You know how Republican Congress members like to invoke 9/11?  Well, here’s one invocation that I think they might want to take back.

California Rep. Darrell Issa, in expressing his opposition to extending benefits for first responders.  You remember them right?  These were the people that actually rushed into danger at Ground Zero to save people, scores of whom actually sacrificed their lives to do so.  Now, Issa is opposing actually doing something to help those first responders who survived that day but are still dealing with health issues from the toxic dust they breathed in and the families of those who lost their lives.

However, if his opposition is not offensive enough, you have to read the way in which he expressed his opposition.  Read this account of what was said:

During a hearing this week about legislation to extend victims’ benefits, Issa, a Republican, described the attacks on the World Trade Center as “a fire that had no dirty bomb in it, it had no chemical munitions in it. It simply was an aircraft, residue of two aircraft and residue of the material used to build this building.”

He questioned “why the firefighters who went there and everyone in the city of New York needs to come to the federal government for the dollars versus, quite frankly, this being primarily a state consideration.”

Issa went on to say that he could not vote for additional compensation money for New York “if I can’t see why it would be appropriate to do this every single time a similar situation happens which, quite frankly, includes any urban terrorist. It doesn’t have to be somebody from al-Qaida. It can be somebody who decides they don’t like animal testing at one of our pharmaceutical facilities.”

So, out of hand, Issa makes the 9/11 attacks appear like some air traffic accident.  And, even when he does get around to acknowledging this as an attack, he is basically saying that, if another terrorist attack occurs, Congress should tell the people, “you’re on your own.”

Issa’s statements have draw criticism from both Democratic and Republican lawmakers in New York.  I am just waiting for the pundits and commentators to make a firestorm out of this as they did with Jeremiah Wright’s comments.

Something tells me that I shouldn’t hold my breath.

Popularity: 7% [?]

For a while now, I have stayed away from the whole Rev. Jeremiah Wright fiasco. Trust me, it’s not that I’m afraid to talk about it. It’s because that, on its face, this is more “contrived” than “controversy”.

What do I mean? I see this as not so much people being offended by what he said. I believe that people are offended that a black person would have the audacity to say such things. You see, if you’re a white minister and you blame 9/11 or Hurricane Katrina on gays, even though you’re tied into presidents and political parties, it’s no big deal. But, if you’re a black minister and you call out the country you served for as a Marine over its foreign policy, that’s just unacceptable and you become public enemy #1.

Now, how deep does this racial acrimony go with some critics? Well, we have seen media pundits, specifically Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and Pat Buchanan go after both Rev. Wright and Sen. Barack Obama over Wright’s remarks for what has been weeks, now. They go so far as to say that Obama should have denounced Wright long ago and walked away from that church. You see, despite a 30-year track record of service in the south side of Chicago that has seen him help people of all colors, genders, sexual orientations and health statuses (including an AIDS ministry), the body of Wright’s work should be invalidated by what amounts to about 5-10 minutes of statements, much of which, if argued on their merits, could be construed as true or at least in need of deeper discussion.

Now, I point out O’Reilly, Hannity and Buchanan because, as I said, they criticize Obama for not walking away from his church. Now, why do I call them out? You see, all three are Catholics. Now, if you remember, the big thing in the news a few years back was how the Catholic church in America, from the top down, had covered up rampant pedophilia among its clergy, primarily priests.

You see, we are not talking about a few statements by one person in one church. We are talking about the actions of the leadership of the Catholic Church in this country knowingly allowing molesting clergy to continue to move from parish to parish, only to molest other children. This went on for decades. Furthermore, when finally having to answer for this cover-up, the church ended up spending millions in hush money and court settlements, of which I’m sure included donation money from Mr. O’Reilly, Mr. Hannity and Mr. Buchanan. However, this was not enough to drive these three out of the Catholic Church.

So, my question to these three is why didn’t they denounce the Catholic Church in this country when they found out about these rampant abuses? How could they have walked into a Catholic church or let their children or grandchildren be involved in a church when the possibility of being molested by a priest existed? Isn’t this a question of character?

In the end, in their upside-down existences, a few “bad” words outweigh many good deeds. In their world, black people should be silent or, at least when speaking, should only express gratitude for the the white people who “have done so much for them”. In their world, to paraphrase Chris Rock, “if it’s all-white, then it’s all right”, meaning, in this case, that it’s only bad if a person who is not of their color, political views or sexual persuasion does it (you can choose their order of preference).

In the end, to them, words speak louder than actions and it’s okay to live in a glass house and throw stones.

Popularity: 8% [?]

I always find it interesting when a white guy wants to tell black folks that slavery really wasn’t that bad. Understand, this is not a man whose family history was virtually lost forever or whose grandparents had to live through Jim Crow and, now, his offspring, James Crow, Esq.

This time, the offender is right-wing hack, Michael Medved. In his latest piece at Townhall.com, he wants to tell us how wrong we are on our perception of what slavery in the U.S. was and how the millions who died in the middle passage weren’t victims of genocide — instead, they were, basically, the unfortunate victims who died when slavetraders were moving product between shores. Also, America is really not to be blamed for its role in slavery but should be commended for its “rapid” abolition of slavery (despite slavery going on for nearly two and half centuries in this country).

I suggest you read for yourself. As for me, I’m not shocked, suprised or amazed, considering the source.

Popularity: 49% [?]

It seems like Tavis Smiley’s calling out of the GOP frontrunners for skipping a PBS debate at majority-black Morgan State University might have been a tipping point for a Republican party that needs every vote in can get in hopes of hanging on to some power in Washington.

When it was revealed that Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain and Fred Thompson would all be skipping the PBS debate, GOP stalwarts begin voicing their concerns.  Let’s face it, Tavis Smiley has a long reach.  In addition to his PBS show’s audience, his discontent made the pages of USA Today and he went on the Tonight Show and, in front of a national, majority-white audience,  basically blasted the GOP for idisrepecting minority voters.  Even worse, this was not an isolated incident.  Earlier this summer, all but one candidated, Tom Tancreado, skipped the NAACP Republican forum and Spanish-language network Univision had to cancel their GOP candidates forum when only John McCain agreed to show.

Like I said, this is not a good look for people who claim to want minority votes.

So, over the last few days, some leading Republican figures has spoken out about the shortsightedness of GOP presidential contenders in not courting minority voters. Recently, on Good Morning America, Newt Gingrich felt these candidates where making a huge mistake because “African-Americans have been hurt more by the failures of government” than any other group and he felt that these candidates might be able to show voters that they offer a viable alternative.

The last black Republican to serve in the House, JC Watts, had stronger words:

“I think the best that comes out of stupid decisions like this is that African-Americans might say, ‘Was it because of my skin color?’ Now, maybe it wasn’t, but African-Americans do say, ‘It crossed my mind.’”

He also went on to say the following:

“You kind of scratch your head thinking why are they making decisions like that?” Watts said. He speculated the candidates don’t have any African-American staffers who “could say to them, ‘You’re making a huge mistake strategically by not at least reaching out and talking to this demographic.’”

At any rate, they can count on not getting my vote, yet again.  Republicans b*tch, whine, moan and complain about not getting black support but then pull stunts like these.  They should realize it’s not the black faces at polling places that are the problems — it’s the white faces they see in their mirrors that are the real problem.

Popularity: 25% [?]