Often enough, by some writers and commenters on this site, this appears to go ignored. I am grateful that Deal has reminded the us all of this instruction.

My guess is that President Carter, who grew up in the Jim Crow South, must have some sense of what he is talking about.

I hope we can be careful to interpret HIS words insofar as possible...in a favorable way, as we have been admonished above by Deal.

All I can hear whenever Jimmy Carter opens his mouth is an echo of Ronald Reagan's line, "There you go again!". I know it's not exactly appropos, but it does help keep me from screaming at the television.

The only thing surprising about this is that Jimmy Carter is still considered newsworthy. The biggest thing *not* surprising about this is that our national media still believes that only white people can be racist.

I'm so white my doctor occasionally tests me for anemia. And I don't think I'm racist when I say I don't give a oops, let's just say I couldn't care less what color the president's skin is, the only thing that scares me about this country is that we've elected the single most radically pro-abortion politician on record and that he looks to succeed in enacting FOCA, piece by piece, while far too many of our relgious leaders stand by and pay obiescance to the man for his rhetoric and efforts to "dialogue" and his attention to "social welfare".

I guess I won't worry too much about my tax dollars going to pay for abortion because, with the conscience protections removed and the mandatory coverage for abortion, either the Catholic hospital I work for will close down or I'll be unemployable.

Kamilla

I agree with Deal.

"Racist" is, in my experience, an emotional state that feels one's own superiority over another person because s/he differs in race. I grew up in Richmond during forced busing; as a suburban white girl, I brought home my first boyfriend, an urban African-American, buff athelete. This sort of thing, in my experience, separates people with racist feelings from people who do not. It's obvious really. "Racist" is an on-going, difficult emotional state of being that's very hard to disguise. Racist people have a tough time not betraying their passion ... with epithets and nasty signage and statements of who they are. It's like drug dealers in Miami - it's simply not sustainable unless you sign who you are and draw admirers and validators.

Because it's shameful, "racist" has become a political and personal charging tool, that can make the accused shrink and suddenly shy. How does one prove "I do not have racism"?

Honestly, I don't buy a charge of "racism" or "sexism", unless (1) the words are fatally infected by content or (2) there's a history supporting targeted animosity. The first woman victim at a law firm of a male partner's cloaked "sexism" often loses, but her experience goes on record and the next woman has a better shot and the next woman is usually the victor. Joe Wilson a racist? Seems a very hard case to make. http://tinyurl.com/nqwolh

Maybe President Carter has some secret record on Joe Wilson, and other opponents to President Obama, but I doubt it. I think he, like Rush Limbaugh, one name that comes to mind, grabs for headlines ... it's gross and, "not Catholic", in my opinion. "Can. 220 No one is permitted to harm illegitimately the good reputation which a person possesses ... " Of course, this is a standard to which we Catholic hold ourselves (and often fail). But calling someone a "racist" or "sexist" to get attention, sympathy, or, even cause pause, when we have no real facts to support that the person "feels superior by way of his race or sex" to the person he criticizes, is not our way, or the way we urge upon others, Christian or not.

As an African American who did not vote for President Obama nor am I in support of many of his policies and decisions, I do have an inante sense that there is a racial undertone to the some of the opposition to President Obama.

Rich,

I agree that the quote from the Catechism is a good one, but what favorable interpretation could possibly be applied to Carter's words? He called most people who oppose the President's agenda racists. He might have recognized that Obama is hailed as the most progressive President of all time by liberals themselves. It would translate easily then that conservatives would see him as the most potentially dangerous leader we've ever had. Couldn't Carter give people the benefit of the doubt and argue the issues being raised rather than ascribing all kinds of ulterior motives?

And I wasn't aware that being from a certain region of the country gave one license to interpret the actions of others from that same region with a total disregard for the above stated principle in the Catechism. Furthermore, he said this did not apply simply to Southerners. So what is his basis for knowing these dark motives that lurk within all Americans? This is a vicious accusation that needs to be recanted.

Poor old Jimmy Carter. He's rarely a guest on any talk show. He is never sought out for political advice so this sort of controversy is his only opportunity to grab the spotlight. Bo

We live in a society of political correctness and these people in power know our weaknesses. It's always form over substance with them and smooth and handsome Obama speaks and leads from his heart while dissenters acknowledge the cold cruel facts of reality. It's only natural that they find the real substance in their sense of outrage at being denied anything they want in life, as they have been shown too long how great they are at just being a member of the poetic neglected noble savage group. So, how do you confront a child at the candy aisle in the supermarket who wants those sweets and will throw a temper tantrum if denied? Well, you simply have to deal with the public embarrassment of the child's loud cries of protest when you stand firm saying 'no candy today'.

Rich, I don't think I was uncharitable to take these words at face value -- there is nothing subtle about their meaning. Carter could have said, "I fear that in some people, racism is at play, and we should be on guard against it." But he didn't. I grew up in Texas, have lived 15 years in Atlanta, five years in New York, four in New Jersey, and now 15 in the DC area. There's no privileged wisdom about racism that comes with living in the South -- bigotry can be found anywhere. The worst anti-Semitism I've encountered was in France, the most ferocious anti-Hispanic sentiment was in NYC, and the worst racism in the Ft. Worth, Texas of my youth in the 60s. People of my generation have lived through the changes in attitude toward race -- it appears Jimmy Carter doesn't recognize the historic change for the better that has occurred, largely because of the influence of churches throughout the country, and especially in the South. There are many people who can tell this story better than I, but Carter has done the country, and the White House, a great disservice. Very sad.

Jimmy Carter is a wicked man or else he is insane. If he is in possession of his faculties, he is a wicked man. That is not a blanket condemnation but a studied conclusion based on evidence.

Liberals, whatever their skin color, who accuse people who disagree with a person of color of being racist simply for disagreeing

are
themselves
racists.

Dear Mr. Hudson,

Will you please help resolve this issue once and for all? James O'Keefe (of the now famous ACORN videos) exposed Planned Parenthood for its racist believes and total disregard to the health and welfare of women. This video never made it into the main stream media. Since he has broken through that barrior with his latest expose', and since many in the media are now intent on labeling anyone who opposes President Obama's policies as racist, wouldn't it be appropriate to reveal who the real racists are? You have the connections to get this video out again. Would you please do what you can, because now the American people might be willing to listen to the truth since their own good name is on the line.

Thank you for your help.

Carter did not say, as Deal Hudson pointed out, merely that hat some opposition to Obama stemmed from racism. He said the overwhelming portion of it came from racism. To deny that any opposition came from that source would be foolish. But it's a very, very small slice of this remarkable grassroots opposition. The vast majority of the people who marched on 9/12 are not motivated by racism and to say that they are, as Carter did ("overwhelming") is wrong.

It has been my experience that when people can't come up with a reasoned argument about a topic they start to name call. For example, in my liberal days, I used to argue with a relative about the war in Vietnam. We would go back and forth, each with their own stands, until he would finally dismiss the whole thing by calling me a communist. How many husbands say to their wife "you b***h" when she may be getting too close to the truth or they simply do not want to hear what she has to say? I am sure wives could do the same with another epithet. As an educator of many years, how many times have I heard kids call each other names because they can't verbalize their own hurt feelings in an appropriate way? It is an all too human trait to name call when we are feeling defensive. Carter needs to look at his own motives for making such a blanket statement about peoplpe. My guess is that they have very little to do with the facts.

Several years ago I was driving a 16 passenger bus full of Catholic school boys on our way to a special Archdiocesan Mass. We stopped behind a pickup truck at a light, and on the truck's rear window was a bumper sticker on which was printed "F**K BUSH!" Not sure whether that was racially motivated or not.

Calling Obama critics racists is as fallacious as when critics of the invasion into Iraq were called "unpatriotic" by the Cheney administration.

This is an example of the logical fallacy Argumentum ad Verecundiam, or an Appeal to Authority, which occurs when your reason for assenting to a conclusion is based on following an improper authority. Jimmy Carter may have grown up in the Jim Crow South, but that does not give him the infallible authority to call another man a racist without any real evidence of racism; it certianly does not give him the power to read souls.
Racism is a very grave and damaging accusation which MUST be verified with concrete evidence of racist words or deeds, otherwise it is a violation of not only the 8th Commandment, but also the slander and libel laws of this country. Furthermore, Jimmy Carter knows full well that calling a man a racist in modern America can destroy his reputation irrevocably; therefore, it is morally imperative for Carter to back up this most serious accusation with damning evidence, or he is also guilty of the grave mortal sin of Calumny.



I am not disputing that Jimmy Carter may genuinely believe that everyone who does not agree with Obama's political and social ideology is a racist; but the onus is on Carter to defend his accusations of racism with hard evidence or issue a public retraction. It is not incumbent on the rest of us to engage in logical fallacies in a misguided attempt at compassion.

and to be a proclaimed Christian President Carter's words are reprehensible! It did not come up in any conversations I had with fellow marchers except in fear that when we looked around at who showed up to March it ended up to be White Middleclass America for the most part and so therefore vulnerable to the racist label.
Most of us had never marched before.... it wasn't on our list of things to do... but as Deal clearly articulated we couldn't just stand by and do nothing while this Administration and our elected Representatives essentially march us completely into bankrupcy and into a potentially BIG Government - Socialism looking direction! We don't have time to look at skin right now, we are busy reading lips and every piece of written plan they come up with..... no more TRUST here! They blacked us out from the local papers and from all but Cable Media... which was the greatest indicator of the power and control these leaders of our government are after.... and that my friends is not the America I know... it is not following our Constitution!
To be labelled Racist from Carter is reprehensible because he wasn't at the March, he didn't come and walk with us and speak with us.... he just allowed his own agenda that he could not successfully make happen all those years ago alter his vision and mostly his heart/mouth....Carter was after all a Robin Hood President too... "take from the rich... (which includes everyone above the poverty line) and give to the poor"... instead of "empower all Americans to succeed in this great country of ours... full of possibilities for those who will".... We have and will take care of the poor, those who cannot do for themselves... but it is not our obligation to take care of those who won't!
They are stuck in a scarcity Design Model that requires robbing from hard-working people instead of an infinity model which opens up the thinking to the possibilities that have yet been considered. They need to get rid of their dusty models and think outside the taxation box! It is a program design problem!

If this is the perception of a black who didn't support Obama, what do you imagine is the perception of those who did? Shortly after Katrina I was talking with a group of young (20's and 30's) black men who, to a man, unhesitatingly believed that blacks suffered so much in New Orleans because Whitey didn't want to help them. The charge of racism is believed because it is endlessly repeated.

Given that the reaction to Obamacare is not strikingly different than the reaction to Hillarycare, what sensible justification can be made that the opposition is to the proponent of the plan as opposed to the plan itself? Carter's charge is helpful to his cause; that it is utterly false is (in the political sense) utterly irrelevant.

Jimmy Carter got himself elected governor in 1970 by being an honest-to-goodness White Democrat racist.

See David Freddoso in the Washington Examiner:

http://tinyurl.com/qnpdcc

Carter's comments seem part of a larger strategy to deflect attention away from the growing number of "independents" who are turning away from Obama -- recognizing that he is not the "leader" they had hoped he would be.

One person's opinion: Deal's post would have been stronger without the KKK photo.

After reading this article, I read Fr. Rutler's most recent article, "1942,An Ugly Amount of Success." He used a word I hadn't seen for some time, "obscurantist." I looked up its meaning. Wikipedia defines Obscurantist as, "There are two common senses of this: (1) opposition to the spread of knowledge—a policy of withholding knowledge from the general public; and (2) a style (as in literature, art, philosophy, or theology) characterized by deliberate vagueness or abstruseness."

I would say that Jimmy Carter, blind Progressives, and those who refuse to listen to debate against Obama's public policy notions, branding any opposition as "racist," are Obscurantists.

As usual, I disagree substantially with Mr. Hudson.

To claim that the opposition to Mr. Obama is rooted predominately in his policies of spending and his intrusion into the rights outlined in the Constitution is ludricous. If this were the case, where were these same people when President G.W. Bush passed the Patriot Act which represents the greatest erosion of constitutional rights since the Civil War and before that the Alien and Sedition Acts of the Adams administration? If reckless spending were so objectional to these people, where were the marches during the previous administration over the astronomical cost of the 'wars' in Iraq and Afghanistan? Why did they support McCain in spite his support of the bailout legislation initiated under the Bush Administration, which presumably he would have enacted just as Obama has?

How much of the opposition is based on racism? I honestly don't know but my educated guess as someone who grew up in, and still lives in the South is that it's a lot more than is admitted to.

The claims of the protesters that they are unrepresented is equally facetious. They were free to vote in the elections as was their opposition. Losing an election does not make one unrepresented and is the nature of the republican system we live under (and to which one assumes that the protesters subscribe to given their vocal cry for Constitutional principle). If losing an election is equal to disenfranchisement, then how long have liberals been disenfranchised?

As a liberal, I know from first hand experience how hard it is to see your vision of a free, fair, and democratic society rejected. I also know that life goes on and you continue to fight your battles. This is a lesson that conservatives would do well to learn.

Yeah, Yeah... We should all be nice people. That is a given.

The difference here, in your post, smarmily admonising Deal, is that you are trying to correct an individual, whereas Jimmy Carter et al are condemning thousands as racists with their careless speach.

Critics are claiming that last week's marchers were racists, so a photo of a Klan march seemed appropriate.

I think that what conservatives despise most in politics is the progressive agenda. Bush and McCain, for all their faults, have never been associated with this agenda in the way the Obama administration is. And that is why conservatives are rallying against this administration.

I do think that faced with the most progressive administration ever, conservatives are finding their roots again and will seek out much more consistent candidates than Bush and McCain in the future. So we're seeing a revitalization of conservatism, but it's not because of the President's skin color. That's a shallow charge, and ignores the issues being discussed.

But I do think the conservative outcry against Obama goes deeper than any one policy, it goes to the issue of trust. How do we trust an administration that harbors the most radical kinds of thinkers within its ranks? How do we trust a President who has been so comfortable associating with radicals all his life? I suppose if one does not bat an eye at the concept of forced abortions, or the idea that human beings don't have an inherent right to reproduce, or that our tax dollars will soon go towards funding sex change operations, or that we now have in power a group of people who promote immorality to children as a matter of law; I suppose if none of these or any other of the bizarre ideas held by those in the highest reaches of our government shock you then you might reasonably suggest some ulterior motive to conservative outrage. But then I would suggest that you're so out of touch with the heart of conservatives that you should refrain from attempting to read their minds.

I really do not know where Joe Wilson stands, but I think this article explains where questions about him might be coming from:

http://tinyurl.com/n27x5a

What is being suggested (and I cannot verify this either way) is that he might be a member of the group, Sons of Confederate Veterans, and, within it, there has been recently been a conflict, some who are using the group for racist reasons.

Now, I do not think we can do guilt by association, and it seems the conflict within the group is severe; some just want to do works like cleaning up graves of Civil War veterans, while others are using the group to advocate schism from the United States and racist ideologies. But it appears it is a new, younger group doing this, and I would not think Joe Wilson himself does so.

In this respect, I think one should question him about the internal politics instead of assume one side or another, and let that issue die.

I get the connection but how does showing a photo of the KKK help to convince people that your side is not heavily racist and that Carter is wrong headed?

It seems to actually work against what Deal is trying to say.

For Carter to suggest that opposition to Obama’s policies is based on race is simply incoherent rambling. Carter’s words come across as a thinly veiled attempt to silence criticism of policies which he supports. But hey, if Hillary Clinton was President, and was promoting these same policies, I suppose any opposition voices would be labeled as sexist.

The Obama administration is smart to distance itself from this nonsense. Vigorous debate, along with an informed public, is necessary for a representative republic to work. Ill-informed comments like Carter’s display a lack of knowledge of the concerns expressed by those who oppose Obama’s policies, and serve neither side of this debate.

There are certainly racist groups that have targeted Obama, e.g., some crazy skinheads who wanted to assassinate him. *Some* of the visceral hatred of the man is almost certainly explained by racism. I'm not sure exactly what explains the rest.

I'm curious ... Why isn't Joe Wilson being called out for the sin of slander. He called Obama a liar within the context of health care for immigrants. In this, he was incorrect. Doesn't the CCC apply to him to? Or are some groups held to a different standard? And, if so, why?

I think it is sometimes easy to over-analyze and try to take cues in which there might not be cues. But in this case, I think people are asking why did Joe say "you lie" after "illegal aliens" and not somewhere else. In my opinion, I think Catholics should consider Obama's own solution to be far from ideal, however, I think he is trying to deal with a situation in which "illegal aliens" are not liked for many reasons, some of which are tinged with anti-Mexican sentiments (the whole discourse appears to some to be only about Mexicans, and rarely about other kinds of illegal immigrants; while I don't think it is valid to say it is all about Mexicans, I think it is clear that is the central concern, and some of the rhetoric has had anti-Mexican bias which reads like 19th century anti-Irish bias).

Now as someone who really does not know Joe Wilson, I cannot say if this is the case for him or not. But I do think some who hold those tendencies have been reinvigorated by him. But -- and this is the big but -- even if that is the case, if he is himself not looking at it in racist terms, he is not culpable for such abuse.

Now, if I had to look on what little I know, I would say this: Since he voted to give aid to illegal immigrant while Bush was president, that also suggests to me, for him, it was not a racist outburst.

Now beyond Wilson, I do think there were racial overtones with the protest in DC last weekend. Overtones means there were racists involved with it, using the opportunity given to them to mingle with non-racists. As I have said before, and I will say again, guilt by association is invalid, and would be here. So it is not right to say the whole group, or even the majority, is racist because of this. But I do think we have a rise in the rhetoric from some groups, and we should deal with that as another issue, and look to what kinds of racism is on the rise, without trying to tie it to policy decisions.

Hi Stephen,

It's irony -- a way of saying, 'This is what a real racist march looks like.'

You should inform yourself about what explains the outrage towards this administration, then you might be less likely to imply that any of it, for the vast majority of conservatives, is explained by racism.

Henry: How many times do we have to remind the defenders of Jimmy Carter that he said opponents of Obama are OVERWHELMINGLY racist? Your "overtones" is irrelevant. Can't you just admit that efforts to explain opposition to Obama as a whole by means of "racism" are wrong, and racist to boot?

I have had it up to here with people who use "racism" racistly, to tarnish entire groups of people they disagree with.

Because factually he was correct, as the Obama administration itself has admitted. Wilson violated decorum but he did not slander via falsehood. Repeatedly amendments to ensure, by requiring verification, that illegal immigrants would not be covered were voted down. If illegal immigrants were excluded absent verification, why did the White House quietly move to introduce verification procedures after Wilson raised the issue?

Moreover, President Obama had repeatedly in his address called those who oppose him liars. He had not the courtesy to respect his opponents on the merits of their position--as he has done throughout his campaigning, both before and during his presidency, he resorts to cheap ad hominems, giving the finger to his opponents. Yeah, Wilson should have kept his cool for the sake of House rules. But he was darn sure provoked mightily by the president. I'm tired of the President of the United States calling my fellow citizens liars when he himself has done NOTHING but misrepresent his proposals from the beginning. His whole health-care strategy was based on disguising and hiding the details. His whole campaign for president was based on disguising himself, running as a moderate, centrist, healer when he's as brawling a partisan radical as they come (and was known to be to those of us fortunate enough to have seen him in action in Chicago closeup).

And to Henry Karlson: opposition to illegal immigration is not prima facie racist. It offends me that you cannot see that some of us are angered by the illegality, not by the race of SOME ("overtones," I think was your word) of the illegal immigrants. Some of those opposed to illegal immigration want illegal British, Russian, and Icelandic immigrants to be subect to the same controls as illegal immigrants from other countries. Some of them, many of them, the overwhelming majority of them, welcome immigrants who play by the rules.

This is precisely the case. Calling someone a racist is the equivalent of a verbal nuclear option - immediately, their character, their personal life, their integrity on the whole is called into question. Even if it is impossible to prove that they have ever had a racist thought, they have been besmirched, and there remains a question mark next to their name every time it arises in public discourse: "Oh. Joe Wilson? He's that guy they said was a racist."

Using the "racist" epithet is a form of intellectual terrorism. It causes career and social casualties, collateral damage to family and colleagues, and acts a substitute for real diplomacy. As Glenn Beck, who has wound up at the epicenter of controversy around race and this administration (after making note of its racially biased policies and appointments) said recently, the reason the Taliban blows people up is because nobody is willingly signing on to sharia law. The only way to get people to do what you want when you can't make a compelling case is to use the force of fear.

Calling a public figure a racist without basis or fact has a chilling effect, and most public figures bend over backwards to avoid the epithet.

All the while we forget that the Democratic party - those who use the term "racist" the most - are historically the party of slavery, segregation, and the KKK. They are also the party that controls the inner city schools where minority children are kept from the kind of real education that allows them to rise above their circumstances and keeps them dependent on handouts from liberal politicians who talk equality while practicing subtle oppression.

And as the ACORN videos have shown, the heavily democratic "association of community organizers for reform now" is ok with assisting human trafficking of underage latina girls for the sex trade.

But when a Republican says "you lie" to the President (when he is, in fact, aggressively misleading the public about how HR 3200 effects illegal immigrants) he is simply a racist.

Logic is dead.

Anne: The TRUTH can't be labeled slander. Case dismissed.

Ed Diadhuit

Brian,

Irony can be an effective tool for social commentary and reflection, but what comes across here, is the sense that people are delighting in showing and viewing a "hate filled" picture. So the irony back-fires.

The way to overcome darkness is with light. If there is darkness in what Carter is saying, let's not add to it.

We can't overcome darkness and hatred with hate filled photos.

A more powerful picture to counter Carter would have been one showing minorities upset with Obama as they are being evicted from their homes because the banks that he bailed out wouldn't re-work their loans.

Deal and others who have addressed my initial post:

I sense what you are saying and can honestly agree that in my opinion Carter put his foot in it again with the breadth of his statement. I appreciate the comments that were directed to me, but in no way was I granting some kind of inerrant authority to Carter.

I simply did not want to see another long thread of self righteous bashing on someone who is genuinely trying to help despite his personal imperfections. Despite the threads of truth in much of what he says, the manner of its delivery is what I, and many others find wanting. Yes, I know there are also quite a few who find NO truth in what he says. But this is why I appreciated Deal's quote of the CCC, and hoped others could at least extend some merit to some part of what Carter was trying to say.

I grew up in the West, am Caucasian myself, married to a Hispanic, but never really experienced a lot of racism as a child.

There are many people of color I speak with on a daily basis and there is a very different feeling about all of this that I have come to understand when it comes to the long arc or history, social sin, and my place in our current world. I am viewed as privileged, not only because I am white, but also because I am male.

I am not advocating ANYTHING in this post, so please dont reply projecting something onto me saying I am giving license to something. I am not.

I believe there is a sufficient amount of ignorance among all peoples when it comes to racial issues. From my point of view, limited as it is, and yet open to the stories I have heard recounted to me by many many people of color, I am afraid this sentiment is simply not considered by some, if not many caucaisans. What I am saying here is in NO way implying that all or even most people are racists, or even latently racist. I am NOT saying that, so please be careful to try to hear what I am saying. What I am saying is that we need to listen to each other more than we have. This is what I take from Carter, despite the hamhandedness of his words.

That line fromt the Catechism is something we should simply spend more time meditating on.

Peace!

My views are so middle of the road, I get run over by both sides. To the left, I'm a racist bigot with tones of cultural imperialism, and a protectionist to boot since I'm against unlimited free trade. To the right, I'm a statist communist with touches of atheism, despite my obvious and vocal orthodoxy supporting the real idea behind the Seamless Garment of Life (actually, gasp, supporting human life from conception until natural death, not adulterating that ideal with war or abortion, the death penalty or euthanasia, and certainly NEVER for monetary gain).

In both cases, it's supposed to be an insult large enough to get me to shut up and stop making inconvenient, politically incorrect remarks that might make people actually THINK about their politics. Well, telling the truth as I see it is something I'll never stop doing- so just get used to it already.

As far as I'm concerned, the most "racist" act in the past nine months by any member of the government was perpetrated against the poor few black children of the DC school system who were looking forward to a path out of their failing schools with the very successful voucher program supported by that nasty old George Bush but whose "hopes" were dashed by a "change" in policy as soon as the new president got into office.
Yes, "The One" and only Barack H. Obama.
Someone ask those parents if they would trade polite political correctness among Washington bureaucrats for a school Voucher.

What you said, for the most part, is what I tried to say.

getting tired of liberals playing the race card. If they cannot argue their political philosophy in a cogent way that wins over peoples' minds, then they try poisoning peoples' minds with class and race hatred. This crap just doesn't fly any more. What chapter in Saul Alinsky's handbook was this from? Funny... the more educated and informed people are, the more the dots are beginning to connect.

Brian - I think you should use more Smurf pictures like on Zmirak's latest posting. Much less upsetting than the KKK pic. Now, that is ironic....consider the violence on that show!

Charles, FTW!

I recently read an article about William Manchester and the challenges he overcame while writing and publishing his masterpiece, “The Death of the President.” Here’s a bone-chilling excerpt from the article:


Because President Obama is black, “nut country” has gotten a whole lot bigger today. There is amply video and photographic evidence of racism during the D.C. rally this past weekend and during the townhalls this past summer. Some attendees proudly waved racist posters and wore racist T-shirts while shamelessly mugging for cameras.

Racism always did/does look better under a sheet.

I think that the race card is being dealt here by a small group of people who want to shame others into silence. Just because you disagree with someone does not mean you are racist. Conversely, just because you are racist does not mean that you don't have a valid point when you disagree with someone.

We all have a sinful nature and we all struggle with our prejudices on a daily basis. If we dismiss the point of view of those who are contending with their biases, we dismiss everybody's opinion, because nobody is without sin (except Christ and our Lady).

It feels like we live in a totalitarian society where the media is controlled by government sources. This may not be the case, but the vitriol and the slander that comes out of the mouths of those who cannot control the point of view of the unwashed masses is staggering and shameful.

You mean, kind of like you did earlier playing the "pray for wisdom" card against somebody with whom you disagreed? Or kind of like just about every right winger does with the "Marxist" or "communist" card?

The liberals didn't invent this. And the only real way around it is to play the "higher ground" card, and ignore it.

>>getting tired of liberals playing the race card. If they cannot argue their political philosophy in a cogent way that wins over peoples' minds, then they try poisoning peoples' minds with class and race hatred. This crap just doesn't fly any more. What chapter in Saul Alinsky's handbook was this from? Funny... the more educated and informed people are, the more the dots are beginning to connect.<<

And how is the rabid hatred and blatant misinformation being bandied about by Obama-haters (like the "death panel" nonsense) "arguing in a cogent way." If one reacts to the insanity by calling it out for what it is (i.e.,irrational and nutty,) then you're "poisoning peoples' minds." Carter certainly has a point. The froth-spittled hatred might not stem entirely from racism, but there's something very visceral fomenting it. Racism is certainly a part of the problem. As for "educated and informed people" look at the voting demographics. Statistically, people with post-graduate degrees voted overwhelmingly for Obama.

Utterly false, calumnious, slanderous. I charge you, Analyst, with bearing false witness against that the people who marched in Washington last Saturday and at the townhalls. I call you out for shamelessly distorting the evidence. The evidence is tiny, not ample and of the tiny evidence supporting your claim, much of the most extreme has been traced to Obama supporters in the SEIU, ACORN and other leftist organizations, as well as to Lyndon Larouche's organization (several of the Nazi posters). The finger-biter in Los Angeles was an Obama supporter. The black man who beat a black man up in St. Louis was an SEIU leader.

The waves of protest at the townhalls this summer and the vast majority of the marchers in Washington this past weekend were remarkable for being grassroots, hitherto politically inactive middle Americans. This is a discernible sociological phenomenon. Dismissing them as "amply" racist is Democrat talking point no. 1 at the moment.

The culture of death people are all racists. Obama is very Pro Abortion.
Maafa21.com or Black Genocide.org

Rabid is as rabid does, Ann. What you wrote is spittle-flecked and rabid, far more so than what you responded to.

I and millions of others harbor no hatred toward Presdent Obama. I despise some of his policies but not his person. The commenter to whom you replied wrote entirely of policies, in strong language. You responded by calling him a hater.

That's wrong.

On Fearing Obama

No one fears the president of the United States as a person after all he is just a man.
Obama has been and will continue to be a product of Chicago politics who loves the power of government office. Washington is full of his type.

Clinton rose to heights on the weight of the phrase “it’s the economy stupid” and the people believed it. Now the people believe something different to be true.

Obama is now our president and yes he is black and he is a very “gifted” speaker but that is no reason to fear or hate him. However, the genuine fear more Americans are seeing in him is his agenda.

So in all honesty today Americans are saying “IT’S HIS AGENDA STUPID”!

That is what will not be accepted by the majority of Americans no matter who holds the office. True Americans want no part of Socialism even when it’s wrapped in (so called free) government health care, bailouts for everyone, cash for clunkers, or phony pork barrel stimulus packages.

"...much of the most extreme has been traced to Obama supporters in the SEIU, ACORN and other leftist organizations..."

Phil, please provide me with links to your documentation, excluding goofy conspiracy theorists like FOX, Newsmax, World Net Daily and rightwing bloggers.

The video and photographs I referred to have been plastered all over all network and cable news channels, news magazines and the internet.

In general, I'd be very surprised if there wasn't more anti-black prejudice per capita among the white representatives at a Democratic National Convention, than at the recent D.C. "Tea Party."

And it seems to me that instances of white folk saying "There goes the neighborhood" these days when dark-skinned folk move into their neighborhoods, are from north of the Mason-Dixon line, not south of it. I get the impression of an attitude which can be summed up as, "Let's make the government responsible for being condescendingly maternal to folk that don't look like us, so long as we don't have to personally keep company with them."

That's the impression I get from the leftward side of our society's elite...but I may be misunderstanding their intent, so I'm willing to give 'em the benefit of the doubt.

Sure, I don't know many places more simultaneously racially pluralistic and neighborly than my middle-class Atlanta suburb, but I'll bet if the powers that be in the blue states work a little harder on classifying folk according to the content of their character instead of the color of their skin, they'll get there one day.

But it's hard to see how they can do that: It'd mean giving up, not only a lot of public policy opinions, but the chief attribute they had in mind, the last time they voted for President.

Shame, that.

Mr Hudson, The charges of slander need to flow in both ways, left and right. Several Catholic blogs make it almost a daily habit of suggesting we are being governed by tyrants, despots and worse. They too need to be ashamed.

Phil Atley called YOU out to cite specifics to support your absurdly ignorant claims, and since you OBVIOUSLY CANNOT COMPLY you took the cowardly way out by trying to turn tables on him by demanding links from him. The clincher is your arrogance in attempting to finesse your own failure to support your utter inanities by your dismissive - but equally ridiculous - suggestion that you need no citations because evidence supporting your views can be found "all over all network and cable news channels, news magazines and the internet."

the rally last Saturday in Washington are no more racist than the 18th century patriots were Anglophobes.

You can fool some of the people....

Last word from me on the race "distractor" crap coming out of and orchestrated by the Alinsky oops...Obama White House: "It's about the Constitution, stupid!" If it was race you read on those placards well that's just more dissimulation. What I saw were vented frustrations with the destruction of our constitutional government. The people expressed clearly that elected officials work for us; they are not OUR Masters.

A reminder to remember the Rules for Comments and to keep it civil. This is a hot subject with strong opinions on both sides, but we don't want it devolving into a name-calling match. Thanks.

Let's not fall for the good cop/bad cop tactic. Obama played the race card during the campaign. He played it when his poll numbers went down and he accused a police department of 'acting stupidly' (in a racist fashion) when his friend obviously provoked the officer.

I believe that the liberals are now like arsonists acting as the fire department when they act concerned about 'words' stoking the embers of racism.

If things explode, they'll no doubt use the opportunity to use the crisis to their advantage.

As the old adage goes, "Out of chaos comes order."

I read this morning that the 9/12 rally in Washington was littered with "Birther" signs. I wonder if this is why many had a knee jerk reaction to call the protesters racists. Any thoughts?

I do consider the birthers to be *culturalist*- but they do have a point in that on this point, the Constitution itself is culturalist- there is a requirement that the President be born in the United States.

I also consider them to be idiots. Birth announcements in two papers from 1964 (pre-computer), "certificate of live birth", and reasonable facsimile have all been released and examined by experts. Barak Hussien Obama, despite his unfortunate middle name, was born in Hawaii. Anything else, including the secret muslim charge, is borderline racist and totally irrelevant to the argument.

Ted,

Thanks for your response. My question really is: do you think the racism charge is mostly based on the fact that many people at the 9/12 rally were holding Birther signs? If so, and if this is a growing movement within conservative ranks, it seems to me that a stronger effort needs to be made to explain to people why they should not take up this cause. That would entail taking up the arguments raised by Birthers and dismantling them, which nobody has done. This issue gets passing reference as nonsense, but that's not the way to debunk a false claim. I'm not suggesting it be done here in this discussion, but if the country is becoming unwittingly racist because of misinformation, it seems a civic duty to explain to people why they are wrong about this. Why will no one air this issue in an intelligent way for the sake of the public good? Just saying their claims are ridiculous is not enough. When John McCain's eligibility was questioned he took his case before congress for a full vetting of the issue. All the liberals want to do is mock people and call them racists. That seems unfair. If a stronger effort will not be made to debunk Birtherism then I don't think it's fair to call them racists. And if this was the indicator that set off that accusation, then it needs to be aired more fully and now, for the sake of our country and its racial harmony.

Possibly. But I also think most *birthers* aren't smart enough to realize that what they are implying is a form of racism.



I thought snopes.com had done an excellent job of it at
http://tinyurl.com/4ykzex

But you're right- nobody is taking up the deeper, more disturbing aspects of this (such as, a man from Kenya should never be president merely because of his race, or a Muslim should never be president merely because of his religion).



I think because those who don't believe the story, believe it has already been sufficiently debunked. I had a bunch of articles proving this, but it wouldn't post because of too many URLs (Yes, I did convert them all to tinyURLs, still wouldn't post)- but they're all reachable from that first snopes site anyway.



I have a tendency to agree with you- but thanks to Philip Berg, Barak Obama answered the charges in federal court, they received a full public vetting, and were found to be false. I think the only thing left is to point out that the accusation itself is racially and creedially based- that given the reality of a valid birth certificate, the only reason left to continue this birther nonsense is black skin and possible muslim religion (even the second of those has been debunked though:
http://tinyurl.com/ycbmdp ).

You are the racist, Ted Seeber, because you use the accusation every which way. I've had it up to here with indiscriminate race-baiting. If you actually read the arguments on both sides of the birth certificate controversy that have NOTHING to do with the race of Barack Obama but with the absence of information about his identity, including indications he traveled on an Indonesian passport and may have presented himself as Indonesian. Behind that lies the sense that he has little sense of American culture, business, identity. He could clear it all up by releasing his college records etc.

It has nothing to do with race. And you to allege that it does shows that you are obsessed with race in a way we are not.

I would leap for joy at a Thomas Sowell or Clarence Thomas or any of dozens of other Black or Hispanic men and women as president who believe in policies I believe in. I cringe at the thought of any of a dozen white politicians as president--I cringe because of their beliefs and policies. And for you to tell me it's because of race, for you to tell me you know what I think better than I do, is an example of what John Paul II called dehumanizing by depersonalizing: bullyingly spreading yourself over others, smothering them in your picture of who they are. It is pre-judice, pre-judgment. It is sinful.

Advocate for your policy beliefs, Ted Seeber. But stop the bigoted racist-calling. It's evil.

You tell him, Phil!

I agree with Phil to this degree: until the arguments of the Birthers are publicly debunked, one cannot call those who buy into those arguments racists. The Birthers have been prosecuting a case that has gone largely unanswered. If the accusations against these protesters were based on the presence of these Birther signs, and if those making the accusations see a racial divide brewing in this country, then they have an obligation to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Obama is legitimate. What happened to a rigorous search for the truth? And Ted, with all due respect, I don't know where you're getting your information, but Obama has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars if not millions to prevent a full airing of the facts about his life, many of which remain unknown. Obama needs to answer for his past without the help of media obfuscation so that this country can move on. Or is he relying on the racism charge against any who question his legitimacy? Considering where Carter and others think this is going that would be down right evil.

Actually I haven't. I never said the birthers were racist. I said that their accusation was bordering on racism. I in fact said they were probably too stupid to realize this.



Actually, I have read the arguments on both sides- and found the birther's side to be particularily non-evidence based.



Which, if you had read the studies I linked to, he HAS. Consistently. They've all been released. When they were released, they were charged with being forgeries, so experts examined them and proved that they weren't forgeries.

Apparently it's you who hasn't kept up on this subject.


Then why did you just deny that the White House has already released those documents?



Could this be the reason you cling to the Birther myths, because you think there's only one way to be an American?



Which I didn't do, notice. But why didn't you ask where George Bush was born and make him release his birth certificate?


Which I never did in the first place. Had you actually bothered to read the research I linked to, anyway.

Did you bother to read the reports I linked to? All of the actually *relevant* questions have been answered.


You mean like releasing Obama's birth certificate, here?
http://tinyurl.com/5nnaqo



Got any proof for that? Because snopes.com says differently.



Which he did, IN FEDERAL COURT:
http://tinyurl.com/l5bh9g



Sorry, it's not Obama who is making the charges. He has in fact answered every question about his life to the full satisfaction of the majority of the voting population. Sorry you don't like democracy, but that's the way it is.

I'm not sure what you think is proven by the link you provided to the Court document. From a quick scan it looks to me like a judge threw the case out for lack of standing. That's not a full airing of the facts. As for the other links that are so conclusive to you, I have to say it seems to me that you are not really aware of the Birther's arguments. The Certificate of Live Birth could be obtained by anyone born to a Hawaiian resident within a year of their birth. So if he was born somewhere else and came back they could get that. So it really proves nothing, not to mention that both sides have contradictory views about its authenticity. As for the Hawaiian official who verified his vital statistics, they did not say that they saw his original birth certificate, which the Birthers want to see. Why is he hiding it? He could get Hawaii to release an official copy of the original and put the matter to rest. The Birther's see a conspiracy and don't trust a Hawaiian official they believe to be in on it. Maybe it's far fetched, but he could go a long way to ending such speculation. Why won't he? And the birth announcements in the newspaper mean nothing. A proud grandparent might post them even if their daughter was out of town, seeing her as a permanent resident of Hawaii who would soon return. But the most compelling argument by the Birthers is this dual citizenship, being that Obama was a subject of Great Britain at birth. I admit its all too confusing to boot the guy from office, but many believe the constitution has been thwarted, that the founders clearly wanted someone for the highest office in the land who did not have divided loyalties and Obama did. That's not racism. The issue should be aired, and until it is the Birthers should not be called racists, or even borderline racists. They believe Obama is a fraud, which puts them in pretty good company regardless of what one thinks he's lying about. I think as Catholics or at least Judeo-Chritians who tend to frequent this site, we can all agree on that.

"My guess is that President Carter, who grew up in the Jim Crow South, must have some sense of what he is talking about"

Ted, Re: the first comment in this thread: Here's a newsflash: Racism doesn't live in the South anymore. Time to move on, Ted, and put the convenient stereotypes behind ya.

A video, authenticated by the Supreme Court of the United States, showing the business end of Barack Obama’s actual hospital birth while surrounded by ukulele-playing hula-dancing medical staff balancing on surf boards, eating pineapples, drinking coconut milk, wearing leis, and singing along with Don Ho – all that would not be enough to satisfy the nutcase birthers.

By the way, those two newspaper birth announcements were (and still are) published directly by the State of Hawaii. Family members have nothing to do with them. The data for the birth announcements is provided directly to the state by the hospitals.

The commentary under this blog sunk to below the cellar when goofy birtherism got introduced into the mix.

We were at our annual IC dinner last night, unable to monitor comments, and it seems a few things slipped by.

A note to all: We will not tolerate racist comments, which very much includes referring to public figures as "kow-towing Uncle Toms."

[Thanks to Susan for the alert.]

Why has Ted been so absolutely silent on my two notes??
He must agree with me!

Living here in NYC with the Al Sharpton's , Spike Lee's and other so called activists, I only wonder why these men and so many other African American's can be so "Pro Black" when one cant be "Pro White"?

My children watch the Noggin Channel as they are below 5 years old, and they have shows that teach them Chineese and Spanish, learn to celebrate Hispanic History Month (this month if you did not know), February will be black history month, and are now told as Italians that Columbus was a murderer and killed Indians left and right. What ever happended to not introducing and brainwashing our youth? Do Hispanics and African Americans have such low self esteem that they need these "history months"? What about Italian, Irish, German, etc-History months??

Whenever the left wing gets backed into a corner, out comes the cries of racism. I for one am very tired and will never vote for anyone I can not later criticize-and if being labeled a racist because I dont like socialized welfare and healthcare-then I will now never vote for an African American again in my life as this just made it clear that you can never disagree with an African American on any policy without having to defend yourself

I will not let my children feel inferior and for a society that wants to be colorblind-why then do 95% of all African Americans stand behind their own every time. Is that not also racist?

No, just take a sabbath from the internet on weekends, for the most part- I'll get to them soon. Chances are though- I do agree with you if you claim that the Birthers are not *intentionally* racist, but merely that their claim brings up some racist undertones.

And he went back in time and faked the two birth announcements in Hawaiian Newspapers? Is he a time traveler too?



But only one side is credible.

[quote[
As for the Hawaiian official who verified his vital statistics, they did not say that they saw his original birth certificate, which the Birthers want to see. Why is he hiding it?[/quote]

It's right there on the web, nobody's hiding it.



That's because they're idiots.



Because he has- for anybody who can think.



And mention the HOSPITAL in which the child was born and lie about it? What grandparent would do that? You're clutching at straws.


Except that is *directly* racism.



The only "compelling argument" you have is racism- claiming dual citizenship.



But you admitted to the racism just two sentences ago: The dual citizenship by right of birth is something Obama had *NO* control over- and is an outright *racist* remark.




I can't. I can't find ONE instance of "Obama is a fraud" other than the dual citizenship thing, which is racist on the face of it.

Do you have anything non-racist to say?

I agree with that one- OUTRIGHT racist, not "implicitly racist because I didn't think how this might appear from the other side".

I agree on most of this too- but we need a definitive statement that just because he has a father from Kenya and dual UK citizenship does *NOT* mean he's automatically a socialist.

It's what he *does*, not what he *is*, that counts!

And that's as a borderline socialist with *decentralization* tendencies!

Mr. Seeber,

You've exemplified my point, that the racism charge is based on the birtherism, which is why it should be aired in an intelligent way. Obama could put the issue to rest if he showed to the public what would prove his Natural Born status in a court of law, which he has not done. Many people agree he should do this, and if it would end a growing racial divide then I believe he should do it as well. This is not a fringe position so I don't appreciate being communicated with in such a nasty way.

Even you are capable of figuring out that Carter wasn't saying that the "majority" of people opposed to Obama are racist. He was saying that those people exhibiting an "intense animosity" towards Obama did so because he is black. Those are two totally different things. This is yet another example of an intelligent person (i.e., you) using the "pulpit" (because that's what this is) to advance an agenda with rhetorical exaggeration and misrepresentation. It's sad to see that you have resorted to this type of behavior, but it is not surprising.

By the way, whether you want to acknowledge it or not, there are a lot of racists running around all over America. The Republican Party has routinely and knowingly signalled its willingness to embrace those people. Like it or not, that was a major factor that enabled the Republican Party to become a force in the South - and you know it.

Do something else with your talent.