Let's take the incendiary subject of race out of the Bill Bennett controversy for a moment, and examine the issue in the abstract. Let's imagine he was having a conversation on the radio about health care, and said something like, "Imagine we implemented a nationalized, single-payer health care system, like Canada or France. That might very well lead to effects X, Y or Z. For those reasons and others, it would be a terrible idea."

Would anyone take that as Bennett advocating in favor of nationalizing the U.S. health care system? Of course not. Floating a hypothetical, and then discussing potential implications of that hypothetical, doesn't imply support for the underlying premise. That's especially true if the speaker concludes by saying the idea is a "reprehensible" one.

So what's different about the Bennett controversy? The Democrats need a monolithic black vote in order to have any chance of winning elections. If John Kerry had won "only" 70% of the black vote in 2004 instead of 90%, he would have lost in a landslide. Same for Gore in 2000. So stirring up racial division is essential to Democratic electoral prospects.

So any time a chance presents itself for Democrats to wail and moan about how racist Republicans are, they jump at it.

No sane, intelligent person believes Bennett was advocating the abortion of all black babies, or implying such a thing would be a good idea. He presented the hypothetical expressly in order to shoot it down.

There may be some people out there who are just too stupid to understand these simple concepts. It's difficult to believe someone like Howard Dean, to cite one example, is too stupid to understand all this. He was smart enough to get through medical school after all. So his foolish reply to Bennett's comments must be attributed to deliberate demagoguery; it can't simply be written off as stupidity. The deliberate effort to divide Americans along racial lines for political gain is despicable.

Almost worse is the sort of spineless kowtowing to the demagogues that we saw from the White House today. They abet the race-hustlers by catering to them.

From the Washington Post:

Democratic lawmakers and civil rights leaders denounced conservative commentator William J. Bennett yesterday for suggesting on his syndicated radio show that aborting black children would reduce the U.S. crime rate.

The former U.S. education secretary-turned-talk show host said Wednesday that "if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose -- you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down." Bennett quickly added that such an idea would be "an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do." But, he said, "your crime rate would go down."

Bennett's comments, flagged by the liberal news media watchdog group Media Matters for America, were quickly condemned by Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), who issued a statement demanding that Bennett apologize. Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) circulated a letter, signed by 10 of his colleagues, demanding that the Salem Radio Network suspend Bennett's show.

Wade Henderson, the executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, demanded that the show be canceled.

"Bennett's statement is outrageous. As a former secretary of education, he should know better," Henderson said. "His program should be pulled from the air."

Remember how in the last few years any criticism of the most outrageous anti-American statements from the "anti-war" left are met with dries of "censorship!" and "stifling dissent"?

But here, Bill Bennett made a statement that is inarguably true, and look at the quick calls for censorship. It is a fact that blacks are disproportionately involved in criminal activity. Therefore, it is also true that if you killed off a lot of black people, the crime rate would probably go down. But Bennett wasn't advocating doing so, he was arguing against the idea of connecting the issue of abortion to other issues, whether Social Security or crime. No reasonable person of normal intellect would misunderstand the citing of a hypothetical, then calling the hypothetical "reprehensible" as support for the premise of the hypothetical.

But race-mongering demagogues like Congressman Conyers have no interest in making an honest argument, they want to stir up racial tensions in America, because it helps them politically. It's that simple. And stop calling these demagogues "civil rights leaders." That is outrageous.

It's important to note that all liberals are not knee-jerk race baiters. Here Matthew Yglesias, no fan of Bennett, defends his comments.

More:
Andrew McCarthy defends Bennett on NRO

The White House issues a weak-kneed response (via Outside the Beltway):

The White House on Friday criticized former Education Secretary William Bennett for remarks linking the crime rate and the abortion of black babies. "The president believes the comments were not appropriate," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.

Howard Dean weighs in, with his typical calm and reserve.

...Connor slander.

We mentioned Congressman Charles Rangel's hate-mongering slander of President Bush, comparing the president of the United States to segregationist "Bull" Connor a few days ago. Michelle Malkin notes the refusal of Rangel's fellow Democrats to condemn his hate speech, and that some of his colleagues even upped the ante, claiming the president is even worse than Connor. Check it out here.

Previous:
Charles Rangel Racial Hate Speech Earns Applause

...or at least not nearly as many as they initially predicted in the hysterical news coverage immediately following hurricane Katrina and the flooding of New Orleans.

The Los Angeles Times, to their credit, has a good critique of the post-Katrina news coverage, Katrina Takes a Toll on Truth, News Accuracy. We've been pointing out the hysterical nature of much of the "it's all Bush's fault, the federal response was horrible" coverage for weeks now -

"The feds were slow"� - the meme that wouldn't die
Katrina and the "racism"� slander
The "slow response"� wasn't so slow after all
More...

- but the L.A. Times article adds more information about the hysterical coverage that inflated many claims of rampant criminal activity - rapes, murders, snipers - in the days after the hurricane hit New Orleans.

The New Orleans Times-Picayune on Monday described inflated body counts, unverified "rapes," and unconfirmed sniper attacks as among examples of "scores of myths about the dome and Convention Center treated as fact by evacuees, the media and even some of New Orleans' top officials."

....

State officials this week said their counts of the dead at the city's two largest evacuation points fell far short of early rumors and news reports. Ten bodies were recovered from the Superdome and four from the Convention Center, said Bob Johannessen, spokesman for the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals.

(National Guard officials put the body count at the Superdome at six, saying the other four bodies came from the area around the stadium.)

Of the 841 recorded hurricane-related deaths in Louisiana, four are identified as gunshot victims, Johannessen said. One victim was found in the Superdome but was believed to have been brought there, and one was found at the Convention Center, he added.

It more than a little ironic that all these news outlets who were relentless in their criticisms of the government response to the disaster are shown to have botched their jobs so badly.

Now, about that Iraq coverage...

From Yahoo News:

Dalai Lama Tells U.S. Crowd War Outdated

PISCATAWAY, N.J. - The Dalai Lama told 36,000 people at Rutgers Stadium that the concept of war was outdated and young people have a responsibility to make this century one of peace.

That's it? That's all he's got? The Dalai Lama is supposed to be this great and wise spiritual leader, and all he has to offer is this lame, hackneyed drivel?

Too bad he wasn't around when Hitler invaded Poland - "Hey Hitler, go back to Germany, the concept of war is outdated."

Maybe Mr. Lama can convince North Korea to give up their nuclear program - "Hey, Kim Jong Il, stop developing nukes, the concept of war is outdated."

Maybe he can stop the head hackers in Iraq - "Hey, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, stop blowing up civilians and hacking off people's heads, the concept of war is outdated."

The concept of war won't be outdated until there are no more Zarqawis, bin Ladins, Kim Jong Ils, or Saddam Husseins in the world. Anyone who doesn't recognize that simple idea has no wisdom.

It looks like we're in for another round of knee-jerk overreaction in Washington. We were against the formation of the Dept. of Homeland Security after 9/11, reasoning that the addition of yet another layer of bureacracy wouldn't be helpful.

From the Washington Post, Bush Urges Shift in Relief Responsibilities:

...Bush is asking Congress to consider a major change, potentially shifting federal responsibility for major natural disasters from the Department of Homeland Security to the nation's top military generals. The Defense Department has been hesitant to take such a role because of sensitivity to the idea of adopting a police presence on U.S. soil and because of strains on the armed forces from the war in Iraq...

So now hurricane Katrina showed some problems at FEMA, and the response is what? To take emergency management, the sole reason for FEMA's existence, away from FEMA? Then why not eliminate FEMA altogether? Or fold them into DoD, and give them a small cubicle in the basement? All because it took a couple of days to get a handle on a huge catastrophe in a city that was chaotic before the disaster hit? The idea only makes sense as a buttcheek covering maneuver, not as a serious policy revision.

The military's primary mission is to defend the nation against our enemies. There's a role for them to assist in large disasters, but in general, what's needed is a competent federal agency tasked with assisting local and state officials during and after large-scale disasters. We could name it the "Federal Emergency Management Agency." What? Such an organization already exists, you say? Under that exact name even? Great, then no need to re-invent the wheel here. Just make sure the agency has a clear mission and comepetent leadership. No need to overreact.

James Joyner at Outside the Beltway nails it here:

...We'd never think of putting amateurs with little substantive expertise in those positions; given the high cost of failure at FEMA, we can't do it there, either. During natural disasters, FEMA should be the lead agency; it should only be subordinate to Homeland Security during terrorist attacks and the like.

FEMA is and should remain a coordinating body. The military, especially the National Guard, will of course have to be utilized because it alone has the massive manpower and lift resources to get parts of the relief mission done quickly. But its role should always be ancilliary for domestic matters unless there is an enemy attack.

More analysis from Austin Bay.

We caught a few minutes of the pathetic "anti-war" rally in Washington D.C. on C-SPAN last evening. Amidst the usual calls for and end to U.S. imperialism in the Phillipines and an increase in AIDS funding one would expect at a rally against the liberation of Iraq, one speaker in particular caught our attention. Musa Al-Hindi of some group called the Palestinian Right to Return Coalition, yammered on for several minutes with the usual anti-Israel diatribe. Then he ended his little speech with the slogan "Palestine will be free from the river to the sea." That obviously means from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, in other words, he's calling for the elimination of Israel.

Let's be clear here. Since it's highly unlikely, to say the least, that all the Jews in Israel will pack up and go somewhere else voluntarily, this is a straighforward call for genocide of the Jews of Israel. Sound familiar? Further, the crowd of peaceniks didn't shout down this call for genocide, they boisterously cheered for it. More evidence these folks aren't anti-war, they're anti-America.

More from Michelle Malkin and Outside the Beltway.

Previous:
Here Come the Reds Again

David Bernstein at The Volokh Conspiracy has comments on the Democrats' continued support of the Davis-Bacon Act here.

We addressed the issue previously here.

Via Sister Toldjah:

WASHINGTON - Comparing President Bush to the Birmingham, Ala., police commissioner whose resistance to the civil rights movement became synonymous with Southern racism, Rep. Charles Rangel said yesterday of the president: "George Bush is our Bull Connor."

Mr. Rangel’s metaphoric linkage of Mr. Bush to the late Theophilus "Bull" Connor - who in 1963 turned fire hoses and attack dogs on blacks, including Martin Luther King Jr., demonstrating in favor of equal rights - met with wild applause and cheering at a Congressional Black Caucus town hall meeting, part of the organization’s 35th Annual Legislative Conference.

Rangel's comment is a despicable slander, it is race-baiting hate speech, and nothing more. This is no surprise, as Rangel has a history of making these kinds of comments. But of course he won't be called on it this time either. A black Demcorat can get away with saying almost anything at all. Note that his comments were met "with wild applause and cheering" not the condemnation they deserve.

Others:
A Lott of double standards

The double standard lives on.

The Reds are coming back to Washington D.C. this weekend to relive the glory days of their failed anti-war protests from 2003, joining up with fellow traveler Cindy Sheehan for a big protest Saturday against the war on terror. Make no mistake, these folks are not only against the war in Iraq. Sheehan herself has condemned the war in Afghanistan, and even called for the removal of troops who are aiding the recovery efforts in New Orleans.

A fawning article from the Washington Post:

One after another their trails led them here -- from California, New York, Baltimore -- disparate members of the same movement, drawn by some strong instinct that told them: Now is the time. This is the place.

....

Cindy Sheehan, the movement's own Mother Courage, commands the kind of obsessive cable coverage usually lavished on titillating crimes. Her caravan from Crawford, Tex., rolled into Washington yesterday and 17 television cameras documented her first step onto the soil of the nation's capital in her quest to ask President Bush in person: "What is the 'noble cause' for which you sent our country to war?"

Seeking to capitalize on the momentum, Cagan's United for Peace and Justice and the ANSWER Coalition have organized a rally and encirclement of the White House on Saturday morning that they hope will draw 100,000. That will be followed by Operation Ceasefire, an 11-hour concert featuring Joan Baez, Steve Earle, Thievery Corporation and the Coup. United for Peace and Justice is planning more antiwar activities for Sunday and Monday. The overall message: Bring the troops home now.

Actually, the overall message will be: We hate President Bush, we hate America, we hate to bathe, we love Karl Marx.

From the archives:
Marching with Stalinists
Reds Still

More from Captain's Quarters. There's also going to be a counter-protest by supporters of the president and the war. More info here.

Sheehan has also scheduled meetings with a few members of the House and Senate - more here.

More on ANSWER from Outside the Beltway.

Technorati tags: Cindy Sheehan, anti-war

Question: We know Bushitler-Rove sent hurricane Katrina into New Orleans because they don't like black people. But why are they attacking their home state of Texas now, sending hurricane Rita in there? What's the angle? Anyone?

In response to Tom DeLay's comments from last week indicating the federal budget is cut to the bone, bloggers from around the country are working to give him the information he needs. You'll recall, DeLay said:

"My answer to those that want to offset the spending is sure, bring me the offsets, I'll be glad to do it. But nobody has been able to come up with any yet," the Texas Republican told reporters at his weekly briefing.

OK, Mr. Delay, here are those numbers you requested.

Our contribution to the effort: The federal highway bill signed by President Bush on August 10th included $2.3 million for landscaping at four onramps of the Ronald Reagan Freeway in the city of Simi Valley in Southern California. An additional $1.7 million was allocated to widen the road that leads to the Ronald Reagan Library. Keep in mind, this road is not a federal highway. It's not even a highway, just a local surface street. C'mon, Mr. DeLay, let's save just one more million (or 2 or 3) for the Gipper.

Technorati tag: porkbusters.