Why We CAN’T All ”Just Get Along”
Vol: 114 Issue: 9 Wednesday, March 9, 2011
If you were to run a Google search using the words Michele Bachmann and liar you’d get about 1.5 million results. (Actually, 1,490,000, but who’s counting?)
These two headlines are typical: “Pathological LIAR Michele Bachmann attacks REAL Americans” and “Is Michele Bachmann a Compulsive Liar?”
Those headlines amply demonstrate why Americans cannot just “all get along”. The request is both unreasonable and disingenuous. It is a political tactic aimed at silencing one side.
The same folks that are demanding that the political rhetoric in Washington be “toned down”’ so we can “all get along” are the ones throwing around labels like “liar” whenever they get caught with their hands in the cookie jar.
The Far Left blogosphere came completely unglued over Representative Bachmann’s assertions that some $105 billion in secret slush funds was included in the health care bill that nobody had a chance to read before voting on.
“Rep. Michele Bachmann, in an interview Monday with Fox News’ Sean Hannity, suggested that this spending was one reason Obama and congressional Democratic leaders were in such a hurry to pass the legislation in late 2009.
“We didn’t get the bill until a literally couple of hours before we were supposed to vote on it,” Bachmann told Hannity, saying that the spending was split up and put in different portions of the proposed legislation.
The conservative Heritage Foundation uncovered the spending, which had been tallied by the Congressional Research Service and Congressional Budget Office.
It falls under the heading of mandatory spending, because it is controlled by laws other than annual appropriations acts. Such mandatory funds could remain available for the Obama administration to spend even if Republicans manage to defund the health care law.”
The Washington Post managed to find a way to smear Representative Bachmann as both a liar and a racist for even pointing it out.
In a section called “Fact Checker – The Truth Behind the Rhetoric” Glenn Kessler argues that Bachmann’s charges “border on ridiculous” because the money was not really “hidden”:
“She is correct that Congress already has appropriated some spending in future years, but her claim that this money was “hidden” does not have credibility. The money for these programs was clearly described and analyzed by the Congressional Budget Office before the legislation was voted into law.”
It was SO clearly described that it took Kessler almost a thousand words just to explain how clearly the program was described. What he left out was that nobody read the bill until after they passed it.
So much for the “truth behind the rhetoric”. As for fact-checking, no amount of fact-checking can change reality.
On the strength of his argument that Bachmann is correct on every detail EXCEPT that the appropriations were “hidden” Kessler, on behalf of the Washington Post, calls Bachmann “disingenuous”.
But it was the way that the Washington Post’s Jonathan Capehart was able to twist the story until he could find evidence of Bachmann’s deep-seated racism that really impressed me.
Bachmann used a term first used by the Wall Street Journal’s Michael Barone to describe the underhanded methods used by the Obama administration in a column about the 2009 Chrysler bailout program.
Barone called it “gangster government.” Of course, Barone was referring to gangsters in the sense of people banded together in a group for the purpose of committing criminal acts.
You know, like, ummm, lessee, umm . . . gangsters?
“Bachmann has been parroting “gangster government” since it was first used by Michael Barone in a May 2009 column on the Chrysler bailout for the Washington Examiner. In it, he basically accuses the Obama administration of corruption.
“The Chrysler negotiations will not be the last occasion for this administration to engage in bailout favoritism and crony capitalism. There’s a May 31 deadline to come up with a settlement for General Motors. And there will be others. In the meantime, who is going to buy bonds from unionized companies if the government is going to take their money away and give it to the union? We have just seen an episode of Gangster Government. It is likely to be part of a continuing series.”
So Capehart admits up front that he completely understands Barone’s use of the phrase “Gangster government” as ‘basically accusing the Obama administration of corruption.’
But apparently, Capehart doesn’t like Bachmann as much as he does Barone. Barone meant corruption, but Bachmann’s use of the phrase is more sinister. . .
But for many, particularly African Americans, “gangster government” conjures up another, equally violent image. Not that of the white, fedora-wearing, machine-gun totting criminals of the 1920s and 1930s. But of the black, bandana-wearing, drug-dealing, drive-by-shooting thugs glorified and celebrated in gansta rap.
Both my dinner companion last night and my lunchmate today said they thought Bachmann was engaging in ugly dog-whistle politics. In the tradition of “welfare queen,” which fostered negative images of black woman having babies and collecting government checks, “gangster government” is heard as “gangsta government” and conjures up a repugnant image of a lawless, out-of-control black man in the White House — who shouldn’t be there.
Bachmann is not just a liar. She is a racist.
Bachmann accuses the administration and the Democrat Congressional majority leaders of fraud because of the way the money was appropriated.
“The senators did not receive the final copy of the final bill until a few hours before they took their vote. In the House, the bill we were working on was scrapped, and instead we voted on the Senate bill as written,” Bachmann told WND. “There’s a due diligence that needed to occur. … There was a concerted effort to ensure we could not read the bill and vet it before voting, and now we see the consequences.”
She continued, “Now we will be without remedy to defund Obamacare, because they have prefunded it. They told no one they were prefunding the implementation. [Republicans] were all arguing that if we got the gavel in 2010 that we could effectively repeal Obamacare between now and 2012 because we could defund it. That option was taken away from us, the people’s [referendum-like vote in 2010] was neutered.”
Also included in Section 1311(a) of Obamacare, Bachmann warns, is an unlimited appropriation to the Health and Human Services secretary:
“The bill allows HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to extend any amount of money that she wants to any of the 50 states for the purpose of implementing the health-care exchanges,” Bachmann said. “This is extraordinary, unprecedented, unparalleled and it defies our Constitution because only Congress can appropriate money, but this gives her an unlimited credit card to tap the U.S. Treasury without further Congressional approval.”
Because the language of the Obamacare legislation has already “spent” the $105 billion – though more than $100 billion of the appropriations won’t pour out of the Treasury until next year and beyond – defunding any “new” spending, Bachmann points out, won’t be enough to stop the controversial law. Congress, she said, needs to act in a different way:
“This is what we need to do now,” Bachmann told WND. “The government will run out of money on March 18, and the debate now is on the budget. What we need to do is demand that Obama, Pelosi and Reid give the money back. They have to give this money back because they gained it under false pretenses.
“This year, the $5 billion [that is to be spent] has to be given back,” she said. “Then they have to give back the language in the bill that secures future appropriations.”
“If we give up on this issue of getting the money back now, Obamacare will be implemented,” Bachmann warned. “We will have forsaken our right to get rid of Obamacare in the future.”
Without such a drastic step, she warns, the money will be spent whether opponents of Obamacare like it or not, and – short of a full repeal – the controversial health-care overhaul will become reality.
In other words, it is a done deal. Fraud. Misappropriation. The creation of a secret slush fund. Those are the charges.
“This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.”
The Left’s defense to those charges is that the slush fund wasn’t really secret – even though nobody knew about it until Bachmann brought it up.
And that Michele Bachmann is a racist for bringing it up.
“ For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
These are the ‘perilous times’ of which the Apostle wrote. And those are the people that now occupy positions of power.
Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. . .” (2 Timothy 3:1-5)
And that’s why we can’t all get along.