Today Is A Day To Honor

One of our great Americans, Martin Luther King, Jr. So much has been written about him, there is little for me to add. His life, his work, made, and continues to make, a tremendous impact on our country. Our nation is better for him having lived, for his words, his actions, and his example.

The day would not be complete without seeing the following video, one of the greatest speeches of the Twentieth Century, to be sure:



Martin Luther King, Jr., said:

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.

Amen to that. I can only add, may the same be true regardless of gender, sexual orientation, and physical ability.

What a great man. What a great leader, choosing love over violence. How much we can learn from him still.

If I may, while honoring a great man, I would also like to honor the victims of the tragedy in Tucson. The last victim, Gabe Zimmerman, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' aide, will have his memorial service today. From all accounts, service was a driving force behind this young man's life.

And in death, the family of Christina Taylor Green, chose life. With a tremendous act of love, they chose to have Christina's organs donated. What a gift, what compassion, that even in their suffering, they were able to look beyond themselves, knowing that Christina's senseless death could restore health, restore life, to someone in need. As someone whose mother's life was extended over 20 years by the gift of a liver, I cannot overstate what a loving, kind, gift this was to the families who will have their loved one with them longer as a result. What an act of love, what a gift.

Those lost were: Gabe Zimmerman, Judge John Roll, Christina Taylor Green, Phyllis Schneck, Dorwin Stoddard, and Dorothy Morris. Each of these people had stories that would make your heart break, some that would make you laugh. To hear their stories, you remember, once again, how different we are, yet so much the same, with great experiences, joys, and sorrows. They lived - they lived their lives. And they were all, each one of them, loved.

For the families, friends, and loved ones of all who died that day, this is for you. I hope it brings even a little comfort:



Amen, and amen...

While We Were Distracted This Week With Faux Outrage Over Rhetoric

What did we miss in the news? Well, a bunch of things, actually. And perhaps this is why this whole ginned up "civility" discussion has been the primary focus of the talking heads.

I hasten to add, the stories of the six victims in Tucson, Judge John Roll, Christina Taylor Green, Giffords Aide Gabe Zimmerman, Phyllis Schneck, Dorwin Stoddard, and Dorothy Morris, need to be held in the fore, our prayers going out to their families. The continued updates regarding Rep. Giffords miraculous improvements, as well as the condition of the other 13 injured, is also important to keep in the fore.

But here are some of the things you may have missed. Amy Siskind of The New Agenda had a very interesting post about Obama, and the number of women in his cabinet/inner circle. Bottom line, it is low, as her post, "After Arizona, Will Obama Learn to Include Women?" indicates:

[snip] Yes, just as I was snapping to, Air Force One would be landing back in D.C. Senator Gillibrand and Congresswomen Wasserman Schultz and Pelosi would deplane and return to their 17% minority. President Obama would be head back to the White House — or should I say, the “fraternity house”: his inner-circle is composed almost exclusively of men.

Yes, to the president’s credit, he did appoint two women to the Supreme Court. That’s the end of the good news for women. Here’s the bad news:

* Obama’s cabinet picks are just 25% women.

* Obama’s czars are only 12% women.

* No women have leadership roles in running our country’s economy.

* Obama has only one woman in his inner-circle: Valerie Jarrett.

[...]

Paradoxically, Speaker Boehner in his opening days seems quite comfortable with women. One of his first symbolic gestures: to build a women’s restroom near the House floor. Next, Boehner shocked even me: he officially endorsed a woman for RNC chair (Maria Cino). And here’s a prediction: Boehner’s ability to cry in public will make it easier for women candidates to do the same in the future. Hey — I gotta admit — although I agree with Speaker Boehner on very few issues, I like the guy! He walks the walk for women on the right.

[...]

So I say this to our president: yes, let’s live up to the dreams of Christina Green, the nine-year-old who was tragically and senselessly killed in the Arizona shooting. The girl who was interested in politics and therefore came to see Congresswoman Giffords, Arizona’s only female representative in the U.S. House or Senate. Why don’t we have more women in leadership for girls like Christina to see and model after? And President Obama, what will YOU do to live up to her expectations? (Click HERE to read the rest.)

Yes, I can see why so many "feminists" wanted to support Obama over Hillary Clinton. He is SO good on the women's equality issue - not.

But wait, there is more. Once again, LGBT groups are unhappy with Obama. Yes, yes, I know he signed the bill to repeal DADT, but he did blessed little to get that to come about, and did exactly what I thought he would do - have it in the Lame Duck session so he could blame the Republicans in case it didn't pass.

Well, that is exactly what he did in terms of DOMA, but not before his Justice Department did this:

Supporting DOMA: Gay rights advocates are criticizing the Obama Justice Department after its attorneys filed a court motion Thursday in support of the Defense of Marriage Act despite the president's view that the law should be repealed.

[...]

The Justice Department says it's obligated to defend U.S. policy regardless of the president's personal beliefs. The department made the same case after it had to, awkwardly, fight a judge's ruling against "don't ask, don't tell" in the months before it was repealed by Congress.

But that's no salve to the gay rights community, which has called on the administration to show more resolve against laws like DOMA. [snip]

And it is not true, either. Other Administrations have stood up to laws they thought were un-Constitutional, not continuing to defend them, as the Obama Administration has done repeatedly with DOMA. Indeed, it continues in that same vein in this filing:

[snip] "All families deserve the recognition and respect of their government. We know the president supports us. It's time for him to help lead the American public toward full equality for all Americans," Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese said in a statement. The gay rights group said the Justice Department should at least "acknowledge that the law is unconstitutional."

It does not. In its filing, Justice Department attorneys said the law was "not unconstitutional under this court's binding precedent." The Justice Department argued that the law "reflects Congress's reasonable response to this still-evolving debate among the states regarding same-sex marriage."

Why Solmonese, that Hillary Clinton backstabber, continues to act all insulted is beyond me, but I will spare you my diatribe on him this time around.

But here's what I knew would happen with Obama:

[snip] "The Department of Justice has long followed the practice of defending federal statutes as long as reasonable arguments can be made in support of their constitutionality, even if the administration disagrees with a particular statute as a policy matter, as it does here," the brief said.

"Indeed, the president supports repeal of DOMA and has taken the position that Congress should extend federal benefits to individuals in same-sex marriages. But a consensus behind that approach has not yet developed, and Congress could properly take notice of the divergent views regarding same-sex marriage across the states," it said.

[...]

He told a gay-and-lesbian magazine last month that while a repeal of DOMA may not be possible, particularly with Republicans in control of the House, "that's something that I think we have to strategize on over the next several months." (Click HERE to read the rest.)

Yep, like I expected, Obama will blame the Republicans if it doesn't get changed now. The Democrats were in control of the entire Congress for FOUR years, and now it is all the Republicans fault...(Civility? Oh, that is only for Conservatives, not Democrats.)

Here is a whopper of what came out this week. It was foretold by none other than Sarah Palin back in November when the government was looking to buy more bonds:

"All this pump priming will come at a serious price. And I mean that literally: everyone who ever goes out shopping for groceries knows that prices have risen significantly over the past year or so. Pump priming would push them even higher. And it's not just groceries. Oil recently hit a six month high, at more than $87 a barrel. The weak dollar -- a direct result of the Fed's decision to dump more dollars onto the market -- is pushing oil prices upward."

I intentionally withheld the title of that article: "What Sarah Palin Gets Wrong About Inflation." And that would be what, exactly? Haven't all of those things, along with foreclosures setting another record high in 2010, and an increase in unemployment claims, come to pass? Yes.

In that same article, though, there was this (condescending) response:

[snip] Sudeep Reddy of The Wall Street Journal pointed out that Palin didn't seem to be quite up on what's been going on with inflation. In fact, he noted, grocery prices haven't risen that much. "The consumer price index's measure of food and beverages for the first nine months of this year showed average annual inflation of less than 0.6%, the slowest pace on record (since the Labor Department started keeping this measure in 1968)." [snip]

Hey, Reedy - guess which one of you is wrong here? I'll give you a hint - it is not Palin. No need to take my word for it. Here is Stuart Varney discussing this issue:



These are just a few of the issues that have been going on this week (I know, Daley came onboard on Friday, but the massacre on Saturday pretty much knocked that way down, as it should have). Women still are underrepresented, Obama's Justice Department is still targeting gay people, and we are increasingly in an economic world of hurt.

We cannot forget the victims of last week's shooting, but nor can we allow ourselves to allow the political smoke and mirrors to distract us from what else is going on in our country.

What else happened this week that was low on the media totem pole? Consider this an Open Thread.

They Got JUST What They Wanted

Once again, revising history, and having their baseless meme become the theme of the week. That would be the Left, beginning with "Heckuva Job" Sheriff Dupnik, who kicked off the "report" of the shootout in Tucson as being the result of rhetoric.

Oh, yes, you may not know this, but President Obama called Sheriff Dupnik to thank him. I just bet he did, since Sheriff Dupnik got the ball rolling blaming Gov. Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and other Conservatives, for this heinous crime. There continues to be no evidence whatsoever that rhetoric had anything to do with this - in fact, quite the opposite.

Surprisingly, though, some of the bigger media outfits refuse to correct the original unsubstantiated claims against Palin, et. al. I am not kidding. People like George Stephanopoulos refuses to issue a correction. Sadly, pathetically, he is not alone. How about this one:

[snip] CNN’s Piers Morgan, who takes over longtime television newsman Larry King’s timeslot next week, tweeted, “This now deleted image from Sarah Palin website will be reason this terrible shooting has huge political ramifications,” linking the map Palin made of targeted congressional districts for the 2010 midterm elections. [snip}

Or this from Candy Crowley to Dick Durbin:

[snip] CNN’s State of the Union anchor Candy Crowley asked Senator Majority Whip Dick Durbin, Illinois Democrat, “I guess that the undertow — and certainly it’s not an undertow on the Internet — but the undertow with politicians now speaking publicly is, well, the Republicans and the Tea Party and Sarah Palin have gone way too far in their rhetoric; it’s been violent rhetoric, and therefore this sort of thing happens. Are you making that direct connection?”

She asked Durbin that in response to Durbin saying, “we live in a world of violent images and violent words, but those of us in public life and the journalists who cover us should be thoughtful in response to this and try to bring down the rhetoric, which I’m afraid has become pervasive in our discussion of political issues. The phrase ‘don’t retreat, reload,’ putting crosshairs on congressional districts as targets, these sorts of things, I think, invite the kind of toxic rhetoric that can lead unstable people to believe this is an acceptable response. And I think that we all have an obligation, both political parties — and let me salute the senior senator from Arizona, John McCain, whose statement yesterday was clear and unequivocal that we are not accepting this kind of conduct as being anywhere near the mainstream.” [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

Uh, yeah. Way to walk back this fallacious meme there, George, Candy, and Piers.

Yet now, "Civility" has become the catch phrase of the week, used by Obama in the so-called "Memorial Service" on Wednesday night. Yes, it is being used as a way not to encourage civil debate, but to stifle any debate at all.

This is quite a coup. Especially as the House is getting ready to begin a new session, with their first order of business being the repeal of Obamacare. Now the discussion by the pundits is how the Republicans are going to handle this, will everyone be separated at the State of the Union, or will they break with tradition and sit all together, and on, and on, and on.

I am not opposed to civility in the least. I am a Southerner, after all, and many of us do still have manners down here. We know it is better to bite our tongues sometimes instead of giving a tongue lashing. But that is done out of respect, not out of a desire to censor. It seems to me that what is going on post-Tucson is more of the latter, than the former, especially given the way the entire discussion (if one can call baseless, horrendous allegations a "discussion"). For some reason, it only seems to apply to one side. Guess which one? Again, that is not being civil, that is silencing - there is a world of difference.

Speaking of Obama's campaign speech in Tucson, I have to say this. I am beyond disgusted that the whole event has been framed as being about HIM, about what he will say, will this bump up his approval numbers, etc., etc. This service was SUPPOSED to be in honor of those whose lives were senselessly taken from them. Not about President Obama and if he could take yet another shot at "defining" his presidency. Because you know Fort Hood didn't count.

And not that it should - I don't think ANY funeral/memorial service should be used for this kind of political gain. It is disturbing how so many are comparing this speech to Clinton's Oklahoma City bombing speech, a clear ideological attack on our government. Or Bush's speech after 9/11, a clear, orchestrated, attack on our country. This heinous crime was neither of those things. Rather, it was the actions of one deranged man, who, by all accounts, had no ideological gripe.

Obama is getting praise heaped upon him for taking advantage of this horrible shooting by giving a campaign speech. Sarah Palin, on the other hand, the primary target of Paul Krugman, Keith Olbermann, DailyKos, and too many other personalities and blogs to list here., is getting nothing but scathing attacks for her attempt to defend herself from these scurrilous attacks. She is not supposed to speak out, she is not supposed to respond, she is supposed to shut up and go away. That was the point of these baseless assertions in the first place, to so discredit her, to claim, as Michael Daly did, that she had "Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' blood on her hands..."

Ah, yes - so civil this discourse from the Left.

This is so disturbing to see how this tragedy has been shaped. My ridiculous "representative," Jim Clyburn, had the audacity to play the race card in putting down Sarah Palin's response. Oh, yes he did, and he was sexist to boot:

[snip] "You know, Sarah Palin just can't seem to get it, on any front. I think she's an attractive person, she is articulate," Clyburn said on the Bill Press radio show. "But I think intellectually, she seems not to be able to understand what's going on here."

"I have some experiences that maybe she does not have," he said. "When I see and hear things today that are reminiscent of that period of time, I am very, very concerned about it, because I know what it led to back then, and I know what it can lead to again." [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

Wow. Let me just say, Clyburn is by far NOT the sharpest knife in the drawer, so for him, of all people, to make that assertion about Palin is just laughable. Clyburn continues to stoke the flames that the Tucson shooting had anything to do with Palin at all. That is not just wrong-headed, it is plain wrong to incite people against someone based on lies, rumor, and innuendo. Clyburn is the worst kind of "offender," too, attacking her for her rhetoric while not minding his own. What a piece of work he is.

But Clyburn got what he wanted, with Obama's willing assistance - to transform this tragedy to essentially be a put down of Sarah Palin, and conservatives in general. The media is their willing accomplice, from Fox to MSNBC (not surprisingly, the viewers of MSNBC are far more likely to believe Palin, et. al, ARE responsible for what happened to Rep. Giffords and the other victims. And they claim Fox is biased? Spare me.).

To think this all started by an unprofessional sheriff placing blame where it didn't belong, and a bunch of opportunists jumping on the bandwagon. Wow. And no amount of facts to the contrary will alter THEIR rhetoric. That is unethical, immoral, cruel, offensive, and hypocritical. But they got their way, so what do they care?

At least the majority of Americans see through this political ploy, yet it continues to be played up to the hilt by the media, and the politicians. Unfortunately, they are the ones with the loudest voices, and they won't leave this alone until we all accept their lie as the truth...

The Memorial Service That Wasn't, And Celebrations

Wednesday night's Memorial Service for the victims of Jared Loughner's shooting rampage was widely framed as being a "defining" moment of Obama's presidency. I am not sure why that was the meme, which continues to be perpetuated the day after, but there it is. For some reason, the service for the fallen soldiers gunned down by Major Hasan, was not. No, this one was compared to Bill Clinton and the Oklahoma City bombing, and George W. Bush after 9/11. Neither of those is a true comparison, IMHO. If anything, George W. Bush speaking to the nation at Virginia Tech after the horrible massacre there would be a better comparison.

Regardless, this should not have been all about Obama. It SHOULD have been about the victims whose lives were lost, and those who continue to overcome their gunshot wounds, particularly Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

But no. The Memorial Service was not so much a service as it became a pep rally, even a campaign rally. I have conducted a number of memorial services in my life, and I can say that none of them have had a slogan like, "Together We Thrive." Nor have there ever been any "souvenir" t-shirts handed out to the first 20,000 mourners. Neither has there been hooting and hollering, booing (of Gov. Jan Brewer when she took the stage), or a eulogy interrupted by applause and whistles. Nope, nary a one.

Now some folks have said that the locale was to blame, and one commentator (Allyson Camerota) who said the room just seemed to get away from Obama, that he, too, seemed surprised by the responses. Well, here's the thing. Rather than allowing them to dictate how the service would go, and falling back into his campaign-speech mode, one would think the Leader of the Free World could lead. HE could have demonstrated the appropriate manner in such a service. He could have asked for people to please hold their applause. There are any NUMBER Of things he could have done. That is the responsibility of the person at the podium (or pulpit). Ministers deal with it all the time - President Obama could, too.

Instead, one of the most played moments is his intoning, "And Gabby opened her eyes. {PAUSE} Gabby opened her eyes." Now, that is an amazing occurrence, and one of the Celebrations to which I am referring in the title of this post. It is fantastic news. I am DELIGHTED that she is making that kind of progress, What a miracle, what a blessing, what a gift that must have been to her husband and friends as they spent time with her. Here is Obama describing what happened:



But Obama did not cause that to happen. It was not about HIM. It was about HER. Rather than allowing that newsflash to fill the room, Obama slipped into his campaign mode. That was unfortunate.

I don't know who chose the venue, I don't know whose big idea it was to make this a Slogan/t-shirt moment, and who PAID for those t-shirts (us??), but I do know whose responsibility it was to infuse the service with a sense of decorum, and that was the speakers, particularly President Obama.

In comparison, and I admit I did not watch this at the time because you know I was NOT a fan of George Bush, I felt compelled to see how Bush responded to the massacre at Virginia Tech in 2007. In my opinion, this is an appropriate way for a president to act at a memorial service:



It was good that Obama made the comment he did about civility in discourse. I hope his own people are listening. As I reflect on all that happened with his campaign, and then his Administration from 2007 on, I am just a bit skeptical. And it was good that he affirmed this horrible tragedy was not the least bit connected to discourse, but even doing so continues to make the connection that never existed in the first place.

I still do not know why this was supposed to be about Obama, since the focus should have been the six lives that were lost that fateful Saturday. I do not know how it became a pep (campaign) rally, and I find that unfortunate. It sullies whatever good things may have been in Obama's speech by his demeanor, and that of the crowd. It was not a Memorial Service, that is for sure. And that is unfortunate.

But there is some good news from Wednesday. Rep. Giffords did open her eyes, moved her arm, her leg, and seemed to be aware of what was going on around her. That is exceptional news, and gives us all hope that she will recover from this horrible attack.

Another celebration occurred in the State of South Carolina when we swore in our first woman, and first minority, governor. Yes, Nikki Haley, all of 38 years old, took the oath of office on Wednesday. Her husband was by her side in full dress uniform (he is an Army officer). Expectations are high for our first woman governor, and so far, she has not disappointed in her choice of cabinet members, including an African American woman, Lynne Rogers, to run the Probation, Parole, and Pardon department. (Photo credit: AP Photo/Mary Ann Chastain)

SC is not alone, though. New Mexico, and the nation, got its first Latina governor, Susana Martinez this week. Oklahoma also got its first woman governor this year, Mary Falin.

Congratulations to all three women, and to the states whom they will serve. It's about damn time.

What Is Time's Mark Halperin Smoking, and Palin Speaks Out **UPDATED**

There is no need to rehash the numerous assaults on Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, or those lumped together and labeled "Conservatives" (presumably, anyone who does not have a LD - Lefty Democrat - after their name), in the wake of the Tucson shooting. From the very first press conference with Sheriff Dupnik, rhetoric, presumably only conservative rhetoric, was blamed for this horrible tragedy. Many, many blogs, news organizations, and pundits, including the economist, Paul Krugman, jumped on the "Blame Palin!!!" bandwagon (though Mr. Krugman might do well to stick to his area of expertise). Yes, even as they claim, "we don't have any evidence to support this yet, BUT it is all Palin and Limbaugh and Beck's fault..."

Indeed, we have heard it all, from my ridiculous representative Jim Clyburn calling for the restoration of "The Fairness Doctrine," which isn't all that fair, to calls for limited Freedom of Speech (who gets to decide what can and cannot be said?), to insisting Palin used "Crosshairs!!!" on her map, akin to the bullseye used by the Democrats, but essentially meaningless in a culture that frequently uses military imagery ("war room," "marshal our forces," "hit the target," etc.) as common parlance, particularly in the political arena. We heard it over and over again: it is all the fault of Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, Beck et.al, that this heinous act was committed in Tucson.

After all these blatantly false charges have been levied, what does Time Magazine's Mark Halperin think Palin and the Conservatives should do about these offensive comments being hurled their way? Turn the other cheek. That's right, he thinks they should do nothing about it, not stand up for themselves, not defend themselves, not retort, not say a peep. Ah, yes - that Freedom of Speech thing gets another gratuitous hit from those in the media.

Now I know people might think, me being a minister type and everything, that I would concur with Halperin's assessment. I do not. There is such a thing as disparaging another person's character, abusing them with words, bullying them, all of which has happened in the public arena, with the mindless assistance of the MSM. For someone to then expect that person, in this case, Palin, to just take it, remain silent, be mute, is an insult to the divine within the person who has been maligned. No victim of abuse, of lies, of rumor and innuendo, should be expected to take the abuse silently. No one. And that is just what he is asking Palin to do.

Thankfully, Palin refused to accept the silencing Halperin (and others) wanted to impose upon her. No. This morning, Governor Palin made a statement regarding the recent tragedy in Tucson, and the attempts to connect her to the actions of a madman:



Well said. And a very measured response, I might add. No wonder they are so afraid of her.

But of course, those on the Left are not happy with this statement, oh no. Piling on with Halperin is former Clinton/Gore advisor, Peter Mirijanian, who just this morning attacked this statement because Palin didn't APOLOGIZE for what happened in Tucson. Not only that, she waited too long to come out with a statement (I guess he missed that she said she took time to reflect on the tragedy that had occurred). Most importantly, though, she didn't grovel for forgiveness for the actions of someone who took matters into his own hands out of his own mental illness.

Again - there has been ZERO connection between what Loughner did in Tucson and ANY political rhetoric. None. Absolutely none. Yet that is not stopping some of these folks from continuing to demand Palin apologize.

But apologize for what? Seems to me, they are demanding that she apologize for her very existence. And once she has done that, she needs to be quiet, and just go away.

This is the same thing they did to Hillary Clinton, by people in her own party. This is the same thing too many women in this country endure: the powers-that-be wanting to silence us. If there is any correlation between what happened to Giffords and Sarah Palin, it is that they are both strong, outspoken women. And for that, Giffords has paid a horrendous price, though one from which we all hope and pray she recovers (thank HEAVENS doctors now think her survival is guaranteed).

Palin is paying a price, too, at the hands of those who claim they are now speaking out for civility. In their very claims, they are being uncivil, leveling false charges against a political opponent in an attempt to silence, demean, destroy her. But she will not be silenced. And for that, I salute her.

So, what do you think? Is Mark Halperin smoking something? What did you think of Palin's statement? Is it a leap to make this about women? Let's hear it!

UPDATE: So while those on the left are sanctimoniously calling for more "civility" in language, would you like to guess what the result has been of their followers toward Sarah Palin? If you guessed DEATH THREATS, you would be right. Below is a video compilation of some of the threats Palin has received. I warn you - this is NOT for the faint of heart:



Such "civil discourse," indeed. This is just frightening. Talk about "unhinged" (President Clinton) and ratcheting up political discourse. If something happens to Sarah Palin, will Markos be apologetic? Arianna Huffington? Sheriff Dupnik?? Yeah, I didn't think so, either...