The U.S. Has Nearly a Quarter Million Unsolved Murders Since 1980

Much of the recent news about Chicago has been regarding this year's number of shootings and murders.  What isn't well publicized is the fact that only 21% of murders in the city are cleared (solved).  A similar problem exists in Detroit where only 30% are cleared.  Los Angeles is only slightly better at 40%. In the country as a whole, only 64% of murders are solved.  This average is well down from 90% in 1965.  All told, nearly a quarter of a million murders have gone unsolved since 1980 with another 5,000 added each year.

One would have thought that with today's high tech tools such as DNA and the national fingerprint data base and identification system, crime fighting would have gotten much better.  But, the ability to solve murders still relies heavily on the human element.

In Chicago, the low clearance rate is a result of three factors that are probably common to many of the cities that have this problem.  First, many of the murders are committed by gangs and the members of the community fear that they too will be murdered if they come forth as witnesses.  Additionally, there is an increasing mistrust of the police; and again, witnesses not coming forward.  Finally, because of budget cuts, too few personnel are available to perform proper crime scene investigations and  detective work.

It always seems as if videos are taken when a police officer shoots someone, but where are those same cameras when someone is being murdered or shot without police involvement?  Also, mistrust has only increased because we have a President and other leaders that continually imply that police are guilty of racial bias.

Something has to change, or many more murders will go unsolved.   This is especially true due to the rising murder rates in our major cities as a result of the Ferguson effect.  Sending in the Justice Department to discipline our police on the reckless assumption that they're racist isn't going to resolve anything.

References:

Getting Away With Murder: Police fail to make an arrest in more than a third of the nation’s killings: http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21656725-police-fail-make-arrest-more-third-nations-killings-getting-away

As Chicago killings surge, the unsolved cases pile up: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-chicago-homicide-clearance-rate-20160909-story.html

Shoddy LAPD record keeping muddies murder statistics: http://www.dailynews.com/general-news/20140628/shoddy-lapd-record-keeping-muddies-murder-statistics

Social Justice in Ferguson, Mo? But, At What Cost?

In the 18 months following the shooting death of Michael Brown by Officer Darren Wilson, Eric Holder's Department of Justice (DOJ) conducted a civil rights review of the Ferguson police force; even though Darren Wilson was exonerated of any charges.  Then, in 2015, the DOJ  found that the Ferguson police force was racist and that a substantial makeover was necessary.

Since then, the City Council determined that the makeover would cost almost $4 million in additional spending in the first year, and millions more in each of the subsequent years.  This, in a city that already had a $2.8 million deficit on a $14.5 million dollar a year spending budget.  Thus, the compliance with the demands of the Justice Department would result in a deficit of nearly 50% or $6.6 million in the first year; and increasing each year until bankruptcy, or unless the citizens of the City were willing to pay at least 50% more in taxes to reverse the deficit and comply with the Justice Department.  Knowing that taxes really couldn't be raised, because 1 in 4 Ferguson citizens were already in poverty and the average household income is 26% less than the  in the country as a whole. Therefore, the 50% increase in taxes would be a heavy burden on the citizens as businesses are forced to raise prices in an already poor community. The City had no other choice but to unanimously vote not to implement the required Justice Department demands.

Since that decision, the Federal government has sued the City of Ferguson in order to force the Council to implement the changes; no matter what the costs many be. And, those costs will be high; both economically and socially.

As a result of the lawsuit, the City's bond rating has been so significantly downgraded that no buyer of municipal bonds would ever risk investing in a Ferguson bond issuance.  Already, existing bonds are selling at a nearly 40% discount; and if the City loses the suit, the cost to borrow money will rise significantly.  Because a 50% increase in taxes is probably out of the question, this only leaves cutting costs to reduce the deficit.

As a result there will be fewer police and absolutely no overtime during low staffed hours.  This, in a city that is already experiencing extremely high crime rates. The number of firemen, too, will have to be reduced. It also means less road repairs or other government services such as garbage pickups.  These reductions, in turn, will result in ever lowering property values until, like Detroit, people are willing to sell their houses for a dollar to avoid paying property taxes. 

These are the costs that the predominately black community will pay to insure that not one iota of racism exists within the Ferguson Police Department.  The death of that City is a high cost to pay.  Of course, instead of suing, the federal government could pay for the demands they are making; leaving Ferguson to struggle with their existing debt problems.  But, this would establish a precedent and the Justice Department would be saddled with all the bills that it created in all the cities it declares racially biased.

File this under "Be careful for what you ask for".

References:

Federal government sues Ferguson, Missouri: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/02/10/federal-government-expected-to-sue-ferguson-missouri.html

Ferguson Bonds Downgraded: http://www.ericgarland.co/2016/01/27/ferguson-bonds-downgraded/

Ferguson Missouri Quick Facts: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/29/2923986.html

Crime Statistics for Ferguson, Mo: http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Ferguson-Missouri.html

You Can Buy a $1 Detroit Home. But Should You?: http://moneynation.com/can-buy-1-detroit-home/

United States Quick Facts: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

U. of Missouri Football Team Established A Dangerous Precedent

When the University of Missouri (aka Mizzou) football team decided to never take the field again until the President of the University Tim Wolfe was removed, it may have changed college football's role in campus politics forever.

Tim Wolfe's sin was that he presided over a predominately white campus where there  was a belief that racism and other sexual orientation biases were not being addressed.   How severe these charges were, I don't know.  Also, I don't know if these allegations are typical of life at other colleges and universities in the country.  Nor, do I know if there was truly inaction on the part of the university's President and administrative staff. But, whatever the case, football teams around the nation now know the power they can wield.

For that reason alone, expect more college football strikes in the future. Strikes for all varieties of grievances that can really hurt a university because of the steep revenues each college gets for their televised games.  Understand that the Mizzou football team generates nearly $85 million in annual revenues. 

Ultimately, colleges may be forced to pay their football players to avoid strikes.  When income is at stake, players will be less likely to walkout in mass.  Just my opinion.

References:

How the Missouri football team just took down its university president: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/11/09/missouri-football-players-and-the-untapped-political-power-of-the-college-student-athlete/

University of Missouri president and chancellor step down amid race row:  http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/09/us/missouri-football-players-protest-president-resigns/

What's Really Behind The December 23rd Protests In New York City

The graphic you see above was posted on a website of the organizers of the December 23rd protest march down New York City's 5th Avenue.  The organizers in this case were a group of individuals that call themselves the A.N.S.W.E.R Coalition.  The acronym A.N.S.W.E.R stands for Act Now to Stop War and End Racism. 

Now, while ending wars and stopping racism sounds like truly noble endeavors, the real reason this group exists is to try and divide Americans over issues such as race and war; and, in doing so, attempt to destroy the country as we know it.  The people who founded this group did so right after 9/11 and before we had even talked of invading Afghanistan.  Their motives were less about us going to war over 9/11 and more about the fact that we deserved what we got; and, as such, the people responsible for the horror of that day should not be punished with war.  The "coalition" they represent is pretty much pro-socialism and anti-capitalism;  pro-Palestinian/Muslim/Arab and anti-Israel; and, they all support the destruction of this capitalist society.  That is exactly why they chose 5th Avenue to march in protest.  5th Avenue is arguably the most pricey and prestigious street in the United States with some of the most expensive store fronts and shops in the world.  It symbolizes everything these people think is wrong with our country.  Specifically, wealth and capitalism.

So, whether or not the people marching in that protest knew it or not, they were participating in an event that was designed to fracture and weaken this country.  An attempt to pit Americans against the police.  To divide blacks against whites and the police.  And, for those who participated in that protest not knowing what A.N.S.W.E.R is all about, there's one name for them: Useful Idiots.

One last thing.  For those who think capitalism is bad and socialism good, ask yourself why there are only 4 remaining socialist countries in the world: Vietnam, Laos, North Korean, and Cuba.  Even China, which at one time was a hardcore communist nation, has evolved into a more and more capitalistic society by the day.   Gone are all the former union of Soviet satellites that were once socialist/communist because the way of socialism is oppressive and it literally breaks the human spirit of free will.

References:

ANSWER Coalition: Tuesday, Dec. 23 March Proceeding As planned: http://www.answercoalition.org/

A.N.S.W.E.R.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.N.S.W.E.R.

A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism): Profile By Stand4Fact.org: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/answerprofilestand.html

Fifth Avenue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Avenue

Useful idiot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

List of socialist states: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states

Because Obama Is Black?

Recently, a number of polls have been taken to see if race relations have improved since President Obama took office.  Polling that was mostly driven as a result of two Grand Jury decisions following the shooting of two unarmed black men.  A recent Bloomberg poll showed that 53% of Americans sampled believe that race relations have deteriorated since Obama was sworn in.  In a CBS poll, 46% of blacks and a total of 36% among all races thought race relations have worsened.

But, don't think that race relation have just recently turned downward because of the Grand Jury decisions. In 2013, an NBC/Street Journal poll found that, among whites, the belief that race relations had gotten "very bad" in this country has gone from 4% in January 2009 to 13% in July 2013.  In that same poll, the opinion among whites that race relations had become "fairly bad" went from 13% to 32% in the same relevant time frame.  Among blacks, the "very bad" answer went from 12% to 33% and, for the "fairly bad" question, the percentages rose from 18% to 25%.

So, why have race relations gotten so bad in just 6 years?  Obama was supposedly our first "post racial" President; thus implying that racism had to be pretty much nonexistent in America.

Well, I firmly believe that you can blame four words, "because Obama is black", for the deteriorating situation between the races.  Ever since Obama took office, his supporters, and he himself, have attempted to nullify any opposition to his policies by saying those four words.  If you don't believe it, just Google "because Obama is black" (link below) and you will finds hundreds, if not thousands, of links to stories where any number of Democrats, black leaders, celebrities, or the President himself, claim that any difference of opinion regarding everything from ObamaCare to Immigrant Amnesty is based on Obama's skin color.

Ultimately, this makes everyone angry. Blacks are angry because they believe the first black president is being unfairly treated because of his race, and whites are angry because they are being unfairly labelled as racists if they oppose Obama on anything.  

So, simply, the people who claim to want to improve race relations in this country are the ones hell-bent on destroying them by scapegoating the President's skin color, and are just using it as a political tool in the battle of left versus right in everyday Washington, D.C. politics.

References:

Bloomberg: Most Americans See Race Relations Worsening Since Obama's Election: http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-12-07/bloomberg-politics-poll-finds-most-americans-see-race-relations-worsening-since-obamas-election

CBS: POLL: Race Relations in U.S. at Low Not Seen Since 1990s: http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2014/12/10/poll-race-relations-in-u-s-at-low-not-seen-since-1990s/

IBD/TIPP poll: Obama Poisoned Race Relations In America: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/110314-724708-new-ibd-poll-shows-obama-poisoned-race-relations-in-america.htm

July 2013: NBC/Wall Street Journal poll: Page 14: Question: In general, do you think race relations in the United States are (ROTATE) very good, fairly good, f airly bad, or very bad?: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/A_Politics/_Today_Stories_Teases/130724-July-NBC-WSJ-poll.pdf

Post-racial America - Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-racial_America

Google search: because Obama is Black: https://www.google.com/search?q=because+obama+is+black&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=because+obama+is+black&safe=off&start=30

Where's The Punishment for the NBA and the NAACP Being Complicit In Sterling's Racism?

For years, the owner of the L.A. Clippers, Donald Sterling, was a known racist.

He was a slum landlord who had been sued multiple times because of racial discrimination. One time, even by the Justice Department where he lost and was ordered to pay $2.7 million in claim settlements, and another $4.9 million in reimbursement for court costs and attorney fees.  Yet, the NBA and the NAACP turned a blind eye to what they, now think, is abhorrent racist behavior.

Just as Sterling horrified the nation, so should they be horrified that the NBA and the L.A. chapter of the NAACP ignored his racism all those years.   Ironically the NAACP was about to honor Sterling with a second Black achievement award. Why aren't these two groups being asked to answer for this.  Instead, the NBA punishes Sterling to the maximum.  In my opinion, this over-the-top punishment is only being handed out to divert attention away from their complicity all these years. It is an obvious attempt to remove the tarnish on the NBA's image.  I would also expect the NAACP to return any moneys given to them by Sterling. If not it would only appear as if Sterling had purchased his coveted achievement awards.


Donald Sterling Bio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Sterling

Daily Mail: The True Don Sterling Story: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2616878/EXCLUSIVE-Donald-Sterling-stripped-bare-Disgraced-Clippers-boss-violent-bully-paraded-NAKED-kids-friends-calls-Christians-STUPID-whipped-son-belt-told-stop-eating-like-n-er.html

A Story Of Two Black Women Who Would Be Secretary Of State

When Senators McCain and Graham said they didn't consider Susan Rice a qualified candidate to be Secretary of State, the Democrats circled the wagons to protect Rice.  The women of the Congressional Black Caucus concluded that the McCain/Graham objections could only have been made on the basis of racism because no one is more qualified than Rice to hold the State Department's highest office.  After all she was a Rhodes Scholar.

Well, how easily those same women of the Congressional Black Caucus forget that another black woman by the name of Rice, Condoleezza, was similarly treated by the Senate Democrats when George Bush nominated her to be Secretary of State.  In fact, it wasn't just two senators who objected to Condoleeza's nomination. It was 13.  And, as far as being qualified, she was not only the youngest Provost at the prestigious Stanford University; she was the first minority in a world dominated by men.

So, you have to ask yourself why it is racist to potentially block Susan Rice's nomination when, in fact, no one made that same claim when Condoleezza was being nominated to that very same position?  Once again, with Democrats, racism is just another political tool.  If they were truly anti-racist, they would have afforded Condoleezza Rice the same arguments of racial protection that they are now affording Susan Rice.

Obama And Post-Racial Unhealing

When President Obama was elected, it was supposed to represent the final atonement for this country's sins of slavery, racism, and segregation.  He was referred to as the post-racial President; meaning that racism has now been put behind us.  However, Obama's term in office has only exacerbated the racial divide in this country.  The Democrats have used the Obama presidency to examine every word said or action done by Republicans for any signs of racism; whether real or, as in most cases, imagined.

This fact was never more apparent than during the RNC Convention. On a daily basis, liberal columnists at the New York Times, Washington Post, or at MSNBC managed to write something confirming that Republicans are all racists.  One MSNBC commentator said that minorities were being staged to be in front of the cameras so this "white guy" party would look like it was something that it wasn't: racially diverse.  Mike Elk, a labor journalist, tweeted: "Eastwood chair rant was RACIST, white man putting dirty words into mouth of black man like a puppet...".  MSNBC intentionally cut away from every minority speaker to insure that their audience only saw white people speaking at the Convention.  After Mia Love, a black woman, gave a rousing speech before the RNC conventioneers, her Wikipedia page was edited by some liberal; calling her a "house n**ger" and "dirty whore" who was a “total sell-out to the Right Wing Hate machine and the greedy bigots who control the GOP.”  Then, too, Chris Matthews said that every time "Chicago" was mentioned at the Convention, it was actually a super-secret GOP racist reference.

But, the Convention comments were no rare instances of calling out the GOP as racists. Over the years,  any criticism of this President has been labelled racist instead of constructive.  You can't even refer to Obama as being "cool" without it being racist.  This according to the Congressional Black Caucus.  Then there's the use of the term "ObamaCare".  It is considered by many liberals as a racial slur because it negatively refers back to a black man; rather than to the president who promoted it.  Then, there was this gem from Joe Biden.  Speaking before a nearly all-black audience, Biden said that Romney and Ryan want to "put y'all back in chains".

The real fact is that racism and slavery is alive and well in this country.  Unfortunately, it's alive and well in the Democrat party; the very party that claims to be non-racial.  The Democrats, for decades, have "kept" blacks as literal slaves by using racial tensions to insure that blacks cling to their party.  At every possible turn, the Democrats try to make Republicans look like racists.  If any black does stray away and become -- God help them -- a Republican, the Democrats keep them in check by assuring that they will, for ever more, be labelled as "uncle Toms" and "plantation slaves" or "house n**gers".  

In my opinion, Obama's election wasn't post-racial.  It has become hyper-racial.  Instead of celebrating the fact that the Republican party has become so diverse, the Democrats have done everything possible to damage or hide that diversity.  Obama has become a tool for the Democrats to throw racists labels around in a manner and frequency that they were unable to do before he was elected. 

When Did Disrespecting A President Become Racist? Oh, Only After Obama Got Elected!

On Friday, when a Daily Caller reporter interrupted an Obama speech with regard to changes to immigration, the left became outraged that their president would be so rudely treated.  On MSNBC that evening, Democrat strategist, Julian Epstein,  noted: "This is just so unprecedented and outrageous....We've never had a white president been told by the opposing party to shut up in the middle of a major address to the Congress. We've never had a President like this heckled so disrespectfully."

Then, too, on CNN,  Congressional Representative Elijah Cummings made this comment to Martin Bashir with regard to the Caller/Obama incident: "There has been a disrespect not only for the President but for the office of the president and that is very, very alarming…Our country is better than that. And I think a lot of the same thing is happening with our attorney general. These are two men who are doing an outstanding job but there are folks who just don’t like it. And they’ve never treated other folks like this, but here they are doing it to these gentlemen."  In further questioning, Cummings went on to agree with Bashir that the disrespect is, at least, partly racially motivated.

Ever since President Obama has taken office, any negativity towards him has been defined as both "unprecedented" and obviously "racist".  But, apparently, the left has all but forgotten the treatment of George W. Bush.  For example, while giving the 2005 State Of The Union Address, several Democrats of Congress booed and hissed at Bush during his speech.  Ted Koppel of ABC noted: "When the President talked about the bankruptcy of Social Security, there were clearly some Democrats on the floor who thought that that was taking it too far. And they did something that, apparently, no one at this table has ever heard before. They booed."  John Roberts, a then CBS reporter, made this comment: "At a couple points in this address, it looked more like the British Parliament than the United States Congress. I've never heard the minority party shout at the President during the State of the Union address."

Of course, the most disrespect that had ever been literally hurled at a U.S. President came when George Bush had a shoe thrown at him by an Iraqi reporter during a joint news conference:



Over the eight years that Bush was president, the left constantly disrespected him.   He had swastika's painted onto his portraits.  He was burned in effigy.  The internet comments were absolutely beyond just being hateful. Politicians called him a racist for not acting quickly during the New Orleans hurricane/flooding disaster.  And, in interview after interview, Democrat politicians constantly took aim at everything that Bush did.  If anything, the fears that someone might be called a racist has probably kept Obama from getting as much or more criticism than his predecessor had ever gotten.  Also, I think Democrats would be wise to remember: "What goes around, comes around."  And, it was their treatment of Bush that has for evermore changed the respect for whoever is President.  Race has nothing to do with it!

OK, Al Qaeda. You've Finally Gone Too Far!

I guess in the mind of Obama, Al Qaeda's killing of white people is just fine.

Up until yesterday, he literally choked on the word "terrorist" whenever he talked about radical Islam (Click here to See Story: President Obama, White House: Al Qaeda Is Racist). But no longer. Now, Al Qaeda has finally made it to Obama's shit list. In their killing of a few dozen black Africans in the Uganda bombings, the President has now seen fit to strike out at Al Qaeda by calling them a "terrorist organization" of "racists" who "do not regard African life as valuable in and of itself." He then went on to say: "They see it as a potential place where you can carry out ideological battles that kill innocents without regard to long-term consequences for their short-term tactical gains. " Though in this last comment, he may have been referring to the Republican Party.

Obviously, this now puts Al Qaeda in league with the Tea Party movement. If they had been smarter, they would have limited their killings to "crackers". That way they could have gotten a free pass from Holder's Justice Department; just like the New Black Panthers did. Now, I suppose, the Attorney General has no other choice but to issue an FBI warrant against Al Qaeda for committing a federal "hate crime".

Who's The Real Racist

Yesterday, an NBC reporter, Ms. Kelley O'Donnell, singled out a Black person at one of the many Tea Party rallies and asked, on camera, if he was "uncomfortable" in attending that rally - implying that, somehow, a black wouldn't be accepted by a bunch of white, racist Tea Partiers (Click to See Video).

But, who's the real racist here? A bunch of Tea Party members who will readily accept any like-minded person and who could care less what color they are? Or, the white liberal journalist, Kelley O'Donnell, who lives in a world, like so many other Democrats, where Blacks have been stereotyped and pigeon-holed as having only one place in life as a Progressive Liberal? And, apparently, find it unbelievable and, I assume, unacceptable for any Black to step outside this box that the Democrats have so self-servingly put them in. Thus casting Blacks as abunch of mindless automatons of the Democratic Party.

Another Worthless Frank Rich Hit Job

According to Frank Rich, an editorial writer for the New York Times, you are a racist if you object to ObamaCare. However, Frank apparently doesn't understand that ObamaCare is a fully color-blind system. Black or white, Hispanic or Asian, it will ultimately screw people over equally, by financial, and not racial, classes. Surely, the poorer of our society will benefit the most and, typically, these are minorities. However, the middle class and above, no matter what their race, will suffer greatly under the heavy hand of ObamaCare. They will suffer financially in higher premiums, taxes, and what they will have to pay for consumer products and, most importantly, in the quality of care that they receive. Those that are complaining know this to be true and they absolutely know where ObamaCare is taking this country. If they are mostly white, then its because whites make up 75% of our society.

However, what Frank doesn't seem to understand is that Obama had a near 70% approval rating when he took office and, at that same time, more than 65% of Americans wanted "change" to our health care system. Obviously, now, the tables have turned with most people viewing both him and his health care reform unfavorably. It's hard to believe that 30 to 40% of Americans suddenly became racists because they now hate ObamaCare. I think Frank would be better served looking at the true rationale for anger against ObamaCare and not quickly blame racial motives. Like Janeane Garofalo against the Tea Party movement, Frank is using race as an argument because he has no other rational way to defend this health care legislation. As I have stated before, racism is always the easy out when no one buys their B.S. But, like crying wolf, I think America is getting up to "here" with it. To Frank and other Democrats who constantly play the race card, I have to say that using race in this way is, in itself, racist.

Black Leadership's Blind Eye

The political left (including the President), black leadership figures such as Al Sharpton, and left wing organizations like the NAACP have come to the defense of Harry Reid after it was revealed that in 2008 he made the comment that Barack Obama will be President because he doesn't have a "Negro dialect."

Over the last five decades, African Americans in this county have worked to divorce themselves from the word "Negro" because of the fact that the word "nigger" was a slang that was derived from it. Blacks, themselves, use the word Negro typically as a derogatory term implying that someone is an Uncle Tom. Recently, there was a minor uproar when it was found that the new census forms contain a reference to that word as seen in this news story: (Click to See Full Story).

To me, the only people that are being hurt by this defense of Harry Reid are the Blacks themselves. They are weakening their defense against racial epithets by condoning this form of negative labeling from any white person -- especially one who is supposedly in the political leadership. More than anything, the defense of Reid clearly shows the hypocrisy of the left and the political polarity of Black Americans. They can argue all day that there isn't a double standard but this proves that there is. It proves it because they are willing to sacrifice the hard-fought battle against racial slurs in order to protect any Democrat. I think most Americans can see what is going on. For sure, the Blacks and political left have completely weakened their case against "racial bigotry" going forward by not taking Reid to task. In the future, screams of racism are probably going to fall on more deaf ears than there had been before the Reid flap. And, the Black leadership and the political left have only themselves to blame for it.

Lastly, if Harry Reid was so sensitive to Black causes -- as Obama and other Black leaders have implied -- he would have never even said the word "Negro" either publicly or privately. The fact that he did say it implies that it must be part of his vocabulary or, possibly, a Freudian slip that reveals only a pseudo-sympathy for Black civil rights. A pseudo-sympathy that is driven merely by politics of using Blacks to get the their vote. I believe that attitude is prevalent throughout the Democratic party.

In Just 6 Months, 25% Of America Became Racists

According to the likes of Jimmy Carter and other Democrats, opposition to Obama and his programs is "mostly" based on racism. So, then, I started to think about this.

In January almost 70% of America was polling for Obama. Now, there are some polls that have Obama's approval rating down to a mere 45%. That's a 25 point differential. Does that mean that, in 6 short months, 25% of the American population have suddenly become racists? This just shows how desperately disingenuous the Democrats are being in using race as the reason why Obama's policies are lacking support. As I have said before, racism is the left's argument of last resort.

Confused. Dazed. The Democrats Say That It Has To Be About Race!

In psychology, rationalization is a somewhat twisted mental exercise that completely ignores reality and tries to make sense out of things by using possible, but highly illogical reasons, for one's own actions or for the cause of something.

Right now the Democrats are in the process of trying to rationalize all the opposition against their plans for health care reform. They can't simply accept that all this anger in the Town Halls and elsewhere is because people don't like their plan. Instead, they have concluded (rationalized) that any and all opposition to ObamaCare and other Obama policies can "only" be about race. In their dazed and confused condition, the Democrats have come to the ultimate conclusion that, because Obama is a black President, people are really racist and automatically against his policies.

Psychologists believe this kind of mental exercise to be a defense mechanism that is based on some deep-seated and subconscious beliefs. In other words, those who seem to be using racism as a rationalized defense of something, might, in fact, be addressing their own subconscious guilt. A guilt of being a racist, themselves.

This derangement by some Democrats, to play the race card at the mere drop of a hat, does seem to be especially illogical if you look at the simple fact that many Democrats, themselves, are against the plans of the Democratic leadership and of Obama. Therefore, am I to assume, using their own racism defense, that many Democrats, too, are racists? Using that same twisted logic, are all those conservative Blue-Dog Democrats absolute racists for opposing ObamaCare?

The Democrats are playing with fire in constantly using race as the rationale behind everything this country does. And, I repeat, everything! This will only dilute the race argument to the point where people will stop listening; even when racism is a real problem.

On Sunday, that pillar of intelligence at the New York Times, Maureen Dowd, said that what she really heard last Wednesday night, when Joe Wilson said "You Lie", were the words "You Lie..boy". If that isn't seeing racism behind every tree, I don't know what is. Apparently, the term "boy" is clearly on her mind. Does that indicate some deep-seated guilt on her part? I don't know?

Joe Wilson said what he said because the Democrats had already blocked any attempted legislation that would exclude illegal immigrants from free health care as part of any health care reform bill. For Obama to say that no illegal aliens would get care under this health care reform plan was, in fact, a lie. While the bill in the House, HR3200, didn't specifically allow illegal aliens to get health care; it wouldn't exclude them, either. Maybe, if Joe Wilson had said "Yes it does!", he wouldn't have gotten into such trouble with the House of Representative's archaic rules on how to talk about the President in any in-session setting. But, then, poor Maureen Dowd would have still have thought that she had heard the words "Yes it does, boy!". And, there we'd go again!

One last thing. In yesterday's vote to rebuke Joe Wilson for what he said, a lot is being made of the fact the 6 Republicans also voted to rebuke him. Those 6 must not be racists. However, someone should also point out that 7 Democrats voted "against" the rebuke. I would suggest that somebody take a really hard look at those 7 Democrats. Because they sided with Wilson, they just might be racists, too!