The Difference Between Letterman and Imus

People are still talking about the disgraceful attacks launched by ex-comedian David Letterman on Sarah Palin and her 14 year-old daughter. Matt Lauer interviewed Palin Friday morning and tried to make her the bad guy for firing back at the gap-toothed has-been. Therein, lies another example of the Leftist double-standard. And, make no mistake, Lauer is not a journalist or a host; he is an agent for the Democrat party and the political Left. He has no credibility.

A couple of interesting things. First, Letterman is an incredibly private person. Yet, he is vicious in his attacks of public figures (and their children). He refuses to answer questions from the press about his own life. How ironic. His life is off-limits, but a teenage daughter of a governor is not.

Letterman's smirking non-apology demonstrated his personal arrogance and his lack of respect for his audience. He, of course, went to the "its just a joke" defense. The Palins have no sense of humor. He tried to make himself the victim as he whined about how he would never make sex jokes about a 14 year-old. He was talking about the 18 year-old daughter. Oh, much better.

Of course, his defense was a lie. Letterman doesn't make jokes off-the-cuff. He reads a script. He has writers. That is why so-called "comedians" like Letterman and Jon Stewart couldn't work during the writer's strike. Nobody was there to make them appear funny (even to their lame-brained audience). So, the "joke" about Willow Palin was written earlier and discussed by a team of "comedy" writers. It was approved by Letterman. It was loaded into a teleprompter. That is not an accident or an oversight.

Contrast the Letterman faux pas with Don Imus and the "nappy headed ho" comment. That was an off-the-cuff remark as he and his crew were watching basketball highlights. Yes, it was mean and yes it warranted an apology. But, Imus had a long record of charitable work and other actions that demonstrated he was no racist. Still, he had to be fired because the Justice Brothers, Al and Je$$e, said so.

Letterman's vicious "slutty flight attendant" comment about the governor and his sex jokes about 14 year-old Willow were written, planned and formatted for delivery. Those were not momentary lapses in judgment. They were planned attacks. So, those who keep defending Letterman's child-rape humor need to give up their idiotic defenses. Just be honest.

The Left hates Sarah Palin, so any verbal assaults on her are appropriate. She should be the poster-child for female possibility, but her politics make her a pariah among Statists. It is truly a sick society we live in.

CBS should show they have principles and fire Letterman. That would prove they actually do have standards of conduct and didn't just sacrifice Don Imus to please the lynch mob. It won't happen. As much as the Left whines about Conservatives dividing the country, it is they who create the double-standards of conduct that create an "us vs. them" climate.

Chastity "Chaz" Bono: American Hero? American Heroine? Just Plain Strange?

One of the day's major "news stories" involves the daughter/son-to-be of Sonny Bono and Cher. It seems Chastity Bono is now calling him-herself "Chaz" and is working up to an addadichtomy operation. Those who know who Ms./Mr. Bono is remember her as a cute little girl brought out at the end of each episode of Sonny and Cher's TV variety show. Many felt bad for the child as she was growing up in the middle of the trainwreck that was the very public and very long divorce of her parents. Gee, maybe growing up in screwed up relationships actually does create long-term problems.

I heard a radio news story refer to Chaz/Chastity's "heroic" decision. Now, I'm sure having an addadichtomy is a painful procedure, but is it heroic? Sad and pathetic are the terms that came to mind for me. Ms./Mr. Bono is a celebrity only because of her goofy parents, but the media will follow every step of her "heroic" addadichtomy. I wonder how many of them called a 40-something governor "heroic" for her choice to go through with an unexpected pregnancy after learning the child would be born with Down's Syndrome? I think I know which action most Americans would find praiseworthy.

"Obama Man Can" -- Great Parody From Comedian Greg Morton

Keep David Letterman Away From Little Girls

David Letterman has issued one of the most pathetic apologies I have ever heard after Sarah and Todd Palin fired back against his crude and tasteless attack on the Palin family as a comedy bit. He joked about Palin's 14 year-old daughter getting "knocked up" by Alex Rodriguez during a Yankees game. Now, I guess I don't have a sophisticated Leftist sense of humor, but making jokes about a 14 year-old getting sexually molested just seems depraved. Now, maybe Letterman spends a lot of time thinking about having sex with little girls. Where I come from, Todd Palin would be within his rights to bury his fist in the middle of Letterman's gap-teeth. Of course, I'm sure Sarah Palin could probably knock that cretin on his ass.

Of course, there has been no outcry from the media or from so-called women's rights groups. Where is NOW when a successful woman and mother and a 14 year-old girl are attacked in this base manner? Oh, that's right, NOW is a Leftist group not a women's group. The party line has been that the Palin's have no sense of humor and Letterman was just being funny.

When Letterman refers to Palin's style as a "slutty flight attendant look", the media elites and the Left guffawed and smirked. After all, he's just being funny. I seem to recall a radio funnyman named Don Imus who threw out the phrase "nappy headed ho" when talking about some women's basketball players. You would have thought he physicaly assaulted them. No amount of punishment and public shame was enough for the angry villagers. I'm sure if Imus had made an insensitive remark about a team of white girls from Liberty University it would have not caused a blip. The Left, so-called women's rights groups, and so-called advocates for civility should remember this moment the next time they get their panties in a wad.

Jeremiah Wright Created The Climate For The Holocaust Museum Murder

Slobbering Chris Matthews has hit a new low with the vicious discussion he facilitated with Salon editor Joan Walsh on tonight's "Hardball." In discussing the tragic murder that took place at the U.S. Holocaust Museum on Wednesday, Walsh stated:

There is a very disturbing and disturbed element of political discourse. And I would, I would throw in Rush Limbaugh. Not blaming him, but when you say that our President is more dangerous than al-Qaeda you've gone off into crazy nut job land. You are off the charts crazy. And you are, you are whipping people up.

Now, mind you, this geriatric psychopath did not try to assassinate the President and was an avowed anti-Semite. But, this airhead wants to blame talk radio for the murder? Think about that non-sequitor. Limbaugh talks about how dangerous Barry Vladimir Hussein Soetero Obama's policies are, so this wrinkled loon decides to kill some people inside the Holocaust Museum. Yeah, that's the sort of journalistic logic we expect from the Left.

The exchange with Chrissy Matthews began...

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Joan Walsh this is a political action today by a far right extremist. I just wonder what's in the water, what's in the air as we speak?

JOAN WALSH, SALON: Well I wonder too, especially in the wake of the murder of Dr. George Tiller who performed abortions, another, another really unhinged right wing nut job. And, and I want to be very careful here Chris. The only people responsible are the people who pulled the triggers. Unless we find out that these guys had help, that may be a different story. But from what we know now the people responsible are the killers. However I don't think you can deny that there is a rising climate of right wing hate, a lot of it directed at Obama.

Antisemitism is generally associated with Nazism which was a LEFTIST
movement. Sorry, Chrissy and Joan, you can have your own opinions but not your own facts. While it would be convenient to move the fascist, socialist and communist movements' superstars to the right side of the spectrum, they ran Leftist programs.

Predictably, these two Obamatrons posing as journalists immediately linked the murder of George Tiller to this tragedy. And, of course, both happened because Conservative voices have not joined the Obama religion. "Right wing hate?" Did these nitwits ever use the term "left wing hate" to describe the vicious daily attacks that George W. Bush endured? "Right wing hate" is Moonbat for disagreeing with Leftist dogma.

Walsh:You and I go way back to the beginning of the campaign and the level of craziness. He's a secret Muslim. He hates America. He wasn't born here. Now this guy, Von Brunn, he's, he, he was one of the birthers. He didn't believe in Obama's birth certificate and he was constantly online agitating about that.

Hmmmm. Well, Obama worked hard to deny his Muslim heritage during the campaign, but last week he made a huge deal of his Islamic upbringing. I don't know if he hates America, but no American President has ever spent so much time traversing the world highlighting America's flaws without extolling its virtues. As for the birth certificate thing, he could solve this very easily if he offered up his, well, birth certificate. It seems members of his own family have different recollections. Should be simple to resolve, shouldn't it?

Later, Chrissy Matthews was setting up a question for USA Today reporter Susan Page

Matthews: This thing here where you have a person who claims to be or is actually anti-Semitic, anti-black, anti-Catholic, I guess on the periphery, which is the big three of the KKK historically. What do we do with this? Are we gonna hear from conservatives who are gonna start saying, "Well let's stop some of this black helicopter talk. Let's stop this villainization of the government, of the establishment." Which way do you think the tone of the debate is gonna go now?

Does Matthews realize that the KKK was an arm of the Democrat Party when it was strong? It is Chrissy Matthews who sees "black helicopters" when he attempts to brand Conservatives as brothers-in-arms with nut jobs who commit murder. How does this sputtering fool make the leap from criticizing the government to killing people in a museum? Nice try, you opportunistic Leftist hack! It would be convenient for Statists like Matthews to use a senseless killing to silence those who believe in limited government, federalism and separation of powers.

I do find it particularly interesting that American Leftists want to make anti-Semitism a rightwing phenomenon. But, isn't it the Republican party and Conservatives who are most likely to support Israel? Last week, Obama was drawing moral equivalencies between Israel and the animals who seek to drive our ally into the sea. That has been the stand of the Democrat party for years. They have tried to elevate the status of terrorist organizations who wish to exterminate Israel.

Additionally, today Obama's spiritual mentor Jeremiah Wright stated "them Jews aren't going to let him talk to me" in explaining why he is not in contact with the President. I have never heard Rush Limbaugh attack Israel or the Jewish people. However, I'm sure the members of the Trinity United Church of Christ have heard all about the evils of Jews through Pastor Wright and their partnership with Louis Farrakhan. I wonder why Joan Walsh and Chrissy Matthews aren't concerned about antisemitism from their messianic leader and his spiritual advisers.

And, on the subject of speech leading to action, why hasn't the media examined the role of Democrats in the murder of Private William Long? He was killed by an American Muslim convert as part of jihad. Have they examined the role of candidate Obama's words about American soldiers as invaders? Have they accused John Murtha of inciting murder through his discredited public conviction of soldiers for war crimes? Have they looked into John Kerry's claims about American soldiers terrorizing Iraqi citizens in the dark of night? It seems to me the American Left and the Democrat Party has helped incite jihadists though their politically motivated attacks on the military over the last six years.

Who Cares if Colin Powell Calls Himself a "Republican?"

This afternoon I heard Newt Gingrich on the Sean Hannity Show and he again repeated his desire to include Dick Cheney AND Colin Powell under a big tent. He did this while while extolling the need for the GOP to return to its Conservative principles. He said he hopes to bring General Powell back to the Republican fold in 2012. Now, I know Newt gets confused sometimes: am I a Conservative today or am I a Moderate? Am I sitting down with Nancy Pelosi for a global warming PSA or am I sending out blasts to the Winning Solutions email list warning them about the cap-and-trade scheme that Congress is poised to pass? When one is writing five books a year, running two or three web sites/"think tanks" and appearing on every available media outlet more than their regular hosts, one becomes easily confused.

Colin Powell's name should drop from the conversation (at least after I finish my point). Now, he may call himself a Republican. Fine, I'm a ballerina. The GOP ran as moderate a candidate as possible in 2008 and Powell jumped ship. Powell claims that Americans want bigger government and higher taxes. All polls say the opposite, but, regardless, bigger government and higher taxes are not Republican principles. Ironically, if that were so important he should have loved the Bush administration because they did grow the government. Instead, he supported the most radical major party candidate in American history. His guy is nationalizing industries. His guy wants to determine CEO pay. His guy wants to destroy the world's best health care system and replace it with a government paradigm that other countries now admit was a failed idea. His guy wants to balloon the energy costs of middle class and poor Americans to force them into the "Green Revolution." His guy wants to take away the freedom of workers to avoid the pressures of Union thugs in their workplace. His guy has boosted the federal debt more in five months than his 43 predecessors combined. His guy seeks to take away the liberties embedded in the very Constitution he took an oath to uphold.

Powell's recent words and his support for Barry Vladimir Hussein Soetero Obama tell us more about his true political compass than we knew during the previous 15 years, though people always extolled his virtues as a possible President. He deserves credit for his military service, but he has no credibility as a political figure in the Republican party. He has never advanced the party in any way, shape or form.

In truth, it is more laughable than maddening for Colin Powell to instruct the Republican Party on its future direction. His direction is Left and he should get comfortable with his fellow travelers like Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank and Jeannine Garofalo. Those are his political peers. After keeping his politics to himself while basking in bipartisan adulation for nearly two decades, the General has finally played his cards. We know what he is holding and anyone who believes the "Obama way" should be the Republican way should join Colin, Arlen and the gang. Colin Powell is no longer a point for debate; he is a highly-decorated irrelevancy. Now, if he wants to support a Reagan-style Conservative Republican in 2012 we will take the vote. We won't lose any sleep if he doesn't.

Chris Matthews and Evan Thomas Think Obama Is God...Seriously!

Adam Lambert has come out and it may be time for Chris Matthews to do the same. When the "respected journalist" talks about Barry Vladimir Hussein Soetero Obama he looks like Marsha Brady talking about the captain of the football team. You would think Obama had just cured cancer instead of delivering another pile of platitudes about how nice it would be if everyone could just get along. Yes, he did a wonderful job of telling the Muslim world that we won't take a tough stance against terrorists (ooops, extremists) and that the United States is responsible for all of their problems.

As silly as Chrissy Matthews was, Newsweek editor Evan Thomas spiked the idiot meter after Matthews' slobbering tribute to his man-crush on last Friday's "Hardball."

"Well, we were the good guys in 1984, it felt that way. It hasn't felt that way in recent years. So Obama’s had, really, a different task We're seen too often as the bad guys. And he – he has a very different job from – Reagan was all about America, and you talked about it. Obama is ‘we are above that now.’ We're not just parochial, we're not just chauvinistic, we're not just provincial. We stand for something – I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God."

Yep, he said it. Not only is Obama the smartest, wisest and coolest individual to ever live at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, he is now "God." He may stand above Evan Thomas, but Jeremiah Wright's protege does not stand above me. He is not God. If we were, he likely would have given more than 3% of his paycheck to charity.

Besides the stupidity of the deification of Obama, Thomas' analysis of the President's message is also faulty. Obama is not greater than his country. In fact, while his story could represent the American Dream, he rejects most of the traditions and beliefs that made this nation exceptional. I have news for Obama, Thomas and Chrissy Matthews: the United States IS superior to the rest of the world. No nation has contributed more of its blood and treasure to the betterment of those beyond its borders than the United States. Obama's equivalence of America to dictatorships and theocracies is not the sign of a bright new chapter in U.S. foreign policy. It is a sign that our President is either not aware or does not appreciate the unique contributions the United States has made to the advancement of freedom in the world.

The conversation between Matthews and Thomas focused on contrasting Reagan's Cold War approach and Obama's anti-antiterrorism policy.

MATTHEWS: Let's talk about the difference. He was talking about the evil empire, trying to reconcile with the people of Russia and the Soviet Union, but not the country. Barack Obama the other day was saying, yesterday, that we don't have an enemy out there per se. We have people who choose extremism, but Islam’s not our enemy. That's not the evil empire.

No, we don't have enemies. The governments that have declared us their enemies are really our friends. The truth is, radical Islam is far more dangerous than the Soviet Union. They don't need a government to enact terror against the world. They exist in every part of the world. If our President does not have the guts to call them "evil", we are truly in trouble.

THOMAS: But Reagan did it with a very – for the first term it was a clenched fist. I mean, we ramped up the cold war before we ramped it down. We built up our military. We – all of this D-day stuff was about war. That was about fighting.

And what is the Soviet Union up to these days? Oh yeah, Reagan helped put them out of business. "All of this D-Day stuff?" What is this imbecile talking about? In the real world, defeating an enemy is often necessary.

MATTHEWS: Right.
THOMAS: Reconciliation only after the fighting. That's not – Obama’s not doing that. Obama – we've had our fighting. Obama is trying to sort of tamper everything down. He doesn't even use the word terror. He uses extremism. He's all about let us reason together. I think he has a much tougher job, frankly, because-
MATTHEWS: What's his shtick? Reagan had the United States arms race, winning the arms race. And we had the threat of high frontier, we were going to beat the Soviets at technology.
THOMAS: I don't think he has – his shtick is he's the teacher. He's the teacher. He is going to say, ‘now, children, stop fighting and quarreling with each other.’ And he has a kind of a moral authority that he – he can – he can do that-

Why don't we just send Barney the Dinosaur on a diplomatic tour of the Muslim world? We are not at war with Islam, but in the name of their religion, there is a significant portion of Islam that is war against the United States. "The teacher?" Is this another Jesus reference? What moral authority? "Moral authority" may be the dumbest nonsensical phrase that Leftists use on a regular basis. It has no meaning at all. Because Obama fundamentally dislikes America he is willing to debase this nation as being no different than thuggish outposts of terrorism and oppression. That isn't moral authority; that's mental instability.

MATTHEWS: If there's a world election between him and Osama Bin Laden, he's running a good campaign.
THOMAS: Yes, he is.

That these two clowns could put ANY American President in a contest of moral equivalence with Osama Bin Laden is pathetic. The truth is, people like Chrissy Matthews and Evan Thomas hate Conservatives and Republicans, but are willing to offer tolerance to murderous animals who wish to kill Americans and make Israel disappear. The context of the daily "Lewinski" they perform on Obama is their hatred of George W. Bush and all things Conservative. That irrational anger was between every line of that insipid interview.

The good news, of course, is that Chris Matthews ratings can only be found under a high-power microscope.

The Supreme Court Puts Supreme Ruler Obama On Hold

When I hear Ruth Bader Ginsburg's name in the lead of a judicial ruling, I usually brace for the worst. On Monday, I was pleasantly surprised. Justice Ginsburg issued a stay to delay the government-forced sale of Chrysler to Fiat. Of course, as he does with every issue, President Barry Vladimir Hussein Soetero Obama warned that the sky will fall in and crush us all if the same does not proceed immediately. President Obama may want to review the story of Chicken Little as even his doting press corps are no longer expressing alarm at his doomsday predictions.

Some shareholders are not happy with getting 29 cents on the dollar they will receive through the sale of the once-great Chrysler corporation. Who can blame them? Of course, Chairman Obama has total disdain for investors. He totally discounts the risks they take by calling them "speculators." Obama's rhetoric demonstrates the threat his ideology poses to the American economy. The good guys are unskilled workers and the government who both take little risk and reap great rewards. The bad guys are the people who finance companies. The bad guys are the people who run businesses.

Businesses and corporations have gone out of business and new ones have been created throughout our history. That is simply how the game is played. Bankruptcies, or even liquidations, are nothing to fear in the big picture. However, a President and a party so drunk on power and arrogance that they believe they possess the power to nationalize and run companies is a frightening development. Earlier this week, Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez joked that soon he and his buddy Fidel Castro may be sitting solidly to the right of President Obama. They may already be there.

Let's hope the Supreme Court will look at this unprecedented power grab by the federal government and give them a stern reminder of the principle of limited powers.

Edgycater's Liberty Summer Book of the Week-"Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto" by Mark Levin

This may be risky. "Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto" may well be the most dangerous book in America. Why do I say that? It's been the #1 non-fiction book on the New York Times bestseller list for nine of the last ten weeks! Yet, the author, Mark Levin, has not appeared on any of the major morning shows or news magazines. He has been completely ignored by the "mainstream media." Normally, any pathetic rag that appears near the top of the list will generate a stream of interviews. But, this work has dominated the book charts for nearly three months and no one wants to acknowledge its existence.

Why is this extremely popular book ignored? Simple. It is a 100 mile-per-hour fastball of truth aimed at the gourd of Leftist/Statist political thought. I love Ann Coulter's work, but the "mainstream media" doesn't mind interviewing her because they can always pull one of her strongly worded parables, take it out of context and make it sound like the rantings of a crazy person. Now, she defends herself well and anyone who takes the time to read her work knows her arguments are generally air-tight when read in context. Levin's book is different. It is just one solid explanation of what liberty means and how it has been attacked. Intellectual lightweights like Harry Smith and Matt Lauer do not want to get into a discussion of big ideas with Mark Levin. He would destroy them and the Leftist ideology they worship.

If you are a well-read student of history and political science you may not learn a lot of new content. However, it is likely you have never put all of the puzzle pieces together in the way Levin does in this book. "Liberty and Tyranny" is a great resource for Conservatives who are sometimes not sure how to counter the arguments of their Leftist associates. This book will provide the trump card for many political conversations. Additionally, this is a rich primer for the fence-sitter who lives a conservative life, but who votes Democrat because they seem so much nicer and kinder. Levin debunks much of that nonsense and helps make the case for liberty as the most compassionate gift any person can be given.

Mark Levin is now the #4-rated talk radio host in America. His style is distinctive and he takes no prisoners. His previous political book, "Men in Black," is an outstanding analysis of the mess wrought by judicial activists. With "Liberty and Tyranny," Levin has truly created a manifesto for the greatness of America and the legitimacy of the Constitution. You will finish the book quickly. Be sure and pass it on to a Conservative friend who needs the reassurance or a Leftist friend who needs the education.

Ronald Reagan's D-Day Salute

No President has ever captured the story of America's history better than Ronald Reagan. One reason he captured the hearts of Americans was it was clear America had captured his heart. I ran across this presentation of Reagan's speech in honor of the 40th anniversary of the D-Day landing and found it a compelling video accompaniment to the words spoken by our 40th President. The men who took part in that operation, the honored dead and the survivors, are all heroes who made their contribution to the continuing experiment in liberty that is the United States of America. May each generation remember the price paid by our forefathers and protect that incredible gift from all attacks, both foreign and domestic.

It's Muslim Demographics For Dummies, Starring Barack Obama!

I didn't see if TOTUS was involved, but Barry Vladimir Hussein Soetero Obama has once again unleashed his incredible intellect on the dumb masses. During his United States of Obama World Apology Tour '09 stop in Cairo, the smartest president of all-time announced that the United States has one of the world's largest Muslim populations. According to the CIA World Fact Book statistics, the United States ranked #52 in Muslims in 2008. With Muslims compromising a whopping 0.8 percent of the U.S. population, the United States doesn't crack the top 100 in that category. Bubbling below the Hot 100, makes the Muslim population of America the equivalent of the latest single by Leo Sayer on the Billboard charts. Ooops, make that somewhere below the charts.

So, to review, the United States is not a Christian nation in any shape, matter, or form. But, we are a heavily Muslim nation. With that, we conclude any this segment of "Demographics for Dummies" featuring Mr. Geography, Mr. History, Mr Economics, Barry Vladimir Hussein Soetero Obama.

A Visit From The "Nonpartisan" (Wink, Wink) Virginia Organizing Project

The UPS man had already made his evening visit, so I had no idea who was ringing my doorbell earlier this evening. I opened the door and saw a cute, young girl who wanted to ask a few questions for a nonpartisan political survey. Of course, I said "absolutely." The first question: "what do you think is the most important issue in your community?" I gave job creation as an answer. Economic growth is always near the top of the list. Then, she asked on a scale of 1-5, how important is healthcare reform. I already smelled a rat, so I asked a couple questions to clarify but she stayed on her "nonpartisan" script. I gave it a "2" as there are problems that need to be addressed, but I figured she was fishing for universal health care. The third question was to rate on a scale of 1-5 how important it is for government to address global climate change. This, of course, was a "1." The young lady quickly stuck a booklet in my hand and scurried off to the next house.

Being the curious citizen that I am, I started to look through the book and, surprise, it appeared that all of the groups affiliated with this "project" reside firmly on the far Left. So, I watched for the young lady and the other girl who was with her to return up the street. When they passed my house, I asked them if they could tell me who sponsors their survey project. They said they were trained to say "private donations." I asked several different questions to try to find out more about their sponsors and they refused to give a full answer though they did supply a business card for an individual whom I will try to contact tomorrow. They would repeat they were "trained" to respond in certain ways. Uh huh.

It turns out they are a part of a group called the Virginia Organizing Project. It appears to be a "community organizing" (i.e., Leftist) association that works in league with a number of socialist to radical groups. The VOP's 2009 Voter Guide to the Virginia Election is touted as "non-partisan" because it does not mention specific candidates. The rogues gallery that makes up the VOP's Virginia c-3 Table conglomerate makes their Leftist goals quite clear.

Along with the Virginia Organizing Project, the other members of the Virginia c-3 Table that are cited include:

ACLU Of Virginia
Advancement Project
Boat People SOS
Central Virginia APRI
Chesapeake Climate Action Network
Clean Water Fund
Democracy South
Equality Virginia Education Fund
Environment Virginia Policy and Research Center
Fair Elections Legal Network
Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
Project Vote
Tenants and Workers United
Virginia AFL-CIO
Virginia Association of Personal Care Assistants
Virginia Conservation Network
Virginia Education Association
Virginia Interfaith Center For Public Policy
Virginia League of Conservation Voters Education Fund
Virginia Organizing Project
Virginia Poverty Law Center
Virginia Sierra Club
Voice of Vietnamese Americans
Women's Voice, Women's Vote
Working America

Quite a collection. Saul Alinsky would be proud. All of the groups on the list range somewhere between Leftists to radical to socialist. It is interesting how many of these organizations claim to be "nonpartisan" in their approach. Even with the Maine girls, you won't find Republicans being endorsed or supported by any of these groups. However, you can bet plenty of Democrats received support from these groups.

My biggest gripe is their lack of honesty. This organization trains young people to go door-to-door pretending to be taking a survey, rather than admitting that they are passing out literature sponsored by far Left organizations. Why not be truthful? They are a coalition of advocacy groups. So why the masquerade? I told the young ladies with whom I spoke that I was concerned their handlers were being dishonest with them. In other words, I humored their claim that they don't really know who is backing their project. They know what they are doing. Alinsky's "Rules For Radicals" encourages subterfuge as a way to mask the true goals of the "progressive."

Why is the ACLU concerned with universal health care and global warming? Or is it global climate change since all evidence shows we are in cooling mode? They were not concerned with media attacks and Ohio state government intrusions into the life of one "Joe the Plumber" last fall. I thought the ACLU focused on individuals being deprived of their civil liberties. Or could it be they are just another reliable branch for all things Leftist?

The Virginia Poverty Law Center is a division of the Southern Poverty Law Center which lumps those who oppose amnesty for illegal aliens (you know, that 80% of the population) with Skinheads and Neo-Nazis. Yeah, they are as nonpartisan as it gets.

This cozy little coalition includes the Virginia AFL-CIO. If the problems of the former Big Three automakers have not exposed the long-term damage rendered by excessive union power, then look no further than the Orwellian "Employee Free Choice Act" that is being pursued in order to ensure that employers will no longer be protected by a secret ballot in union votes. How radical is this idea? Even George McGovern has called for the defeat of this as an attack on the personal liberties of workers.

The Fair Elections Legal Network is a product of the Left's official position that if Democrats lose an election, it has to be fraudulent: From their website:

The Presidential elections of 2000 and 2004 exposed serious problems with state election procedures that make voting significantly more difficult for poor, minority and young voters. The Fair Elections Legal Network (FELN)is
uniquely positioned to respond to these problems by virtue of the combined
participation of experienced private,nonpartisan, voter participation mobilization and nonprofit advocacy group lawyers working to increase voter participation.

Translated: George W. Bush won, so we need to make sure that everyone votes (multiple times if possible) whether they are qualified or not. The notion that voting is difficult is a red herring. However, the American Moonbat feeds on red herring.

Of course, the best connection is that of Project Vote. Yes, the Project Vote that is the voter registration arm of ACORN and that is under investigation in a number of states for illegal voter registrations. Didn't somebody named Barack Hussein Obama once work for ACORN? And didn't his campaign use Project Vote for "get out the vote" drives? Hmmm, I'm sure its all a coincidence.

So, if a fresh faced young'un knocks on your door and wants to administer a three question survey for a "nonpartisan" organization. Just smile and answer the questions, but do let them know that they are not fooling anyone. Of course you might ask why, if their goals are legitimate and good for America, are they so tight-lipped?

Pravda analysis: "American Capitalism Gone With A Whimper"

The answer to the question "just how screwed are we" is SEVERELY. A Russian columnist for Pravda admonishes the weak and submissive American population for allowing a Marxist takeover of the country. When Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Pope John Paul II, Lech Walesa and other heroes pushed the Soviet Union into the dust bin of history, I never imagined that two decades later the former "eastern bloc" would be educating the United States on the magic of the free market. It is sad to read such a blistering, but sadly correct, critique of the American situation.

Why Are Conservatives So Mean? Andrew Klavan Has The Answer

Neal Boortz played the audio from this video from PajamasTV today. Great stuff! Alexis de Tocqueville for dummies. Andrew Klavan has the best advice for young folks graduating from college or high school. In four minutes he gives more wisdom than a baker's dozen of conventional commencement addresses provide.

Edgycater's Liberty Summer Book of the Week - "Censorship: The Threat to Silence Talk Radio" by Brian Jennings

There has been much talk about the Left’s attempt to revive a censorship scheme with the Orwellian name, the “Fairness Doctrine.” This principle, a relic from the days when there were only a few hundred radio stations and even fewer television stations, required broadcasters to provide equal time for opposing viewpoints. Besides causing stations to avoid most controversial speech, the doctrine became a tool for silencing the opposition with Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon all using the FCC to squash dissent.

In 1987, Ronald Reagan instructed the FCC to stand down. Attempts by Congress to require enforcement were vetoed. Soon, Rush Limbaugh was permanently ensconced behind the golden EIB microphone and talk radio was on the ascent. Conservative and libertarian voices dominated the genre. This new medium was an alternative to the increasingly left-leaning content of television news, entertainment, newspapers, and news magazines. The explosion of the format and the rescue of the AM dial (I worked in AM radio in the mid-late 1980s and it was on life support) was an organic phenomenon. It was a grass roots movement with people making the unforced choice to devote their listening time to hosts who share their values.

Brian Jennings, a pioneering programmer in the genre, warns us that the free will of the people may soon be trampled by powerful political forces. “Censorship” The Threat to Silence Talk Radio” is a clarion call to defenders of free speech. Jennings provides a clear understanding of the media atmosphere before and after the Fairness Doctrine. In addition, Jennings analyzes the reasons for conservative success and liberal failure in the format.

The most alarming revelations involve the currently percolating schemes to silence Conservative talk radio. Some of the plots are emanating from Congress and some in the seedy halls of anti-freedom Leftist organizations such as Media Matters and the Center for American Progress. These fascists will not use the term “Fairness Doctrine.” Instead, they will employ “newspeak” terms such as “localism” and “diversity of ownership” to disguise their desire to repeal the 1st Amendment’s protection of free speech.

The plethora of information sources available today eradicates the concept’s original justification which was a relatively small number of radio outlets and the possibility of a monopoly on news and opinion. Today, there are thousands of radio stations along with network television, cable and satellite television, and the internet. Television, newspapers, and Hollywood remain powerful bastions of Leftist domination. The American taxpayer supports Leftist talk radio: it’s called National Public Radio (NPR). In addition, most of the “morning zoo” radio formats are obvious in their political leanings. Even ESPN-radio announcers regularly let fly with politicized commentary.

The fact remains that the talk radio genre has been a subject of conservative success and Leftist failure. This cannot be. It is obvious that Leftist opinions are heard. They are not lacking communication avenues. That is what is most scary about their anti-freedom campaign. They aren’t fighting to express their opinions. Instead, the Left’s goal is use the government to silence speech with which they disagree.

Make no mistake, free expression is under attack. Without directly banning conservative talk radio, the new Leftist majority on the FCC can easily regulate the format out of existence. Community advisory boards and other “watchdogs” will be used to demand “balance” on the air waves. This, of course, will not apply to television or newspapers. Equal time demands will force station owners to program content that no one wants to hear or to change formats as they lose advertising dollars.

In my opinion, the role of talk radio in the defeat of the immigration amnesty bill in the summer of 2007 was the final straw. The Left already hated talk radio, but the mobilization of citizens to inundate Washington, D.C. with phone calls, faxes, and emails opposing the bill was a reminder that “fly over country” ultimately owns this little experiment called the United States of America. The Left would prefer that ordinary Americans fuss and fume about the government, but feel powerless to stand up to it. Conservative talk radio has served as a defender of the average Joe. Brian Jennings’ “Censorship” is a call to citizens that it is now our time to defend free speech. Arm yourself for the fight.

Opie Taylor Turned Out OK and So Will LeBron James

When the story of the Orlando Magic's game 6 victory over the Cleveland Cavaliers hit the airwaves last night, it seemed no one really cared that the Magic are heading to the NBA finals to play the Los Angeles Lakers. Instead, the focus was on the post-game behavior of Cavaliers megastar and NBA MVP LeBron James. After the final buzzer, James left the court without congratulating the Orland players and, horror of horrors, didn't talk to the media.

I immediately thought of another young superstar whose hopes of glory were dashed: Opie Taylor. Young Opie had hopes of winning the 50-yard dash in the Mayberry boys track championships. How could he lose? He even had Barney Fife, the Jillian Michaels of pee wee track trainers, preparing his body for greatness. But, it was not to be. Opie came out of the gate like the 1988 Baltimore Orioles. Opie made a quick exit for home without congratulating his friends or speaking to the Mayberry Gazette. When his dad, Sheriff Andy, found him at home, Opie made it clear: "They're not my friends. They beat me and they took my medal." Andy then gave one of the best fatherly speeches of all-time and, in the end, Opie came back and told his Pa he didn't want Andy to be disappointed in him.

LeBron James is not a bad guy, but last night he made a childish decision after the game. If many of us think back to the age of 24, we made many decisions of which we are not proud. That isn't an excuse for bad behavior. It was childish, selfish and immature. The whole sports world had been building up a Kobe v. Lebron NBA finals and Lebron certainly has enjoyed the hype and all that goes with it. When the final seconds ticked away on Saturday night, LeBron forget that there was more involved than his ego and his fame.

LeBron James has received mostly positive press over the years. This is deserved. He comes off as a very down-to-earth and nice guy. I haven't been much of an NBA fan since the days of Bird and Magic, but I really like LeBron. He seems like he could really be "one of the guys." I have a feeling that this young man is sick inside today, not only from the disappointing loss but from hearing so many negative comments about him. My prediction is that LeBron will get it. I think he values the position he has developed as a public figure and will say the right things to apologize for his lack of judgment in that moment.

Opie Taylor went on to be one of Mayberry's finest young men. LeBron James, too, will recover from this and continue to be a great player and an admirable young man.

Will Sonia Sotomayor Abort Roe v Wade?

Now, this is quite an interesting turn. It seems some of the radical abortionists on the Left are worried that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is not an absolutist on the "divine right" to kill a baby before it is born. Now, there is no evidence that she is ready to overthrow Roe v. Wade. However, Sotomayor has ruled in favor of the Bush administration's so-called "Mexico City policy," freedom of assembly for pro-life protestors. and in favor of a Chinese woman's amnesty due to the specter of forced birth control if the woman returned to China. None of those are radical positions and none point to a justice who will overturn the "Plessy" of human life. Still, there are some interesting nuggets in this mini-controversy.

First, we are once again being treated to the "'Roe' is in danger/the sky is falling" drumbeat from the pro-abortion crowd. The ABC News story linked here mentions that "Roe" has hung on by a narrow 5-4 margin in recent cases. Really? I don't recall the Supreme Court ruling on the general principle of "Roe." They have handled cases involving various laws under the abortion heading, but not the procedure itself. They also refer to a recent CNN poll in which 68% of the respondents said they did not want to see Roe v Wade completely overturned. Did you catch that? Completely overturned. Now, there is no mention of parental consent, partial birth abortion or other issues that often reach the courts. In fact, it is issues like those and physician conscience statutes or foreign aid for abortions that Sotomayor may hear as a Supreme Court justice. Of course, the red herring is the assertion that an overturn of Roe v Wade would make abortion illegal. It, of course, would simply turn over the issue to the states and admit that ending a life is not a constitutional right.

This dust up is also a reminder of the radical anti-life nature of NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and, to be honest, President Barry Vladimir Hussein Soetero Obama. Most pro-abortion (or pro-choice to ease their conscience) people have pure, if misguided, reasons for their stance. However, these organizations celebrate the act of abortion as though it is a religious ritual. They would prefer no limits until the cord is cut, no parental notification, massive foreign aid for international abortions and to prosecute doctors who do not wish to perform abortions. Let us not forget President Obama, as a back-bench wallflower in the Illinois Senate, gave an impassioned speech in an attempt to defeat the Born Alive Act which directed doctors to administer aid to babies that survived botched abortions. To state Senator Obama, the intent to kill the baby carried more weight than any need to sustain its life if it survived the procedure. He can try to mollify his position as a "moderate" on abortion, but his opposition to that common sense protection of life is a matter of record. Former nurse Jill Stanek catalogued Obama's defenses for his vote.

Sonia Sotomayor, despite deciding properly on some life issues, is still not qualified to be a Supreme Court justice. She has made it clear, as has President Obama, that the law is not as important to her as the lessons of her life experience. That is LibSpeak for "I'll advance the causes I believe in, the law be damned." Therein lays the irony. Obama likely assumed that Sotomayor, like most Leftists, would never divert from script. Nothing is more important than advancing their agenda and nothing will get in the way. In this case, while grievance politics and socialism are part of her life story, so is her Hispanic and Roman Catholic heritage. Given her judicial philosophy, one can assume her decisions in the "controversial" cases were a product of her life experiences rather than her fidelity to the law. The question is, how far will those Catholic-influenced sensibilities take her? A number of Republican presidents have been surprised by justices who lurched to the Left after their appointment. Sotomayor will be a dependable Leftist in regard to statism and grievance mongering, but how sweet would it be for an Obama appointment to be the deciding vote in a pro-life decision, especially the overturning of Roe?

Could Sonia Sotomayor Serve On A Jury?

Andrew McCarthy had a very interesting piece at "The Corner" on National Review Online. It does beg a very interesting point: how can a woman who would be disqualified from jury service because of her racial comments be trusted to remember justice in a colorblind manner? I won't go as far as Newt Gingrich did in calling her a racist, however it is clear she is a product of identity grievance politics and her notion of "redistributive justice" trumps the principle of equal protection under the law.

Farewell To Jay Leno, The Last Nonpartisan Comic

The entertainment industry tends to lurch to the political left and comedians, in particular, tend toward the countercultural. In the tamer times of Bob Hope and Johnny Carson, they could take good-natured jabs at politicians of all stripes. No group of citizens creates more buffoonery than elected officials. Heck, even the unelected bureaucrats tend toward the doltish. Since we live in a civilized country that does not allow for tar-and-feathering, ridiculing these buffoons is the best weapon the public has. Good comedy does that for us.

Even in the early years of Saturday Night Live, that incredibly talented group of comic legends took shots at all people with power. There were no sacred cows. I would suspect that the "Not Ready For Primetime Players" leaned to the Left in their politics, but they did not let that limit their satirical targets. They were funny without being vicious.

Today, SNL is incapable of doing satire against the political left. That would be disloyalty. Tina Fey takes great pride in the fact that many Americans believe her over-the-top portrayal of Sarah Palin is the REAL Palin. Dopey Leftists quote Fey's SNL performances as the actual words of Governor Palin. And, then, there is Jon Stewart. He will occasionally satirize a leftwing figure, but the balance sheet is not even close. Of course, the most irritating thing is that he tries to pass as a news commentator who happens to use comedy; at least, that is, until he says something foolish and then he is just a comic. Of course, much like Obama and his teleprompter, Stewart had to shut down "The Daily Show" during the writer's strike because he cannot achieve moderately funny without a team of writers.

That brings us to Jay Leno. I used to watch Leno a lot, but my eyes are usually too heavy by that time these days. Sometimes I do catch pieces of his monologues later. Leno has that touch that the funny men of yore possessed. He (and, yes, since I took a swipe at Stewart, I know he also has writers) sees rich targets in all areas of public life. No one is off limits. Leno was tough on Dubya, but he is also tough on Barack Obama, which is rare in the comedy world. Some have suggested that Obama is so cool, so intelligent, and so "messiah-like" that they cannot come up with anything amusing about him. They should call Jay Leno and "The Tonight Show" gang. They approach comedy with humor as the goal rather than setting a partisan objective and using wit as a way to ridicule their target. The Jon Stewarts, Steven Colberts, Jeannine Garofalos and Tina Feys of the world have more in common with Saul Alinsky than with George Carlin.

So, thanks for the memories, Jay Leno. You have written another successful chapter into the rich history of NBC's "The Tonight Show." Ok, Conan, let's see what you have.

On Sonia Sotomayor, Intelligence and Partisanship

Ahhh, Let the games begin. The confirmation process for Supreme Court justice nominee Sonia Sotomayor is already heading into overdrive. Many Democrats (and, sadly, some Republicans) not so subtly suggest that any criticism of Sotomayor will be portrayed as racism. Conservatives are digging through her background and coming up with some interesting nuggets, some fairly benign but others that demonstrate she is a Leftwing activist who uses a black robe to usurp legislative powers.

Some Conservative columnists and bloggers have belittled Sonia Sotomayor's intelligence, which has drawn angry rebukes from the Left who expect a coronation rather than a confirmation. Look, I assume the woman is likely intelligent in the conventional sense. She achieved advanced academic degrees and has worked in the field of law for nearly 30 years. I seriously doubt she is a dumb woman. She is a serious socialist and knows exactly what she is doing when she advances extra-constitutional or unconstitutional ideas.

However, isn't it interesting that the Moonbats in the media are soiling themselves and referring to a "southern strategy" concerning attacks on Ms. Sotomayor's intellect? These same people just spent eight years advancing the notion that a U.S. President with an Ivy League education was mentally retarded. This same media has never questioned the Left's attacks on the intelligence of Clarence Thomas. In fact, Nevada Senator Harry Reid launched a vicious attack on Justice Thomas on "Meet the Press" in 2004 that he never apologized for. I have always found it interesting that the "diversity party" always cedes to the intelligence of Scalia, Roberts, and Alito, but attacks Thomas as lacking smarts. Gee, it couldn't be his race could it. The Left's outrage over the cerebral agility issue is beyond hypocritical.

As for the Ivy League education and the perception of superior intellect, whether from the Left or from the Right, my response is, who cares? C-Span shows us bumbling fools on a daily basis who possess degrees from the "finest" universities. They are still imbeciles. In fact, in my profession I know plenty of folks with advanced degrees who can't tell their butt from a hot rock. I also know folks of minimal educational pedigree who just plain get it. They may not know the intricacies of calculus or know the difference between Keats and Yeats, but they know there is something wrong when the various levels of government are sucking up half of their paycheck.

Faithfully upholding the United States Constitution is not rocket surgery. In fact, I feel qualified. I'm not qualified to build a house, investigate a homicide, run a dairy farm, administer physical therapy, cook at a five-star restaurant (maybe a two-star), or cut hair. These jobs all require special skills and training. The Constitution is a simple document that you can read three times in an hour. It is much easier to know intricately the Constitution than any one of the Harry Potter novels. Even if you argue that our citizen jurists should also read the Federalist papers and an assortment of writings by the Founders, a significant number of folks could be up to speed in short order.

These judicial arguments always remind what a snake oil business the law has become. The Constitution is simple. Constitutional principles are what they are. Those who wish to make it a mysterious puzzle that only a select few can solve do so for one simple reason: they wish to follow a path that is contrary to the natural law. People are made to feel that they are too simple and uninformed to understand, so they must wait for the "damn dirty apes" from Washington to tell us what the sacred scrolls say about any matter. Balderdash! When justices start telling us what is hiding in the Constitution's "emanations" and "penumbras" they are really saying, "we have no legitimate Constitutional reason for our decision, so just choke on it!"

Honestly, I do not care if a potential justice went to Yale, Harvard, or Hamburger University. In any other profession, after you pass the entry level, your achievements and abilities are all that matter. If you want Sotomayor, Dubya, and Justice Thomas to square off in a Celebrity Jeopardy tournament for charity, have at it. However, for a serious job like a Supreme Court justice we need a serious person who seriously understands what her job is and what her job is not. That is there Ms. Sotomayor is severely lacking.