Tyranny May Be Closer than We Think

American Thinker ^ | April 20, 2010 | Bob Weir

[neverdem]

When Barack Obama was elected President of the United States, I experienced ambivalence about a national election result for the first time in my life. In every other presidential election that ran counter to my vote, I felt that the winner didn't represent any advantage for the future of the country. When Jimmy Carter beat Gerald Ford, I braced myself for the liberal climate about to descend on us. When Clinton beat Bush 1, it meant that the country was willing to overlook the man's well-documented history of immoral conduct, which inevitably led to national disgrace. For me, neither of these victors provided anything salubrious for the country's future.

Although I voted for John McCain, and I believed that he was the better leader for our country, seeing the first African-American become the nation's chief executive gave me the feeling that we had finally crossed a threshold in race relations. After all, with blacks representing only about 12 percent of the population, a huge non-black turnout was needed for a black candidate to be elected. Winning by a comfortable margin seemed to make it clear that Obama's victory could result in less vitriol from race-baiters who had enriched their bank accounts by fulminating about the country's history of bigotry. Finally, we would no longer be urged to view everything through a prism of pigmentation. Hence, my ambivalence was an example of finding something good about being on the losing side of a national plebiscite.

I suppose you could say that I saw Obama's color as a consolation prize. His political philosophy of bigger government, more taxes, closing of Guantánamo Bay, Miranda rights for terrorists, etc. is an example of the type of liberal orthodoxy that has weakened the U.S. for more than a generation. However, it felt good to know that we had proven to the world that we are truly a melting pot.

Alas, that sentiment was short-lived. When the president insinuated last year that a black Harvard professor's arrest by a white police officer was racially motivated, it became clear that he wasn't interested in leading the country toward a colorblind society. Furthermore, Democrats have become more creative about finding racism in everyone who opposes this president. When the grassroots efforts of the Tea Party movement began to gain national attention, it became a target for accusations of racism. It's a typical red herring intended to divert attention from the president's massive power-grab known as ObamaCare, which will, in addition to destroying the best health care system on the planet, put an unsustainable debt burden on future generations. Does any rational person really believe that the majority of our citizens would be in favor of that medical monstrosity if it had been proposed by a white president?

Nancy Pelosi, the most arrogant and polarizing Speaker in the history of the House, dismissed the Tea Party as nothing more than "disheartened Republicans and racists, who could not accept a bi-racial man as president." Similarly, the mainstream media and Democrat activists, evidently taking their orders from the Speaker's office, tried to portray the health care debate as being based solely on President Obama's race rather than on the policies of an overreaching government. Therefore, we are in the bizarre position of having the first black POTUS, while being constantly scolded for being racist. Every word, gesture, and nuance is being parsed and magnified in a cynical attempt to scare non-blacks into a state of reticent acquiescence.

The left-wing lunatics realize that their days are numbered if they don't find a way to discredit the national movement that is poised for a landslide victory in November. They feel that the best way to accomplish that is to muzzle people by twisting their words until everything sounds racially motivated. Something as innocuous as "It'll be a dark day in America if ObamaCare is not stopped" could be interpreted as a reference to the man's skin color. It's a smart tactic because it restrains free speech and keeps the opposition on the defensive.

No decent person wants to be characterized as a bigot. So if such a charge is made, the victim of the accusation is forced to deny the slur and lose sight of the message he was trying to convey. Since it's impossible to prove a negative, the victim is often relegated to a series of contrite utterances where none should be needed. While good people are wasting time assuring the accusers that they are pure of heart, the issue that was germane to the discussion has disintegrated into a puff of fraudulent smoke.

The most potent weapon in a democracy is free speech; if we lose it because we were conned into adopting a morbid fear that our words are tantamount to subliminal racism, then tyranny is closer than we think. To quote our first president: "If free speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter."

Bob Weir is a former detective sergeant in the New York City Police Department. He is the executive editor of The News Connection in Highland Village, Texas. E-mail Bob. 

[neverdem]

The loathsome, lunatic, leftist utopians wants to inhibit free speech so they can impose more crackpot schemes upon us.

[kbennkc]

I can't believe every time someone wants to start an essay on B.Husein they have to remark how at first even though they voted for McCain they got warm and moist thinking about the first black POTUS . What racialist nonsense. If you didn't know by the time of the election what this guy was , you are as dumb as Bill O Reilly , “ Oh I don't think he is a socialist .He seems like a centrist to me “ or Chris Matthews : “ Barack was so good I forgot he was black “ .

[Fred Nerks]

VIDEO (MAKE THIS GO VIRAL): Black tea partiers surprised to find they’re not “really” black.
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/04/19/video-black-tea-partiers-surprised-to-find-theyre-not-really-black/comment-page-1/#comments ^ | 04/20/10 | Allahpundit

Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2010 2:13:54 PM by American Dream 246

VIDEO!

[TheBlueMax]

"No decent person wants to be characterized as a bigot. So if such a charge is made, the victim of the accusation is forced to deny the slur and lose sight of the message he was trying to convey.

I disagree. We conservatives have, for the past 30 years, been forced to "prove" that we are not racists. In my opinion, when being accused of being such, our response should be "Prove it", and pay no attention. We get suckered into this trap all too frequently.

[Psalm 144]

I voted for the black guy in the primary.

My black guy was Alan Keyes.

He told me everything I needed to know about BO, just from the BAIPA narrative. Everything else we have learned about the wretch is merey supplemental information.

I am with you. I had zero warm and fuzzies after the election, just a need to vomit.

[SaraJohnson]

I ain’t shuttin’ up now matter what violence the hate-left commies incite. I will not obey communism.

[TigersEye]

...seeing the first African-American become the nation's chief executive gave me the feeling that we had finally crossed a threshold in race relations.

That is so shallow.

However, it felt good to know that we had proven to the world that we are truly a melting pot.

That is really really shallow.

[Darkwolf377]

I can't believe every time someone wants to start an essay on B.Husein they have to remark how at first even though they voted for McCain they got warm and moist thinking about the first black POTUS . What racialist nonsense.

Not at all. Considering the nation's history of racial problems, I don't see a problem with this. Deny it all you want, racial problems were and are an issue in this country, and seeing someone from a minority ethnicity--an ethnicity that was once considered beneath the dominant one--graduating to the presidency is a major damned deal. The only problem is not with this entirely understandable feeling, but with the fact that the INDIVIDUAL who attained this level is so fundamentally flawed.

One can claim that marvelling over a black man becoming president is, in that tiring leftist-favored classification, "racialist." Those who live in the real world can objectively admit that yeah, it IS a big deal to have a black president in this country.

Too bad at the same time we got the most socialist at the same time.

[pandoraou812]

Yes it is. I don’t see how it proves we are a melting pot. We already were & are & 0 has nothing to do with that. Shaking my head again as usual!

[TigersEye]

Exactly. A black man could have easily been elected any time in the last 30 years if the right man had run. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton were never and will never be the right kind of man to hold high office.

[dsc]

“We conservatives have, for the past 30 years, been forced to “prove” that we are not racists. In my opinion, when being accused of being such, our response should be “Prove it”, and pay no attention.”

Absolutely right, with the minor quibble that I think it’s time to get a lot more assertive about it.

Rather than, “Prove it,” I think we need a response along the lines of, “You’re a lying sack of s*** and a domestic enemy of the Constitution, you loathsome traitor.”

It is long past time for decent people to realize that, when dealing with scumbags, civility is just a self-imposed handicap.

Are we just going to let the brownshirts beat us up like that couple in New Orleans?

[unspun]

It's nice to see people waking up.

Now, someone should tell the writer about Oath Keepers (see upper right side of this page).

[pandoraou812]

At least Jackson & Sharpton would have had real birth certificates even if they weren’t the right men to hold a high office. I wouldn’t have voted for either of them but at least they could prove they were born here.

[liberalism is suicide]

I have no problem with a President being black. I do have a problem with a President being a Red(whether he’s a party member or not).

[melsec]

For a great number of Obama voters it was about race. I cannot blame a black person for wanting to vote for the first Black President. However despite the evidence that indeed he has Marxist policies and seems to be happy to work his way around the constitution people still continue to make it about race - as far as I am concerned that is racist!

Mel

[highlander_UW]

When the president insinuated last year that a black Harvard professor's arrest by a white police officer was racially motivated, it became clear that he wasn't interested in leading the country toward a colorblind society.

It wasn't just that Obama accused the police officer of being a racist but that he admitted he had no evidence whatsoever to go by...so Obama's only basis of making such an accusation was race itself...and as it turned out, it was Obama who proved to be the racist, not the police officer.

[NTHockey]

>>I ain’t shuttin’ up now matter what violence the hate-left commies incite. I will not obey communism.<<

My sentiments exactly. My father was blackballed for three years in NYC for contesting a union election that he lost by 10 votes - even though 25 more people voted than were members. For those three years, lean ones to be sure, the FBI made regular visits. Bottom line, nine officials of the union were convicted if being Communists and deported. My dad wouldn’t bow to Communism and I can do no less.

[kbennkc]

Not at all. Considering the nation's history of racial problems, I don't see a problem with this. Deny it all you want, racial problems were and are an issue in this country

I acknowledge the nations history on race has terrible chapters that have consequences of incredible import to us today , racism is still a huge problem .

I know some people think it is progress just to have a black President . While totally different , I also see how some people see benefit in affirmative action programs , might feel it may actually improve relations .

I find repugnant the concept that , even if he is terrible for America his election makes people feel good . What is that appeasement and condescension ? I believe there should be no preference by government or by private individuals regarding governmental activities based on the race of that individual .

Today , racism is still a huge problem . Maybe I can not state my position clearly without imposing on you to answer a question . Is voting based on a candidates race moral ? We know people's ability and right to vote for anyone on the ballot for any reason or no reason of their own .

I think voting based on race is racist and wrong . If the election was largely characterized by votes cast based on race , We are a long way from the day of celebrating the selection based on content of character not color of skin .

The strongest conclusion that can be drawn is that a great many white people voted without regard to race and almost all black people voted solely because of it . We are not able to credit whites who ignored race and can never mention the immorality of those voting because of it .

[Darkwolf377]

I think voting based on race is racist and wrong

Me too. Has nothing to do with what I posted, though, which is that one would have to be made of stone not to acknowledge that when a black person achieves a "first" in this country it can't be recognized as in itself a momentous occassion. Recognizing that is not condoning anything.

I don't think Obama won because people voted for him because he's black. I think Obama won because most people who voted for him fell for his charisma and "post-partisan" bull, and/or wanted a change from Bush and/or liked his liberalism. I don't think he won because he's black.

[FreedomPoster]

I have taken to saying that collegiality is completely overrated, and Republicans need to get well beyond it.