The Smoke Break

You want some brie with that whine?

U.N. Fires Another Shot At U.S. Sovereignty: Tax The Internet

By

The U.N. continues to grapple with the difficult question of how to subdue and corral the output of that shining beacon of capitalistic opportunity that is the United States.  As with the Global Poverty Act, it is only the most noble of reasons that now send it out sniffing around like a fat rat looking for fallen crumbs in the pantry.  Noble on the surface, that is.

 The World Health Organization (WHO) is considering a plan to ask governments to impose a global consumer tax on such things as Internet activity or everyday financial transactions like paying bills online.

Such a scheme could raise “tens of billions of dollars” on behalf of the United Nations’ public health arm from a broad base of consumers, which would then be used to transfer drug-making research, development and manufacturing capabilities, among other things, to the developing world.

The multibillion-dollar “indirect consumer tax” is only one of a “suite of proposals” for financing the rapid transformation of the global medical industry that will go before WHO’s 34-member supervisory Executive Board at its biannual meeting in Geneva.

 WHO’s so-called Expert Working Group has also suggested asking rich countries to set aside fixed portions of their gross domestic product to finance the shift in worldwide research and development, as well as asking cash-rich developing nations like China, India or Venezuela to pony up more of the money.

But the taxation ideas draw the most interest. The expert panel cites a number of possible examples. Among them:

—a 10 per cent tax on the international arms trade, “which might net about $5 billion per annum”;

—a “digital tax or ‘hit’ tax.” The report says the levy “could yield tens of billions of U.S. dollars from a broad base of users“;

—a financial transaction tax. The report approvingly cites a levy in Brazil that charged 0.38 percent on bills paid online and on unspecified “major withdrawals.” The report says the Brazilian tax was raising an estimated $20 billion per year until it was cancelled for unspecified reasons.

The panel concludes that “taxes would provide greater certainty once in place than voluntary contributions,” even as the report urges WHO’s executive board to promote all of the alternatives, and more, to support creation of a “global health research and innovation coordination and funding mechanism” for the planned revolution in medical research, development and distribution.

I read this and my Constitutionally-driven heart skips a beat or two in fear.  Certainly I don’t begrudge giving help to developing nations, no one does.  Allowing an organization as ineffective and corrupt as the U.N. to handle such things is bad enough but when you consider the issue of the inherent subversion of United States sovereignty contained in all of their wealth-transfer proposals, it’s a nightmare. 

A nightmare already testing the waters, whether we realize it or not:

Starting [now], whenever you buy an airline ticket at a travel agency or online, there’ll be a new question to answer before you hand over your credit card:   Would you be willing to donate $2 to help fight HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis in Africa?

It sounds like a small step, and many airline travelers, already irritated by compulsory surcharges for fuel, baggage and wider seats, may simply ignore it.  But behind this call for a voluntary contribution is an unprecedented worldwide effort to make up a shortfall in official government aid to poor countries — a shortfall exacerbated by the world financial crisis. 

The scheme, the idea of a small U.N. agency, is backed by the travel industry and heavyweights of international aid such as the William J. Clinton Foundation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. It will be formally announced in New York City on Sept. 23 on the fringes of the U.N. General Assembly, and accompanied by a marketing blitz. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the head of the World Bank, Robert Zoellick, are expected to participate in the launch, as well as the chief executives of the three companies that have made it technically possible: Amadeus, Sabre and Travelport/Galileo, who run the reservation and ticketing systems for most of the world’s airlines. Barring any last-minute technical or legal hitches, the scheme will roll out in late January in the U.S. and several European countries, including Britain, Germany, Spain and Switzerland.

I will repeat once again that Americans are the most generous people on this Earth.  Our assistance to other countries for any reason, whether humanitarian or military, is generally more in a single instance than that of all other countries combined.  We help because we want to help, not because someone says that we must.  And we are able to do this because we are a free people.  A people who hold fast to the inalienable right to pursue what makes us happy.  And when people are happy, most are only too willing to share.

Someone needs to kick the WHO to the curb.

 

This Weekend’s Lesson In Leadership

By

Let’s see now.  We’re in the middle of a pretty serious recession that has no end in sight.  The administration is about to tax banks for taking a loan from the government and then paying it back while the IRS upped just pretty much everyone’s tax bill with new 2010 federal tax rates.  Two of the Big Three automakers are owned by the taxpayers and that brilliant, Ivy League idea of a “Cash For Clunkers” program ended up with top ten clunkers traded in having been made by those Big Two but the top ten sales of new vehicles going to everyone else.  Unemployment and housing foreclosures are both at double-digits with no real signs of slowing down so the administration is exploring ways to get their hands on the money people have put into their 401ks.  The government’s security programs failed to stop both a jihadist massacre at Fort Hood and a jihadist attack on a plane above U.S. soil and their diplomatic efforts are failing equally with the nuclear weapons programs of both North Korea and Iran.

We mustn’t forget that it’s absolutely imperative for the government to take over the U.S. health care industry and to convince enough people that there is such a thing as global warming or climate change or something, anything, even if validated by falsified data, Virginia, to justify passing on the enormous financial burdens of cap and trade.

So what does a United States president do when the going is so very, very rough?  How does he lead his country back to the prosperity inherent in Her Constitution and Bill of Rights?  Why, he schemes in pure partisanship until the wee hours of the morning behind closed doors, then hits the campaign trail for Martha Coakley in Massachusetts this weekend.  And he also picks up his magic pen to write a piece for Newsweek  about the disaster in Haiti.

Atta boy, Barry.  Demonstrate your commitment to transparency.  Stump for a corrupt candidate whose own husband’s own police union won’t endorse her.  Indulge your penchant for spouting nonsensical fluff about something that isn’t anyone’s fault and where the need is obvious for a publication that has become nothing more than venue for op/ed pieces.  That’s the way to show real leadership.

Time For The Big Guns: Calling ‘Em Names

By

I laughed out loud this evening when I was told that Democrats are now calling supporters of Massachusetts state senator Scott Brown “radicals”.

Yes, dear readers, those of us who support a candidate with conservative views have been upgraded from “right-wing extremists” to “radicals”.  And all without a single mention of the issues at hand.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., claimed in an e-mail that “swift boaters” were trying to sink Coakley, a reference to the ads that targeted him in the 2004 presidential campaign. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., called Brown a “far-right tea-bagger” in an e-mail, using a term that also can refer to a sexual act. Then on Friday, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., wrote in a fundraising e-mail that Coakley was “being attacked by tea partiers and right-wing radicals.” 

Poor, poor Martha Coakley.  She’s not sinking like a stone in the polls because of her track record of hypocrisy, is she?  Surely someone held a gun to her head and forced her to misuse those state resources for her campaign.  And surely she was forced to keep those innocent people in prison.  And surely having her murky past coming back to haunt her is simply so embarrassing that she and her campaign workers have forgotten how to use spell check before they air their union-sponsored, negative attack ads against Scott Brown.

Cue those flying pigs and pass her some brie to go with her whine.

The woman is a stereotypical political scumbag Democrat.  And the other stereotypical scumbag Democrats, led by His Transparency himself, President Walking Eagle, are now scuttling out from the woodwork to rally around her only because they want her guaranteed vote for their progressive liberal socialist plans for America.  If that 60th Senate vote wasn’t so critical to their unconstitutional takeover of America, they’d be wiping her name off their lips with a piece of that infamous blue dress.

Martha Coakley is just another useful tool for the progressive liberal machine.   And if calling it like it is and wanting the law of this land to be defended and protected by those we send to Washingon is a “radical” concept, well, there’s a whole lot of Americans who are proud to claim it.

Operation Desperation In Massachusetts

By

You know it’s really bad when President Walking Eagle decides that he needs to use our hard-earned tax dollars to fly to Massachusetts to do his favorite thing in the world:  campaign.

Yes, His Transparency is going to take time out of his busy weekend to fly to Boston in an attempt to inspire Democrats there to get out and vote next Tuesday for his latest little lapdogdancer-wannabe, state attorney general Martha Coakley.  The same Martha Coakley who went down to Washington this week to collect campaign contributions from special interest lobbyists, the result of which are little more than a flurry of negative attack ads against state senator Scott Brown that either contain misspellings or are so blatantly offensive they are quickly and stealthily pulled from places like You Tube.

Yessiree.  Partnering up with the Chicago machine is really going to show the good people of Massachusetts that you have taken their views against this administration’s policies to heart, Martha.

That the TOTUS is so willing to ignore the wishes and needs of the majority of Americans by spending their dimes to actively campaign in a state election is equally inspiring.

Flying pig, anyone?

Outright Abortion Funding Surfaces From Reid’s Senate Health Care Bill

By

Obama said, “I see the polls. … I catch the occasional blog poster, cable clip that breathlessly declares what something means for a political party, without really talking about what it means for a country.  But I also know what happens once we get this done, once we sign this … bill into law:  The American people will suddenly learn that this bill does things they like and doesn’t do things people have been trying to say it does. The worst fears will prove groundless.”

Groundless?  When nothing managed by this administration has accomplished anything that could be honestly determined as successful, I don’t think it is groundless that as the passage of time rightly allows for better understanding of what Senator Harry Reid hastily scribbled as pork & bribes into his “manager’s amendment” that became the Senate version of health care “reform” we find more and more reason to be very afraid. 

Another report has been released about federal funding for abortion in the Senate bill.  And clever bastards that they are, it was assumed no one would notice or, if they did, they wouldn’t really understand how such a thing would be allowed, smoked over by the ineffective language included to help buy Senator Ben Nelson’s 60th vote.  It is yet more damning evidence that this entire effort cannot be allowed to be birthed behind closed doors nor in such insane haste.

Buried deep in the 383-page Manager’s Amendment was new language making a direct appropriation of funds for Community Health Centers or CHCs (which are also called Federally Qualified Health Centers, or FQHCs), totaling $7 billion ($7,000,000,000) over five years. (See Sec. 10503 on page 2355 of the Senate-passed bill, H.R. 3590.) Because this is a direct appropriation in the health care bill itself, these funds will not flow through the annual appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services. Therefore, these funds would not be covered by the Hyde Amendment, which is a limitation provision that has been attached to the annual HHS appropriations bill in past years.  Nor is there any other language in the Senate-passed bill that would prevent the use of the new funds to pay for abortions performed at Community Health Centers. (Note:  Section 1303 of the bill contains certain language pertaining to abortion, but that language applies only to a proposed program of tax credits and cost sharing for health insurance for low-income individuals; it has no bearing at all on Section 10503, the CHC section.)

Also, there is no restriction in the current laws authorizing CHCs that restricts these centers from performing abortions. [See 42 U.S.C. 254b and Section 330 of the Public Health Services Act.]

CHCs can only use these so-called “Section 330 funds” for purposes within the scope of their grants, but one can assume that grant applications that included (for example) “reproductive
services” would not be deemed objectionable under the Obama Administration, and abortions could be subsumed under various other classifications as well.

This is not a merely hypothetical concern. There is already an organized effort underway by the Reproductive Health Access Project to encourage Community Health Centers to perform abortions, “as an integrated part of primary health care.” For evidence, see “Frequently Asked Questions About Integrating Abortion into Community Health Centers, Potential Obstacles and Possible Solutions” at http://www.reproductiveaccess.org/getting_started/faq.htm

Indeed, the Reproductive Health Access Project and the Abortion Access Project have produced an “administrative billing guide” to help CHCs integrate abortion into their practices within the confines of existing federal and state restrictions.  See “Administrative Billing Guide for Medical Abortion at Facilities that Receive Title X, Section 330, and other Federal Funding,” at http://www.reproductiveaccess.org/med_ab/downloads/Admin_Billing_Guide.pdf.

I wonder if anyone in Nancy’s Nuthouse who supported the Stupak amendment will do the hypocritical Blue Dog roll over and swallow this one whole if those Democrat closed-door reconciliation meetings don’t pull it out?

The Real Importance Of The Massachusetts Special Election

By

One of the critical elements in next Tuesdays special senatorial election in Massachusetts is not about a Senate vote for or against government takeover of health care.  As is the case with all elections for national representation, the critical element has only and everything to do with ideology and character.  It is, one could say, a battle between good versus evil; one example of the good being those things in our nation’s laws that presume a person is innocent until proven guilty and shall be judged by a jury of their peers based on the weight of evidence.  Evil comes in the form of a lemming-like, pseudo-moralistic belief not that all men are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights, but that equality and therefore justice must, by any means possible, extend to outcomes, not effort.

Such evils have long tainted the American legal system and many are the resulting stories of those unjustly imprisoned for crimes they did not commit simply because of what can only be called moral lynchings; a driving, zealous need to pin the guilt somewhere…anywhere…to nobly insure a victim, even a manufactured victim, receives “equal justice”.  As our ability to use science in crime investigation becomes better and better, though, one sees the tragedies of such misplaced blindness and it is most unfortunate that one who now wishes to serve at a national level is, by all accounts, one of those who works not for good, but is instead party to the moral lynch mob pursuit of justice.

The story of the Amiraults case is a long one.  But it bears close scrutiny for, as with jetting down to Washington to meet with lobbyists to beg for special interest campaign contributions, using her position and state resources to work on her election campaign, and rushing so fast to put out a negative campaign ad against her opponent that the name of her state is misspelled, it demonstrates the ideology and character of Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley.

In a nutshell, the case against the Amiraults was one of child abuse.  Evidence came in the form of children’s testimony to things like seeing a 4-year old being raped with a butcher knife, amazingly with not a drop of blood shed, let alone evidence of injury; the public anal rape of a child tied to a tree in front of the school, and cutting off the leg of a squirrel.  The defendents, two women and one man, were convicted and sent to prison; it was only many years later that any real justice prevailed, but it did not come through the efforts of Martha Coakley.

“…outraged, Superior Court Judge Isaac Borenstein presided over a widely publicized hearings into the case resulting in findings that all the children’s testimony was tainted. He said that “Every trick in the book had been used to get the children to say what the investigators wanted.” The Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly—which had never in its 27 year history taken an editorial position on a case—published a scathing one directed at the prosecutors “who seemed unwilling to admit they might have sent innocent people to jail for crimes that had never occurred.”

“It was clear, when Martha Coakley took over as the new Middlesex County district attorney in 1999, that public opinion was running sharply against the prosecutors in the case. Violet Amirault was now gone. Ill and penniless after her release, she had been hounded to the end by prosecutors who succeeded in getting the Supreme Judicial Court to void the women’s reversals of conviction. She lay waiting all the last days of her life, suitcase packed, for the expected court order to send her back to prison. Violet would die of cancer before any order came in September 1997.

 

“That left Cheryl alone, facing rearrest. In the face of the increasing furor surrounding the case, Ms. Coakley agreed to revise and revoke her sentence to time served—but certain things had to be clear, she told the press. Cheryl’s case, and that of Gerald, she explained, had nothing to do with one another—a startling proposition given the horrific abuse charges, identical in nature, of which all three of the Amiraults had been convicted.

“No matter: When women were involved in such cases, the district attorney explained, it was usually because of the presence of “a primary male offender.” According to Ms. Coakley’s scenario, it was Gerald who had dragged his mother and sister along. Every statement she made now about Gerald reflected the same view, and the determination that he never go free. No one better exemplified the mindset and will of the prosecutors who originally had brought this case.

“Before agreeing to revise Cheryl’s sentence to time served, Ms. Coakley asked the Amiraults’ attorney, James Sultan, to pledge—in exchange—that he would stop representing Gerald and undertake no further legal action on his behalf. She had evidently concluded that with Sultan gone—Sultan, whose mastery of the case was complete—any further effort by Gerald to win freedom would be doomed. Mr. Sultan, of course, refused.

In 2000, the Massachusetts Governor’s Board of Pardons and Paroles met to consider a commutation of Gerald’s sentence. After nine months of investigation, the board, reputed to be the toughest in the country, voted 5-0, with one abstention, to commute his sentence. Still more newsworthy was an added statement, signed by a majority of the board, which pointed to the lack of evidence against the Amiraults, and the “extraordinary if not bizarre allegations” on which they had been convicted.”

None of this gave Martha Coakley pause.  Indeed, she continued to relentlessly pursue the matter, and eventually convinced the governor to deny Gerald Amirault’s parole in 2002.  He was finally paroled in 2004, but with such tight restrictions employment is pretty much impossible.  But at least he is “free”.

“Questioned about the Amiraults in the course of her current race for the U.S. Senate, she told reporters of her firm belief that the evidence against the Amiraults was “formidable” and that she was entirely convinced “those children were abused at day care center by the three defendants.”

“What does this say about her candidacy? (Ms. Coakley declined to be interviewed.) If the current attorney general of Massachusetts actually believes, as no serious citizen does, the preposterous charges that caused the Amiraults to be thrown into prison—the butcher knife rape with no blood, the public tree-tying episode, the mutilated squirrel and the rest—that is powerful testimony to the mind and capacities of this aspirant to a Senate seat. It is little short of wonderful to hear now of Ms. Coakley’s concern for the rights of terror suspects at Guantanamo—her urgent call for the protection of the right to the presumption of innocence.”

Though I know use of the word “wonderful” is dripping with sarcasm, in plain English, what we hear from Martha Coakley is the same frightening hypocrisy against which we, the people, are actively rallying.  Frankly, this is not a woman of good character; indeed her hands are almost as bloody from this particular witch hunt as were those of the senator she is seeking to replace.  The presence of such bloody hands should serve as fair warning to those who would still believe Coakley is in any way capable of or willing to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Let Them Eat…Pizza?

By

The out-of-the-closet progressive liberal Democratic party is in well-deserved tatters and struggling to come up with a plan to lull voters into the complacency needed maintain their majority in the 2010 mid-term elections, as well as already planning His Transparency’s reelection bid.  In their stereotypical stealth mode, behind closed doors, the White House is picking favorites in upcoming races across the country.

The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that:

President Barack Obama’s aides are taking pains to operate out of public view to avoid repeating embarrassing miscues made last year, when efforts to pressure unpopular New York Gov. David Paterson into retirement hit front pages and proved unsuccessful.

Embarrassing, indeed.  But to the Democrats, it’s just another speedbump.   

The exit of Michigan Lt. Gov. John Cherry from that state’s gubernatorial contest came as party insiders grew increasingly concerned that Mr. Cherry faced an uphill struggle to win, putting a chill on potential donors, according to Democratic officials.

When Mr. Cherry dropped out, citing fund-raising problems, White House officials began discussions with a potential replacement, Denise Ilitch, whose family owns the Detroit Red Wings hockey team, Detroit Tigers baseball team and Little Caesars Pizza chain.

Ms. Ilitch is an elected member of the state Board of Regents. Strategists believe her personal wealth and image as a businesswoman and political outsider could give Democrats a boost in an economically ailing state where the party’s top official, Gov. Jennifer Granholm, is unpopular.

Now there’s a picture for you.  A wealthy capitalist Democrat handing out $5 hot & ready Little Caesar’s pizzas to the great unwashed masses of Michigan’s unemployed Kool-Aid drinkers to buy their votes.

But, like those 10% unemployed across the country, it ain’t working.  Despite the Demons howling in Massachusetts (“Martha Coakley is running to fill the rest of Ted Kennedy’s term, and her opponent is a far-right tea-bagger Republican,” Chuck Schumer wrote in a fundraising email) it’s just been reported by the Boston Globe that Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown has a 4 point lead in the polls.  Though that’s within the poll’s margin of error, other details show just how fall the self-perceived mighty have fallen:

Brown’s popularity is solid. He enjoys a 57 percent favorability rating compared to just 19 percent unfavorable. Coakley’s favorability is 49 percent; her unfavorability, 41 percent.

From the poll itself:

In the race for U.S. Senate, who will you vote for?

Scott Brown: 50%

Martha Coakley: 46%

Joseph L. Kennedy: 3%

Undecided: 1%

In your opinion, who won the debates?

Scott Brown: 41%

Martha Coakley: 25%

Joseph L. Kennedy: 2%

Undecided: 31%

As a U.S. Senator, do you think Martha Coakley will be an independent voice or tow the Democratic Party line?

Independent voice: 24%

Tow the party line: 64%

Undecided: 11%

Do you support the proposed national near universal healthcare law?

Yes: 36%

No: 51%

Undecided: 13%

Can the federal government afford the proposed national healthcare law?

Yes: 32%

No: 61%

Undecided: 7%

And despite those words of the White House laying low with which we started this piece, like all those other words that have come out of the White House to date, there’s a strong push among some Democrats to get His Transparency to visit Massachusetts this weekend on behalf of Martha Coakley so he sent an “impassioned video plea” for Attorney General Martha Coakley to thousands of Bay State voters today.  But Scott Brown’s called it right:

“He should stay away and let Martha and I discuss the issues one on one,” Brown said. “The machine is coming out of the woodwork to get her elected. They’re bringing in outsiders, and we don’t need them.”

Free-Market Capitalist Satisfaction

By

There was something very satisfying about today’s news that Ford’s Fusion Hybrid midsize sedan has taken the 2010 North American Car of the Year award and that its Transit Connect compact van was voted 2010 North American Truck of the Year at this year’s 2010 North American International Auto Show in Detroit.

It isn’t common for a single automaker to win both awards at the same time, and that Ford has taken both top honors while staying out of the clutches of the federal government is, well, one real swell argument for free-market capitalism.

Kudos, Ford.  Based on recent sales figures, it’s been obvious that Americans have been thinking of Ford first; it’s nice that those in the industry do, too.

Time To Drop The Bomb In Massachusetts

By

We’ve already written about the reasons why the special election in Massachusetts on January 19th is critical.  (Here, with more information here, and here.)  And despite the Conservative aversion to Republicans because most of them are really little more than “Democrat-Lite”, the truth is that election of a conservative Republican to replace Ded Ted in Massachusetts is the only viable option we have today if we are going to return this beloved country to Her founding principles. 

It is crucial that the election of a conservative Republican, in the form on Massachusetts state senator Scott Brown, be a landslide victory of such great proportions that the progressive liberal Democrat machine, pulled by its snarling sled dogs of ACORN and the SEIU, is ground irrevocably into the dirt.  The numbers for Scott Brown must be so big, so crushing that any attempts to stall his swearing in before a vote on the progressive liberal’s health care “reform” are seen as the nasty, partisan power-play tricks they are and thereby stopped.

Frankly, fellow Patriots, it no longer matters where you live.  It no longer matters what you consider yourself politically.  What is about to happen in Massachusetts is the Democrat’s Waterloo and it is our chance, as a nation of conservative and fair-minded Americans, to cut this dangerous administration off at its knees by removing the 60-seat Democrat majority in the Senate.

I am personally asking every one of you, if you haven’t already done so, please go HERE and make a donation to Scott Brown’s campaign.  I am asking you to take an hour, even a half-hour, out of your busy day each day this week to make a few calls to voters in Massachusetts on Scott Brown’s behalf (sign up HERE).  An influx of money right now will provide much needed funding for campaign outreach to the common-sense voters in Massachusetts.  Your calls to voters in Massachusetts will help to make a difference with those who might otherwise stay home on January 19th.

We, the people, have spent almost a whole year now watching the Democratic majority in Congress and the administration gleefully tear into the very heart of this great nation, ripping Her in half using blatant racism and class warfare.  I don’t know about you, but for me the pain is absolutely gut-wrenching.

We, the people, can make it stop on January 19th with a second “shot heard ’round the world”.

Please help.

UPDATE (1/12/10):  This writer thanks every one of you across America who stepped up to help.   Scott Brown’s fundraiser was a resounding success, more than doubling its goal by collecting $1.3 million in 24 hours.  Amazing, isn’t it?  Yet his opponentwent to Washington D.C. tonight to beg for money from the likes of “Big Pharma”, which tells you just what kind of person she isn’t.  Evidenced by a report that the union people carrying signs at last night’s debate were paid to be there, and one confessed that was the only reason he showed up since he intended to cast his vote for Scott Brown.


 

Don’t forget to help make calls as this last week plays out!

Of Goose & Gander

By

Obama is a “light-skinned” black man “with no Negro dialect unless he wanted to have one.” 

And so it is that his much-loved closed doors have come back to bite Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) yet again.  Spoken during the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign and quoted in a new book about it (“Game Change,” by Time magazine reporter Mark Halperin and New York magazine writer John Heileman), these words reveal a great deal about old Grinch Harry’s mindset and attitude towards blacks; first, that skin color is something by which one judges others and somehow lighter skin means something and, second, that those blacks who are able to speak proper English are either a surprise or useful.

Both of these perspectives, judgement calls, if you will, are troubling.  Particularly when uttered by someone who is now the majority leader in the United States Senate and a highly-visible member of that progressive liberal gang of bleeding hearts who tout that their efforts are always for “the common man” yet are the first to play the race card when confronted with common sense.  They show us eyes that view the world through a lens of class and racism, both of which have no place in a country where “all men are created equal”.  That old Harry sees Obama’s speaking ability as something that is controlled begs the question of just how much old Harry thinks it may be used to some advantage, thereby relegating a human to the status of an object.

Of course, everyone knows and (unfortunately) accepts that Democrats are collectively the lowest of scum-sucking douchebags so a Democrat making racist comments goes pretty much unnoticed by other Democrats.  But when regular Americans took offense at old Grinch Harry’s remark, he apologized and His Transparency, in a show of maintaining some image of party unity or in obeyance to his self-perceived image of magnaminity, promptly accepted it. 

But words once spoken can never be taken back.

And it is through spoken words that yet one more time the blatant hypocrisy of the Democrat double-standard comes bubbling up.  Both old Grinch Harry and His Transparency went after Trent Lott back in 2002.  President Walking Eagle himself had called for Lott’s resignation after Lott mentioned that in Thurmond’s 1948 presidential campaign, a campaign centered on opposition to integration, Mississippi was one of four states Thurmond carried and followed that up with, “We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years either.”

Then-Senator Obama stuck his nose up in the air:

“It seems to be that we can forgive a 100-year-old senator (Thurmond) for some of the indiscretion of his youth, but, what is more difficult to forgive is the current president of the U.S. Senate (Lott) suggesting we had been better off if we had followed a segregationist path in this country after all of the battles and fights for civil rights and all the work that we still have to do.  The Republican Party itself has to drive out Trent Lott. If they have to stand for something, they have to stand up and say this is not the person we want representing our party.”

Even the Congressional Black Caucus  released a statement at the time, calling for a “formal censure of Senator Lott’s racist remarks”.  And after Lott resigned, old Grinch Harry went on the record about it this way:

“He had no alternative,” said Reid at the time claiming, “If you tell ethnic jokes in the backroom, it’s that much easier to say ethnic things publicly. I’ve always practiced how I play.”

Cue the flying pigs.