| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Repelling raving moonbats since 2001.
| ||
| |
| Sharon Soon New Jersey Assemblyman on Gay Marriage: Let the People Decide (August 21) Most Americans Would Keep "In God We Trust" on U.S. Currency (August 21) |
| McQ Woe is Me - America Sucks (as usual) (August 21) Saddleback Bump for McCain (August 20) Questions about Obama's Chances Begin (August 19) |
| Melissa Clouthier Inbred Professors (August 21) Give That Guy A Drink! (August 20) My Latest Pajama's Media Column: Dear NBC Anchors: A Little Patriotism Wouldn't Kill You.... (August 20) Frosted Flakes: Breakfast of a Capitalist (August 20) |
| rwnadmin Blog Contest: Write The Best Anti-Socialized Medicine Post And Win $50 (August 21) Q&A Friday #93 (August 21) Conservative Grapevine Promo (August 21) RWN Forum Promo (August 20) Doing The Jaz McKay Show At 4:07 PM (August 20) Conservative Grapevine Promo (August 20) Irony Alert By Betsy Newmark (August 20) |
| ADVERTISEMENT |
Once again, New Jersey seems to be vying for the title of the most radically liberal state in the country. Fortunately, NJ Assemblyman Mike Doherty has shown himself to be one of the best guys we have got fighting for us. While far too many of our Republican officials are apathetic or too afraid to bring up issues that concern the social conservative, or else take a liberal stance themselves, Doherty doesn't seem to quiver at the challenge. In fact, he'll take the lead. This time, New Jersey news is reporting that just after Garden State Equality, a gay rights activist group, released poll results showing that most NJ voters favor legalizing gay marriage, Doherty is calling for an amendment to be passed that would let the voters decide.
"The people of New Jersey should have the final say on this fundamental issue and it's time to allow their voices to be heard so that we can put this diversion behind us and move forward on real issues that are affecting our residents," said Doherty in a press release.The poll, which was released yesterday, found that New Jersey voters support allowing gays to marry by a margin of 50% to 42%.
Doherty said that the gay marriage issue was a smokescreen to distract voters from Gov. Corzine's low poll numbers, a high cost of living, a "back breaking" debt and high property taxes. He said that the issue was raised last year to distract from Gov. Corzine's highly unpopular - and now dead--asset monetization plan.
It seems a pattern has emerged where Mr. Goldstein [Chair of Garden State Equality] and other funded agitators pop up when necessary to run interference for the Corzine Administration and other Democrats when they are either considering unpopular proposals such as their highly controversial 'asset monetization' scheme or an official's low performance ratings," he said. "Either way, it's a constant agitation of society much like former President Bill Clinton's 'wag the dog' antics to keep the heat off of his personal indiscretions.
Doherty is suggesting that if these activists are as confident as they say they are in the opinions of New Jersey residents (and actually care what we think), then they should prove it by supporting a vote on the issue. Instead, this is the last thing Garden State Equality wants.
Goldstein cast the marriage question as a civil rights issue, and noted that Americans traditionally do not vote on those questions."In America you don't take public referenda on voting rights, women's rights, the right to have a society free of prejudice. Civil unions are as offensive to gay people as separate facilities would be to other groups based on who they are," he said.
I'm not sure what these guys are so afraid of. And for all their claims that gay marriage is a civil rights issue, the rest of American society has been very slow to catch on. So has the U.S. Constitution.
Doherty clearly understands this, and cleverly undermines the basis of Goldstein's claim.
It goes to the heart of the question of where constitutional rights come from. Some people would say they come from our creator and the constitution is put into place to protect those god-given rights. For those who say that there is no god, they say they certainly can't come from government, they should come from the people. That's all I'm saying here: let the people of New Jersey decide.
Thanks for standing up for the people, Mike. At least someone will.
Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude!
| Rate this article: |
|
One drawback to allowing ourselves to be colonized by an invading army of the Third World's dregs is that little girls can't even walk to school without being harassed by savages. From Hayward, Mexifornia:
Walking to and from school has been a nightmare for Amoni Packnett, an eighth-grader at Cesar Chavez Middle School.
The 13-year-old and other girls are the target of daily whistles and hard stares from day laborers [i.e., illegal aliens], who often also stalk the girls, along Tennyson Road in south Hayward.
"It can get uncomfortable, and I feel violated," Packnett said. "We just want something to be done to prevent this from happening again."
Parent Jonathan Hopkins confirms:
It is brutal. The verbal abuse is loud and constant.
Not to worry, something is being done. Will these criminals be arrested, or sent packing to their own countries? Get serious. But there are plans to offer them sensitivity training.
Before long, one of the adolescent girls they harass will be raped and maybe murdered. That will be the signal for any remaining Gringos in Hayward to retreat into the Heartland. Demographic trends indicate that soon there will be nowhere left to retreat to. Then we won't exist anymore.
Hat tip: Knowledge Is Power; on a tip from V the K. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.
| Rate this article: |
|
KameraDSM of the Daily Kos is just depressed when he (or she) considers our prowess in the Olympics and a bunch of statistics he (or she) ran across when looking for negative info on the US:
As we continue to celebrate the Olympics with profound pride and patriotism, I wanted to share some disheartening rankings that reflect our country's stark decline relative to the rest of the world. I list these fully knowing this community's cognizance of such issues, but sometimes numbers yield a haunting, and thus effective, reminder. For anyone truly proud to be American, these numbers should anger, motivate, and prompt action.32nd - World rank of U.S. infant mortality rate.First - CEO to Worker pay ratio (531:1) (Second place is Brazil at 57:1)
9th - Adult Literacy Scale (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development)
12th - student reading ability (Source: OECD)
37th - U.S. rank on the Healthcare Quality Index (World Health Organization)
17th - Rank of U.S. on women's rights (World Economic Forum Report)
29th - Life Expectancy
48th - U.S. rank on Journalistic Press Freedom Index (Reporters Without Borders)
13th - U.S. rank on quality of life survey (Economist Magazine)
45th - Environmental Stability Index (Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy)
21st - Aid to poor nations of the world (as percentage of gross national income)
*** These stats are re-presented from Vincent Bugliosi's excellent new book, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder
We are the wealthiest nation in the world and widely indoctrinated to consider ourselves the "greatest" nation. Of course, if we were to measure our greatness by military might and financial wealth, we'd be No. 1 - no doubt. But what makes a nation truly "great" is its leadership and devotion to social/moral issues. Take seriously the numbers above, and you'll have a hard time finding the tenacity to say we're the "greatest." (To be honest, one should be wary of any person, government or institution that self-proclaims "greatness")
Have to love the name of the book which is the source of the info, don't you?
As with any statistical analysis, you have to look at details.
Let's take foreign aid for instance.
I found a 2005 story (pdf) on that from the LA Times which addresses precisely the claim made by our friend at the Daily Kos, but using a per capita standard.
And the result?
The United States has significantly increased its foreign aid to poor countries but still ranks 12th among the 21 richest nations in its overall performance in helping the world's poor, according to a widely watched annual report.
According to that report, per capita the US gives $.15 through the government and about $.06 privately per day.
The United States spent $18.7 billion in foreign aid in 2003, more than any other nation.
The number one nation, Denmark, gives $.89 per person day.
Sounds like a huge difference until you do the math. Denmark has a population of a medium sized metro area in the US (5,475,791) which means, given the report's number, it doles out exactly $1,778,810,706.35 per year in foreign aid.
So tell me - does 18.7 billion buy more food, build more schools and help more nations than does 1.7 billion?
Unless my schooling was as bad as some people claim it was, I'd say it is significantly more than Denmark's contribution. But that's the problem when you try to make comparisons like this. The total amount of money is what makes a difference, not the per capita level. While it's nice that Denmark has that per capita level of aid, their total contribution obviously doesn't do what ours can do.
I've covered infant mortality before, and while the problem is a little different, it again is a false comparison when you get into the details.
And that's what you have to watch in "America sucks" laments like KameraDSM's. The old saw of lies, damn lies and statistics was never more true than here.
Like so many at Daily Kos, I've been inspired by the world's athletes at the Summer Games. A simple thought came to me while watching the U.S. runners and gymnasts last night: If the U.S. can be No. 1 in overall medal count for the Beijing Games, there's no reason we can't be the greatest at overcoming our culture's immense moral shortcomings. If we can be patriotic about the 100m butterfly, we can again be patriotic about things other than war and money like, perhaps, helping the "huddled masses yearning to breathe free."
"Immense moral shortcomings" - my goodness. How does this person manage to continue to live here? Of course he (or she) makes no examination at all of the details of the stats he (or she) throws around. It's enough that they look bad for the US and allows him (or her) to engage in a round of self-righteous moral indignation related to our assumed greed, selfishness and moral decline. It obviously fills a need.
So I'll leave him (or her) to cry in his (or her) beer (or wine) while I continue to enjoy the Olympics. I see the games as a perfect representative of the greatness of our country. While we may not be perfect, no set of manipulated stats can hide the fact that we are and we remain the greatest nation on earth - and our immigration stats (you know, those "huddled masses") prove it. Despite repeated statistical attempts to prove we're not worthy, immigrants continue to flood the country and declare it the most amazing place on earth.
And if you don't quite understand that point, look at the US men's gymnastic team as the perfect example - 2nd generation Chinese, 2nd generation Indian, 2nd generation Russian among the rest of the team. Their parents saw the potential living in the US presented and their children realized it.
Yup, the Olympics make the point very well. Too bad our friend can't sit back and just enjoy the fact that he (or she) lives in the greatest nation on earth.
[Crossposted at QandO]
| Rate this article: |
|
Glenn Reynolds links to these alarming statistics brought to us by the Tax Prof:
A key finding of the report is the partner status of full-time faculty: Academic Partner: 36% Employed, Non-academic Partner: 36% Single: 14% Stay-at-Home Partner: 13%
Well, if the professors weren't screwing students, they were screwing each other and then screwing the students. Because of the inbreeding, a student who pisses off one prof hooked up with another prof risks a double-whammy.
What this little analysis doesn't say is what percent of the Employed, Non-academic partners work for the school. I'll bet it's a big percentage. So don't tangle with someone in the administration, either, because he or she is likely married to a professor who teaches a required class. They talk.
And yes, to be clear, I am suggesting that professors are human and a part of the grading comes down to how much they don't hate you--if there is any subjective grading. (There's a couple profs who actually seem to like students, but for the tenured folk, the liking the students schtick was a pretense that was left behind twenty years ago.)
Back to inbreeding: I'll just put it this way, the creative learning environment seems to be the same well that other, um, creative energy comes from and professors have a lot of creative energy. As long as it's well-channeled, the students are usually safe. Usually.
Cross-posted at MelissaClouthier.com
| Rate this article: |
|
The WSJ connects the dots between Obamenomics and military weakness:
Given the hearty support Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama received in Europe last month, he must have noticed the surprise and skepticism among some Germans when he asked that Europeans contribute more for defense. Many Europeans argue they cannot afford such an additional expenditure.
Better even to be as dependent on the endlessly demonized USA as a baby bird on its mother than to try to pay for military strength they cannot afford, having squandered their wealth on entitlement programs that politically are easy to grant but almost impossible to repeal.
Obama would put us in the same boat, except that America will have no protector to turn to:
The problem with Mr. Obama's fiscal plans is not that that they lack vision. On the contrary, the vision is plain enough: a larger welfare state paid for by higher taxes. The problem is not even that they imply change. The problem is that his plans are statist.
While the candidate is sending a fiscal "Ich bin ein Berliner" message to Americans, European critics of his call for greater spending on defense are the canary in the coal mine for what lies ahead with his vision for the United States.
The Obamessiah doesn't need to call so openly for killing our military by cutting its air hose. His policy of taxing the productive to grow the unproductive means there simply won't be enough wealth to stand up to the Chinese, the Iranians, the Russians, or even Hugo Chavez.
On a tip from Oiao. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.
| Rate this article: |
|
I'm a big fan of off-the-wall movies and with that in mind, I thought I'd suggest a few movies you've probably never seen before that aren't the standard movie schlock. (Descriptions cribbed from Netflix)
Battle Royale: Kinji Fukasaki's explosive drama takes place early in the new millennium, with Japan on the verge of societal collapse. When even the schoolchildren begin to abuse the system, the government introduces a strict new punishment whereby a randomly chosen group of students are taken to a desert island and forced to fight each other to the death.
Botched: Forced to make amends to his bosses for his part in a failed heist, Ritchie (Stephen Dorff) is sent to Russia to steal a priceless antique from a Moscow penthouse, where he finds himself trapped on the 13th floor with a deranged psycho and a pair of murderous twins.
Cigarette Burns: Hired by a millionaire collector (Udo Kier) to retrieve the infamous Le Fin du Monde -- a violent movie that reportedly causes viewers to turn into homicidal maniacs after they watch it -- an unsuspecting theater owner (Norman Reedus) begins to fall under the film's spell. John Carpenter directs this unsettling installment of the "Masters of Horror" series, following one man's search for the holy grail of horror cinema.
Dead and Breakfast (Title corrected): Six friends (including Bianca Lawson, Ever Carradine, Erik Palladino and Portia de Rossi) get more than they bargained for when they spend the night at a nondescript bed-and-breakfast in the backwater town of Lovelock. When the B&B's owner and the chef don't survive the night, the travelers are the prime suspects. But the tables (and suspicions) turn when the townspeople become possessed by an evil spirit and besiege the young people in the B&B.
Jenifer: Detective Frank Spivey (Steven Weber) rescues a disfigured young woman from a depraved murderer and finds himself strangely attracted to her. Jenifer (Carrie Anne Fleming) clearly has mental issues, but when the curvaceous orphan seduces Spivey, he seems more than willing to overlook her problems -- until her fleshly appetites take a disturbing turn.
May: Nobody knows what to make of May (Angela Bettis). Born with a lazy eye, for which she wore a patch while growing up, she became a loner oddball whose only friend was a perfectly kept doll. She moves to L.A. and takes up with a filmmaker (Jeremy Sisto), but the relationship sours quickly -- and dangerously. She then befriends an alluring lesbian colleague (Anna Faris), but that, too, along with every connection May attempts to make, turns deadly.
Near Dark: In the dusty heart of the American southwest, innocent country boy Caleb (Adrian Pasdar) is seduced by a beautiful girl (Jenny Wright) into joining a pack of vicious drifters. But this is no ordinary band of outlaws, and Caleb is soon trapped in a nightmarish world of soulless evil and hellish mayhem that thrives on blood and absolute horror. This extraordinary shocker is one of the most ferociously original vampire movies of our generation.
Night Watch: This first installment of the trilogy based on the best-selling science fiction novels by Russian writer Sergei Lukyanenko plays upon the tension between light and dark, pitting the superhuman Night Watch patrollers (known as the "Others") against the shadowed forces of the night. But the biggest fear of all stems from the lines of an ancient prophecy, which warns of a renegade Other whose betrayal could bring chaos to the land.
Oldboy: With no clue how he came to be imprisoned, drugged and tortured for 15 years -- and no one to hold accountable for his suffering -- a desperate businessman seeks revenge on his captors, relying on assistance from a friendly waitress. Korean director Chan Wook Park -- a former philosophy student and Hitchcock devotee -- uses his influences to create a mesmerizing psychological drama with a resolution that will leave you speechless.
Santa's Slay: Jolly old Saint Nick (Bill Goldberg) isn't making a gift list this year -- he's making a hit list, checking it twice and unleashing his inner demon for an unforgettably terrifying Christmas. A bet that Santa lost to an angel 1,000 years ago has expired, and now he's hell-bent on spreading some holiday fear.
The Tao of Steve: An overweight, overeducated lady-killer (Donal Logue) learns that his rules of cool (aka The Tao of Steve -- McQueen) get him everywhere with the women he doesn't want and nowhere with the woman he covets (Greer Goodman). Could there be something wrong with his philosophy? Sly and smart, The Tao of Steve burrows under the skin of modern romance, with warm, funny results.
The Tripper: A group of pill-popping hippies journeys to a love and peace concert in the woods, where they soon come under attack by a psycho with an ax to grind -- and he's sporting a Ronald Reagan mask. Can the young stoners emerge from their drug-induced haze before they literally become chopped liver?
Wilderness: The tough teen inmates of the Young Offenders Institution are dropped in a dense forest, where they're expected to learn how to work as a team. But their backwoods rehabilitation hits a snag when a crazed archer starts picking off the delinquents one by one. As the body count climbs, a leader (Toby Kebbell) emerges. He and the rest of the ragtag crew must pass a crash course in teamwork ... or else suffer the gravest of consequences.
| Rate this article: |
|
I've started working with the David All Group for a few of their clients in the health care space. Towards that end, one idea I pitched to them was a way to drive more stories about the benefits of the free-market health care system versus a single-payer, socialized approach like the one offered by Barack Obama.
Rather than do the usual in a situation like this, which is to email other bloggers and ask them to link particular stories, I came up with an approach that I believe could revolutionize the way interest groups try to pitch these sort of issues to bloggers. This concept is, I believe, more transparent, more effective, and better for the blogosphere than anything that has been tried before.
What I am going to do is hold a contest per week, for 4 weeks, designed to promote the best anti-socialized medicine posts in the blogosphere.
What will happen is that bloggers will write posts about socialized medicine. They can write them specifically for the contest or just because that's what they happen to want to write about today, but once they write the post, they'll send me an email letting me know that they want it entered in the contest (Yes, I do have to get an email. Sorry, but these are the rules I am working under).
Then, at the end of the week, I will select the best articles from that week on socialized medicine, will rank them, and then will link all the top posts on RWN. Furthermore, all the bloggers that rank will have the satisfaction of getting their work recognized and will get traffic from RWN -- but first place will also receive $50.
The first contest begins on Thurs, Aug 21 and the winners will be announced on Aug 28th. So, write those posts about socialized medicine, email me the links, and then make sure to tune in next Thursday and link the winners!
| Rate this article: |
|
No one questions the fact that oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear power can fuel our country's energy needs because they already do. But, what about the hot, sexy alternative power source that's now being touted non-stop by the Left and T. Boone Pickens, wind power?
How feasible is it that wind power is really going to go from meeting far less than 1% of our current energy needs to 20% of our energy needs -- which would presumably allow Pickens to make back the billions he put into wind power and collect a tidy profit for his trouble?
Well, take a look at these numbers and you tell me how likely wind power is to sweep the nation in the next few years,
"How many windmills does it take to meet the power needs of a typical city, much less New York City?At www.scitizen.com, Kurt Cobb worked the numbers. Generously, he presumed the windmills would use 5-megawatt turbines - generating three times the output of a typical 1.5-megawatt turbine. He compared that with a 500-megawatt fossil-fuel (coal) power plant needed to power a city of 300,000 people. A typical power plant, he noted, would cover 300 acres, but use only 30 of those for the actual facility.
Cobb calculated it would take 233 5-megawatt wind turbines to equal the coal plant's output, since the wind doesn't blow constantly. Each would need to be spaced 2,065 feet away from the others (five times the diameter of their 413-foot rotors). Adding the rotor diameters to the spacing requirement equates to a 110-mile long line of windmills, half a mile in width.
It comes to 55 square miles. That's to provide electricity for a town of 300,000 people.
New York City has 8.1 million residents. Manhattan Island totals 23 square miles. So, based on Cobb's calculations, it would take six and a half Manhattan Islands, each covered totally with windmills, to power one-tenth of New York City. And if standard 1.5-megawatt wind turbines were used, they would take three times more space.
...Going back to Kurt Cobb's calculations, if we wanted to meet the electric needs of 300 million Americans rather than only 300,000, we'd need a half-mile swath of windmills, each of them hundreds of feet high, 110,000 miles long, crisscrossing the continent 40 times between New York City and Los Angeles.
That's a lot of land to condemn. The cost would be in the hundreds of billions of dollars, since each large windmill costs millions."
The Left has been blocking drilling of 2000 acres of land in ANWR, but they're going to allow us to build enormous, ugly, noisy, bird killing windmills everywhere you look, all across the country? C'mon, how can anyone believe that?
Windmills are expensive, inefficient, take up an inordinate amount of space, and would be seldom built anywhere in the United States if there was no hope of getting the government to subsidize their construction and maintenance.
If the politicians in DC would face up to those facts instead of throwing away more taxpayer money on these windmill boondoggles just so that they can run commercials at election time bragging that they're "green," the whole country would be better off.
| Rate this article: |
|
Tomorrow will be Q&A Friday #93 at RWN.
So, if there's a subject you've been wanting me to tackle or an issue you want to hear my opinion on, just ask your question in the comments section. Your question can be about just about anything; politics, ideology, history, blogging, RWN, from a liberal, conservative, or libertarian perspective, movies, music, literature, or TV. Then tomorrow, I'll select some of the more interesting questions and answer them.
Ask away!
PS: My co-blogger, Dr. Melissa Clouthier, said it might be fun to answer a couple of questions as well. So, if you have any questions for her, feel free to fire away.
| Rate this article: |
|
I hate to admit it, but Cindy McCain appears to have been caught telling an embarrassing untruth about how she came to adopt her daughter. Originally, she was claiming that Mother Theresa personally convinced her to adopt her daughter Bridget.
Here's the actual text from McCain's website (This has now been scrubbed),
As an advocate for children's health care needs, Cindy founded and ran the American Voluntary Medical Team (AVMT) from 1988 to 1995. AVMT provided emergency medical and surgical care to impoverished children throughout the world. Cindy led 55 medical missions to third world and war-torn countries during AVMT's seven years of existence. On one of those missions, Mother Teresa convinced Cindy to take two babies in need of medical attention to the United States. One of those babies is now their adopted daughter, 16-year-old Bridget McCain.
This story has been told not just by Cindy, but apparently by John McCain as well,
McCain talked in glowing terms of his wife, Cindy. Her right arm is in a sling these days, the result of a mishap on the campaign trail in which an over-enthusiastic supporter squeezed her arm a little too hard and sprained it.He also talked of 17 years ago when Cindy was on a humanitarian trip and Mother Theresa came up to them with two 5-month-old girls. Mother Theresa told Cindy if they didn't take one of these babies home she would die. So Cindy did, telling her husband when she returned: "I'd like to introduce you to your new daughter."
Although Bridget was adopted from Mother Theresa's orphanage, it turns out that Cindy McCain didn't actually meet Mother Theresa,
The McCain campaign had also put out the story that Mother Teresa "convinced" Cindy to bring home two orphans from Bangladesh in 1991.Mrs. McCain, it turns out, never met Mother Teresa on that trip. (Once contacted by the Monitor, the campaign revised the story on its website.)
Did Cindy McCain talk to Mother Theresa at all, even on the phone? That's unknown, but judging by language on the current version of the McCain website, it seems unlikely,
As an advocate for children's health care needs, Cindy founded and ran the American Voluntary Medical Team (AVMT) from 1988 to 1995. AVMT provided emergency medical and surgical care to impoverished children throughout the world. Cindy led 55 medical missions to third world and war-torn countries during AVMT's seven years of existence. On one of those missions to Mother Teresa's orphanage, Cindy was convinced to take two babies in need of medical attention to the United States. One of those babies is now their adopted daughter, 16-year-old Bridget McCain.
This is disappointing, not just because it's apparently untrue that Cindy McCain spoke to Mother Theresa, but because it makes you scratch your head. The McCains adopted a little girl from overseas. That's an amazing, incredibly compassionate thing to do. Why embellish a story like that?
Granted, "fish stories" aren't necessarily unusual. People will add a little detail here or there to make a story better, but it doesn't look good when a politician does it -- and since John McCain has repeated the story, it looks like Mr. "Straight Talk" is going to end up having to explain on the campaign trail why he and his wife fudged a story about something as intimate as the circumstances under which they came to adopt their own daughter. They should know better than that.
| Rate this article: |
|
Media Matters is pitching this commentary from Rush Limbaugh as if it's supposed to be terribly controversial to someone besides liberals,
Rush Limbaugh said that "it is striking how unqualified [Sen. Barack] Obama is and, and how this whole thing came about with, within the Democrat Party. I think it really goes back to the fact that nobody had the guts to stand up and say no to a black guy." Limbaugh went on to say: "I think this is a classic illustration here where affirmative action has reared its ugly head against them.
If Barack Obama becomes President of the United States, he will be the first "Affirmative Action President" because there's very little in his background that shows he's ready for the job and if he gets it, it'll be because more qualified applicants were passed over because of their skin color.
Despite being unqualified to be President, Obama won the Democratic nomination because black Democrats voted for him because he was black and a lot of white liberals voted for him either out of white guilt or because they were afraid of being labeled as racists if they went for Hillary.
If Democrats were honest, they'd admit that Barack Obama probably wouldn't merit a cabinet appointment in a Hillary Clinton administration if he were a white guy.
Maybe 15 years ago in this country, people might have been too terrified of being called "racists" to point out the truth about Barack Obama. But today, in a time when the word "racist" means "threatening to the interests of the Democratic Party" or "Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton need some more money" about 95% of the time, it's a lot harder to intimidate people into pretending the emperor is wearing a full set of clothes.
| Rate this article: |
|
