Rep. Bennie Thompson channels Holder on “racist” criticism of Obama

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly
Racism sign

Yep.

Remember a few weeks ago when US Attorney General Eric Holder, speaking at a National Action Network (Sharpton) gathering,  strongly implied racism was behind opposition to both him and his boss – our celebrity President?  Here’s a refresher, via PJ Tatler’s Bryan Preston:

Holder said, “I am pleased to note that the last five years have been defined by significant strides, and by lasting reforms. Even in the face…even in the face…of unprecedented, unwarranted, ugly and divisive adversity.”

The audience applauded.

Holder continued: “Forget about me. You look at the way the Attorney General of the United States was treated yesterday by a House committee. Had nothing to do with me. Forget that. What attorney general has ever had that kind of treatment?”

Holder is referring to his exchange with Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX). Gohmert and other Republicans were trying to pin down when Holder’s Department of Justice would fulfill a promise that Holder had made to deliver documents. Holder refused to answer forthrightly. Gohmert called him out, to which Holder replied “You don’t want to go there, buddy!”

Holder continued: “What president has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment?”

Translation: No President nor his AG have ever had to deal with nasty partisanship on the level we have! Can only be one reason, wink wink!

Fast forward to this week, and we have Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS) essentially echoing Holder – but taking it further:

(CNN) – In an exclusive interview with CNN Chief Congressional Correspondent Dana Bash, Rep. Bennie Thompson doubled down on controversial remarks he made about race over the weekend.

The Mississippi Democrat had argued Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, a black conservative, is an “Uncle Tom” who doesn’t stand up for African Americans.

In his interview with the New Nation of Islam webcast on Sunday, which was first reported by BuzzFeed, the eleven-term African American argued President Barack Obama has been mistreated by other politicians, including Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, because he is black.

[…]

Bash: The other thing you were talking about is the fact that you believe some of the opposition, maybe even much of the opposition, to the president is because of the color of his skin.

Thompson: “Well, I’ve been here a long time. I’ve seen a lot of issues come before Congress. I’ve never seen the venom put forth on another candidate or a president like I’ve seen with this president and that’s my opinion.”

Bash: Are there specific things that people have said that are racially tinged that make you say that, or are you reading the tea leaves of what’s going on?

Thompson: “I’ve seen quite a few State of the Union messages, I’ve never heard a president called a liar in a State of the Union message.”

Bash: You think Congressman Joe Wilson was race based?

Thompson: “Well, I’ve never heard it before, it was a stupid decision…statement, but it has no real bearing.”

[…]

Bash: Were Mitch McConnell’s comments were racist?

Thompson: “It had nothing to with that. The comments are insensitive. To say to a president that you’re going to oppose anything that he puts out there is just totally…”

Bash: You think it was race based?

Thompson: “Well I’ve never heard him say it to any other president.”

Keep in mind that we’ve known since before President Obama was elected to his first term that the opposition was automatically going to be conveniently painted as “racist” because it happened all during his candidacy – starting in the 2007-2008 Democrat primary where his campaign tried to insinuate Hillary Clinton and her husband and former Prez. Bill Clinton (the original “first black President“) were closet racists.  It then went on to the general election campaign season, where the candidate himself – then-Senator Barack Obama – played the race card against the GOP, which his then-chief strategist David Axelrod even acknowledged later.  And it’s continued on since his first election and his re-election on a regular basis on any number of issues, from the economy to healthcare to voter ID and other issues.

But this is the first time I can recall a prominent Congressional Democrat try to explain the “rationale” used to determine when the race card should be played. What Holder said above, and Thompson expanded on in detail is this:   If you falsely believe (or in Thompson’s and Holder’s cases, pretend) that there have never been any other senior administration officials (including the President)  in history that were treated so “nastily” by the opposition , well – it must be racism, then, even if the criticisms themselves don’t have anything whatsoever to do with race.  You don’t even have to prove it to be racism. You just slide the insinuation onto the table and hope that it sticks. And sometimes it does.

This is all part and parcel of the modern Democrat party and their ongoing chilling efforts at shutuppery – whether it be by government force or trying to shame and intimidate others from publicly disagreeing with the President and other elected/appointed officials in his party.   The two main reasons they do this: 1) to stay in power (obviously) and 2) they think their ideas are just so wonderful and perfect that they just can’t fathom the possibility that people out there might have a legitimate issue with what they advocate, so naturally whoever stands in opposition is racist/sexist/homophobic/classist, etc.  It’s their world and you’re just living in it. They believe you must conform to their ideals … or else.

Raise your hand if you’re ready to fall in line.

Yeah, I didn’t think so. ;)

#Benghazi: Proof of what we knew — the White House is full of lying suckweasels

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

**Posted by Phineas

American Blood, US Consulate, Benghazi

American Blood, US Consulate, Benghazi

So, more than 19 months after four Americans –including our ambassador– died at the hands of al Qaeda allies in an attack on our consulate in Benghazi, part of the truth finally comes out: the White House political operation used the story of  a video to protect President Obama reelection, sacrificing the truth, our national security interests, and any shred of decency owed the victims’ surviving families on the altar of his political needs.

Independent reporter Sharyl Attkisson has the story:

Newly-released documents reveal direct White House involvement in steering the public narrative about the September 11, 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya, toward that of a spontaneous protest that never happened.

One of the operative documents, which the government had withheld from Congress and reporters for a year and a half, is an internal September 14, 2012 email to White House press officials from Ben Rhodes, President Obama’s Assistant and Deputy National Security Advisor. (Disclosure: Ben Rhodes is the brother of David Rhodes, the President of CBS News, where I was employed until March.)

In the email, Ben Rhodes lists as a “goal” the White House desire “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy.”

The email is entitled, “RE: PREP CALL with Susan, Saturday at 4:00 pm ET” and refers to White House involvement in preparing then-U.S.Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice for her upcoming appearance on Sunday television network political talk shows.

The Rhodes email states that another “goal” is “To reinforce the President and Administration’s strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges.”

Via Twitchy. There’s much more, so read it all.

Remember, Obama had been claiming for months that al Qaeda was “on the run,” nearly beaten. It was one of his justifications for reelection: he had crushed our mortal enemy. Then they attacked our consulate and killed our personnel, and suddenly the whole narrative was about to fall like the house of cards it was.

This wasn’t a meeting of a group meant to deal with a foreign policy crisis. No, Rhodes was heading up a political damage control team. That’s where the priority was. Not in determining how this happened, not in pursuing our enemies, and certainly not in our Head of State and Commander in Chief taking responsibility, because that might have meant handing a cudgel to the Republicans. Jim Geraghty weighs in (emphasis added):

Yes, Rhodes’s speechwriting always focused in the foreign-policy realm. He was a longtime assistant to Lee Hamilton, then joined Obama as a speechwriter in 2007. But this guy’s not an expert on Libya. There’s no way he was in any position, from Washington, to overrule the assessment of the folks on the ground. He’s a message guy. And he quickly concluded – accurately – that the administration’s obvious ill-prepared presence in Libya, and failure to organize timely rescue efforts, on the 9/11 anniversary represented a serious threat to the president’s reelection. They needed a scapegoat; the video was the best option at hand.

That included, by the way, trampling the First Amendment rights of the video maker, who was hauled off in the middle of the night and pilloried in the press to play that scapegoat.

And before anyone says things were still unclear and they really thought the attack was a spontaneous reaction to the video, check the dates. Rhodes’ email was dated the 14th; the attack happened on the 11th. By the night of the attack, within hours, they knew that it was a terrorist strike, not an out of control riot against a video:

Minutes after the American consulate in Benghazi came under assault on Sept. 11, 2012, the nation’s top civilian and uniformed defense officials — headed for a previously scheduled Oval Office session with President Obama — were informed that the event was a “terrorist attack,” declassified documents show. The new evidence raises the question of why the top military men, one of whom was a member of the president’s Cabinet, allowed him and other senior Obama administration officials to press a false narrative of the Benghazi attacks for two weeks afterward.

Gen. Carter Ham, who at the time was head of AFRICOM, the Defense Department combatant command with jurisdiction over Libya, told the House in classified testimony last year that it was him who broke the news about the unfolding situation in Benghazi to then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The tense briefing — in which it was already known that U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens had been targeted and had gone missing — occurred just before the two senior officials departed the Pentagon for their session with the commander in chief.

According to declassified testimony obtained by Fox News, Ham — who was working out of his Pentagon office on the afternoon of Sept. 11 — said he learned about the assault on the consulate compound within 15 minutes of its commencement, at 9:42 p.m. Libya time, through a call he received from the AFRICOM Command Center.

As I wrote at the time:

But now we have the testimony of the general in charge of the combat command responsible for Benghazi that he, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff regarded this as a terrorist attack — within minutes of the attack beginning! Panetta and Dempsey then went to a previously scheduled meeting with Obama at which, we’re supposed to believe, they didn’t give their boss their considered opinion? They just let him believe the massacre happened because of some video few ever saw? That they let him and his advisers go on for weeks like this, when they knew the truth?

Garbage. It is inconceivable that Obama did not know that night that our consulate had come under terrorist attack. 

And that was three days before Rhodes’ email, which can only mean this was a deliberate attempt to lie to the American people in order to save Obama’s (and Hillary’s) craven political rear ends.

No wonder they tried to keep this email secret.

RELATED: At PJM, Roger Simon says this is “worse than Watergate” and calls for impeachment.

PS: And this only answers one major question about the Benghazi massacre. Still left begging is the question of just where Obama was that night and what was his role, if he even had one. The question of Hillary’s accountability for her incompetence leading up to the disaster is a whole other matter.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Obama minimum wage edict leads to job losses at military bases

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

**Posted by Phineas

Depression-era unemployment

“But at least we won the election! Obama!!”

Democrats and their Leftist allies are desperate to find any issue to run on in the coming elections, other than Obamacare. One of their tactics has been to try to gin up class warfare based on raising the minimum wage. They argue that it will help the poor, raise living standards, and, of course, be more “fair.” Republicans, conservatives, and libertarians, on the other hand, contend that increasing the cost of labor will only mean higher prices to the consumer, fewer jobs for the marginally skilled, and be particularly harmful to minorities. This video is a good example of how minimum wage laws kill jobs.

Needless to say, I come down on the side of those opposed to the Democrats’ demands for a minimum wage increase. But honest, intelligent people (1) can reasonably disagree.  To help solve this disagreement, a real-world, real-time example would be nice. Fortunately (or unfortunately, as the case may be), we have one. As Byron York reports in The Washington Examiner, President Obama’s edict raising the minimum wage for federal contract employees on military bases is leading to the closure of fast-food restaurants on those bases, thus costing jobs:

Obama’s order does not take effect until January 1, 2015. But there are signs it is already having an effect — and it is not what the president and his party said it would be.

In late March, the publication Military Times reported that three McDonald’s fast-food restaurants, plus one other lesser-known food outlet, will soon close at Navy bases, while other national-name chains have “asked to be released from their Army and Air Force Exchange Service contracts to operate fast-food restaurants at two other installations.”

Military Times quoted sources saying the closures are related to the coming mandatory wage increases, with one source saying they are “the tip of the iceberg.”

And increasing the minimum wage isn’t the only way Washington is increasing the cost of labor:

The administration is making it very expensive to do business on military bases, and not just because of the minimum wage. Under federal contracting law, some businesses operating on military installations must also pay their workers something called a health and welfare payment, which last year was $2.56 an hour but which the administration has now raised to $3.81 an hour.

In the past, fast-food employers did not have to pay the health and welfare payment, but last fall the Obama Labor Department ruled that they must. So add $3.81 per hour, per employee to the employers’ cost. And then add Obama’s $2.85 an hour increase in the minimum wage. Together, employers are looking at paying $6.66 (2) more per hour, per employee. That’s a back-breaking burden. (Just for good measure, the administration also demanded such employers provide paid holidays and vacation time.)

As I wrote above, the natural business response to this is to either raise prices for the consumer, or cut back on employee hours — or cut jobs altogether. Well, guess what? York reports that military contracts do not allow the businesses to raise their prices above what’s common in the outside community. So, even though Obama is raising wages well above the prevailing standard, employers are forbidden to recoup their costs. What does that leave?

Closing the business altogether.

If there’s no chance for profit, why stay open? When you add up the numbers for all four major services, we’re looking at potentially 10,000 jobs going up in smoke. Not to mention the ripple effect in the outside communities.

Here we have a current, ongoing example of how raising the minimum wage harms people by killing jobs. (3) How then, is the Democratic proposal a good idea?

I’m waiting. smiley well I'm waiting

 

Footnote:
(1) Thus excluding Democratic pols and activists.
(2) How fitting.
(3) Yes, military contract law made the situation worse by forbidding compensatory price increases. So, increasing costs for the consumer –including minimum wage earners!– is a good thing? And what’s to say the Obama administration, if they got their way on the minimum wage, wouldn’t try to extend price controls when the inevitable complaints arose? We are talking dyed-in-the-wool statists, after all. One bad policy, raising the minimum wage, inevitably leads to more bad policy. Just look at the history to-date of Obamacare.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

More bad news for #NCSEN’s @KayHagan: Youth interest in elections is declining

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly
Senator Kay Hagan (D-NC)

Senator Kay Hagan (D-NC) faces a tough re-election battle this year.

The Politico reports this morning that a key voting bloc crucial to Democrat election and re-election plans is increasingly losing interest in voting, which could spell disaster for the left – especially in key midterm election years like this one (bolded emphasis added by me):

A new poll holds some grim omens for Democrats in this year’s midterm elections: young voters have dwindling interest in the November races, and the ones who do plan to cast ballots are more likely to vote Republican.

According to the poll, conducted by Harvard’s Institute of Politics and released Tuesday, just 23 percent of voters aged 18 to 29 say they will definitely vote in the midterms. That’s an 11 percent drop from the last time the survey was taken — five months ago — and the lowest recorded number since the poll was established more than a decade ago.

Democrats, who are waging an uphill battle to protect their Senate majority and to win control of the House of Representatives, are trying to mobilize the coalition of young, minority and female voters that helped President Barack Obama win a second term in 2012.

But midterm elections are typically dominated by a group of older and whiter voters, making the challenge a steep one for the party, which has been on the defensive thanks in part to Republican attacks on Obamacare and a flood of spending by outside conservative groups.

According to the poll, interest among the so-called “millennials” is even lower than at a similar point in the 2010 midterms, when Democrats suffered a blowout. According to Harvard IOP’s February 2010 survey, 31 percent of voters under 30 said they would definitely be voting.

The falling youth interest in the elections correlated with their rising cynicism about politicians and declining trust in government institutions — the latter reaching historic lows for the survey.

This comes on the heels of a report yesterday from the New York Times’ “Upshot” blog which pointed out that the Democrats’ worst potential turnout problem in 2014 is North Carolina, where incumbent Senator Kay Hagan (D) – incidentally a key Senator in crafting Obamacare, which caused 473,000 North Carolinians to lose their health insurance plans – is facing an uphill fight in her battle to win a second term to the US Senate.   The article also reminded that the key reason Hagan won in 2008 by 8 points was due entirely to the youth vote:

When young voters stay home, the state reverts to its Republican past and the more conservative bent of the South. And judging from the last midterm election, the plunge in youth turnout could be huge. Eighteen- to 25-year-olds accounted for a mere 3.9 percent of voters in 2010, down from 10.4 percent of voters in 2008, according to the secretary of state’s office. Older voters jumped from 17.5 to 26.1 percent of those turning out.

Granted, 2010 was probably a worst-case picture for youth turnout; there wasn’t a competitive statewide contest and it was a bad year for Democrats. But nonwhite turnout also dropped, even beyond that caused by lower youth turnout. Combined, the consequences are potentially devastating for Democrats. Mitt Romney’s modest victory margin of 2 percentage points would have turned into a 10-point rout if the 2012 electorate had been as old and white as it was in 2010.

That’s a big problem for Ms. Hagan. She originally won her seat in 2008, when she won by a decisive 8 points. But her entire margin of victory came from voters under 30, who gave her a staggering 71 percent of their votes and represented about 17 percent of the electorate. If the voting public had been as old and white as it was in the 2010 midterms, Ms. Hagan’s share of the vote would have fallen beneath 50 percent; she still would have won, helped by a libertarian candidate, Chris Cole, who appeared to erode the vote for her Republican opponent.

No matter who Hagan’s eventual GOP opponent turns out to be, the road ahead for her is going to be up and down, winding, and brutal – in spite of her campaign ca$h advantage and increased helped from outside spending groups/SupePACS like the pro-abortion Emily’s List. All the money in the world, all the dodging, weaving, and deflecting – and seriously lame attempts at ignoring the issue –  can’t and won’t erase the fact that she shares in the responsibility of foisting the so-called “Affordable Care Act” onto the American people – specifically, the voters of North Carolina who she claims to represent.   Jobs have been lost, full time status for many has been bumped down to part time, and as I noted earlier hundreds of thousands of North Carolinians lost health insurance plans they liked – all of this because of Obamacare.   Add  the growing youth dissatisfaction with politicians and the political process in general to this and you get a super-high hurdle Hagan may not be able to successfully jump over on the way to the finish line come November.

Stay tuned.

Rutgers students stage “sit-in” in continued protest of Condi Rice invite

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly
Condoleezza Rice

Condoleezza Rice, former National Security Adviser for President George W Bush.

I wrote about this in early March, and the Rutgers liberal faithful are still at it over a  month later – presumably because they have nothing better to do.  Via Fox News:

Roughly 50 Rutgers University students staged a sit-in at a school administration building in New Brunswick on Monday to protest the school’s decision to invite Condoleezza Rice to speak at the university’s commencement next month.

The school’s Board of Governors voted to pay the former secretary of state under President George W. Bush and national security adviser $35,000 for her appearance at the May 18 ceremony, where she will be awarded an honorary degree.

But several faculty members and students want the invitation rescinded because of Rice’s role in the Iraq War. Rutgers’ New Brunswick Faculty Council passed a resolution in March calling on the university’s board of governors to rescind its invitation.

Photos and videos of Monday’s protest posted to Twitter showed students lining a staircase leading to University President Robert Barchi’s office, The Star-Ledger reported.

Some students held up signs reading, “No honors for war criminals,” “War criminals out” and “RU 4 Humanity?” the report said.

Fortunately, Barchi is standing strong in the face of the attempts by these “tolerant” students to engage in the hypocritical selective “diversity” so often displayed by the activist left:

Barchi and the university’s board of governors have resisted calls to “disinvite” Rice. In a letter to the campus last month, Barchi said the university welcomes open discourse on controversial topics.

“Like our fellow citizens, you and I — our colleagues — have deep and sincerely held beliefs and convictions that often stand in stark contrast to others around us,” Barchi wrote. “Yet, we cannot protect free speech or academic freedom by denying others the right to an opposing view, or by excluding those with whom we may disagree. Free speech and academic freedom cannot be determined by any group. They cannot insist on consensus or popularity.”

You can view photos and tweets of the “#NoRice” protest hereif for nothing else than for your own amusement.  This one was one of my favorites:


Oh, what rebels they are.  /sarc