Martha Zoller

Here's Martha's New Column at HumanEvents.com

Sun, 29 Aug 2010 12:29:29 -0500

Funding Michelle Obama's priorities:

Funding Michelle Obama's Priorities

Posted 08/28/2010 ET

In a special session that epitomized everything people hate about Congress, a bill to help states was passed with $26 billion in money that was offset with strange accounting measures. That is something we've come to expect from this Congress--worry about paying for it later, by our children and grandchildren.

Many Democrats were uncomfortable with the vote on August 10, but they may come back to Congress for another vote that will be billed as an $8 billion child nutrition bill. This bill is at the center of Michelle "Marie Antoinette" Obama's "Let's Move" initiative to fight childhood obesity.
First Ladies have testified before Congress on their initiatives. Lady Bird Johnson embraced "Keep America Beautiful," but that was primarily a call to the American people to pick up after themselves. Barbara and Laura Bush embraced literacy issues and lobbied Congress on education spending.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38735

Pentagon Whitewashes Cause of Ft. Hood Massacre

Wed, 25 Aug 2010 20:35:46 -0500

When I heard the initial report on Friday on the findings in the Fort Hood shootings investigation, I almost ran my car off the road. The words "workplace violence" were used.

As if the shooting at Fort Hood was like a fired worker going back in to his place of business and killing his co-workers. Maj. Nidal Hasan is depicted as a loner, who everyone thought was a nice guy who just snapped. This shows nothing but disrespect to the people who died at Fort Hood last November.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38688

Institutionalized Cheating: APS and Dougherty County Schools Get Special Prosecutors

Mon, 23 Aug 2010 06:31:42 -0500

By Martha Zoller

http://blogs.ajc.com/get-schooled-blog/2010/08/20/perdue-names-former-ag-mike-bowers-and-former-dekalb-da-bob-wilson-special-investigators-in-apsdougherly-crct-mess/?cxntfid=blogs_get_schooled_blog

I'm not one of those talk hosts who bash public schools every chance I get. I am an "All of the Above" person in education. I believe in choice and one of those choices ought to include public education. The strings should be cut between government and educators. There should be no federal department of education, but in Georgia, where one of the main constitutional responsibilities is providing education, there ought to be some controls on public education.

My husband and I, as well as our children, are products of Georgia public schools and we are proud of that. I am not proud, however, of the systemic cheating that is apparent in APS and Dougherty County schools.

The Governor is right to appoint Mike Bowers and Bob Wilson to investigate this mess. I would urge the Governor to be tough regarding the findings. Any teacher or administrator who participated in the changing of CRCT test responses should be fired. There should be a strong message sent to any teacher, public or private, that this kind of behavior should not be tolerated. We cannot afford to send the message to our children that it's okay to cheat. Any teacher who knew about the cheating and did not report it should be fired. These are not the kind of people we need administrating or teaching in our schools.

Let the investigation go on, but if at the end there is just a fancy report and a slap on the wrist, we have condoned cheating and we will continue to pull another thread out of the fabric of our values as Georgians and as Americans.

Institutionalized Cheating: APS and Dougherty County Schools Get Special Prosecutors

Mon, 23 Aug 2010 06:31:42 -0500

By Martha Zoller

http://blogs.ajc.com/get-schooled-blog/2010/08/20/perdue-names-former-ag-mike-bowers-and-former-dekalb-da-bob-wilson-special-investigators-in-apsdougherly-crct-mess/?cxntfid=blogs_get_schooled_blog

Institutionalized Cheating: APS and Dougherty County Schools Get Special Prosecutors

Mon, 23 Aug 2010 06:31:42 -0500

By Martha Zoller

http://blogs.ajc.com/get-schooled-blog/2010/08/20/perdue-names-former-ag-mike-bowers-and-former-dekalb-da-bob-wilson-special-investigators-in-apsdougherly-crct-mess/?cxntfid=blogs_get_schooled_blog

Randy Evans and the Buddy Darden Rule

Mon, 16 Aug 2010 11:17:23 -0500

Randy always hits the nail on the head. He's right here and he gave me permission to reprint his remarks here:

The Buddy Darden Rule
J. Randolph Evans
Column No. 1029 (8/13/10)

The rule of George "Buddy" Darden has incumbent Democratic Georgia
Congressman James Creel "Jim" Marshall (Eighth District) worried and he
should be. So what exactly is the rule of Buddy Darden?
Well, from 1983 (when he was elected to fill the unexpired term of
Congressman Larry McDonald who was killed in the downing of Korean Air
Flight 007) until 1994, Buddy Darden represented Georgia's Seventh
Congressional District. He was an immensely popular Congressman. After
winning the special election in 1983, he was reelected five times by
impressive margins with between 57% and 65% of the vote in the 1988,
1990, and 1992 elections.
There was a reason for his popularity. Buddy Darden was a former Cobb
County District Attorney and State Representative. More impressively,
he was one of the most likeable people in Georgia (and still is). He
attends weddings, funerals, and celebrations. He greets everyone with a
smile and everyone knows who he is.
In 1994, his opponent was Robert Laurence "Bob" Barr, Jr. As the son of
a West Point soldier, Bob Barr was no Buddy Darden. Instead, Bob Barr
became quite well known for his "dour" image. He often told his
constituents that "you don't send me to Washington, D.C. to smile." (To
drive this point home, Congressman Barr once said "I don't consider
politicians who smile to be worth a heck of a lot" so he didn't.) The
Darden/Barr contest looked like a mismatch.
Basically, it was a competition between a very popular incumbent five
term Democratic Congressman and a "dour" Republican challenger who did
not smile in a still decidedly blue state. Everyone - insiders,
pundits, state officials, and the media - thought it would be no
contest.
But that is, of course, not what happened. In 1994, Congressman Bob
Barr defeated Congressman Buddy Darden with over 52% of the votes. How
is that possible?
Well, voters in 1994 decided that there were things that were more
important than how well they liked their Congressman. What were those
things? First, the election became a referendum on the first two years
of President Bill Clinton's Presidency. Second, voters wanted a new
direction for the country and the Congress based on the Contract With
America.
Across the United States, Republicans gained 54 seats in the United
States House of Representatives and regained control for the first time
since 1954. In addition to the Seventh Congressional District in
Georgia, there were many upsets that year as popular incumbent Democrats
unexpectedly lost to unknown and under-funded Republican challengers.
In Georgia, Congressman Barr was not the only Republican to defeat a
popular incumbent. Congressman Charlie Norwood defeated incumbent
Democratic Congressman Don Johnson. In addition, Congressman Saxby
Chambliss won the open seat after Congressman Roy Rowland retired. In
all, Georgians ended up with eight Republican Congressmen when the
Congress convened in 1995.
1994 turned out to be an election about issues, not people, and
especially not incumbents.
Now, folks look forward toward the 2010 election. In the Eighth
Congressional District, incumbent Democratic Congressman Jim Marshall
looks very much like former Congressman Buddy Darden did in 1994. He is
well-regarded and well-connected. (Indeed, he often boasts of his
relationship with Governor Sonny Perdue.) He is well-funded.
(Unlike Congressman Darden, Congressman Marshall has not routinely
cruised to reelection. He had very close calls (barely over 50%)
against Calder Clay in 2002 and Mac Collins in 2006 (both midterm
elections). And, unlike 1994 when it was still blue, Georgia is now a
decidedly red state.)
Yet, in other regards, things are very much the same. Like 1994,
Congress' approval rating is in the tank with just 20% of Americans
approving of the way Congress is doing its job. Generically, Americans
favor Republicans to control Congress by a 46.2% to 41.8% margin.
Overwhelmingly, Americans believe that the country is headed in the
wrong direction (61%). And, President Obama's approval rating heading
into the midterm election after his first two years is at an all time
low.
Adding to this mix, Congressman Marshall has given his Republican
challenger some political ammunition. For example, he has opposed
repealing the death tax. And, his opponent is no "dour" Bob Barr.
Instead, State Representative Austin Scott is a small businessman and
Georgia bulldog from Tifton, Georgia.
Nationally, political experts are predicting huge Republican gains on
November 2, 2010. With unemployment staying at 9.5%, a federal deficit
over $13 trillion, and higher taxes on the horizon, issues have started
to dominate voter decision-making just like 1994.
Once voters decide that the 2010 election involves something more
important than how well they like their own Member of Congress, then the
rule of Buddy Darden will almost certainly come into play, and popular,
well funded, and well-connected incumbents are in trouble. That is what
has Congressman Jim Marshall worried.

Martha's New Column at HumanEvents.com--Prop 8

Mon, 09 Aug 2010 06:20:41 -0500

We need to get the government out of the marriage business all together:

Chief U. S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled on Wednesday that California's Proposition 8, which defined marriage to be "only between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," was deemed unconstitutional under due process and equal protections provisions in the U.S. Constitution.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38449

Martha's New Column at HumanEvents.com--Prop 8

Mon, 09 Aug 2010 06:20:41 -0500

We need to get the government out of the marriage business all together:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38449

Randy Evans and the Primary Recovery....

Fri, 06 Aug 2010 17:08:39 -0500

This column is reprinted with the permission of Randy Evans.

I don't know how Randy does it. He has complete objectivity even when it comes to Republican candidates. Here are his thoughts on this primary cycle.

Republicans: Will There Be Time To Recover?
J. Randolph Evans
Column No. 1028 (8/6/10)

In 2006, Georgia Democrats faced one of the most bitter Democratic
primaries in the history of Georgia. It really was a race to decide the
future direction of the Democratic Party of Georgia for a decade. The
two candidates were Lieutenant Governor Mark Taylor and Secretary of
State Cathy Cox. The winner got the chance to face Governor Sonny
Perdue, Georgia's first Republican governor since the 1800s, in the
General Election on November 7, 2006.

Like all primaries between political heavyweights, the Democratic
Primary was bruising, contentious, and personal. It is the nature of
primaries. While Democrats thought at the time that the 2006 Democratic
primary was especially bitter, it was in reality about the same as every
other primary where the stakes are so high. Supporters of Mark Taylor
passionately believed in him; supporters of Cathy Cox passionately
believed in her. When there is such passion, the cuts are deep, and
often take a long time to heal. Some never heal.

In 2006, the Democratic Primary, like in all primaries and runoffs, was
about voter turnout. Each candidate works hard to get their people to
actually show up in the middle of summer and vote. But that is not all
they do. Each candidate and their campaign work hard to dampen the
enthusiasm of their opponent's supporters to show up and vote. This is
where negative campaigns come into play.

Unfortunately, the most effective single tool for dampening the turnout
of your opponent's supporters is negative campaigning. So, candidates
and their campaign teams say really nasty things about their opponent.
The goal of these attacks is not to convince people to vote against
their opponent (although it does have that effect on a few people).
Instead, it is really aimed at convincing the marginal supporters that
they have more important things to do on election day than going to the
polls to vote for such a bad character.

And so the 2006 Democratic Primary went. While the average voter got a
small dose of the negative campaigning between Mark Taylor and Cathy
Cox, party activists and regular Democratic primary voters got a heavy
dose. In the end Lieutenant Governor Mark Taylor handily defeated
Secretary of State Cathy Cox with over 51% of the vote, and importantly,
without a runoff. The margin was just over 37,000 votes out of over
480,000 votes. At the time, Mark Taylor believed that his win without a
runoff (with four candidates in the Democratic contest) was a major
victory. The problem is that winning political battles is very
different from winning election wars.

The fact was that in becoming the 2006 Democratic nominee, Mark Taylor
did successfully drive down his opponent's support. Indeed, Cathy Cox
got just over 211,000 votes or 44%. The problem was that her supporters
(both those who voted on July 18, 2006 and those that would have
supported her on November 7, 2006) never came back. Governor Sonny
Perdue easily won reelection with almost 58% of the vote. As an example
of how badly things went, Mark Taylor did not even get 40% of the vote
in 2006. (He received a total of just 38.2%.) To put this in context,
Democrats swept the country that year, regaining control of Congress and
winning governorships along the way - just not Georgia.

In 2006, Democrats had 112 days to recover from the July 18, 2006
primary until the November 7, 2006 General Election with the rising tide
of a national Democratic surge. It was not enough.

In 2010, Republicans will have just 84 days from the Republican Primary
runoff until the General Election on November 2, 2010. The historical
context of the 2006 Democratic Primary sits in the back of the minds of
both Georgia Democrats eager for a return to the days of old, and
Georgia Republicans fearful of political self-destruction that could
jeopardize Georgia's status as a solid red state. Indeed, around the
country, political pundits have moved Georgia from a 'leans Republican'
to a 'toss-up' state.

Of course, there are some notable differences between 2006 and 2010.
Republicans are strong in Georgia at both the top of the ticket with
Republican United States Senator Johnny Isakson and at the bottom of the
ticket where Republican control of the Georgia General Assembly is not
really at risk. In addition, President Obama's unpopularity continues
to grow, especially in conservative states like Georgia. Indeed, it was
not lost on anyone that when President Barack Obama came to Georgia,
Democratic nominee and former governor Roy Barnes was not just in a
different city, he was in a different part of the state altogether.

As some might say, all of this makes the political situation in Georgia
'very fluid.' The fact is both Democrats and Republicans have their
work cut out for them.

Nullification

Wed, 04 Aug 2010 05:54:05 -0500

There are many words being bantered about these days regarding the fight to take back the House and Senate in 2010 and then the Presidency in 2012. One of those words in nullification. People get nervous when words like nullification are used and here is a discussion by Bert Loftman, retired physician and former candidate for the 9th Congressional District on Nullification. Is it just short of secession or is it a tool we have to use in our times?

From Bert Loftman:

Nullification is an important national issue where our Governor (Nathan Deal, and Karen Handel) and Attorney General candidates (Sam Olens and Preston Smith), who are in the August 10 Republican run off election, can make a difference.

Nullification or interposition is where a state declares a law unconstitutional and refuses to follow it or the state protects its citizens from its effects. This is not a partisan issue as the Left would tend to favor state medical marijuana legislation. This has become law in over a dozen states http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/nullification/marijuana/ . The Right would tend to favor Firearms Freedom Act Legislation which nullifies the Brady Act. This is where the Federal government can stop Americans from buying firearms if they fail a Federal background check. Eight States have made this law, http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/nullification/firearms-freedom-act/.

The Federal Government justifies both of these laws on changing the meaning of a single word, "among." The US Constitution Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 says "To Regulate Commerce ... among the several states." Our Washington officials seem to believe it says "To Regulate Commerce ... within the several states." Changing the meaning of the word "among" has made all the difference.

We have read over these candidate web sites and cannot find any reference to nullification. We have emailed them for their ideas on this and their answer will be posted at:

http://www.electtherightcandidate.us/Blogs/Nullification_Question/Archive.html

Sincerely, Bert Loftman

Director of ElectTheRightCandidate.US

ElectTheRightCandidate@gmail.com

The (Re)making of Bobby Jindal

Sun, 01 Aug 2010 14:26:15 -0500

The Making of Bobby Jindal

by Martha Zoller

07/30/2010

Here's is column I wrote this week for HumanEvents.com. I have their permission to reprint it here.

"We don't have time for meetings. We don't have time for red tape and bureaucracy. We're literally in a war to save our coast. Every hour matters. Every day matters."--Gov. Bobby Jindal (R.-La.)

Since Bobby Jindal came on the scene as a U.S. congressman from Louisiana, he's shaken the status quo. He is an unabashed conservative within the Republican Party--a unique blend of the political and business world.

He also gave the party some color. Republicans are sensitive about their perceived "color problem," and Bobby Jindal added a religious fervor and true conservative credentials along with his Indian heritage and he skyrocketed to the top of every conservative list.

When he moved to the Louisiana Governor's Mansion in 2008, he completed the perfect combination of a social and fiscal conservative with both Washington and executive experience. People were talking about a presidential run in 2012. While it was only "15 minutes" after President Obama had been elected and Jindal became a governor, battered Republicans were already thinking about 2012.

Jindal was tapped to give the Republican response to President Obama's first address to Congress and the expectations were high for the new governor of Louisiana. The message was on target but the delivery left much to be desired. He seemed nervous and stilted and many people said, "He's done."

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38314

Randy Evans and "The Lame Duck" Session

Sun, 01 Aug 2010 14:03:21 -0500

We've been talking about this all week. Randy Evans gave me permission to reprint the article. Randy is the attorney for Newt Gingrich, Nathan Deal, Sarah Palin and others and knows politics.

Americans Should Fear Lame Duck Session of Congress
J. Randolph Evans
Column No. 1027 (7/30/10)

What is a lame duck anyway? This could be the question that Americans
find themselves asking later this year if things continue in the same
direction that they are headed know. Unfortunately, it could be the
most expensive duck that Americans have ever seen or may ever see.

Basically, a 'lame duck' session of Congress occurs when defeated
Members of Congress come back after the election with the rest of
Congress to pass legislation. It is the ultimate end around the will of
the voters. More often than not, the Congress passes legislation that
it could have never passed if all of the Members voting for it had to
face the voters.

Really, any session of Congress this year that occurs after the election
on November 2, 2010, but before the new Congress is sworn in on January
3, 2011, is a 'lame duck' session of Congress. Lame duck sessions have
happened many times before. There have been over a dozen in the last 60
years.

Most of the time, lame duck sessions involve clean-up issues left over
by the Congress simply because it ran out of time before the election.
(With so many recesses, including the month long recess in August, it is
no wonder that they often cannot get their job done on time.)

This year, the reports about a lame duck session following the November
2, 2010 General Election are a little more worrisome for a couple of
reasons. First, the kinds of things that President Obama and Democratic
Congressional leaders have planned for the 2010 lame duck session are
much more than clean-up issues.

For example, President Barack Obama has created by executive order the
National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (also known as
the 'Deficit Commission'). In much simple terms, the Deficit
Commission's job is to develop government policy for dealing with the
over federal government's $12 TRILLION dollar deficit. Among other
things, the Deficit Commission plans to address U. S. 'tax policy.'
Conveniently enough, its report is scheduled for right after the
November 2, 2010 General Election but before the new Congress gets sworn
in, i. e., just in time for a lame duck session.

Former GOP Utah Senator and Commission Co-Chair Alan Simpson has
confirmed that "everything is on the table" including dramatic changes
to and sizeable increases of taxes. One such option being bandied about
is the addition of the very European 'value added tax' (VAT). In
application, this hidden but potentially sizeable tax would
significantly increase the cost of everything Americans buy. (VAT taxes
in Europe average 17%).

There are other dangerous ideas being discussed that would hit Americans
in their wallets and likely worsen the recession. For instance, these
could include climate change legislation (with a big hike in gas taxes)
and immigration legislation (complete with amnesty). These are the
kinds of things that only a Congress filled with people that do not have
to face the voters again would ever pass. And there will be plenty of
them.

The numbers are frightening. The one thing on which both Democrats and
Republicans agree is that there are a lot of people in the Congress now
who will not be there next year. Already, there are six Democrats and
six Republicans retiring from the United States Senate. Two Senators
(one Democrat and one Republican) have been defeated in the party
nomination process.

In the United States House of Representatives, there are 17 Democrats
and 20 Republicans retiring from Congress. Three incumbents have been
defeated in the nomination process. These numbers (over 40) do not even
include the incumbents who will be defeated in the General Election on
November 2, 2010. Conservatively, many pundits expect that as many as
30-40 incumbents could lose.

If true, a lame duck session of Congress in 2010 could have well over 50
Members who will not be held accountable for their votes. These are the
kinds of dynamics that create real risk for the American representative
form of government.

Unfortunately, the Obama Administration and Congressional Democratic
leaders have already proven that they will act to circumvent the will of
the voters. Earlier this year, Massachusetts voters sent a clear
message on healthcare with the election of Republican Senator Scott
Brown. In response, President Barack Obama, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and
Senate Majority Harry Leader Harry Reid employed clever parliamentary
procedural rules to bypass the checks and balances of the system to push
through what is now call "Obamacare." There is no reason to believe the
same thing will not happen after November.

Interestingly, the phrase 'lame duck' was originally used to label
bankrupt British businessmen in the 18th century, drawing on the idea of
an injured game bird that fluttering aimlessly toward a crash. Somehow,
in today's world, that label seems especially appropriate.

Randy Evans on the Georgia Primary...

Sun, 25 Jul 2010 15:50:24 -0500

I predicted for weeks that Oxendine would finish 3rd at best. And he came in fourth. It's time for Eric Johnson to get behind a primary candidate. But there is lot's more to come. Here's what Randy had to say about it:

"As predicted, low voter turnout was the norm for the 2010 Primary Election. Georgia has just over 5.7 million registered voters. Yet, under 1.1 million (less than 20% of registered voters) actually cast ballots on July 20, 2010. Of 1.1 million who did vote, just over 63% of Primary voters cast their ballots in the Republican Primary. Just under 37% voted in the Democratic Primary.

Former Governor Roy Barnes had an impressive showing with over 65% of Democratic votes. Winning any contested primary is impressive. Winning a contested primary over six other candidates including current Attorney General Thurbert Baker, former Secretary of State David Poythress, and current Georgia House Minority Leader Dubose Porter is very impressive. The margin of his win means that he not only won African American voters; it means he won them decisively.

The Republican gubernatorial primary was a topsy-turvy affair. Insurance Commissioner John Oxendine was the heavy favorite until just weeks (some say days) before the primary. He led in the polls and in fundraising. But once his collapse started, he could not stop it. In the end, he received just 17% of GOP Primary votes. Politics is a strange and tricky business where things can change quickly.

Former Senate President Pro Tem Eric Johnson surged late and mightily. Coming from virtually nowhere (with polls consistently showing him as "not a factor"), Johnson surged to over 20% of Republican voters. Just a few more days, and no one can predict what would have happened. He is proof of just how strong the statewide network of social conservatives is and how much of an impact it can have.

Yet, the story lines went to former Secretary of State Karen Handel and former Congressman Nathan Deal who collectively garnered over half the vote in the Republican Primary. Both deployed some political heavyweights to move numbers in their favor.

Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin endorsed Handel, building late momentum in the GOP Primary contest. Then, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich came to Georgia to endorse and support Deal. Their collective impact was notable.

Now, the focus turns to the August 10, 2010 GOP Primary Runoff. Again, voter turnout will be the story. Some part of this is based on the nature of primary runoffs. (Voters who cast their ballots in the Democratic Primary are ineligible to vote in the GOP Primary Runoff.) If just the GOP Primary voters on July 20, 2010 return on August 10, 2010, then the turnout would be only around 12%. More likely, the number will dwindle to well below 10%.

Both candidates will now work to reposition themselves in connection with voters who will actually show up on August 10, 2010. Undoubtedly, the Gingrich/Palin (or Palin/Gingrich) undertone will continue to tickle the fancy of 2012 Presidential election watchers and the media. But, notwithstanding likely visits by one or both, it is unlikely that this is the match-up that will be on the minds of Georgia GOP Primary Runoff voters. The fact is that there will be many more endorsements to come - some non-Georgians; but many more Georgians - some of significant consequence.

In addition, the Georgia Congressional delegation, leaders in the Georgia General Assembly, right to life groups, various local and state officials, and others will all step up to the plate to announce their support. If either candidate can establish a steady Georgia drum beat, then the runoff could quickly become a non-event. Until then, it is anyone's race.

There are some predictable issues that will bubble up as important factors in deciding who actually shows up to vote - like abortion, immigration, gun rights, and taxes. Voters in these groups tend to show up to vote more than other groups.

There is one issue that now appears off the table. Recent published polls have taken the issue of "electability" off the table as an issue for runoff voters. Both candidates do well in a head-to-head match up against Democratic nominee Roy Barnes, with Deal doing a little better.

There are political factors that help one candidate or the other. Deal probably got the best break with an unexpected runoff in the Ninth Congressional District GOP primary - his home Congressional District.

In the end, however, all roads lead back to the single biggest factor that will determine Georgia's 2010 GOP gubernatorial nominee - turnout. Who can get their voters to the polls on August 10, 2010; or, significantly, who keep the other candidate's voters home.

This is where things can get ugly fast. Unfortunately, primaries like this often become negative and personal - fast, really fast. Many times, campaigns never quite recover; and, supporters never do. To the delight of Georgia Democrats, Georgia's 2010 GOP gubernatorial campaign already shows signs of this kind of division."

Martha's New Column at HumanEvents.com

Wed, 21 Jul 2010 08:59:25 -0500

President Obama was supposed to be post racial. When you ask him, he says, he doesn't believe the attacks on him are racial. But everyone from his wife to the head of the NAACP tells it another way. They believe any attack on the President is racist or racial.

Dick Morris calls it the "ghettoizing" of Barack Obama. He was referring to the tactic of stirring up black and Hispanic voters with charges of racism where there is none. It's a ploy to stir up voters of color in this off-year election. From the NAACP to the tepid attempt at "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" in the eleventh hour of this congressional session, it's all about him, Barack Obama.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=38162

Martha's New Column at HumanEvents.com--Missed Deadlines on Obama Care

Wed, 14 Jul 2010 09:33:13 -0500

Obamacare had to be passed pronto. Speaker Nancy Pelosi said we had to pass it so we could know what's in it. All 2,000-plus pages were finally passed on March 23 through trickery and procedural hocus pocus.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38018