scrooge1I’ve encountered the sentiment often, if not the exact words, “Conservatives hate poor people.” The notion is, of course, silly on its face, but there are people who really believe it. To prove it, I Googled “Conservatives hate the poor” and got many hits. One was a Yahoo question that asked, “Why do conservatives hate the poor?” The answer rated best by those polled was this one by this generation’s answer to Thomas Paine:
“they demonize the poor (“poor=lazy”) to give themselves a sense of self-importance while justifying their 19th-century free market economic fundamentalism, and because licking the arses of the filthy rich makes them feel like they are part of the same elite.” Eleven people thought that was good stuff.
Another answer came with penetrating insight into the dark hearts of Republicans:
“because the Republican propaganda machines sells them a dream that one day if they work hard enough they can be rich. But that is only if the socialists don’t prevent their ability to be rich by helping the poor survive.”

The Daily Kos weighed in with a very insightful discussion on the subject titled, “Mommy, why do Republicans hate the poor people,” oddly written by a man. Perhaps from the new kind of family. It is delightfully told from the perspective of a mom, sharing her insight with her daughter, as in former days she might warn her of big, bad wolves. You can see it here, if you have a strong stomach for such things:

But I am not writing this primarily for the primates who have destroyed their brain cells through recreational pharmacology. I am writing this for good people I know who have bought into this notion that conservatives have something against poor people. This is for those good people, who are otherwise right thinking, but believe that it is compassionate to support government handouts to people who did nothing to earn them. Let’s examine the premise and the results of such policy.

The federal government has the means and the responsibility of taking care of every need Americans have. Now everything is regarded as a right of citizenship. Healthcare is not just a good idea, it is your right. But as economist Walter Williams points out, to say that I have a right to healthcare, is to say that I have a right to the time of my doctor and his office. I have a right to the benefit of his years of study and practice. I have right over his time. Healthcare is rather a privilege. More to the point, it is a commodity. It is something I must pay for. I may buy health insurance, or take my chances that I won’t need a doctor or health care provider often enough to justify the cost of insurance and pay out of pocket should something unforeseen arise. I do not (should not) have the right to ignore my responsibility for my own healthcare and expect others to take care of it for me. That is not fair to all those who must subsidize my choice to be irresponsible. If I fail to exercise, choose to smoke and eat a steady diet of junk food, I should not ask those who have been more responsible to help pay the bill for my irresponsibility.

Tavis Smiley and Dr. Cornell West have written a book, which they are promoting nationally, called “The Rich and The Rest of Us.” They were on with Bill O’Reilly the other night. O’Reilly asked them how high the minimum wage should be. West offered that if it had kept up with inflation, it would be $16-$20 an hour right now. It was their view that that would help the poor. But when you raise the cost of something, such as entry level work, what happens to the supply of such? That’s right, class, you get less of it. If the minimum wage were to be increased, even by a dollar, much less doubled, those on the lower end of the income scale would suddenly find themselves joining the 23 million Americans out of work.

O’Reilly continued. Okay, now this single mom is getting $19 an hour for her work, what is she going to do with her child?

“We believe there should be free child care.”

And if they can’t find a job they qualify for.

“There should be free job training.”

All of these “solutions” are predicated on the notion that the federal government has a limitless supply of money and it is their responsibility to take care of people. These men have not received the memo that our country is broke. It is not just broke, it is $ 16 trillion in hock. This kind of government largess is unsustainable in a strong economy, much less Obama’s economy.
They are also predicated on the notion that these programs will ultimately be helpful to people and the economy. While everybody would like to make more money, the result of these ideas would be more unemployment, especially for those on the lower ends of the economic scale. But they get credit and positive headlines for “fighting poverty nationwide” (a description of an article in the Huffington Post found on Google). You see, despite the actual results of their policies (were they ever enacted, though not even President Obama would adopt them–at least not in his first term) they get credit and slaps on the back for being compassionate, and for “fighting poverty.” But the policies they push would promote more poverty.

This idea flies in the face of 6,000 years of recorded human history. The composite wisdom of the ages is, “there ain’t no free lunch.” You can give a man a fish, or teach him to fish. “Early to bed, early to rise…” “If any man will not work, neither let him eat.” The bottom line is that it is not compassionate to make men dependent.

The second premise inherent in the fallacy of government as compassion should be obvious. We have so much debt right now that we are putting a burden on our children that is now over $50,000 per person. We cannot continue to fund every giveaway program just because it sounds compassionate.

Liberals love getting credit for having compassion when they propose spending other people’s money to give to those who didn’t earn it. Let’s talk briefly about real compassion. Conservatives, and this is consistent across the nation, give far more of their own money to charity than do Liberals. We know that real compassion means making sacrifices with our own possessions. Conservatives start homeless shelters and crisis pregnancy centers and orphanages in far-flung reaches.

John Fried (among others) has shown that Republicans give significantly more to charity than do Democrats, despite income levels (see here It is well known, or perhaps not so well-known, that Red states give a much higher percentage of their income to charity than do blue states. Arthur Brooks of Syracuse University was astounded by the results of his own study on who really gives in America.

“In his book, Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservativism (Basic Books, 2006), Brooks discovered that approximately equal percentages of liberals and conservatives give to private charitable causes. However, conservatives gave about 30 percent more money per year to private charitable causes, even though his study found liberal families earned an average of 6 percent more per year in income than did conservative families. This greater generosity among conservative families proved to be true in Brooks’ research for every income group, ‘from poor to middle class to rich.’”

Read more:

This discussion can become silly at some point. Suffice it to say, that on average, conservatives give a higher percent of their income to charitable causes than do liberals. But even if they did not, it would not change the basic argument I am making here. It is not compassionate to entrap people in a cycle of poverty and dependence on government hand-outs.
In the Old Testament of the Bible their was a plan for charitable giving. Farmers were to leave the edges of their fields unharvested. The poor could come and glean from the edges of their neighbors fields. It was not the farmers responsibility to harvest the field and bring the crop to the poor. The responsibility for gathering their food still fell on the beneficiaries of the charity. They had to do some work. Work is good. It is good for the soul. It is good to feel that you have earned your food. The value of that food increases, along with the appreciation for it, when it is won through labor and sweat.
The beneficiaries of any charity should be required to have a hand in paving their own path to independence from it. When we make unemployment benefits, food stamps and other government hand-outs more valuable than an entry level job, we get more people willing to forgo the job market with all its work and sweat and mean bosses who teach hard life lessons, to live the soul-destroying life of a taker. We deprive people of those skills needed to survive and even thrive in a free market society that offers limitless opportunities to those who understand that they were created to achieve significance. We deprive them of the self-respect that comes at the end of a many days of falling and getting back up, learning and growing, of finding their unique gift they can contribute to the rest of society.
Perhaps that is the fear–that if we should treat people with such dignity, they might become conservative.

Cold Facts, Part 2

Posted: April 3, 2012 in 1

Almost 70 years ago, England’s Royal Meteorological Society predicted that because of increased carbon dioxide emissions, a greenhouse effect had begun, and the Earth would heat irreversibly. Immediately, it got cooler. “The advent of the new ice age, scientists say, appears to be guaranteed.  The devastation will be astonishing.”  Gregg Easterbrook (Denison of the environmental movement) in “Return of the Glaciers,” Newsweek, November 23, 1992.

My earlier post made the point that there are 6 links in the daisy chain of Global Warming orthodoxy which need to be accepted in order for the US to engage in the wholesale funding called for, and the draconian reduction in industry and lifestyles that the Chicken Littles are now calling for. To review, here are the six: 1) the planet is getting warmer; 2) this warming is not cyclical, but one-directional; 3) this warming is global; 4) this warming is man-made (anthropogenic); 5) it is harmful to life on the planet; and 6) we can change it by changing our life styles. If any one of these proves not to hold up, it makes no sense to destroy our economy in the pursuit of colder temperatures. I continue now with point three. Is the warming a global phenomenon?

We are treated quite regularly to the projections that the polar ice caps are quickly vanishing. To buttress the point we are shown videos of large chunks of icebergs breaking free. I guess we are to believe that this is something that doesn’t happen every summer. But pictures are effective. Video convincing. It does appear that some retreat of the polar ice caps in the Arctic is taking place. At the same time, the polar ice caps in the Antarctic are growing. It appears to be a cyclical process. Likewise, the temperatures are slightly warmer in the Northern hemisphere, slightly cooler in the southern.

It is also known that the warming is taking place primarily in the night hours and in the winter months.

This global picture is also skewed by the fact that many of the colder measuring stations went off line in the 1990’s due to the collapse of the Soviet Union. You cannot eliminate some of the colder measuring stations from your data and expect accurate results.

Point 4: The warming we see is primarily anthropogenic. This may prove the most difficult proposition to prove. The main culprit cited by the alarmists for man-made global warming is CO2 (carbon dioxide). Never mind that CO2 is necessary for life to exist on the planet. Forget that plants survive on it. It is a greenhouse gas (GHG) and therefore evil. Of course, without the greenhouse benefits Earth receives from these gases, the planet would be uninhabitable. The greenhouse effect keeps temperatures moderate enough to sustain life.

Point 5: This last winter has been one of the most moderate that I have experienced since I moved here to Kansas City. It was quite nice. I heard no complaints. People actually enjoy warmer winters. I don’t plan on getting used to it. Next winter may be one of the coldest. Temperature averages are cyclical.

Historically when temperatures have been warmer, that has served humans well.

During the (now ignored) Medieval Climate Optimum, “In Europe the warm conditions had positive effects. Summer after summer the harvests were good and the population increased rapidly. As a result thousands of hectares were cleared of woodland and farmers expanded their fields high into the hills and on mountain slopes. It was even possible to grow successfully grapes as far north as Yorkshire.” Vikings populated Greenland, grew grain and raised cattle ( The temperatures were warmer then, than during the 20th century. Though there was a large decrease in sea ice, making navigation of the northern seas possible, the land was not over-run by the seas (the chimera we are now being frightened with).

Point 6: The idea that we can appreciably effect global climate temperatures by reducing CO2 emissions is questionable at best. I’m being generous. Even the most optimistic among the Chicken Little’s believe that after spending hundreds of billions of dollars a year annually (yes, every year) we could perhaps reduce the warming by less than 1 degree Fahrenheit. I just reviewed many alarmist web sites and could not find any projections on how much we could actually reduce warming, by their estimates. I found many site that outlined how much we would need to spend, and how much we would need to reduce GHG’s, but did not find any current estimates of how successful such expensive efforts would be. The last estimate I found was something like 0.6 degrees Fahrenheit. After trillions of dollars of investment, the disruption of American industries and concomitant lifestyle changes required, we could only effect a minuscule and insignificant change. One site said that were we to add no GHG’s, global temperatures would still rise because we have already emitted too much into our fragile atmosphere. That leads to the question, “Why should we upend our way of life for the possibility that by doing so we might reduce global temperatures to so insignificant a degree?”

This is an especially significant question when taken with the previous points. If a slight warming of the planet may or may not be happening, and if it may, in fact, be beneficial for life on the planet, why would we spend such inordinate amounts of our resources and disrupt our lifestyles, on the quixotic hope that this might reduce the rise in global temperatures ever-so-slightly?

No-Fault Society

Posted: February 21, 2012 in Conservatism, Economics

It began with no-fault insurance. Two cars collide. It’s an accident. It was nobody’s fault. That’s why they call it an “accident.” My insurance company covers the cost of my car repair. Yours covers you.

Then came no-fault divorce. Two people just drifted apart. No need for the messy identification of a guilty party here. The decision was mutual. “We just weren’t right for each other.” The two split. Nobody is to blame. Blame is so ugly!

But if I am the guy waiting for the light to turn green and get rear-ended by a distracted driver playing “Words with Friends,” I am going to feel that I don’t share the responsibility for the accident. It is Somebody’s fault. Namely, the dumb guy with the smart phone. If I am the wife whose husband was caught cheating with the office bimbo, I am not going to feel I share in the responsibility for the marriage falling apart. It is Somebody’s fault. The husband who could not keep his marital vows is the culprit.

This no-fault attitude is permeating our society. It is killing us. We can no longer claim anything is really wrong. We must understand the situation. It is killing us morally, economically and intellectually.

A young girl needs an abortion because she had an accident. Accident? Abortion is our “no-fault” answer for dispatching such accidents. The accident is not that she allowed herself to be seduced by her lover. It is that she failed to use a contraceptive. Of course we can’t expect kids with raging hormones to actually repress them. Why, that would be repressive.

A man “finds himself” unemployed. To be fair, this is often not his fault. (It often is.) So he goes on Unemployment. He gets so much money for not working. We have constructed this safety net to help families when such a crisis occurs as the loss of a job. It was not intended to last forever. Now we extend unemployment benefits, it seems, indefinitely. Most self-respecting people will try to get back into the work force as quickly as they are able. Unfortunately, our no-fault society has created a class of people who have no such self-respect. And, honestly, many will operate on the very reasonable economic equation that unless they find a job making substantially more than they receive in unemployment benefits, it makes little sense to flip hamburgers or houses. Why take that job in the factory with the cross boss, long hours and hard work when you can do nothing and get paid for it? It is interesting to note that once unemployment benefits run out, people find jobs much faster than when they could still receive them. I wonder if there is any connection there. As Alan Reynolds noted (, “When the government pays people 50 to 60 percent of their previous wage to stay home for a year or more, many of them do just that.”

The upshot of all this non-judgmental, no-fault attitude and the concomitant public policy, where real crime goes unpunished, where sloth is often rewarded while industry is punished, where immorality is at least as acceptable as morality, where drug-abusing celebrities in Hollywood and sports are lauded, we all pay. When the perpetrator is vindicated, the victim pays. When the abused wife must share custody of her children with the abuser, she pays the price. When millions live off the government dole, we all pay. We pay, not only in higher costs of government in the form of higher taxes, we pay in the overall collapse of what used to be known as the “social contract.” When crime goes unpunished, we get more crime. When immorality is winked at, it flourishes. When sloth is rewarded, we have more people relying on government hand-outs. When those who work hard and play by the rules are punished with higher taxes, then told they are not “paying their fair share”, we will find fewer such people–people who have been made to feel like saps in a society that has tilted against them.

Atlas will soon shrug.

So the flowers are ordered, the date is set. Someone may get lucky tonight. It probably won’t be the American people.

President Obama will give his State of the Union address tonight. He will be addressing a more civil and convivial group of legislators. Or, that is the image we are supposed to embrace. Mary Landrieu will be sitting with her BFF from across the aisle, Olympia Snow. Kirsten Gillibrand (D) from New York will be wearing the wrist corsage from her new beau John Thune (R) from South Dakota. They may spoon. Chuck Schumer (D, NY) has agreed to hold hands with Tom Coburn, Republican from Oklahoma. Love is in the air, and Valentine’s Day is still three weeks away.

Why this renewed show of bipartisanship? It all stems from the demented actions of the dope-smoking liberal whack-job who shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D) two weeks ago in Tucson. Immediately following the shootings, voices from the left tried to nail the blame to the evil voices of Conservatives on the radio and in politics. Sarah Palin was the chief culprit. Then the truth came out that Jared Loughner did not listen to talk radio or much else, and that he was in fact a radical leftist obsessed with the Congresswoman. But the thread-bare narrative that the divisive nature of political discourse must have had something to do with the shooting stood.

I don’t think it is a bad thing that Democrats sit with Republicans. I do think there are some good reasons they should not. First, it seems to be a tacit admission that the rhetoric of the right may have played a role in the shooting in Tucson. They are now sorry and will show their change of heart by doing works fitting repentance.By sitting with their opponents across the aisle maybe they will forgo tough talk about policy differences. But such talk is necessary to define the issues. That doesn’t mean the talk need be vitriolic or petty. But truth should not be an ancillary victim of the Tucson shooter.

The second reason it seems a bad idea (if you’re a Republican) is that it will diminish the optics of the huge majority won in November. Republicans dispersed among the Democrats will diffuse the stark picture of the dominant majority they hold. The Democrats would love for the American people to forget about November and still believe they are in charge. Republicans seem willing to allow them the charade.

I am sure there will be plenty of well-worked lines that both parties will applaud. Perhaps they can clap with arms entwined with their opposing party counterpart. We will hear that the state of the union is strong. When is it not! We will hear talk about the need for more investments in education and infrastructure. In a less civil world we might call this deficit spending. But tonight we will put aside our differences and enjoy the glow of the bi-paritison date night. So gather your lover to your side, pop some popcorn, snuggle up with a mocha latte, and enjoy a night of post-partisan courting. But tomorrow, let’s remember who won the elections in November and get back to the business of dismantling the damage the policies of the past two years have wrought.

Al Gore made another public appearance yesterday. His timing is always impeccable. While the country was in the midst of a late  fall deep freeze that covered everything north of Florida in a blanket of snow, there he was assuring us that global warming was right on track. He had been warning us for 30 years.  The bad news for Gore is that the weather doesn’t cooperate with his predictions. The good news for Gore is that the sycophants in the press don’t seem to care. Global warming alarmism continues apace, even in the face of the recently revealed emails that demonstrate the bogus nature of the science from the “scientists” themselves. The emails, of course, originate from the University of East Anglia in Great Britain. They were published on another wordpress blog: Note that this group is not some minor player in the “sky-is-falling” school. It is the school. The correspondence passed between many of the biggest proponents of the anthropogenic climate fear-mongers, including Phil Jones and Michael Mann, the developer of the “hockey stick.”

I am not a scientist. Heck, I don’t even own a microscope. But I do have some common sense, a handle on logic and a grip on reality.  While that doesn’t qualify me to write in peer-reviewed science journals, it does compel me to ask some basic questions about the environmental crisis du jour. With that caveat, let me step into the global warming debate, or as the proponents have taken to calling it since the weather has not cooperated, Global Climate Change.

We are asked to swallow certain propositions so that we may cede our nation’s sovereignty to an international group of environmental bureaucrats with the power to tax and regulate the United State back to the 19th century. There is much at stake. Here are the propositions we are asked to believe: 1) the planet is getting warmer; 2) this warming is not cyclical, but inexorably one-directional; 3) this warming is global; 4) this warming is man-made (anthropogenic); 5) it is harmful to life on the planet; and 6) we can change it by changing our life styles. We must accept all six before it would make any sense to spend trillions of dollars on a “solution” and forgo much of the modern conveniences we enjoy, afforded us by the technical revolution of the last century. If we accept them all but the last, i.e. that our efforts will indeed effect a positive change in the direction of the climate, it is pointless to spend the time and fortune to quixotically tilt toward windmills (literally). Let’s examine them one at a time, applying common sense and a sense of history.

1. The planet is getting warmer. The very first proposition is itself much in doubt. The base-line you use will determine your answer. If we use the decade of the seventies as our base-line, we could say things are heating up. If we use the decade of the 1930’s or the 1990’s as our standard, the planet is cooling. Here is where a good memory, or a simple Google search, can do wonders to bring some historical perspective to the discussion. Back in the 1970’s the environmental crisis du jour was global cooling. Typically the same culprit was to blame: Man. The headlines from that epoch have aptly been dropped into a media memory hole. Let us remind ourselves of some of the headlines to articles that were as certain then that we were heading to a new ice age as they are now that we are headed toward global combustion.

Time magazine carried an article titled “Science: Another Ice Age?” in its June 24, 1974 issue. The story relates how the previous three decades saw temperatures decline and ice caps grow. Though you never hear anyone in the mainstream press refer to such pieces, they were not uncommon. This story may still be found on Time’s web site. It is worth checking out:,9171,944914,00.html

Time  magazine was not alone in beating the drum for a cooling catastrophe. Newsweek had global cooling headlines as late as 1978.  And George Will reminds us, “In the 1970s, ‘a major cooling of the planet’ was ‘widely considered inevitable’ because it was ‘well-established’ that the Northern Hemisphere’s climate ‘has been getting cooler since about 1950’ (New York Times, May 21, 1975).”
We don’t have to go all the way back to the 70’s to read the screed that we were headed toward another ice age. “The advent of the new ice age, scientists say, appears to be guaranteed.  The devastation will be astonishing.”  Gregg Easterbrook  in “Return of the Glaciers,” Newsweek, November 23, 1992. Easterbrook has recently(June 2006) gone on record as accepting that global warming is the unchallenged view of climate scientists (see
It seems that the Earth is about 1 degree warmer on average than a century ago. But we were just emerging from what climatalogists called a Little Ice Age that began after the Medieval Climate Optimum and lasted until the end of the 19th century (from around 1400-1900). That the planet would regulate itelf is unremarkable. A 1-degree increase in temperature over a century hardly constitutes a permanent direction in global terms.
2. The trend is one-directional, not cyclical. We were in a cooling trend in the 70’s. Alarmists then told us we were headed for catastrophic cooling, projecting a one-directional temperature trend. Since the 90’s the alarmists are just as certain that catastrophic warming is going to be the death of us all.  Is it not more likely that climate is cyclical, not one-directional?
If we want to project the trends since 1998 we would have to say we are more likely headed for another Ice Age than a seared earth. But, of course, neither seems to be the case. One of the biggest hoaxes in the whole global warming debate is the “hockey stick.” The “hockey stick” graph was developed by Mann and used by the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to demonstrate that the planet has never been as warm as it is today. The hockey stick graph shows that temperatures were pretty much stable for the last couple millennia until the end of the twentieth century. Then it shot up. The graph looks lik a hockey stick laid on its side. Scary stuff. Gore used it as part of his horror movie on the coming climate disaster and still sites it as fact. Only problem is, it was totally made up. This was understood by many people prior to the recently unveiled email messages that make that fact clear.  (See Christopher Horner’s, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming.) The data that the alarmists have used to insist that the planet is warmer than ever, have been manipulated to effect the desired result: the hockey stick graph.
The hockey stick ignores the widely known period of Medieval warming as well as the mini-ice age from which we just emerged a century ago. That period is also known as the Climate Optimum, because it had a beneficial effect on life on the globe. I will discuss that further under point five.
I still have four points to cover. I will deal with them in my next installment.

Constitution edited

It is difficult these days for someone who loves the Constitution and who also wants to get along with people. I don’t like interjecting politics into otherwise pleasant conversation, but my concern for the direction this country is headed often gets the best of me. It is tough to see the current administration and Congress act in ways so far removed from constitutional principles. They no longer even feel any compunction to pretend there is specific constitutional authority for what they do. We must begin to wonder if they have ever read the Constitution of the United States and understand that it puts restraints on their legislative activity.

Mark Alexander sites some specific recent examples of particularly egregious abuses of the Constitution and the unmitigated hubris of congressmen when asked for justification for their behavior ( The issue in question is Congress’s proposed mandate to force Americans to buy health insurance as part of “health care reform.” Never before has the federal government mandated that free citizens of this great republic be forced to buy any good or service. Asked about the constitutional basis for this obviously unconstitutional provision, Patrick Leahy and Nancy Pelosi were aghast. How could anyone question their authority to do whatever they seem best for the American people?

Here is part of the exchange with Leahy: Where, in your opinion, does the Constitution give specific authority for Congress to give an individual mandate for health insurance?

Leahy: We have plenty of authority. Are you saying there is no authority? I’m asking-

Leahy: Why would you say there is no authority? I mean, there’s no question there’s authority, nobody questions that.

Unfortunately he is partly right. He is right about the part that nobody seems to question the constitutional authority for most of what Congress does.

Pressed a bit further, Leahy offered this justification: “Where do we have the authority to set speed limits on an interstate highway? The federal government does that on federal highways.” As Alexander wrote in the Patriot Post, “So to get this straight, Leahy defended Congress’ unconstitutional attempt to take over one sixth of the U.S. economy by citing another unconstitutional law that was justly repealed 14 years ago.”

Pelosi was even worse, offering no justification. Here is her response: “Are you serious? Are you serious?” Then she took a different question. An aid later said that was not even a serious question. I don’t know, it seems like a pretty good question to me. After all, the Constitution is austensibly still the law of the land.

Space and time does not allow me to address the Obama administration’s dismissive, no contemptable attitude toward constitutional limits of his power. More proof surfaces each day. We have 30 some unelected, unvetted, unconfirmed “Czars” who have unlimited authority over various areas of your life and mine, who answer only to Obama. Many with bizarre world views, including expressing sympathy for Mao and NAMBLA (Noth American Man/Boy Love Association) a pedafile group.

The word “czar” is a derivative of the word Caesar. Caesar, of course did away with the Roman Republic. It thereafter became the Roman Empire. The new Caesar stands ready to cross the Rubicon when the time is right. That time may come too soon.

       Dan Brown made a fortune devising a very elaborate tale of intrigue and conspiracy that dated all the way back to the early church. The DaVinci Code was a fun read and a blockbuster film. The tale goes that the Knights Templar held a secret that would be devastating to the church. Jesus married Mary Magdalene and had children whose descendents still live today. Leonardo DaVinci was an insider who knew this but could not just come right out and tell people. Being the genius he was, he hid the secret in codes sprinkled throughout his paintings.

Dan Brown unmasked that old myth about Jesus dying on the cross and rising from the dead. He actually married, settled down in a quiet village, raised a family and opened his carpenter shop. Okay, I made that last part up, but the story is something like that. It was a very ingenious and elaborate tale. Many people came to believe it, to lesser and greater degrees. My own son almost bought some of it because the story was told so well.

We have a new group of Dan Brown’s who have cracked a different code: the Race Code. One of the more recent code-breakers is the inimitable Maureen Dowd of the New York Times. She was able to see the code clearly when Congressman Joe Wilson of South Carolina yelled, “You lie,” when President Barak Obama lied about the health care plan not covering illegal aliens. What Dowd heard that others missed was the implied racist word “Boy.” What Wilson actually was saying is, “You lie, Boy.” I know nobody else heard it. It was not really verbalized, but a good code-breaker understands the latent racism behind such seemingly racially benign comments. And when Dowd speaks she is cloaked with the imprimatur of the Gray Lady herself. It is very close to speaking ex cathedra, or as close to it as secularists come. (See

That opened the door for more code-breakers to speak up about what they have detected in the protests from the Right. Ignore what they are saying. It is all a racist enterprize aimed at the first black president. (Okay, he is really only half black, but all the same…)

Tens of thousands of people gather on Capitol Hill in Washington to protest US President Barack Obama's health care plan.

Protesters marched on Washington last weekend–“tens of thousands” became the number to the mainstream press, others estimated it to be over a million–to protest a whole dog’s breakfast of budget-busting, extra-constitutional policies being pushed through Congress, from Health Care Reform, to cap and trade, to government takeover of industry. But all the left heard was: these people are racists who hate the president because he is black (or half-black, but we already mentioned that).

The always provocative ex-president, Jimmy Carter (who created an economy as anemic as this one) is the latest racial code-breaker to offer his incredible insight. He determined that Wilson’s comment was based on the racism that, in Carter’s view, still dominates the Southern white mentality. So, when a southern white man calls a half-black president a liar, it is a racist statement. When congressmen like Pete Stark called Bush a liar, it was just an example of robust debate and speaking truth to power.

Carter further stated that he believed “an overwhelming portion” of the protests at the tea parties and last weekend’s 9/12 Protest in Washington D.C., was tinged with racist overtones. White people just can’t accept that a black man is president.

Of course you never hear any overt racial comments coming from the president’s critics. You see, they are much smarter than to speak plainly about their true concerns. Instead they use code. Nobody is sure where and when this racist cabal got together and created the code that is universally understood by its adherents, but Dowd and Carter are now totally onto it. The jig is up! (To be clear there are no racial overtones intended in that last sentence.)

I am listening  on the radio right now to Leo Terrel intone that using the term “radical” is another racist code word. He agrees with Carter “one trillion per cent.” Asked to name these racists, he says simply that they are everywhere. Asked for specifics, he finds none. It doesn’t matter. Facts are irrelevant in the face of such rampant racism. It is all in the code.

Or just perhaps the truth is to be found in one wag’s sign from the Washington event: It doesn’t matter what the sign says, you will still call it racist.