First it was those making under $250,000 that would get a tax cut.
Then it was those making under $200,000 that would get a tax cut.
Then it was those making under $150,000 that would get a tax cut.
Today it's those making under $120,000 that would get a tax cut.
Follow the sliding scale ... if you can.
Mark my words: It'll drop further than that if Obama-Biden are elected.
UPDATE: Hilarious video illustrating the "sliding scale."
First place in the Council category was Joshuapundit with "A Spectator At The Orgy." (Colossus finished tied for 3rd place, BTW.)
First place in the non-Council category was Iowahawk with "Balls and Urns."
Full results can be seen here.
Phillies' final out of game 5:
Harry Kalas making the call:
So says Charles Olgetree, Obama’s main adviser on race issues:
Ogletree, Obama’s top advisor on race issues, explains that since Obama is “biracial,” his election won’t prove that racism has receded. White America won’t vote for blacks, Ogletree argues, and Obama’s election is possible only because he’s partly white.
So much for "bringing us all together," huh?
Judge rules Ohio homeless voters may list park benches as addresses.
I can just imagine the "fun" election workers in OH will have attempting to verify these ... "addresses." Oh, wait, that's right -- the OH Secretary of State doesn't care about verifying voter addresses!
Why Some Men Have Dogs And Not Wives:
1. The later you are, the more excited your dogs are to see you.
2. Dogs don't notice if you call them by another dog's name.
3. Dogs like it if you leave a lot of things on the floor.
4. A dog's parents never visit.
5. Dogs agree that you have to raise your voice to get your point across.
6. You never have to wait for a dog; they're ready to go 24 hours a day.
7. Dogs find you amusing when you're drunk.
8. Dogs like to go hunting and fishing.
9. A dog will not wake you up at night to ask, "If I died, would you get another dog?"
10. If a dog has babies, you can put an ad in the paper and give them away.
11. A dog will let you put a studded collar on it without calling you a pervert.
12. If a dog smells another dog on you, they don't get mad. They just think it's interesting.
13. If a dog leaves, it won't take half of your stuff.
... NOW I've seen everything!
... and that's "You're too stupid!"
Edwards – who has battled breast cancer since 2004 – said McCain’s plan fails in all important areas by leaving the decision-making process up to individuals, who can frequently “make stupid economics decisions.” (Source.)
Yeah? So? And the government doesn't??
It's not his economics, it's not his foreign policy. It's the courts:
But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendancy to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.
If someone doesn't think that the Warren Court was radical enough, we're in for some really out-there Supreme Court nominations, folks. And although Obama appears to look beyond the courts -- that, in this case, the civil rights movement relied too much on the courts and not enough on aspects tailored to the legislatures -- don't be fooled. After all, if Obama becomes president, and the Democrats have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, The Messiah can nominate the most radical of radical judges imaginable for the SCOTUS ... and nothing can stop him.
I must say, it is disturbing to hear a man who will probably be our next president discussing as recently as seven years ago how the Supreme Court did not address "redistribution of wealth" and the concepts of "economic and social justice." The first topic is pretty clear; the latter two are worrisome for their nebulousness. What precisely does "economic and social justice" actually mean? To leftists, it's pretty much what Obama has let slip in recent weeks, and it's synonymous with that first topic -- "spreading the wealth" around. How would newly installed far-left justices rule on such matters? How would they twist amendments and constitutional principals beyond all recognition to grant what they (and Obama) desire?
Keep in mind, too, that Obama has already stated he wants judges who "feel" for the "little guy":
"[W]e need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges." (Source.)
That's the criteria by which he's going to select judges? Not the Constitution? Not following ... the law? Then there's this from a couple weeks ago:
U.S. Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D. Toledo) whipped the crowd up before Mr. Obama took the stage yesterday telling them that America needed a Second Bill of Rights guaranteeing all Americans a job, health care, homes, an education, and a fair playing field for business and farmers.
If we start guaranteeing all of the above, we're really in deep do-do. I mean, what else do you need, people?
The last imbroglio of this sort that I remember of such magnitude was that involving Lani Guinier. Eventually, then-President Bill Clinton ended up ditching her as his nominee for Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights in 1993 because of the controversy surrounding her unorthodox legal views, specifically that of proportionate representation in government. This idea actually isn't as radical as it sounds; many Western-style governments already make use of such a system. What was most controversial about Guinier's views about this type of government is that she advocated it (in part) based on race and racial group voting power. Voting based on race is supposed to be anathema in the US.
Or, at least I thought it was.
It involves a noose, hanging a person -- Sarah Palin -- in effigy. But it's not a hate crime.
Are you surprised?
You just knew it was coming, right?
Yes, you did.
From the Campaign Spot:
After releasing this morning’s numbers showing McCain ahead in Ohio and Florida, the Strategic Vision polling company received several death threats through the contact e-mail on the company’s web site.
David Johnson, the CEO of Strategic Vision, shared the messages with National Review Online.
One of the messages stated:
My goodness, your polls stinks. There are 3 polls that have Obama by double digits and only yours has Obama down. WOW!. How come your poll is the only one giving Palin high favor ratings? I think you need to be careful tonight when you get in your car and might want to check underneath your car. SCRAP YOUR IDIOTIC POLLS OR ELSE!
Other e-mails included "colorful" phrases like "Be careful going outside tonight because you might not see tomorrow," and "Smart guys wind up dead."
The company has contacted the FBI.
These hateful and disgusting incidents are happening so often that I really think that any honorable and moral person, no matter if they are a diehard liberal or Democrat, cannot vote for Obama lest they be branded by incidents like this for all eternity. How can you align yourself with someone who would actually threaten someone's life because they dared to report on a poll that had John McCain leading in two battleground states? How can you align yourself with someone who would put a bomb in someone's car merely because of good news for McCain?
Robert Heinlein, that would be:
The America of my time line is a laboratory example of what can happen to democracies, what has eventually happened to all perfect democracies throughout all histories. A perfect democracy, a "warm body" democracy in which every adult may vote and all votes count equally, has no internal feedback for self-correction.... [O]nce a state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state. For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader — the barbarians enter Rome.
My emphasis. I saw this at Andy McCarthy's post where he used this Heinlein quote in response to Barney Frank already planning what a Democratic Congress and a President Obama will do:
I think at this point there needs to be a focus on an immediate increase in spending and I think this is a time when deficit fear has to take a second seat . . . I believe later on there should be tax increases. Speaking personally, I think there are a lot of very rich people out there whom we can tax at a point down the road and recover some of the money.
I've written previously (and/or commented at other blogs) that the American franchise should entail a degree of difficulty -- that is, there should be a requirement to register to vote in advance (like 30 days before an election) so that election officials can verify you are indeed eligible to vote. A person should be required to show a photo ID in order to vote. Period. I would abolish absentee voting. Period. I would advocate a constitutional amendment to mandate all states have uniform voting procedures for national (i.e. presidential) elections.
Why should voting be "tough?" Simple: I want people voting who CARE about the process, are smart, and are willing to "jump through a few hoops" in order to vote. As Heinlein wrote, Congress instituting things like the "motor voter" law, and stuff like same-day voter registration, "provisional" ballots, and fighting against laws that require showing a photo ID dilute the importance of the franchise. People that would otherwise care less about politics and/or the candidates and issues can now succumb to the whims of groups like ACORN who essentially tell folks who to vote for -- mainly candidates who will "give" them something.
We Americans tend to forget just how freakin' wise our Founders were. They knew precisely what Heinlein wrote some 200 years before. That's why they came up with the first sentence of Article I, section 3 of the Constitution, as well as Article II, section 1 ... among others. (While I've little hassle with Amendment 17 -- which changed Article I, section 3, I do reiterate all of my recommendations from above for it.)
Just think about it: Do you honestly have NO problem with someone voting who made absolutely NO effort to register? Who made NO effort to learn one tiny little thing about the candidates? Who has NO form of ID whatsoever to show at the voting booth? Who has NO problem with a "campaign worker" telling him/her whom to vote for ... and actually does it?
All the while you have done precisely the opposite ... ?
Steve Newton takes issue with my (and that of some others, apparently) view of a supposedly "bigoted" campaign ad (and mailer) from Liddy Dole (Bob's wife) in North Carolina against her opponent. Dole's opponent has taken money from a PAC that supposedly wants to force organizations like the Boy Scouts to accept homosexuals and atheists as members (and Scout masters), as well as desiring to excise the phrase "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. I've said that Dole's concern about these issues, especially the former, is a quite legitimate one from a libertarian perspective. Libertarians would indeed loath the use of governmental force (i.e. the courts) manufacturing a right for individuals to intrude upon a private organization. Likewise, they'd detest the same [mis]use of the courts -- "fishing" I believe it's called -- by groups hoping to find a sympathetic judge (or judges) that will likewise "find" that the phrase "under God" is somehow a violation of the Establishment Clause.
But Steve and some other commenters don't think that's the real issue behind Dole's ads. They think it is homophobia and anti-atheism. Which, I conceded, may indeed be the case. But, honestly, Steve and the others really don't know. And as such, they're falling into the "kindred spirit" trap. Years ago, when DE House Majority Leader Wayne Smith was lobbying for passage of a bill that had some anti-affirmative action effects (regarding the Univ. of Delaware, if memory serves) our illustrious News Journal ran an op-ed that noted a white supremacist group had come out and backed Smith's proposed bill. They used this as "the final straw" as to why the bill was bad, and called the group and Smith "kindred spirits."
Obviously that was beyond ridiculous and grossly unfair to Smith; likewise, without knowing precisely what Liddy Dole believes about homosexuals and atheists in her heart, Newton and the others cast aspersions on her campaigning -- campaigning that is quite legitimate from a libertarian aspect. Newton said that Liddy was capitalizing on homophobia and religion; but unlike the News Journal and their preposterous connection of Smith to white supremacists, Dole's campaign ads are entirely on the level (and, again, I'm going on what Newton himself has reported; I haven't actually seen the ads/literature) about libertarian (and conservative) concerns regarding how leftist groups use the court system to force upon the populace what they'd never succeed in doing via the legislative process. Newton falls into News Journal territory because he says that since Dole merely mentions homosexuals and atheists in her campaign ads, she is engaging in anti-gay and anti-atheist hate. But at the same time Steve (and others) clearly concede that what Dole says about the Boy Scouts has complete merit! They do not dispute that the Scouts have the constitutional right to refuse to admit homosexuals. They also do not plainly address if what Dole's ads say are right on the money regarding her opponent; that is, does her opponent take money from a leftist PAC that has as two of its objectives forcing the Boy Scouts to accept homosexuals and removing "under God" from the Pledge?
Well, does she?
Lastly, no one is saying you don't have the free speech to speak out about what you perceive to be a wrong-headed policy, Steve. That is, if you think the Scouts' policy against gay Scout masters is inane, by all means say so. And, work to change it. I consider myself to be libertarian and as such believe (as libertarians should) that gay and atheist Americans should have the same rights as any other American. But these rights include the right of free association, which gay and atheist Americans also [should] have ... and have to respect of others.
First place in the Council category was Bookworm Room with "Why Obama’s 'share the wealth' argument should hurt him."
First place in the non-Council category was Hot Air with "The Comprehensive Argument Against Barack Obama."
Full results are here.
Jesse Jackson on how the US's view of Israel (and the Jewish lobby) will change if Barack Obama wins on November 4th:
PREPARE for a new America: That's the message that the Rev. Jesse Jackson conveyed to participants in the first World Policy Forum, held at this French lakeside resort last week.
He promised "fundamental changes" in US foreign policy - saying America must "heal wounds" it has caused to other nations, revive its alliances and apologize for the "arrogance of the Bush administration."
The most important change would occur in the Middle East, where "decades of putting Israel's interests first" would end.
Jackson believes that, although "Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades" remain strong, they'll lose a great deal of their clout when Barack Obama enters the White House.
Those damn Joooooooos again, right Jesse? It might be time for another Jackson explanation/apology akin to the one he offered back in the early 80s when he referred to New York City as "Hymietown":
These hateful and disgusting incidents are happening so often that I really think that any honorable and moral person, no matter if they are a diehard liberal or Democrat, cannot vote for Obama lest they be branded by incidents like this for all eternity. How can you align yourself with someone who would actually carve Barack's first initial into the face of a supporter of John McCain? How can you align yourself with someone who would vandalize a fellow human being merely because another person wants to vote for McCain?
UPDATE: It's been proven a hoax. I conceded as much immediately over at DE Politics where John Feroce wrote about the "incident." My post here, as Joe M. noted in the comments, is a satire on the asininity that is DelawareDem.
Thanks to commenter "dan" for the breaking news!
UPDATE 2: Still waiting for acknowledgment of the faux story by "people" like DelawareDem regarding the "Kill him!" (Barack Obama) shouts at that PA Palin rally.
Should I wait for hell to freeze over first?
UPDATE 3: If this had happened on the other side, the hoax maker and his/her supporters would be clamoring that it "didn't matter" whether the attack actually happened or not -- the important thing is to point out how "violent and disparaging" the GOP and conservatives are during campaigns.
UPDATE 4: Marvel at how the MSM -- which showed virtually no interest in the story at the onset -- is now headlining it now that is proven to be a hoax. CNN and AOL were two that I saw late this afternoon.
The bar scene from "48 Hours" (profanity alert):
That would be the "James Brown Celebrity Hot Tub":
Tyler is one of the smartest dudes I know, so tune in and "get learned!"
One of its reporters fantasized about "taking out" Rudy Giuliani.
Check out the headline from syracuse.com's AP updates page:
Electing a president: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
They must be getting ready for our next president's "transformative" policies!
UPDATE: They've changed the headline; however, there's always the ever-lovin' Google cache version to prove it actually existed!
The Hill reports on possible unrest in "urban areas" if Barack Obama loses the election:
Some worry that if Barack Obama loses and there is suspicion of foul play in the election, violence could ensue in cities with large black populations. Others based the need for enhanced patrols on past riots in urban areas (following professional sports events) and also on Internet rumors.
Sen. Obama (Ill.), the Democratic nominee for president, has seen his lead over rival Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) grow in recent weeks, prompting speculation that there could be a violent backlash if he loses unexpectedly.
Indeed. Nothing like seeing a lead shrink in the last few weeks before an election -- as happens all the time historically. I wonder what would happen if John McCain or Sarah Palin had suggested that police should "be ready" in urban areas should they win the election. 'Ya think the usual suspects would have dubbed such a sentiment as ... "racist?"
Then there's this:
Political observers such as Hilary Shelton and James Carville fear that record voter turnout could overload polling places on Election Day and could raise tension levels.
Shelton, the director of the NAACP’s Washington bureau, said inadequate voting facilities is a bigger problem in poor communities with large numbers of minorities.
And which party controls these areas, pray tell? Does this party ever get any blame for their unpreparedness in such cases? Hell no. If the GOP ran these election boards there'd be protests, cries of racism and calls for federal investigations now, wouldn't there? But alas, just like the idiot Democrats who created the infamous butterfly ballot in Florida, no hassle is given to those who are actually responsible.
... the elitist MSM telling all McCain backers how "racist" we all are, that is. Today it's (surprise) Deborah Leavy in the Philly Daily News:
IN MEMPHIS last weekend, I made sure to go to the Civil Rights Museum. It's attached to the Lorraine Motel, where Martin Luther King was fatally shot in 1968. Visiting it is an intensely emotional experience. Walking through the museum, I encountered a burned bus used by the Freedom Riders, films of police using firehoses to scatter black children, photos of the beatings on Bloody Sunday in Selma, Ala., and of black and white college students at a segregated lunch counter sitting stoically as ketchup was poured on their heads by angry white toughs.
It was a stark reminder that a vein of racism runs deep in America, a vein that John McCain has sadly tapped into by exploiting the fear of the "other" deeply embedded in all human beings.
"Who is Barack Obama?"
"Too risky for America."
"Pals around with terrorists."
"He doesn't view our country like you and I do."
These code words serve to remind white people that "That One" is different, not like us.
Isn't Leavy such a damn good liberal? See how she "expertly" weaves her "emotional" experience at that Memphis museum into an even better experience -- that of "progressive" race baiter? What better way to advance up the rung of "progressive" elitist punditry than to exploit the race of one of the presidential candidates at the expense of the other.
"Who is Barack Obama" cannot in any way be a legitimate question. No sir. Even though the mainstream media hasn't done its g**damned job and truly vetted who may be our next president. To ask this question is "racism."
"Too risky for America" isn't a legitimate statement even though much of what we've been lucky enough to actually learn about Obama makes him ... risky. He's stated he'd rather appoint Supreme Court justices who rule based on their feelings as opposed to what the Constitution says. His view on abortion rights makes him an absolutist on the subject. He said he'd meet with some of the world's most dangerous dictators without preconditions, yet it took him almost a year to actually agree to be interviewed by Fox News. But, to think all the above, in the mind of idiots like Leavy, isn't a legitimate concern, you see. It's ... wait for it ... "racism."
"Pals around with terrorists" can't be a legitimate concern either, even though Barack Obama has ... palled around with a terrorist. Bill Ayers has never, ever repented for his terrorist past; in fact, he has lamented that he didn't do MORE to help "bring down" the American government. Stanley Kurtz has dissected Obama's relationship with Ayers and has proven it goes far beyond any "mere acquaintance" that Obama has repeatedly claimed. But to bring up this point isn't to voice concern about such an association. No. It's "racism." And this doesn't even touch upon the lunacy that is Jeremiah Wright, for that takes us to the next point ...
"He doesn't view our country like you and I do." You spend some TWENTY YEARS in the church of a guy who rips the United States in every possible way imaginable ... a church which has advertised literature which includes treatises by Arab "intellectuals" who claim that Jews have developed an "anti-black and anti-Arab" bomb ... and one cannot raise the point that this is far from mainstream thinking? A church that espouses the so-called "black value system?" No. To raise this point is, again, RACISM.
The good thing about a**holes like Leavy is that the nation is absolutely weary of their tripe. I wonder if they ever paused to consider that it is THEY who are doing more real damage to race relations by invoking "racism" everywhere they turn. Y'know, I think they may indeed realize they do this. But they don't care. It's all about two things for these peons: 1) as noted, getting into the "in" crowd among the chattering class -- getting invited to those brie and wine parties on the Main Line, and 2) making out conservatives and Republicans as racial "villains" at any cost, no matter how specious the claim is.
(h/t to the insurmountable Gooch for the tip!)
UPDATE More asininity here.
MSNBC.com has an article up today about idiot parents who argue with school officials -- and even get arrested in the process for causing such a ruckus -- over ... a school's dress code.
Gina Castillo, of Lawrence, Mass., and her 16-year-old son were charged with resisting arrest and assault and battery on a police officer after Castillo confronted officials at Lawrence High School this month. Administrators had suspended the boy, who was not identified because he is a juvenile, for a “uniform matter,” forcing him to miss three days of classes and an important test.
School officials called police when Castillo got into a heated argument with the school’s safety officer about the uniform policy. When officers arrived, they told her she would be arrested if she did not leave. According to police, Castillo responded, “Arrest me.” Her son was arrested when he tried to intervene.
Terrific values Ms. Castillo is instilling in her boy, eh? Don't get your way? Get arrested and resort to physical violence. God help a teacher who may have given her angel a low grade.
Last month, Shabraia Dodd, 15, was charged with assault on a police officer after she was arrested for wearing a jacket to East Ridge High School in East Ridge, Tenn. Shabraia acknowledged that she was in violation of the dress code, which prohibits wearing jackets in class, but she said she was recovering from a cold and had offered to remove the jacket after class.
Um, you don't get arrested for "wearing a jacket." You get arrested for continually disregarding school officials' requests. What most likely happened here was the following: 1) A teacher asked Dodd to take off the jacket. 2) She refused. 3) Teacher asked again. 4) She refused again. 5) Teacher either sent her out of class (and she refused to leave) or teacher called for an administrator; Dodd refused to go with administrator. 6) Administrator attempted to grasp Dodd to escort her out of the class. 7) Dodd became physically violent in response to administrator "touching" her. 8) Police were summoned in response to Dodd' physical actions (and, most likely, accompanying profanity).
And at North High School in Akron, Ohio, dozens of students were suspended earlier this month after nearly 100 challenged the dress code by wearing hooded sweatshirts. A spokeswoman for the Akron Public Schools District said most of the students agreed to take their hoodies off when faced with discipline, but more than 30 refused and were sent home for insubordination.
In other words, "We're all freakin' spoiled brats and we want to do as we freakin' wish." I'm sure many of their parents back them up, too.
The lead story featured several parents who contacted -- wait for it -- the ACLU in response to their kiddies not being allowed to wear an "in memoriam"-type t-shirt for a student who was killed. The article doesn't say explicitly, but it could be easily implied that there is some sort of gang overtones in this whole matter.
Maybe I get too miffed at stories like these since here in Delaware school choice allows parents to decide where to send their kids. If you don't like a school's dress code, you go somewhere else. It's very simple. But that aside, what is it about parents that feel making a federal case out of dress code actually teaches the kid something?? And don't give me that "They're teaching them about freedom of expression" or "Showing them how to dissent" nonsense. No, they're not. They're teaching them to be conceited "you owe me's" who should have all their needs catered to. I imagine these same parents think their kids' future employers will allow them to wear whatever the hell they want in that law office, right? That bank, right? Check it: WRONG!!!
Simply put, adhering to a sensible dress code shows simple respect and decency. As TV and popular culture make dressing like a thug and/or whore more and more prevalent, and as "parents" allow kids to leave the home dressed same, the very LEAST a school can do is maintain a simple dress code.
To be sure, some of the examples cited in the article for dress code violators are certainly idiotic. No kid should be suspended immediately for violating the code. (Constant violations and/or refusal to change clothes can warrant suspension, however.) The school that made violators change into a prison-like jumpsuit? WTF?? IDIOTIC! Why stigmatize a kid so? My school maintains a supply of "approved district wear" -- [mainly] shirts with our school logo (or that of other schools in the district) that students can wear for the day and return at the end of the day if they forget to wear garb acceptable by the dress code.
No, she isn't. But since The Messiah's campaign (and its willing MSM partners) know that being called a "racist" is akin to the Scarlet Letter (although it sure is losing is potency as a**holes misuse the term more and more), well, why not? Let's go for it:
"She has no sensitivity to minorities," said the Rev. Alonzo Patterson, a Baptist minister and president of the Alaska Black Leadership Conference. "She's really inciting a lot of African-Americans to get out and vote.''
Since taking office in December 2006, Palin has had a sometimes tense relationship with black leaders, who say they've been ignored in their efforts to get more minorities hired in her administration.
Let's set aside the utter nonsense that is the Rev. Patterson's reliance on the moronic MSM for his news on the Palin campaign's "insensitivity." Once again we see "racial insensitivity" equated to racial "bean counting" -- the 'ol "proportionate representation" racket. How often have the race hustlers tried to make a case for racism based on this? Too often, it seems, and they sure as hell must like being seen as complete idiots. For, if proportionate representation was an actual indicator of a non-racist society, all sports teams would be racially balanced (the NFL and NBA, to name two, would be approx. 70% Caucasian) and HBCs wouldn't exist anymore or, at least, would be 70% white.
But that's the thing -- proportionate representation is NOT an indicator of a non-racist society. It is an indicator of an AUTHORITARIAN society, one based on government enforcement of a Utopian [racial] "ideal" which bears no resemblance to real society. A real democratic society is based on equal OPPORTUNITY; it is then the individual which decides how to make the most of that opportunity.
Alec Baldwin's cameo from "Glengarry Glen Ross." (Warning: Profanity alert.)
I've added a new blog to the "Favorite Reads" section titled Unfair Doctrine. It deals with political efforts to suppress free speech, an issue of great interest to me.
How 'bout those St. Louis Rams? Last week they beat Washington in D.C.; this week they destroy the Dallas Cowboys 34-14!
USA Today needs to read up on American history. Just a little.
Forty-eight states provide various rights to carry firearms. Illinois and Wisconsin do not, according to the National Rifle Association. In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court in June carved out a right to individual gun ownership, ruling that the Second Amendment allows citizens to keep guns in their homes for self-defense.
I wonder if USA Today (or any other media) has used the phrased "carved out a right" when describing, say, abortion? Or, say, a right to an attorney? Heh. But a right which is explicitly provided for in the Constitution? The high court "made it up."
Reports of infighting at MSNBC, where hosts on the cable news network have been criticized for being too liberal: “I’ve said all I’m going to say about it. What I think is fascinating to me is that Keith (Olbermann) and Chris (Matthews) and now Rachel (Maddow), for that matter, are doing their commentary extremely well. And nobody raises this about Fox (News Channel), which is astonishing to me. If you look at them, they’ve got a pretty strong filter on all day long.”
Dude. Only the most ridiculously isolated recluse could make such an asinine statement.
In one, they've voiced an opinion. On the other, not so much. See if you can guess which is which.
The New York City teachers’ union filed a federal lawsuit on Friday claiming that a policy banning political pins and signs in schools violates teachers’ First Amendment rights by blocking them from political expression.
Randi Weingarten, president of the union, the United Federation of Teachers, said that while the policy has been on the books for more than two decades, it has rarely been enforced, and that teachers have routinely worn political buttons as recently as this year’s presidential primaries.
But in the lawsuit, the union — which has endorsed Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee — states that the principal of Community School 134 in the Bronx removed an Obama poster that a teacher placed on the union bulletin board, and that a teacher at another school who wore political buttons was warned against it.
Ms. Weingarten, who is also president of the American Federation of Teachers, and spoke at the Democratic National Convention in August, said that for a quarter of a century she had watched teachers “balance their obligations as professionals and their responsibilities as citizens.” She added that “teachers, maybe more than others, understand how important democracy is and how important the Constitution is, particularly the Bill of Rights.” (Source.)
The union is being assisted by Norman Siegel, formerly of the -- yep -- ACLU, who said
“We are just weeks away from a landmark presidential election that is being discussed in classrooms and at dinner tables across the nation,” and added, “Students can only benefit from being exposed to and engaged in a dialogue about current events.”
Right. I'm sure it's very "engaging" to "dialogue" with your teacher about the election when he/she has an Obama button on, and you're a McCain supporter. Let's see ... the teacher controls your grade, there's a definite power relationship (the teacher has it all)... unbelievable.
Elsewhere in Carlisle, PA, a teacher has been barred from participating in a student-led prayer event:
For the last six years, Cheryl Holquist, a science teacher at Carlisle High School, has met 50 students and more than a dozen teachers on the last Wednesday in September for 30 minutes of prayer as part of the national See You at the Pole event.
Holquist, who advises the high school's Christian-oriented Crossroads Club, wasn't there this year because she had other plans -- but she wouldn't have been allowed to show up anyway.
A new district guideline prohibits teacher participation in student-sponsored religious activities.
"It's an issue because [the prayer at the pole] takes place on school grounds," solicitor Jim Flower Jr. said. "That makes it sensitive." So does the fact that the prayer event happens right before school starts," he said.
Sara Rose, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, backed up Flower's opinion. While a student's right to expression is fairly clear-cut, a teacher's right is more of a gray area, Rose said. (Source.)
What a surprise, eh? Those [supposed] "Guardians of the Bill of Rights" are absolutists when it comes to that First Amendment ... except, of course when it comes to that "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" clause.
Here's the deal: In the first case, having to take down the Obama flyer from the union bulletin board is ridiculous. It only applies to teachers, not students (students wouldn't even see it). On the other hand, outright support of a certain political candidate on school time may or may not violate the First Amendment; however, it is (or should be) a blatant violation of a teacher's job description. In addition, the Hatch Act provisions for employees of the "executive branch, state and local employees who are principally employed in connection with programs financed in whole or in part by loans or grants made by the United States or a federal agency," has the following prohibitions for employees:
- be candidates for public office in partisan elections
- campaign for or against a candidate or slate of candidates in partisan elections
- make campaign speeches
- collect contributions or sell tickets to political fund raising functions
- distribute campaign material in partisan elections
- organize or manage political rallies or meetings
- hold office in political clubs or parties
- circulate nominating petitions
- work to register voters for one party only
- wear political buttons at work
There is a provision of the Hatch Act for local and state employees; however, see if you can make sense of the following:
The Hatch Act applies to executive branch state and local employees who are principally employed in connection with programs financed in whole or in part by loans or grants made by the United States or a federal agency. Employees who work for educational or research institutions which are supported in whole or in part by a State or political subdivision of the State are not covered by the provisions of the Hatch Act.
I emphasized part of the above previously because I don't know of any school district which isn't "financed in whole or in part by loans or grants made by the United States or a federal agency." This provision would make virtually ALL schools fall under the federal Hatch guidelines. However, the second clause seems to negate that first clause as school districts are ALSO financed by local and state governments! The Hatch Act provisions for state and local employees are less restrictive.
In the second case, schools are NOT prohibited from allowing religious-oriented activities on their campuses (if sectarian activities are allowed, schools cannot discriminate against religious activities). However, the "See You at the Pole" prayer takes place before the official school day, is student-sponsored, and is NOT in any way backed by the school district.
If a student sees a teacher at this "Pole" event before school hours, this would be no different from, say, witnessing a teacher getting out of his car in the parking lot before school starts and seeing him with an Obama button on, or an Obama bumper sticker on his car.
But again, what's not surprising at all in these stories is the ACLU's stance. Just like its "let's imagine the 2nd Amendment isn't in the Bill of Rights" view of gun rights, the First Amendment is absolute -- except when it comes to any semblance of religious expression.
The GOP has no one to blame for the coming series of events but themselves; however, as I stated in a previous post, an Obama presidency could serve to reinvigorate the GOP as never before -- especially if what the Wall St. Journal opines today becomes reality. Let's take a gander at a few of the items:
Free speech and voting rights. A liberal supermajority would move quickly to impose procedural advantages that could cement Democratic rule for years to come. One early effort would be national, election-day voter registration. This is a long-time goal of Acorn and others on the "community organizer" left and would make it far easier to stack the voter rolls. The District of Columbia would also get votes in Congress -- Democratic, naturally. Felons may also get the right to vote nationwide, while the Fairness Doctrine is likely to be reimposed either by Congress or the Obama FCC. A major goal of the supermajority left would be to shut down talk radio and other voices of political opposition.
Being the non-lawyer lover of constitutional law that I am, I am wondering how Congress could permit the DC delegates to cast votes that count. Aren't only representatives of states permitted that right? Would a constitutional amendment be necessary? Would a law allowing ex-felons to vote be challenged at the SCOTUS as an infringement on states' rights?
Even if Congress (and Obama) get away with just these two items, just consider the ramifications for 2010. Just imagine the campaign commercials for GOP House and Senate candidates: "Democrats have all the power in Washington. And what do they do with it? Give felons the right to vote. Why would they do that? For the same reasons they are against showing identification before you vote, and against allowing election boards to verify voters' eligibility to actually vote."
Or, "The Democrats are drunk on their newfound power in Washington. What did they do once they got this power? Try to increase their power even more by allowing delegates from Washington DC (and other territories) -- which are not states -- to cast binding votes in the House."
Then there's the issue that blew away Bill Clinton's Democratic Congress back in 1994:
When HillaryCare cratered in 1994, the Democrats concluded they had overreached, so they carved up the old agenda into smaller incremental steps, such as Schip for children. A strongly Democratic Congress is now likely to lay the final flagstones on the path to government-run health insurance from cradle to grave.
Mr. Obama wants to build a public insurance program, modeled after Medicare and open to everyone of any income. According to the Lewin Group, the gold standard of health policy analysis, the Obama plan would shift between 32 million and 52 million from private coverage to the huge new entitlement. Like Medicare or the Canadian system, this would never be repealed.
The commitments would start slow, so as not to cause immediate alarm. But as U.S. health-care spending flowed into the default government options, taxes would have to rise or services would be rationed, or both. Single payer is the inevitable next step, as Mr. Obama has already said is his ultimate ideal.
Perhaps Obama and the Dems should take a gander at what happened in Hawaii. They had to ditch "universal childcare" because -- what a surprise -- it became too expensive and overcrowded:
Hawaii is dropping the only state universal child health care program in the country just seven months after it launched.
Gov. Linda Lingle's administration cited budget shortfalls and other available health care options for eliminating funding for the program. A state official said families were dropping private coverage so their children would be eligible for the subsidized plan.
"People who were already able to afford health care began to stop paying for it so they could get it for free," said Dr. Kenny Fink, the administrator for Med-QUEST at the Department of Human Services. "I don't believe that was the intent of the program."
It never is, Dr. Fink. But that's what tends to happen when you offer something for "free." Now, apply that to a national level and we'll have what the WSJ stated above -- higher taxes AND rationed care. Long waits for an office visit. Even longer for a specialist. Triage-like decisions for operations. The horror stories from nationalized healthcare countries (like Canada and England) are endless.
First place in the Council category was Joshuapundit with The Jewish Stockholm Syndrome. (Colossus finished second this week, by the way.)
First place in the non-Council category was Jim Hoft/Pajamas Media with The Complete Guide To ACORN Voter Fraud.
Full results can be seen here.
(h/t to Duffy.)
... check out these "progressive" arguments against parental rights when it comes to allowing parents to "opt out" of a pro-gay school curriculum:
The Human Rights Campaign Amicus Curiae Brief: “There is no constitutional principle grounded in either the First Amendment’s free exercise clause or the right to direct the upbringing of one’s children, which requires defendants to either remove the books now in issue – or to treat them as suspect by imposing an opt-out system.”
From the ACLU Amicus Curiae Brief: “Specifically, the parents in this case do not have a constitutional right to override the professional pedagogical judgment of the school with respect to the inclusion within the curriculum of the age-appropriate children’s book…King and King.”
Now, a good libertarian should be all for equal rights for gay Americans. But likewise, a good libertarian should also be staunchly for the right of parents to raise their children as they see fit. While in my opinion I don't believe that individual parents should have what amounts to "veto power" over an aspect of the school curriculum (although, parents en masse could certainly -- and rightfully -- do so by electing representatives to the school board), the Human Rights Campaign view that parents cannot even opt-out of a rather sensitive pedagogical segment is just plain un-American and undemocratic. What they are saying above essentially amounts to parents' feelings as to what is best for their child is irrelevant because it might "make others feel bad."
Worse, the HRC and ACLU -- two groups which could "find" just about any "right" in the Constitution imaginable -- are adamant that that very same document doesn't afford parents any rights regarding their own children. (That is, unless a mother decides she wants to abort an unborn child -- then that is OK and perfectly constitutional.)
This, I believe, is perfectly summed up as what Jonah Goldberg terms "liberal fascism."
From the Newsbusters e-mail tipline, which goes to many contributors, not just me:
As a canadan [sic] watching with interest, You citzens [sic] for first time have a great visonarist [sic] in Ombam [sic]. In Canada we pay higher taxes but the pay off is worth it with free health care. I have been very ill and I am more than every [sic] been looked after with no added expence to my family. They do not treat you like a credit card but like the patent [sic] you are. I belive [sic] health care should be available for everyone on this planet, without the worry of bankrupting your family or haveing [sic] insurance companys [sic] with no medical experance [sic] tell you what should be done to help you.
OK, I have just a few questions. One, who the hell is Ombam? And two, why the hell would someone want to be treated like a patent??
Seriously, though, I always get a kick out of those who think things like Canadian healthcare is "free." Nothing is free, folks. (At least this spelling impaired Canuck admits that they pay higher taxes for their healthcare, but at the same time can't distinguish between that and the concept of "free!") Sorry, but I've heard enough about the "care" one gets north of the border and I, for one, will pass on it.
Lastly, we Americans for the first time have a great visionary in Obama? I'll be nice and just say that not only is that one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever heard, but it belittles America's true great visionary presidents.
The dude who apparently yelled "Kill him!" at Barack Obama at a McCain-Palin rally in Scranton ... did no such thing:
The agent in charge of the Secret Service field office in Scranton said allegations that someone yelled “kill him” when presidential hopeful Barack Obama’s name was mentioned during Tuesday’s Sarah Palin rally are unfounded.
The Scranton Times-Tribune first reported the alleged incident on its Web site Tuesday and then again in its print edition Wednesday. The first story, written by reporter David Singleton, appeared with allegations that while congressional candidate Chris Hackett was addressing the crowd and mentioned Oabama’s name a man in the audience shouted “kill him."
News organizations including ABC, The Associated Press, The Washington Monthly and MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann reported the claim, with most attributing the allegations to the Times-Tribune story.
No, really?? ABC, the AP and ... Olbermann picked up on this story?? Who'da thought!!!
“We have yet to find someone to back up the story,” [Secret Service agent Bill] Slavoski said. “We had people all over and we have yet to find anyone who said they heard it.”
The Times-Tribune stands by their story. That's great -- the reporter is the one who heard the remark, so that's why it got reported. But no one else heard it. So now we have the [liberal] MSM making up [anti-GOP] news instead of just "reporting" [anti-GOP] news.
In other news regarding the Secret Service, according to a report from The Lufkin Daily News, SS (maybe that's not the best abbreviation in this case) showed up at the door of one Jessica Hughes of Texas.
Two federal agents arrived at Jessica Hughes' home Thursday to ask her if she said, "I will never support Obama and he will wind up dead on a hospital floor." Hughes said her words were deliberately twisted by a volunteer who was apparently unhappy Hughes was rude during a phone conversation the two had. The Lufkin mother, a Republican, said she received a call on her cell phone Wednesday from a woman with the Obama Volunteers of Texarkana.
"She asked if I was an Obama supporter, to which I replied, 'No, I don't support him. Your guy is a socialist who voted four times in the state Senate to let little babies die in hospital closets; I think you should find something better to do with your time.' (And then) I hung up."
(Hughes is referring to a "born alive" Illinois bill that did not pass in the Illinois state Senate in 2005 and had previously been opposed by Obama because he said it undermined Roe v. Wade, according to FactCheck.org, a non-partisan organization. A federal version of the bill, which Obama said he would have supported, passed by unanimous consent and was signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2002.)
How d'ya like that? What's next -- a citation for hanging up on telemarketers? Hell, I'd be royally pissed off too if an Obama minion called my cell phone asking for my support. And if there is no proof of what Ms. Hughes actually said, what the hell can the Secret Service do? Why would they take the word of an Obama minion over that of an average joe(ess)? And how often must this happen across the land -- with thousands of campaign workers calling thousands -- millions -- of voters asking for their support of their candidate? McCain and Obama aren't even president yet anyway (and neither is an incumbent).
Obama lackeys -- making up the news AND taking offense at different political philosophies. It's gonna be an interesting next four years, folks!
He must, with asinine comments like this: "There is no question that western Pennsylvania is a racist area."
If that's true, why do both the Steelers and the Pirates wear black?
Keith Olbermann, who once mocked incessantly John McCain for still using the country label of "Czechoslovakia" (even though Olbermann had used the term several times himself after the country's split), now gets to watch his androgynous protege Rachel Maddow do the same thing.
MSNBC's Oct. 13 "Rachel Maddow Show" must not have read that memo. After launching into a Keith Olbermann-esque tirade criticizing Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain's geographic campaign strategy, the best and the brightest couldn't correctly label the state of Indiana, mistaking it for Illinois - which ironically is Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama's home state.
Check out the video capture:
Well, after all, Olbermann's and Maddow's Chosen One will soon be president of the 57 states, remember?
Check out the video here.
Seattle finally comes to its senses after bowing to edu-crat nonsense.
... (as does as our own nutjobs here in the DE leftosphere), there's nary a word about these neanderthals.
Why is that, MSM? Why?
Last Thursday night 'da wife and I had the incredible pleasure of hanging with that Venezuelan super-group, Los Amigos Invisibles. They played at Penn's World Café, which also has a terrific menu at their restaurant. The crowd wasn't as wall-bustingly huge as at past concerts; 'da wife and I attributed that to the adjacent [home] Phillies game, the first against the Dodgers for the National League Championship.
Nevertheless, the crowd was rockin' and jammin'. Lead man Julio Briceño (aka "Chulius") gave yours truly a shout out as the band intro'd my favorite Amigos tune, "Encántame." Bass player José Torres (aka "Catire") invited us backstage after the show. We also helped the band get settled into their hotel, and then we treated Catire, drummer Juan Roura (aka "Mamulo") and guitarist José Luís Pardo (aka "Cheo") to drinks at the nearby Irish Pub. We closed down the place (meaning last call at 2:00am), natch!
The St. Louis Rams -- wait for it -- WON A GAME TODAY!! They beat the 4-1 Washington Redskins IN Washington.
CBS News relies -- relies! -- on the Associated Press for information on Sarah Palin's use of taxpayer funds for "religious purposes." But before taking into consideration what the AP "reports," one must first take into account what the AP "knows" about American history. You'll find this "knowledge" in the third paragraph of their report:
An Associated Press review of the Republican vice presidential candidate's record as Wasilla mayor and Alaska governor reveals her use of elected office to promote religious causes, sometimes at taxpayer expense and in ways that blur the line between church and state. The U.S. Constitution provides for the separation of church and state.
No. It. Doesn't. Nowhere in the Constitution does it "provide" for such a concept. Here's what the First Amendment actually says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...
The phrase "separation between church and state" was first used by Thomas Jefferson in his famous Danbury letter. And, noteworthy, Jefferson was not concerned with what state governments did; his worry was reserved for the national government -- as was the original meaning of the First Amendment when it was conceived by the Founders. A not very well known fact of American history is that individual state churches continued to exist for many years after the Constitution -- with its First Amendment -- was adopted as our governing document. But ... "how can that be??" flummoxed "progressives" may ask. Simple: As noted above, Jefferson and the Founders intended that the First Amendment's religion clause pertain to the federal (national) government. Individual states could do as they wished. [Individual] state churches did not disappear because some plaintiff litigated them out of business; they vanished simply because of waning interest and attendance. In other words, they became an anachronism.
After the Civil War and the adoption of the "slave" amendments (13, 14 and 15), the concept of not only the First Amendment but all the Bill of Rights was altered. Specifically, the 14th Amendment was viewed as "applying" the Bill of Rights to the individual states (the best known case is probably Everson from 1947). "Progressive" interpretation of the First Amendment, while expanding the overall sphere of free expression, began to limit the [public] religious aspect of that expression.
The AP's purpose was obviously to portray Sarah Palin as some sort of religious extremist, and wanted to use the Constitution as their basis. Unfortunately, far too many Americans would read what the AP wrote and go "Ohhh! She's going against the Constitution!" If the AP actually wanted to be fair, they wouldn't have written "The U.S. Constitution provides for the separation of church and state;" instead, they'd have used something akin to "The US Supreme Court, especially over the last 50 years, has increasingly determined that many interminglings of religion and government violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution."
Bob "I'm Gonna Find Out Where the Florida Electors Live" Beckel and Marc "Hip Hop 'Intellectual' Professor" Hill perfectly demonstrate the preposterous double standard in the media when it comes to [racial] labeling. I mean, just IMAGINE if a GOP strategist and conservative college professor (if they could actually find one) agreed that Barack Obama would "be comfy" in an inner city "project."
View the video here.
What happens when you criticize Obama ... in a word.
... from the chattering class (aka the MSM) about how clandestine white racism will derail Obama's candidacy, check out the results of this latest Gallup poll:
Gallup found that only six and seven percent of white voters polled even found race a factor at all, with six percent saying they'd be less likely to vote for Obama based on race and seven percent actually saying they are more likely to vote for Obama because of his race. That pretty much cancels each other out, I'd say.
But of note are the non-whites that say they will vote for Obama because of his race. About double the amount of non-whites (15%) said they are more likely to vote for Obama because he's black as well as less likely to vote for McCain based on his race (13%).
One of the only people to point out this hypocrisy (unfortunately) has been Pat Buchanan. Nevertheless, the next time you read some big city columnist opine that "racists may cost Obama the election," or a pundit-dolt like Roland Martin clamoring about clandestine bigotry yada yada yada and how it affects The Messiah, just do this:
Smirk and giggle. That's all.
... well, it's because Louis Farrakhan has said he is, dammit!
Wonder if Perry will send Louie an e-mail blasting him for his sacrilege ...
... now it's Harry Reid's turn.
Keep in mind -- if we have a President Obama, virtually any criticism of him, as we've seen ad nauseum in this campaign, will somehow be dubbed "racist."
Scary -- but all too real -- story in the Philly Daily News today:
LOOKING BACK on her brief stint as a Philadelphia schoolteacher causes "Rebecca" to shake her head sorrowfully.
Every day of that career, she says, she had to break up fights between her fourth-graders, who cursed and threatened each other - often making good on the taunts.
She spent far more time on discipline than on teaching.
Administrators at Samuel H. Daroff School offered her little help and did not provide a promised mentor teacher, she says.
So, on the seventh day of classes, Rebecca quit - walking away from a $41,000-a-year job in the School District of Philadelphia.
Rebecca - not her real name - has $50,000 in student loans, but says she does not regret leaving because her mental health was at stake.
"It was the worst experience of my life," she says of the first day of class, Sept. 4, at the West Philadelphia school.
Many teachers, administrators and union officials often talk of "hazard pay," a euphemism for extra salary for teaching in "difficult" schools -- "difficult" meaning where students are essentially out of control. But how much extra pay would be sufficient to entice teachers to "teach" (in quotes since not much actual teaching gets done in such schools) in such schools? $5K? $10K? $20K?
I don't know, but I do know this: I wouldn't take a job in such a school if they offered me double my salary. Is such a high salary worth the price of attempting -- virtually each and every day of the week, class period after class period -- to maintain control of a class of students who want to fight, scream and run around, and yell profanity at each other -- and at you? "Rebecca" was right -- the cost alone in mental health would be tremendous. Hell, your general health alone would suffer appreciably as anxiety levels would never recede. Adrenaline racing through your veins constantly ... and at what cost?
Teachers are fleeing the district, she reasons, because they are tired of having to put up with out-of-control students while receiving little or no help from school administrators.
"Those people who are higher up in the district need to get honest about what is going on in the schools in this city. You cannot hide behind music-teacher and special-education-teacher shortages and an interim contract," she huffs, seated at the dining-room table in the tidy Northeast Philadelphia townhouse she shares with her parents.
I think this is what way too many outside of education don't fully grasp. (And by "outside" I mean parents and not-in-the-classroom edu-crats and administrators.) The impulse is often to blame teachers for out of control students and classes. Either they're not "trained" properly or they need some sort of "special inservice lessons" on something like "[white] teacher racism and privilege." And many with this impulse are, again as noted, often administrators. But if a school is perceived as a "problem" school, I say you can usually bet that its administration is "weak" -- they will either make excuses for kids who cause problems, ignore them altogether, and/or make trouble for teachers who actually attempt to enforce what those in the "real world" would consider proper and just discipline.
As administrators and edu-crats continue "to study" the issue of "problem schools," a thing called Occam's Razor comes to mind: "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." And what is that in this case? I like the Joe Clark approach to "tough" schools: Get rid of the thugs and hoodlums, for starters, especially those who are over 16 years of age. Remember what Clark says at his unforgettable first lecture to the school: "You are all expurgated. You are dismissed! You are out of here, forever." This isn't as easy as it was made to seem, however. It was only briefly touched on that Clark got into hot water for booting these kids (one of which was a mom of one of the thugs who later made a deal with the mayor to get rid of Clark. Some "mom," eh?) But actions such as Clark's should be made easier to accomplish. There are too many in education who believe that, no matter what, ANY student has a "right" to be in a classroom. It doesn't matter how many times a kid has been in trouble; it doesn't matter how many times the kid has threatened other students and/or teacher; it doesn't matter how many times the kid has been arrested! To these such edu-crats, this kid has a RIGHT to be in the classroom.
But what about those kids who are school for the actual purpose of school? Y'know, to learn? What about their rights?
To be sure, many administrators are hamstrung by their higher-ups and by lawyers (district and/or those hired by troublemaker students' parents). School districts have a financial choice to make in that "is it worth the cost to fight a legal battle over whether a kid can remain in school, or just let him back in?" Then there's the issue of what to do with the "trouble" students once they're banished from regular school. The most obvious response to that is to establish more "alternative schools," staffed by strict disciplinarians (preferably ex-military) and those specializing in behavioral problems and disorders.
But then this opens up a whole can of other worms: What would it take -- in other words, how many disruptions/types of infractions would it take for a student to get sent to an alternative school? And what about the political difficulties involved in those decisions, such as charges of bias ... and/or racism?
The bottom line is that something must change in [public] schools in order for them to survive. We have seen some changes -- like those right here in Delaware, most as a result of the public becoming fed up with a lot of said edu-crat nonsense. Probably the most significant development is the prodigious growth of charter schools. In addition, [public] school choice has been massively taken advantage of here in the first state. Parents know which schools possess the no-nonsense administrations (and teachers). If you don't want the public to "vote with their feet," one of the simplest answers is to just "stop the nonsense.
First place in the Council category was Wolf Howling with Hurricane Subprime - Part I (1977-2000).
First place in the non-Council category was Baseball Crank with The Integrity Gap, Part I of III: Gov. Sarah Palin.
Full results can be viewed here.
... has a new book coming out. (That would be William Ayers, by the way.) The title is Race Course Against White Supremacy and is co-authored by Ayers' co-terrorist wife, Bernardine Dohrn. Here's the book's description:
White supremacy and its troubling endurance in American life is debated in these personal essays by two veteran political activists. Arguing that white supremacy has been the dominant political system in the United States since its earliest days—and that it is still very much with us—the discussion points to unexamined bigotry in the criminal justice system, election processes, war policy, and education. The book draws upon the authors' own confrontations with authorities during the Vietnam era, reasserts their belief that racism and war are interwoven issues, and offers personal stories about their lives today as parents, teachers, and reformers.
Sounds ... "interesting." Here's the "About the Author" blurb. My additions of what should also be included are in bold:
William C. Ayers is a distinguished professor of education and a senior university scholar at the University of Illinois–Chicago. He remains unrepentant about his terrorist past, which included plans to blow up the Pentagon. His past may be best summed up with his quote, "Guilty as hell. Free as a bird. America is a great country." He is the author of To Teach: The Journey of a Teacher and Fugitive Days, a memoir about his life with his wife, Bernardine Dohrn. Bernardine Dohrn is the director of the Children and Family Law Justice Center and a clinical associate professor of law at Northwestern University. She is the coauthor of A Century of Juvenile Justice and Justice in the Making. She also is an unrepentant terrorist and former member of the Weather Underground. They live in Chicago ... laughing at how they got away with it all, safely cocooned in the womb of higher academia.
No, I don't believe that. Not at all. But I got your attention, didn't I?
Did I ever mention how many "tips" we've received (whether our own or via the Newsbusters tip line) about Obama's "Muslim connections," his "real birth site" and similar rumors/outright falsehoods? No? Well, the answer is quite a lot. I've never posted one of 'em, and NB doesn't post 'em and its contributors occasionally write back to the tipsters telling them essentially where "to take" such tips.
Unfortunately, many "progressive" sites don't have such standards. The mental midgets over here are at it again -- once again "wondering" if Sarah Palin's baby Trig ... is really hers.
As Mike Matthews notes, Obama is in cruise control and heading towards the finish line. Yet, the "ridiculous factor" continues in full meltdown over there. And even more ironic is that the "guy" who put up the post recently had his own baby born. I'm sure he'd get a kick out of it if people began gossiping about its parentage.
A sheriff in Florida is under investigation by the federal government for campaigning in uniform and blasted by the ACLU for -- ready? -- mentioning Barack Obama's full name (Barack Hussein Obama) at a rally for Sarah Palin the other day:
One day after Lee County Sheriff Mike Scott sparked a national controversy by referring to Democratic presidential candidate as Barack Hussein Obama, the federal government is investigating a complaint about his remark and members of the local ACLU and NAACP have called for an apology, saying Scott’s action was racist.
The latter is to be expected although, the ACLU?? I thought they were the "Guardians of the Bill of Rights" which include that very first of amendments -- freedom of speech!!); however, the feds investigating -- are you freakin' kidding me? Oh, but here's the deal:
A complaint sent to the U.S. Office of Special Counsel Tuesday alleged Scott violated the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal employees from engaging in partisan political activity, because his agency receives federal dollars, and Scott was engaging in political activity while on duty and in uniform and using his position to sway an election.
By that standard, virtually NO employee associated with state or local governments could express themselves politically. I couldn't as a teacher since my school district -- like virtually every other school district across the country -- receives some amount of federal cash. Regarding the "on duty" and "being in uniform" bit, Scott says (my emphasis)
It is noteworthy that I recently completed my primary campaign and continue my general campaign in the same uniform. My practice has been to wear the uniform at all times and as is undisputed, I am on duty 24/7 and 365. It is also noteworthy that I joined my fellow Florida Sheriffs in Tampa very recently for a political rally…all were in full uniform. At no time during this week’s rally did I mention the agency I represent; however, I was introduced by my official title. Given the introduction and my widespread name and face recognition in this area, I am satisfied that my apparel is irrelevant and the same reactions would have resulted had I been wearing a suit and tie.
Perhaps I'm making too much of the "investigation" part of this since an investigation can be begun merely because some unsatisfied citizen lodges a formal complaint. But According to the Florida Sheriff’s Association, "a sheriff can wear his uniform however he sees fit," and since Scott is an incumbent he can campaign as he wishes "because he’s an elected official."
But the ACLU and NAACP are becoming sad parodies of what they once were. How is it that a presidential candidate's full name is not able to be uttered by anyone? How far have we fallen?
A couple days ago, Colossus commenter "Toronado" wondered why I didn't "gently rebuke" a comment on this thread -- a comment that linked to a YouTube video of some [black] guy telling everyone what would happen -- in somewhat stereotypical terms -- if Obama "was deprived" of the election. I mentioned in response that I never checked on that vid link; once I did, I certainly did offer my rebuke.
So get this: Now nutty Democrat "strategist" James Carville pretty much sums up exactly what that dude on the YouTube vid has intimated:
Now let me be clear here, if Obama goes in this race with a 5- point lead and losing this election, the consequences are -- bull, man. I mean I don't think that's going to happen, but I think David it's a point to bring up.
But you stop and contemplate this country if Obama goes in and he has a consistent five point lead and loses the election, it would be very, very, very dramatic out there.
What do you mean, James? Please explain this to us. What do you mean by "dramatic?" Why should polls mean more than actual counted votes, James?
First we see their selective editing of quotes from last night's debate. Regarding John McCain's plan for the economic crisis, they "quote" McCain as saying, "It's my proposal. It's not Sen. Obama's proposal."
The AP goes on to note
Obama charged that the current crisis was the "final verdict on the failed economic policies of the last eight years" that President Bush pursued and were "supported by Sen. McCain."
He contended that Bush, McCain and others had favored deregulation of the financial industry, predicting that would "let markets run wild and prosperity would rain down on all of us. It didn't happen."
But McCain's full quote -- which the AP edits above -- reads as follows: "It's my proposal. It's not Sen. Obama's proposal, it's not President Bush's proposal."
Why would the AP leave this quite important nugget out of McCain's full quote? Wait, I know -- because it directly contradicts The Messiah's rebuttal.
Next, the AP neglects "a certain bit of information" on this story:
A federal grand jury in Tennessee has indicted a man in connection with the hacking of the e-mail account of Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin.
Federal officials say that 20-year-old David Kernell of Knoxville, Tenn., was indicted by a federal grand jury in Knoxville for intentionally accessing without authorization the e-mail account of Palin, Alaska's governor.
Kernell has turned himself in to authorities and is scheduled to be arraigned Wednesday before a magistrate.
Kernell faces a maximum of five years in prison, a $250,000 fine and a three-year term of supervised release.
What "certain information" has been omitted by the AP? Well, just that Kernell is the son of Democratic Tennessee State Rep. Mike Kernell. Back on Sept. 18 the Democratic representative pretty much admitted that his son was in hot water; now it's official. Mike Mahaffie can relax now, too.
You knew it was coming! The Messiah has now claimed that he "didn't know the history" of unrepentant bomber William Ayers when Ayers hosted a fundraiser for him in 1995.
"There's no evidence that they're close," [Obama campaign chief David] Axelrod added.
"There's no evidence that Obama in any way subscribed to any of Ayers' views. And Obama's been very clear about condemning the despicable acts that Bill Ayers committed 40 years ago when Obama was 8 years old."
I don't know of too many people that say Obama and Ayers are "close" as in they "hang out a lot." I also don't know of too many people that believe Obama believes in Ayers' terrorist mantra. But the fact that Obama was "8 years old at the time is just as silly as it is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that Obama and Ayers did have a working relationship with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge:
In the first year, 1995, Obama headed the board, which made fiscal decisions, and Ayers co-chaired the Collaborative, which set education policy. During that first year, Obama’s formal responsibilities mandated close cooperation and coordination with the Collaborative. As board chair and president of the CAC corporation, Obama was authorized to “delegate to the Collaborative the development of collaborative projects and programs . . . to obtain assistance of the Collaborative in the development of requests for proposals . . . and to seek advice from the Collaborative regarding the programmatic aspects of grant proposals.” All this clearly involves significant consultation between the board, headed by Obama, and the Collaborative, co-chaired by Ayers.
The Chicago Annenberg Challenge stands as Barack Obama’s most important executive experience to date. By its own account, CAC was a largely a failure. And a series of critical evaluations point to reasons for that failure, including a poor strategy, to which the foundation over-committed in 1995, and over-reliance on community organizers with insufficient education expertise. The failure of CAC thus raises entirely legitimate questions, both about Obama’s competence, his alliances with radical community organizers, and about Ayers’s continuing influence over CAC and its board, headed by Obama. Above all, by continuing to fund Ayers’s personal projects, and those of his political-educational allies, Obama was lending moral and material support to Ayers’s profoundly radical efforts. Ayers’s terrorist history aside, that makes the Ayers-Obama relationship a perfectly legitimate issue in this campaign.
Did Obama know of Ayers' past at this time? When did he know about it? Has he ever actually severed all ties to Ayers? This surprisingly balanced CNN report may shed some light:
From the Newsbusters e-mail tipline, which goes to many contributors, not just me:
You dime a dozen bought and sold (low paid) fascist hacks disgust me. Lying for a living. Can anyone be lower than you filth? As a pharmacist I have the opportunity to tell working people of the right wing plan with the wealthy at the table and the workers on the menu.
You should write a story about how NewsBusters is employing the mentally challenged, because many of the "stories" that are written seem to be by folks with limited brain capacity. Perhaps the neorepublifascists can finally do us all a favor and just go away. Maybe back to the double wide, get some wittlin' done, have a fried Twinkie or two.
Awwww, ain't these moonbats just so cute??
And of all people leading the charge, it's Barney Frank:
Rep. Barney Frank said Monday that Republican criticism of Democrats over the nation's housing crisis is a veiled attack on the poor that's racially motivated.
The Massachusetts Democrat, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said the GOP is appealing to its base by blaming the country's mortgage foreclosure problem on efforts to expand affordable housing through the Community Reinvestment Act.
He said that blame is misplaced, because those loans are issued by regulated institutions, while far more foreclosures were triggered by high-cost loans made by unregulated entities.
"They get to take things out on poor people," Frank said at a mortgage foreclosure symposium in Boston. "Let's be honest: The fact that some of the poor people are black doesn't hurt them either, from their standpoint. This is an effort, I believe, to appeal to a kind of anger in people."
What a piece of sh** Frank is. Talk about trying to cover your ass (well, in Frank's case that's a misplaced metaphor) especially when you have a HUGE degree of culpability in the whole matter. What else to turn to but the ever popular race card. Not only was Frank among those who claimed there was no crisis at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, his former lover was also a Fannie Mae bigwig!
The news media have covered the relationship in the past, but there have been no mentions since 2005, according to Nexis and despite the collapse of Fannie Mae. The July 3, 1998, Reliable Source column in The Washington Post reported Frank, who is openly gay, had a relationship with Herb Moses, an executive for the now-government controlled Fannie Mae. The column revealed the two had split up at the time but also said Frank was referring to Moses as his “spouse.” Another Washington Post report said Frank called Moses his “lover” and that the two were “still friends” after the breakup.
Moses was the assistant director for product initiatives at Fannie Mae and had been at the forefront of relaxing lending restrictions at the company for rural customers, according to the Feb. 23, 1998, issue of National Mortgage News (NMN).
There's a lot more at that latter link, too, regarding Frank's role in the lending scandal.
I must admit it was refreshing and cathartic to see Bill O'Reilly lambaste Frank last week when Frank refused to admit any wrongdoing and, like now, attempted to blame the GOP for the lending collapse. It's usually ridiculous when Bill yells to try to get a point across, but this was a much-needed tongue-lashing.
... courtesy of this article.
Meanwhile, no Times article appears with a similar headline for Obama, or with the same investigatory appeal. Indeed, most under a search titled "Obama Ayers" yields general campaign talking points and one even utilizes the recent NY Times defense of Obama's relationship with Ayers as "back-up" for The Messiah.
Is this all really any surprise?
UPDATE: The Times does one better!
One heck of a lot, apparently:
A Marianna middle-school teacher has been suspended for 10 days without pay after he wrote a racially charged interpretation of a commonly used phrase in the presidential campaign of Sen. Barack Obama.
While some parents and community activists were outraged by the actions of Greg Howard, Jackson County NAACP officials want to gather more facts before the group considers taking action. But some parents feel Howard should be fired.
Larry Moore, deputy superintendent for the Jackson County School District, said school officials determined Howard wrote an acronym with an explanation on a dry-erase board in his class Sept. 26 at Marianna Middle School.
It said, "C.H.A.N.G.E. — Come Help A (N-word) Get Elected."
Howard, who's been teaching in the district for 17 years, wrote the comment during his seventh-grade social-studies class that included 17 white students, six black students and one Asian.
Howard was suspended with pay Monday while the incident was investigated. The reprimand was elevated to a 10-day suspension without pay starting Thursday. Howard also must write a letter of apology to the students. (Link.)
A mere ten day suspension -- for actually writing that on a classroom chalkboard?? Unbelievable. But here's the thing: "Progressives" have been sticking up for lefty moonbats who spew similar garbage (just from the other side) in the classroom for decades. Think these "free speech absolutists" will jump to Howard's defense? Cheeyeah -- and Jason Scott voted for Reagan.
Joanne Jacobs (to whom the h/t goes for this story) read several comments at various sites which covered this story and found that some folks dubbed Howard "brave" to "speak out" about ... what exactly? His hatred for blacks?
Former Messiah advisor Samantha Power on what we should do to stop the Israeli "genocide" against the Palestinians.
This goes to the heart of the Bill Ayers controversy. Based on who Obama hangs (or hung) with -- people like Power and the Rev. Jeremiah "God Damn America" Wright -- 'ya think The Messiah is truly a friend of Israel? Truly?
If you do, I suggest you consider the post directly below.
Please answer honestly what you'd think of the following (courtesy Mark Levin):
... if John McCain had belonged to a church for 20 years and that church advocated white supremacy and the pastor of the church spewed racist propaganda wrapped in Biblical verses — much of which was caught on video-tape — what would we say? If McCain's good friends included people involved in blowing up abortion clinics instead of the Capitol Building, the Pentagon, and police stations, what would we say? If McCain was socially close to a professor with ties to neo-Nazi groups in Berlin, as opposed to a professor who had ties to the PLO, what would we say? If McCain spent his formative years schooled in fascism as opposed to Marxism, what would we say?
Liberals won't answer this honestly because it will make them look utterly foolish. But here's what I can guarantee you: Each and every night Chris Matthews, Campbell Brown, CBS, ABC and especially Keith Olbermann would be pointing all of the above out to their viewers. Each and every night. The Delaware Liberal minions would be on the verge of cerebral hemmorhoids. And Mike Matthews would be telling us all that "it doesn't really matter" because "do you really think McCain will govern like that?"
... certainly can't let up. While covering Sarah Palin and her recent remarks about The Messiah and his pal, terrorist Bill Ayers, they write the following:
Palin's remarks come as e-mails circulate on the Internet with suggestions that the Democratic candidate is secretly a radical, foreign-born Muslim with designs against the U.S. Obama is a native of Hawaii who lived in Indonesia as boy. He is a Christian.
Actually, Palin's remarks come because virtually no MSM outlet has actually confronted The Messiah about his association with the unrepentant terrorist. In fact, those e-mails about Obama have been circulating for months, so they're hardly new. So why does the AP associate them with Palin's remarks? Easy: Since the e-mails are preposterously false, by tying them in with Palin's criticism of Ayers and The Messiah, the impression is that this is equally false. I mean, c'mahn folks -- what would the MSM reaction be if John McCain had an association with a far-rightist who was a member of a domestic terror group? Be honest, people like Mike Matthews!
I wonder why the AP didn't write "Palin's remarks come as e-mails circulate on the Internet with suggestions that the GOP VP candidate's daughter is actually the mother of her Down's Syndrome baby, that she made women pay for their own rape kits when she was mayor of Wasilla, and that she had a librarian ban books from a library. None of these are true."
Yeah, I wonder ...
The Newsbusters e-mail tip line lit up the night after the VP debate with reports of a segment hosted by Soledad O'Brien. My colleague at NB Noel Sheppard picked up the story once the video became available; I'm doing up an additional post here because the bias displayed by O'Brien is so freakin' hilarious. I think it would be obvious that O'Brien can count (she made it this far in her career, after all!); what she can't do is contain her bias for the Obama-Biden ticket.
View the video below:
Sheppard has the relevant transcript:
SOLEDAD O'BRIEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It's been absolutely fascinating to get a sense of what resonated and what did not resonate and what they take away from this evening.
So let's begin, folks, if we can. Thirty-two people, roughly again, Wolf, broken down, registered independents, registered Democrats, registered Republicans. So basically evenly.
Show of hands, who do you think won the debate? If you think Joe Biden won the debate, raise your hands. OK, that looks overwhelming. Let's now do if you think Sarah Palin won the debate, raise your hand. So small handful. Joe Biden wins by a significant margin there.
"Significant margin??" With the high-technology of the screen-capture, we at Colossus have broken it down so YOU can actually count what constitutes a "significant margin" for a [biased] CNN correspondent.
Here's the capture for the count of those who thought Biden won the debate.
Here's the capture for those who thought Palin won.
Some of the raised hands are obscured; if you have any doubts about my count, watch and rewatch the video a few times. At any rate, I get thirteen hands up for Biden and twelve hands up for Palin. To CNN and Soledad O'Brien this one person difference (hey, maybe it's even two or three since the count probably has a margin of error!) equals a "significant margin" and "overwhelming."
First place in the non-Council category was the American Thinker with Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis.
Full results of this week's vote can be seen here.
Courtesy of "Energizer Bunny" Perry's favorite person:
From the Newsbusters e-mail tipline, which goes to many contributors, not just me:
Looking at your ads and reading your blogs speaks volumes about the kind of website you really are. "Newsbusters", please. You are everything that is wrong in this world. You have the mindset and ideals of McVeigh, Hitler, Bin Laden, and the like. You like to think you are somehow moral, but you and the like are very misguided. Your ad of a young girl wearing a t-shirt printed with handguns, only displays the ignorance and lack of moral fiber that you and those that are affiliated with this site portray. You are just like street thugs. Don't kid yourselves into thinking you are any different. I know karma is not a word in your vocabulary, but it's going to get you one day.
But let's face it -- Joe Biden sure knows how to confuse history and the Constitution based on [many of] his statements. Recently, Joe proved he didn't know that FDR wasn't president when the Great Depressin began, nor that there was no television in 1929. Then, in Thursady's VP debate, he made the following statement:
Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history. The idea he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that.
Biden's statement is actually quite confusing. While it is true that Article I "defines" the role of the vice-president, it doesn't "define" it as being in the Executive Branch. It merely "defines" the role of the veep in regards to the legislature -- as president of the Senate. Article II defines the role of the Executive Branch in government.
Biden was chastising Dick Cheney's apparent "expansive use" of the VP's office when he made that statement in the debate. So, was Joe arguing that the VP -- according to the Constitution -- only can be the president of the Senate? If so, why does Joe later state that the VP's job is “to support the president of the United States of America, give that president his or her best judgment when sought”? I looked through Article II and didn't find anywhere that the VP's job is as what Biden states here. So, Joe, why are you so picky about the veep's role when it comes to Cheney, but for others ...? Hell, for that matter, Joe, where in the Constitution does it mention a presidential cabinet? I don't see anything in Article II about a cabinet. Therefore, should presidents (in Biden's parlance) "realize that Article II of the Constitution defines the role of the Executive Branch," and "that there's no cabinet mentioned at all?" Isn't that an "expansive use" of Executive Branch power, Joe?
(Thanks to the interscholastic GOOCH for the assist with this post.)
Too many of us are idiots:
"Educators for Obama" buttons are no longer worn by teachers at Soquel High School.
The buttons began sprouting up at the Santa Cruz County school and parent John Hadley complained that teachers were attempting to politically influence his 16-year-old daughter and other students. Hadley is a John McCain supporter.
Teachers have now agreed not to wear the buttons in class.
Greater Santa Cruz Federation of Teachers president Barry Kirschen says the teachers were simply exercising what they believed was their right to free expression.
Which is fine. But they're wrong. I like what a commenter over at Joanne Jacobs' site said:
Where in the world did teachers get they idea that they have a right to say whatever they want in class? They don’t. They shouldn’t. They never have. And as long as we have a pluralistic society, they never will. Why do they have to discover this the hard way? Weren’t they taught about these things in ed school? (Silly question, of course).
Legal (free expression) questions aside, WTF do teachers believe it's OK to blatantly endorse one candidate over another? Aren't we in the business of teaching these kids -- especially the means to think critically ... and for themselves? By what right does a teacher have to use his/her position of authority to subtly pressure students into who the "right" choice in the presidential race is? As a former social studies teacher, I was taught NEVER to allow my personal politics to enter my teaching. Indeed, many students this year thus far have asked me who I am voting for. I have refused to answer, telling them I will reveal who after the election if they wish. And if I do, I will actually cover both sides of various issues and explain why I agree with one side over the other.
Elsewhere, the Virginia teachers union sent an e-mail encouraging its members to wear blue collared shirts in order to show support for Barack Obama:
The Virginia Education Association sponsored "Obama Blue Day" on Tuesday. In an e-mail sent last week, it urged teachers to participate by dressing in blue.
"There are people out there not yet registered. You teach some of them," the Sept. 25 e-mail reads. "Others, including our members, remain on the fence! Its time for us to come together, voice our unity, because we make a difference!"
"Let's make Obama Blue Day a day of Action!" the e-mail continues. "Barack the vote!"
In a statement released to FOXNews.com Thursday, VEA President Kitty Boitnott defended the e-mail, saying that it called for teachers to wear blue shirts, but not ones that mentioned a candidate.
Does she think people are really this stupid? And this woman is a teacher. As Joanne Jacobs said (and to whom the h/t goes for these articles), "Perhaps the use of the words 'Barack' and 'Obama' gave teachers the idea that the union wanted a 'day of Action' for Barack Obama."
Gotta love the assumptions teachers unions make. I think I posted this once before, but I recall the DE senate election of 1994 -- Charlie Oberly vs. Bill Roth. A fellow teacher came by my room asking if I wanted an Oberly lawn sign. "Why?" I asked. "I'm voting for Roth." The look on the teacher's face was one of utter befuddlement and anger.
Ann Althouse dissects how Katie Couric handled Sarah Palin vs. her counterpart on the Democrat side, Joe Biden. A very interesting read -- highly recommended.
Detroit's WWJ Newsradio 950 apparently has journalistic standards. They sent Karen Dinkins out to cover an Obama rally, and she did -- in an Obama t-shirt. As a result, the radio reporter was axed. This sounds harsh, but the blog Exurban League claims Dinkins also had a record of tardiness and poor evaluations.
If that's the case, fine. Otherwise, I do think a suspension would have sufficed. Firing someone for ... stupidity is pretty harsh.
Wow. Many conservatives (and independents) have often felt that "progressives" ("liberals," if you prefer) look down and/or hold in disdain one of their largest support groups -- ethnic and racial minorities. Hard, plain-as-day proof of this comes from the Colorado Democracy Alliance:
In a confidential internal memorandum (PDF) obtained by Face The State, the Colorado Democracy Alliance outlines a roster of "operatives" who worked for Democratic victory in the 2006 general election. The document outlines specific tasks for various members of the state's liberal infrastructure, including a campaign to "educate the idiots," assigned to the state's AFL-CIO union. Among the operation's intended targets: "minorities, GED's, drop-outs."
Individuals named in the document, marked "CONFIDENTIAL," "for internal use only," and "DO NOT DISTRIBUTE," are high-level elected Democrats including House Speaker Andrew Romanoff, former Senate President Joan Fitz-Gerald, as well as Gov. Bill Ritter's press aide and former campaign chief Evan Dreyer. All are specially marked as "off-the-record or covert."
"We embrace the 'progressive' label in our giving and the strategic role we play in Colorado politics," said Laurie Hirschfeld Zeller, the newly installed executive director of CoDA.
The "progressive label": "You're too stupid to know what's best for you, so let us do it for you."
1. Where is your cell phone? Briefcase.
2. Where is your significant other? Work.
3. Your hair? Graying.
4. Your mother? Funny.
5. Your father? Strict.
7. What was your dream last night? Absent.
8. Your dream/goal? Relaxation.
9. The room you're in? Office.
10. Your hobby? Writing.
12. Where do you want to be in 6 years? Retired.
13. Where were you last night? Home.
14. What you're not? Gay.
15. Favorite person? Teacher.
16. One of your wish list items? Driver.
17. Where you grew up? Wilmo.
18. The last thing you did? Grade.
19. What are you wearing? Clothes.
20. Your TV? Small.
21. Your pet? Avian.
22. Your computer? Slow.
24. Your mood? Befuddled.
25. Missing someone? Yes.
26. Your car? Cold.
27. Something you're not wearing? T-shirt.
28. Favorite store? Target.
29. Your summer? Relaxing.
30. Love someone? Yes.
31. Your favorite color? Blue.
32. When is the last time you laughed? Today.
33. Last time you cried? Years.
34. Who will repost this? Bloggers.
35. One word to best describe yourself? Humorous.
(h/t to Peevish.)
This hurts to watch:
Be honest, GOPers and conservatives. Be honest.
Cynthia McKinney, Jew baiter extraordinaire and Green Party candidate for president in 2008, now claims -- sit down and get ready -- that 5,000 black men were shot dead each by a single bullet wound during Hurricane Katrina and then dumped in a swamp.
Sort of makes Delaware's own Liz Allen look sane by comparison, eh?