Telling the rest of the story

As is usual the first reports of the mainstream media span the range from "failing to tell the full story" to being "utterly contrived". The latest example of which is the Shirley Sherrod story.

From American Thinker:

Had Andrew Breitbart dutifully written a column detailing how an obscure USDA official, Shirley Sherrod, and her husband, Charles Sherrod, had scammed the government out of millions, the story would have had the range and lifespan of a fruit fly.

Instead, as the world knows, Breitbart released an edited version of Shirley Sherrod's speech before the NAACP that provoked national headlines and caused the NAACP to denounce her and a panicky Obama administration to fire her from her position as the Georgia Director of Rural Development for the USDA.

Then, of course, when the full version of the speech emerged -- which showed Sherrod as a recovering racist, not as a practicing one -- the Obama White House fell all over itself apologizing, and the media turned their guns on Breitbart.

Breitbart, however, had put a potentially huge story into play the only way he could -- through sheer provocation. As he knew, and as we are learning, the story goes well beyond Sherrod's long-ago racist mischief-making with a poor white farmer.

This past Sunday, in his weekly column for the San Francisco Chronicle, "Willie's World," veteran black politico Willie Brown confirmed that "there is more to the story than just [Sherrod's] remarks."

"As an old pro," Brown acknowledged, "I know that you don't fire someone without at least hearing their side of the story unless you want them gone in the first place." Brown observed that Sherrod had been a thorn in the USDA's side for years, that many had objected to her hiring, and that she had been "operating a community activist organization not unlike ACORN." Although Brown does not go into detail, he alludes to a class action lawsuit against the USDA in which she participated some years ago.

In the way of background, in 1997, a black farmer named Timothy Pigford, joined by four hundred other black farmers, filed a lawsuit against Bill Clinton's Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman, claiming that the USDA treated black farmers unfairly in all manner of ways, from price support loans to disaster payments to operating loans. Worse, they charged that the USDA had failed to process any complaints about racial discrimination.

The notion that the Clinton Ag Department had spent four years consciously denying black farmers their due defies everything we know about Clinton's use of race and should have made the media suspicious about Pigford's claims dating back to 1983.

Flush with revenue in 1999 and eager to appease this bedrock constituency, the administration settled with the farmers -- more realistically, their attorneys -- for fifty grand apiece, plus various other perks like tax offsets and loan forgiveness. If any of the presumably racist USDA offenders were punished, that news escaped the media.

After the consent decree was announced, the USDA opened the door to other claimants who had been similarly discriminated against. They expected 2,000 additional claims. They got 22,000 more, roughly 60 percent of whom were approved for this taxpayer-funded Lotto.

Despite having a year and a half to apply, some 70,000 more alleged claimants argued that they not only had been discriminated against, but also had been denied notice of the likely windfall that awaited them.

In 2008, for reasons unknown, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa lobbied to give the alleged 70,000 "another bite at the apple." Co-sponsoring the bill was none other than U.S. Senator Barack Obama. In February of 2010, the Obama administration settled with the aggrieved 70,000 for $1.25 billion that the government did not have to give. This money, by the way, was finessed out of a defense appropriation bill.

At the time, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said the agreement would close a "sordid chapter" in the department's history, a chapter in which no one seems to have been so much as reprimanded.

The major media reported the settlement as though it were the signing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. For the last forty years, as the civil rights industry has manufactured more and more absurd grievances -- most notably the Tea Party smear that incited Breitbart's reprisal -- the media have reported on them with increasingly wide-eyed innocence.

In the various stories on the settlement, not one reporter that I could identify stopped to do the math. Pajamas Media did in a detailed article by "Zombie" titled appropriately, "Pigford v. Glickman: 86,000 claims from 39,697 total farmers?"

Although 86,000 black farmers are alleged to have received payments, at no time in the last three decades have there been more than 40,000 black farmers. Nor is there much turnover in the farming business. No entrepreneurial activity involves more long-term investment.

Realistically, of the 40,000 or 86,000, how many could have applied for a USDA loan and been rejected while white farmers in comparable circumstances were getting loans? If there were hundreds, let alone thousands, the heads of loan officers should have been rolling around the USDA floors, but I know of no such purge.

More to the point, out of about $1 billion paid out so far in settlements, the largest amount has gone to the Sherrods' New Communities Incorporated, which received some $13 million. As Time Magazine approvingly reported this week, $330,000 was "awarded to Shirley and Charles Sherrod for mental suffering alone."

Unwittingly, Charles Sherrod shed light on the how and why of the settlement in a speech he gave in January 2010. As he explained, New Communities farmed its 6,000 acres successfully for seventeen years before running into five straight years of drought. Then, according to Sherrod, New Communities engaged in a three-year fight with the USDA to get the appropriate loans to deal with drought.

Said Sherrod, "They were saying that since we're a corporation, we're not an individual, we're not a farmer." Nevertheless, the Sherrods prevailed, but the late payments "caused us to lose this land." In other words, the bureaucratic delay over taxpayer-funded corporate welfare payments cost them their business.

Then, thanks to their "good lawyers," said a gleeful Sherrod, who seems to have fully recovered from his mental suffering, the Sherrods successfully sued the government for "a large sum of money -- a large sum of money." While saying this, he made hand gestures suggesting $15 million. The land itself was admittedly worth no more than $9 million.

Sherrod gave this talk to announce that the FCC had awarded New Communities a radio station in Albany, Georgia, still another race-based corporate welfare boondoggle. Before the award of this station, he added, the Sherrods "had no means of communicating with our people."

The "our people" in question, of course, are black people. With this new voice, the Sherrods will help "stop the white man and his Uncle Toms from stealing our elections. We must not be afraid to vote black."

Yes, indeed -- these are just the people we want spending the money we don't have.

A couple of points need to be clarified. One, Breitbart did not "edit" the tape of Ms. Sherrod speaking to the NAACP. He took and "excerpt" of tape and played it unedited. For Breitbart to be guilty of editing Ms. Sherrod's remarks he would have had to have had to have cut something out of the section he actually played. He did not.

What Mr. Breitbart can be accused of is not presenting the full context of the tape. He did not emphasize Ms. Sherrod's apparent epiphany that the real war is between the "poor and those who have". OK, so Shirley Sherrod sort of gave up the corrosive soul-destroying poison of race hatred for the equally corrosive soul-destroying poison of class hatred.

Everyone sing a chorus of We Shall Overcome.

Sorry, this woman did not "grow" as one commentator commented. All she did was take a sideways step from one kind of Satanic evil to another kind of Satanic evil.

But that wasn't even the point of what Breitbart was trying to accomplish with the Sherrod tape. Remember the context into which Breitbart injected this recording. The NAACP had just condemned the TEA Party for being racist.

An accusation they hurled without a single shred of evidence to support it - apparently it was emanating from the penumbras of the movement. What Mr. Breitbart was showing was the audience at an NAACP gathering showing only approval to the part of Ms. Sherrod's story where she detailed how she couldn't bring herself to help a poor farmer because of the color of his skin.

Mr. Breitbart's point was that if you intend to accuse someone of racism (a charge which carries the same emotional baggage in today's politically correct society that an accusation of witchcraft used to carry in old Salem) you had better not only have ironclad evidence but you had also better be Simon-pure yourself.

Mr. Breitbart had already proved that the left lacked any evidence for their charge of TEA Party racism with his unclaimed one hundred thousand dollar reward for proof that any TP activist had called any of the congressmen or their staffers "nigger" during their attempt to provoke such an outburst by parading through the midst of the protesters during the final push to shove an unwanted socialized health care bill down the nation's throat.

Even though every other person in that shameful little parade had a video recorder trained on the protesters hoping to capture an racial epithet or shouted death threat not one of them (zip, zero, nada) has been able to produce a tape of any such thing actually happening.

With the Sherrod tape Breitbart proved that far from being clean and pure as the wind driven show on the issue of race that the NAACP is (what most of us have known for a very long time) nothing but an organization of black racists - at least at the leadership level.

This is why NAACP leaders being interviewed on Sean Hannity's radio show will struggle like men trying to pass a kidney stone when asked to condemn the New Black Panther Party's voter intimidation, or the Holder/Obama Justice Department's decision to prosecute white defendants in those kind of cases but not black ones.

Of course Ms. Sherrod's comments since her firing have revealed that she has only done an imperfect job of leaving anti-white racism behind. And her husband's recorded comments have done nothing to help her case. And now details like those in the American Thinker article are coming out.

The media is trying to spin this as Breitbart being left with egg on his face and the NAACP and Sherrod winning a clear victory.

A few more "victories" like this and the left won't have an army left.

Repairing our international relationships

From The Times of London:

Europe’s disappointment with Barack Obama’s presidency is laid bare today as the EU’s most senior figure calls for a dramatic effort to revive transatlantic relations. The President of the European Commission told The Times that the new era at the White House was in danger of becoming a “missed opportunity” for Europe. José Manuel Barroso said that the EU-US relationship was not living up to its potential. The criticism follows a series of fundamental disagreements on how to deal with the economic crisis, climate change and trade reform.

It's like this. Socialism is a parasite which cannot survive without a capitalist host to feed upon.

Advocates of Obamacare and other socialized health care schemes like to point out that in the US around 40% of health care costs are already paid by the government through programs like Medicare. This is true but it ignores the fact that it is only possible to give quality medical care to the 40% because they ride on the back of the 60% which remains in the private sector.

The relationship between Western Europe and the United States is much like this. "Old" Europe can only survive if the US remains an economically and militarily strong superpower. European leaders know this even if the average European "man in the street" doesn't.

European leaders disliked George W Bush because he was unwilling to subordinate US interests to European sensibilities. At the end of the day he was going to do what he was going to do regardless of what Europe thought.

Europe's political class believed that Barack Obama would put the American attack dog back on its leash and not let it interfere with business as usual (remember that European politicians were getting millions in under the table payoffs from Saddam Hussein in exchange for subverting the UN sanctions). They also believed that he would keep the American workhorse in harness and pulling the wagon of American prosperity.

What Europe got in B. Hussein Obama was a lazy and childish "man" who believes that he has a birthright to be adored for just showing up and resents the idea that he might have to perform to any kind of external standard.

Eurocrats have gotten out of the habit of listening to their own populations. If they had been willing to listen to their own countrymen they might have forewarned about Obama. While European leaders know that their lotus eater societies require a strong and prosperous America to support them ordinary European people - who have been infantalized by two generations of post-war cradle-to-grave socialism - have no such knowledge.

Average Europeans were willing to cheer Obama to the echo because they sensed in him the same kind of smoldering anti-American resentment they feel themselves. In Obama they saw a man who shared their desire to see America brought down to the rest of the world's level.

European presidents and prime ministers can only watch in horror as Obama attempts to wring the neck of the goose that lays so many golden eggs and pray (there are no atheists in foxholes) that November of this year returns the US legislature to the control of adults who can at least mitigate the damage coming from America's first post-American unreconstructed campus Marxist practitioner of radical identity politics ever to sit in the Oval Office - or at least behind the desk in the Oval Office.

Oh, and Europe. . . In the future be careful what you ask for. You just might get it.

A chuckle, and a missed opportunity

I'm sure that you've all heard the old saying, "it's an ill wind that blows no good". Well even something as dark and disastrous as the Obama presidency can serve humanity by giving us the occasional belly-laugh. Courtesy of American Thinker:

There's a funny story about Barack Obama at Harvard Law, both funny-ha-ha and funny-peculiar. It involves one of those cloud-borne Himalayan intellects of liberalism, Professor Larry Tribe, the Tyler Professor of Constitutional Law at one of the most prestigious law schools in the United States. Tribe is the legal giant who is always a bridesmaid but never a bride for the Supremes.

And yea verily, the Professor met and held converse with The Blessed Lightworker Himself back in the nineties. The story doesn't say if they were both stoned out of their minds when they got together, but it's the only explanation I can think of. What happened is so weird and so discreditable to all concerned that I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Still, nobody in the liberal media seems to get the joke...which tells you a lot.

Professor Tribe, it appears, made it really big in academic law by writing trendy postmodern articles like "Toward a Syntax of the Unsaid: Construing the Sounds of Congressional and Constitutional Silence," "The Constitution in Cyberspace," "Toward a Metatheory of Free Speech," "Trial by Mathematics," and even "Seven Deadly Sins of Straining the Constitution through a Pseudo-Scientific Sieve," which turned it all into self-parody, because pseudo-science is exactly what made Larry Tribe's big reputation. This academic disease is commonly described as "physics envy." It arises out of academic inferiority complexes, with everybody wanting to do fake physics because that is real science.

If you remember those old po-mo days, that kind of stuff was standard pomotwaddle designed to impress innocent young students and the Board of Trustees. No sane person believed it. Alan Sokal famously hoaxed a po-mo journal into accepting a nonsense physics article, and then revealed their ignorance to the world. Postmodernism never recovered.

Professor Tribe comes right out of a great comedy tradition of long-winded professors spouting obvious claptrap to fool the suckers. Shakespeare used that gag with Polonius in Hamlet. Groucho Marx used it. Molière became famous for his "scholar" in the suckered Bourgeois Gentleman. Greek and Roman comedy writers used it. Every humorist in history has used that shtick, because it's funny. But it takes a postmodern professor of law to make it real.

By the '90s Larry Tribe had risen to become the Tyler Professor of Constitutional Law, based on the depth and profundity of his cockamamie legal scholarship. I guess. And then, a magical moment in history when great minds meet...it was Michelangelo and Leonardo, Plato and Socrates, Larry, Moe and Curly.

Barack Hussein Obama Barry Soetoro, Jr. walks into Larry Tribe's office.

Now you can't blame Obama for this one. Poor kid, he just wandered into the big professor's office one day, right off the beach at Waikiki by way of LA and Columbia, a real stoner with a chip on his shoulder about race, because that was the in thing to do. It was a great time for radical chic. Racial rage was the way to get into Harvard in the '90s. Here was a black guy, or close enough, and he had a radical idea for Larry Tribe: Why not apply Albert Einstein to Constitutional law? I mean, why not?

Long sucking sound on a fat joint.

Creaky voice from Barry: "Pass it on, man..."

Larry creaks back, "Yeah, man, good s--t."

Barry: "Cosmic! Like, it's Relativity...or Quantum...or ummm... suthin...Albert Einstein, man...lookut..." (laughter all around).

Suddenly, they both have the same idea.

Larry and Barry in unison: "Let's do it, man!"

I wasn't there, but it's the only thing that makes sense.

So Larry wrote up his Harvard Law Review shtick on "Curved Space and Constitutional Law," and the rigorous peer review process at the Law Review went into high gear, and yes, they okayed it. A real contribution to constitutional law.

Through the magic of Google Scholar, you can dig it out and pass it along to your friends. It's destined to become infamous, right along with that German physics lab that started eco-freaks around the world jumping in unison at one second past midnight, 3/31/2008, to make the planet ring real loud. Pass it around, folks. A lot of them tried it, but not quite enough to jar the earth out of orbit. Too bad.

Now, any high school science teacher could have told Professor Tribe how the curvature of space bears on constitutional law: It doesn't. There is not a smidgen of relevance. None. Physics and the law only get together around bloodstains and such, and even then you have to slug your way through chemistry and biology to get there. Wiser heads should have told the Tyler Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard, "Don't even go there, Larry -- you'll become a laughingstock." There are real scientists and engineers at Harvard, not to mention students, who can instantly spot the difference between science fantasy and the real thing, and neither have anything to do with the Constitution. So much for getting on the Supremes, Larry. Just don't do it! Don't even think about it.

Larry wrote it up anyway.

Physicist Frank J. Tipler has described Tribe's paper as "crackpot physics," but that was too kind. This is pure out-of-your-mind stone-head Amateur Hour. It makes sense only if you're hallucinating really badly.

And Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. got only a footnote. ("S--t, man, only a footnote? What's the matter, I'm the wrong color or sumthin? You don't want Hussein on that article? You don't like my stash?")

This may be why Elena Kagan was clowning it up for the cameras at the Senate Judiciary Committee rather than for Professor Tribe. Obama never forgets a slight. Plus, even Harvard should be able to spot arrant nonsense from its tenured faculty after three or four decades of reading it. Plus, Larry Tribe looks too heterosexual. Three strikes, you're out!

Still, the lowbrows in Obama's White House and the WaPo still look with superstitious awe at that magic moment in the '90s when two Renaissance Minds met and sparked off a stunning new insight into constitutional law. The stoners at Harvard Crimson were duly impressed, and Moveon.org thought it was Totally Awesome, Man. The Washington Post apostrophized,

Obama analyzed and integrated Einstein's theory of relativity, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, as well as the concept of curved space as an alternative to gravity, for a Law Review article that Tribe wrote titled,"The Curvature of Constitutional Space."

Ah, the sophisticates of D.C. were in bliss. Only physicists and engineers around the world were getting rolling fits of the giggles. Axelrod and the WaPo are still honestly proud of that Einstein-and-the-Constitution story, so much that they publicized it in a WaPo puff-piece for El Jefe Supremo. The WaPo and the White House are still dumb enough to believe it, and they have never heard from a real-life high school science teacher to tell them it's all bull pucky.

In Romania under the Ceauşescus, the state-run media portrayed Nicolae as "The Genius of the Carpathians" and attributed scientific breakthroughs to his wife Elena. We haven't gone quite that far, but the media cult of the personality surrounding Obama is trending into self-discrediting territory.

You know if Obama had been willing to sacrifice one round of golf to actually meet early on with the CEO of BP he might have learned that a new cap was being fabricated to seal the Deepwater Horizon well and that it would take about two months to manufacture.

Then the little tin messiah could have gone before the White House press corps and announced that he had informed the top management of BP that the most likely way to "plug the hole" was to fabricate a new assembly to replace the damaged one and that if they began right then they ought to be able to have it finished in around two months.

Had that happened the mainstream media would now be shouting from every rooftop in the nation that Obama had solved the problem by inventing a new cap for the well and giving the plans to BP.

But it was probably an awfully enjoyable round of golf. Maybe they even topped it off by stopping for bacon cheeseburgers and chili-cheese fries at a trendy burger joint on the way back to the White House.

Kennedy will wait out Obama regime

From The NY Daily News:

WASHINGTON - President Obama may get liberal Elena Kagan on the Supreme Court, but conservative swing-voter Anthony Kennedy says he's not going anywhere anytime soon.

Justice Kennedy, who turns 74 this month, has told relatives and friends he plans to stay on the high court for at least three more years - through the end of Obama's first term, sources said.

That means Kennedy will be around to provide a fifth vote for the court's conservative bloc through the 2012 presidential election. If Obama loses, Kennedy could retire and expect a Republican President to choose a conservative justice.


It is rare for a Supreme Court justice to so publicly bitch-slap a sitting president, but we must admit that the provication has surely been great.

What makes this even more amazing is that in the past Kennedy has been one of the court's most notorious fence sitters who had been showing a marked tendency to tilt to the left.

It would seem that the profound overreach of the Obama regime has shocked him back to sanity. He has in effect promised to remain on the court and be the fifth vote against the destruction of the nation until the Obama agenda joins all the Soviet five-year-plans, German thousand-year reichs and Islamic dreams of a world-wide caliphate in the toxic waste dump of history.

Good for you Justice Kennedy.

Time to say goodbye to Mr. Steele

Rick Moran in American Thinker:

The RNC chairman's comments about Afghanistan were pretty clueless, but I think the growing chorus from GOP heavyweights for Michael Steele to step down is a cumulative effect of his verbal gaffes rather than this particular instance of idiocy.

Bill Kristol:

You are, I know, a patriot. So I ask you to consider, over this July 4 weekend, doing an act of service for the country you love: Resign as chairman of the Republican party.

Your tenure has of course been marked by gaffes and embarrassments, but I for one have never paid much attention to them, and have never thought they would matter much to the success of the causes and principles we share. But now you have said, about the war in Afghanistan, speaking as RNC chairman at an RNC event, "Keep in mind again, federal candidates, this was a war of Obama's choosing. This was not something that the United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in." And, "if [Obama] is such a student of history, has he not understood that you know that's the one thing you don't do, is engage in a land war in Afghanistan?"

Needless to say, the war in Afghanistan was not "a war of Obama's choosing." It has been prosecuted by the United States under Presidents Bush and Obama. Republicans have consistently supported the effort. Indeed, as the DNC Communications Director (of all people) has said, your statement "puts [you] at odds with about 100 percent of the Republican Party."

I think he should have resigned after the fund raising scandals last spring, but GOP insiders thought differently. Now he has not only undercut his own party, but has shown himself to be out of touch with candidates for office who support our mission in Afghanistan.

Steele will likely force the GOP to fire him, knowing how bad it would look for the party to fire one of the few visible blacks in a leadership position. He has banked on this before, but it might not save him this time.

I agree with both Mr. Moran and Mr. Kristol. Michael Steele should step down. I was a supporter of Mr. Steels's appointment as chairman of the RNC, as I supported his unsuccessful run for the Senate. However his performance in office has been disappointing with a continuing series of "gaffes and embarrassments" and it is time he went.

One of the central goals of the "Tea Party Movement" is to effect a change in the way the RNC operates. Now and in the past it has supported any Republican incumbent and any Republican challenger to an incumbent Democrat. This needs to change.

The RNC MUST begin to seek out and support the most conservative Republican who can realistically win in any given house district or state and support that candidate even if it means campaigning against a Republican incumbent.

Mr. Steele has shown time and again that he is not the man to bring about that kind of essential change and it is time for him to go.

This is why they should stick to acting

British actor Bill Nighy has a brain fart idea.

The G8 leaders meeting in Toronto managed to live down to my worst expectations.

I arrived at the G8 by a roundabout route. Just a day earlier, I was standing in Dandora, a toxic tip on the edge of Nairobi where little girls as young as five live on a mound composed of toxic and human waste. They survive by competing with wild pigs for scraps of rubbish, forced to sell their bodies to get access to the richest pickings.

I was there to bear witness to the good work aid does before traveling to the Toronto summit as Oxfam's Global Ambassador. Comic Relief, a British charity, rescues children from this dump and gives them schooling in a safe, almost fairytale environment.

At the G8, I have been lobbying for action, with TV and radio appearances to do what little I can to put pressure on leaders to live up to their aid promises first made in 2005 in Gleneagles, Scotland. G8 governments are $20 billion short on those promises due this year. It takes $220 to rescue a girl from Dandora. Just think what a difference that could make in Africa and elsewhere.

The summit did bring the promise of $7.3 billion to improve maternal and child health. Good news, you might think, when a shocking 1,000 women and girls every day die unnecessarily from complications in childbirth and an estimated $10 billion dollars a year is needed to solve the problem.

Sadly, the good news is limited. The money will come over five years. The G8 has promised only $5 billion, the rest will come from a combination of other countries and the Gates Foundation. I find it incredible that with a promise of $1.5 billion over five years, Bill and Melinda Gates are providing almost a third of the total of the world's richest economies.

Worse, the promise of "new" aid is a scandal of creative accounting. With no increase in overall G8 aid, their money will have to be taken from other pots, from the budgets for food, clean water, health or education. I wish someone would tell me how it can be right that a mother's health should be secured by sacrificing her child's schooling.

Now attention shifts to the G20, which has the opportunity to make good the G8's broken promises. Leaders will discuss a simple but brilliant idea for a tax on banks and hedge funds -- dubbed the Robin Hood Tax -- that could raise $400 billion for good causes every year. Oxfam are pressing for half this money to help poor people hit hardest by the economic slump, hunger and climate change.

Gambling by the financial sector was a big cause of the economic crisis but banks, bailed out to the tune of $17 trillion are now returning to bonuses as usual. Banking is the most profitable industry on earth but is taxed the least. With rich governments unwilling to make good on their own promises, surely they can ask bankers to spare some of their small change to help the girls from Dandora and millions more who need a little help from us to get to first base with a chance then to help themselves.

First of all let me say that my heart also goes out to the little girls of Dandora as well.

However I have a few questions I would ask of Mr. Nighy.

Since banks in the developed world are not the cause of poverty in Africa why should they be tasked with relieving it?

The profound poverty in Africa has several causes. Chief among them are socialism, tribalism and the kind of endemic corruption that comes with the absence of any tradition of the rule of law. While handing out food and medicine to the starving and sick is a good thing it does nothing to address the root causes of the suffering.

The truth is that if one wishes to "fix" Africa there is only one course of action that has any hope of being successful. It must be admitted that there is no possibility of any kind of positive reform from within and the only way to really change things for the better is for the whole place to be taken over by an outside agency and run by that agency until there is no one left alive who remembers the way things used to be.

Parenthetically this also the only way to "fix" Chicago. In Chicago's case the outside agency would be the federal government in in Africa's case it would be a coalition of free nations led by someone who knows that socialism has nothing good to offer anyone (think a NATO mission under the absolute command of Vaclav Klaus).

Another question I have for Mr. Nighy is this. Does he even understand the Robin Hood legend? The "rich" that Robin Hood robbed were government officials and the money he took from them was the tax money they had extorted from the productive citizens of the realm. The English people were being excessively taxed and Robin reclaimed that tax money and gave it back to the people who had actually earned it. At no time did Robin take money from someone who had earned it and give it to someone who had not earned it.

Finally I have to wonder if Mr. Nighy has any understanding of economics whatsoever. Doesn't he realize that if banks are taxed that they will simply pass that tax along to their customers by charging higher fees and interest rates on loans and paying smaller rates of return on savings accounts?

Mr. Nighy's resume indicates that he has a very good grasp of the acting trade. I would recommend that he stick with what he knows at least until he reads a few good books on economics. I would highly recommend he start with Human Action.

On, and one other thing. Why does it upset Mr. Nighy that a good sized chunk of the money to help the poor of Africa is coming from a private source?

Is it virtuous when government takes money from someone like Bill Gates and then gives it to the poor but somehow suspect when Mr. Gates gives the money to the poor directly? Doesn't Mr. Nighy realize that government's "administrative overhead" is as high as 90% while the average private charity manages to keep overhead at around 10%?

Tearing off the mask

This is a Democrat congressman. His name is Bod Etheridge (D-NC2). This kind of thing is going to happen more and more as we get closer to the November elections.

As the members of the jackass party begin to realize the true depth of their mistake in gambling everything on their young, hip and articulate Marxist president's ability to transform America into a one party state modeled after Castro's Cuba - all within the first two years of his first term.

Now they don't think that they made a mistake because Obama's policies have failed so miserably nor because Obama has proven himself to be so dismally incompetent. No, they think that their mistake was in waking the American people up a bit too early. Before a large enough majority had been made totally dependent upon one kind of government handout or another. Then the people would have no choice but to pull the lever next to the picture of the donkey and hope that the welfare checks might be a little bit bigger next year and that they might be able to get a waiver from the council to paint the front door of their government subsidized flat a different color than the one that was officially decided.

But that was not to be. You see the majority of Americans are still the kind of people who become frightened and angry at the prospect of unemployment.

Apparently Rep. Etheridge is one of those people.

Too bad he just guaranteed it for himself.

Check out his Republican opponent's website here.

A message from New Orleans

Why do they keep falling for it?

Remember NYPD Blue, the best cop show ever on TV? There was one episode where a woman came in to the precinct complaining that she had been ripped off by a con man. The man had told her that he had a special box that when "charged up" by his special machine would alter her appearance making her more attractive.

Det. Jill Kirkendall (Andrea Thompson) caught the case and when mentioning it to the other detectives it turned out that Det. Greg Medavoy (Gordon Clapp) was familiar with the con. So they set up a sting to catch the con artist.

The female victim was wired up and sent to meet the con man in a restaurant but the plan hit a snag when the con man started telling the woman how much more beautiful she looked and how attracted he was to her.

She ditched the surveillance operation and slept with the confidence man.

Kirkendall and her female partner couldn't understand how the woman could be so stupid.

I bring all this up because I recently heard the question posed about how a large segment of the American population could be so stupid as to keep voting for politicians who promise to deliver the blessings of big government.

After all this isn't the late 19th century when the ideas of socialism were new and untested. We have, after all, had more than a century to see that attempts to create any kind of secular utopia will always end in disaster.

Canada is having to - yet again - attempt to restructure its socialized health care system, because it is broke and cannot deliver on its promises. Greece is imploding and Spain and Portugal are not far behind - with Italy coming in a close forth in the state bankruptcy sweepstakes. European states which are not completely destitute like Germany and France are contemplating severing their ties to the EU and purging much of the socialism from their own societies (if they can avoid civil war in doing so).

China has had to abandon communism in anything but rhetoric and embrace the market in order to avoid the kind of internal upheaval that got Nicole Ceausecu stood up against a wall and shot. It seems that every day Hugo Chavez nationalizes a new segment of the Venezuelan economy and the Venezuelan GDP and the average Venezuelan's standard of living drops to a new low.

Over and over again the political left's promises of better living through government prove to be nothing but a prescription for disaster. Even when socialism has seemed to deliver a comfortable life to those who live under it in the end it always proves that the supposed "good life" was achieved only by "eating the seed corn" and leaving the people to starve come next winter. This is what is happening to Western Europe today. The lotus eater society of short work weeks, early retirement and cradle to grave entitlements which formed the foundation of their post-war culture has proven to be unsustainable. The bill is coming due and the bill collector seems to speak with a pronounced Arabic accent and to share a world view with Osama bin Laden.

So why do Americans still fall for the promise of big government when there is a vast tapestry of failure of big government for them to view?

Like the woman who slept with the con man who told her she was beautiful after sitting with a wooden box on her head for two hours a night for a week some voters will continue voting for the promises of left-wing politicians because they desperately want to believe.


They want to believe that their problems can be taken over by Washington and solved for them with little or no sacrifice on their own part. They want to believe that a comfortable life can be mandated by a congressional decree. That want to believe that want and hardship and struggle and uncertainty can be eliminated by the benevolent actions of a higher secular power.

In the end this desperate desire to rely upon government to smooth over the rough places and always be there with a safety net should we fall represents nothing more than a desire to return to the womb, to the last place where we felt completely safe and secure.

But there are two things we must remember. One is that a fetus in the womb consumes but is incapable of producing anything. A nation of fetus's cannot sustain itself and must collapse.

And two, the last time big government had anything to do with life in the womb it was to create a constitutional right to abortion on demand.

Morning rant

Just a quick rant before I have to run off to work.

As someone who loves the city of New Orleans and the Mississippi Gulf Coast I am as dismayed by what is happening in regard to the still unfolding ecological disaster as anyone. However my desire to see America drill for every drop of oil, both on land and off shore, that we have has not diminished.

We simply need to oil too badly. It is the fuel which powers or economy and makes possible our liberty and our life style. We live longer than any people in history we are less troubled by disease and only a tiny percentage of our children die in infancy or early childhood - unlike the nearly 50% who used to only a few hundred years ago.

One of the largest health problems facing our poor is obesity. Imagine another time in the history of the world when one of the primary problems facing the people at the very bottom of the socio-economic ladder was that they had too damn much food!

Thanks to planes, trains and automobiles we are the most mobile people in the history of the world. Our military is the most powerful combat force in the history of the world. We have more information at our fingertips on virtually any topic, from current events to particle physics, than any people in history. We have more consumer choices than any people in history and more leisure time in which to enjoy those choices.

While all these benefits flow from our capitalist free market economic system and our system of limited government with plenty of checks and balances none of them would be possible without the added blessing of relatively inexpensive energy.

This is why the free flow of oil at market prices is one of America's most pressing strategic interests. And that is why America must "drill baby drill" at all costs.

However the need for oil and the need to accept risks to get at the oil does not automatically mean that what is happening in the Gulf of Mexico today is/was inevitable. The fact is that what is happening right now is, to borrow a phrase, a man-made catastrophe of epic proportions.

And I lay the lion's share of the blame for the current disaster at the feet of two stupid and irresponsible parties. One is the environmental movement (and the Democrat party which aids and abets them) and the other is the state government of Florida.

Those two moronic entities are the primary reason that the oil rig which blew up was far out in deep water rather than much closer to shore in much shallower water.

If the rig had been in shallow water the leak would have been plugged withing three days (at most) and the oil slick could have been contained well enough that it would have been an inconvenience rather than a calamity.

But eco-loons who hate the very idea of oil in the first place and Florida politicians - Jeb Bush prominent among them - who are in the pocket of Florida's tourist industry shut down shallow water drilling in the Gulf and off Florida's coast.

Well look what their activism has brought about. The fragile wetlands of the Gulf coast and the beautiful beaches of both the Gulf and Atlantic coasts of Florida are in danger from a gushing deep-water oil well which no one seems able to cap. When, let me repeat, a shallow well would have been capped withing a few days.

I hope that all the enemies of shallow water drilling are fraking proud of themselves.

Is there something in the water in Alabama

That breeds true men?

The GOP's greatest asset

Everybody knows that Vice President Joe Biden is a pathetic halfwit. But sometimes it takes a pathetic halfwit to tell the truth. In an interview with CBS anchorwoman Katie Couric old Joe let this slip:

COURIC: Is our government broken, sir?

BIDEN: No, Katie. The country’s in bad shape, yes, but the federal government hasn’t been this hale and hearty since I became a senator in ’73.

Can it be said any plainer than that?

The "health" of the federal government and the rest of the nation are inversely proportional. If the government is doing well the rest of us are bound to be doing poorly. If, on the other hand, the nation's people are doing well the government must be suffering loss.

In 2008 we elected people who think that a "hale and hearty" government at the cost of a ruined and impoverished nation is a fine bargain.

This November we have the opportunity to begin returning power to those who would reverse that.

If you live in Alabama

Finally a Republican man with balls as big as Sarah Palin's.

1000 words

H/T: American Thinker

A good question

In an article posted on American Thinker black conservative Christian Lloyd Marcus addresses The Black Church's Commitment to Obama.

Dear Black Church,

What I am about to say will probably anger you. As a black Christian, I have struggled with whether or not to address this sensitive topic. I only ask that you give my statements prayerful consideration.

Ninety-six percent of black voters, many of whom are Christians, cast their votes for Barack Obama. I question: Did your desire to see a black man in the White House trump your commitment to Christ and Christian values and principles? While I believe many white Christians also made a racist decision by voting for Obama solely because he is black, I am taking this occasion to address my fellow black Christians.

Now wait a minute. I know the hair is rising on the back of your neck. Don't go crazy on me. Please hear me out.

My family and most of my black friends are Christians striving to live lives which honor Christ. And yet, there is a huge disconnect between their Christianity and their irrational, blind, and near-idol-worship of Obama.

Will the truth about Obama make a difference? For some, I think not. For those of you who value your commitment to Christ more than your loyalty to skin color, here are a few facts.

Obama supports abortion. He also supports the vile murderous practice of partial birth abortion. So as not to offend his pro-choice supporters while an Illinois state senator, Obama voted three times against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which would protect babies who survive abortions. According to Illinois state law at that time, live aborted babies were issued birth and death certificates and left out to die in soiled utility rooms. Obama's compassionate compromise was to suggest hospitals create a "Comfort Room" for aborted babies to die in.

Over 50% of black pregnancies end in abortion (Blackgenocide.org). The liberal mainstream media (CNN, MSNBC, BET, etc.) and the Democrats relentlessly promote the myth that "white conservative Republicans" are burning the midnight oil thinking of ways to suppress black America. Isn't it ironic that not a white Republican's, but our black Democrat president's abortion policy contributes greatly to black genocide?

Let's talk about gay marriage. Yep, Obama is sympathetic to it. Obama opposed the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman. Obama said he would support civil unions between gay and lesbian couples. He also supports individual states deciding if marriage between gay and lesbian couples should be legalized.

I would also like to tackle the whole "entitlement" thing -- folks believing they have a right to reap the benefits of someone else's labor. Obama is diligently fulfilling his promise to Joe the Plumber to "spread the wealth around." The Bible says that if a man does not work, he should not eat (II Thessalonians 3:6-12).

Yes, the Bible does highly regard giving/charity. But it does not support government confiscating wealth for redistribution in the name of "social justice." That is not what Jesus would do. As a matter of fact, Jesus said, "The poor you will have with you always." Why? Because it is impossible to regulate outcomes in life. Obama skillfully plays the class envy card, getting those who have less to hate those who have more. Then they will gleefully support him brutally taxing the rich SOBs. Obama is exploiting the human tendency to sinfully covet the possessions of others.

Obama also shamelessly plays the race card to get his way -- not directly out of his mouth, but through his minions. The liberal mainstream media and the Democrats are promoting the lie that the millions of whites who voted for Obama and have since become tea-partiers because they reject his big government agenda are suddenly racist. This is an evil and divisive control tactic.

And here is a major kick in the face to Christians. During his presidential campaign, Obama told the world America is not a Christian nation. Now, as president, Obama canceled the 21st annual "National Day of Prayer" ceremony at the White House, which was started by President Truman in 1952. Obama stated his reason as "not wanting to offend anyone."

Now here's the kicker. A National Day of Prayer for the Muslim religion was held on Capitol Hill, beside the White House, September 25, 2009. As many as 50,000 Muslims attended.

So apparently, Team Obama has no problem offending Christians, but he is extremely sensitive to and even honors Muslims.

My fellow black Christians, these are only a few easy-to-research examples of Obama/Democrat agenda policies which do not line up with Christianity. For those of you who cannot handle the truth, I will keep you in my prayers. It is not my place to judge you. I am simply the messenger. But then, we all know what traditionally happens to messengers. God bless.

- Lloyd Marcus, (black) Unhyphenated American

In the comments a number of people thank Mr. Marcus for raising issues that have been in desperate need of being raised.

I agree that all this needs to be said, but there is an even bigger question than why black Christians would support Obama and that is:

Why would anyone claiming to be a Christian support the Democrat party?

The Democrats are the party of partial birth abortion, gay "marriage" and removing any trace of the God of the Old and New Testaments from the public square while bending over backwards to accommodate Islam.

The Democrat party supports a monstrous perversion of the concept of biblical charity which takes charitable giving out of the hands of individuals (where the Bible places it) and invests it into government which uses it in the most toxic way possible - to destroy the traditional family and foster the soul-destroying dependency which has worked so much devastation in the black community.

The Democrats and their allies in the teachers unions have turned the nation's public schools (especially those in predominantly black areas) into godless indoctrination factories which graduate generation after generation of young people who cannot find their home state on a map or do simple arithmetic and who are unfit for any existence other than as drones in a government subsidized ant hill.

Democrats claim to be for black people but in reality they keep blacks down by keeping them ignorant and dependent. They claim to be in support of labor unions but they refuse to close the borders to tens of millions of Mexican illegal immigrants who undercut the wages of American workers, when they don't steal their jobs outright. Democrats claim to support women and gays yet cannot find it in themselves to condemn fundamentalist Islam which practices the hanging or stoning of gays and women who commit "crimes" like leaving the home unescorted by a male relative, showing their face uncovered in public or bringing shame on their families by allowing themselves to be raped. Not to mention the practice of female genital mutilation. Democrats claim to support the middle class but they want to raise energy prices so high that the average middle class family will have to drastically reduce their standard of living.

In everything from banning DDT - and therefore condemning tens of millions to death from malaria and millions more to sickness and death from a host of other insect-born diseases - to opposition to genetically modified foods - which needlessly condemns millions of children to blindness every year - every one of the liberal Democrat's "good intentions" seem to have real world consequences which only cause suffering and death.

If the very Pit of Hell spat up a philosophy which would have the thin surface appearance of righteousness but in reality contain everything evil and malignant how could it differ in any meaningful way from what the "liberal progressivism" championed by the modern Democrat party?

Another shot at Sarah

I also ran across this:

On Tuesday night, CNN's Larry King had comedian Sarah Silverman on his program and, towards the end of the show, Silverman made a crack about whether Sarah Palin should pose for Playboy. Silverman said "I think she should go for it" and King responded, "Agreed."

As might be expected, the comment has irked some.

Lulu Flores, president of the National Women's Political Caucus, told POLITICO that King's comments were, “waaaaayyy inappropriate.”

Referring to King's recent divorce filings to end his 8th marriage, Laura Ingraham said, "Larry, when you're in a hole, stop digging."

"Larry should pose for 'Viagra Monthly'," said Ann Coulter.

Since this is going to be kicked around on talk radio all day I figured I'd have a go at it first.

First of all I was somewhat shocked that the president of the "national Women's Political Caucus" would speak out in defense of Sarah Palin. Then I thought that it might be an organization for conservative women but a check of their website shows that they are truly bipartisan, having members ranging from Michelle Bachmann all the way to Sheila Jackson Lee.

In other words they are doing what the National Organization of Women only pretends to do - support the aspirations of ALL women.

As for the comments themselves. . . so what?

Silverman is a comedienne and a liberal and in the bubble universe occupied by left-wing Hollywood personalities there is no safer target than Sarah Palin. As the one person on the right that the left senses has the most potential to become the next Ronald Reagan Palin terrifies "progressives" with IQ's in the high double to triple digits to the point of losing control of their bowels and bladders.

This fact is sensed (if not well understood) by "progressives" with IQ's in the low double to single digits - folks like David Letterman and Sarah Silverman - who dimly realize that they can elevate themselves and generate buzz among "people who matter" (defined either as people who can get them work or people whom they wish to sleep with) by taking shots at the great bogeyman who gives their leftie friends who went to school on the long bus night sweats.

As for the unfortunate Larry King, whose Alzheimer's Disease is not so fully progressed that he can't have a moment of near lucidity once in a while, we have to make some allowances. In those days when he was possessed of his full mental faculties, such as they were, he would have most likely had the sense to stay away from such a remark. Now that it's all he can do to show up for work with his Depends on under his trousers we do need to cut him some slack.

It isn't like his falling ratings are going to let CNN justify keeping him on the air for much longer anyway.

Feds surf for pron on the public dime

I saw this on the Drudge Report and the shock was enough to send me back to blogging:

GOV'T AT WORK: SEC STAFF SURFED PRON FOR HOURS...

In this terrible recession when so many Americans are out of work and in fear for the future I do not think it is too much to ask that our government employees - whose pay and benefits are taken from the pcokets of the nation's taxpayers - do the jobs we pay them to do and not sit around on their backsides surfing pron.

Now I'm no purde. I sometimes use the 'net to look for pron, but I do it on my own computer - in my own home - on my own time!

And I think we should expect our "pbulic servants" to do the same!

All part of the price of PC

Thomas Lifson reminds us of some sad truths:

That didn't take long. Human nature (male variety) remains constant. The BBC reports:

A Heathrow Airport security guard was given a police warning after he was allegedly caught staring at images of a female colleague in a body scanner.

Israel manages to overcome the most threatening environment for airline terrorism in the world by use of profiling, but in the United States, thanks to political correctness, we insist on considering elderly grandmothers from Iowa a threat as serious as the Detroit crotch bomber.

As a result, attractive females can expect to be ogled at airports. Sorry, ladies. PC strikes again.

Actually we don't consider elderly grandmothers from Iowa to be threats. We (meaning the TSA) consider them to be cover. There is a difference.

TSA screeners have been instructed to avoid singling out anyone who appears to be of Middle Eastern descent as much as possible, but if they absolutely must pay special attention to someone who appears to be an "Arab" they need to be able to document that they have also payed such special attention to at least ten white people on the same day.

This is the way this works out in real life. Say you have a group of three Middle Eastern-looking men standing in line at the security station having a loud discussion about how they are going to drive the infidel from sacred Muslim soil and saying prayers in Arabic in which the words "jihad" and "Osama" can be clearly discerned. Your ever vigilant TSA employees will want to subject these men to a heightened level of security but to do so without being sued they will also have to pull aside 30 Caucasian businessmen, grandmothers, boy scouts and elderly Congressional Medal of Honor recipients to balance out the Arabs.

Miss Ann is talking

That means that YOU are listening!

OH, CANADA!
by Ann Coulter
March 24, 2010

Since arriving in Canada I've been accused of thought crimes, threatened with criminal prosecution for speeches I hadn't yet given, and denounced on the floor of the Parliament (which was nice because that one was on my "bucket list").

Posters advertising my speech have been officially banned, while posters denouncing me are plastered all over the University of Ottawa campus. Elected officials have been prohibited from attending my speeches. Also, the local clothing stores are fresh out of brown shirts.

Welcome to Canada!

The provost of the University of Ottawa, average student IQ: 0, wrote to me -- widely disseminating his letter to at least a half-dozen intermediaries before it reached me -- in advance of my visit in order to recommend that I familiarize myself with Canada's criminal laws regarding hate speech.

This marks the first time I've ever gotten hate mail for something I might do in the future.

Apparently Canadian law forbids "promoting hatred against any identifiable group," which the provost, Francois A. Houle advised me, "would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges."

I was given no specific examples of what words and phrases I couldn't use, but I take it I'm not supposed to say, "F--- you, Francois."

While it was a relief to know that it is still permissible in Canada to promote hatred against unidentifiable groups, upon reading Francois' letter, I suddenly realized that I had just been the victim of a hate crime! And it was committed by Francois A. Houle (French for "Frank A. Hole").

What other speakers get a warning not to promote hatred? Did Francois A. Houle send a similarly worded letter to Israel-hater Omar Barghouti before he spoke last year at U of Ottawa? ("Ottawa": Indian for "Land of the Bed-Wetters.")

How about Angela Davis, Communist Party member and former Black Panther who spoke at the University of Zero just last month?

Or do only conservatives get letters admonishing them to be civil? Or -- my suspicion -- is it only conservative women who fuel Francois' rage?

How about sending a letter to all Muslim speakers advising them to please bathe once a week while in Canada? Would that constitute a hate crime?

I'm sure Canada's Human Rights Commission will get to the bottom of Francois' strange warning to me, inasmuch as I will be filing a complaint with that august body, so I expect they will be reviewing every letter the university has sent to other speakers prior to their speeches to see if any of them were threatened with criminal prosecution.

Both writer Mark Steyn and editor Ezra Levant have been investigated by the Human Rights Commission for promoting hatred toward Muslims.

Levant's alleged crime was to reprint the cartoons of Mohammed originally published in a Danish newspaper, leading practitioners of the Religion of Peace to engage in murderous violence across the globe. Steyn's alleged crime was to publish an excerpt of his book, "America Alone" in Maclean's magazine, in which he jauntily described Muslims as "hot for jihad."

Both of them also flew jet airliners full of passengers into skyscrapers in lower Manhattan, resulting in thousands of deaths. No, wait -- that was somebody else.

Curiously, however, there was no evidence that either the cartoons or the column did, in fact, incite hatred toward Muslims -- nor was there the remotest possibility that they would.

By contrast, conservative speakers are regularly subjected to violent attacks on college campuses. Bill Kristol, Pat Buchanan, David Horowitz and I have all been the targets of infamous campus attacks.

That's why the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute (a sponsor of my Canada speeches) and the Young America's Foundation (a sponsor of many of my college speeches) don't send conservatives to college campuses without a bodyguard.

You'd have to be a real A-Houle not to anticipate that accusing a conservative of "promoting hatred" prior to her arrival on a college campus would in actuality -- not in liberal fantasies of terrified Muslims cowering in terror of Mark Steyn readers -- incite real-world violence toward the conservative.

The university itself acknowledged that Francois' letter was likely to provoke violence against me by demanding -- long after my speech was scheduled, but immediately after Francois disseminated his letter -- that my sponsors pony up more than $1,200 for extra security.

Also following Francois' letter, the Ottawa University Student Federation met for 7 1/2 hours to hammer out a series of resolutions denouncing me. The resolutions included:

"Whereas Ann Coulter is a hateful woman;

"Whereas she has made hateful comments against GLBTQ, Muslims, Jews and women;

"Whereas she violates an unwritten code of 'positive-space';

"Be it resolved that the SFUO express its disapproval of having Ann Coulter speak at the University of Ottawa."

At least the students didn't waste 7 1/2 hours on something silly, like their studies.

At the risk of violating anyone's positive space, what happened to Canada? How did the country that gave us Jim Carrey, Mike Myers, Martin Short, Dan Aykroyd and Catherine O'Hara suddenly become a bunch of whining crybabies?

Want to hear my favorite Canadian joke? OK, here goes: Francois Houle! I never get tired of that one.

After Tuesday night, the hatred incited by Francois' letter is no longer theoretical. The police called off my speech when the auditorium was surrounded by thousands of rioting liberals -- screaming, blocking the entrance, throwing tables, demanding that my books be burned, and finally setting off the fire alarm.

Sadly, I missed the book burning because I never made it to the building.

But, reportedly, a Canadian crowd hasn't been this excited since they opened a new Tim Hortons. Local reporters couldn't make out what the crowd was chanting, but it was something about "Molson" and a "sled dog."

I've given more than 100 college speeches, and not once has one of my speeches been shut down at any point. Even the pie-throwing incident at the University of Arizona didn't break up the event. I said "Get them!", the college Republicans got them, and then I continued with my rambling, hate-filled diatribe -- I mean, my speech.

So we've run this experiment more than 100 times.

Only one college speech was ever met with so much mob violence that the police were forced to cancel it: The one that was preceded by a letter from the university provost accusing me of hate speech.

(To add insult to injury, Francois didn't even plan to attend my speech because Tuesday is his bikini wax night.)

If a university official's letter accusing a speaker of having a proclivity to commit speech crimes before she's given the speech -- which then leads to Facebook postings demanding that Ann Coulter be hurt, a massive riot and a police-ordered cancellation of the speech -- is not hate speech, then there is no such thing as hate speech.

Either Francois goes to jail or the Human Rights Commission is a hoax and a fraud.

Look carefully at what happened to Miss Ann.

Our congress, dominated by Democrats, and president, also a Democrat, have just passed and signed legislation which puts America firmly on the path to socialized medicine. If the Democrat party is returned to power this November that will be all the sign that Obama and Pelosi and the other Marxists in Washington need that the American people have consented to the transformation of the United States into a socialist nation modeled after Western Europe and Canada.

With what they perceive as consent (and if we reelect them after this it will be impossible to claim that we didn't know exactly what we were getting) they will drastically accelerate the transformation of the nation and we will see speech laws like Canada's before the end of Obama's second term.

The low low price of Bart Stupak's soul

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.