freedom and safety is one that we have to carefully balance. … I have some concerns about some of the language being used, because I saw this myself in the late 70s in San Francisco; this kind of rhetoric was very frightening, and it created a climate where violence took place. I wish that we could all curb our enthusiasm in the statements that we make and understand that some of the ears that it’s falling on are not as balanced as the person making the statement might assume.”
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
“I think people who are guilty of that kind of personal attack against Obama have been influenced to a major degree by a belief that he should not be president because he happens to be African American.”
“I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he’s African-American.”
Former President Jimmy Carter
“Some people just can’t believe a black man is president and will never accept it. Surrounded by middle-aged white guys — a sepia snapshot of the days when such pols ran Washington like their own men’s club — Joe Wilson yelled “You lie!” at a president who didn’t. But, fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy! “
Maureen Dowd, New York Times Columnist
“Now we have a black president, which means, on its most basic level, that a black man has more power than any single white citizen in this country. Whether people want to admit it or not, I suspect the Tea Party crowd believes that the currency of whiteness has been devalued.”
Spelman College history professor William Jelani Cobb
“To heckle a President, to shout in the middle of a speech, would he have done that if it was a white President? I don’t think so. I think this is a southern guy who thinks ‘I can do whatever I want when it’s a black guy speaking.’”
Talk show host and comedian Bill Maher
“. . . racism is playing a role in recent outbursts against President Obama.”
Comedian Bill Cosby
All of these people have missed the point. As most Americans attended these rallies, the president’s skin color was the farthest thing on their minds. All nationalities of all races came to these tea parties with a battle cry that was heard around the world – STOP SPENDING OUR MONEY! No mock lynching of a black man took place; no one held signs saying “Whites Only.” And believe it or not, saying “you lied” like Rep. Wilson did is not a racial slur. If it was, then we are all a reflection of racism since we have said those exact words at one time or another.
Obama’s approval rating has tanked at an all-time low. His rating began in January at 70 percent. Now it is at 45 percent. I am sure the Democratic Party and the fringe media will tell you that the 55 percent of the American people who disapprove of Obama’s performance are racists. Or better yet, the 25 percent that was satisfied with Obama’s job performance in January were kidnapped and brainwashed by the 30 percent of the racists who were dissatisfied.
No, the real racists here are the very one’s spewing false notions that anyone disagreeing with Obama’s principles must be against him because he is black. Strange how the left extremists and the fringe media doesn’t realize that they are the ONLY ones who cannot look beyond his skin color. This must give the president a grave picture of the people who side with him.
If these so call experts on racism have already forgotten, the majority of white Americans voted for Obama. They voted for him because he promised change for an already war and economic stricken populace.
They also forgotten the heckling our former president received during his time in office:
In 2004, Democrats delivered a “Chorus of Boos” during Bush’s State of the Union when he called for renewal of the Patriot Act.
Written in the Washington Times
In 2005, Dems howled, hissed and shouted “No!” when Bush pushed for Social Security reform in the SOU: “Foreshadowing the contentiousness of the coming debate, Democrats broke decorum and booed twice.”
According to the National Journal
Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid called President Bush “a loser” during a civics discussion with a group of teenagers at a high school on Friday.
News report on CBS News
“The situation in Iraq and the reckless economic policies in the United States speak to one issue for me, and that is the competence of our leader.”
Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters at the capitol
Not once did the Republican Party howl for apologies on the floor, unlike the democrats’ action last week when they passed a resolution to put Rep. Wilson’s action on his permanent record. However, the remarks about Bush must be justifiable to the democrats and the media since he is white. I have one word for all of this – hypocrisy.
As one rally protestor said, “Fifty-six million people didn’t vote for Obama. It doesn’t mean we’re racist.”
In a recent interview, Obama was asked if the tea parties were associated with racism. I cringed when I heard the question. Then, Obama responded with a firm “No” and for a split second, I saw a glimmer of our America. Although we are opposed to his issues, Obama fully understands our opposition. To that I have to say, thank you.
No matter how insensitive these elitists, no matter how callous the fringe media tries to maliciously pervert the image of most Americans, more and more people who once teetered on the fence of uncertainty are now opening their eyes, wanting no part of these naive insults from the far left. The more pompous the far left becomes, the more these people defect to the side of the majority.
And the high-and-mighty attitudes from the left only makes the “awakened giant” more resilient. Their use of the race card is their last line of defense. Although we must stay vigilant, the light to victory is near regardless how our elected officials will vote on the very issues we rejected and struggled against. Soon the humility of defeat will set in for these liberal elitists. They will have only two options – stop spending our hard earned dollars or get “the boot,” right out of office. And in 2010, I predict a major shift will happen in both the House and the Senate.
There is an easy way and a hard way to all of this. And right now it seems like the liberals and fringe media wants to learn it the hard way. So be it.