Need New Headlights? That'll Be $700....

For those of you over 40 – remember when putting a new headlight in your car meant a quick trip to the auto parts store and about 5 minutes worth of work removing the old one and installing the new one?  That was if you had to replace the entire headlight – round or rectangular (pre-1980s).  If it was simply a bulb it took even less time.  And the cost was usually around $6 per light.  Well, my friends…  those days are gone.

It came to pass that I needed two complete new headlight assemblies on my car.  Whoever owned it before me had put xenon high-intensity bulbs in it and the headlight assembly wasn’t designed to accommodate the extra heat.  The plastic that held the bulb melted, as did the reflectors around it, making the headlights mostly useless as the light didn’t project outward anymore and the bulb flopped around loose in the housing.  Probably not the best way to drive – particularly at night.

I made a few calls to see what it would cost me to replace them.  I figured I could buy the headlight assemblies and do the work myself.  How hard could it be?  They’re just headlights.  Hmmmm.

I called my local dealer first.  They quoted me $204 apiece for the headlight assemblies and at least $300 labor to replace both.  $700 just to replace headlights?  That’s ridiculous!  But it got me to wondering – just how intensive was the labor to replace these lights?  I went out to the car and opened the hood to see for myself.  I took out the three bolts that held the top part of the headlight in place and tried to move it.  It didn’t budge.  So I went to Pep Boys and bought a repair book for that car and began to read.  There are bolts underneath the car that have to be removed and one part of the frame assembly that has to be loosened to gain access to the headlamp assembly.  I decided it was more work than I wanted to do and to let a professional handle it. 

Then I began researching aftermarket headlamp assemblies and found that the price for them varies from $70 to $315 apiece for the same assembly.  (In all fairness, I think the most expensive ones are made of a metal compound that will stand up to the heat of the xenon bulb.)  Since I didn’t want to chance the same thing happening again (and didn’t want to pay over $1000 just to replace my headlights) I chose the $70 one with the regular halogen bulb.  I ordered them both from J.C. Whitney and they were delivered in two days.

I decided to take the car to the dealer to have them put in because I figured they would do it correctly.  A body shop could have done the work but they’re often backed up and can’t get to it right away.  Yesterday morning I packed up the headlamps and headed out to the service garage.  They checked me in and I took my laptop to the waiting area (free WiFi – gotta love it) and sat patiently waiting for the repair, which I knew would probably take a couple of hours. 

About 10 minutes later the Service Advisor came in and said that the replacement headlamp assembly for the driver’s side (the one I needed most because it was melted) had a broken mounting bracket and couldn’t be installed.  I would have to return it and get another one or pay $200 to the dealer for one of theirs.  I told them I would return the broken one and get another and told them to go ahead and install the passenger side, which they did.  The Service Advisor told me of an aftermarket parts store in Arlington, Texas, about 25 miles from my house, where I could get the assembly and it would be about half of what I had paid for it.  He reminded me that I would have to pay $200 for the same part if I bought it from him and didn’t want me to have to do that.  I appreciated it.

So about an hour later he came and got me and said my car was ready.  We went to the cashier where I had to pay $150 for installation of the passenger side.  Mind you – that’s $150 on top of the $70 I paid for the light.  So far I’m out $220 for one headlight.  Then I headed out to Arlington to get the other one. 

The parts place was called “Certifit.”  I had never heard of it but apparently it’s a chain with stores all over the country.  All I know is there were about four people ahead of me buying everything from bumpers to fenders to headlamps to body molding.  I gave the man my name, he verified my part and sent me next door to the warehouse.  They brought it out, called my name and I checked and verified the part before paying.  And the headlamp, exactly like the one I have to return (except the mounting bracket was intact), was only $45.

I went home then and called J.C. Whitney.  They were very apologetic but it took about 20 minutes on the phone to arrange the return and I never did get to talk to the return specialist.  They woman I talked to took all my information and said I’d receive an e-mail with the Return Authorization number within 24 hours.

 

This morning I checked my e-mail and there was nothing there.  I went back to the dealer and had the other light installed, for another $150.  When I got home I finally had an e-mail from J.C. Whitney that said my return had been approved but there was no Return Authorization number.  So I had to call them again.

Waited on hold for 20 minutes and didn’t get to talk to anyone.  So I called them again about an hour later and finally got through to a live person.  They told me I did not have to return the other light (since they can’t sell it) and I would receive a full refund for it.  They’re refunding me $83 including the tax so I can’t really complain.  Add the $45 onto the $150 I paid in labor today and it only cost me a total of $423 and 5 hours of my time to replace two headlights.  But at least it wasn’t $700.  Maybe next time I buy a vehicle I’ll look around for one from the early 70s.  At least I can do most of the repairs myself – if I can find the parts I need to do them.  Probably cost me just as much in the long run….

Knives Are No Longer Prohibited On Flights?

The Transportation Safety Administration recently announced that beginning in April, small pocket knives, with blades shorter than 2½ inches, will be allowed on flights in the United States.  They also will begin allowing golf clubs and souvenir baseball bats.  Still strictly prohibited, however, are regular size bottles of shampoo and other liquids and box cutters.   Huh?

The TSA says they are changing the rules because they find up to 67 pocket knives per day on passengers they screen and this will expedite processing of passengers.  Seriously?  67?  I can’t imagine the pressure that must put on those poor TSA agents.  Do they realize the average length of a box cutter blade is from ½ to 1 inch long?  Are box cutters prohibited because they’re sharper than a regular knife?  Any knife blade can be sharpened to the point where they’re almost as sharp as a razor.  And what if they found 67 firearms and homemade bombs per day?  Would they make them legal to save time and money?

The TSA also says that with a knife that small a hijacker wouldn’t be able to get through the locked door to the cockpit.  Hmmm.  So if he had a 4 or 5 inch blade he’d be able to break through the door?  Doubt it.  And if no one can break through the door and get to the pilots, and that’s the only worry of the TSA, then why prohibit any knives?  Is it because you can cut someone’s throat or deliver a fatal stab wound with a knife blade over 2½ inches but not with one under 2½ inches long?  I’d challenge you to talk to any maximum security inmate about that.

The Flight Attendants’ Union and airline workers unions have filed their disagreement with the TSA plan.  They believe it will put flight attendants and passengers in greater danger.  And that’s a reasonable belief.  Granted, the way airline passengers are these days anyone wielding a knife would eventually be taken down and restrained by other passengers but why give someone a weapon?  And are there still Air Marshals on airplanes?  You never hear about them.  Ninety-nine percent of the time, if there’s an incident on a plane it’s the passengers who take care of the problem.  Duct tape seems to be available on every plane these days!

So we’re now going to allow people to carry items that are currently classified as dangerous items but somehow, miraculously, in April those items will no longer be dangerous.  People will start carrying knives and golf clubs and bats on flights and, thanks to the sequester, according to Janet Napolitano, there will be less TSA agents screening people for those items.  That’s got to be comforting to frequent flyers.

I’m sure glad Arden and I enjoy driving places.  It’s not always convenient but at least I know what’s in my car and whether or not there are any weapons on board.  And since I only give rides to people I know and trust, I won’t have to search them before they get in the car.  

Benghazi - Six Months Later

Monday, March 11^th, will mark the six month anniversary of the terrorist attack on our U.S. Consulate in Libya that killed four Americans, including our ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens.  While more information about what actually happened has been uncovered over those months, there are still many details missing and many questions left unanswered.

The American public knows that the assault on our consulate was a deliberate terrorist attack.  Most of us have known that since it happened although some believed the “spontaneous protest because of a video” story that the White House stuck with for two weeks after the assault.  What we don’t know (and can only speculate at this point) is why the Obama administration kept telling the lie about the video (including to the UN 14 days later) even as other sources had already revealed the truth about the assault.  Five days after the assault the Libyan interim President stated on international television that it was a terrorist attack associated with Al Qaeda, yet our President, Secretary of State, Ambassador to the UN and White House Press Secretary kept repeating the story about the video.

During testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, then Defense Secretary Leon Panetta stated that he knew it was a terrorist attack almost immediately.  He also said he went to the White House and informed the President, who then was absent from the situation room for the rest of the night.  Where was the President?  Did he do anything?  Did he call anyone?  Did he order a military response?  Just what did he do?  Those are questions that have yet to be answered.

Leon Panetta said he didn’t order a military response because “you don’t send troops into harm’s way if you don’t know what’s going on.”  Wait…  he knew the compound was under attack by terrorists.  He said so.  There were reaction teams at various bases in the Mediterranean region that could have been there within 90 minutes or less.  There were CIA agents at an annex just across town that started to respond and were told to stand down, who then disobeyed orders and went anyway.  There was a ship in the Persian Gulf that readied a response team and the ship’s Captain was ordered to stand down.  And a rescue team sent from Tripoli was held up at the airport for over three hours by Libyan officials.  One phone call from the President could have eliminated that problem.

Six months later we now know that a reaction team responded from the annex and assisted in rescuing people who were trapped inside the consulate.  Fires had been started in all three buildings.  Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith and Scott Strickland barricaded themselves in a safe room, behind a locked steel grill.  The windowless room was dark and when several attackers came to the grill they could not see the men in the room and went on.  When the smoke became unbearable they opened the grill and broke out a window.  Strickland got out the window but the other two did not follow.  He went back inside but could not find the other two men.  He went to the roof to signal for help.  Ambassador Stevens and Smith were apparently overcome with smoke inhalation and died inside the building.

Smith’s body was retrieved by the team responding from the annex.  Stevens’ body could not be located at the time.  When the rescue team from Tripoli finally arrived the consulate compound had been evacuated and the fight had moved to the CIA annex.  It’s there that Tyrone Woods and Glenn Doherty, who had been in the fight the entire night, died from mortar fire.

The biggest question, and the most important in my book, is where are the survivors?  There are reports of anywhere from 10 to 30 survivors of the attack that night.  At least 10 of them were injured and are supposedly in military hospitals under assumed names.  Why would that be?  Why is it when Congressmen and Senators ask for the names and locations of the survivors the State Department denies their requests?  Why is it there has been no public statement made by a survivor and none have testified before the Foreign Relations Committee?  What is the Obama administration hiding from the American people?

I’ve heard everything from a large clandestine operation in Libya that cannot be revealed, even at the expense of the ambassador and others, to a huge cover-up of gross negligence and blunders by the Obama administration.  I don’t know the truth.  And I doubt we’ll get it any time soon.  But the question remains…  where are the survivors?  And why are they not a part of the investigatory hearings?  Why does the administration keep them hidden?  Where are their family members?  Where are they???

More Truths About The Sequester

The FAA says the sequester will cause hundreds of air traffic controllers to be furloughed and cause flights to be delayed and/or cancelled, causing the loss of billions of dollars in GDP.  So how come they’re still hiring community planners at 100K+ salaries?  Makes one wonder who’s telling the truth.

President Obama spent the last two weeks before the sequester touting the catastrophic damage it would do if allowed to proceed.  He blamed it all on Republicans (and still does) even though, if you look at the actual bill that was signed into law, the signature is his.  Basically, his excuse is “I signed it but I didn’t mean it.”  Oops.

When sequester day came and the country didn’t fall to its knees, the President changed his tune and began saying we can work through it.  I still find it interesting that half of Americans believe the sequester is a forced “spending cut” when in reality, because of baseline budgeting, it is merely a slowing of growth.  The sequester merely makes the automatic budget increase a little smaller but the government is still getting more money this year than last year.  So the entire thing being called a “spending cut” is a lie.  But that’s how Obama rolls.

The President wants the average American to feel the sequester cuts to prove his point.  He closed the White House tour program down, claiming budget cuts from the sequester, yet House Speaker John Boehner rearranged funding for the capital building so he could keep their tour program going.  The people at the White House couldn’t figure that out?  And seriously, isn’t there some other tour or something the President can close down besides the house of the people?  Seems a bit childish to me.

It’s sad that the President made such a big deal out of the sequester that he now feels he needs to make his doomsday prediction come true, one way or another.  When you can put your desired tax increases over the well-being of the citizens you’re supposed to be serving (and leading), there’s definitely a problem. 

In the email sent Monday by Charles Brown, an official with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service office in Raleigh, N.C., (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service?  What the heck is that?)  Mr. Brown asked if there was “any latitude” in how to spread the sequester cuts across the region to lessen the impacts on fish inspections.

He said he was discouraged by officials in Washington, who gave him this reply: “We have gone on record with a notification to Congress and whoever else that ‘APHIS would eliminate assistance to producers in 24 states in managing wildlife damage to the aquaculture industry, unless they provide funding to cover the costs.’ So it is our opinion that however you manage that reduction, you need to make sure you are not contradicting what we said the impact would be.”

So this guy in North Carolina was told that whatever he does, don’t make the sequester look less traumatic than the President said it would be.  Why do people continue to listen to the doom and gloom when every day the truth becomes more and more clear?  The sky is not falling.  And neither are the planes in that sky.  Federal employees will be furloughed yet the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt gets $250 million.  I wonder how many federal employees could avoid furlough with that kind of money.

The sequester should not cause furloughs.  It could easily prevent new hiring but since baseline budgeting raises spending levels every year by law, the “cuts” are to the increase made by baseline budgeting and not a cut from last year’s levels.  In fact – the new budget after the sequester will be $15 billion more than 2012.  If they didn’t have to furlough federal employees last year and the government will have $15 billion more money this year – how does that work?  I’m thinking the administration is cutting spending in the areas that will have the greatest public impact for effect.  The President wants people to suffer a bit to turn them against Republicans.  It’s a shame more liberals can’t see what’s actually happening.  They will continue to support the President, refusing to believe that he would actually do what he’s doing.  And that simply gives him more power.

Two Cheers For Rand Paul!

I say two cheers because I don’t think he deserves three.  I think he claimed victory too soon.  And I’ll explain why.

Two days ago, Senator Rand Paul stood up and led a filibuster in the Senate during the confirmation hearing of John Brennan, President Obama’s choice for CIA Director.  Senator Paul was intentionally delaying the hearing while seeking clarification from the President and the Attorney General concerning a topic that some people seem to think unimportant. 

I heard several people say that Senator Paul was wasting time; that he should be working on bigger problems in the country, such as the sequester and the fact that federal employees are going to be furloughed and other people in the country may lose their jobs because of the mandatory spending cuts.  And while I agree that job losses and furloughs aren’t a good thing and need to be addressed, the hearing Senator Paul was in had absolutely nothing to do with the sequester or the budget and, therefore, didn’t affect either of those in any way.

Senator Paul’s filibuster was a stand for the Constitution, for freedom, for the rule of law and for the people.  Senator Paul insisted on clarification from the White House concerning the use of drones here in America.  Several weeks ago, the Attorney General, Eric Holder, made public a statement that said the President has the authority to use drone strikes to kill Americans his administration deems to be engaged in terrorist activities or working directly with terrorists against our country, whether or not there is specific evidence and whether or not they are a direct threat to the United States. 

Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee several days ago, Mr. Holder said  that using lethal military force against an American in his home country would be legal and justified in an "extraordinary circumstance" comparable to the September 11 terrorist attacks.

"The president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland," Mr. Holder said.

His statement was described as "more than frightening" by Senator Rand Paul, a Republican from Kentucky, who had demanded to know the Obama administration's position on the subject.  "It is an affront to the constitutional due process rights of all Americans."

Senator Paul stood up for the people of the United States when he demanded that the President answer a specific question.  “Mr. President – are you saying you can use drone strikes to kill Americans here on American soil if they are not actively engaged in combat against the United States?”  He had already asked the question in the weeks prior to the hearing but received no answer from Mr. Holder.  So, by delaying the confirmation of Mr.  Brennan, Senator Paul forced the administration to come forward with a specific answer to the question.  And I commend him for it.  However, when Paul called it a “victory” I think he was a bit premature.

Mr. Holder said the answer to Paul’s specific question was “No.”  During the SJC hearing Mr. Holder assured that the President wouldn’t use drones against American citizens in America, but that he could if necessary.  I’m sorry but that doesn’t give me a lot of confidence.  Holder’s statement that “he wouldn’t do that” should be followed up with “You can trust me.  I’m from the government.”

Combine the possibility of drone strikes with the fact that the government has been buying and stockpiling weapons of war over the last six months and it gives one cause for alarm.  Very quietly, over a period of time, the Department of Homeland Security and various other agencies, from the Social Security Administration to the Department of the Interior, have purchased over 2 Billion rounds of ammunition, 7,000 assault rifles, and 2,700 armored vehicles.  These are weapons of war.  You know – the kind the President said he doesn’t want on our streets.  So what is he buying them for?  Some say the 2 billion rounds are for training purposes but since they’re hollow point rounds, that doesn’t fly.  No agency trains with hollow point rounds unless they’re outdated and need to be used up.

Senators John McCain and Lindsay Graham chastised Senator Paul for this filibuster saying Paul was grandstanding.  “I find the question offensive,” Graham said Thursday on the Senate floor. “As much I disagree with President Obama and as much as I support past presidents, I do not believe that question deserves an answer.” Paul’s question, the South Carolina Republican said, “cheapens the debate.”  That’s one of the reasons I would urge Republicans in South Carolina to find a conservative candidate to run against Lindsay Graham.  His conservative values change with the situation.

Senator Paul – I give you credit for your stance against the Obama administration and for taking up the cause.  But don’t give up too soon.  Something fishy is going on with the administration these days.  Unlike you, I’m not satisfied that drone strikes in the US are off the table just because Eric Holder said so.  Keep up the good work but don’t stop asking for answers.  And thanks to Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and the others, including the lone Democrat, who helped you out.  

Suddenly Knives Are OK On Planes....?

The Transportation Safety Administration recently announced that beginning in April, small pocket knives, with blades shorter than 2½ inches, will be allowed on flights in the United States.  They also will begin allowing golf clubs and souvenir baseball bats.  Still strictly prohibited, however, are regular size bottles of shampoo and other liquids, and box cutters – the weapon of choice on 9-11-01.  Imagine that.

The TSA says they are changing the rules because they find up to 67 pocket knives per day on passengers they screen and this will expedite processing of passengers and save money.  Seriously?  67?  I can’t imagine the pressure that must put on those poor TSA agents.  Do they realize the average length of a box cutter blade is from ½ to 1 inch long?  Are box cutters prohibited because they’re sharper than a regular knife?  Any knife blade can be sharpened to the point where they’re almost as sharp as a razor. 

The TSA also says that with a knife that small a hijacker wouldn’t be able to get through the locked door to the cockpit.  Hmmm.  So if he had a 4 or 5 inch blade he’d be able to break through the door?  Doubt it.  And if no one can break through the door and get to the pilots, and that’s the only worry of the TSA, then why prohibit any knives?  Is it because you can’t cut someone’s throat or deliver a fatal stab wound with a knife blade under 2½ inches long?  I’d challenge you to talk to any maximum security inmate about that.

These new rules are set to begin in April.  So today a small pocket knife is still illegal to carry but miraculously, on that day in April, those knives will no longer be dangerous.  TSA says they’ll be saving money by doing this and, with the sequester in place, they need that money.  Maybe because the day after the sequester went into effect TSA spent $50 million on new uniforms for their staff.  But they’ll be furloughing staff soon.  Maybe they should have kept that money around for salaries….?

Flight Attendants’ and airline employees’ unions are already protesting this change saying it will put them and the passengers in more danger.  Regardless of the size of the knife blade or the length of the bat, the more access passengers have to weapons on board the plane the more likely it is that someone will get hurt.  Despite what the TSA says I’m having difficulty understanding why this change was necessary.  I hope it doesn’t lead to a catastrophe in the future.

My Wednesday Rant... Drones, Hugo Chavez, and Bill Cosby

For the last several years, President Obama has been utilizing stealth drone attacks to kill terrorists.  Some people complained that he was also killing innocent women and children in these attacks but for the most part, the strikes weren’t challenged too strongly. 

Then came the day he ordered a successful drone attack on Anwar Al Awlaki, an American citizen who had moved to the Middle East and taken up residency with Al Qaeda.  Al Awlaki hadn’t given up his legal citizenship but was engaged in a jihad against the United States, which, in my book of humble opinions, made him an enemy of the United States and a fair target.  I applaud President Obama for authorizing the strike on him.  I would, however, caution the government that drone strikes should only be utilized on targets that are as free as possible from innocents.

That said – a new problem has arisen in Washington that people on both sides of the aisle should not only be talking about but fearful of.  That is the President’s statement, backed by the Attorney General, that drone strikes can be used on American citizens anywhere in the world, including the United States, if that person is deemed by the President to be working with a terrorist organization or a threat to the nation.  It seems the President, allegedly a former Constitutional Law professor, believes he can issue execution orders on Americans and deny them due process of the law – something with which he should be familiar.

One can’t help but wonder, particularly since it has already happened overseas, if the President will be concerned about collateral damage to innocent bystanders as he executes military attacks on American citizens here at home.  Will he order a drone attack on a home in your neighborhood?  How many of your neighbors (or children living in the home) could suffer injury or death in that attack?  Will he order a hit on a vehicle as it moves through town (as he did on Al Awlaki)?  Will your car be next to his when the missile strikes?

Where is the outrage from the left on this topic?  They screamed when G. W. Bush had three men waterboarded to gain information (that led to Osama bin Laden) even though those three men are still alive.  The President is talking about vaporizing people right here at home because he considers them to be a threat and the left is oddly quiet about it.  With this type of plan in the works is it really so difficult to believe in the possible existence of FEMA camps?  Really?  But don’t worry…  the Attorney General said he doesn’t really ever see drone strikes here in the USA happening.   And you can trust him – he works for the government.

In other news, some Americans on the left are mourning the death of Hugo Chavez and talking about what a great leader he was.  Actor Sean Penn was quoted to have said “Today America has lost a good friend – a friend they didn’t even know they had.”  Really, Mr. Penn?  That “good friend” who called President Bush the devil himself?  I’m sure you probably felt the same way though. 

Many leftist socialist types here in the U.S. praise Chavez for his education and health care programs he created for the impoverished in Venezuela.  Yet they ignore the fact that in an oil rich country where abundant wealth was easy for those with the right connections, poverty among its citizens was rampant.  They may have been healthy and went to school but they were poor and dependent on the government – just the way Chavez wanted it.

Chavez’s government took over the oil industry in Venezuela, claiming the profits of Citgo for the administration.  The people got very little from those profits except.  If that’s the mark of a great leader I’ll stick with our Democratic Republic, thank you.

Finally, in an interview that makes me sad and is difficult to believe, Dr. Bill Cosby hinted in a CNN interview that GOP opposition to President Obama is racially motivated.  Asked by Soledad O’Brien if race relations have improved under President Obama, the comedian, actor and PhD responded "To see people sitting down and then there are others standing and cheering,” referring to the State of the Union Address  “I don't think it's difficult to believe.  I think that we have people sitting there who are as bad as the people who were against any kind of desegregation.”

Really, Mr. Cosby?  With all due respect, Sir, have you ever watched a State of the Union Address before?

  

It is quite common practice for the Democrats to stand and applaud comments from a Democrat President and for the Republicans to stand and applaud the comments from a Republican President, just as it is custom for Democrats to sit when a Republican gets applause and vice versa.  It has nothing to do with race – it is purely partisan.  Why do you not know that with your level of education? 

Cosby was apparently just warming up the race rhetoric.

"It's also interesting that this Republican Party is not the Republican Party of 1863, of Abraham Lincoln, abolitionists and slavery.  It is not good.  I think it's important for us to look at the underlying part of it. What is the value of it?  Is it that some people are angry because my people no longer want to work for free?"

Again, Mr. Cosby, with respect to you, your work and your education – what exactly is the underlying part of it?  Are you saying all Republicans are racists because they disagree with President Obama and his policies?  And are you really saying that Republicans want black people to work as slaves again?  Really?  I truly hope not because I have always had the utmost respect for you and that is a ridiculous notion.  You were one of the first African-Americans (if not the first) to make it big in prime time television.  Your comedy has always been absent of racism.  Even in the Fat Albert cartoons there was no racism that ever occurred to me.  Your education and degrees are very noteworthy.  I have always admired you, since my childhood.  Now you want to say those who oppose Obama are racists?  I’m very disappointed if you cannot discern between opposition to ideology and racism.  

In all fairness, the answer to “Are some who oppose Obama racists?” is certainly “Yes.”  But then – the answer to “Are some who vote for Obama racists?” would also be a resounding “Yes.”  Racism still exists in all areas of the world, with all colors and ethnicities of people and all political ideologies.  There will always be people who cannot see beyond race or skin color.  And they show their ignorant intolerance on a regular basis. 

The bottom line here is that since President Obama’s election in 2008, racism seems to have increased.  But in my humble opinion it’s coming more from the left than the right.  Regardless of the discussion about the President, regardless of the topic, someone on the left always tosses out the race card and claims the reason for opposition to Obama is because he’s black.  I know some people like that – who oppose anything and everything he does because of his skin color.  But the majority of those I know who oppose Obama do so because of his left-wing political ideology and his ties to socialists and Marxists.  It has nothing to do with skin color, as wide Republican support of Allen West, Herman Cain, etc., prove.  It seems to me that those who cannot allow disagreement without playing the race card are racists themselves.  When you see everything in life according to race and skin color that’s racism – regardless of who you are.