You are here: Home / Archives for Commentary

Why Obama Must Waive Renewable Fuels Standard Now

August 22, 2012 by Leave a Comment

Barack Obama speech 4 SC Why Obama Must Waive Renewable Fuels Standard Now

President Obama needs to give EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson an ultimatum: waive the requirement in the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) established in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 mandating ethanol blending in motor fuels now, or hit the road Jack—son.

RFS, signed into law by George W. Bush and supported by then-Senator Barack Obama, was a dud from the beginning because it was based on an assumption. (You know what they say about assumptions.) Congress was led to believe most of the ethanol would be derived from inedible substances rather than corn. Seven years in, and billions of research dollars later, nothing has changed — except the more we learn about ethanol, the less we like it. Corn-based ethanol drives up food prices locally and globally, reduces gas mileage performance, and produces more greenhouse gas than petroleum.

Even green energy gazillionaire and former Vice President Al Gore admitted corn-based ethanol was a foolish endeavor. For him, it was all about votes. Speaking about his previous support of corn-based ethanol to a crowd at a conference in Greece, Gore said: “One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee, and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa because I was about to run for president.”

At least Gore was honest about lying, which is more than can be said of the Obama administration, which has all the facts laid before them regarding ethanol yet obviously capitulated to lobbyists awhile back by upping the ethanol blend requirement from 10 to 15 percent. This change forces gas stations to purchase new pumps to process the E15 blend, and automakers are questioning the impact it will have on automobile engines. According to Consumer Reports, nine automakers voiced concerns to Congress, stating they cannot honor warranties for older cars running on E15.

The recent drought should give all Americans, and especially those in elected leadership, reason for pause to reexamine our priorities as a nation. Farmers and ranchers are forced to slaughter livestock prematurely because there is not enough corn feed to keep them alive. The ethanol mandate currently requires around 40 percent of corn crops be used for ethanol production, leaving roughly 34 percent for livestock feed, 13 percent for exports, and humans get what’s left. Might our priorities be a tad out of whack?

To be honest, Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” got us into this mess with the act he signed into law, but I have to believe that same compassion would have most likely convinced him to relax the production requirements based on the reality of today’s dire situation.

And then there is our sitting president, whose response to the drought crisis is another bailout. On the campaign trail in Iowa August 13, President Obama committed to doling out more of his Obama “stash” by buying up millions of dollars in prematurely slaughtered meat. And the taxpayers responded with a hearty “You’re welcome.”

So where’s the beef? Apparently, the government has meat lockers sitting idle because Obama told the crowd the government has “a lot of freezers”. Even if they do, I’d think twice before eating anything the government supposedly kept on ice, based on the Obama administration’s own guidelines for freezing meat. Foodsafety.gov, (another government creation from 2009), states frozen meat loses its quality (not safety) after four to 12 months. So who would we complain to if there were a problem with this meat? The government? It’ll never happen.

The price of ethanol has risen 33 percent since May, not to mention exorbitant grocery prices and an upcoming corn and meat shortage. Rather than addressing consumer price pain, the administration responds with yet another bailout, which sends the message: “When the going gets tough, we make things worse.”

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , ,

Why We Cannot Run Away From The Abortion Issue

August 22, 2012 by 2 Comments

Abortion Protestor SC Why We Cannot Run Away From The Abortion Issue

What Missouri Republican Senate candidate Todd Akin said will bring us continuing fallout from now until Election Day. We can’t change that. For the record, if I were a Missourian, I would vote for Akin without hesitation. But that is now beside the point.

We cannot run away from the issue of abortion.

Akin has dropped us all in the middle of a deep lake leaving us with three options. We can do nothing cover our eyes and drown; we can go into full retreat and waste precious time and energy making our way back to the near shore; or we can go on offense and push on to the far side.  Clearly, we have no choice but to fight; yet this need not be a Pickett’s Charge with no hope of gaining anything.

If ever there was a time since Roe v Wade for a national showdown on abortion, 2012 is it. A recent Gallup survey found a 50/41 sentiment against abortion, which is the lowest level of support for abortion in their records.

It may turn out that there is no way to totally “fix” this problem, but there is a way to ameliorate it and cut the damage; and that is by going on “all in” offensive.  There is nothing to be gained by starting small; there is no time to think small. We must immediately draw a contrast between Barack Obama’s grotesque bloodlust for infanticide – not just partial birth abortion but infanticide- for demonstratively political purposes and the wholesomeness of legitimate family life and reverence for the sanctity of the lives God gives us.

Obama’s opposition to saving Born Alive Babies

As an Illinois State Senator, Obama did everything he could to kill legislation to save the lives of miracle Born Alive abortion victims. This is what we should be talking about now today, not what Todd Akin said to save babies, but what Barack Obama did to bring about the death of natural born persons his constituency feels are inconvenient and should be allowed to slowly die of thirst and starvation on a stainless steel table in a room all alone with no one to care for them.

Killing legislation to protect Born Alive babies was politics as usual for Barack Obama. At the time he was their champion of death, Illinois Planned Parenthood said of Obama: “We worked with him specifically on his strategy. The Republicans were in control of the Illinois Senate at the time. They loved to hold votes on ‘partial birth’ and ‘born alive’. They put these bills out all the time… because they wanted to pigeonhole Democrats….”

In response, Obama characterized legislation to save Born Alive babies as being “introduced for political reasons.”  There are several hard-hitting TV and radio spots in this material. Romney, are you listening?

Follow Coach at twitter.com @KcoachcCoach

Filed Under: Coachisright, Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , ,

Medicare, Another Casualty Of Obamacare

August 22, 2012 by 4 Comments

Obamacare Cuts Medicare Costs SC Medicare, Another Casualty of Obamacare

When the Affordable Care Act was passed in 2009, one third of the cost of the program was to be funded by “savings” from Medicare. These “savings” were achieved by reducing payouts to service providers and reducing coverage to seniors. The amount to be “saved” was $713 billion over ten years. The Congressional Budget Office has updated that figure to $741 billion.

Why was there so little objection to paring Medicare so drastically? Senior citizens and “baby boomers” about to go on the program should’ve been in an uproar. Yet the media, so punctilious in their colonoscopies performed on any Republican policy or suggestion, literally lapse into a somniferous daze when their ideological comrades come up with a plan. Where were the media outcries? Why was AARP supporting this? Where were the self-proclaimed “champions” of the senior citizen in the halls of Congress when the President’s plan gutted Medicare to the tune of $741 billion?

Confirming this fact, the following is an exchange that occurred between ABC News’ Jake Tapper and President Obama on November 9, 2009.

TAPPER: One of the concerns about health care and how you pay for it — one third of the funding comes from cuts to Medicare.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: “Right.

TAPPER: A lot of times, as you know, what happens in Congress is somebody will do something bold and then Congress, close to election season, will undo it.

OBAMA: Right.

TAPPER: You saw that with the ‘doc fix.’

OBAMA: Right.

TAPPER: Are you willing to pledge that whatever cuts in Medicare are being made to fund health insurance, one third of it, that you will veto anything that tries to undo that?

OBAMA: Yes.

Did you catch that? The President promised to veto his own health care plan if it didn’t include the $741 billion in cuts to Medicare. Medicare was sacrificed on the funding altar of Obamacare.

The Wall Street Journal states: “Many doctors, surgeons and specialists providing critical care to the elderly—such as surgery for hip and knee replacements, sophisticated diagnostics through MRIs and CT scans, and even treatment for cancer and heart disease—will cease serving Medicare patients. If the government is not going to pay, then seniors are not going to get the health services, treatment and care they expect.”

“Everyone should know by now that Medicare suffers dramatic long-term deficits and unfunded liabilities, and is in need of fundamental, structural reforms. But effectively refusing to pay the doctors and hospitals that provide the medical care the program promises to seniors is no way to solve that problem.”

The National Center for Policy Analysis points out that, based on the Medicare Actuary’s official 2012 report, ObamaCare is cutting future Medicare payments to doctors and hospitals for seniors retiring today by an average of $36,000 per retiree, adding up to trillions in Medicare cuts for health care for seniors over the next ten years

When Obama and Biden accuse opponents that their proposals will end Medicare as we know it, the charge rings hollow; for they beat everyone else to the punch! They ensured it with the passage and implementation of Obamacare.

And to make sure that Obamacare has the funds to operate as intended, the law created the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), an unelected body with the power to implement even more cuts in Medicare as deemed necessary for funding Obamacare.

Forbes said this week, “In 2011, Medicare covered 48.7 million Americans — and cost nearly $550 billion. There’s now a $280-billion gap between the premiums and taxes the program takes in and the benefits it pays out. Since the last presidential election, the amount by which benefit payments exceed dedicated tax collections has nearly quadrupled. This fiscal trend is unsustainable. Medicare is inadequately financed over the next ten years, according to the Trustees.”

Medicare reimbursements to service providers are already low (about 65% of the private market), which is why so many doctors are not adding new Medicare patients and many are getting out of the program altogether. And due to a decade of “kicking the can” down the road and procrastinating resolution of Medicare’s funding problems, this year faces an additional 30% cut in payments, according to Forbes.

In 1997, Congress enacted the sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula to limit the growth of payments to doctors participating in Medicare to the overall economic growth rate. But for the past ten years, Congress has waived those adjustments in reimbursements, effectively postponing the effects. A decade of procrastination has resulted in this year’s pending 30-percent cut in Medicare payments unless Congress procrastinates SGR implementation yet again.

As despicable as it was to raid Medicare to fund Obamacare, it’s worse to ignore the problems in the program, hoping they’ll miraculously solve themselves. It’s time for real leadership and some backbone to assure Medicare’s future viability.

AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, and is a graduate of Idaho State University with a BA in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board.  He can be reached at rlarsenen@cableone.net.

Photo credit: terrellaftermath

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: ,

Is The “Youth Vote” Turning Away From Obama?

August 21, 2012 by 12 Comments

Barack Obama 6 SC Is The “Youth Vote” turning away from Obama?

The numbers surrounding the “youth vote” – where it is likely to go and how small it is likely to be – spell trouble for Barack Obama.

1)  In 2008, 51% of eligible voters aged 18 to 29 showed up to vote. They represented 18% of the total vote and supported Barack Obama over John McCain 66/34. Nevertheless, history tells us that when it actually comes down to showing up at the polls to vote, this group has a track record of falling short of their “declared” numbers. In other words, the “youth voters” can talk a good game but often don’t deliver. This is why the 58% who say they intend to vote, combined with new polling data on how they intend to vote, has to be alarming to Team Obama.

Another trip wire presented by the “youth vote” is the sizable aversion to affirmative action expressed by white 18 to 24 year olds.  Maybe as much as 1/3 of today’s “youth voters” were not caught up in the Obama “excitement” in 2008 as they were too young to cast a ballot. It is quite likely this subgroup will turn out to vote at a level somewhat higher than the overall 18 to 29 year old group. This is more bad news for Barack Obama.

A new Zogby poll done for the Service Employees International Union strongly suggests that if Obama actually does manage to win the votes of this group, his winning margin will be smaller, and the pool of votes they represent will most certainly be smaller. This year, both of these measurements will work against Obama as much as they worked for him in 2008.

The Zogby survey of likely voters concludes that Mitt Romney is now trailing Obama among young voters by just 49/41, which is a 17 point fall for the president and a 6 point gain for Romney over what John McCain was able to garner. The hidden benefit for Romney in these numbers is that they come from a survey done before Congressman Paul Ryan was tapped to be the Republican Vice Presidential nominee.

Given the surge of enthusiasm Americans have exhibited since Ryan’s selection, it is not a stretch to say that Romney’s “youth vote” numbers will climb; and in the zero sum game of counting votes, that climb will come at Obama’s expense.

Could Romney actually win the “youth vote”? Yes; he is already just 4 points away, and the Ryan effect is just beginning to take hold.

Follow Coach at twitter.com @KcoachcCoach

Filed Under: Coachisright, Commentary, Featured Stories, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , ,

Demagogue-In-Chief

August 21, 2012 by 5 Comments

obama speech 7 SC Demagogue In Chief

Demagogue is not a word that was used to describe Barack Obama in the campaign of 2008. Hope and Change were the mantra of his campaign, and voters who flocked to his side were eager to take up the call. But the Obama of 2012 is a different person, even more cynical, more narcissistic, and without a doubt more desperate for the Oval Office than ever before in his life. So much more desperate in fact that he has adopted a scorched earth policy.

In his first run for the White House, Obama claimed a link to the black community that he did not share, a link that could only come from a shared history and an equal struggle. Obama’s critics during his 2008 campaign, Al Sharpton chief among them, pointed out that Obama was not an ‘authentic’ black and not representative of the true black experience born out of the struggle to find a place in a post-slavery America. While many people have tried to equivocate and color the formative years of Mr. Obama, it does not negate the underlying question: Did he live a life that in any way compares to the life of an urban youth in the black community during the same period in his life?

The answer is no.

In 2008, voters heard about some of Obama’s youth: his life in Indonesia; his basketball efforts at Punahou School in Honolulu, HI.; and his penchant for eating at a local favorite spot, Rainbow Drive-In. What many did not know is that tuition at Punahou during Obama’s attendance there was more than $5,000.00 per year, hardly urban. In addition, he lived in Manoa Valley, a decidedly non-urban community; and while he may very well have been battling an inner turmoil, trying to develop his ‘black’ side, it makes no difference to the truth of his upbringing. Many people struggle with who they are or where they fit in even when they grow up with everyone around them being the same in skin, history, lifestyle, and convictions. There is nothing unique or edifying about Obama’s particular struggle; he learned what he did and used that insight to move him through life in search of his place in the world. It has taken him to the pinnacle of world power, and he took with him the hopes of community well-versed in turmoil.

The problem is, he does not share the same hopes as that community does…not entirely. The danger that lives in the black community is a militant anger that will not be sated. While not universal within the community, this anger is what links Obama to the black community- not because Obama shares this anger necessarily, but because he uses it to further his purpose.
Obama echoes the words of hope in the black community, but his actions feed the anger that festers within. He claims a kinship that he could not abandon all while using the anger to foment a racial divisiveness that will be unequaled in the history of America. He uses the successful efforts of others and claims them as his own. He calls for cooperation while he usurps authority not granted him by the decorum of his office. Obama called himself a unifier; yet America now finds itself more divided by race, means, and thought than ever before, a divide that will tear the country to shreds if not checked. His current campaign is rife with clichés, pandering, and dissembling. He foments anger at every opportunity by playing to the fears of his supporters with lies and half-truths, misrepresenting his record and those that do not share his vision. He claims success when failure is all the eye can see. He can do this because his only true success in his first term has been to enslave millions more to the teat of mother big government, making them dependant on the government he is running into bankruptcy.

Yet what of the community he embraced as his own (distantly I will say, a community that in some ways had no choice but to accede to Obama’s desires)? What happens to that community as true brother is turned against brother, father against son, and mother against daughter? How can any unification, in truth, be had by dividing people with rhetoric and dissembling? What ideal is served by claims that every discussion or criticism of Obama is guided by racism, a hatred of his skin? There is only one end to such designs, only one conclusion when the maestro at the podium brings his choir to the crescendo of his symphony: chaos, civil distress, and (ultimately) war. Not of a sort, but a real war in the streets. In recent days, the New Black Panther Party has made very disturbing comments regarding the upcoming election and what they see as their purpose in this country. The NBPP is fully supportive of the Obama reelection push, and their statements are designed to strike fear and confusion in the hearts of Obama’s opponents. Fear that will demoralize those who would end the capricious reign of a man bent on self-gratification and personal pleasure. They believe violence will force votes to Obama in order to end the threat, a threat I personally believe will be carried out regardless of how the vote turns out.

The threats are born of the anger that crawls under the skin of a cadre of people loyal to the idea that revenge is the only solace for a tortured soul. Revenge for past wrongs, present indifference, and a future made unclear by the very anger that is fueling the drive to attain that revenge. When anger such as this is given voice and purpose, it is almost impossible to contain it. There is no way to put the genie back in the bottle or close the lid on Pandora’s Box. What will follow such action? What will become of the black community should civil war of a racial nature become a reality?

It is my opinion that Obama is without consideration of what the black community will suffer if the NBPP carries out their promise of death and destruction of “Whitey” and the slaughter of new born “pink people” in an effort to eradicate this nation of whites. Such an act would be a full declaration of war unlike any seen in this lifetime, and the divisions that so far have been driven by rhetoric will become fixed and permanent with no possibility of redemption. The NBPP has been emboldened by a Justice Department that turned a blind eye on the intimidation and threats of violence perpetuated on voters in Philadelphia on Election Day 2008. They have been empowered by a media that drinks in ugly words and dismisses them as only words of frustration for centuries of slavery. And Obama sits smiling all the while, knowing that he has a group of unquestioning believers at his disposal…unwitting as well.

Obama has a thirst for power that cannot be satisfied, not even with a second term. He wanted to change America to suite his vision of the world, and he will not be satisfied until he has destroyed the very foundation that made this country the global power it once was. Violence is a means to an end in achieving that change. Obama will not have to lift a hand; those who believe he is their surrogate will act of their own accord, Obama will benefit, and America will suffer for it. The NBPP is only a part of the black community, but it is now the most visible part. Should this come to pass, it will be the black community that pays the highest price: they will never be forgiven.

That Obama is using the black community is no surprise. They are willing to serve him; they just do not know the price they will pay for doing so. The fact that he would do so without regard to the cost to the black community is unconscionable and a sad testament to the man who claimed to be the only person who could unify this country and the world.

Filed Under: Commentary, Featured Stories, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , ,

Obama Is Throwing Granny Under The Bus (and Over The Cliff)

August 21, 2012 by 2 Comments

Obamacare SC Obama is Throwing Granny Under the Bus (and Over the Cliff)

How many times have we heard liberals claim that conservatives want to throw Granny under the bus or over a cliff because we want to drastically reduce government’s role in healthcare? Or, they’ll say that conservatives only care about increasing the wealth of the one percent and want to “throw everybody else out in the street”. Conservatives do want to privatize Social Security because of the flexibility it would give to the young of today to save for their future. They point out that, as Ronald Reagan said, government policies and programs are not the solution but rather the problem. Liberals have been instrumental in impoverishing more people by creating widespread dependency and expectancy. How many people do you think didn’t save enough money for their retirement years because “they were sure” Social Security would be there for them? How many people thought about what they ate or what they smoked or how they lived because they knew Medicare would be there for them? So who is really “throwing Granny under the bus”?

Our government through its socialist policies aims to impoverish people in the middle and lower classes and keep them dependent on the Nanny state for their livelihood. Politicians like Pelosi, Reid, Biden, and Obama call it “redistribution of wealth” or being “fair”. Conservatives simply point out that history proves private entities take better care of people, more efficiently than any government has ever been able to. People and their doctors are far more compassionate than government and its “death panels” or Independent Payment Advisory Board, a board created by Obamacare and comprised of 15 unelected government bureaucrats. In reality, conservatives aren’t throwing these people out in the street to die; liberal progressives are or will do so when they no longer need them to retain power.

The game of politics has gotten very dirty indeed, and it is being buoyed up on one end by a compliant media. To confuse public opinion, one side accuses the other of something that they themselves are guilty of, knowing that all the media attention will remain on the “accused” rather than the “accuser”. The liberal elite make accusations and bombastic comments about how Republicans, Conservatives, and members of the Tea Party want to “kill” Medicare because they don’t care about Granny. They cite cuts by conservatives to balance the budget and completely ignore the fact that the accuser, Obama, has already cut more than $700 billion from Medicare, is applying the “savings” to other socialized healthcare programs for illegals and others, and is scheduled to cut even more to fund Obamacare. The final cost is pegged by the neutral GAO to be near $1.3 trillion as of today’s accounting. Who knows what it will be a month or two from now or God forbid in January 2013? Obamacare’s Medicare cuts are all across the board, affecting older retirees as well as those under 55, something that DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is reticent to admit or absolutely refuses to address under any circumstances.

What the Democrats won’t tell you is that the proposed Medicare cuts under Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan only apply to those who are under 55 years old. And even then, all their plan does is give these younger Medicare beneficiaries options either to continue with traditional Medicare or to opt for an even better government-approved private insurance plan. Yes, it gives them options for a better life if they choose. What Romney needs is a big bus with the slogan “We Will Set You Free; 55 and Over No Change; Under 55, You Have a Choice”. Better yet, they should put shrink wrap on all the buses in the big cities of all 9 battleground states and California. I would love to see Nancy Pelosi’s face when she sees a bus in San Francisco with that message.

The liberal hypocrisy and lies are bound to continue and will get even more shrill in the future as they become aware of the deteriorating situation throughout the country. The Republican conservatives are being civil in their discourse, but the truth is a very pointed spear indeed. The Democratic party is imploding, and you can sense it in the air of uncertainty at Democratic headquarters in Washington, DC and Chicago.

Photo Credit: Fresh Conservative (Creative Commons)

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Running Against Obama’s Hometown

August 21, 2012 by 6 Comments

Chicago White House Running against Obamas Hometown

“Code words” is a favorite phrase of the Democrats. When a conservative confronts them with the truth, they will often isolate a small portion of what has been said and accuse the speaker of using “code words” so they can obfuscate and hide until the heat dies down. If a conservative says something like “States have a right to refuse to do something ordered by Barack Obama”, Democrats will take the words “States have a right” and claim they hear “code words” for “States Rights” which is supposed to mean Republicans want to put African Americans back into the chains Democrats kept them in for 250 years until Republicans freed them.

The stupid leap Joe Biden made from Mitt Romney’s desire to “unshackle” business to Republicans wanting to “Put Y’all in chains” proves the point.

Running against Obama’s hometown

Given the fact that Barack Obama is “super-glued” to Chicago (the “Deadliest Global City” and the central repository for the lowest form of political criminality), it appears that the Romney campaign would do well to begin using the word Chicago as a “code word” in an ever-increasing barrage of TV print and radio spots.

Standing 10th of the 22 most favored cities in the country, Chicago isn’t particularly popular. There isn’t a well of good feelings toward the “Windy City”, and tying Obama and his idiot running mate “Uncle Joe” to the town can only serve to remind voters that Obama learned his disgusting bottom-feeder politics from the masters of political criminality.

Once the connection is solidified in voters’ minds, all that the cesspool of the Midwest has to “offer” can be laid at Obama’s feet.

A study by the University of Illinois bestowed the title of “Most corrupt city in America” on Obama’s hometown. The accompanying report stated that the corruption tax, added on to every transaction involving Chicago’s city government, has cost the citizens of the “Windy City” $500 million over recent years.

In the past 35 years, there have been over 1530 convictions of Chicago public officials, and four of Illinois’s last seven governors were sent to prison.

The charges of police brutality toward blacks and Hispanics coupled with convictions of crooked cops make Chicago’s law enforcement structure a continual source of embarrassment for the decent people of the city. The ever-present gun violence in Chicago is a national embarrassment, and it is common for cities in war zones to see fewer people killed during a given weekend.

Tying Obama and Chicago has no downside.

Photo credit: terrellaftermath

Filed Under: Coachisright, Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , ,

Fanning The Flames Of Left-wing Violence

August 21, 2012 by 5 Comments

Southern Poverty Law Center sign SC1 Fanning the flames of left wing violence

To borrow from President Obama’s Black Nationalist mentor, Jeremiah Wright, the Southern Poverty Law Center’s hate-baiting chickens “have come home to roost.” The hard-left group has become everything it presumes to expose.

On Wednesday, homosexual activist Floyd Corkins entered the Washington-based Family Research Council (FRC) armed with a gun and a backpack full of ammunition. He also had 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches (FRC recently defended the food chain’s COO Dan Cathy for pro-natural marriage statements).

The only thing standing between Corkins and mass murder was FRC facilities manager and security specialist Leo Johnson. As Corkins shouted disapproval for FRC’s “politics,” he shot Johnson who, despite a severely wounded arm, managed to tackle Corkins and disarm him. (Of course, this is all impossible as it’s illegal in Washington, D.C., to carry a concealed weapon.)

Of Johnson’s actions, D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier said: “The security guard here is a hero, as far as I’m concerned.”

I agree.

Upon hearing of Leo’s selfless act of heroism, I was reminded of John 15:13: “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.”

But according to the SPLC, Leo’s heart is, instead, full of hate. In fact, everyone at FRC is hateful. After all, in 2010, the SPLC, with much fanfare, “officially certified” FRC as a “hate group” for its orthodox Christian positions on marriage and family.

Alongside violence-charged photos of actual hate groups like the Aryan Brotherhood and the KKK, the SPLC lists on its website the decidedly mainstream and always peaceful FRC.

It’s a clever strategy, dishonest and reprehensible though it may be. By juxtaposing FRC and other Christian organizations with violent extremist groups, SPLC has engaged in intellectual sloth at its worst (the organization has repeatedly declined to debate FRC President Tony Perkins over its “hate group” smear).

Rather than debating – on the merits – mainstream Christian groups with which it has ideological disagreement, SPLC has chosen, instead, the coward’s way out: demonization and marginalization through false guilt by association.

It’s a scheme not only slimy, but extremely dangerous.

If ever there were a time I’d prefer not to have been right, now is that time. Back in November 2011, I essentially predicted both the FRC shooting and the SPLC’s undeniable complicity therein.

With a column headlined “Liberal violence rising”, I wrote, “The SPLC’s dangerous and irresponsible (‘hate group’) disinformation campaign can embolden and give license to like-minded, though less stable, left-wing extremists, creating a climate of true hate. Such a climate is ripe for violence.” (If anyone deserves to be taken out – rationalizes the unbalanced SPLC dupe – its members of this or that evil “hate group” whom, as he’s been repeatedly told, mean him great harm.)

That was before the fact. After the fact – one day after the shooting – Tony Perkins addressed exactly that which I forecast:

“Let me be clear that Floyd Corkins was responsible for firing the shot yesterday,” he told Washington reporters. “But Corkins was given a license to shoot an unarmed man by organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center that have been reckless in labeling organizations hate groups because they disagree with them on public policy.”

The SPLC “should be held accountable for their reckless use of terminology that is leading to the intimidation and what the FBI here has categorized as an act of domestic terrorism.”

Regrettably, Mr. Perkins finds himself in a uniquely credible position to make this charge.

Still, although there remains a vast ideological divide between the SPLC and the tens of millions of Christian Americans represented by the Family Research Council, the Southern Poverty Law Center now finds itself with a brief window of opportunity to both do the right thing and rehabilitate its badly damaged reputation.

To the SPLC, I say this: Your cynical efforts to dehumanize Christians and equate biblical truth to “hate” are working better than I think even you expected. It’s now within your power to right a horrible wrong and restore a sense of peace and security to the rattled folks at FRC. What a gift that would be.

I appeal to your sense of goodwill. This is not a game. Lives are at stake. I know you have good employees (I’ve met some) who believe they’re doing the right thing; so, please, validate that belief. It’s time to remove your metaphorical “hate group” Star of David from mainstream Christian organizations before another of your ideological allies spills blood.

And to homosexual activists and other liberal groups, I say this: Rise above the fray. Let’s come together. Here is something on which even we can agree. Publicly encourage SPLC to lift this veil of fear.

Media, you too are on notice. Remember Wednesday’s shooting next time you even think about repeating SPLC’s “hate group” brand while addressing the Christians upon whom it’s tattooed. You also have share in the blame.

SPLC, hear me now: If, God forbid, something like this – or even worse – happens in the future and you have yet refused to retract and apologize for your “hate group” propaganda, then your hands will forever be stained with the blood of innocents.

Still, either way, we Christians are commanded to speak the truth of Christ “even unto death.”

FRC will not be deterred. “We’re not going anywhere,” Tony Perkins told reporters Thursday. “We’re not backing up; we’re not shutting up,” he vowed. “We feel that – we don’t feel, we know [that] we have been called to speak the truth. Speak it in love, but to speak the truth nonetheless – and we will not be intimidated, we will not be silenced.”

“I was there as [Leo] came to from the anesthesia,” said Perkins, “and I told him, ‘Leo, I want you to know you’re a hero.’ And he thought about it for a minute and he said, ‘You know, this hero business is hard work.’”

Heroes don’t work for “hate groups”, and FRC’s hard work is heroic indeed.

I’m proud to count them as my friends.

You should be, too.

Matt Barber (@jmattbarber on Twitter) is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He serves as Vice President of Liberty Counsel Action.

Photo Credit: Stretchy Bill (Creative Commons)

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: ,

Choruses Discriminated Against For Insufficient Racial Diversity

August 21, 2012 by 9 Comments

Race Card SC Choruses discriminated against for insufficient racial diversity

Two Atlanta-area high school choruses are being denied a spot performing with the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra, presumably because there are too many white faces in them.

Reports quote a spokesperson for the school system saying virtually that. He explained that symphony administrators told the schools “that their choruses are not diverse enough” and would be replaced with a “more diverse chorus.”

Using the word “diverse” twice in one sentence must make any liberal smile. The left feels diversity is of far more importance than merit, as this case clearly demonstrates.

The symphony’s president stated he is surprised there has been any backlash about the decision, noting he just wants to reflect “the diversity of Atlanta.” Once again, Caucasians know they’re getting the shaft when they hear the D-word.

He confirmed that the symphony allowed the two schools to perform four years in a row, describing them as “marvelous” and adding that it was time to give some of the other high schools “their chance to perform with the ASO as well.”

Equality of outcome outweighs equality of opportunity on the left, another illogical liberal tenet reflected in this decision. All of the 12 eligible schools presumably had equal chance to try out for the open spots, but this official thinks the only fair decision is to punish the primarily white choruses and give an unearned spot to the more racially diverse groups.

Not only does this line of thinking dissuade practice and hard work in reaching for a goal, it insults the groups that did make it, essentially telling them they are not good enough but they have the right look. Since when did a chorus’ look trump its sound?

If diversity for diversity’s sake makes for a better chorus, I say let’s take that logic to the basketball court, where the top performing participants are overwhelmingly black. Of course, this will never happen; as affirmative action shows, diversity is only needed when it benefits a minority.

 

B. Christopher Agee founded The Informed Conservative in 2011. Follow him on Twitter @bcagee.

Photo credit: wstera2 (Creative Commons)

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With:

Why Todd Akin Is Just Another Phony Politician And Not A Pro-life Lion

August 21, 2012 by 18 Comments

Todd Akin SC Why Todd Akin is just another phony politician and not a pro life lion

For the record I think Todd Akin is a good man who wants to protect life, but I am suspect of his true courage. Nevertheless, we have a country to save, and he has put our effort to save America in serious danger. And that is a very important consideration.

The clock is ticking for Todd Akin to do the right thing: step aside and drop out of the Missouri Senatorial race. His GOP primary victory was engineered by $2 million of Democrat Claire McCaskill’s money.  She called him “Ultraconservative”, which was just enough to transfer voters’ dislike of her to a slim victory in a crowded field. McCaskill thought Akin would be the easiest to beat because he was “just” five points ahead of her in hypothetical match ups. That all changed with the first post-primary survey that saw Akin ahead 11 points. Now, a new poll using an over sample of 9 points of Republicans has him up just one point. He is on his way to a possible 70/30 loss.  He is toast, and he should recognize it and act accordingly.

Then came his comments about “legitimate rape” on a local television show.

Akin was asked a question that given the persona HE HAS BUILT should have called for a one word answer. When the host asked if there should be an exception to his “no abortions ever” position, the man Akin would have us believe he is should have answered “No.” But, of course, he didn’t. Instead, Todd Akin acted like a typical politician. He dithered through sixty two words, and in an effort to run away from his real and honorable position, Akin said: “It seems to me, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something: I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child.”

In the final analysis, Akin’s inept comments have put the entire Republican campaign in Missouri in doubt.  Why would this happen? Single females, that’s why.

Right now, single women have little enthusiasm to vote. They are disappointed with the government whom they see as their husband and don’t care about what happens in November. Akin has changed that. Akin has provided EVERY endangered Democrat across the country at every level with a beautiful video that will enable them to make this election about abortion and a war on women, not about Barack Obama’s failures.

I believe that the polls we have seen are basically false, and Mitt Romney is actually ahead and getting stronger. The addition of Paul Ryan to his ticket made possible victories in Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. If Todd Akin stays on the ballot, he will provide Democrat rank-and-file voters with an enthusiasm boost and put all of these states, even Wisconsin, in the “iffy” column.

Is all of this potential damage worth supporting a man who was given a chance to answer truthfully and say “No I don’t believe there should be an exception for rape victims”, but weaseled out?

No, I think not.

Follow Coach at twitter.com @KcoachcCoach

Filed Under: Coachisright, Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , , ,