There's been a heap of criticism placed upon President Barack Obama's domestic policies that have promoted government intrusion and prolonged our fiscal crisis and his foreign policies that have emboldened our enemies. Any criticism of Obama pales in comparison with what might be said about the American people who voted him in to the nation's highest office.

Obama's presidency represents the first time in our history that a person could have been elected to that office who had long-standing close associations with people who hate our nation. I'm speaking of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor for 20 years, who preached that blacks should sing not "God Bless America," but "God damn America." Then there's William Ayers, now professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago but formerly a member of the Weather Underground, an anti-U.S. group that bombed the Pentagon, U.S. Capitol and other government buildings. Although Ayers was never convicted of any crime, he told a New York Times reporter, in the wake of the September 2001 terrorist attack, "I don't regret setting bombs. … I feel we didn't do enough." Obama has served on a foundation board, appeared on panels, and even held campaign events in Ayers' home, joined by Ayers' former-fugitive wife, Bernardine Dohrn. Bill Ayers' close association with Obama is reflected by his admission that he helped write Obama's memoirs, "Dreams from My Father."

Many Americans thought that with Obama's presidency, we were moving to a "post-racial society." Little can be further from the truth. Victor Davis Hanson, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, in a National Review (1/18/2012) article titled "Obama's Racial Politics," says that Obama's message about race and his charges of racial bigotry are "usually coded and subtle." Criticizing Republicans, before a Mexican-American audience, Obama said that he ran for office because "America should be a place where you can always make it if you try — a place where every child, no matter what they look like (or) where they come from, should have a chance to succeed." If you don't get it, "no matter what they look like" is code for nonwhite. Hanson says that Obama's attorney general, Eric Holder, has "found race a convenient refuge from criticism — most recently accusing his congressional auditors of racism, for their grilling him over government sales of firearms to Mexican cartel hitmen."

Obama's racial politics are aided and abetted by a dishonest news media. When Republican candidate Texas Gov. Rick Perry referred to "a big black cloud that hangs over America, that debt that is so monstrous," he was dishonestly accused of racism by MSNBC's Ed Schultz, who said, "That black cloud Perry is talking about is President Barack Obama." Schultz omitted the second half of Perry's quote. Chris Matthews referred to Perry's vision of federalism as "Bull Connor with a smile."

The media have help from black congressmen in stirring up racial dissent. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., said white presidents must be "pushed a great deal more" to address black unemployment than would a black president. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, said that argument over the debt ceiling is proof of racial animosity toward Obama. Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., said that Republicans are trying to deny blacks the vote. Rep. Andre Carson, D-Ind., said the tea party wishes to lynch blacks and hang them from trees. Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said Perry's job creation in Texas is "one stage away from slavery."

All of this places a heavy burden on people who care about our nation. We must ensure that the 2012 elections are the most open and honest elections in U.S. history. Should Obama lose, I wouldn't put it past leftists, progressives, the news media and their race-hustling allies, as well as the president, to fan the fires of hate and dissension by charging that racists somehow stole the election, thereby giving support and excuses for the kind of violence and lawlessness that we've witnessed in flash mobs and Occupy Wall Street riots.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

The Big Three networks continued their blackout on covering the controversy involving the Obama administration trying to force Catholic institutions to include coverage of abortifacients and contraception in their health plans without a co-pay. Instead, Diane Sawyer on Wednesday's ABC World News highlighted Pfizer's recall of birth control pills that could "raise the risk of accidental pregnancy."

The same evening, both CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News aired reports on Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation discontinuing its funding of abortion perpetrator Planned Parenthood, with NBC's Brian Williams hyping how "thousands of women…[may]  pay the biggest price" for the move.

During her report, CBS's Nancy Cordes noted that "Planned Parenthood, which also provides abortion services, is a long-time target for social conservatives, like New Jersey Congressman Chris Smith." However, she did not give Rep. Jackie Speier, who has a 100% rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America, an equivalent ideological label. The correspondent merely identified her as a "Democrat."

The following morning, both CBS and NBC continued their coverage of the controversy between Komen and Planned Parenthood. On Thursday's CBS This Morning, Cordes filed a follow-up report, but this time, left out the ideological labels for politicians on both sides of the debate.

CORDES: Planned Parenthood's history of providing abortions has earned it some powerful opponents.

NEWT GINGRICH, (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: It is the largest abortion provider in the United States- period.

CORDES: On Capitol Hill, Florida Republican Cliff Stearns has launched an investigation into Planned Parenthood's use of taxpayer funds. The Komen Foundation says that investigation was a factor in their decision. Democrats called the investigation a partisan witch hunt that will go nowhere.

REP. JACKIE SPEIER, (D), CALIFORNIA (from speech on the House floor): Last time I checked, we were all presumed innocent until proven guilty.

It should be pointed out, however, that she later identified a vice president for Komen as being "anti-abortion."

On NBC's Today show, as NewsBusters's Kyle Drennen pointed out, chief medical editor Nancy Snyderman tried to meld the Planned Parenthood controversy with the firestorm over Mitt Romney's "not concerned about the very poor" remark.

Since January 20, the day that the Obama administration issued its health care mandate, there has only been one brief mention of the issue on the Big Three networks' morning and evening news programs. On January 30, CBS This Morning anchor Charlie Rose cited a story from the USA Today that "says Catholics blast federal birth control mandate."

MSNBC has been mocked as MS-DNC and MS-LSD by conservative critics. But given the network's constant drum-beat against the Komen Foundation for its decision to cut off grants to Planned Parenthood affiliates, it might be sensible to rename the liberal cable outlet MS-D&C, after the abortion procedure.

Throughout live coverage this morning and early afternoon, MSNBC hosts turned to pro-choice politicians and Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards to rebuke the breast cancer charity for its decision. Finally, in the 1 p.m. hour, veteran journalist and breast cancer patient Andrea Mitchell interviewed Komen's founder, Ambassador Nancy Brinker. Yet that discussion turned out to be a hardball interview that was followed immediately afterwards by a softball chat with hard-left U.S. senators Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.).

Below are Mitchell's questions to Brinker (emphases mine):

• Well, the storm has exploded and you've been in this for a long time. You started Susan G. Komen in 1982, after the death of your sister and in her name, and you have raised more money than any other group for breast cancer research, which is why, I have to tell you, this is shocking to a lot of your long-time supporters. I want to give you a chance to answer, let me just what I was confronted with at the gym this morning. A woman came over to me, I had not met her before, gray-haired woman, probably in her 60s. She was wearing a gray T-shirt, and she said, "Look at my T-shirt. It's inside-out. I put it on by accident today. I'm not going to wear it anymore. I've torn the label out. It's a Komen T-shirt." These are long-time supporters who have run with you, who have supported you financially and otherwise, so, they're asking you, "How could this have taken place?"

• Well, it's just through the end of the grant cycle [that you have three grants to Planned Parenthood remaining]. Let me just put out there, first of all, that I have been very identified, an outspoken supporter, and participant in the races, over the years, long before I, myself, ended up being diagnosed with breast cancer. So I just want to put that out there, we've known each other a long time as well, both when you were a diplomat at the State Department. But I come to you today, you know, expressing the anger of a lot of people channeling through them, you see it on Twitter, you see it everywhere, and the fact is, a lot of people are tracing this back — my colleague Lisa Myers reporting last night on Nightly News — a lot of people are tracing this back to what some found the surprising hiring of Karen Handel, who ran for governor, we've seen her statements and her strong support, she said, when she was running for office, "I am staunchly and unequivocally pro-life. Let me be clear, since I am pro-life I do not support the mission of Planned Parenthood." The question is, for the bipartisan organization such as yours, which has a broad-based advisory group, why hire a key staff person who is so strongly, fiercely identified against Planned Parenthood, one of your grantees?

• But you've said that this is the one group out of 2,000 grantees. Planned Parenthood is the only that comes under the rubric of this new policy, which is not to fund any organization that is under investigation. And the investigation, from Congressman Stearns, many believe is trumped up.

• They're [Planned Parenthood is] always the target of investigations, that's the way–

• Their supporters say that they are the only ones that have been singled out among thousands and that their grants for breast screening have nothing to do with contraception or abortion counseling, that they separate this funding completely.

• What do you do about the fact that donors are pulling back? Some people would say that, I mean, the anger that's being expressed is going to hit you in the pocketbook. You have worked so hard to create a bipartisan organization, look at your Facebook page. Your Facebook page has people cutting red, pink ribbons in half. Your branding is at stake.

• Aren't the most vulnerable women going to be affected by this? Planned Parenthood serves those–

• Are you going to put out the evidence that you have that there's been anything flawed in the way they've delivered services to these vulnerable [women]?

Immediately after the Brinker interview, Mitchell turned to Sens. Murray and Boxer. Here are the questions Mitchell asked them (emphases mine):

• Sen. Murray, can you respond, from your information about Planned Parenthood, uh, what is the flaw in the way they are providing services and what are you planning to do about it?

• Sen. Boxer, why don't you speak out as well as to where you think we should go from here.

• Well, it's certainly troubling. This whole debate is troubling for people on all sides of it. Nancy Brinker is still here, let me just ask you [Ambassador Brinker], I know we're out of time, but is there any chance that you will respond to the senators and change the policy.

Not once did Mitchell challenge either senator, even though Murray insisted a "partisan witch hunt" was behind the Komen decision and Boxer brought up the specter of McCarthyism.

For her part Brinker repeatedly noted that Komen was still financing three grants to Planned Parenthood affiliates but that by and large Komen was dissatisfied with how the vast majority of Planned Parenthood affiliates handled the grant monies, particularly as they failed to provide direct care for women needing mammograms and follow-up coverage.

Lost in most of the MSNBC coverage has been the fact that Planned Parenthood does not in fact provide mammograms to patients, merely referring women to where they can find them.

Since announcing that it would no longer provide funding to Planned Parenthood on Wednesday, the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation has been subject to a vicious smear campaign by the abortion provider, a campaign which NBC News has worked to advance over the past 48 hours.

At the top of Wednesday's NBC Nightly News, anchor Brian Williams sounded the alarm: "Caught in the middle. Two of the biggest names in women's health, tonight in a bitter fight over money and it may be thousands of women who pay the biggest price." In a later tease of the upcoming report he made no secret of who he thought the villain of the story was: "A decision that's making a lot of women furious at the world's largest breast cancer organization. Why did it cut off funds for critical breast cancer screenings?"

One thing Williams failed to mention was the fact that Planned Parenthood does not actually provide mammograms.

In the report that followed, correspondent Lisa Myers proclaimed: "Susan G. Komen’s race is for the cure. They raised 271 million dollars last year to advance breast cancer awareness, but today many angry women, on Twitter and the radio, vowed their Komen racing days are over."

Two sound bites were included from women calling into a local National Public Radio affiliate in New York City, WNYC. One complained: "We are really upset by this decision and were not gonna do the Komen race anymore." Another announced: "I changed my mind and sent the money elsewhere."

After noting that congressional Republicans were currently investigating Planned Parenthood, Myers touted how, "Planned Parenthood’s CEO called the decision [by Komen] political and disappointing." CEO Cecile Richards condemned Komen: "The Komen Foundation has been the target of a right-wing political campaign, bullying them and unfortunately the results seems to be that they gave into it."

While completely ignoring Planned Parenthood's left-wing agenda, Myers worried that Komen had some how been co-opted by those "bullying" conservatives: "Not long ago, Komen also hired a new Vice President, Karen Handel, a former Republican gubernatorial candidate endorsed by Sarah Palin, who strongly opposed abortion and vowed to de-fund planned parenthood during her campaign."

Wrapping up the Planned Parenthood press release, Myers cited yet another staunch supporter of the group: "Leslie Dergen, a breast cancer survivor and an official with Planned Parenthood's Denver affiliate, says this will hurt the most vulnerable women who have nowhere else to turn."

On Thursday's Today, Myers offered an abbreviated repeat of the previous night's report, noting that it was "an increasingly bitter dispute" and signaled to Komen that slanted media coverage would continue: "If Komen thought its decision to end its partnership with Planned Parenthood would quietly defuse a controversial issue, it appears to have miscalculated."

Perhaps the oddest and most blatant advocacy for Planned Parenthood occurred in the 9 a.m. et hour on Today, when NBC's chief medical editor Nancy Snyderman awkwardly tried to shoe-horn the issue into a discussion of Mitt Romney's "not concerned about the very poor" comment:

So let me put this into context with regard to health care in this country. This is the same time that Planned Parenthood is losing money from the Komen Foundation which is a safety net for mammography for women. 37 million poor women now may not be able to get mammography. That's the safety net for the working poor? I don't care if he mis-spoke or not. Let's be real. Almost half of the U.S. now is, is not making it well. So I think it's a huge gaffe.

Once again, Planned Parenthood does not provide mammograms.

New York Times reporters Gardiner Harris and Pam Belluck passed on the outrage of pro-choice groups to news that the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation, which fights breast cancer, is cutting financial support to Planned Parenthood in the wake of bad publicity and a congressional investigation. The Times reporters seemed pretty outraged about it themselves in Thursday's “Uproar as Breast Cancer Group Ends Partnership With Planned Parenthood.”

The Times helped push the story with two pro-Planned Parenthood images; a ridiculous-looking posed shot of three pro-abortion activists in Richmond, Va., trying a Twitter campaign to boycott Komen, and an anti-Komen satirical liberal greeting already making the rounds on the left side of the web. While the reporters found "conservative women" that supported Komen's move, there was no liberal label for Planned Parenthood acolytes, who were merely "prominent women’s groups, politicians and public health advocates."

Pink ribbons have for decades been a symbol of resolve and compassion in the face of the deadly disease of breast cancer. Now, that nearly ubiquitous icon has many women seeing red.

When the nation’s largest breast cancer advocacy organization considered in October cutting off most of its financial support to the nation’s largest abortion provider, the breast cancer group was hoping for a quiet end to an increasingly controversial partnership.

Instead, the organization, the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation, is now engulfed in a controversy that threatens to undermine one of the most successful advocacy campaigns. The foundation’s decision to eliminate most of its grants to Planned Parenthood for breast cancer screening caused a cascade of criticism from prominent women’s groups, politicians and public health advocates and a similarly strong outpouring of support from conservative women and religious groups that oppose abortion.

Now, leaders of both the Komen foundation and Planned Parenthood are accusing each other of bad faith and actions that undermine women. And two organizations dedicated to detecting and curing breast cancer have found themselves on opposite sides of the nation’s divisive debate over abortion.

After an explanation that Planned Parenthood is the subject of a congressional investigation by Republican Rep. Cliff Stearns, the group morphed from an “abortion provider” to a “health services provider” within one paragraph, as Times reporters accused congress of conducting a "partisan investigation," while taking the group's word that "Only a small percentage of Planned Parenthood’s expenditures go toward abortion services."

So the Komen board voted that all of its vendors and grantees must certify that they are not under investigation by federal, state or local authorities. But for Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, being the target of partisan investigations is part of doing business. So Komen’s new rule effectively ended their long partnership and seemed to the health services provider an unacceptable betrayal of their common mission to save women’s lives.

Dawn Laguens, an executive vice president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said that Komen’s money had over the years underwritten breast cancer screenings for 170,000 women, some of whose lives were saved as a result. She said she had no sympathy for Komen’s attempt to mollify donors by ending its relationship with a controversial provider of women’s health services. Only a small percentage of Planned Parenthood’s expenditures go toward abortion services.

Wait. The Times just identified Planned Parenthood as “the nation’s largest abortion provider.” Doesn’t that render the "percentage of expenditures" talking point irrelevant?

Not until paragraph 18 of the 21-paragraph story does the Times locate a source happy with Komen’s decision, and that’s quickly balanced out with more liberal outrage.

Foes of abortion and Web sites critical of it have criticized the Komen foundation’s financing of Planned Parenthood for years. The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of St. Louis and several bishops in Ohio issued statements last year raising concerns about donating to the Komen foundation. In December, LifeWay Christian Resources, which is owned by the Southern Baptist Convention, said it was recalling a pink Bible it was selling because a dollar per copy was going to the Komen foundation.

“We are very grateful Susan G. Komen for the Cure will no longer fund Planned Parenthood affiliates,” said Thom S. Rainer, president of LifeWay.

Pleas to boycott or defend Susan G. Komen for the Cure over its decision to pull money from Planned Parenthood poured onto Web sites like Twitter, Facebook and Tumblr on Wednesday, as activists both amateur and professional urged action.

“Susan Komen would not give in to bullies or to fear,” Judy Blume, the children’s book author, said in a Twitter post. “Too bad the foundation bearing her name did.”

It’s not just the Catholics that have opposed HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius for her new contraceptive mandate on religiously affiliated schools and hospitals through Obamacare. The Jewish news site JTA.org reported that two Orthodox Jewish groups have protested the decision.

Nathan Diament, executive director of public policy for the Orthodox Union, was even a member of President Obama’s advisory council on faith-based and neighborhood partnerships. He tweeted “Does HHS ann. re #religious inst.s & contraceptn insurance match up w/ #Obama at Notre Dame '09 ?” He linked to the video, in which Obama insisted “we must find a way to reconcile our ever-shrinking world with its ever-growing diversity — diversity of thought, diversity of culture, and diversity of belief.”

And: “Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded not only in sound science, but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women."

And: “Father Hesburgh has long spoken of this institution as both a lighthouse and a crossroads. A lighthouse that stands apart, shining with the wisdom of the Catholic tradition, while the crossroads is where ‘differences of culture and religion and conviction can co-exist with friendship, civility, hospitality, and especially love.’”

Someone in the Obama administration placed the lighthouse in the middle of perilous crossroads. 

In a statement Diament said the “most troubling” aspect of the decision was the Obama administration’s “underlying rationale for its decision, which appears to be a view that if a religious entity is not insular, but engaged with broader society, it loses its 'religious' character and liberties.”

Rabbi Abba Cohen, Agudath Israel’s vice president for federal government affairs and Washington director, said that the decision “only muddied the waters and took a step backwards by imposing religiously objectionable mandates on religious entities and by devising an astoundingly counterproductive limitation on what 'religious groups' are and what their public mission in society should be.”

The Hollywood Reporter publicized that Yahoo! has "teamed up" with the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) to monitor "hateful and violent" comments on their many online platforms. GLAAD reported finding comments violating Yahoo's terms of service under an interview with the gay singer Adam Lambert. (There is presently NO space to comment on Adam Lambert posts here. Or here. Or here. But if you hate Simon Cowell, comment here. There are 1,059 comments.)

Allison Palmer, GLAAD's Director of Digital Initiatives, issued a statement commending Yahoo! for addressing the issue quickly and highlighting its continued pledge to address anti-LGBT comments across all of its platforms. "Young music fans should be able to interact and comment on sites without seeing violent, hateful comments directed at LGBT people," Palmer said. But wait — does that mean all "anti-LGBT comments" get scrubbed? Or all comments?

There is nothing wrong with taking down comments wishing violence on gay people. Censor away. But would GLAAD also like to take down comments suggesting homosexuality is wrong? Anyone who follows them would strongly suspect that when companies like Yahoo! bow to GLAAD pressure, it's not just about eliminating violent comments, but all "anti-LGBT comments."

Could one suggest song titles like "Naked Love" are too risque for kids? This might even include comments suggesting a performer like Lambert is a screechy, egotistical hack — in other words, the kind of commentary Simon Cowell gets for canning Paula Abdul.

In noting the latest White House "hangout" with questions from YouTube users, Amie Parnes of The Hill noted that President Obama has failed to hold a press conference since early October — three months without engaging with White House reporters who might feel professional pressure to ask unexpected hardball questions. Instead, Obama submits himself to softball sessions with ABC's Diane Sawyer or Barbara Walters.

She reported Towson University professor Martha Joynt Kumar’s research indicates Obama has held more solo White House news conferences (17) than George W. Bush in his first three years (11). "On the other hand, Obama has held far fewer news conferences than former Presidents Clinton and George H.W. Bush, who held 31 and 56 news conferences, respectively." He prefers the more controlled individual interviews — often loaded with softballs like which super power he'd like to have.

Obama is out-performing both Bush and Clinton when it comes to interviews — 408 in his first three years, according to Kumar, compared to Bush’s 136 and Clinton’s 166.

Obama has been less likely to answer impromptu questions at photo-ops and other spur-of-the-moment sessions with reporters. Obama has only held 94 of these short Q&As, while George W. Bush and Clinton respectively held 307 and 493 in their first three years.

“I’m reminded of Eisenhower’s press secretary who once wrote, ‘To hell with slanted reporters, we’ll go directly to the people,’ ” Kumar said. But these reporters aren't exactly a phalanx of right-wing Obama haters. They represent establishment news agencies that warmly chronicled his 2008 campaign.
 

Once again, CNN sympathized with an illegal immigrant supporting the largely Democratic-sponsored DREAM Act. Anchor Brooke Baldwin on Tuesday hailed "DREAMer" Mayra Hidalgo who blistered Republicans for their rigidity on immigration.

Baldwin let Hidalgo air this message to certain Republican candidates: "Do you even have a heart?" The immigrant directed her ire at Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney for saying an illegal immigrant would have to serve in the military to earn citizenship. "You're messing with people's lives," she ranted. [Video below the break. Click here for audio.]

Of course, nowhere in the story was a conservative voice opposing the DREAM Act, just soundbites from Hidalgo airing her side of the story.

"As a child of immigrants, as – an immigrant myself, I feel like my role has always been to go to school, work really hard, and have a career. And that's what I want to do, but it's so difficult when you don't have a legal status," Hidalgo lamented.

"Do you understand that, you know, these aren't just those illegals? We're humans, we're people here," she cried out at Gingrich and Romney. "There are other ways to serve this country. Just being a doctor, being an attorney – those are just as important ways to serve our country just like the military," insisted Hidalgo.

For a full transcript, and to read more, click here.