Joe Wilson

The main bills from the House and Senate -- HR 3200 and the Senate HELP bill, respectively -- both explicitly stated that illegal immigrants were not to benefit from the federal funds being put towards health care.  In fact, it's repeated a couple of times, for emphasis I suppose.  

But conservatives, one such example being Joe Wilson, were concerned with this issue not because they were illiterate and simply couldn't read those simple lines, but because they knew that without verification of legal status at the time of care, there was no way to know for sure whether or not illegal immigrants would receive the federal funds allocated for those who cannot afford care but have shown up in an emergency room requiring treatment nonetheless.

At the time of his outburst, Republicans and Democrats were appalled by the behavior of their colleague.  Democrats claimed it must have something to do with racism, because, in their (arrogant) minds, it could not possibly have dealt with a legitimate concern that he felt was not being properly addressed.  To Republicans, well, he shouted "You Lie!" at the president.  Enough said. 

But if the Democrats' assertion that this was a racially-charged, ideologically-empty accusation was correct, why did the Baucus bill that was released a week later expand so thoroughly on the exact issue that Rep. Wilson accused the president of lying on?  The Huffington Post, FactCheck, the AP, etc. all "debunked" the myth that illegals would receive funds from the new health care legislation time and time again, but if that was really the case, why was any change of language, let alone such a thorough expansion, even necessary at all?  Simply to appease Republicans?  Well, yes, and to make sure, once and for all, that illegal immigrants could not receive taxpayer money.  You won't be hearing any more shouts about lying from conservatives on this issue anymore (in relation to the Senate Finance version, at least) because the Baucus bill finally puts it to rest like all of its predecessors did not. 

 Former President Jimmy Carter once again embarrassed himself, and frankly, the nation last week. Stretching way into the deck to play the race card over Congressman Joe Wilson’s “You lie” remark, Carter said, "I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American." And this pearl of wisdom as he continued, "I live in the South, and I've seen the South come a long way, and I've seen the rest of the country that shares the South's attitude toward minority groups at that time, particularly African-Americans.""I think it's based on racism," Carter said at a town hall held at his presidential center in Atlanta. "There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president."

Well Mr. Carter, I live in the south, too, and I say you are just a clueless old man who should go back to peanut farming since you apparently have nothing intelligent to say. There is an “inherent feeling” among anybody with an IQ in triple digits that you should just shut up. I apologize to the Office of the Presidency for that language, but I just can’t muster any respect for a lying race baiter. There is absolutley no evidence that Wilson’s comment had anything whatsoever to do with race. Nor is the national opposition to Obama’s heath care proposals based on race. It’s based on a belief that nationalization of health care is a bad idea. I was against it when Hillary tried it in the early nineties, too. Was I racist then? Mr. Carter continues to proudly display his incompetence and irrelevance for all to see.I get so sick of this disengenuous garbage from people like Carter when they imply that conservatives in general and Republicans specifically are racist. Maybe it’s time for a little history lesson for the former president. 

In 1964, it took the leadership of Republican Minority Leader Everett Dirksen to break the Democratic filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill. That filibuster was led by current Democrat Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, and then Democrat Senator Al Gore Sr. of Tennessee. In the Senate, only six Republicans voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, compared to twenty-one Democrats in opposition. In the House, 40% of the Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act, while only 20% of Republicans opposed it. And yes, that would be the same Democrat Senator Byrd who was a proud former member of the KKK.

Were Republicans racist when they named the first two black Secretaries of State, Powell and then Rice, to office? Were they racist when they put the first black Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas, in place? Would it be fair to say the Democrats were racist when they publicly and unjustifiably vilified Justice Thomas and his family? I make no such claim, but I have no doubt it would have been claimed by the Democrats had the roles been reversed. Does the average liberal genius Democrat out there even know that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican?

Was Democrat former President Clinton racist when he said that William Fulbright was a visionary and was a hero to him? Fulbright was a vehement segregationalist and was one of the Democrats opposed to the 1964 Civil Rights Act.Carter’s own abysmal record on things racial brings into question his standing to criticize anyone regarding such issues. When Carter returned to Georgia after his Navy tour, he became a member of the Sumter County School Board. As documented in the National review Online (Sep. 18, 2009) “Laughlin McDonald, director of the ACLU’s Voting Project, relates in his book A Voting Rights Odyssey: Black Enfranchisement in Georgia, Carter’s board tried to stop the construction of a new “Elementary Negro School” in 1956. Local white citizens had complained that the school would be “too close” to a white school. As a result, “the children, both colored and white, would have to travel the same streets and roads in order to reach their respective schools.” The prospect of black and white children commingling on the streets on their way to school was apparently so horrible to Carter that he requested that the state school board stop construction of the black school until a new site could be found. The state board turned down Carter’s request because of “the staggering cost.” Carter and the rest of the Sumter County School Board then reassured parents at a meeting on October 5, 1956, that the board “would do everything in its power to minimize simultaneous traffic between white and colored students in route to and from school.”

And this from noted Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz in Frontpage Magazine, April 27, 2007, “If he who pays the piper calls the tune, then Carter's off-key tunes have been called by his Saudi Arabian paymasters. It pains me to say this, but I now believe that there is no person in American public life today who has a lower ratio of real to apparent integrity than Jimmy Carter. The public perception of his integrity is extraordinarily high. His real integrity, it now turns out, is extraordinarily low. He is no better than so many former American politicians who, after leaving public life, sell themselves to the highest bidder and become lobbyists for despicable causes. That is now Jimmy Carter's sad legacy.”

Carter had a cozy, personal relationship with former Palestinian dictator Yassir Arafat. In fact, he seems to have some affinity for thug dictators around the world, chumming with the likes of Fidel Castro, Saddam Hussein, former Yugoslav strongman Marshal Josef Tito, former Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceaucescu, former Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos, former Pakistani General Zia ul-Haq, former North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung and now his son Kim Jong Il, among others. His anti-Israel positions are well documented, including in his own book, "Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid." As an author, Mr. Carter has the dubious distinction of having his book an the must read list of none other than Osama bin Laden.

Jimmy Carter is widely accepted as the worst U.S. President ever. His attempts at Middle East peace were jokes to everyone except him and the Nobel prize committee. His term was a disaster, and he went downhill from there. He has no credibility to be critical of anyone regarding race relations, or frankly, anything else. Just retire already.

read more at http://commonconservativesense.com 

Why Joe Wilson shouldn't have apologized

Last night, President Obama made a speech before a joint session of Congress assembled for that purpose.  As he went through the various points of the Healthcare proposal(s), he got to a point at which he said that illegal aliens would not be provided care in the bill under consideration.

Joe Wilson, a Republican member of Congress from South Carolina, shouted:

"You lie!"

There was something of a minor firestorm after the speech had ended, and John McCain, another pragmatic centrist(and loser,)  condemned Wilson's outburst.

I applaud Joe Wilson, and apparently, the phones at his DC and district offices have been ringing ever since, mostly with the approving voice of support from across the nation.

While Wilson's outburst was a breech of congressional decorum, it is nevertheless important to recognize what it signifies: A general frustration among Conservative Republicans that the Democrats are lying, not 'misleading' or 'obfuscating', but flat-out lying about their healthcare plans.

In committee, an amendment was offered by Sam Johnson to strictly prohibit insurance to illegal aliens, but it was voted down by Democrats.  This is the proof in the pudding supporting Joe Wilson's claim: The President lied. And lies. And lies.

And lies.

This small outburst, condemned by moderates and pragmatists in the Republican party, is exactly what Republicans need to win.  Why do people like McCain always come out on the side of our opponents?  You'd think he'd have learned that he can gain no friends by this, but true to his instincts for wanting to remain inoffensive, McCain comes down on the side of Democrats again.  What of Joe Wilson's claim?  It is true. The President lied. And lies. McCain didn't mention that fact, and didn't address the subject of Wilson's outburst, but only the outburst itself.

It is instructive to recognize that McCain's amnesty agenda for illegal aliens is undoubtedly part of his motive. It's also instructive to recognize that for all the ill Obama is doing, had we elected McCain last fall, our situation might indeed be worse: We would probably have had some form of bail-outs; we likely would have some attempt at healthcare reform, and by now, we would have had the latest iteration of McCain's comprehensive immigration reform bill. McCain supports some form of Cap and Tax, so we might well have had that by now, too. The difference is that Republicans would have been disarmed against it because of a Republican president, just as over the last eight years, Republicans went along in many instances with George Bush's agenda on prescription drugs and education.

While it is objectively a horrible thing for the country that Barack Obama is president, it would be worse for the Republican party to have won with another 'centrist-pragmatist' like John McCain.  Joe Wilson was right: Barack Obama is lying. John McCain sold him out. Again.