“Speaking Lies in Hypocrisy”

“Speaking Lies in Hypocrisy”
Vol: 40 Issue: 24 Monday, January 24, 2005

Watching Senator Barbara Boxer [D-Ca] grill Condoleeza Rice during her confirmation hearing, it suddenly occurred to me how far along we have come in race relations in this country. Not to mention advances made by women.

It was only nine years ago that the Democrats were celebrating the elevation of Madeline Albright as the first-ever female Secretary of State.

Senator Boxer was among those female politicians who cheered then-President Clinton the loudest for having the ‘courage’ to nominate a female to the job for the first time.

And now, in another first, President Bush nominated Dr. Rice (who is not only a woman, but a black woman) to succeed Colin Powell (who was America’s first black Secretary of State). One would think that both the Democrats and feminazis like Boxer would be dancing in the streets.

Nope. Barbara Boxer is a feminazi second, and a partisan Democrat first. During the confirmation hearings, Boxer slammed Rice as a liar, saying that her loyalty to President Bush and her support for the Iraq War “overwhelmed your respect for the truth.”

Dr. Rice shot back “I have to say that I have never, ever, lost respect for the truth in the service of anything,” before asking Senator Boxer to “refrain from impugning my integrity,” during the hearings.

Senator Boxer later criticized Dr. Rice on one of the Sunday talk shows, claiming that she [Boxer] was ‘victimized’ by Rice’s response.

One of my favorite lines from Senator Boxer’s inquisition of Dr. Rice was this classic; “Let’s not rewrite history. It is too soon for that.”

It was a classic — particularly coming from Senator Boxer — one of the most prolific historical revisionists ever elevated to the US Senate.

In December, 1998, Barbara Boxer defended Bill Clinton’s decision to attack Saddam Hussein, saying, “The president had no choice but to act today,” according to a statement issued by her office.

“Anyone who questions the timing of his decision ignores the fact that we committed a month ago to act if [chief U.N. weapons inspector] Richard Butler reported that Saddam was not cooperating,” before adding, “These critics are blinded by political considerations.”

(Evidently, it takes, oh, about seven years, before Boxer believes is permissible to rewrite history.)

In 1991, Boxer organized a rally of her fellow congressman at the steps of the Senate to demand hearings into Anita Hill’s sexual harassment claims against Supreme Court Justice nominee Clarence Thomas, who was the only the second black ever nominated to the nation’s highest judicial appointment.

In 1995, Boxer led the effort to force Republican Senator Bob Packwood to resign in the wake of sexual harassment allegations.

But when Bill Clinton had an affair with a 20 year-old government intern, Boxer was among the first to leap to his defense, jumping on the ‘everybody lies about sex’ bandwagon and ultimately voting against Clinton’s impeachment.

Boxer opposed all of Bush’s judicial nominations, which included Alberto Gonzales, the first Hispanic nominee for the post of Attorney General of the United States.

Ditto for John Kerry, the only other senator to vote against confirming the nation’s first black female Secretary of State.


It never ceases to amaze me that the Democrats have had a lock on the black vote for at least a half-century.

The Democrat’s senior Senator is Robert Byrd of West Virginia, a former Grand Kleagle of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan.

In April, 2004, Senator Chris Dodd [D-Conn] marked the occasion of Senator Byrd’s 17,000th vote by offering a rousing tribute to the old Klansman.

“There is no one I admire more. There is no one to whom I listen more closely and carefully when he speaks on any subject matter than Sen. Byrd.”

Dodd said of Byrd, he “would have been a great senator at any moment. He would have been right at the founding of this country. He would have been in the leadership crafting this Constitution. He would have been right during the great conflict of civil war in this Nation.”

Ah! Robert Byrd, former Grand Kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan as a Senator during the Civil War? It is important to put this into historical context.

Senator Trent Lott had just been forced to resign as Senate Majority Leader because he praised outgoing Senator Strom Thurmond, who in 1948, ran for president on the segregationist Dixiecrat ticket before switching sides and joining the anti segregationist wing of the Republican Party in the mid-60’s.

Lott also began his political career as a Dixiecrat segregationist, before also switching sides and joining the anti-segregationists in the GOP.

But when one former Democratic segregationist praised another former Democratic segregationist, the Democrats raised such a hue and cry that it cost Lott his job as Republican Majority Leader.

Nobody on the Democrats’ side mentioned that the Dixiecrats were so-called because they were a wing of the southern Democratic Party — the strongest and most ardent supporters of segregation.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which supposedly established the Democrats bona fides on race, was passed — in spite of the Democrats rather than because of them.

Republican Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen pushed the bill through the Senate, despite the no-votes of 21 Democrats, including Al Gore Sr. and Robert Byrd.

Much is made of the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision striking down state segregated education. What is never mentioned is that the Supreme Court ruling was a reinstating of what Republicans had done nearly 75 years earlier in their 1875 civil-rights bill, which was overturned by Democrats in 1880.

It was the Republican Party that was formed in 1854 expressly to combat slavery and secure civil rights for blacks. The Democrats were responsible for the Dred Scott decision declaring blacks were not persons but property and as such had no rights.

“Affirmative action” has become the touchstone of Democratic racial politics. Democrats portray anyone who opposes affirmative action as racist. But affirmative action, as currently practiced, is racist to the core.

It is based on the assumption that African-Americans are incapable of competing with whites. For the modern liberal Democratic racist — as for the old-fashioned one, blacks are simply incapable of freedom.

And woe be to any African-American who wanders off of the Democratic plantation. Ask Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, or Ward Connerly.

Although they echo the call for a “color-blind society” that once characterized the vision of Martin Luther King Jr., they are pilloried as “Uncle Toms” of “Oreos” by such enforcers of the Democratic plantation system as Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton.

When Dr. Rice was nominated as Secretary of State, the inherent racism of liberal Democrats was represented by editorial cartoons by guys like Oliphant, Danziger, Trudeau and Ralls. The cartoons appeared in such bastions of liberal thought as the New York Times and the Washington Post.

They all depicted Rice as a black ‘house slave’, putting words in her mouth like, “I knows all about aluminum tubes,” and a Doonesbury cartoon by Garry Trudeau that has President Bush calling her, “Brown Sugar.”

A cartoon published by Daryl Cagle depicted Rice as a tiny moron with buck teeth lost in Colin Powell’s oversized shoes.

According to the ‘Democracy Project, the overt racism of the liberals is actually evidence of ‘real progress’ in race relations in America.

After all, if racist cartoons like the ones I’ve described can grace the pages of America’s mainstream newspapers without Black America marching in the streets, maybe we’ve gone beyond the divisiveness of the past, or some such nonsense.

But there is perhaps a deeper lesson in this. That lesson? The Left does not really care about racism, except when it can be used as a stick with which to strike the United States.

When the US promotes blacks to the highest offices in the land, a deafening silence ensues. That this goes uncelebrated by the Left shows they really have no sympathy whatsoever with blacks.

They are not concerned with the advancement of blacks in our society. They only care about blacks to the extent they can be manipulated as a voting bloc, and a reliable source of resentment, and anti-US arguments. But when blacks actually succeed – that they don’t want to hear about.

Therefore, when racist cartoons are used against Condoleeza Rice, the racism goes over their heads – because the racism shown virtually disappears under the more relevant (to them) issue of putting their own political interests ahead of those of the United States.

This is another example of the ‘mirror-image’ scenario one finds whenever there is a spiritual dimension to a political worldview.

In the main, the single greatest difference between the liberal and conservative political worldviews in the United States is found in where they derive their authority to govern.

To a liberal Democrat, the authority to govern is derived from the expressed will of the people. If the majority rules that murder is legal, then murder then becomes legal.

(At least, in theory. We’ve seen that when the majority rules that a Republican should govern, the Democrats complain that the majority is wrong)

To a conservative Republican, the authority to govern comes by Divine Decree. In a Constitutional Republic, the majority can only pass such laws as don’t contradict Divine Law.

In this worldview, murder can never be decriminalized because it was God Who declared, ‘Thou shalt do no murder’ — translated into English as ‘thou shalt not kill.’

In early America, a Constitutional Republican form of government was an expression of faith in the wisdom of the Creator.

To the liberal Democrat, there is no Creator, and therefore, the ultimate source of wisdom is derived the expressed will of the majority.

The spiritual ‘mirror image’ component is the reason that the Democrats can claim to be the party of the downtrodden; eg. blacks, Hispanics, women and gays — provided none of them are Republican.

And they manage to get away with it, thanks to their compatriots in the liberal mainstream press who control most of what is seen and heard in America.

Where were Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton while Condoleeza Rice was being caricatured as a ‘house ni**er? They were railing against Republican ‘liars’ who they claim won the election because they suppressed the ‘black vote’.

The Apostle Paul could have been writing a commentary on the Senate confirmation hearings when he wrote;

“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that IN THE LATTER TIMES some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron.” (1st Timothy 4:1-2)

This entry was posted in Briefings by Pete Garcia. Bookmark the permalink.

About Pete Garcia

Christian, father, husband, veteran, pilot, and sinner saved by grace. I am a firm believer in, and follower of Jesus Christ. I am Pre-Trib, Dispensational, and Non-Denominational (but I lean Southern Baptist).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s