Crowley-Gates Incident: Maybe Obama Should Teach Himself

It’s not easy dealing with an infant suffering from Reactive Airway Disease. I’ve spent the last three days taking care of my seven-month-old son. But, I’m back to make a small contribution here.

The arrest of professor Louis Henry Gates has been all over the news recently. Everyone knows the story and everyone knows how Obama reacted during a nationally televised press conference designed to push socialized medicine.

But Obama also refers to this as a “teachable moment.” Yes, the president who promised us a “post-racial” America and made a major gaffe in criticizing the Cambridge police before he even knew all the facts, wants to teach us something.

Well, I’ve learned that Obama is nothing even resembling “post-racial” and perhaps he needs to teach that to himself.

Pat Buchanan writing for Town Hall has this:

Sunday, professor Louis Henry Gates retreated from his threat to sue Sgt. James Crowley. Friday, President Obama retreated from his charge that the Cambridge cops “acted stupidly.”

As Crowley has not budged an inch — his arrest of Gates was correct, and there will be no apology — there is no doubt who won this face-off. Game, set, match, Crowley and the Cambridge cops.

Gates and Obama can try to spin this all they want, but it is clear that they were trying to use this incident to somehow stick it to “whitey.” What we are really seeing here is how well Obama listened during the twenty years he sat in the pews and listened to the racist and anti-American sermons of Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Here is what happened:

Answering a 911 call about a break-in in progress, Crowley encountered the professor inside the house. According to Crowley’s report, his request for Gates’ I.D. was initially rebuffed, and he was accused of hassling Gates because he was black. The professor made a slurring reference to Crowley’s “mama.”

The professor then raised such a ruckus Crowley arrested and cuffed him.

Once in the street, Gates bellowed, “This is what happens to a black man in America.” Gates then called Crowley a “rogue cop.”

Gov. Deval Patrick declared Gates’ arrest “every black man’s nightmare.” Obama said the Cambridge cops had “acted stupidly” and went on to elaborate, on nationwide TV, on the sad history of racial profiling of blacks and Hispanics by police.

Thus the two most powerful black elected officials in the U.S., with no hard knowledge of what happened, came down on the side of a black professor, their buddy, against a white cop and his department, implying racial motivation in the arrest of Gates.

Teachable moment? Yes. We need to teach that the reactions of Gates, Obama and Deval Patrick were the wrong reactions to have.

Here is some eveidence that you will not hear Obama, Patrick or Gates ever mention (lest they make fools of themselves):

Crowley’s partner in the arrest was a black officer who said he stands “100 percent” behind Crowley and that Gates acted “strange.”

Sixteen years ago, Crowley gave CPR to an unconscious Boston Celtics star, Reggie Lewis, in an attempt to save his life. The memory of his failure caused Crowley to break down in tears and haunts him to this day.

Crowley was selected by a black police lieutenant to teach fellow officers about racial profiling. He has been doing this for five years.

And watching TV coverage for a week, this writer has yet to hear one cop anywhere condemn Crowley’s handling of the incident.

Teachable moment? Yes. We need to teach that minorities screaming “racism” when no racism is present devalues the word and makes it easier to ignore true instances of racism.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Sgt. Crowley, A Cop In Full
Pat Buchanan
July 28, 2009

Debbie Stabenow Wants ‘Hearings’ For Fairness Doctrine Censorship

Check out this exchange between Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and radio host Bill Press:

BILL PRESS: Yeah, I mean, look: They have a right to say that. They’ve got a right to express that. But, they should not be the only voices heard. So, is it time to bring back the Fairness Doctrine?

SENATOR DEBBIE STABENOW (D-MI): I think it’s absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it’s called the Fairness Standard, whether it’s called something else — I absolutely think it’s time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves. I mean, our new president has talked rightly about accountability and transparency. You know, that we all have to step up and be responsible. And, I think in this case, there needs to be some accountability and standards put in place.

BILL PRESS: Can we count on you to push for some hearings in the United States Senate this year, to bring these owners in and hold them accountable?

SENATOR DEBBIE STABENOW (D-MI): I have already had some discussions with colleagues and, you know, I feel like that’s gonna happen. Yep.

First, it is a well-known fact that attempts to bring back censorship under the guise of a “Fairness Doctrine” are nothing more than attempts to squelch the opposition’s point of view.

But even more interesting is that Stabenow want hearings on the issue.

I say: “Bring it on!”

I’ll bet that Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Monica Crowley and Mark Levin will have a five-way fist fight to see who will be the first to march into those hearings and rake those Senators over the coals.

The conservative talk radio hosts who do show up and testify will expose every hypocrisy and every double-standard people like Stabenow hold. For example, why does Stabenow want “fairness” brought to talk radio but is perfectly willing to allow programs like Today Show, Good Morning America, Larry King and newspapers like The Washington Post and New York Times, to continue to be biased towards the leftist-liberals?

That is exactly the type of hypocrisy that would be highlighted during these hearings.

Further, talk radio hosts will bring to the fore-front many stories that television and print media largely ignored. For example, why did the media give Obama a pass for his relationship with the racist Reverend Jeremiah Wright but came down so hard on Sarah Palin for her main-stream religious views? Why was Obama not fully vetted by the media while an Army of reporters stormed Alaska looking for any dirt they could find?

These and other issues will come to light if Stabenow really does hold these hearings.

I say: “Let’s do it! Let’s start peeling back the onion!”

It would be one of the best things to happen in America in a long time.

You can access the transcripts and a video on-line here:

Sen. Stabenow Wants Hearings On Radio ‘Accountability’; Talks Fairness Doctrine
Michael Calderone
The Politico
February 5, 2009

The Fierce Urgency Of Pork: Charles Krauthammer Column Could Kill Stimulus Bill

This column is amazing. Not for what it says or who wrote it. But for the fact that it was published in the uber-liberal Washington Post.

Sometimes, someone writes a column that is so hard-hitting, so to-the-point that it cannot be ignored for long. You won’t hear about this column on any of the left-leaning television networks, but you should read it and take to heart what it says.

Charles Krauthammer writes:

“A failure to act, and act now, will turn crisis into a catastrophe.”

— President Obama, Feb. 4.

Catastrophe, mind you. So much for the president who in his inaugural address two weeks earlier declared “we have chosen hope over fear.” Until, that is, you need fear to pass a bill.

That’s just for starters. Krauthammer rightly asks about why we should be scared into passing this “pork spending” bill.

The column goes on to describe all of the unethical and outright illegal conduct that the Obama administration has been trying to legitimize, as exampled by Timothy Geithner and Tom Daschle’s tax avoidance problems.


And yet more damaging to Obama’s image than all the hypocrisies in the appointment process is his signature bill: the stimulus package. He inexplicably delegated the writing to Nancy Pelosi and the barons of the House. The product, which inevitably carries Obama’s name, was not just bad, not just flawed, but a legislative abomination.

It’s not just pages and pages of special-interest tax breaks, giveaways and protections, one of which would set off a ruinous Smoot-Hawley trade war. It’s not just the waste, such as the $88.6 million for new construction for Milwaukee Public Schools, which, reports the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, have shrinking enrollment, 15 vacant schools and, quite logically, no plans for new construction.

It’s the essential fraud of rushing through a bill in which the normal rules (committee hearings, finding revenue to pay for the programs) are suspended on the grounds that a national emergency requires an immediate job-creating stimulus — and then throwing into it hundreds of billions that have nothing to do with stimulus, that Congress’s own budget office says won’t be spent until 2011 and beyond, and that are little more than the back-scratching, special-interest, lobby-driven parochialism that Obama came to Washington to abolish. He said.

Now, in the words of the racist Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s “chickens have come home to roost.” Clearly, Obama lied to America in order to get the votes. But what is really insulting here is that Obama expected to get away with it. Apparently, he expected America to forget about his promises and statments. Instead, Obama forgot about the Internet that he so masterfully used to come to power.

Read on:

The Age of Obama begins with perhaps the greatest frenzy of old-politics influence peddling ever seen in Washington. By the time the stimulus bill reached the Senate, reports the Wall Street Journal, pharmaceutical and high-tech companies were lobbying furiously for a new plan to repatriate overseas profits that would yield major tax savings. California wine growers and Florida citrus producers were fighting to change a single phrase in one provision. Substituting “planted” for “ready to market” would mean a windfall garnered from a new “bonus depreciation” incentive.

After Obama’s miraculous 2008 presidential campaign, it was clear that at some point the magical mystery tour would have to end. The nation would rub its eyes and begin to emerge from its reverie. The hallucinatory Obama would give way to the mere mortal. The great ethical transformations promised would be seen as a fairy tale that all presidents tell — and that this president told better than anyone.

I thought the awakening would take six months. It took two and a half weeks.

Two and a half weeks. That would make a great name if someone ever made a documentary about the disaster that Barack Obama is shaping up to be.

This column that Charles Krauthammer wrote is a classic for the ages. It is right up there with the fable about the emperor who wore no clothes.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

The Fierce Urgency Of Pork
Charles Krauthammer
The Washington Post
February 6, 2009

And you might also want to read why this spending bill will mean more inflation for the rest of us:

Why ‘Stimulus’ Will Mean Inflation
George Melloan
Wall Street Journal
February 6, 2009

Racial Bigotry Alive And Well Under President Obama

In spite of promises to the contrary, Barack Obama has not left the racial hatred of Jeremiah Wright behind. Instead, he invited it back under a different name: Joseph Lowery.

Rev. Lowery invoked race in a derogatory way after Obama was sworn in. According to the Associated Press:

After the first black president had been sworn in, Rev. Joseph Lowery’ ended his benediction with a rhyme familiar to black churchgoers:

“We ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around…”

“… and when white will embrace what is right.”

Of course, the implication of such a statement is that all white people are racist. It took less than one hour for Obama to abandon his “post-racial” promise.

Nothing like a president who judges by color of skin, eh?

You can access the complete article on-line here:

AP Describes Black Minister’s Mockery Of Whites As Not Right As ‘Note Of Racial Caution’
Tim Graham
January 20, 2009

What Obama “Didn’t Know” And Now His Appointees “Didn’t Know” Either

Have you ever noticed how many things Barack Obama “didn’t know” about the people he associates with? There appears to be a very disturbing pattern emerging here.

Obama “didn’t know” that Jeremiah Wright preached racial hatred from the pulpit.

Obama “didn’t know” that Tony Rezko was a crooked real estate developer.

Obama “didn’t know” that Bill Ayers was a domestic terrorist.

And now, Obama “didn’t know” that Rahm Emanuel had more contact with Rod Blagojevich than was previously reported. Further, Obama’s pick for Attorney General also “didn’t know” about his own connection with Blagojevich.

These two stories both come from the Chicago Sun-Times. First, about Rahm Emanuel’s contact with Blagojevich despite Obama’s early claims that no such contact took place:

President-elect Barack Obama’s incoming chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, was pushing for Obama’s successor just days after the Nov. 4 election, sources told the Chicago Sun-Times.

Emanuel privately urged Gov. Blagojevich’s administration to appoint Obama confidante Valerie Jarrett, and the Sun-Times learned Tuesday that he also pressed that it be done by a certain deadline.

Jarrett was initially interested in the U.S. Senate post before Obama tapped her to be a White House senior adviser, sources say.

The disclosure comes days after Obama’s camp downplayed Jarrett’s interest in the post.

It seems as though the Obama camp’s story changes every time the wind in the Inner Loop changes direction. But we can’t be sure of what the truth is because Obama himself has obfuscated it so much, just like a typical politician. (So much for “change” or any kind of transparant investigation.)

And what about Attorney General designate Eric Holder and his relationship with Blagojevich? Turns out there was a big one, a relationship worth $300,000 to Holder.

Before Eric Holder was President-elect Barack Obama’s choice to be attorney general, he was Gov. Blagojevich’s pick to sort out a mess involving Illinois’ long-dormant casino license.

Blagojevich and Holder appeared together at a March 24, 2004, news conference to announce Holder’s role as “special investigator to the Illinois Gaming Board” — a post that was to pay Holder and his Washington, D.C. law firm up to $300,000.

Holder, however, omitted that event from his 47-page response to a Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire made public this week — an oversight he plans to correct after a Chicago Sun-Times inquiry, Obama’s transition team indicated late Tuesday.

Maybe Holder “didn’t know” that the relationship, especially the dollar amounts involved should have been reported? Or maybe, because of the Chicago-style politics being played, Holder arrogantly assumed that he was above the law and therefore had no need of disclosing anything?

These two stories may have nothing to do with Blagojevich trying to sell the vacated Illinois Senate seat, but it is very important that this infomation comes to light. Especially since the United States has approved of Obama’s team transplanting its corrupt Chicago-style politics to Washington D.C.

Besides, remember the non-outing of Valerie Plame and how that led to a completely unrelated charge against Scooter Libby? Americans, especially Democrats, were okay with that. If they are fair and apply the same standard here, these same Americans, and especially the Democrats, will be okay with us learning everything we can about the corruption that will soon make its way from Illinois to D.C.

You can access both articles on-line here:

Rahm Emanuel Pressed For Jarrett Appointment To Senate
Natasha Korecki And Fran Spielman
Chicago Sun-Times
December 17, 2008

Holder Omitted Blagojevich Link From Questionnaire
Chris Fusco
Chicago Sun-Times
December 17, 2008

It might very well happen that the Obama Administration is going to be the most corrupt in history.

Barack Obama: The New Race-Baitor In The White House

Yes, you read the title correctly. I purposely wrote it that way and will stand by it, especially after an interview he gave that was published in the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times. Basically, Obama reasserted his promises to make sure that Hispanics and blacks are scrutinized less by the criminal justice simply because of their skin color, no matter what the severity of the crime or how much evidence is against them. Obama might as well have said that if a white person commits a crime, prosecute them to the full extent of the law, but if a non-white commits the same crime, let them go because of their skin color.

It may be that I am being blunt, but taking someone’s skin color into consideration is a complete departure from Dr. Martin Luther King who said that “content of character” was paramount and “color of skin” should not be considered at all.

Writing for Front Page Magazine, John Perazzo looks at the issue more closely and brings up some very thought provoking points. It turns out that racial profiling does not play a significant role in the judicial system decision making process, but that other factors do:

The most exhaustive, best designed study of this matter—a three-year analysis of more than 11,000 convicted criminals in California—found that the severity of offenders’ sentences depended heavily on such factors as prior criminal records, the seriousness of the crimes, and whether guns were used in the commission of those crimes. Race was found to have no effect whatsoever. In fact the researcher, Joan Petersilia, was forced to admit that these results contradicted conclusions she had drawn from an earlier study—in which she had not taken prior convictions and the use of firearms into account.

But what about the race issue? Where is that coming from?

Read this:

Black overrepresentation is almost entirely at the arrest stage—reflecting the simple fact that the “average” black breaks the law more frequently than the “average” white.

And this:

The National Crime Victimization Surveys, conducted annually by the Census Bureau, show that statistically the “average” black is far more likely than the “average” white to be identified, by a victim or witness, as the perpetrator of a violent crime. This racial gap, moreover, is approximately equal to the racial gap in actual arrest rates. “As long ago as 1978,” says Manhattan Institute scholar Heather MacDonald, “a study of robbery and aggravated assault in eight cities found parity between the race of assailants in victim identifications and in arrests—a finding replicated many times since, across a range of crimes.”

The fact that blacks engage in more crimes than whites is never mentioned by Old Media and was certainly not mentioned by the Barack Obama campaign or transition team. It is an embarrassment to them to tell the truth about this issue. If they did tell the truth, they wouldn’t be able to play the race card.

In fact, the decisions after the arrest tend to favor blacks more than whites:


At all the decision points subsequent to arrest, the outcomes are virtually identical for blacks and whites alike—and the slight differences that do exist tend to favor blacks.[2] In studies that consider all relevant variables—such as the defendant’s prior criminal record, the severity of the crime in question, the offender’s demeanor with police, whether a weapon was used, and whether the crime in question was victim-precipitated—no differences have been found in sentencing patterns, either in relation to the victim’s race or the offender’s race.[3]

Barack Obama’s comments about the alleged disparities in the criminal justice system are nothing more than attempts at race-baiting a la Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Jeremiah Wright. For a man who says he didn’t know about Wright’s racial tirades and would have left the church had he known, Obama sure does seem to want to implement Wright’s philosophy of racial hatred in his policies.

While Obama harps on this, notice that he is also ignoring things like the fact that inter-racial crime is more likely to be black-on-white than any other scenario. If Obama really wants to be the “post-racial” candidate, rather than the same-old, same-old race-baitor of the past thirty years, he will demonstrate “change” by taking the racial rhetoric out of his policies and go foward with Dr. King’s dream of “not by color of skin but by content of character” fresh in his mind.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Obama: Tilting At Racial Windmills
John Perrazzo
December 16, 2008

Dennis Prager: Minorities Should Express Shame, Not Only Pride

Let’s start off with Dennis Prager’s first few paragraphs:

Gay Pride. Jewish Pride. Black pride. Hispanic Pride.


Ethnic pride. Minority rights vs. tyranny of the majority.

That’s right. You can’t turn anywhere these days without seeing something about celebrating any one of these issues. But what you don’t see is any celebration of white Christian heterosexual males.

In fact, usually, the only time you ever hear about white Christian heterosexual males is when some activist group has something bad to say about them or is criticizing them for some imagined transgression.

Why does one almost never hear expressions of group shame from members of any American group other than white Christians (specifically, white Christian male heterosexuals)? Are the only evildoers in America white male heterosexual Christians? Is there something inherently wrong about members of minorities expressing anything but group pride? Are there no minority sins worthy of shame? The latter is in fact the argument advanced by many intellectuals concerning black racism, for example. For a generation, college students have been taught that it is impossible for blacks to be racist because only the racial group in power, i.e. whites, can express racism.

Of course, that is nonsense. A black can be a racist just as a white can be one. A minority race might not have the power to implement racist national policies but that hardly means that no minority group, or any individual, can be a racist.

Yes, it is nonsense. Rev. Jeremiah Wright is a prime example of a black racist. So are Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan and several recent leaders of the NAACP.

From Old Media, we are bombarded with ideas that only whites can be racist or prejudicial. Reality shows otherwise. For example, the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report shows clearly that most inter-racial crimes are black on white crimes. Further, it also shows that blacks are more likely to be victims of crimes committed by other blacks than by whites. And yet, only the white on black crime ever makes the news.

And gay pride? Where is the pride in being the major group vector for HIV infections? I never hear any gay leaders expressing regret that the homosexual community is still leading the spread of AIDS. Or how about terrorizing a little old lady in California? Where is the pride in that?

Prager has more examples of a serious skew in pride vs. shame:

The relative absence of expressions of shame in the Muslim world over the atrocities committed in Islams name is an example of the above. The labeling of blacks who express shame over disproportionate rates of violent crime and out-of-wedlock births in the black community as Uncle Toms is another. The absence of any expression of shame in the gay community over the current blacklisting — and attempts to economically destroy — anyone who donated to the California proposition defining marriage as between a man and a woman is another example.

This column is very thought provoking on many levels. Read it and then ask yourself, “Would I be proud if my ethnic/social group engaged in such shameful behavior?”

Prager’s parting shot:

Expressing group shame when morally necessary is not airing dirty linen or giving solace to ones ideological enemies. It is, rather, one of the highest expressions of moral development. And it is therefore universally applicable. Being a minority doesnt exempt its members from moral responsibility. It will be a great day for America and the world when minorities begin to express shame as well as pride. In fact, there is real pride in expressing shame. Minorities should give it a try.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Minorities Should Express Shame, Not Only Pride
Dennis Prager
December 16, 2008