As we all know, liberals throw around the charge "racism" like rice at a wedding. I maintain this is because never in their lives have they seen actual racism. They just think they see it, hair-triggering at easy, perceived targets without any thought. Like overzealous hunters who have been in the woods for days and WANT to see a deer so badly they start mentally manufacturing them: "Oh! I see one! I see one!" when they are clearly not there. Liberals have co-opted the term (something they are experts at; rather than think through an argument, they just co-opt terms), "racism". I guess they figured they used it so much, why not? Now, in the year 2009, the word racism does not mean what it used to mean. It now means "someone a liberal disagrees with".

Take the sad case of former President Jimmy Carter. (That feels so odd to write). He and his ilk are running around saying if you dare, if you DARE to disagree with, question, or just want some clarification on The Anointed One's murky policies, you, of course, of course, of course a million times, are...wait for it...a RACIST!!!!!!! They finally GOT one! Alert the media! No, they are already on high alert.

There are so many things wrong with this line of thinking it's hard to know where to start. I'll run down a few of the most obvious. The following is by no means a complete list.

1. Consider the source. This is coming from JIMMY CARTER. Why is everyone stopping what they are doing to listen to the worst president in history (to date...we've got someone anxiously following his great model now). Liberals, obviously longing for the days of gas lines, high unemployment and inflation and hostage crises, are slavishly taking notes as their guru spouts his wisdom.

2. Carter himself could genuinely be charged with racism, in the form of anti-Semitism. His policies regarding Israel and the Jews have been abhorrent, and from his presidency well into the present day, he hasn't stopped hating the Jews and railing against the state of Israel. Maybe that's why Carter is so in tune with the notion of racism. Takes one to know one.

3. During the campaign, we never stopped hearing admonitions of "If we don't elect Obama, the country is racist". Well, we elected him. That wasn't enough. We're still racist. The shouters during the 2008 presidential campaign never mentioned that at the time. See, that's what liberals do. They are constantly changing their standard. No one can measure up. They're so busy crying "racism" all the time they've forgotten what it means. I hope an actual racist never comes along. They'd be the boy who cried racist.

4. Obama is half black and half white. That never enters into the racist-accuser's agenda. Besides being totally against his policies, I'm also against his white half. (?) But, you know, being racist against whites is A-OK in their book. It never even occurred to them.

5. And finally, my trump card. According to the idiots without a coherent argument, if you are against Obama's policies, you are a racist. By that logic -- following their OWN logic -- we have to LIKE everything he does solely because of his race. Isn't THAT a racist policy? Preferring someone because of their race is racism. I just get the idea that Carter doesn't really even know his policies all that well. But if you dare to be against them, you are automatically graded "racist" like beef is graded "A". You know, with a big, immediate stamp. They only do that because they like to think there is no comeback to that. There is. The truth.

In the 4th Century BC, Hippocrates wrote "First do no harm". When he originally wrote his famous oath, he couldn't possibly have ever imagined he would be contending with Obama, Pelosi and the Democrats.

Democrats won't be subject to the same system of health care that they propose the rest of the country use. That's because the official seal of  the liberal is a picture of a weasel with the words in Latin, "Do as I say, not as I do". The life of a liberal is one that is constantly fighting against common sense. This uphill, against-the-stream conflict is why they love being a liberal so much. They love that conflict. It's a psychological problem, we all know. If some people have no conflicts in their lives, they artificially create some, like young people and celebrities that have nothing but time and expendable income on their hands. They psychologically feel guilty about this, so they become liberal to try and absolve their perceived "sins", so they start "caring" about global warming and minorities, on a surface level of course.

Rather than engage the American public and simply explain why socialized medicine is a good idea, they call average Americans with valid questions at these townhall meetings a litany of classic liberal slurs, such as the all-time, #1 classic "racist", followed closely by #2 on their delusional hit parade, "nazi". Also thrown at hardworking, honest citizens, "KKK", "Timothy McVeigh", "Astroturf", "Unamerican", and "Angry Mob".
I would say that he who starts the name calling has lost the debate, but the Democrats never debated in the first place. They went from zero-to-hurling insults. Because they know their supposed "plan", which has failed in every country its been tried in, ever, throughout time, has, in fact, failed. Just like every other liberal idea. Even Hillary Clinton tried it in the mid-90's. But now we're in a recession, so their brilliant plan is to revive a failed concept that costs trillions of dollars. And then insult the people that simply want our elected representatives to read the bills they write. Way to go, Democrats.

And speaking of name-calling and baseless, unfair accusations, for the past 8 years (not to mention every day since Vietnam, but let's stay on target here) we've heard nothing but the most hysterical, insane Bush-bashing imaginable, calling him every name in the book, including the classic favorites "nazi" and "satan". Did we hear a PEEP out of the Democrats? ANY WORD about the inappropriateness of any of it? Of course not. That's in eight years. In one month of valid questions about our health and life and death from everyday citizens, out come the insults, "nazi", "Swastikas", "KKK", "Timothy McVeigh", etc. Absolutely disgusting.
 
So we're all supposed to start shaking in our shoes when Democrats call the town hall protesters an "angry mob". Never mind that their corrupt, incompetent, ideologically backward and unfathomably expensive so-called "plan" is what made people angry in the first place. But nothing's ever their fault. It's our fault for being angry at their ugly proposals (bureaucrats deciding who lives and who dies, rationing for people with cancer, assuming the cancer will wait to spread, deciding elderly Americans are "expendable", etc.) I guess we shouldn't be angry at all. Sorry Democrats. Our bad. Your wisdom is all-encompassing. We forgot.
I say, YES, we ARE an angry mob! We should be proud about that and wear it like a badge of honor! If Democrats see us like that, then I say stand up and be PROUD to be an angry mob! Considering what they want to do to this country, it's downright civil. Look at it in perspective. But that's never been the strong point of the liberal, the same people that wanted to ram this bill down our throats in a matter of weeks. I wonder why they wanted to do it so fast...if not to build a state where they have eventual complete control of our lives, bit by bit by bit.

With their obsession with abortion rights, and their obsession with socialized medicine, liberals are gunning for the ultimate control of the American people: they want to decide who is born and who dies. Once again, THEY know much better than YOU. From their bubble, you're just a stupid, unwashed simpleton and they are our wise, all-knowing leaders. Clearly not satisfied with all the damage they've wreaked on the nation in their embarrassing history (they call it "change you can believe in"), now liberals have a figurehead with the massive, gargantuan arrogance to assume Americans are all clamoring for a government bureaucrat to tell them what medicine they need and what doctors they can and can't go to.

What Barry obviously does NOT understand is that freedom and capitalism are the things that made America the world's greatest superpower in 233 short years. Not socialism, communism, statism and collectivism. Those are concepts foreign to America, and trying to artificially impose them on this country is like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. It won't work, it can't work, and if it's such a brilliant idea, how come it hasn't worked yet? I mean, they are rushing, rushing, rushing to pass their liberal spending bills as fast as humanly possible. How come we're not basking in the socialist utopia yet?

So all along, the cure-all to all of society's ills is just to rob the money from those evil, dastardly "rich people". If we could only just impose PUNITIVE taxation on society's successes, the world could all join hands and sing like in that Coke commercial. Oh, Mr. Obama you are just so SMART! How has human civilization gotten along this far without your magic?
Needless to say, "rob from the achievers and give to the lazy" just won't cut it. Never mind that the so-called rich already pay incredibly high taxes, Never mind that they create jobs and invest money, which, of course, helps the economy. It's just so unbelievably infantile in its thinking. It seems like an idea a child in elementary school would have: "just take the money from rich people". It's so babyish, and so lacking in complexity and common sense, I suppose it's not hard to believe it's the best idea liberals have.

What The Minions fail to understand (that's what I call Barry, Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Dodd, etc.) is that every American could give 100% of their income to the Government -- ALL of it -- and it STILL wouldn't be enough to fund their half-baked, simple-minded liberal fantasy list. They seem to have no problem with the fact that children that haven't even been born yet are going to help shoulder the burden of their totally irresponsible spending. Future generations should inherit a better world than the previous one. They shouldn't be born into a life of indentured servitude with a lower quality of life just for coming out of the womb in post-Obama America.
This is so unfair to future generations it's just maddening. Don't liberals have a conscience? But I suppose less people will be "punished with a baby" as Barry himself said, and his reputation as a hater and destroyer of wealth, and someone who lowers all of our quality of life in pursuit of an unattainable liberal dream, will be assured.

I hate to break it to anyone who may be reading this, but our all-wise, all-seeing, all-knowing messiah, our golden boy who can do no wrong, Barack Hussein Obama, is an anti-semite.
I don't mean to say he is a proactively violent man, but his entire life since he was a child, he has been stewing in anti-white, anti-Israel, antisemitic rhetoric vis-a-vis his nonstop associations with radicals since his childhood. He has soaked up their views like a sponge, and he almost can't HELP be victim to their left-wing lies and harbor their views as well.

Start with his overly vehement denial that he is a Muslim, until it became politically expedient to do so. Not that there is anything wrong with being Muslim, millions of people are. But not so to B. Hussein Obama. I think that is because HIS vision of being Muslim, the way HE knows it to be, is automatically anti-Israel, and he just assumed other people would think that too, and he must have worried it would jeopardize the Jewish vote, or other votes. Never mind that his assumptions are largely false, but the left-wing anti-Israel sentiment was ingrained too deep in his personal upbringing to see that.

Going along in the mode of "now that I've been elected it's okay to discuss my Muslim roots and middle name", his speech in Cairo was a template of classic liberal moral equivalency. What he basically said was "Hamas SHOULD stop using violence against Israelis (and undoubtedly will listen to me, the wise one), but those naughty Israelis should also stop trying to live their lives."

Writer Ben Shapiro, who recognized Obama's antisemitism during the presidential campaign, writes, in reference to Obama and his handlers allowing Iran free reign with their nuclear program, "America's interest in the Iranian nuclear program has nothing to do with the Israeli-Arab conflict. The Obama administration knows this. They simply don't care. Their position is clear: America's ally, Israel, is no longer valuable. Sacrificing it in order to win Obama global popularity points is a worthwhile pursuit. The Obama administration offers Israel a choice between being a victim of suicide via territorial concessions to the Palestinian Arabs, or a victim of homicide via Iran. And the Obama administration forces that choice so that Obama can smile and wave at cheering throngs of Jew-hating maniacs who populate the Muslim world"*

Shapiro continues: "Yet Obama advocates for territorial concessions by Jews to radical Muslims. He presses Jews to hand over territory not 100 miles from the capital, but constituting half the capital itself. He knows that each time Israel has made territorial concessions, Muslim terrorists have upped the ante - most recently in both Lebanon and the Gaza Strip. And he knows that the Palestinian Arabs have never and will never lay down their arms. Yet he threatens Israel with allowing its nuclear annihilation if Israel refuses to authorize euthanasia"**

Imagine one of those Marxist, Socialist, Communist, tenured college professors that spew left-wingery at impressionable college students and call it an "education" elected to the highest office in the land. Well, that's exactly what happened. Obama served on a board with Rashid Khalidi, a confessed terrorist who has made many anti-Israel statements, including calling its creation a "catastrophe". He is a professor at Columbia University.***
According to militantislammonitor.org, "Barack Obama's connection to radical Islamists such as Rashid Khalidi and Ali Abunimah have received scant media attention. Ali Abunimah, who runs the electronic Intifada website said that he met Obama at many pro-Palestinian events in Chicago. In 1998 Obama and his wife attended a banquet at which the virulently anti-Israel professor Edward Said was the keynote speaker."**** These men also claim, from talking to him personally, that Obama supports and shares their views.


Michelle and Barack supporting and talking with "plagiarist, fabricator, and prominent PLO/Arafat advisor"***** Edward Said.

And then there's Reverend "them Jews won't let me talk to him" Wright. The man who said Louis Farrakhan "epitomized greatness", and traveled together to Libya to meet Qaddafi. The man who put Obama, Farrakhan, and himself on his own "Trumpet" publication. And we're supposed to believe there is absolutely NO ideological synchronicity WHATSOEVER? He sat in those pews for 20 years and forged a close personal relationship with this hatemonger but it was all an innocent accident?
Why did Obama help organize Farrakhan's million man march if he disagrees with him so strongly? Why put forth time and effort to help him? Dare I even mention father Pfleger?

There is more information out there, and more quotes to be repeated emphasizing Obama's anti-Israel, anti-Jewish stance, but this is running a bit long, so I will end by saying SHAME on anyone who purports to call themself Jewish and voted for Obama, a man who is clearly at odds with the ideals of the Jews, who chooses to clearly sympathize with enemies of Jews who would love nothing more than a second holocaust.

*Ben Shapiro, "Barack Obama proves his Anti-Semitism", Townhall.com.
**ibid.
***militantislammonitor.org
****ibid.
*****debbieschlussel.com