If the races of the protester and Cheeks were reversed, there would have been even less coverage of the incident than there was. The media would never be eager to show a Black protesting against Obama.

Now if the races of the protester and the POTUS were reversed, it would have been a media circus and the officer in question would have been fired the next day.

Black Panthers were stationed outside at least one poling place brandishing batons. No it wasn’t a Town Hall meeting, but it certainly should be considered one of the United States’ most fundamentally sacred places in American politics. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU&

Just imagine if the races of the protester and Cheeks were reversed…

That’s my opinion as well. However, given the fact that many of the rank and file Liberals have been indoctrinated to see dissent to Obama as racism, I can see where some would consider posters like the one this guy had as inflammatory.

That was, after all, the point of such a race-baiting campaign.

The only danger was to the guy holding the sign from fascists cops and lefties.

It seems to usually go like that, huh?

At least we can exchange a few recipes along the way.

See you down the road at the next brouhaha, lol.

If you want to talk food, pop on over to “Dumpling” and let us exchange!

However, you probably want to get on with your next political post, and I am behind on all four blogs at this point.

Take Care,

Kel

As for the Obama-Palin comparison. You’re spot on! I’ve never felt that Palin showed any great tendency towards communication either. She, like Obama, entered Office with an agenda that was top-down in nature and was, in her smaller scale as a Governor, just as much of a revolutionary.

As for my silence on McCain having a disruptive woman ousted from an event – it’s in the same oblivion as my – non-existent – outrage over Barney frank’s treatment of an equally disruptive woman a few weeks ago.

There’s a big difference between a disruptive person who is interfering with others’ right to speak and a person standing on a corner outside of an event.

The President then invites the two of them to get together with him at the White House for a beer to work it out.

How is that perceived as not communicating? And please don’t tell me it was elaborately staged liberal media stunt. Please.

And what you see as campaigning, can it not be interpreted as communicating as best as he can without breaking any government laws, as to where he and Congress are at with certain Bills and what progress has been made, and where things are a bit knotty?

And since you dislike the fact that President Obama is a good speaker with a “script and a teleprompter” (although I have seen him speak live, and he had many off the cuff moments) – and is “good at manipulating peoples emotions,” well, isn’t that what Sarah Palin does? The one you DO like? She works peoples emotions, yet takes no questions, and cries that she is being “picked on” when she refuses to take questions and leaves the media to draw their own conclusions. Palin, too, has die hard followers, and can do no wrong in their eyes, no matter what.

I believe President Obama takes questions most all of the time.

I would also like to know, since this started off on the 1st amendment issue, (and we have strayed a bit) where on your blog you are not outraged that (white) R. Senator John McCain threw a (white) woman out of a town hall meeting for yelling? What about her right to free speech? If it is on your blog somewhere, please tell me how to find it, as I have not found a post anywhere.

Where is the outrage from you that the woman was denied her 1st amendments rights at McCain’s Town Hall?

Just Curious.

I find, sometimes, that your wording comes of as very, very subtle propaganda – sliding in words such as “revolutionaries” “orate” and “followers”.

Especially after Obama won the election, you wrote to your readers that it was a “day of mourning” “America lost” but not to worry, you would “rise up” again, stronger than ever.

Yet you subtly accuse the President of doing the very same thing.

I am, as usual, confused. We are all complex creatures, we human beings, full of our own contradictions and hypocrisies, but you do have a tendency to really confound me sometimes.

Kel
P.S.

If you ask me why I do not like Palin, when I compare her to your interpretation of Obama, it is because I cannot find a single stance of hers that I agree with. I have tried, believe me, and there is simply not a one.

(Just to save your fingers from asking).

President Obama is a very good speaker – when he has his script and teleprompter – and is good at manipulating his supporters’ emotions. He seems less than interested in bilateral communication though.

This is a one-way, top-down method of unilateral “communication” that is common amongst revolutionaries such s Obama. People who think that they “have the answer” tend to orate more than they tend to listen.

…And, of course, some of his followers – ones such as officer Cheeks – don’t tolerate “interruptions” and “arguments” very well.

That is why I am kind of surprised at how much you despise this new administration.

When things are this heated and there is so much on the line is when we MUST adhere to the most stringent standards and scopes of what is is “Legal” and “Constitutional.” It’s just too easy to slide into despotism elsewise – as history has repeatedly shown us.

As for the the “debate” being too heated – I’ve been thinking about it and I’m beginning to think that is isn’t becoming too heated because there is no debate in the first place. This situation will not be resolved via debate at the public level.

This is about showing politicians, long insulated from the public, who supports what and in what strength of action and numbers. These town halls seem more about telling those politicians that their jobs are on the line than about debating the particulars of ObamaCare.