Wednesday, April 28, 2010


I have been watching the Arizona immigration situation with a great deal of amusement.  The histrionics on the left have been both amusing and appalling.  Their hypocrisy is showing on federal, state and local levels. 

First there is the blatant misrepresentation of the legislation.  The left are insisting that this is going to bring on gestapo-style police tactics - guilty of "breathing while undocumented".  The author of that little gem is beside herself in righteous indignation, but, as is usually the case with the left, she has her facts wrong and is quoting the wrong bill.  This is really par for the course these days - it doesn't matter if the information is correct, as long as it furthers the narrative.

Long story short, the  bill is quite specific about police needing just cause to ask for identification.  Will there be a few rogue cops who might abuse the new law?  Possibly.  But didn't that happen prior to passage of the bill?  We've all heard stories about inappropriate profiling in the past.  The problem is that, as usual, the accusations are flowing fast and furious and with a very broad brush.  Every law has the potential to be abused.  By the opposition's logic, no new laws should be passed for fear someone will pervert the meaning or step outside the boundaries.  One could also infer that the left sees all police as racists who are just itching to lock up as many people as possible, illegal or not.  Quite frankly, it's appalling that our own president is forwarding that narrative.  But then, it's not like this is the first time he's insinuated that the police are racist and out of control.

The gestapo accusations are quite funny, with their attempted corrolation to having to "show your papers" like in 1930's Germany. Even Obama has played that card with his story about someone being harassed because they forgot their "papers" when they were just taking their kid for an ice cream. I have friends who have emigrated to this country legally, and part of the process is carrying your green card with you at all times.  It's a federal law.   The Arizona law is merely reinforcing the federal law.  You know, the one the feds refuse to enforce, even though Americans are being victimized by illegals in our border towns and sanctuary cities on a nearly daily basis.

The point of the Arizona law was to enable the state enforcement agencies to do what the federal government is supposed to be doing.  If the feds were doing their jobs, this law would never have passed.

The law is overwhelmingly popular in Arizona, because the legal residents of the state are desperate for action on a situation that has been out of control for decades but has recently reached a fever pitch.  The Governor of the state has seen her approvals ratchet up by 16 points since she signed the bill into law.  Sen. John McCain, however, has seen his numbers drop, due to his blatantly political pivot from decades of being an amnesty seeker to suddenly becoming a hard-line immigration enforcer.  The electorate is not buying it, Maverick.

The President of Mexico has come out and ordered a boycott of Arizona by all Mexicans.  Hopefully that will extend to the hundreds of illegals who cross our borders into the state every day.  Michelle Malkin has a great rundown of how the Mexican government treats illegals for a little perspective.

The mayor of many cities in the western US are also boycotting the state.  San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom was one of the first to say state employees should cancel all functions planned for Arizona.  Good idea, Gavin - maybe you should be visiting California cities for your little junkets.  God knows the state needs the revenue, and the taxpayers would will also see less of their money spent on travel expenses.  At this point, I find it insane that during an economic crisis, our politicians are perfectly happy to punish fellow Americans for trying to protect themselves and their property.  It is a sad commentary that we are so amenable to inflicting harm on our own countrymen over an epidemic of illegals flooding over our borders.

The boycott idea is really catching on with the lefty bloggers.  Unfotunately, they are showing their ignorance on this subject as they have on soooooo many others.  Many in the blogisphere are demanding the boycott of AriZona Iced Tea, with one brainiac calling it "the drink of fascists".  As usual these doofuses didn't do any research - if they had, they would have realized that AriZona iced tea is brewed on Long Island, New York.  Good gracious, these people seriously need to get a clue.

I'm all for immigration in this country.  Millions of people emigrate to this country every year.  Legally.  That is the only requirement most Americans have - come here legally.  The left's attempts to smear anyone who opposes illegal immigration as being against any and all emigration to this country is, as usual, painting with a broad brush in order to forward their narrative.  It's not too much to ask that people come here legally.  All countries have immigration laws, and support of those laws in this country does not make one a racist hater of poor, innocent immigrants.

Which brings us to the most comical part of the coverage of this issue - the obvious bias of the media reports covering the protests in the state capital.  Protesters are attacking police, painting swasticas (in refried beans, no less) on buildings, and even calling for burning the city down.  And yet these protests are being portrayed as "mostly peaceful" by the press.  The same press who were calling the tea parties riotous mobs ready to explode.  Yeah, right.

No doubt this issue with remain in the news for a while yet, what with Texas considering similar legislation and three cities in Arizona considering fighting the law

The Obama administration are beside themselves in fury, initiating an investigation into the legality of the law.  Their fury is understandable, though, because the passage of this law highlights the fact that the feds have seriously dropped the ball on the issue, to the detriment of our own citizens.  It focuses attention on the fact that there are immigration laws on the books that are simply not being enforced due mostly to political considerations - namely trying to ingratiate themselves to a potential voting block.  The realization of how badly they have served the American people might come to be construed as an orchestrated effort to make the situation untenable in order to ensure Americans get behind some sort of amnesty to relieve the pressure.  The fact that the new law is as popular as it is on a national level must surely give them pause, but, considering how tone deaf they have been so far, expect them totry to ram through amnesty anyway.

After all, how much damage can creating 12 million new competitors in the job market do?  And there surely won't be any sort of flood of new illegals hoping to get amnesty as well.  That is just the talk of evil nay-sayers saying nay.

There is a distinct stench of desperation in the air on this one, so it definitely bears watching.  The democrats need to pass amnesty before the election because they desperately need the potential votes. 

As usual, their narrative trumps reality and the needs of their party trump the needs of the country.

UPDATE:  Does this count as a success?

UPDATE II:  Kris Kobach, author of the Arizona law in question, has written an op-ed in the New York Times in defense of the law.  It's a good read - very informative and debunks the left's talking points with facts.  It's hard to believe the NY Times actually printed it - I'm sure they'll be getting a few nasty phone calls and emails today from the Lord and Master.  Don't they know this goes against the carefully crafted and nurtured narrative that has been encouraged by the White House?

Tuesday, April 27, 2010


In celebration of the first meeting of the Debt Reduction Committee, here is the cartoon of the week:

Saturday, April 24, 2010


In celebration of it's 20th anniversary, let's take a step back from the political precipice and get a little perspective.

Twenty years ago this week, the Hubble space telescope was sent into orbit.  At first, it was a laughingstock, due to it's problem lenses.  NASA sent up some astronauts to fix the problem, and voila - twenty years of utterly stunning images of the universe.  Hubble fulfilled it's mission and then some.  It's creators thought it might send back viable pictures for ten, maybe fifteen years, but with regular maintainance, here we are, two decades in, with potentially another decade to go.

What started out as an embarassment for NASA has become one of it's most successful - and most beloved - programs of all.

Hubble has opened our eyes and sparked our imaginations.  It has given us images that have humbled us and uplifted our spirits.  For me, it puts the trials and tribulations of our little planet into cosmic perspective.

Thank you, NASA, for giving us Hubble.  Thank you, Hubble, for giving us such indescribable beauty.

Happy Birthday, Hubble!

Thursday, April 22, 2010


Yesterday, the trial of United States Navy SEAL Petty Officer First Class Julio Huertas on charges of dereliction of duty and impeding an investigation began.  Two other SEALs, Petty Officer 2nd Class Matthew McCabe and Petty Officer 2nd Class Jonathan Keefe are awaiting trial.  PO McCabe is the only defendant accused of assault.  PO Keefe is only accused of dereliction of duty.

Today, PO Huertas was found not guilty.  Even still, this whole situation is a fiasco. 

The terrorist they are accused of assaulting is himself accused in the deaths of four Americans.  In 2004, four Blackwater guards were killed, and their lifeless bodies were burned, hacked at, decapitated, and dragged through the streets of Fallujah before two were hanged on a bridge over the Euphrates to the cheering of crowds of insurgents.  These atrocities were captured on video by members of al Qaeda to be posted on the internet.  The man who planned the attack on the guards and the ensuing atrocities perpetrated upon them was one of Iraq's most wanted terrorists, Ahmed Hashim Abed. 

Abed was captured on the battlefield last September and placed in custody.  There is photographic evidence that he had a fat lip, but was it obtained during battle or his "arrest", was it self-inflicted so that he could claim abuse, or was it really a case of one of our men going too far?  It's hard to say, the testimony is conflicting.  And, quite frankly, if all he got was a fat lip, he should be thanking his lucky stars.  Many al Qaeda fight to the death to ensure they are not captured alive; many end up with broken bones and other injuries for their efforts. 

The predicament our SEALs find themselves in illustrates a larger problem.  Our enemies recognize our government's obsession with political correctness for what it is in the theater of war - weakness.  A savvy leader exploits any weakness in his enemy that he can, and so they are.  It's appalling.  This ridiculous exercise has taken three of our top warriors off the battlefield, all on the word of a known killer. It is also demoralizing the warriors still on the battlefield and endangers them because they are constantly second-guessing themselves, for fear they themselves might end up court martialed.   It also proves to al Qaeda that their tactic of accusations works spectacularly - they have one soldier off the battlefield, we have three.  What great odds - especially if the dirtbag terrorist ends up getting his own charges dropped due to the "assault" he has allegedly suffered while in custody.  After all, we are now apparently prosecuting enemy combatants captured on the battlefield as common criminals, and common criminals get off on such loopholes all the time. 

The jury in the court martial deliberated for a mere two hours before handing down the not guilty verdict.  They cited the conflicting testimony of the one US military member who testified on behalf of the prosecution and the lack of credibility of the "victim", Abed.  The al Qaeda field manual actually encourages any of it's soldiers who are captured to claim abuse because, as this case so clearly illustrates, our military, in their quest for political correctness, are fine with tying our own soldier's hands to attain the moral high ground.  What we need to remember is that these people we are fighting are barely one step away from rabid animals.  We need to understand that we are fighting an enemy that not only is not bound to the Geneva Conventions but sees our adherence to it as a weakness to be exploited. 

Our enemies have no rules and we have bound, gagged and shackled ourselves with rules.

 It is important to say that hitting someone who was handcuffed and hooded, terrorist or not, is certainly beyond the realm of acceptable. Abed's testimony that he was punched in the stomach has been backed up by testimony from another sailor, but the jury found his testimony to be conflicting with other sailor's accounts of events.  I have to admit a bit of puzzlement, because Abed testified that he was still hooded, but the serviceman testified that after the stomach punch he saw blood come out of Abed's mouth (via Fox News):

He testified Wednesday that he was sitting in a chair with his hands bound behind him and hood over his head when he was hit from behind on the shoulder and back, fell to his knees and was then picked back up and struck in the stomach....
....In earlier testimony, Navy Petty Officer 3rd Class Kevin DeMartino testified he saw SEAL Petty Officer 2nd Class Matthew McCabe punch the prisoner in the stomach and watched blood spurt from his prisoner's mouth.

How can that be, if he had a hood on?   Is it possible Abed was taunting them, specifically for the purpose of claiming abuse?  All we really know for sure is that this enemy has no boundaries  - there is nothing they won't stoop to (hmmmm...I wonder if they've been reading Alinsky).  I have not heard any testimony about whether Abed was taunting the accused men, but I find it hard to believe that these SEALs, who all had years of service under their belts, would have risked their own careers just to punch some terrorist for no reason.  Above and beyond all of that, it seems our military brass are missing an important fact. The fact is, sometimes you have to speak in a way the opposition understands. These people seem to only understand brutality. Anything else is seen as weakness.

Tomorrow PO Keefe's trail begins, and hopefully he will be vindicated as well.  PO McCabe will be on trial in May.  For those who would like to show their support for the SEALs, please check out this facebook page or this "Support the SEALs" site.  I will update as verdicts come in.

UPDATE:  PO Keefe has been found not guilty.  The verdict wasn't a surprise, considering the  "victim" changed his testimony from yesterday.  Today he claims he was kicked in the stomach, not punched.  Seems like the al Qaeda handbook needs to be updated to remind the terrorists to be consistent on the witness stand.  Two vindicated, one to go....

Tuesday, April 20, 2010


Chris Horner, author of "Power Grab" was on Hannity tonight.  In his interview, he used, over and over, the phrase "The issue's not the issue".  This is the mainstay liberal/progressive tactic to a T, and he deserves a hearty thank you for tagging it as such.  It's quick, concise, easy to remember and right on the mark.  A perfect foil for the coming campaign clashes. 

In his book, he discusses the Obama administration's green agenda.  On the face, the green agenda is hard to fight - after all, it's all about "saving the planet", and what kind of heartless, selfish person would you be if you wouldn't want to do that? 

But if you dig deeper, as Mr. Horner did, you will find that it has, in reality, very little to do with saving the planet - that angle is used merely as a means to an end.  For all the hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer funds that it will suck up and the unprecidented control over American citizens, there is little or no measurable good for the environment that will come of it.  As Horner says, it's all about power and control.  The green agenda is a perfect illustration of his quote, "the issue's not the issue".  It is being sold as good for us, but in reality it is not.  The issue isn't saving the earth, the issue is grasping more power into the ever-expanding federal government.

This phrase, "the issue's not the issue" is something that needs to be remembered and repeated so that all will know it, because within that phrase is the key to fighting back.  Understanding your opponent's tactics is the first step in defeating them.

The issue not being the issue concept applies to every piece of legislation that has passed this Congress so far.  The stimulus was not about helping the country get back on it's feet.  That is just the bill of goods we were sold.  That bill was all about consolidation of power.  It was a big, wet, sloppy kiss to all of the special interests who helped put the democrats in power.  That expensive thank you also acts as a promise of thank yous to come if the democrats stay in power, thus ensuring their legacy.

The health care bill was not about lowering costs, as was sold to us.  It was about redistribution of wealth and control over the most important part of your life - your health.  If they hold the key to your good health, you're more inclined to vote to keep them happy and in power, and redistribution buys a whole sector of voters.

Cap and trade isn't about the environment, it's about seizing wealth and controlling the energy sector.  Period.

The coming election isn't about a referendum on the distinctly leftward tilt towards european socialism that we are currently pursuing - it's apparently about George W. Bush.  I haven't quite figured out how yet, but give me time.   Suggestions are appreciated.

The democrat's talking points these days are not just a reflection of their desperation, they are also a roadmap for the coming elections.  But then, faced with polls like these and these and these, it's no wonder there is a distinct whiff of desperation in the air.  It seems that their entire strategy for the 2010 election is "the issue's not the issue" (and blame Bush, of course).

The liberals are geniuses at directing a conversation.  This is what they will attempt to do over the next few months.  Instead of addressing the issues that are paramount to a majority of Americans, they will redirect the conversation to either other issues altogether or changing the issue to suit their needs.  Thus the green agenda is not about power and control, it's about saving the planet somehow.  Instead of being accused, they are going to attempt to be the accuser.  When they are accused of grasping for power, they will accuse you of hating the planet.  Health care doesn't lower costs translates to "you hate people and don't want them to have insurance".  Concerns that there is a lot of taxation coming down the pike becomes "you're one of those fringe militia people, aren't you?"

It's a brilliant strategy, really.  When you have no answers, start asking the questions. 

The problem is that we have been subjected to this tactic for years now.  You might say the country was battle weary, but that would only confirm you are a tea party member extremist out to slaughter some random government official(s).  The secret is, though, that Alinsky was right.  In Rule #7 he said that "a tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag".  The rising opposition in the polls shows that the "issue's not the issue" tactic has become a drag.  It's time to start calling them out on it.

The tea partyers know the issues, often better than their representatives, and they are equally as tenacious in their pursuit of an answer as the liberals are in their attempts to avoid the discussion.  It promises to be an interesting summer campaign.  The big question will be whether the issue is debated, or the issue that isn't the issue. 

It's time to take control of the debate and demand real answers to the real issues.

Monday, April 19, 2010


God bless the victims and families of the Oklahoma City bombing.  Today is the 15th anniversary of that dark day.

There are those who are politicizing this tragic event and using it to smear others.  They should be ashamed.

Is this really what we've come to?  Is a former American president really using the senseless deaths of 168 fellow Americans, 19 of whom were children, as political fodder to further party talking points?

Perhaps someone should remind Mr. Clinton that OKC was in response to his administration's seige in Waco, TX.

Wednesday, April 14, 2010


Andy Stern, head of the SEIU, is "retiring" from the union.  The news has a lot of people scratching their heads.  The man is arguably at the top of his game, so why is he throwing in the towel? 

There are a  few ideas about why he's quitting, from wanting to concentrate on Obama's deficit reduction commission to preparing himself to be a Supreme Court nominee.  That last one seems a bit far-fetched, though, because there would be strong opposition to his appointment by Senate republicans (and a majority of Americans, not that that really matters).  The fact that he is neither a lawyer nor judge certainly should put him out of the running, even if his radicalism and conservative opposition doesn't. 

No doubt he will be spending a lot of time on the deficit reduction panel, but it's also quite likely that all of his newfound free time will be spent advising a certain resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  Why stop now?  After all, there is still amnesty to force through.  Think of all of those new Americans to put on the labor rolls!  No doubt he wants to be able to work closely with his old buddy Barry O. for another heapin' helping of "social justice".  Even our braindead neoPravda media couldn't miss the glaring conflict of interest if the sitting CEO of SEIU were instrumental in legislation for increasing the workforce by millions.  Now he has the shiny patina of virtue in no longer being affiliated with the labor union.  It's a wafer-thin patina, but that seems to be enough for this administration.  It just needs the barest appearance of credibility or virtue.

There was a time, once, when the barest whiff of a scandal ruined someone for public life.  Now all that is required to pursue public life is the barest whiff of respectability.  Have we really become so ADD as a society that we can only give those who would rule us the quickest, most cursory once-over before moving on to the next big iWhatever/celebutant/scandal of the nanosecond?  How horribly sad.

There is talk that there might be a scandal brewing at the root of Stern's resignation, but the talk is vague and non-committal.  All of these instances of wild conjecture do is distract from reality.

One reality could be dissent in the ranks.  Stern and SEIU have experienced some internal revolts over the past few years.  In 2005 Stern and the SEIU joined the Teamsters and other unions in breaking away from the AFL-CIO, creating the Change to Win coalition.  They in turn have been battling a breakaway union that has been luring thousands of unionized health care workers away from SEIU.  There are also allegations of corruption by a handpicked protegee and excessive grasping for power  and strong-arm tactics on opposing unions and bosses.

The other reality is that his move out of SEIU should be cause for concern, no matter what the root cause.  It is far better to have people like him out in the open.  When a manipulative man with power and an agenda goes under the radar, it's time to get nervous.  Very nervous.  This man has a huge amount of power and influence, and he has an agenda that he has been dreaming of implementing since his college days in the 1960's - a vision shared by the current commander-in-chief.  He's not going anywhere, except underground.

Much like Van Jones, Andy Stern bears watching.  Looking elsewhere while he positions himself behind the scenes and enabling him to fly under the radar would be a huge mistake.

Thursday, April 8, 2010


I highly recommend an op-ed from the Wall Street Journal for your consumption.  Dorothy Rabinowitz has written an insightful piece on the victimization of muslims in this country.   The journey begins with Tom Hanks, and ends with a New York cabbie: 

It can't have come as a surprise that one of the now entrenched myths about America—namely, its ongoing victimization of Muslims—should have been voiced again by a leading citizen of our myth-producing capital, Hollywood. The citizen was Tom Hanks, and the occasion his March interview in Time Magazine in which he declared that our battle with Japan in World War II was one of "racism and terror." And that, he noted, should remind us of our current wars.

I have tried to remain mum on Hanks because I really like his work, but good gravy, what an asinine, deep-in-the-bubble, Hollywood lefty remark is that!?  It truly makes me wish he'd never said it, because it's just so ridiculously out-of-touch that I'm afraid I won't be able to see one of his movies without thinking of it.  What is really frightening is that he is becoming considered the "historian-in-chief" of the nation.  Considering many of these historical events are no longer taught  (or taught incorrectly) in our schools, that means the man who thinks race was the main driver for WWII is the most influential "expert" many sectors of our society, not to mention the rest of the world, will have contact with.  Frightening thought.

Mr. Hanks is representative of a narrative that is taking hold in this country, and Ms. Rabinowitz dissects the psychology of it beautifully.  She discusses the three page spread (6 on the internet) the Washington Post did on a muslim soldier who, according to the article, "battles on friendly ground".   Whomever is intimidating Spec. Zachari Klawonn is obviously in need of intervention, but considering the base this happened on, there is a degree of understanding as to why counselling might have been required anyway:

The latest reflection of this trend, grown steadily since the attacks of Sept. 11, came with a three-page spread in the Washington Post on March 24 about the tribulations of a Muslim soldier who reported being subjected to slurs, various other insults, and also a threatening note. His commander suggested he might do well to move to housing off base. The base in question was Fort Hood, where, last November, army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Hasan murdered 13 fellow American soldiers.

The question Ms. Rabinowitz poses is, just how common is this anti-muslim narrative, and how pervasive has it become?   She makes a compelling argument:

The pain of these confrontations was undoubtedly great, as such treatment always is. Ask the members of religious and racial minorities who served, say, in World War II, when it wasn't unusual to hear slurs like "kike" and such hurled at them. Ask black Americans who had the incomparably worse experience of serving in a racially segregated military, where they were relegated to the worst duties. Not to mention being made witness—in parts of the country—to the sight of German POWs held in the U.S. eating in restaurants barred to black Americans in uniform, and otherwise being accorded respect that those Americans could not hope to receive.
Still, there were no instances of those enduring this treatment undertaking mass murder of other American servicemen. There was rage, and there were some riots, but no cases of U.S. soldiers enlisting in the service of the enemy as Maj. Hasan had. (Hasan, it was explained after he had cut down those unarmed servicemen and women packed into that room in Ft. Hood, had suffered prejudice-related pressures as a Muslim in the armed services.)

She mentions the usual suspects that perpetuate the myth by only highlighting the rare instances of bad behavior, and the press, naturally, figures centrally.  This dovetails beautifully into a recent article from Lane Wallace of The Atlantic.   In her piece titled "The Bias of Veteran Reporters" she discussed the tendencies of veteran reporters to make assumptions and only ask questions angled to prove that assumption.  She also mentions their 33% accuracy rating.   Rabinowitz's article is like an expanded example that proves Ms. Wallace's hypothesis. 
But Rabinowitz doesn't just prove the point, she uplifts it.  Just when the ire starts to boil at the broad-brush accusations, she quenches it will a much needed reassurance.  It is a reminder that those stories, although unacceptable and upsetting, are the exception, not the norm.  Yes, there are those out there who push things too far, but Ms Rabinowitz reminds us of our national character; what it truly means to be an American and why so many seek our shores.
That is where we meet a nameless, faceless New York cabbie.   His simple words of empathy and gratitude are touching.  In speaking of 9/11 and the aftermath, the former resident of Pakistan recounts a meeting with his judeo-christian neighbors after the attacks that brought home to him just what kind of country he has chosen to raise his children in:
"...Do you know," he said, in a voice suddenly sharp, "what would have happened if Americans had done this kind of attack in my country? Every American—every Christian, every non-Muslim—would have been slaughtered, blood would have run in the streets. I know the kind of country this is. Thanks be to God I can give this to my children."
I urge you to read the whole article.  I left out a pertinent fact about the cabbie's story - something that would never make a three-page spread in the mainstream media.  It just doesn't follow their narrative.  Check it out.  In these rancorous times, it's nice to hear, for a change, that we are not necessarily as evil as we are portrayed.

Monday, April 5, 2010


I have mentioned many, many times how much I dislike my congressman, Alan Grayson.  I know that I am not alone in this feeling.  Every time I see that smug, smarmy face I cringe with embarassment, knowing he "represents" me.  I am in the midst of a bout with stomach flu and was not going to post for a few more days, but his latest antics have propelled me from my sickbed in protest.  

Mr. Grayson has yet again shown what little regard he has for basic American rights.  His first foray into squelching his fellow Americans first amendment rights was when he demanded Atty. General Eric Holder investigate, fine, and imprison a Clermont, FL woman for starting an anti-Grayson website.   Now he is demanding the investigation and possible revocation of a Mount Dora urologist's license.  Way to go, chump - after all, it's not like we're smack in the middle of a doctor shortage already.

Grayson claims that Dr. Cassell is in violation of his hippocratic oath.  This from a man who stomps all over the Constitution, which he made an oath to, on a daily basis.  Dr. Cassell is not in violation of his oath, because, contrary to Mr. Grayson's allegations, he has not turned down a single patient due to their political views:

"I'm not turning anybody away — that would be unethical," Dr. Jack Cassell, 56, a Mount Dora urologist and a registered Republican opposed to the health plan, told the Orlando Sentinel on Thursday. "But if they read the sign and turn the other way, so be it."

 That is his choice, as he is a free man in a free country.  A concept that seems alien to Mr. Grayson.

As usual with the left these days, when there is no rational argument for their ridiculous agenda and demands, they turn to the race card for vindication.  Grayson is saying that Dr. Cassell's motivation for his anti-Obamacare notice is all about racism.  Mr. Grayson's attempt to make this a race issue shows that he has no leg to stand on, and thus must resort to bomb throwing.  Even Anderson Cooper wasn't buying what Grayson was selling:

REP. ALAN GRAYSON: ...What he's doing is no different from saying, "I will not treat a black person. I will not treat a Catholic."
I thought that we, as a country, has moved beyond that.

COOPER: But wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute.
I mean, I'm not taking a side. I'm not taking anybody's side in this, but, just for accuracy's sake, he has said nothing about race. And race is a protected category. I mean, there are -- it is illegal to discriminate someone based on race. It is not illegal to say you don't want to treat somebody because you don't like their politics. Politics is not a protected class.

GRAYSON: Well, in fact, where he lives, in Mount Dora, which is in my district, many, many of the Democrats who live in Mount Dora happen to be African-Americans.So, by saying that he will not treat somebody who supported Obama, he's saying that he's not going to treat a large number of African-Americans in the community.
COOPER: Wait. So, you're saying race is at the core of this? Come on. There is no evidence of that at all.

First of all, Grayson is alluding that only blacks voted for Obama, and yet he won with 52% of the vote - the numbers just don't add up, Teacups.  He also alludes that blacks only voted for Obama, although there are those who would disagree with that idea.   His entire statement is just classic race baiting at it's worst.  Now, merely because there is a black presence in an area, any opposition to Grayson and the democrat's agenda can be called racist?  That is a mightly dangerous game he is playing at.  So, just how many of Mount Dora's residents are black, anyway?  Well, having spent a few pleasant Saturdays there, I can assure you, Compton it ain't.  To be more specific, the breakdown is this (via ePodunk):

White -7,277   77.3% 
Black or African American - 1,806    19.2%
American Indian and Alaska native 16     0.2%
Asian - 65    0.7%
Native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander - 5    0.1%
Some other race - 140    1.5%
Two or more races - 109     1.2%
Hispanic or Latino - 628    6.7%

According to WebMD, there are 28 urologists within a 25 mile radius of Mount Dora.  If a patient of Dr. Cassell's doesn't approve of his notice, they have 27 other urologists in the area to choose from, and Dr. Cassell is merely making them aware of his views so they are free to choose someone they agree with (if they can).  

Back in 2001, I was in the dentist chair and was treated to my dentist's opinion of Clinton and the right's "witch hunt" over the Lewinsky affair.  His opinion was that those crazy conservatives went overboard with the impeachment trials just because he was cheating on his wife.  My mouth was full of hands and drills, or else I would have reminded him that Clinton was impeached because he perjured himself in front of a grand jury, not because he cheated on his wife.  For normal peons like you and me, perjury would be a felony offense punishable with jail time.  Clinton was found to be guilty of perjury, not infidelity - a fine line that apparently the left is incapable of understanding.  Did I report my dentist for offensive political views?  No.  I found another dentist.  The  only thing worse than having your teeth drilled is having them drilled by a Clinton apologist who deifies the man as he drills.  It's a bit ironic, really - being drilled by a guy who worships a guy who loves to drill people....

But I digress. 

Honestly, I shouldn't even give Grayson a forum, but at some point, you just have to call BS on people.  One could argue that just about everything out of Grayson's mouth is BS, but this latest attack was particularly aggregious.  Even Anderson "Teabagger" Cooper couldn't get behind it.  No doubt Olbermann will be celebrating him as a great American - as if that really matters.
Hopefully more doctors will follow suit and state their displeasure with the government takeover of health care.  For those lefties who argue that the AMA endorsed Obamacare, please note that the AMA only represents less than 20% of American doctors.  The fact that 46% of doctors polled would consider quitting their practices says quite a lot - perhaps some of them should stand with their brother physician and state their displeasure more firmly.  Doctors, for the most part, have been a silent group in the health care "debate". 
Dr. Cassell could remain silent no longer, and I, for one, applaud him for his bravery.  Let's not forget - not only is he a doctor, he's also a small businessman who needs to protect his own interests and those of his employees.  The health care "reform" is going to cripple his business and potentially do far more harm to his patients than a notice on his door might do.  The bottom line is, if he offends a few people, so be it, it's his right.

UPDATE:  Good gracious, the man is an ass.  It seems to me the pressure is getting to him.  There are a dozen possible contenders for his job, and people now know that he is a far-left liberal "representing" a conservative district.  He is accusing the republicans at the Perkins meeting of "spying" on an Organizing for America meeting.  One wonders when he is going to start accusing squirrels of inflitrating the ranks....November just can't come soon enough.