Taxpayer dollars are being used to fund a National Science Foundation report aimed at proving opposition to healthcare initiatives last year were motivated by race, and not fiscal or economical concerns. The National Science Foundation, a government agency controlled directly by the executive branch, has granted funds to a UCLA professor to study the racist tendencies of the Healthcare opposition crowd. David Sears, a professor of psychology at UCLA, is no stranger to racial politics as he moves forward with his blatantly biased “scientific” study, funded by we the people.
The study’s abstract, as furnished by the NSF, says “This research project attempts to provide further evidence for this Obama-induced racialization by pinpointing the extent that healthcare opinions are influenced by racial attitudes, and determining Obama’s causal role in racializing public opinion about a policy that has no manifest racial content.” David Sears was awarded, $52,034 in January 2010 for his “study.” The National Science Foundation awarded his study without peer review. The hypothesis is both inadequate and biased to a predetermined conclusion. . . It seems ridiculous that our government would fund, with our money, a study aimed at calling a large sector of the American public racist ignorant sheep.
In short, David Sears hypothesizes that the opposition to Obama’s healthcare bill was largely, if not entirely, racially motivated. Sears begins his study with a conclusion to which he will cater cherry-picked information. . . With our tax dollars. But this is not a far reach for Sears. One glance at his professional profile illustrates a central focus on the assumption that race is a major political player, and that racism is the major motivation behind opposition to progressive causes. In fact, in 1997, Sears condemned a fellow sociologist, Byron M. Roth, for insinuating that much of the resistance to the expansion of the welfare state was founded in economic and fiscal concerns as opposed to race. Sears blasted Roth for being “naive” and ignorant of racial tensions in America.
What is more disturbing than the poor scientific validity of Sears’ biased and hopelessly predictable study is how it was elected to be awarded taxpayer funds. Under normal circumstances, studies such of this are evaluated by peers, and awarded funds only after they compete against others and forge through a long and scrutinizing process. However, NSF has a program called RAPID; which awards funds for more time-sensitive projects. (Such as: how racist the majority of America must be to have opposed a pork laden, overly expensive, debt inducing, freedom-killing, liberty-stripping, government-empowering piece of legislation. . . Incidentally, wasn’t Obama’s election supposed to thrust America into a phase of post-racial unity? I digress.)
Under the RAPID program, studies bypass the peer review process, and are hand chosen by NSF employees; in this case, Brian D. Humes of the Division of Social and Economic Sciences. And how could such a soundly scientific study such as this be passed up? In part, Sears’ proposal reads “Race is probably the most visceral issue in American Public life. As such polarization of the electorate along the lines of racial attitudes would likely make the contemporary political discourse even more vitriolic than the already rancorous atmospheres under President’s Clinton and Bush.” (What about the simple fact that a black man got elected to the White House? If America is so opposed to Obama because of the simple pigmentation of his skin, how did he become President in the first place?)
It is impossible for the leftists in charge to accept the simple fact that America has rejected their most recent push to the left. In a self-elevating egocentric manner the Left never admits the fallacy of their arguments. Rather they resort to name calling, discrediting groups, and divisive political punditry to misdirect the debate and concentration. Opposition to the Healthcare bill was racist because Obama is black? That is Sears’ "hypothesis"? Coming from a man who has centered his professional studies on the racial and multicultural influence in politics, it seems hardly scientific. Rather it appears to be a propagandist move to further discredit opponents to the progressive agenda.
It’s not racism that is to blame for opposition to Obama. Rather it is Obama’s own radicalism and incompetency that is to blame. Racism is not a necessary condition to oppose Obama. In fact, it could be argued by their sincere concentration on racism and their ability to perceive everything as a referendum on racial tendencies, that a racial view of the world is more rampant in the ranks of the progressive movement. . . Now that would be an interesting study.
To receive Michael’s articles in your email as soon as they are published, click on the “subscribe” option above this article. To contact Michael, visit conservativeproject.com. Also, be sure to find his fan page on facebook.