Moral Fool And Moral Weakling: Obama Weighs In On Ground Zero Mosque Before Wavering

As usual, Barry Hussein has talked himself into a pretzel.  And the twisted shape suits him.  It appears to go off in every direction, but leads nowhere.

In this case, Obama was for that mosque before he was against it.

He doesn’t support it (or at least he doesn’t not support it???):

Obama wades into New York mosque debate – again
By Ross Colvin Ross Colvin   – August 14, 2010

PANAMA CITY, Florida (Reuters) – President Barack Obama said on Saturday he supported the right of Muslims to build a cultural center near the site of the September 11, 2001, attacks in New York City but would not comment on the “wisdom” of such a move.

Obama’s comments came after his remarks at a White House event on Friday in which he appeared to offer his backing for the construction of a center called Cordoba House near the site known as “Ground Zero” in lower Manhattan.

Americans in both political parties, including many New Yorkers, object to the project.

Obama’s comments on Friday drew criticism from conservatives and others, and the president sought to clarify them during a trip to Florida on Saturday.

“I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making a decision to put a mosque there,” Obama told reporters while visiting the U.S. Gulf Coast.

“I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding. That’s what our country is about.”

On Friday, Obama said he believed Muslims had the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in the country.

“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.

Before he did support it.

From ABC News:

Closing Argument: Obama Endorses Islamic Community Center Near Ground Zero
August 13, 2010 9:34 PM

This evening, President Obama endorsed the controversial plan to build an Islamic community center near Ground Zero in New York City.

Obama thinks that everyone in the country is some kind of moron.  And he can say one thing, and then say another thing, and only he can tell the difference.

From the Associated Press:

Obama Comes Out in Favor of Allowing Mosque Near Ground Zero
Published August 13, 2010
Associated Press

WASHINGTON — After skirting the controversy for weeks, President Barack Obama is weighing in forcefully on the mosque near ground zero, saying a nation built on religious freedom must allow it.

“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 White House had not previously taken a stand on the mosque, which would be part of a $100 million Islamic community center two blocks from where nearly 3,000 people perished when hijacked jetliners slammed into the World Trade Center towers on Sept. 11, 2001. Press secretary Robert Gibbs had insisted it was a local matter.

It was already much more than that, sparking debate around the country as top Republicans including Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich announced their opposition. So did the Anti-Defamation League, a Jewish civil rights group.

Obama elevated it to a presidential issue Friday without equivocation.

While insisting that the place where the twin towers once stood was indeed “hallowed ground,” Obama said that the proper way to honor it was to apply American values.

Democrats have been moral idiots for the last forty years.  And Barack Obama has stomped his foot all the way down to the floorboard toward moral idiocy.

I watch Fox News regularly.  I hear what the Republicans and the conservatives have been saying.  I’ve heard what Sarah Palin has said and what Newt Gingrich has said.

None of them are saying that the Muslims who want to build this “community outreach center” don’t have the legal right to build it.  What they are saying is that the Muslims shouldn’t build it if they actually want any genuine community “outreach.”

It isn’t “outreach.”  It’s “outrage.”

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf claims that this “community center” “will serve as the platform to launch a broader vision of Muslim-West harmony and interdependence.”  That clearly isn’t anywhere even remotely true.

This isn’t about freedom of religion, and it isn’t about the Constitution.  It’s about right and wrong.

Let me give you an example of what I’m saying.  In this country, I have every right to go into a black establishment and repeatedly shout the N-word at the top of my lungs.  I have the right to go into a black church wearing a white robe and a white pointy hat.  But I shouldn’t do it.  And all rights aside, I’m profoundly wrong if I do do it.

On the Democrats’ morally idiotic defense of the mosque, the fact that the Muslims have a right to build it means therefore ergo sum that they should build it, and that anyone who disagrees is “intolerant” or is violating the Constitutional rights of the Muslims.

But that is every bit as stupid as my walking down the street pointing out every single black person and shouting the N-word, and then telling anyone who criticizes me for doing it that they are enemies of the Constitution.

And, of course, the only reason I’m wearing that white robe and that pointy hat is for “community outreach.”  You see, I want to create a “racial dialogue.”

So how DARE you criticize me.  Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ll put my pointy hood back on and be on my way.  I have some black people to go shout at.

And yet Democrats who argue that I should have no right to criticize the inappropriateness of building a mosque celebrating a religion immediately adjacent to a site that was destroyed with huge loss of life in the name of that decision refuse to extend that same principle to their fellow citizens as they repeatedly demonized Tea Party people who were merely exercising their Constitutional rights.

Now, I don’t have to explain this to people who have moral common sense.  But if I actually want to create a community, or to create a racial dialogue, I don’t set up a gigantic act of offense to the very people I claim to be reaching out to.  There’s something profoundly wrong with this picture.

And building what is essentially a mosque (or are they going to build a synagogue and a church in this “community center” so that Jews and Christians cans worship there, too?) clearly incites rather than heals.

Maybe, instead of building a mosque as close as possible to Ground Zero, this “outreach” could focus on building a synagogue as close as possible to Mecca, instead.

The Reuters article points out that:

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll showed Americans across the political spectrum opposed the project being built near the New York site.

The survey, released on Wednesday, showed nearly 70 percent of Americans opposed it, including 54 percent of Democrats, 82 percent of Republicans and 70 percent of independents.

Seventy percent of Americans don’t feel any “community” from this community center.  They feel outraged.

Which is why the next paragraphs that follow that demonstration that the American people are opposed to the construction of this “community center” are true:

U.S. House Republican leader John Boehner called Obama’s “endorsement” of the center’s construction near Ground Zero troubling.

“The fact that someone has the right to do something doesn’t necessarily make it the right thing to do,” Boehner said in a statement. “This is not an issue of law, whether religious freedom or local zoning. This is a basic issue of respect for a tragic moment in our history.”

Gary Bauer, president of the conservative non-profit group “American Values,” said Obama’s comments showed the president had lost touch with his fellow citizens.

“This latest decision is proof positive that the President does not understand the values and sentiments of the American people, especially while we are still at war around the world with jihadists,” Bauer said in a statement.

The American people understand the difference between the fact that the Muslims who own the property have a right to build, and the fact that it is an outrage for Muslims to build a mosque near the site where a group of Muslims acting in the name of Islam and shouting “Allahu Akbar!” murdered 3,000 innocent Americans in a cowardly attack.

This “outreach center” should not be built near Ground Zero.  Build it somewhere else.  The American people have been very tolerant regarding the building of more than 3,000 mosques in the United States.  The fact that radical Muslim – and their useful idiot liberal apologists – are now arguing that they have the right to build a mosque so close to a scene of Islamic jihadist massacre is a profound demonstration of which side is intolerant.  Especially since Islamic countries refuse to allow Christians to build a single church in their countries, let alone 3,000 of them.

And there are questions.  So many questions.  Who is paying for this “community center”?  Can we know for certain that this center is not being funded with radical Islamist money for radical Islamist purposes?  No.  We don’t get to know.

And what about the man – Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf – who is behind this center?  Is the man who refused to even acknowledge that Hamas is a terrorist organization someone we want behind such a huge venture?  Do we want the man who said that American policies were an ‘accessory’ to the crime of 9/11, and who said “Osama bin Laden is made in the USA,” to be the American face of Islam as a result of this center?

Particularly when we find that this man says one thing to Americans audiences, and quite a different thing to Islamic audiences?

For that we searched Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf’s own words – in the Arabic and not what he says in English to the western media. It should shock every American to find out that Faisal Abdul Rauf stated to the popular Islamic media Hadiyul-Islam (www.hadielislam.com) on May 26th, 2010 in an article by Sa’da Abdul Maksoud. In it he states that an Islamic state can be established regardless of the government being a kingdom or democracy.  In another article titled “I do not believe in religious dialogue” should alarm the ardent skeptic on the mindset of the Islamic visionary who advocates establishing Islamic lobbies throughout the West.

He also admitted that “[In the West] they have separation of church and state, this of course does not exist in any Muslim country. About 99% refuse to separate religion from state and many call for establishing an Islamic Caliphate.”

“Cordoba” refers to the Muslim conquest of Spain.  And how is naming this “the Cordoba Initiative” and “the Cordoba House” anything other than Islamic triumphalism, in celebration of the successful 9/11 attack?  Add to that the historic Muslim tradition of building a mosque on top of every place of victory (i.e., 9/11 as a victory for Islam and a defeat for Christendom), and we’ve got a problem.

Do we want an Imam to represent Muslims in America who favors Shariah Law?  Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf DOES support Shariah Law in America.

Do you want to see the face of Sharia Law?  Here it is:

And no decent American wants that evil taking root here.

So does Obama do?  Other than twist himself into a pretzel in endorsing the mosque that he doesn’t endorse?  He foots the bill to make this extremely questionable imam his emissary representing the interests of the American people.  When this man represents the exact opposite of American interests.

There are good Muslim leaders out there.  Faisal Abdul Rauf is not one of them.

Barack Obama is a fool.  And nearly 70% of the American people understand that as regards to this issue.  Obama is as fundamentally twisted about this issue as he was about Gitmo when he demonized it and idiotically promised he would close it no later than January 2010.  He is a moral idiot and a moral weakling.  He is a disgrace to this country.  And until he day he is gone, we are living in “God damn America.”

Even Harry Reid is breaking with Obama and publicly stating that this mosque is a terrible idea.  That should tell you something.

Demagogue Democrats Now Support Violence And Swastikas

Nancy Pelosi didn’t need actual incidents of violence to demonize the tea party movement; all she needed was pure distilled demagogic rhetoric when she said:

I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw … I saw this myself in the late ’70s in San Francisco,” Pelosi said, choking up and with tears forming in her eyes. “This kind of rhetoric is just, is really frightening and it created a climate in which we, violence took place and … I wish that we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made.”

As I pointed out, that terrible violence in 1970s San Francisco was committed by DEMOCRATS.

Basically, the actual substance of Nancy Pelosi’s diatribe against the tea party movement is this: “I’m afraid that the right is becoming so angry against the totalitarian government-is-god rule we’re trying to impose on them that they could become as hateful, as vile, as loathsome, and as violent as the Democrat Party and its progressive allies have been for the past forty years.”

Nancy Pelosi also had her take on swastikas as symbol:

Interviewer: Do you think there’s legitimate grassroot opposition going on here?

Pelosi: “I think they’re Astroturf… You be the judge. “They’re carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on healthcare.”

She proceeded to demonize the tea party movement as “simply un-American.”

I dealt with those demagogic and frankly hateful charges, too.

Nancy Pelosi told a crowd of supporters, “I’m a fan of disruptors!”  What she really meant to say was that she’s the kind of hypocrite who doesn’t mind pouring gasoline on the fire one day, and demonizing those who oppose her party-line agenda the next.

The AP had this story:

PHOENIX (AP) – The furor over Arizona’s new law cracking down on illegal immigrants grew Monday as opponents used refried beans to smear swastikas on the state Capitol, civil rights leaders demanded a boycott of the state, and the Obama administration weighed a possible legal challenge.

Activists are planning a challenge of their own, hoping to block the law from taking effect by arguing that it encroaches on the federal government’s authority to regulate immigration and violates people’s constitutional rights by giving police too much power.

The measure – set to take effect in late July or early August – would make it a crime under state law to be in the U.S. illegally. It directs state and local police to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are illegal.

“If you look or sound foreign, you are going to be subjected to never-ending requests for police to confirm your identity and to confirm your citizenship,” said Alessandra Soler Meetze, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, which is exploring legal action.

Employees at the Capitol came to work Monday to find that vandals had smeared swastikas on the windows. And protesters gathered for a second straight day to speak out against a law they say will lead to rampant racial profiling of anyone who looks Hispanic.

The White House would not rule out the possibility that the administration would take legal action against Arizona. President Barack Obama, who warned last week that the measure could lead to police abuses, asked the Justice Department to complete a review of the law’s implications before deciding how to proceed.

And how did the protesters “speak out”?  By throwing rocks and debris at police officers as they tried to escort a man who had himself been physically attacked by the mob.  Rocks and bottles full of water were hurled at the retreating police by what is clearly a mob of hundreds who are pursuing them:

The mainstream media depicted this as a “largely peaceful demonstration,” and then subsequently pointed out that it was just a “small” riot as video of the violence began to appear. Well, “small” riot my butt.

The problem from my perspective isn’t “police abuse,” but “liberal protester abuse.”

Swastikas.  Violence.

Where’s San Fran Nan?

She’s with the people who are smearing all the swastikas and assaulting the police officers, that’s where she is.  She and her fellow San Franciscans are trying to boycott the peaceful people of Arizona to show their solidarity with swastikas and violence.

The same Nancy Pelosi who demonized peaceful tea party protesters as “simply unAmerican” also said last March that anyone who basically tried to enforce our borders and our national sovereignty were likewise “unAmerican.”

HotAir put it this way:

Frankly, the rioting seems to do nothing except bolster the argument for why this bill was needed. The federal government has failed Arizona residents. Despite growing numbers of crime — drug smuggling, assault, rape, kidnapping, murder — nothing has been done to secure the borders or crack down on illegal immigration. While not all illegal immigrants are violent criminals or drug smugglers, they are all criminals. Even if our borders aren’t well-enforced, it is still a crime to cross them illegally. The federal government has just sat back and let it happen. The state of Arizona responded to the overwhelming crime… and the protestors of this bill responded to the state with violence.

Kind of just proves the whole point of why this bill was needed, doesn’t it?

And what are people so angry about? The bill requires law enforcement officials to basically do nothing more than aggressively enforce our immigration laws. Arizona voters overwhelmingly approve of the bill, and that includes a majority of Democrats and independents. Something has to be done in Arizona, and if the federal government won’t step up, then the state absolutely should.

Nancy Pelosi loves disruptors.  And Al Sharpton is prepared to take “civil disobedience” “on the streets” to fight the new law.  These were the people who demonized the peaceful tea party rallies.  You know, the ones where there was no violence, and where the protesters left the parks where they protested cleaner after they left than they were before they showed up.

And do you remember the constant demagoguery over the whole “party of no” thing?  Whose the damn “party of no” now?

Just another charge that only matters when it’s being employed by liberals to demonize conservatives.  Never the other way around.

The charge doesn’t even have to be true.  The evidence now clearly shows that tea party rallyers did not use the “n-word” or ominously threaten to assault congressional Democrats who did their own version of the “Nazis marching through Skokie march,” as Democrats maliciously claimed.

Speaking of Skokie, we have Obama’s National Security Adviser telling a joke depicting Jews as greedy swindlers even as Obama proves he’s the most blatantly anti-Israel president in U.S. history.  But that’s another story.

Now we’ve got Barack Obama directly race-baiting and calling upon blacks and Latinos “to stand together once again” and oppose the white honky bastards.  Can you imagine the massive stink bomb that the left would have detonated had George Bush tried to rally white men and evangelical Christians to his political cause???

Racism, swastikas, and violence are fine – as long as it’s coming from liberals.

Left Continues To Be Source Of ACTUAL Acts of Violence

I’ve heard all kinds of crap about right wing violence over health care.  I haven’t SEEN any violence; I haven’t seen or heard a shred of evidence caught on tape; but I’ve certainly heard bogus charges.

House Democrat Black Caucus members deliberately went through the crowd of Tea Party protesters hoping to create an incident – and video recorded their passage just in case their deliberate provocation incited something.  They certainly didn’t have to walk through that crowd.  You know who else did that?  Nazis, hoping to create an incident when they went through Skokie, Illinois, home of many Jewish death camp survivors.  Which is to say, the Black Caucus literally used a vile Nazi tactic.

There’s no evidence of it, no tape, no video, no cell phone footage, but when the Tea Party people didn’t give them what they wanted, Black Caucus members invented it for them: they screamed that someone in a crowd of tens of thousands of people used the N-word.

Rep. John Lewis is one of the main figures saying he heard the N-word.  Should anybody believe him?  He’s a documented race-baiter.  He accused John McCain of being tantamount to segregationist Alabama Governor George Wallace.  If John Lewis wants to encounter a racist, he need only look in the mirror.

One thing: Wallace was a racist, all right.  He was also a DEMOCRAT.  It would have been nice if Lewis had actually been able to find a right wing racist if he wanted to demonize the right wing as racist.

The left has tried to falsely demonize the right as racist before.  At a Sarah Palin rally during the 2008 presidential campaign, a reporter claimed he heard someone shout “Kill him!” regarding Barack Obama.  The Secret Service – which takes such threats seriously – thoroughly investigated the  case and specifically concluded that no such threat had been made.

Glenn Beck had the following to say about where the REAL violence has come from from the very outset:

The media, they’ll spin it.  CNN was doing more today on the violence of the right. Why would they do that? A, to set you up; B, to stop you from talking about health care and what are you going to do to stop it. They are setting the trap to make anybody who is against this bill an enemy of the State, a traitor, a terrorist, a violent killer.

Let me ask you this: The tea parties have been peaceful and, yet, they’re dangerous killers. Peaceful but, yet, dangerous. Let’s look at the bricks through the window. When there’s been actual violence, the democratic headquarters, this is the first brick that went through the window.  In Denver, there was a brick that went through the window. Who did it?  It was a lefty, democratic operative that threw a brick through the democratic window. It was a lefty that did it! Where was the press on the liberal who bit off a man’s finger in a health care argument? Bit his finger off. That wasn’t somebody on the right. That was somebody on the left. How about the media on all of the damage done by the G 20 protesters? That wasn’t a protest from the right. That was a protest from the left. How about the stories of the radio tower that was torn down, blown up, in Seattle? That was done by the left. How about the Hummers, because they get bad gas mileage? That’s from the left. How about Amy Bishop, who shot coworkers? She was from the left, an Obama fan. How about the SEIU thugs that beat down opponents at health care rallies? Intimidation? You want intimidation? How about that? How about the SEIU members that the media decided not to cover and you have it on tape as they are beating down a black man, calling him the N word?! How about Ann Coulter?

Note: I supplied the links.

There’s more violence by the left.  Here’s footage of a Tea Party bus getting egged by Harry Reid supporters.  Andrew Breitbart got out to question the lefties.  One starts saying “Get him out of here, or I’m going to go to jail” (for the violent act he is going to commit on him):

Now we have a story about Norman Leboon, Sr., an Obama financial donor, being arrested for making death threats against Rep. Eric Cantor.  Should I mention that Cantor is Jewish?

Here’s video of Karl Rove shouted down and forced to leave a book signing event.  Hundreds of Rove fans came to have him sign their books and hear him speak; but a tiny group of protestors shouted him down and forced him to leave:

You could call this Stalinist, or Nazi, or fascist; they’d all be correct.  It is the LEFT that despises free speech, and it is the LEFT which routinely shouts down speech with which they disagree in clear demonstrations of hate and wild disregard for our democracy.

The mainstream national news media has been a collective of Joseph Goebbels wannabes, as is their usual custom.  They fell all over themselves to point out that conservatives had called Bart Stupak with hateful messages after he announced he was going to vote for ObamaCare.  What they DIDN’T bother to report was that Bart Stupak got hateful messages from liberals during the period when he said he would vote AGAINST ObamaCare.

The media intentionally provides the false narrative that violence is only coming from the right; if anything, it’s only coming from the left.  We’re not saying don’t cover the anger: what we’re saying is stop being partisan about it.  Cover BOTH sides.  Put the story into context.  Stop the propaganda.  Stop covering only one side of the anger through a narrow, partisan viewpoint intentionally manipulated to demonize the right.  If you’re going to cover Bart Stupak receiving hateful phone calls after saying he’d vote yes for ObamaCare, cover Bart Stupak receiving hateful phone calls throughout the period he said he’d vote NO for ObamaCare.

The anger, rage, and even acts of violence isn’t something that just happened yesterday.  It’s been going on for months.  And the documented incidents are coming from the left.

If you want to see real hatred, and real acts of violence, look at the left, because that’s where it is.

If you want to see the worst kind of demonization and demagoguery, also look to the left.

Why Jesse Jackson’s Use of “N-word” Is So Awful

When I was a child – about five or six – something happened that left a vivid impression on me.

I heard the word “nigger” for the first time.

It wasn’t the word that left such an impression (I didn’t even know what it meant); rather, it was my father’s reaction to it.

My dad used curse words at the man who said it. The other man yelled at my dad, and my dad yelled back at him. The other man was big and angry and mean. I was terrified that my dad was going to fight that bad man.

After that incident, my dad sat me down. He apologized for using bad words, and then he said that there were two kinds of words: bad words and evil words. And he said the word “nigger” was an evil word. He said he got so angry because it was wrong for that man to say such a hateful thing around children. He said that sometimes you had to stand up and say that something was wrong.

My father said that people who used that word meant that black people weren’t human beings like other people, but were something less. He said that the most awful things that ever happened happened because people thought like that about other people who were different from them, and that he hoped that I would never be like those people.

I wonder what children who heard Jesse Jackson use the word the other day thought.

There was a discussion about it on The View, in which Whoopie Goldberg and the liberals on the program justified black people using the word. It’s only wrong when white people use it.

Black people use it as a “term of endearment.”

Is that the case?

I don’t think so. There’s nothing “dear” about the word, and there never has been. Hey, I’m calling you a sub-human beast of burden, but I really mean it in a really nice way.

For one thing, it perpetuates the use of both the word, and the content of the word. If you think that racist white people don’t justify their use of the word with, “Black people use it all the time. They use it to talk about each other!” then you simply aren’t living in the real world.

If black people want white people to stop using the “N-word,” then they have to stop using the word themselves. Until that word is off-limits for everyone, it will continue to be fair game for everyone.

As an example, activists such as Al Sharpton have said that it is the (white) executives of the major recording studios who are most to blame for the N-word’s impact on culture.  But let me ask you a question: is it the white executives who are using the word, or are they recording the use of the word by black artists?  Apart from the related issue of what would actually happen if white music executives started refusing to produce the works of black artists, the fact remains: if black artists refused to use the word, it would immediately die out of the music industry.  White executives simply would not dare produce works that used the N-word without the “cover” of it being spoken/sung by blacks.

Ultimately the greatest question of all is this one: how many children – every single day – discover racism by hearing that word for the very first time?

Thank God for my dad, who stood up and said, “Don’t you dare use that word around my son!”  My dad’s act of teaching me not to tolerate the N-word helped me learn to be intolerant of the racism that it always has and always will symbolize.

Elizabeth Hasslebeck literally cried because that word so upset her. It ought to upset everyone. Period.

Instead, when I googled “elizabeth hasslebeck” and “n-word” I saw the full hate and meanness of the left come out in all its vile ugliness. I discussed the viciousness of the left the other day in writing about the hatred expressed over the passing of Tony Snow. Viciousness is increasingly coming to characterize the left.

For a second thing, claiming that one group of people can use a word, and another group of people can’t, is the quintessential example of a double-standard.

The double-standards that have been a constant element of “the civil rights movement” for years are a big part of why so many white people have become so embittered over the movement. Racial quotas. The N-word. The very anger over demands for personal responsibility that so enraged Jesse Jackson in the first place.

How on earth does anybody think that a reliance upon one double-standard after another is the path to racial harmony? It just isn’t, and it never was.

Dr. Martin Luther KIng, Jr. said, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” But the civil rights leaders – such as Jesse Jackson – turned that statement on its head.

Don’t you talk to us about the “content of our characters!” You had better never forget the color of our skins!” And you better give us stuff on the basis of the color of our skins!

How are poor whites supposed to feel when they are systematically denied equal opportunity in the very name of “equal opportunity”?

Dr. King’s murder was a terrible thing. But the worst thing of all was that lesser men were able to hijack the civil rights movement and substitute their own ideas for his.

The third thing is that the use of the “N-word” itself becomes a political expression and an example of everything that is wrong with politics.

When Don Imus referred to “Nappy-headed hoes” he was attacked by the very “civil rights leaders” (including Jackson himself) who are now defending Jackson’s use of the word.

When Republican Senator George Allen used the word “macaca” to describe a Democrat plant, he was literally driven out of politics. To this day, I have never been able to find out what that word actually means. It didn’t matter. It could be construed to sound racist, and that was enough.

Now the same people who were so completely outraged over a conservative using the nonsensical word “macaca” are defending a liberal using the genuinely evil word “nigger.” It is simply Kafkaesque.

If you want to say, “It’s different because Jackson is a black man using a word about blacks!” then let me mention Barack Obama’s use of “typical white person.”

What we are seeing today is nothing less than selective outrage being employed as a political weapon.

And it’s wrong. It’s wrong because it makes genuine racism meaningless as politically-motivated pseudo-charges or racism drown out the real thing.

I am a conservative white male. And like the overwhelming majority of genuine conservatives, I would gladly support the candidacy of Dr. Condileeza Rice for president. She is – of course – both black and female.

I wouldn’t vote for her “because she’s black”; rather I would vote for her because she has the experience, the judgment, the competence, the character, the values, and the policies to be our president.

I do not support Barack Obama. And I refuse to support him not “because he’s black”; rather, I won’t vote for him because he doesn’t have the experience, the judgment, the competence, the character, the values, and the policies to be our president.

Jesse Jackson used the “N-word” because he thinks entirely in racial (and I would argue racist) terms. One of the worst examples of racism is the continuous use of terms like “Uncle Tom” and “race traitor” to describe prominent black leaders such as Condileeza Rice, Colin Powell, and Clarence Thomas.

As far as many in the “civil rights movement” are concerned, unless you are “our kind of black,” they feel entirely free to call you “a house nigger.”

That’s exactly what Jesse Jackson was doing. Barack Obama wasn’t being “his” kind of black.

They are the real racists, because they can only think in purely racial terms, and they see racism in everyone but themselves. And it’s truly sad that such people have somehow been able to put themselves in charge over who gets to branded as a “racist” and who doesn’t.

One black intellectual spoke of bargainers and challengers in the black community. The first group is willing to give whites and white society the benefit of the doubt, and work with them to try to create a better society. The second group (and Jesse Jackson is in this group) holds that whites and white society should be regarded as racist until they prove they are not.

But Jesse Jackson himself once said that crime was such a problem in the black community that when he saw a group of young black men he automatically looked around and found himself reassured by the presence of white people. Given the black crime rate, why shouldn’t I assume that blacks aren’t criminals and “thugs” (as Barack Obama’s NEW pastor himself put it) until they prove otherwise?

Because that’s not the way my dad taught me how to regard people, is why. That view doesn’t lead to peace and harmony, but suspicion and mistrust.

Anyone who has read even one of my articles about Barack Obama knows that I am not an Obama supporter. But on this issue, Barack Obama is clearly right, and Jesse Jackson – who has been the paradigmatic “civil rights leader” for a generation now – should now stand revealed for just how terribly wrong he is and always has been.

I dream of a day when Dr. King’s dream comes true. That’s why I have always been an opponent of Jesse Jackson.