The silence of the hypocrites

There is a good piece by John Perazzo up on Front Page Magazine today which examines the reactions of some of the better known anti-war groups to the Russian Soviet invasion of Georgia. It seems that organizations like Global Exchange, United For Peace & Justice, Code Pink for Peace, American Friends Service Committee, International ANSWER, Peace Action, Sojourners, Vietnam Veterans Against the War and Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom have not uttered so much as one word of protest against Russia's The Soviet Union's invasion of a small, peaceful democratic neighbor.

Why do you suppose that might be?

You don't suppose that it might be that their real agenda isn't opposition to war at all but only opposition to the United States?

Is this the best they have?!?

ST. PAUL: A series of disclosures about Governor Sarah Palin, Senator John McCain's choice as running mate, called into question on Monday how thoroughly McCain had examined her background before putting her on the Republican presidential ticket.

On Monday morning, Palin and her husband, Todd, issued a statement saying that their 17-year-old unmarried daughter, Bristol, was five months pregnant and that she intended to marry the father.

Among other less attention-grabbing news of the day: it was learned that Palin now has a private lawyer in a legislative ethics investigation in Alaska into whether she abused her power in dismissing the state's public safety commissioner; that she was a member for two years in the 1990 of the Alaska Independence Party, which has at times sought a vote on whether the state should secede; and that Todd Palin was arrested 22 years ago on a drunken-driving charge.

Taking these in order:

A 17-year-old girl gets pregnant. As the lovely and gracious Pamela Geller noted on her blog Atlas Shrugs:

"What can the left say? That Palin's daughter was loose? ha! Does anyone have a clue how difficult it is to raise children, daughters, in this cultural cesspool that the left (Hollywood and the music industry) has wrought? Spin through the channels. It is impossible to find G or PG13 fare. Every show has its "alternative" message that not only must be tolerated, it should be celebrated! Drug dealing mothers, glam lesbians, teenage sex, all of it all the time. And it's not just the content, its the commercials. Have you seen those condom ads on MTV? Everything the left produces has a porn, drug, morally bankrupt message."

Would the left prefer that the young woman go to an abortion mill and have the child chopped to pieces and sucked into a jar?

Yes, they would. I almost forgot it was the left we were talking about.

If the Jackass party really wants to talk moral failures lets remember that Barney Frank was running a gay prostitution ring out of his Washington apartment.

Palin has a lawyer because her enemies have trumped up an investigation about her conduct. Only an idiot thinks that just because you are innocent that you don't need council. The left had no problem with Bill Clinton not only having a lawyer but raising millions for his legal defense fund.

Remember that Palin is a reform governor who took on a corrupt establishment (a consistent theme of her entire political career). Corrupt establishments do not go down without a fight.

[S]he was a member for two years in the 1990 of the Alaska Independence Party, which has at times sought a vote on whether the state should secede. Good for her!

There isn't a damn word in the Constitution about secession and since the powers not expressly granted to the federal government are reserved to the people and the states it ought to be possible for states to leave the Union. Think about how much less of our freedom and wealth Washington would steal if they knew that entire states could vote with their feet.

Todd Palin was arrested 22 years ago on a drunken-driving charge. Wow, only 22 years ago! Ted Kennedy gets drunk and runs his car off of a bridge with a young woman inside. He abandons her even though she was still alive and swims to shore. He sneaks home and spends hours trying to line up an alibi by attempting to convince someone to claim that they were driving the car instead of him. After several hours he finally calls the cops. When they find the car the police divers see that the young woman's body is contorted in a position that indicates that she was pushing her face into the last remaining air pocket in the car. This means that she was alive and aware for possibly the better part of an hour. Time she spent hoping that the monster who put her into this position would have enough honor and decency - enough of a human soul - to come back or send someone back to save her.

And this "man" gets to be the "liberal lion of the Senate".

Notice how utterly tone-deaf the left is. I mean talk about people in glass houses throwing stones!

This is like Obama (the man with 143 days in the Senate who has never chaired even one meeting of the committee he is supposed to be heading) saying that Palin is inexperienced - even though she has more executive experience that Obama and Biden put together.


UPDATE: I want to be clear that I'm not playing the "everybody does it" game. That is Democrat territory and I won't soil myself by going there.

What I am doing is pointing out the Mickey Mouse nature of the left's case against Palin and their hypocrisy and double standard. Bristol Palin and her finance made a common moral error and the party which was willing to fight to the death to defend Bill Clinton after he was caught committing adultery with a woman young enough to be his daughter in the Oval Office wants to make an issue of it. See, both irrelevancy and hypocrisy in one package - how efficient.

The same is true as you go down the list. The candidate's spouse has a DUI more than two decades ago and the party which allows Ted Kennedy to be a leader wants to draw attention to it. If Todd Palin had a record of multiple DUI's it would indicate that he was an out of control alcoholic who could be a potential security risk. But one incident decades in the past indicates a man who screwed up once and learned his lesson. Again the left combines massive hypocrisy with the desperation of bringing up a non-issue.

As for Palin's membership in a political party which advocated secession note the fact that she left the party after just two years. Democrats allow Robert Byrd to occupy a leadership position in their party even though he was involved with the Ku Klux Klan for at least five years. Again they raise a non-issue and couple it with the rankest hypocrisy. You'd think these dimwits would learn when to keep their mouths shut.

The ethics investigation sounds less Mickey Mouse than the other issues, but it isn't. Palin fired someone whom she had every legal right to fire. And she didn't even attempt to frame him for felonies and have him sent to federal prison! Again, the party which formed a protective ring around the Clintons during the Travel Office scandal has eternally lost the moral right to even comment about this kind of issue.

I say again that if this is the worst the Jackass party can find about Palin I think we are seeing the woman who will become the nations first female president.

The causes of the Chinese earthquake

Sharon Stone, internationally respected philosopher and possessor of the world's second most viewed vagina (after Paris Hilton) has a theory about what caused the devastating earthquake in China:

Well you know it was very interesting because at first, you know, I am not happy about the ways the Chinese were treating the Tibetans because I don’t think anyone should be unkind to anyone else. And so I have been very concerned about how to think and what to do about that because I don’t like THAT.

And I had been this, you know, concerned about, oh how should we deal with the Olympics because they are not being nice to the Dalai Lama, who is a good friend of mine.

And all these earthquake and stuff happened and I thought: IS THAT KARMA... when you are not nice that bad things happen to you?

Remember when an Evangelical preacher suggested that hurricane Katrina might have struck New Orleans as divine punishment for the city's sinfulness? It was calving time on the left and in the mainstream media (sorry, redundant).

I wonder if there will be a similar pile on here.

I want the TRUTH!

I demand an investigation into the symbiotic relationship which BIG OIL has with left-wing politicians and environmental activists!

Even a child can understand the effect that the law of supply and demand has upon price. If demand rises without an accompanying rise in supply price will rise. If demand falls without an accompanying reduction in supply the price will fall.

What has happened in the oil market is that the developed world has continued to grow, increasing their demand for oil, while the economies of China and India have exploded. Those two nations are busy building a massive industrial infrastructure with the accompanying need for electrification.

This has resulted in a sharp increase in the demand for petroleum. However the world supply of petroleum has not increased to match that increased demand. Therefore consumers are bidding up the price of the now scarce commodity.

Marginal reductions in demand are possible through conservation however marginal reductions in demand only yield marginal reductions in price and are overwhelmed by the ever increasing demand from Asia.

The obvious answer to the problem of high oil prices, and the high gasoline and diesel and heating oil prices that go with higher per-barrel prices for crude oil, is a dramatic increase in supply. Since most OPEC nations' only export is petroleum it is not in their interest to do anything to reduce the price of oil, at least not by much.

The best way for the American consumer to get relief at the pump would be for America to increase its own oil production. This can be easily accomplished by removing the legal restrictions on drilling in Alaska and on the continental shelf in the Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf of Mexico. Removing the legal obstacles to the mining of oil shale and coal would give the confidence they need to invest the billions which would be required to bring coal liquefaction technology to the US and begin exploring the most efficient way of extracting the oil from shale.

I have heard that coal liquefaction and oil shale extraction both require a per-barrel price of $75.00 to be profitable. The price of crude is currently over $130.00 per barrel. The time to begin drilling and mining would seem to be now since within 10 to 15 years the US could more than double the world's supplies of oil. However the domestic oil companies are currently reaping massive profits from the increased world price of crude and if we began exploiting our domestic resources that would reduce the world price of crude to $75.00 per barrel and lock it in until advances in technology brought the price down even more.

Right now BIG OIL is making money hand over fist and the only downside for them is bad will from consumers, which they cannot do anything about, and the prospect of a "windfall profits tax" being imposed on them by politicians. However any kind of tax is simply a cost of doing business which they will happily pass on to the consumer.

So it is not in BIG OIL's interest to increase supply and who is providing them with a ready-made excuse not to develop our domestic reserves? No one but the left-wing Democrats in the United States congress (and some turncoat Republicans like John McCain)!

THAT'S RIGHT! The lunatic fringe environmentalists and their bought and paid for Democrat lapdogs in congress are IN BED WITH BIG OIL in a conspiracy to fleece the American consumer in order to line the pockets of the DNC, The Sierra Club and DICK CHENEY'S BUDDIES IN THE OIL BUSINESS!!!!!!!!

I demand that politicans like Nancy Pelosi and Charles Schumer be put UNDER OATH and forced to explain why they are doing the bidding of BIG OIL and helping BIG OIL steal from their constituents in order to increase the already obscene profits of DICK CHENEY'S BUDDIES IN THE OIL BUSINESS!!!!!!!

When did the Democrat party and the environmental lobby go on BIG OIL's payroll? How much are DICK CHENEY'S BUDDIES IN THE OIL BUSINESS paying Al Gore to spread his global warming alarmism?

The American people have a right to know!

The hypocrisy of the eco-left

The Daily Mail calls out some celebrity hypocrites on how their personal energy use fails to match their green activism:

Chris Martin

WHAT HE SAYS: The mild-mannered lead singer of Coldplay counteracts the environmental impacts of his band's tours and CD production by paying for mango trees to be planted in developing countries.

The theory is that the extra carbon emitted as a result of the band's activities will be soaked up by the extra tree growth.

WHAT HE DOES: According to singer Alison Goldfrapp, Martin flies home between gigs: "We supported Coldplay and Chris Martin used to fly home on his jet, go home, write songs then fly to the next gig. I thought: "What? Are you insane?"

Environmental campaigner George Monbiot says: "It's probably fair to assume he flies at least 100,000 miles (or ten return journeys averaging 10,000 miles each) in his private jet each year.
"If so - and even before taking the rest of his activities into account - he would be exceeding his fair share of carbon by 250 times."

Sadly, many of the 10,000 mango trees planted by carbon-offsetting firm Future Forests on Coldplay's orders to "offset" the carbon produced by the album A Rush Of Blood To The Head died.

Many experts now say carbon offsetting via tree planting is nothing more than a scam allowing rich polluters to feel better about themselves.


Leonardo DiCaprio

WHAT HE SAYS: Pumped millions of his own money into producing the environmental documentary, The 11th Hour, due to be released on DVD next month, and claims that if we do not radically change the way we live right away, the Earth will be destroyed.

Like many Hollywood stars keen to flash their eco- credentials, he drives a hybrid petrol/electric car which uses less energy than a regular vehicle in cities by switching to battery power in heavy traffic.

He says: "I've been driving a hybrid car for five, six years now. My house is built green, I have solar panels."

WHAT HE DOES: Although he flew his family from Paris to Rome on a private jet in October 2006, since 2007, DiCaprio has been trying to live down the tag of "Leonardo the Learjet liberal" and publicly eschewed the use of the fuel-glugging private aircraft.

"I try as often as possible to fly commercially," he declared at the Cannes Film Festival last year. By Hollywood standards, that makes him a hairshirted hero - but of course there are times when only a private jet will do.

During an interview with his co-producers, one TV interviewer challenged DiCaprio to "take a pledge and promise never to get into a private jet again" - something he has so far been unwilling to do.

Brangelina

WHAT THEY SAY: At first glance it seems that Pitt - who drives a hybrid Prius, has been a vocal and financial supporter of a drive to build eco-homes in flood-ravaged New Orleans and last year even guest-narrated a segment of green documentary called e2: The Economies Of Being Environmentally Conscious - is doing his bit to combat global warming.

"There's a lot of problems in the world right now because of our dependency on oil," Pitt gravely warned his fans in a recent interview.

WHAT THEY DO: In fact, Pitt and his partner Angelina Jolie are massive consumers of oil thanks to their addiction to private jet travel.

In 2007 they took literally dozens of such flights between them around the world. In August, Pitt flew from Chicago, where he was watching his partner work, to LA to perform jury duty and then flew back to Illinois the same day.

Recently, the couple touched down at Nice airport aboard their own "PJ" - burning an estimated 11,000 gallons of fuel on the trip from America.

Pitt would have to drive his Prius to the Moon to offset that. Oh - and did we mention that Jolie is pregnant again?

Soon it's going to require two people carriers just to get the multi-national Pitt- Jolie family as far as the airport.

Madonna

WHAT SHE SAYS: After she headlined the London segment of last year's Live Earth concert, memorably derided by Matt Bellamy of rock band Muse as "private jets for climate change", she was lambasted not just for her giant carbon footprint but also for owning a share portfolio with more than £1million invested in oil exploration, mining and other environmentally unfriendly projects.

In the wake of the furore, her spokesperson issued a statement saying: "Madonna's agreeing to sing at Live Earth is merely one of the first steps in her commitment toward being environmentally responsible.

"She is educating herself and her family and has begun to make changes around her that reflect her awareness and concern for the future of the planet."

WHAT SHE DOES: Madonna's carbon footprint for 2006 was estimated at 1,018 tons - more than 100 times that of the average Briton.

And it seems the "changes" she is prepared to make do not extend to using ordinary airlines. For New Year she jetted to India with husband Guy Ritchie, her son and five friends in her own jet.

John Travolta

WHAT HE SAYS: "Everyone can do their bit," Travolta said when he visited Britain last year to promote the launch of his little-seen movie Wild Hogs, and went on to declare that global warming is "a very valid issue - we have to think about alternative methods of fuel".

WHAT HE DOES: Travolta, a licensed pilot, owns five private planes - a customised £2million Boeing 707, three Gulfstreams and a Learjet - which he keeps in his garden next to a private runway.

When he was flying himself back to the U.S. the staggering scale of his environmental vandalism was revealed when he landed the 707 in Ireland to refuel and it was reported that he was the only person on board the flying stretch-limo. In a normal configuration, a 707 can carry 150 passengers.

Barbra Streisand

WHAT SHE SAYS: "Everyone has the power to make a difference by making simple, conscious decisions in their everyday lives," Streisand writes on her website and then posts a list of "Simple Things We Can All Do To Help Stop Global Warming".

These include switching to modern long-life lightbulbs, cleaning the condenser coil on your fridge and waiting until you have a full load before running your dishwasher.

WHAT SHE DOES: No sign of Streisand cutting down on laundry.

On tour in the UK and Ireland last year, Streisand's contract specified that she required the production office be supplied with "120 bath-sized towels immediately upon arrival".

It was also revealed that the vehicle list for her show comprised "13 53ft semi-tractor trailers, four rental vans, 14 crew and band buses and one limousine".

And, of course, she made the 'simple, conscious' decision to travel all the way from Manchester to London aboard a private jet. Why don't I feel quite so guilty about switching on my half-empty dishwasher now?

They mention a couple more, like Sting and his wife Trudie Styler and Prince Charles. And we could add arch-hypocrite Al Gore the self appointed potentate of all things green who nevertheless lives in a mansion whose energy usage exceeds some Third World countries and who flies on private jets whenever he finds it convenient.

What the Daily Main needs to understand is that these celebrity alpha-hotels don't feel like hypocrites because in their own minds they are special and entitled to things which should rightly be denied to lesser mortals.

Just like gun grabbing celebrity grotesquerie Rosie O'Donnell walks around with a small army of armed to the teeth bodyguards to protect her and her family. She simply believes that she and her partner and their children deserve to be protected by firearms while you and your spouse and children do not.

This sense of entitlement is so basic to the way that O'Donnell and the others view themselves and their place in the world that I seriously doubt that they have ever felt the slightest temptation to question it. When they are called on the hypocrisy which is transparently obvious to everyone besides them and their sycophantic hangers-on they feel unfairly attacked and singled out for persecution because of their activism.

Now I want everyone to understand something. Human-caused global warming is a myth. It is simply the best hobgoblin that the Left has come up with to frighten the mob into surrendering their wealth and their liberty. As far as I'm concerned Travolta can buy himself a 747 and have it modified for mid-air refueling and spend the next ten years flying around all by himself and never touch the ground.

If you have the money to live in a mansion the size of the Biltmore House and fly private jets and drive nothing but Hummers and Vipers then more power to you, as long as you come by it honestly. But do not step out of your Hummer on the tarmac of the private jetport and lecture the rest of us on how we ought to use leaves instead of toilet paper before boarding your Gulfstream to fly across town for a dinner date.

You do that and you will be mocked, laughed at, called a hypocrite and never again be taken seriously by anyone with an IQ higher than room temperature.

Hollywood hypocrisy

THE meteoric rise of the Clintons to the ranks of America’s wealthiest families has presented a challenge to Hillary Clinton’s presidential ambitions at a critical stage in the battle for the Democratic nomination.

The Clintons left the White House burdened by debt but have earned $109m (£55m) in the past eight years, putting them among the 14,500 richest families in the country and presenting a stark contrast to the impoverished families championed by her campaign.

Nearly half their income came from speeches given by Bill Clinton, often to companies that are big donors to his wife, raising ethical questions about the influence they were buying.

I remember an episode of the television series Designing Women in which one of the characters condemned Ronald Reagan for accepting a large fee for giving a speech in Japan. She was especially outraged by the fact that he and Nancy kept the money.

Designing Women was created, and many of the episodes were written by, Linda Bloodworth-Thomason who along with her husband Harry Thomason were and are hardcore left-liberals and close friends of Bill and Hillary Clinton.

If Ms. Bloodworth-Thomason was incandescent with rage at Ronald Reagan (who was in true retirement with failing health and had no family member currently serving or running for public office) for taking a reported seven figure fee for ten days of speeches and other events in Japan then she must be burning with the heat of a supernova over Bill Clinton raking in tens of millions while his wife is a sitting Senator and presidential candidate.

I anxiously await the press release in which the Thomasons denounce the naked greed and appearance (at the very least) of impropriety of taking so much money for doing so little in return from foreign governments and both foreign and domestic business interests who have, and will continue to have, business before the very government which his wife seeks to preside.

I'm waiting. . .


Still waiting. . .

[Crickets]

The world reacts

Since leftists worship at the alter of all things foreign (international if you work for CNN) I present you with this international reaction to Al Gore's Nobel Prize. From The Telegraph:

Today we will learn whether Al Gore has won the Nobel peace prize. As someone who cares passionately about climate change, I'll be saying a little prayer. That he doesn't win, of course.

The former US Vice-President has already taken over from Michael Moore as the most sanctimonious lardbutt Yank on the planet. Can you imagine what he'll be like if the Norwegian Nobel committee gives him the prize?

More to the point, can you imagine how enormous his already massive carbon footprint will become once he starts jetting around the world bragging about his new title?

Just after Gore won an Oscar for his global warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth - in which he asked American households to cut their use of electricity - the Tennessee Centre for Policy Research took a look at Al's energy bills.

It reckoned that his 20-room, eight-bathroom mansion in Nashville sometimes uses twice the energy in one month that the average American household gets through in a year. The combined energy and gas bills for his estate came to nearly $30,000 in 2006. Ah, say his defenders, but he uses rainwater to flush his lavatories. Is there enough rainwater in the world, I wonder?

There are so many reasons why Gore shouldn't win the peace prize for his preachiness. Alas, it is too late to influence their decision, but I'd like to refer the judges to a ruling by Mr Justice Burton, a High Court judge who has criticised the Government for sending out An Inconvenient Truth to schools without a health warning. The reason? It's full of errors and unsubstantiated claims.

The judge is not saying that Gore's basic thesis is wrong (and nor am I). In a way, his findings are more damning than that.

Gore claims that the rises in carbon dioxide and temperature over 650,000 years show an "exact fit". That's wrong, says Mr Justice Burton: there is a connection, but not a precise correlation.

Gore predicts sea levels rising by up to 20ft in the near future. Not so, according to the judge: that will happen only after millions of years.

Those low-lying Pacific atolls that Gore claims have been evacuated? No evidence. Polar bears who drowned swimming to look for ice? Again, no evidence: four bears have drowned - but because of a storm.

None of which will surprise seasoned Gore-watchers. The man is not, as his enemies maintained when he ran against George W. Bush in 2000, a pants-on-fire liar. He's an exaggerator and a braggart.

He never claimed to have invented the internet; he said he "took the initiative in creating the internet", which is about a quarter true - he was among the first congressmen to support the invention.

In 1999, he boasted about having uncovered the most famous toxic waste site in America ("I found a little place in upstate New York called Love Canal"). Yes, but Love Canal was already notorious by the time Gore "found" it.

That's typical of his arrogance, says the non-partisan US politics website Skeleton Closet: "When he says the words 'little place', you can feel him struggling to contain his pleasure with his good deeds."

Gore struggles with his memory, too. "I certainly learnt a lot from 3,000 town hall meetings across …Tennessee over a 16-year period," he told National Public Radio. And so he would have, had he actually attended 187 town hall meetings a year, which is what it works out as: he might even have managed to hold his home state in 2000.

But my favourite Gore memory lapse is his account of being sung to sleep with the lullaby Look for the Union Label, written in 1975. How sweet: being sung to sleep by your parents at the age of 27.

Then there's his evasiveness on the subject of alleged ethical violations. He resorts to "legalisms", says Skeleton Closet: although he might technically be in the right, "he has such a tin ear for the way normal people talk that he sounds like a mafia don".

But there is a more fundamental objection to awarding Gore the peace prize that goes beyond issues of character. Climate change is a threat to the environment, not to "peace" and international order. The prize has gone to some sleazy recipients in the past, but at least you can make a case that their actions staved off bloodshed.

Lumping together global warming and terrorism, as David Cameron did in his conference speech, is a rhetorical sleight of hand typical of opportunistic politicians who are trying to hoover up liberal and conservative votes at the same time. I don't think that description applies to the Tory leader, but it sure as hell fits Albert Gore, Jr.

Now, let's all run out and sign that petition to draft Gore for 2008. The moonbats on the left need an alternative to Semagol (who now even trails the ass-clown Ron Paul in the polls).

Miss Ann is talking

That means that YOU are listening!

Democrats should run Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for president. He's more coherent than Dennis Kucinich, he dresses like their base, he's more macho than John Edwards, and he's willing to show up at a forum where he might get one hostile question -- unlike the current Democratic candidates for president who won't debate on Fox News Channel. He's not married to an impeached president, and the name "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad" is surely no more frightening than "B. Hussein Obama."

And liberals agree with Ahmadinejad on the issues! We know that because he was invited by an American university to speak on campus.

Contrary to all the blather about "free speech" surrounding Ahmadinejad's appearance at Columbia, universities in America do not invite speakers who do not perfectly mirror the political views of their America-hating faculties. Rather, they aggressively censor differing viewpoints and permit only a narrow category of speech on their campuses. Ask Larry Summers.

If a university invites someone to speak, you know the faculty agrees with the speaker. Maybe not the entire faculty. Some Columbia professors probably consider Ahmadinejad too moderate on Israel.

Columbia president Lee Bollinger claimed the Ahmadinejad invitation is in keeping with "Columbia's long-standing tradition of serving as a major forum for robust debate."

Except Columbia doesn't have that tradition. This is worse than saying "the dog ate my homework." It's like saying "the dog ate my homework" when you're Michael Vick and everyone knows you've killed your dog.

Columbia's "tradition" is to shut down any speakers who fall outside the teeny, tiny seditious perspective of its professors.

When Minutemen leader Jim Gilchrist and his black colleague Marvin Stewart were invited by the College Republicans to speak at Columbia last year, the tolerant, free-speech-loving Columbia students violently attacked them, shutting down the speech.

Imbued with Bollinger's commitment to free speech, Columbia junior Ryan Fukumori said of the Minutemen: "They have no right to be able to speak here."

Needless to say -- unlike Ahmadinejad -- the university had not invited the Minutemen. Most colleges and universities wouldn't buy a cup of coffee for a conservative speaker.

Fees for speakers who do not hate America are raised from College Republican fundraisers and contributions from patriotic alumni and locals who think students ought to hear at least one alternative viewpoint in four years of college.

And then college administrators turn a blind eye when liberal apple-polishers and suck-ups shut down the speech or physically attack the speaker.

Bollinger refused to punish the students who stormed the stage and violently ended the Minutemen's speech.

So the one thing we know absolutely is that Bollinger did not allow Ahmadinejad to speak out of respect for "free speech" because Bollinger does not respect free speech.

Only because normal, patriotic Americans were appalled by Columbia's invitation of Ahmadinejad to speak was Bollinger forced into the ridiculous position of denouncing Ahmadinejad when introducing him.

Then why did you invite him?

And by the way, I'll take a denunciation if college presidents would show up at my speeches and drone on for 10 minutes about "free speech" before I begin.

At Syracuse University last year, when liberal hecklers tried to shut down a speech by a popular conservative author of (almost!) six books, College Republicans began to remove the hecklers. But Dean of Students Roy Baker blocked them from removing students disrupting the speech on the grounds that removing students screaming during a speech would violate the hecklers' "free speech." They had a "free speech" right to prevent anyone from hearing a conservative's free speech.

That's what colleges mean by "free speech." (And by the way, my fingers are getting exhausted from making air quotes every time I use the expression "free speech" in relation to a college campus.)

"Tolerance of opposing views" means we have to listen to their anti-American views, but they don't have to hear our pro-American views. (In Washington, they call this "the Fairness Doctrine.")

Liberals are never called upon to tolerate anything they don't already adore, such as treason, pornography and heresy. In fact, those will often get you course credit.

At Ahmadinejad's speech, every vicious anti-Western civilization remark was cheered wildly. It was like watching an episode of HBO'S "Real Time With Bill Maher."

Ahmadinejad complained that the U.S. and a few other "monopolistic powers, selfish powers" were trying to deny Iranians their "right" to develop nukes.

Wild applause.

Ahmadinejad repeatedly refused to answer whether he seeks the destruction of the state of Israel.

Wild applause.

He accused the U.S. of supporting terrorism.

Wild applause.

Only when Ahmadinejad failed to endorse sodomy did he receive the single incident of booing throughout his speech.

Responding to a question about Iran's execution of homosexuals, Ahmadinejad said there are no homosexuals in Iran: "In Iran we don't have homosexuals, like in your country. In Iran we do not have this phenomenon. I don't know who's told you that we have it."

I already knew that from looking at his outfit. If liberals want to run this guy for president, they better get him to "Queer Eye for the Islamofascist Guy."

As usual Ann nails it. I ask again, what parent would spend a dime to send his or her child to that cesspool.

More hypocracy from Gore

From Drudge:

As former Vice President Al Gore waits to hear if he has won this year's Nobel Peace Prize for his tireless effort on climate change, a new video will air this weekend capturing Gore on a fuel-guzzling private jet!


FOXNEWS host Sean Hannity is set to unleash the damning video this Sunday night, network sources reveal.


There may have been a time when Gore actually believed his riff about global warming, but as the scientific case collapses (something he knows is happening - just look at how shrill his demands that the media stop covering both sides of the issue have become) all he is doing now is running out the clock.

For Gore all that remains is squeezing out the last bit of fame and cash in the dying cause. The Nobel Prize, which he is sure to win, will be a fitting capstone for his career.

Fitting because the Nobel Peace Prize is nothing but a love letter from the extreme left. When one looks at who has received it in recent years and the reasons it was awarded it becomes clear that rather than an honor it is little more than a confirmation that the recipient's soul is truly and utterly damned.

Fatboy Dim Exposed!

Here is a preview of the documentary Shooting Michael Moore, an expose of Fatboy Dim's greed, dishonesty and hypocrisy.

Live Hypocrisy

From The Daily Mail:

The Live Earth event is, in the words of one commentator: 'a massive, hypocritical fraud'.

For while the organisers' commitment to save the planet is genuine, the very process of putting on such a vast event, with more than 150 performers jetting around the world to appear in concerts from Tokyo to Hamburg, is surely an exercise in hypocrisy on a grand scale.

Matt Bellamy, front man of the rock band Muse, has dubbed it 'private jets for climate change'.

A Daily Mail investigation has revealed that far from saving the planet, the extravaganza will generate a huge fuel bill, acres of garbage, thousands of tonnes of carbon emissions, and a mileage total equal to the movement of an army.

The most conservative assessment of the flights being taken by its superstars is that they are flying an extraordinary 222,623.63 miles between them to get to the various concerts - nearly nine times the circumference of the world. The true environmental cost, as they transport their technicians, dancers and support staff, is likely to be far higher.

The total carbon footprint of the event, taking into account the artists' and spectators' travel to the concert, and the energy consumption on the day, is likely to be at least 31,500 tonnes of carbon emissions, according to John Buckley of Carbonfootprint.com, who specialises in such calculations.

Throw in the television audience and it comes to a staggering 74,500 tonnes. In comparison, the average Briton produces ten tonnes in a year.

The concert will also generate some 1,025 tonnes of waste at the concert stadiums - much of which will go directly into landfill sites.

Moreover, the pop stars headlining the concerts are the absolute antithesis of the message they promote - with Madonna leading the pack of the worst individual rock star polluters in the world.

Supermodel Kate Moss, another profligate polluter through her use of private jets, is producing a T-shirt for the event. Yet, Gore is touting the concerts as 'carbon neutral'. So how can that be?

But you see the carbon footprint of Live Earth doesn't matter because the producers and promoters and the talent are SPECIAL people. They are special because they care and they are giving their time and they know so much more about what is good for us than we do. So their deeds should not be examined. The actual results of their actions should not be examined and the consequences of their ideas should never ever be examined.