“Stacy has greased the skids here, but there will be a hiatus in regular blogging activity for the Smitty portion of this blog duo at the close of this post. I hold orders to activate in mid-November and report to Kabul, Afghanistan in time for Christmas. Bandwidth, and latitude for skylarking online will not exist until the end of 2011.

The attentive may recall that I’m a Navy reservist, and Afghanistan hasn’t much coast. Welcome to the modern, double-Jointed world, where Semper Gumby (always flexible) is the watchword. Have you supported Project Valor-IT yet?“

Smitty further writes the following about his upcoming departure and service to his country:

“But don’t thank me; thank Americans, from the Founding Fathers forward to the Tea Parties, to my electrician brother-in-law who just runs around fixing things all day. The exceptional American dedication to individualism, the ideals of the Constitution, and the courageous soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines in whose bigger footsteps I follow make it all worth it. I’ve benefited so much from the American people, educationally and otherwise. Thus, it’s with a sense of gratitude to you that I depart on this set of orders, finishing out my Navy Reserve career in active duty style.”

Read the whole darn thing!! It is a truly inspirational and beautifully written column.

Oh, and Smitty–please take care of yourself. I’m sure that you will be fine, but we will all be praying for you just the same. Each and every one of us is extremely appreciative of your service, and I am honored to know you personally. Good luck and Godspeed. You have been a huge asset to the conservative blogosphere, and you will be sorely missed. Have a Merry Christmas.

PS–Smitty, this video goes out as a tribute to you, and to every soldier (and civilian) who has either served their country, or is currently in harm’s way.

Cross-posted from The Minority Report, Right Wing News, Hot Air’s Green Room, Parcbench and Hillbillypolitics.

[The above photo is of me and Tim Scott.]

[The above picture is of me and two of Tim Scott's aides (Brandon Rowland on the left in the white shirt and Dan Asdot on the right in the blue shirt).]

As many of you are aware, Tim Scott has been campaigning hard for many months to become the US congressman to represent South Carolina’s 1st Congressional District. Mr. Scott has recently endured a grueling primary battle in order to win the Republican nomination; however, there is a lot more to this man than just politics.

Mr. Scott has a very inspirational life story and has had to overcome a lot of hurdles in his life. He grew up in the projects of North Charleston and was raised by a single mother who worked two jobs to keep him and his brother off of welfare. Scott was failing out of high school until he found a mentor by the name of John Moniz (a local Chick-fil-A owner who told Tim that, “You can think your way out of poverty”). He then went on to become a successful businessman, a thirteen year member of the Charleston County Council, and a member of the SC State Legislature–all before finally running for congress in 2010.

Well, on Tuesday night, Tim Scott’s tenacity paid off because he made history by being elected the first African-American Republican US congressman to represent SC since Reconstruction.

The victory party began by Tim Scott giving a rousing speech (that I have embedded above). However, here are the high points of Mr. Scott’s speech in case you don’t have the time to listen to the whole thing.

Scott was introduced by his campaign manager, Joe McKeown, who explained that, “Tim is still the guy who calls his mama twice a day and takes his grandfather out to lunch every Sunday”.

He began his speech by excitedly telling the audience that, “It’s no longer half time” (and that June 22′nd was half time).

Scott then quoted Ephesians 3: 20-21:

“That God is able to do exceedingly and abundantly above all that we ask and even imagine.”

Scott further stated the following:

“If we remember that all things are possible and that American exceptionalism is alive and well, then we MUST go to work.”

He, then, quoted Jack Kemp (who he calls “a bleeding heart conservative”) who said that:

“It had to be done, but it wasn’t the government’s responsibility to do it–it was our responsibility.”

Next, Scott brought his mother, Frances Scott, on stage and hailed her as “a super hero who is responsible for the American dream that I am living today.” He went on to state that America needs the kind of tough love that his mother gave him.

Specifically, Scott stated the following:

“We must win back this country FOR the American people–not FROM the Democrats or the Republicans.”

[Great message!!]

Then, Mr. Scott laid out his formula for American greatness–

1.) Limit the role of the federal government.

2.) Lower taxes and encourage job creation. (“If the federal government could create jobs, then communism would have worked.”)

3.) Lastly, Scott got the audience to repeat loudly three times, “If you don’t have it, don’t spend it!!”

And finally, Mr. Scott wrapped up his stem-winder with the following remark:

“I’m amazed by the fact that the Good Lord allowed me to be born in America.”

However, Tim Scott’s uplifting speech was just the beginning of the party–there was way more fun to come. Below are some of the snapshots that were taken throughout the evening.

Above is a photo of Andrew Boucher (a Republican consultant working for the Scott campaign) and me.

Above is a picture of me and Lizzy Simmons–who is one of Tim Scott’s aides.

Above is a photo of me and Jeff Shcreiber of America’s Right (who I had the pleasure of meeting recently at Blog Con).

Above is a picture of my husband and me.

Above is another picture of me and Tim Scott. (Funny anecdote here. When I initially went up to Mr. Scott to congratulate him right before this picture was taken, I specifically said, “Congratulations Tim!”–then I caught myself and sheepishly said, “Oh, I meant Congressman Scott”. However, he patted me on the shoulder and replied, “No, it’s Tim.”)

Above is a photo of my husband, Tim Scott and me.

Above is a picture of Tim Scott’s cake.

And, above is a photo of me stuffing my face with cake.

Above is another snapshot of me and Brandon Rowland.

Above is a picture of me and Jay Henderson–who is one of Tim Scott’s aides.

And finally, above is a photo of me waiting for my husband to bring the car around. It was at this point at the end of the evening that I had the chance to ask Tim what he thought the take home message was from the recent midterm elections. He responded that he thought that, “The American people had sent a clear message, and that it was our job (Congress’) to follow their directions”.

So, in conclusion, I think that Tim Scott will be a great representative for the state of South Carolina. Why? Because for Mr. Scott it’s not all about him. He’s “in this” to serve the good people of SC and because he truly believes in American exceptionalism–not for his own personal glory. Tim Scott has truly earned the title of “Congressman”. (Barbara “call me Senator” Boxer could really learn a thing or two about humility from Congressman Scott.) Mr. Scott has overcome unbelievable obstacles to become the congressman to represent South Carolina’s 1st Congressional District. I am very proud to call him “Congressman Scott”. Tuesday night, Tim Scott had a lot to celebrate–nay–we all had a lot to celebrate.

Cross-posted from The Minority Report, Right Wing News and Hillbillypolitics.

This past weekend, FreedomWorks put on a national blogger conference in Washington D.C. called BlogCon, that was open to all bloggers who wanted to attend. Tabitha Hale, the brains behind BlogCon who put the whole thing together, really outdid herself. (All attendees should participate in a quiet “golf clap” for Tabitha.)

Folks, I had a blast this past weekend. Seriously, if any of you ever get the opportunity to attend a national blogging conference like BlogCon, I highly suggest going. In fact, there are three very good reasons to attend BlogCon next year (or any similar national blogging conference in the future). So, without much fanfare and ado, let’s get right to it.

1.) BlogCon is a great place to learn how to use the new media in order to more effectively market yourself and your blog/work.

Yes, I realize that this subject matter may be boring to some of you (I’ve saved the most fun reasons–and some great pics–for last), but trust me, it’s important. No matter what your business is (and yes, blogging is a business), it is critical to know how to use the new media in order to better market yourself and your business. And, BlogCon had panel after panel of experts who provided invaluable instructions on how to be effective on camera, pimp your blog/videos and use humor in your blogging so as to immediately grab readers’ attention. John Hawkins of Right Wing News has written a concise and excellent summary with regard to how instructive these panels actually were (and he also has some spectacular photos from the event on his Web site):

Now, I’ve been around a long time, so if I really enjoy a panel and learn a lot, it’s a pretty good bet that a lot of other people did, too.

My three faves were,

Vlogging, YouTube, & interviews: How to be effective on camera: Lee Doren , Jason Mattera , & Steven Crowder: The information they gave out, particularly on marketing your videos, was absolutely invaluable. Here’s just one hint: the key to taking a video viral is to get heavy views for it in the first 48 hours and then, if it does well enough, it will show at the top of YouTube’s promotional pages and it’ll really have a chance to take off.

Pimp your blog: Maximizing your WordPress experience: Cord Blomquist. Word Press is what powers Right Wing News and Cord knows it like the back of his hand. His suggests were invaluable and some of the plugins he suggested were EXACTLY what I had been trying to find for months.

Humor in Blogging: Ace of Spades HQ, Caleb Howe, Snark and Boobs, and Iowahawk. It’s actually very difficult to be funny while you talk about HOW to be funny, but they managed to pull it off. Ace in particular, was on fire. (PS: I know people would love to see some Ace pictures and I have ‘em, but he requested that they be embargoed. Besides, you guys have seen the Ewoks from Star Wars, right? Okay, now imagine a very tall Ewok that drinks a lot and there you have it!)”

Now, on to the second reason why BlogCon is a must for any aspiring blogger.

2.) BlogCon is a great place to meet people and network, network, network.

First of all, I obviously can’t stress the whole networking part enough. It is one thing to converse with your fellow bloggers online or via email–it is a whole ‘nother ball of wax to meet them face to face. When you meet someone in person, you can get a much better feel for who they really are by their body language or facial expressions–which are things that cannot possibly be conveyed by simply communicating with someone online. Furthermore, if you form a personal bond with someone at a conference like BlogCon–even if you only talk to the person for, say, fifteen minutes–given the choice, they are much more likely to link to, or pimp, your stuff than someone that they think is a total douche (no matter how good of a writer the douche in question might be). (Hey, I don’t make the rules–those are just the facts. You have to accept the world how it is, not how you want it to be.)

Moreover, at BlogCon, I had the unique privilege of meeting some of the most iconic bloggers/writers online. It was a phenomenal experience. I mean, it is so totally cool to actually meet people that you’ve been reading or conversing with for years online (see the photos below that my husband took).

Above are two pictures myself with the the lovely ladies of NewsReal (Lori Ziganto in the turquoise dress, and Jenn Q. Public in the black top)–where I am also a contributor. I obviously had an awesome time hanging out with them. Not to mention, they are both such great writers. (By the way, Lori is also a contributor at Redstate.com, iOwntheworld, Right Wing News and has her own blog called Snark and Boobs–well, she pretty much writes everywhere.)

Above is a photo of the adorable Tabitha Hale who was the brains and the force behind BlogCon (and who is also a contributor to Redstate.com). Again, she deserves a round of applause for her outstanding organizational abilities.

Above is a picture of me and Dave Weigel of Slate, who is also an MSNBC contributor (the photo was taken by John Hawkins of Right Wing News). Now, I realize that there has been some controversy surrounding Weigel in conservative circles. However, I can personally attest to the fact that he is a very nice, totally unpretentious guy in person, and I really enjoyed talking to him. The dude has the 411 on everything, so I highly suggest picking his brain if you ever have the opportunity to talk to him. Anywho, after having the pleasure of chatting with Weigel, I can totally see why Tabitha Hale and Robert Stacy McCain like him so much.

Above is a picture of me and John Hawkins who is the editor of Right Wing News–where I am now going to be a contributor (he has more great pics from BlogCon up on his Web site). Hawkins is a prince of a guy and a lovable teddy bear. He is another person that one should chat up at any conference if given the chance.

Above is a great shot of Haystack–aka Dave Poff. (Stack is a contributor to Redstate.com and Liberty.com, and is also a contributor with me at 73 Wire.) I have known Haystack for a couple of years now, and I can personally attest to the fact that the dude is made of awesome. Seriously, do any of you all know anyone else who can pull off a handlebar mustache with such panache and look cool doing it? Anyone? Anyone? Yeah, that’s what I thought.

Above is a picture of Steven Crowder and me. Of all of the people that I met at BlogCon, Crowder surprised me the most. He is so larger than life in his videos for PJTV and on the Fox News show “Red Eye.” However, in person, Crowder is such a polite, quiet, reserved gentleman. Not to mention, he’s extremely knowledgeable, yet totally unpretentious. Oh, and of course, he’s a lot of fun to talk to (definitely pick his brain if given the opportunity).

Above is a photo of me and Nice Deb who owns the blog Nice Deb. My husband and I had lunch with her, and she was very … well, nice. She just exudes this whole Midwestern class/politeness from every pore. Her blog is quite aptly named.

Above is a picture of the lovely Heather Kirkham, who is the Oregon coordinator for Docs 4 Patient Care. Not only is she a beauty, but she’s a lot of fun to drink cocktails with.

Above is a picture of my husband and me taken by Robert Stacy McCain. By the way, you can see a bunch more really cool photos from BlogCon on his Web site of some really nice people (like Christopher Renner, Adrienne Royer, Cheryl Prater, Sarah Desprat and Redstate‘s Erick Erickson).

And finally, here he is ladies and gentlemen. The man, the myth, the legend who made the fedora cool–it’s the one and only Robert Stacy McCain (with me) in the above picture. This guy is only the coolest cat in the conservative blogosphere. Getting linked on his blog means that you’ve finally arrived. Enough said.

Oh, one more thing before we move on to reason number three. One person that I really wish that I had gotten a picture with was Da Tech Guy. He is a kind-hearted person with a tremendous love of life and family–and, he’s a great storyteller to boot. Not to mention, he said some really nice things about me and my husband on his blog, so I totally appreciate him.

Now, on to reason number three why BlogCon is the bomb.

3.) You get to party like a rockstar with Vodkapundit, Stephen Kruiser, Caleb Howe and Amy Miller.

Seriously folks, these are some of the most fun people that I’ve ever hung out with in my life. For starters, Vodkapundit (aka–Stephen Green from PJTV’s Trifecta) is a blast to hang out with (see picture of him and me below). They don’t call him Vodkapundit for nothing. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not implying that the guy’s a drunk–in fact, far from it. Green can down vodka martini after vodka martini, and yet still manage to be cultured, classy, witty and urbane in almost a retro sort of way. (He kind of reminds me somewhat of Don Draper, but without the womanizing.) I gotta confess that I’m a tad bit jealous of Vodkapundit. I mean, if I downed vodka martinis all day long, I would be anything but cultured, classy, witty and urbane. (I would probably be dancing in a corner somewhere with a lampshade over my head acting the ass–but, I digress.)

And, Stephen Kruiser is just a stitch (as we say down south). He’s a stand up comic who works for PJTV and is a frequent guest on Fox’s “Red Eye.” Kruiser is absolutely hilarious and he doesn’t seem to require much sleep. Not to mention, he tells great stories about all of the comedians that he’s either worked with or met on the road (like David Spade, Gene Wilder and Richard Pryor).

Oh, and Amy Miller is famous for her hilarious snark over at Redstate and The Minority Report (both she and I are contributors over at TMR). However, Amy’s brilliant wit/snark also make her a total hoot to hang out with. She’s adorable, and she’s always the life of the party.

[Below is a photo of me, Amy Miller and Stephen Kruiser.]

And finally, Caleb Howe is a man who needs no introduction. He is the assistant editor for Redstate.com, and he is a legend in the blogging community. The dude is just too cool for color TV, and he makes any party that he attends teh awesome. (See the picture of him and me below.)

So, in conclusion, I think that I’ve concisely summed up why BlogCon is a must for any and every aspiring blogger–not to mention, why it’s truly a “can’t miss” event if you want to meet the who’s who of the conservative blogging world.

However, I just have one more thing to add. Tabitha Hale told us to feel free to make any suggestions for next year’s BlogCon. Well, here’s mine. I think that we need a theme song for next year. I’ve come up with an idea–how about “I Got a Feeling” by The Black Eyed Peas. Scott Brown used it as his theme song at the very end of his victory speech, and I thought that it worked just great.

[Warning--the video below for "I Got a Feeling" shows a lot of scantily clad women (like most music videos do), so if you've got kids in the room, then I suggest throwing a towel over the computer screen. However, the song itself is, of course, harmless.]

Furthermore, I think that “Let’s Get it Started” by the Black Eyed Peas should be our theme song from here on out until November (don’t worry, this video is pretty harmless with the exception of Fergie in a short skirt).

Anywho, I say let the Left have that wussified “Yes We Can!” foolishness–we on the Right will take the cool Black Eyed Peas songs.

And on that note, I say that I truly can’t wait to see you all again next year!

PS–Yes, wussified is indeed a word–look it up.

PPS–I see you over there dancing at your computer.

This column is cross-posted from NewsReal, The Minority Report, 73 Wire and Right Wing News.

Kingdom of Heaven

Docs 4 Patient Care is a group of doctors who are fighting fiercely to repeal Obamacare, or the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). For months now, they have been quietly waging war against socialized medicine without much help or recognition. However, on July 27th, Dr. Mark Neerhof (a member of Doctors 4 Patient Care) sparred with Dr. Arnold Widen (a doctor in favor of Obamacare) in a no holds barred debate on a Chicago radio station that was moderated by Milton Rosenberg.

Dr. Neerhof comes out swinging in the beginning of the debate by pounding the other side with a plethora of facts. Specifically, Dr. Neerhof uses Massachusetts as a template for the perils of socialized medicine, since government run health care in MA is now proving to be a disastrous idea.

Neerhof begins by pointing out the following facts–

*Obamacare is destructive to the overall quality of health care.

*MA now has the highest health insurance premiums in the country.

*MA now has the longest wait times to see a doctor (in Boston it is now 70 days to see an OBGYN, whereas it used to be 40 days).

*MA has experienced an enormous increase in volume in the ER since they’ve instituted government run health care.

*Eighteen out of thirty-four million Americans that the PPACA now covers will simply be placed on Medicaid, which will drown the states in debt. (IL is already almost bankrupt.)

*Obamacare is destined to fail. Three quarters of insurers in MA are, now, going bankrupt and are begging to increase their rates–it is the only way that they can afford to cover people with pre-existing conditions that didn’t buy insurance ahead of time.

Then, in closing out his argument, Dr. Neerhof agrees that health care reform is necessary, but states that it is a lie that 45 million Americans are now uninsured. Dr. Neerhof points out that 37% of those uninsured make over $50,000 a year and could easily afford to buy health insurance if they wanted it. Furthermore, Neerhof explains that 20% of those 45 million are illegal immigrants, and 33% are eligible for some kind of government programs (like SCHIPS or Medicaid). In other words, there are only between 10-15 million Americans that are uninsured and truly can’t afford to buy health insurance. (Later in the debate, Dr. Neerhof suggests using high risk pools subsidized by the government to deal with these truly needy Americans.)

Now, it should interest one to know that Dr. Neerhof’s assertions about the true number of Americans that can’t afford health insurance is backed up by this very interesting Reason TV video below, that cites a Johns Hopkins University study.

After Dr. Neerhof finished his opening remarks, Milton Rosenberg (the moderator) asked Dr. Arnold Widen if Obamacare was “spreading the wealth around”. Dr. Widen responded by freely admitting that Obamacare was “spreading the wealth around”–and surprisingly, this turned out to be his least shocking comment. Dr. Widen then proceeded to filibuster with a rant of collectivist sounding Obamaisms such as “health care is a human right”…”the health care bill doesn’t go far enough and we really need a public option”….”I really want a single payer system like Britain or Canada”…..”rationed care is the only way to control costs”….”Obamacare is a tax, but that isn’t germane and you don’t have the option not to buy health insurance”…..and my all time favorite far-leftist rationalization from Dr. Widen in favor of Obamacare—

“The federal government has every right to mandate that you buy health insurance and if you are against it, then you are against public health.”

Really???!!!! Thanks so much for that clarification Dr. Widen. I didn’t realize that I was “against public health” (especially since I have a master’s degree in public health). Since you think that the federal government knows what’s best for me with regard to my own health care, what other aspects of my life do you think that the federal government should control? Please, please, share–I am all ears. But, I digress.

When Dr. Neerhof finally got the chance to respond to Dr. Widen (Dr. Widen filibustered for so long that Mr. Rosenberg had to remind him that there was “an equal time requirement”), he laid out an excellent six point battle plan to reform health care that would suit the majority of Americans much better than Obamacare would.

1.) Tort Reform (Obamacare has nothing about tort reform in it.)
2.) Portability or being able to buy insurance over state lines (which I can personally attest can save one thousands of dollars–more on this later.)
3.) Tax breaks going to individuals instead of employers so health care is not tied to your job.
4.) High risk pools subsidized by the government for people with pre-existing conditions that are too expensive to insure.
5.) Small business pools.
6.) Health savings accounts.

Finally, Dr. Widen closes out the debate by fallaciously stating how popular single payer systems are in Canada and Britain (yeah, that’s why anyone who can afford to comes to the US for major surgery).

Now, before I proceed to poke holes in Dr. Widen’s argument about how beloved the single payer system is in Britain and Canada, I would like to share something with you all. As some of my regular readers are aware, last fall I was diagnosed with chronic Guillain Barre’ or chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (or CIDP), which is an autoimmune disease where you make antibodies that attack the myelin sheath of your nerves. (It is similar to MS, but MS attacks the central nervous system whereas CIDP attacks the peripheral nervous system). I have previously written in great detail about my illness. (Furthermore, last spring, I was also diagnosed with hypothyroidism and Prinzmetal’s angina–if you get one autoimmune disease, it’s easy to develop another one.)

I was treated with intravenous immunoglobulins, or IVIG for my CIDP. How is this relevant to the subject matter at hand? Simple. I was living in Atlanta, GA during my first dose of IVIG, and I had Blue Cross of Georgia who stated that it would cost me a $5000 per treatment co-pay (or a grand total of $30,000, because I was to be treated with IVIG for six months). Well, when it was time for my second dose of IVIG, I had already moved to Charleston, SC, and thus was going through Blue Cross of South Carolina. Now, Blue Cross of SC told me that I would only have to make one payment of $1200 for the entire six months of treatment with IVIG (one treatment with IVIG costs $30.000 out of pocket). In other words, I saved over $25,000 by moving from GA to SC–so anyone who tells you that being allowed to buy health insurance over state lines won’t help bring down health care costs is at best uninformed, and at worst, outright lying. Now, I realize that to ideological liberals, like Dr. Widen, unicorn farts, pixie dust and big government, airy Obamaisms sound like the answer to solving our health care crisis. However, I would be willing to bet that real Americans are interested in solutions that will save them over $25,000, instead of more kitten whiskers and feel good, big brother ideology.

By the way, why don’t we take a look at Dr. Widen’s claim that socialized medicine is “popular” in England and Canada. Well, John Stossel did an in-depth report about both countries health care systems (see embed below), and he begs to differ (and so do the doctors from those two countries). For example, health care rationing has gotten so bad in England, that some people pull their own teeth (they use vodka and a pair or pliers). Acutely ill people wait at least 23 hours to be admitted to the hospital, some towns in Canada hold a monthly lottery to see who will get a family physician, and people in England and Canada wait an average of six months to see a neurologist–and then six more months for an MRI. This fact hit me particularly hard, because A.) I didn’t have to wait six days for my neurologist to get me an MRI, and B.) because I could have wound up severely debilitated if I had had to wait that long for a diagnosis and treatment (now, I am a recent medical school graduate who is planning on starting her residency in a year or two).

Oh, but there is a silver lining here. There is a clinic in Canada where you can get an MRI or a CT scan the day after you injure yourself–you just have to walk on four legs for this clinic to see you.

Furthermore, British Parliament member, Daniel Hannan, told Glenn Beck pretty similar horror stories about the British National Health Service or NHS. Mr. Hannan explained that you are “immediately sent to the back of the cue” and that, even if you are in severe pain, they won’t let you pay for pain medication–you must just sit and wait for hours in pain. Hannan went on to explain that the average wait time for a knee replacement is twelve months, surgery for a herniated disc is five months, and cataract surgery is eight months. Not to mention, if you can’t work during this waiting period, then you are losing income. (So much for the whole “free health care” thingy.) Then Mr. Hannan added the following–

“The worst thing to be in our system is elderly”.

Moreover, Mr. Hannan explained that health care is the single biggest item of the government budget, and that the NHS is the third largest employer in the world (it employs 1.4 million people). Not to mention, most of the employees aren’t doctors or nurses–they are administrators. In other words, if we in the US get something like the NHS, there’s no undoing it. We’re stuck with it for good.

So, in conclusion, I realize that some of this might be hard for our leftist friends to digest. They just aren’t into those pesky facts–they much prefer pixie dust and “Yes we can!”. However, that is why it is so important to keep fighting this health care battle by getting our message out. We have to bombard the American people with all of the facts so that they can make an educated choice with regard to this matter, and not get suckered in by “Hope and Change” again. And, Docs 4 Patient Care are just the warriors that we need on our side to help us win the war of ideas when it comes to health care/repealing Obamacare. Their website is right here if you are able to make a contribution to their fight. But at the very least, let’s all try to email the link to their website out and spread the word to as many people as we can via Tea Party, internet, family gatherings, etc. Remember, we don’t want the same people who run our DMV to run our health care system. Some things in life are worth fighting for.

PS–Docs 4 Patient Care has endorsed the following candidates for supporting the group’s fight to repeal Obamacare–

Dr. Dan Benishek (1st District, Michigan)

Mo Brooks (5th District, Alabama)

Christiana Jeffrey (4th District, South Carolina)

Dr. Deborah Honeycutt (13th District, Georgia)

Dr. Chris Salvino (5th District, Arizona)

Carly Fiorina (Senate, California)

Joe Miller (Senate, Alaska) Pending Approval by vetting committee

This diary was originally posted at NewsReal and The Minority Report.

“I got a lot of problems with you people, and now, you’re gonna hear about it!!”

The above quote was uttered by Frank Costanza, the father of George Costanza of Seinfeld fame. Costanza invented the holiday Festivus, because he wanted to remove the traditional and commercial aspects of Christmas. Instead of a traditional Christmas tree, there is simply an aluminum pole. (Mr. Costanza said that he found tinsel to be “distracting”.) And, instead of a traditional Christmas dinner, there is the “airing of grievances” where you tell all of your friends and family how much they have disappointed you over the last year. And finally, at the end of the evening, there are the “feats of strength” where you attempt to pin one of your friends or family members to the floor. (See embed below for the story of Festivus.)

Now, in 2004, The New York Times ran a column reporting that some people actually celebrate Festivus. Well they should know, because Frank Rich apparently celebrates it in July instead of waiting until December. Honestly, it’s completely understandable. I mean, why tell just your friends and family how pissed off you are at them when you can tell off the entire country? Anything worth doing, is worth doing right.

So, without any further ado, here is Frank Rich’s airing of grievances against America, uh I mean a quick summary of his latest column about America and its history–

–When the Declaration of Independence was signed 234 years ago, slavery was still allowed.

–Fast forward to 1964, you got lynchings in Mississippi, Barry Goldwater voting against the Civil Rights bill, and Robert Byrd filibustering it for 14 hours.

–Now, Mayor Bloomberg doesn’t employ enough minorities, yada yada yada.

At this point, he takes a time out from his airing of grievances to praise my home state of South Carolina for the recent elections of Nikki Haley and Tim Scott. However, he immediately gets right back in the Festivus spirit by bringing up the Confederate flag and saying that “we shouldn’t read too much into these low turn-out primaries.” This from a man who reads racism into every Tea Party protest and any opposition to Obamacare, and hears racial slurs uttered when none were captured on any recording devices, but I digress.

So, in the spirit of Frank Costanza, Frank Rich is basically saying the following with regard to SC–

“Hey South Carolina–don’t go getting all full of yourself and thinking that you’re so high and mighty with the elections of Nikki Haley and Tim Scott! Remember the Confederate flag?! I still got a lot of problems with you!!”

Now, back to Festivus in July–or the rest of Rich’s column.

–Frank Rich is very disappointed in some Republicans for opposing Elena Kagan. It must be because they are racists who hate Thurgood Marshall (and we’re flashing back to the 1960′s again).

–Rich compared John Kyl, Tom Coburn and Orrin Hatch to Strom Thurmond, because if you have questions about Elena Kagan, then you are against Thurgood Marshall and, therefore, pro-Thurmond.

–Strom Thurmond is the father of the “Southern Strategy” and we can still see that today because Virginia governor, Bob McDonnell, brought back Confederate History Month, blah blah blah.

–Strom Thurmond had a daughter with an African-American teenage maid, yada yada yada….

…It was at this point that my eyes started to glaze over and I realized that I agreed with Kramer when he said, “Frank, no offense, but this holiday of yours is a little out there”. In other words, Festivus sucks. From here on out, I’m gonna just stick to celebrating Christmas and the Fourth of July and leave Festivus alone (no offense to anyone else–I am quite tolerant of all religious practices). In other words, let’s focus on what’s good about America instead of only what’s bad–like us recently electing the first African-American president, or Tim Scott (the likely first black congressman since Reconstruction) beating Strom Thurmond’s son to represent SC’s 1st Congressional District. There is a lot to celebrate about America. Let’s ditch the aluminum pole and go light some firecrackers!

PS–Oh, I almost forgot. Happy Festivus in July Mr. Rich! I hope that you didn’t tire yourself out too much by airing your grievances with us, and that you saved some energy so Charles “Minstrel Show” Blow doesn’t get the best of you during the feats of strength.

This diary was originally posted on NewsReal and The Minority Report.

OK–we’ve all seen small children put their hands over their ears and wail when they are told something that they don’t want to hear, like “eat your vegetables” or “take your medicine”. However, this is quite strange behavior to behold in adult journalists who work for mainstream media outlets. Now granted, anyone who reads newspapers, and doesn’t live under a rock, is somewhat aware that there is a left-wing tilt to the MSM. For instance, there have been the recent embarrassments involving the infamous JournoList–a sophomoric clique of left-wing journalists and bloggers. And, most people are aware that the MSM has a tendency to throw a fit whenever anything negative is said about President Obama or his Administration.

But now, it’s come to this. A few days ago, Megyn Kelly broke a huge story on Fox News where she interviewed former Department of Justice attorney, J. Christian Adams. Adams has blown the whistle on the Obama Administration’s DOJ for dismissing the infamous voter intimidation case against the Black Panthers, after he had already won the case (the Black Panthers never even showed up in court to answer the charges). Adams claimed that the main reason why the DOJ didn’t want to prosecute the Panthers was for racial reasons. Now, one would think that this would be an explosive story and that the mainstream media would be all over this, but instead they are like a toddler putting his fingers in his ears when he is told to eat his vegetables.

Wait–it gets better. In addition to Adams, Megyn Kelly also interviewed renowned civil rights attorney and life-long Democrat, Bartle Bull (who was Robert Kennedy’s campaign manager). Bull claimed that he witnessed the Black Panthers threatening voters and shouting racial slurs at the polling place, telling Kelly that, “Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy didn’t die so that uniformed thugs could be blocking polling places with weapons”. Not to mention, Mr. Bull also claimed that the Black Panthers were working in collusion with ACORN (you know, that lovely group that agreed to aid and abet a child prostitution ring) in order to intimidate the poll-watchers, because ACORN had registered a bunch of illegal voters. (See the embed below.)

Now again, you would think that the MSM would be climbing all over each other to be the first ones to put this story on the front page of their paper. Well, you would be wrong. In fact, The Washington Times recently wrote an op-ed titled, Media blackout for Black Panthers where they wrote the following–

“Where is the New York Times? Where is The Washington Post? Where are CBS and NBC? A whistleblower makes explosive allegations about the Department of Justice; his story is backed by at least two other witnesses; and the allegations involve the two hot-button issues of race and of blatant politicization of the justice system.”

In other words, with regard to this story, the MSM are acting like bunch of petulant children who are putting their fingers in their ears and screaming “LA, LA, LA–I can’t hear you!!”. Why, you ask? Because simply put, it makes the Obama Administration look corrupt. Not to mention, there is nothing that guilty white liberals in the MSM would hate more than having to report about criminal allegations against two African-American organizations. I’m guessing that many of them would rather shave their head with a cheese grater than report on this story.

Allow me put this another way. Suppose that two white Bubbas from Mississippi (wearing overalls and carrying baseball bats, instead of jackboots and nightsticks) were intimidating black voters outside a polling station and shouting racial slurs at them. Now, let’s suppose that George W. Bush was still president, and his DOJ dropped the charges on the thugs–after one of its attorneys had already gotten a conviction–for “racial reasons”. If you don’t think that the MSM would be all over this story and screaming for the resignation of Bush’s attorney general (and rightfully so), then I have a blind bird dog and some underwater real estate to sell you.

By the way, it’s a little ironic that ACORN turned out to be involved in this story, because, figuratively speaking, this is the ACORN story all over again. In the hilarious video below, Jon Stewart mocks the MSM for letting “the cast of High School Musical 3” scoop them on the ACORN story (or really, drag them kicking and screaming into covering the ACORN story).

Furthermore, after the ACORN story became too big to ignore, The New York Times dragged out its public excuse maker, uh I mean public editor, to explain why they had been so late to the party. No one should be surprised if Clark Hoyt has to write another op-ed in a week or so explaining why the Times neglected this story, but I digress.

And finally, what really galled me about this story was the mealy mouthed excuses that Obama’s DOJ put forth for not pursuing this case. According to the previous video of Kelly’s interviews with Adams and Bull, Obama’s DOJ claimed that there “were not enough facts to support the case” and that their lawyers just had “good faith disagreements”. (They also accused Mr. Adams of “having and agenda”–oooh, sounds scary.) Well, I decided to dig up the original video of the Black Panthers intimidating voters and watch it again.

Now, I don’t have one of them fancy Harvard law degrees, but that looked to me like a clear cut, undeniable case of voter intimidation that left nothing up for interpretation.

Hey MSM–it’s time to stop pouting, take your fingers out of your ears and eat your vegetables/report this story. Because with or without you, this story is going to get out. We, in the conservative blogosphere, are not going to stop talking about it until you stop ignoring it. You can get on board now, or you can be dragged kicking and screaming–again. The choice is yours.

This diary was originally posted on NewsReal and The Minority Report.

Y’all know the drill. When the story first broke regarding General Stanley McChrystal supposedly “committing an act of insubordination” by trashing President Obama to Rolling Stone magazine, the conventional wisdom was to say that “he should be fired”. Well, then, after reading Michael Rulle’s excellent article titled, “Has Anyone Actually Read the Rolling Stone Article?”, it became apparent to me that A.) most of the general public and the mainstream media had not read the infamous article, and B.) that it is foolish to take anything that the MSM says at face value. In other words, this whole story began to stink as though a skunk had scurried across the backyard.

He made a series of insightful points in his piece. However, It was Michael’s final paragraph that should inspire true journalists and bloggers everywhere to do some serious digging of their own:

“Maybe the Afghanistan strategy is wrong; I have no idea and that is not my point. McChrystal is dynamic and charismatic, but does not strike me as a cowboy. Yes, I can see how the article can irritate “real men”. But “real men” would pick up the phone and say to the General “chill out, we need you, fix it”. The fact that McChrystal took full responsibility for this manufactured “crisis of insubordination” indicates strong character. The crocodile rage (the Left) and tears (the Right) manufactured by the media and the politicians over this article shows incredible weakness by us as a nation. Remember the “strong horse” versus “weak horse” analogy made so infamous by Osama Bin Laden? Well, our weak horses just fired our strong horse.

God help us.”

Now, after doing some extensive research, I have come to three big conclusions about this “McChrystal insubordination” story.

The first conclusion is that the MSM is going for General McChrystal’s jugular, because they are attempting to do some serious CYA for The One. How does one come to this conclusion, you ask? Well, why don’t we take a look at this quite revealing video montage from Newsbusters, and you tell me what you think.

Our word for the day boys and girls is “brilliant”. Man, the JournoList strikes again, because those guys all had their talking points down pat. But seriously, listening to those Obama sycophants prattle on, one couldn’t help but be reminded of Inigo Montoya from “The Princess Bride” when he said the following–

“You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means”.

First of all, if Obama is so “brilliant”, why did it take him months to finally send General McChrystal the troops that he requested? It seems that a “brilliant” man would understand that you need soldiers to win a war–not unicorn farts and pixie dust. Second of all, wouldn’t a “brilliant” man know that it’s probably a good idea to meet with your commander in Afghanistan for more than, say, just 25 minutes on Air Force One? Furthermore, wouldn’t a “brilliant” man know that winning the war in Afghanistan is more important than pitching Chicago to the International Olympics Committee? And finally, wouldn’t a “brilliant” man command more respect from his commanders and soldiers in the field than Obama does? Just a thought.

Oh, and here’s a little more food for thought. Barack Obama didn’t even support General Petraeus during the surge or condemn that awful MoveOn.org ad calling him “General Betray Us”. However, now, Obama is “brilliant” for hiring George W. Bush’s general who is going to be McChrystal on steroids? (Petraeus will ask for even more troops and more time than McChrystal did.) Sorry, but that’s a little hard to swallow.

Conclusion 2: What does this story say about its writer and publisher?

Now, the second conclusion regarding the whole McChrystal/Rolling Stone circus that most reasonable people should come to is that Michael Hastings is an unpatriotic, military hating skunk of a human being. Greg Gutfeld discussed this aspect of the McChrystal situation on Huckabee the other night–particularly, when he stated that Rolling Stone is known for its hatred of the military. (Specifically, Gutfeld said that, “The only thing that they (Rolling Stone) hate more than war, is winning a war”, and Mike Huckabee called Michael Hastings “a far left-wing reptile”.)

Find more videos like this on The Activity Pit

It should interest one that Michael Hastings’ top ten most famous pieces are all anti-war and anti-military. Not to mention, Bill O’Reilly stated on his show the other night that Hastings called Rudy Giuliani a “maniac” and referred to John McCain as “Captain Ahab”. Is this true, you ask? Well yes it is, because Hastings, himself, admitted to both statements when asked about them by Howard Kurtz.

However, Hastings’ image really began to sour when some of his colleagues in the MSM started to trash him for unethical behavior.

For instance, The Washington Post recently had an article implying that Hastings behaved unethically, and that most of the incendiary statements made about the Obama Administration were made by aides at McChrystal’s 33rd wedding anniversary–and, it was understood that those statements were off the record. Specifically, the WaPo wrote the following with regard to this matter:

“A member of McChrystal’s team who was present for a celebration of McChrystal’s 33rd wedding anniversary at a Paris bar said it was “clearly off the record.” Aides “made it very clear to Michael: ‘This is private time. These are guys who don’t get to see their wives a lot. This is us together. If you stay, you have to understand this is off the record,’ ” according to this source. In the story, the team members are portrayed as drinking heavily.”

Now, what’s particularly interesting about this, is that this WaPo column was partially written by none other than Rajiv Chandrasekaran, the guy that wrote a very famous book that was hyper-critical of the war in Iraq titled Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq’s Green Zone. So, if Chandrasekaran is criticizing you for biased, unethical war reporting, let’s just say you’ve got problems.

[Just to be clear, NO ONE is equating Chandrasekaran with Hastings. There is absolutely nothing wrong with writing a scathing critique of how a war is being fought and suggesting that we should have done X instead of Y. There is something very wrong with printing off the record comments by inebriated aides at McChrystal's wedding anniversary in the hopes of ruining his career and sabotaging the war effort.]

Furthermore, Chandrasekaran is not alone in his opinion that maybe Mr. Hastings’s behavior wasn’t entirely on the up and up. For example, Toby Harnden of Telegraph wrote that Rolling Stone deliberately reported that McChrystal voted for Obama — when his team had asked them in writing not to — and, Harnden referred to Rolling Stone and Hastings as “a disgrace to the profession”. (Can’t get more direct than that, now can we?) Not to mention, veteran CBS war correspondent, Lara Logan, also criticized Hastings to Howard Kurtz and stated that–given what she knows about McChrystal– his reporting just “didn’t add up”. The Huffington Post then reported the following exchange between Kurtz and Lara Logan–

Host Howard Kurtz asked Logan if there is an “unspoken agreement that you’re not going to embarrass [the troops] by reporting insults and banter.”

“Absolutely,” she said. “Yes… there is an element of trust.”

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury of public opinion–as to Hastings’ (as well as Rolling Stone‘s) character, I rest my case. Yes Mr. Hastings, your patriotism is being questioned–write it down, take a picture, do whatever floats your boat.

Now, onto the third and final conclusion about this ridiculous scandal that wasn’t involving General Stanley McChrystal.

Come to think of it, NOT ONE leftist pundit who said that McChrystal should be fired has ever contradicted anything that he, or his aides, have said. Yeah, sure they’ve all mindlessly prattled on about Obama’s supposed “brilliance” in hiring General Petraeus (probably the only general that he knows), and about how “insubordinate” McChrystal was (let this be a lesson to us all–don’t have one too many drinks at your boss’ wedding anniversary if you are within earshot of some pathetic journalistic skunk). However, no one has heard anyone say that McChrystal was wrong and that Obama showed decisive leadership with regard to the war in Afghanistan, or that the civilian leadership isn’t horribly bungling things in Afghanistan. In fact, Toby Harnden summed it up perfectly when he wrote the following–

“McChrystal and his “Team America” vented about Ambassador Karl Eikenberry betraying them with a leak; portrayed special envoy Richard Holbrooke as an egotist in fear of losing his job; joked about Vice President Joe Biden being a bit of a blowhard; and suggested James Jones, National Security Adviser, was an ineffectual relic of the Cold War.

These are hardly controversial opinions – even within the White House. Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s chief of staff and a man whose salty language would make a sailor blush, probably says worse things about his colleagues to a reporter before breakfast on most days of the week.”

Furthermore, while we’re on the subject on non-controversial opinions, even liberal pundits are in agreement that Obama dithered with regard to Afghanistan, and took way too long to send McChrystal the troops that he needed. In fact, Maureen Dowd wrote the following last fall to describe President Obama’s tenure in office–

” If we could see a Reduced Shakespeare summary of Obama’s presidency so far, it would read:

Dither, dither, speech. Foreign trip, bow, reassure. Seminar, summit. Shoot a jump shot with the guys, throw out the first pitch in mom jeans. Compromise, concede, close the deal. Dither, dither, water down, news conference.”

Moreover, in his latest column, Mark Steyn (who describes the president as “unengaged”) even quoted Thomas Friedman admitting that the Obama Administration never wanted the Afghan surge in the first place–

“The ugly truth,” wrote Thomas Friedman in The New York Times, “is that no one in the Obama White House wanted this Afghan surge. The only reason they proceeded was because no one knew how to get out of it.”

Oh, and did you hear that some of McChrystal’s aides implied that Vice President Joe Biden might be a bit of a blowhard? The hell you say! Wait a second–is this the same guy who just called some manager of a custard shop a “smartass” for asking about his taxes? OK, well Biden might be a bit of a blowhard, but we never would have figured this out on our own if it weren’t for the leaks from McChrystal’s guys. (Rolls eyes.)

So basically McChrystal (a four star general) was fired because his aides let off a little steam at their boss’ 33rd wedding anniversary and uttered some things that everyone in their right mind accepts as universal truths?! Really?! Someone please stop me before my head explodes.

So, in conclusion, I just want to say to General Stanley McChrystal–on behalf of patriotic Americans everywhere–thank you. Thank you so much for for your stellar military career that spans more than three decades. Thank you for running the black ops missions in Iraq, and for hunting down and killing Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Thank you for putting your life on the line everyday in that hellhole called Afghanistan, and for actually trying to win the war there (imagine that!). You will always have our deepest appreciation and gratitude. Sir, with this video below, we salute you.

PS–And to you Michael Hastings, well, let’s just say that I have a “salute” of my own that I would like to give you–but, being a Christian woman and being in polite company…it’s not gonna happen. However, I can offer you some advice. Dude, take a shower. Seriously, in every single picture, you look like you haven’t bathed in days. The troops that had to sit next to you on an airplane should get hazardous duty pay. Damn dirty hippie skunk.

This diary was originally posted at NewsReal and The Minority Report.

From 2010-06-27

From 2010-06-27

As many of you are aware, I recently wrote a diary titled, “Tim Scott MUST Win–This Is Not Negotiable!”. In this diary, I explained that if Tim Scott lost to Paul Thurmond (in the SC District 1 Republican Primary), it would be disastrous for the state of South Carolina, and for the Republican Party. Why? Because the spectacle of a more qualified, more conservative, more charismatic African-American candidate losing to an unqualified guy named “Thurmond” (and I realize that this might not be entirely fair to Paul Thurmond, but who said that life was fair?) would be just too big of a spectacle for us to overcome. Furthermore, in this diary, I explained that, the MSM was closely watching this race. Also, I mentioned that the mocking and humiliation that SC received with regard to the Nikki Haley circus, via Jon Stewart and the rest of the MSM, would be cubed if Tim Scott lost to Paul Thurmond. (See embed below–go to 4:30 in to see SC bit. H/T Allahpundit of Hot Air.)

To be specific, I wrote that the MSM would take us down like a hungry cheetah taking down a gazelle if we elected Paul Thurmond over Tim Scott.

Let’s face facts folks. To much of the MSM, we in SC were a big joke. I mean, does anyone remember when Joe Wilson shouted “You Lie!” at the State of the Union Address, and Maureen Dowd (and the rest of the MSM) tried to make everyone in SC look like Confederate flag waving racists? I certainly haven’t forgotten about it.

Well, Tuesday night, that all changed with Tim Scott’s and Nikki Haley’s victories.

How you ask? Because the elections of Tim Scott and Nikki Haley changed the entire narrative about southern conservatives and the issue of race. I mean, we all know that liberals love to support black politicians–that is if they represent primarily black districts, and/or race bait/play the race card by falsely accusing people of shouting racial slurs (see Jim Clyburn and John Lewis as prime examples of such behavior). Oh, and of course, liberals love to support extremely liberal African-Americans, like Barack Obama and Deval Patrick–that religiously tow the party line and are indentured servants to liberal special interest groups (like SEIU, ACORN, the teachers unions, etc.)–so that they can exorcise their white, liberal guilt.

For instance, the day after Obama’s presidential victory, Maureen Dowd wrote a column where she exclaimed that she was so excited to see black people and white people “talking to each other for the first time”–and, she admitted that she asked her “cute, black mailman” what he thought about Obama’s victory (someone needs to inform Ms. Dowd that, outside of Manhattan down in them red states, we’ve been talking to black people for years.) Then, Maureen Dowd wrapped up her ridiculous column by bragging that she was going to call her one black friend, Gwen Ifil (hey, she has a black friend, so it’s all good).

Anyway, my point is that it’s easy for Maureen Dowd, the MSM and the Democratic left (and Manhattanites) to support the most liberal guy in the US Senate who also happens to be black. However, I wonder what would happen if a black Democratic candidate actually started to think for himself, instead of simply towing the party line?

Well, if you’re curious, then just ask Alabama African-American US Representative, Artur Davis, what happened to him when he strayed from the Democratic party line and campaigned for governor of Alabama by running against Obamacare. You guessed it–the Democrats threw him under the bus. In fact, Jesse Jackson said the following with regard to Artur Davis–

“We even have blacks voting against the healthcare bill from Alabama,” Jackson said at a reception Wednesday night. “You can’t vote against healthcare and call yourself a black man.”

Really????!!!! I did not know that. I guess you learn something new everyday.

[Oh, and just to put this in perspective for you--Artur Davis has an undergraduate degree and a law degree from Harvard, and he graduated with honors from both (not to mention, he was also a assistant US attorney before he was a US congressman). Now, Ron Sparks, the guy who beat Artur Davis in the AL Democratic primary, was an AL agricultural commissioner with a degree from a community college. Kind of shocking, huh?]

By the way, did anyone remember what happened to Harold Ford Jr. when he tried to run in the Democratic Primary for the New York US Senate seat? Again, you guessed it. Democrats railroaded him before he could even get in the race, simply because he was seen as too moderate because he voted against gay marriage in the past, supported a payroll tax cut, and and was against trying Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in New York. (In fact, the Democrat party bosses pushed Ford out in favor of Kirsten Gillibrand, who voted against cutting off funds for ACORN after that huge scandal last year, so that should explain a lot.)

Furthermore, if memory serves, it was mainly liberals that griped when blacks voted in high numbers in CA against gay marriage. I guess that Harold Ford Jr. (and the CA African-American voters) didn’t get the memo that “you can’t call yourself a black man and vote against gay marriage”. (The nerve of him!! Who does he think that he is thinking for himself?!). But, I digress.

And finally, speaking of straying from the liberal talking points, we know exactly how much respect liberal elites have for black conservatives–just ask Clarence Thomas and Charles “Minstrel Show” Blow. For some odd reason, liberals seem to be extremely threatened by black conservatives (probably because they have proven that it’s possible to get ahead in America without towing the liberal line or being beholden to liberal special interest groups). Don’t believe me? Well just look here, here, and here at the comments sections of these articles about Tim Scott–all of the racist comments were made by liberals. (The liberal commenters compared Mr. Scott to “Marion Barry”, said that “he had sheets hanging in his closet”, called him “a token”, etc.)

So, in conclusion, when I was at Tim Scott’s victory party on Tuesday night, I saw a bunch of good old southern guys and gals who were sunburned, exhausted and dehydrated from standing out in the sun all day long holding signs for Tim Scott. In fact, many had gotten caught in a heavy afternoon downpour, yet refused to leave their posts despite the heavy showers. They were tired, yet ecstatic. Moreover, Brandon Rowland, one of Tim Scott’s aides, told me that he had forgotten to eat that morning when he was standing out in the sun holding a sign for Mr. Scott, but he was determined not to leave his post–so he stood out in the sun all day, dehydrated on an empty stomach. (I asked Brandon if he was afraid of passing out. He said that he went to The Citadel, so he had passed out before, and that it was really no big deal.)

[If you want to get an idea of the energy and excitement pulsating throughout the room at Tim Scott's victory party, then watch the video below. At about 1:25 in, people start chanting "We want Tim!". Then, his mother goes to get him, and at around 2:15 in, Tim Scott makes his grand entrance and the crowd erupts with applause and jubilation.]

And at the end of the evening, when I asked Tim Scott about how he felt after his victory, he told me that he was “elated, yet focused” on the general election race to come, and that “it is still only half-time.” (Mr. Scott is a former football player.)

Yes, the left and their lackeys in the MSM were not at all prepared to handle both Tim Scott (likely the first African-American US Representative from SC since Reconstruction) and Nikki Haley (likely the first Indian-American female governor anywhere, and the second Indian-American governor in US history after Bobby Jindal–who is also a Republican) winning in SC on Tuesday night. The left woke up Wednesday morning flat on their back, feeling as if we had gone straight for their jugular. We in SC permanently maimed the race card with the election of Nikki Haley and Tim Scott. We slowly snuck up on them and they never saw it coming. Tuesday night, we were the cheetahs.

PS–If you want to know why Tim Scott was elected to Congress, then watch his interview with Sean Hannity below. When Hannity asks Mr. Scott what grade he would give President Obama (at around 2:40 in), Mr. Scott doesn’t mince words–without even flinching, he flat out answers “F”. Just like Chris Christie, Tim Scott has a set of brass ones (which is probably why The Club for Growth endorsed him). We need a lot more like him in Congress.

PPS–The first photograph in this diary is of Tim Scott, me, and Brandon Rowland on the right (one of Tim Scott’s aides). The second photograph is of Andrew Boucher on the left (another one of Mr. Scott’s aides), me, and Brandon Rowland on the right.

This diary was originally published on The Minority Report and Hillbillypolitics.

Wait, what’s that you say liberals? There is no liberal indoctrination of children going on in the public schools? OK—well then, I would like to kindly ask that you please take a look at a Live Wire that I recently wrote that had videos of and links to multiple stories about children being told that drawing the American flag is “offensive”, children being sent home from school for wearing the American flag, children being browbeaten by teachers for saying that they supported John McCain, children being forced to draw pro-Obama campaign art, and, finally, children being forced to chant accolades to “The One” (“MMM—Barack Hussein Obama”).

Oh, and for those of you who still aren’t convinced, I would also like to remind you of a recent diary that I wrote titled, “China Yes, Arizona No”, where I exclaimed that Sarah Palin had officially become my hero. Why? Because she shined the national spotlight on the fact that Highland Park High School in Chicago, IL was not going to let their varsity girls basketball team compete in a national championship tournament, simply because the tournament was being held in Arizona (H/T Allahpundit of Hot Air). So basically, these poor girls worked their butts off all year to become the state champions—however, their school superintendent decided that it was more important to use them to make a political statement about the AZ anti-illegal immigration law (that 73% of Americans now support), than it was to reward them for their hard work.

Furthermore, what really galls me about this story is the mealy mouthed excuse that Highland Park High School gave for not wanting these girls to go to AZ. Wait for it—they were “concerned for their safety”. I’m not kidding. Now, what’s even more unbelievable, is that, two years ago, this same high school allowed their students to visit CHINA! So now, communist China is “safer” than AZ?! REALLY????!!!!! Yeah, because as Palin pointed out on a recent radio show (see embed below), nothing says women’s rights like China—where they kill baby girls or leave them to die in garbage dumps. (Palin has even offered to help raise money to send the girls to AZ).

Below is an embed of those pesky students, from the Highland Park High School girls basketball team, complaining about about a year of their hard work going down the drain. The nerve of them!! Didn’t they get the memo that it’s more important for their school to be able to use them as political pawns in order to continue the liberal indoctrination of its students?! They were so upset, that two of the girls even went on Fox News to complain about it (gasp—the horror!).

OK–let me guess. Some of you liberals out there reading this still think that I’m an evil right wing vixen who tells nasty lies about our noble public education system.

Well, today when I was watching “America Live” (yes, that dastardly Fox News strikes again!), they reported that, as six students at Dennis-Yarmouth Regional High School in MA were being honored at their high school graduation for joining the military and received a standing ovation from the crowd, two of the school’s teachers actually refused to cheer, remained seated, and waved signs in protest (that said “End War”) instead of clapping. However, the local news also reported that some of the kids later staged a counter protest, and that many of the parents and students were outraged and wanted those teachers fired. (H/T to The Political Class for the video below.)

Did you hear that? That idiotic teacher called it “a teachable moment” for her students. That’s liberalese for “I just made a flaming ass out of myself”. Furthermore, I just loved it when the principal of the high school said, “I think that a class room is the better environment for that kind of dialogue”. Oh, I get it. Indoctrination of your students should be done quietly in a classroom behind closed doors. However, out in the open, at graduation, well….that’s a big no no.

Reason number 999,999,005 to homeschool or send your child to a private school.

Still think that I’m an evil right wing vixen who tells nasty lies–or, is even this too much truth for the biggest moonbat out there to overlook? I should hope so.

This diary was originally posted on The Minority Report.

OK – as many of you are aware, I recently wrote a diary about a congressional candidate from Charleston, SC (my hometown) by the name of Tim Scott. Tim Scott is running for Congress to represent the 1st district of SC in the US House of Representatives. The Republican Primary took place on June the 8th and Tim Scott won with 32% of the vote, followed by Paul Thurmond who took in 16% of the vote. Tim Scott will now face Paul Thurmond in a run-off in less than two weeks. (There were a total of nine candidates running in the District 1 Republican Primary, so it was inevitable that there was going to be a run-off, because it would be close to impossible for any of those candidate to get to 51%.)

So, now that we are are down to the wire, I thought that I would play a little game of compare and contrast with the resumes of the final two candidates.

Tim Scott has served thirteen years on the Charleston County Council–and, he has been in the SC House of Representatives for the last two years where he is currently the first black Republican state legislator since Reconstruction. Mr. Scott has impeccable conservative credentials, because he is just one of eleven candidates to have been endorsed by The Club for Growth (who also endorsed Marco Rubio and Pat Toomey). Michael Barone also acknowledged that Tim Scott was the most conservative candidate in the SC District One race, when he wrote the following–

“Interestingly, Haley is the daughter of Sikh immigrants from India. If elected governor she would be the second Republican governor of a Southern state, after Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, to be the child of immigrants from South Asia. Who’d a thunk it? And when you’re putting your mind around that, consider that the leader in the Republican primary for the open South Carolina 1 seat relinquished by retiree Henry Brown is Tim Scott, who may be the most conservative and assuredly is the only black Republican in the South Carolina legislature. He led Paul Thurmond, son of the late Governor and Senator Strom Thurmond, by a 31%-16% margin; in third place with 14% was Carroll Campbell, son of the late Congressman and Governor Carroll Campbell.”

Actually, Tim Scott won by 32%, but the rest is correct.

Now, as far as charisma goes, Tim Scott has it to spare–in fact, he has it oozing out of every pore. I have embedded two videos below of Tim Scott. The first one is his excellent advertisement that points out that he wrote the anti-Obamacare legislation in the SC House of Representatives. The second video is of a speech that Mr. Scott made before RNC members in Myrtle Beach, SC–and it is just made of awesome (watch the first 12 minutes of it if you don’t have time to watch the entire thing–that should be enough to give you an idea of who Mr. Scott is and what he is about).

Well, a couple of days ago, I read a fascinating column in The Washington Post that compared Bill Clinton to Michael Clayton, and referred to him as Obama’s “Mr. Fix-it”. Now, for those of you who don’t get this analogy, “Michael Clayton” was an excellent movie (see the trailer below) about a slightly shady guy who cleaned up messes for a law firm–he was their roving, perpetually on-call “Mr. Fix-it”. Oh, and in my opinion, “Michale Clayton” has one of the top ten best lines in recent movie history when the title character (brilliantly played by George Clooney) says to the evil, murdering trial lawyer (played perfectly by Tilda Swinton)—

“I’m not the guy that you kill, I’m the guy that you buy!”

….But, I digress.

Now, I think that The Washington Post was more right about Bill Clinton being “Michael Clayton” than they might ever know. What do I mean by that? Well, those of you who have seen the movie (spoiler alert for those of you who have not) might remember that, in the end, Michael Clayton did the right thing and turned on the chemical company hired by his law firm that had manufactured a deadly weedkiller. In other words, I think that Bill Clinton “Michael Claytoned” (yes, I’ve now created a new verb) the Obama Administration, and was secretly helping Joe Sestak behind their back. Yes, I know that it’s a juicy story, but you’re worried that it might be largely based on conjecture. Well, you’re in luck, because I happen to deplore stories based strictly on conjecture. So, if you will bear with me, I will start of by bombarding you with a plethora of facts to back up my hunch.

Fact–Bill Clinton and Joe Sestak have been friends for quite a while. Joe Sestak worked in the Clinton Administration as Director for Defense Policy on the National Security Council.

Fact–Joe Sestak was an extremely loyal Hillary Clinton supporter who stayed with her until the bitter end, and who was constantly on TV defending her. In fact, he was even defending Hillary when most of her supporters had left, and when the MSM and the Democratic establishment were telling her to get out of the race (the Democratic Party seems to have a nasty of habit of doing this sort of thing). Furthermore, Sestak helped Hillary win PA by almost ten points–but, specifically, he helped her carry Bucks County by fifteen points. Therefore, Bill Clinton owes Joe Sestak a lot. And, he owes Arlen Specter absolutely nothing.

Fact–According to that same WaPo column that I linked to above, Joe Sestak was at Bill Clinton’s house so that Clinton could help him plan for his general election campaign against Arlen Specter, the very day that Arlen Specter announced that he was switching parties. Now, of course the WaPo kind of glanced over this inconvenient little factoid; however, if you read between the lines, this is an extremely big deal. Why? Well, because first of all, I seriously doubt that Bill Clinton does that for every congressional candidate (i.e, invites them over to his home to plan strategy sessions)–Joe Sestak was obviously someone whose candidacy Clinton was deeply invested in. And second of all, this is a big deal because it means that the Obama Administration deliberately kept Bill Clinton out of the loop, and then backed someone–who even liberals think is a blatant opportunist–over his loyal buddy Joe Sestak. C’mon, you KNOW that this had to royally piss Bill Clinton off–especially when the Obama Administration keeps using him to put out its fires and campaign for Obama “in places where Obama is less than welcome”, to quote the WaPo (probably because he called the people there “bitter, gun-clingers”).

Fact–Bill Clinton does not like Barack Obama. For starters, Clinton thinks that Obama “played the race card” on him (and let’s face facts–he did–and he played it on John McCain as well). Furthermore, it was the Obama campaign that pushed the meme that Hillary Clinton was hoping that Obama would get assassinated. And finally, Bill Clinton even went so far as to tell Ted Kennedy, with regard to Obama, that, “A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee”–which I think means that Clinton sees Obama as a “Junior” (who should be an intern) or as “The Boy President” (to quote our own MBecker), and therefore, doesn’t have a whole lot of respect for him. (By the way, I’d be willing to bet that Bill Clinton thinks that if you need a “Michael Clayton” to put out your fires for you, then you shouldn’t be president in the first place.)

Fact–Every biography news special that I’ve ever seen about Bill Clinton all say one thing in common–that he is extremely loyal to his friends, but that he hold grudges forever. For instance, when he and George H. W. Bush flew overseas to help promote relief for the tsunami victims, Bill Clinton gave George H. W. Bush the one bed on the plane and slept on an air mattress–yet to this day, he still hates Jimmy Carter’s guts (probably because of all of Carter’s “freelance diplomacy” during the Clinton years). Not to mention, I remember seeing an 60 Minutes expose on Bill Clinton a few years ago where they reported that he still keeps in touch with his high school friends from AR.

[Now, I realize that some people reading this might find it a bit painful to admit that Bill Clinton could possibly have any redeeming qualities at all--such as being a loyal friend. However, I promise you that it's quite painless. Pinky swear. The sky won't rain down fire, cats and dogs won't be living together, and gravity won't reverse itself. Take a look around. See? Everything is still where you last left it. Wait a second....I'm meeelting....MEEEEELTING!! Ha, ha! Just kidding. I'm still here. But, I digress. Anyway, my point is that everyone (with the exception of Attila the Hun and Adolph Hitler) has some redeeming qualities. (And no liberals--I am not comparing Bill Clinton to Attila the Hun or Adolph Hitler--I am just trying to make a point.)]

Fact–Bill Clinton knows PA like the back of his hand–he probably knows it better than Joe Sestak does. A Clinton has won the state of PA three different times–twice when Bill Clinton ran for president, and once when Hillary won PA in the Democratic primary. Bill Clinton probably knows how every county in PA will vote before they do. Not to mention, I’m sure that Clinton knew that Arlen Specter was weak and would be easy to beat–why else would he have met with Sestak so early? You really think that we all knew that Specter was weak, but Bill Clinton didn’t?

Fact–Two days before the Sestak/Specter election, Bill Clinton was in Johnstown, PA campaigning for Mark Critz (who recently won Jack Murtha’s old seat). Now, when he was there, Clinton NEVER mentioned Specter’s name (Obama’s choice for Senate whom he claimed that he “loved”) once. Furthermore, Critz’s district went HEAVILY for Hillary, so just by being there, Bill Clinton was doing a serious get out the vote drive for Sestak (he didn’t have to say anything–once the people who voted for Hillary heard he was there, they knew what to do).

Fact–Joe Sestak has a serious man-crush on Bill Clinton. Don’t believe me? Well then, watch the video below and see for yourself (H/T C-SPAN). Pay particular attention to how much Sestak’s entire demeanor changes when he starts discussing President Clinton. Not to mention, Sestak totally backs up the WaPo story about Clinton helping him with his campaign before Specter announced that he was switching parties. (Oh, and to be specific, the WaPo story that I previously linked to stated that, “Sestak’s eyes lit up on the Capitol steps Friday as he recalled his bond with Clinton”. If you watch the video, you’ll see that that is the understatement of the millennium.)

Hey dude–watch it! You’re oozing man-crush everywhere and it’s getting on my shoes.

But seriously, that was more than just man-crush radiating off of Congressman Sestak–that was appreciation. And yes, I think that part of it was for President Clinton’s phone call to his poor little girl (God Bless her) when she was diagnosed with brain cancer. However, I honestly think that part of it was appreciation for President Clinton supporting him when everyone else wanted him to just go away.

Now, here comes the conjecture part of my diary. I know that Bill Clinton is reported to have had a brief conversation with Joe Sestak (at the behest of Rahm Emanuel) where he offered him a non-paying position on a board that Sestak could not have even served on if he remained in Congress (and that Sestak declined his offer). However, I don’t know what the two men said to each other after Sestak declined Clinton and Clinton replied, “I knew that you would say that.”

In other words, after reviewing ALL of the evidence (and there is a lot of it), I simply refuse to believe that Bill Clinton was happy about being used by the Obama Administration as some sort of Michael Clayton figure (the WaPo somehow manages to infer that this is a flattering thing for a former president). Furthermore, does anyone honestly think that Bill Clinton was happy about being kept out of the loop with regard to Specter switching parties, and then being told to stab his loyal friend in the back–by some guy who had called him and his wife “RAAAAACISTS!!”–in order to help Arlen Freakin’ Spector–a guy with the charisma of Mr. Potato Head?! Really????!!!!!! I’m sorry, but I’m just not buying it–that would require a willing suspension of disbelief on my part. No, I think that after Bill Clinton delivered Rahm Emanuel’s message to Joe Sestak (just like he told Mr. Emanuel that he would), the conversation continued in a fashion similar to this—

Joe Sestak: So, Mr. President, what do you think that I should do? Should I drop out of the Race?

(In my best Clinton impersonation voice….)

Bill Clinton: “Hell No! Run dammit!! You can easily beat that SOB Specter. He has the personality of a toad! Besides, no one in Pennsylvania, Republican or Democrat, likes him. Now Joe, you know that I can’t publicly come out and support you because of Hillary’s job and all, but I know Pennsylvania like the back of my hand and I promise you that you can beat this guy. Furthermore, I can promise you that I won’t utter one word in support for Arlen Specter, and that, come Hell or high-water, I will find a way to show my face in Pennsylvania a few days before the votes are cast–even if I have to show up to campaign for the local dogcatcher.”

Now, besides all of the evidence–and Bill Clinton’s ginormous ego–what else makes me think that Bill Clinton Michael Claytoned the Obama Administration? Well, because it’s something that I would do. Being the vindictive beyotch that I am (yes, I know that it’s a bad quality and I’m working on it–you all can pray for me if you’d like), if I was put in the exact same position that Bill Clinton was put in, I would smile sweetly and bat my eyes at Rahm Emanuel, tell him that I would love to help him using my best Southern belle drawl, and then would proceed to kneecap that SOB by giving my buddy the heads up and telling him to run anyway. (I believe that revenge is a dish best served cold–and, I bet that Bill Clinton does as well.) Moreover, this could also explain why President Clinton was running away from some random blogger yesterday when asked about this, instead of getting in his face and telling him to “piss off”–something that Mr. Clinton has never shied away from doing in the past (just ask Chris Wallace). (See embed below–H/T Allahpundit of Hot Air.)

And finally, I think that the the spectacle of Bill Clinton kneecapping Obama is what the Obama Administration is really afraid of people finding out about. That would totally explain why they’ve been so evasive and antsy about something that could easily be made to look like small potatoes by a group of highly skilled White House lawyers. (Not to mention, it could also explain why they were so quick to throw Bill Clinton under the bus.) They figure that people knowing about them offering Joe Sestak a job might undercut their message a bit, but at the end of the day, everyone already knows that Obama’s just a typical Chicago politician. (Yawn–I’m bored already.) However, if it were proven to be true that Bill Clinton has so little respect for Barack Obama that he would blatantly Michael Clayton him in favor of his buddy–well, that would be one huge humiliation sandwich that would choke the life out of the Obama administration. Why? Simply put–it would make them look weak. In a nutshell, I think that the Obama Administration’s greatest fear is Bill Clinton saying the following under oath about helping out Joe Sestak, when he was supposed to be doing Barack Obama and Rahm Emanuel a favor—

(In my best Clinton impersonation voice….)

“First of all, it depends on what the meaning of the word “favor” is. Second of all, I said that I would do “a favor”–I just never specified for whom. I think that I performed a huge favor for my buddy, Joe Sestak, and for the good people of Pennsylvania by getting rid of that opportunistic hack, Arlen Specter.”

A couple of days ago, Peggy Noonan wrote a column titled, “He Was Supposed to Be Competent” where she wrote the following with regard to Barack Obama’s relationship with the Democrats (H/T Ed Morrissey of Hot Air and Jeff Emanuel)—

“What continues to fascinate me is Mr. Obama’s standing with Democrats. They don’t love him. Half the party voted for Hillary Clinton, and her people have never fully reconciled themselves to him. But he is what they have. They are invested in him. In time—after the 2010 elections go badly—they are going to start to peel off. The political operative James Carville, the most vocal and influential of the president’s Gulf critics, signaled to Democrats this week that they can start to peel off. He did it through the passion of his denunciations.”

Here is the embed of James Carville signaling to Democrats that it’s OK to “peel off”–

Now, what I would like to know is who signaled to James Carville that it was OK for him to “peel off”? I’m not a betting woman, but I would bet dollars to donuts that it was Bill Clinton. Remember, Carville has always worked for Bill Clinton–not the other way around.

So, in conclusion, if my theory is correct (and the evidence sure as heck makes it look like I’m correct), this story could be a lot bigger than any of us originally thought. Instead of it being about the Obama administration offering some congressman a job to get out of a Senate primary race (which they seem to have done before, by the way), this story could actually be about Bill Clinton totally dissing/kneecapping/Michael Claytoning the Obama administration–and, about the Democrats, themselves, starting to peel away from Obama. (Remember, the Democrats in PA voted for Joe Sestak, instead of Arlen Specter–Obama’s chosen candidate). Now, I realize that “dissing” and “kneecapping” are strong words, but if the Lanvin sneaker fits, well…..

Hey, I’m only following the evidence–which is something that the MSM simply refuses to do.

PS–By the way, I think that conservatives should reclaim the movie “Michael Clayton”. I realize that it’s been labeled a “left-leaning film”, but I think that’s bullocks. Since when are conservatives in favor of corporations that make deadly weed-killers? And besides, at the end of the movie, the title character does the right thing by taking personal responsibility and standing up to corrupt trial lawyers. Sounds like a conservative movie to me.

This diary was originally posted on The Minority Report.

“The new Ridley Scott film “Robin Hood”, which has opened to mixed reviews on its merits as entertainment, is also drawing some critics’ political ire. In New York’s leftist weekly, The Village Voice, Karina Longworth laments that “instead of robbing from the rich to give to the poor, this Robin Hood preaches about ‘liberty’ and the rights of the individual” and battles against “government greed”; the film, she scoffs, is “a rousing love letter to the tea party movement.” On a similar note, the New York Times’ A.O. Scott mocks “Robin Hood” as “one big medieval tea party”:

“You may have heard that Robin Hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor, but that was just liberal media propaganda. This Robin is … a manly libertarian rebel striking out against high taxes and a big government scheme to trample the ancient liberties of property owners and provincial nobles.”

Whatever one may think of Scott’s newest incarnation of the Robin Hood legend, it is more than a little troubling to see alleged liberals speak of liberty and individual rights in a tone of sarcastic dismissal. This is especially ironic since the Robin Hood of myth and folklore probably has much more in common with the “libertarian rebel” played by Russell Crowe than with the medieval socialist of “rob from the rich, give to the poor” cliché. At heart, the noble-outlaw legend that has captured the human imagination for centuries is about freedom, not wealth redistribution — and this is reflected in many previous screen versions of the Robin Hood story.”

So after reading Ms. Young’s column, my curiosity was piqued. I, then, went on YouTube and deliberately sought out the “Robin Hood” trailer to ascertain for myself if it looked to be any good (see the embed below).

My, that just looked terrible!! There were epic battle scenes, hot looking actors in beautiful costumes, and fiery special effects set to a rousing musical score. Why in the world would anyone want to subject themselves to that?! Besides, Robin Hood was spouting far-right wing, teabagger talking points about “liberty” and “individual rights”. Nasty, nasty, yuck yuck. (In case you haven’t noticed, my voice is reeking with sarcasm right now. Furthermore, that script was probably written over two years ago–long before anyone had ever heard of the Tea Party.)

Well, after watching that trailer and reading Ms. Young’s column, I decided that I would go see “Robin Hood” in the theaters after all, and judge the movie for myself. I mean, it had Ridley Scott directing it and Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett staring in it–seriously, how bad could it be? At the very worst, it might be “Gladiator” set in medieval England (which actually sounds OK to me).

Now, after going to see the movie a couple of nights ago, I remember walking out of the theater in a totally confused state, because I thought that the movie rocked. In other words, the reviews that I read of the movie didn’t at all square with what I had just watched on the big screen. However, when I stopped and thought for a moment, I realized that I had seen this movie before. And by “this movie”, I mean liberal film critics and pundits writing something about a film (that might express some conservative values) that didn’t at all square with reality when you actually saw the movie.

For instance, I remember when “Braveheart” first came out in the mid-nineties, the film critic for Time panned the movie and said that “Rob Roy” was a better film. I’m not kidding. At the time, I wasn’t aware that the MSM was biased and I didn’t really follow politics much. Therefore, it never occurred to me that Time’s film critic might be allowing his political opinions to get in the way of giving “Braveheart” an objective review–I just thought that he might be smoking something. Now, I couldn’t find the link to that review from Time (it is over fifteen years old);however, I did find a review of “Braveheart” from Time Out London that concurred with the reviewer from Time–he called the movie “pure hokum”. [By the way, if you want a good laugh, then read the eighth comment down in the movie review that I just linked to–that guy (who goes by Justin Vest) says it better than I ever could.]

However, the best example that I could recall of film critic dissociative disorder (that’s what I call it when a movie review seems to be totally disconnected from reality) was when “The Passion of the Christ” was released in 2004. I remember liberals, literally, losing their minds when that film came out. Franks Rich wrote a column railing about “The Passion” where he accused Mel Gibson of “Jew-baiting”, called the film “a joy-ride for sadomasochists”, and then wrote the that “the fracas over “The Passion” has made me feel less secure as a Jew in America than ever before. ” Oh, for crying out loud! Melodramatic much, Mr. Rich?

By the way, in his column, Frank Rich made, in my opinion, a slightly bigoted comment about a Muslim film distributor when he wrote the following–

“It can’t be coincidence that France, where Jacques Chirac has of late called for “zero tolerance” of anti-Semitism, was the only country where the film lacked a distributor until this week, when a Tunisian producer declared it was his “duty as a Muslim who believes in Jesus” to remedy that terrible lapse.”

Is it just me, or is Mr. Rich castling aspersions on this man’s character without any proof? I mean, it’s entirely possible that the Tunisian film producer was a rabble-rouser who wanted to incite people in France to kill the Jews; however, Mr. Rich provides no proof or examples that this was the case. (Furthermore, I never heard of any reports of Jews in France being brutalized or murdered due to screenings of “The Passion”.) Did it ever occur to Mr. Rich that maybe this Tunisian film distributor was a religious man who just wanted to “spread the good news” to others as he saw it? (Jesus is considered to be a great prophet by the Muslims and the Koran says that it is He who will come at the end of the world to judge people.) Or, maybe this film producer wanted to “remedy that terrible lapse”, because he wanted to make a terribly large amount of money? (Gasp! That would make him an evil teabagger who believes in “liberty” and “individual rights”–just like that Robin Hood!) Anyway, my point is that if a conservative columnist had written those exact same comments about a Muslim man, without providing any proof of his assertions, Mr. Rich would be screaming “RAAAAACIST!!” at the top of his lungs, but I digress.

Now, NYT film critic A. O. Scott (where have I heard that name before? oh yeah, he panned “Robin Hood”) disagreed with with Frank Rich about “The Passion” being anti-Semitic (that honestly surprised me), but still panned the movie anyway because he thought that it was too gory, and that it should have focused more on Jesus’ teachings, and less on his excruciating death.

Surprisingly, the only film critic who seemed to “get it” about “The Passion of the Christ” was Roger Ebert when he gave the film four stars. Ebert stated that it was “the most violent film that I had ever seen”, but then wrote the following about the picture–

“I prefer to evaluate a film on the basis of what it intends to do, not on what I think it should have done. It is clear that Mel Gibson wanted to make graphic and inescapable the price that Jesus paid (as Christians believe) when he died for our sins.”

Anyway, my point is that when I first went to see “The Passion of the Christ”, I was fully prepared to walk out half-way through the movie in protest because all of the supposed “antisemitism” in the film that I had read about in the NYT. (I was still a Democrat in 2004, so I trusted the NYT.) In fact, the only reason why I went to the movie was because all of my friends and everyone from my church was going, and I didn’t want to be “out of the loop”. So, you all can imagine my surprise when I went and didn’t see a lick of antisemitism. In fact, the most heroic characters in the movie that, literally, brought tears to my eyes were Jewish–like Simon of Cyrene who helped Jesus carry his cross, or Veronica who wiped his face. It was then, that my eyes started to open, and I began to realize that liberals tend to view everything through a partisan lens–and have little to no tolerance for apostasy as they see it (i.e., anyone slightly straying from their liberal talking points).

Now, since I started to notice a pattern here of liberal critics and columnists panning films that could potentially appeal to conservatives, I decided to do some research and look into past reviews from The New York Times of some other perceived right-leaning films that I happen to think kick ass.

So, what do you think that A.O. Scott thought of the movie “300″ (which is now officially a cult classic)? Guess what? He hated it. To be specific, Scott stated that, ““300” is about as violent as “Apocalypto” and twice as stupid”. Mr. Scott then goes onto imply that “300″ is a racist movie when he writes the following–

“The Persians, pioneers in the art of facial piercing, have vastly greater numbers — including ninjas, dervishes, elephants, a charging rhino and an angry bald giant — but the Spartans clearly have superior health clubs and electrolysis facilities. They also hew to a warrior ethic of valor and freedom that makes them, despite their gleeful appetite for killing, the good guys in this tale. (It may be worth pointing out that unlike their mostly black and brown foes, the Spartans and their fellow Greeks are white.)”

Again with “freedom” and “individual rights” being dirty words to the left. Are you staring to notice a pattern yet?

OK–since A.O. Scott mentioned “Apocalypto” in his review of “300″, I thought that I would look up his review of that movie as well. And, yes you are right–Scott also hated that movie. To be specific, Mr. Scott referred to this film as “The passion of the Maya”. However, I found this exert from Mr. Scott’s column to be particularly interesting–

“The setting is Central America before the arrival of the Spanish, when the Maya empire, in Mr. Gibson’s version, was already in the process of collapsing from within. The basic moral conflict — as it was in “Braveheart,” directed by and starring Mr. Gibson, and in “The Patriot,” a vehicle for him directed by Roland Emmerich — is between a small group of people trying to live simple, decent, traditional lives and a larger, more powerful political entity driven by bloodlust and greed. This kind of conservative anti-imperialism runs consistently through Mr. Gibson’s work; whether the empire in question is Roman, British or Mesoamerican, and whatever its political resonance might be, it allows the viewer to root for an unambiguously virtuous underdog. “

Seriously????!!!!! According to A.O. Scott, “Apocalypto” was about Norman Rockwell/ middle America, small town, red state values verses liberal, urban, blue state values. Silly me. All this time, I thought that “Apocalypto” was an awesome historical epic about the fall of the Mayan empire. However, I guess because the central character was willing to fight valiantly and risk his life to save his family, that made it a “conservative” movie. Keep on talking Mr. Scott, because you’re making it seem that if the characters in a movie have any redeeming qualities at all–like love of family, patriotism, valor, a love of liberty, etc.–then the film automatically becomes conservative propaganda. OK–I’ll happily go along with that line of thinking.

(And while we’re at it, I guess Mr. Scott thinks that “The Patriot” was a “Tea Party” movie as well. Oh, wait–it was.)

Next, I decided to see what A.O. Scott had to say about “Kingdom of Heaven”–another awesome Ridley Scott film that was about the Crusades. Do I even have to ask this time? Of course you all guessed that he hated it, right? (Furthermore, Mr. Scott even went so far as to state in this review that he didn’t like “Gladiator” either–which is another Ridley Scott film. This dude really doesn’t like Ridley Scott or Russell Crow, but I digress.) Now, Mr. Scott’s biggest beef with the film seemed to be that he felt that the Christians weren’t portrayed as evil enough for him. That, and the evil knight/bad guy had a French accent. To be specific, Mr. Scott wrote the following–

“Written by a newcomer, William Monahan, “Kingdom of Heaven” is an ostensibly fair-minded, even-handed account of one of the least fair-minded, even-handed chapters in human history, during which European Christians descended on the Middle East for more than 200 years.”

Yeah, you see, I guess A.O. Scott didn’t like the fact that “Kingdom of Heaven” portrayed some knights as good, some knights as bad, and some Muslims as good, some Muslims as bad–which is how the world actually works. (There are good and bad people in all cultures and walks of life. But, I guess that’s an inconvenient truth that liberals would rather not face.)

However, come to think of it, one could have easily deduced that A.O. Scott, the NYT and most liberal elites wouldn’t have liked “Kingdom of Heaven” as soon as they heard the oath that the knights had to take (which I, embarrassingly, have memorized).

“Be without fear in the face of your enemies. Be brave and upright so that God may love thee. Speak the truth always–even if it leads to your death. Safeguard the helpless and do no wrong. Now, rise a knight.”

“Oh nooos!! More intolerant teabagger talking points about bravery, valor and God! How stupid and small-minded.”

And, finally, out of sheer curiosity, I decided to look up A. O. Scott’s review of “The Dark Knight”. I figured that even he would love that movie, because that movie just oozed awesome all over the place. (I mean, after seeing “The Dark Knight”, I can’t even watch the original “Batman” with Michael Keaton and Jack Nicholson anymore–and I used to love that movie!) Well, I was wrong. Although he didn’t flat out pan it like he did the other movies that I previously discussed, Mr. Scott implied that that he found “The Dark Knight” tiresome when he wrote that “as soon as the main character is suited up and ready to do battle, the originality drains out of the picture, and the commercial imperatives — the big fight, the overscaled action extravaganza — take over.”

So, in a nutshell, I think that the only way that liberals (and the NYT) would have liked “Robin Hood” is if he stole from the people of Nottingham and gave their money to Prince John so that he could institute socialized medicine. And, I think that the only way that liberals would have liked “Braveheart” is if he screamed “Sooooocialism!!” instead of “Freeeeedom!!”. Not to mention, I think that the only way that liberals would have liked “The Passion of the Christ” is if Jesus had been crucified by “radical Christians” for preaching atheism and telling people that he wanted to “spread the wealth around”. And, I think that the only way that liberals would have liked “The Dark Knight” would have been if, instead of beating the snot out of the Joker to get him to confess where he hid the bomb, Batman would have tried to understand the Joker better by starting a diversity outreach program to people with green hair and white skin. And, I think that the only way that liberals would have liked “Gladiator”, “Kingdom of Heaven”, “Apocalypto” and “300″ would have been…..oh, screw it. There would be absolutely NO WAY to get liberals to like those movies, because they just aren’t wussified enough for them. (Yes, “wussified” is indeed a word–look it up.)

OK–now, I know what question you all are asking yourselves–”What movies does A.O. Scott (and the NYT) actually like?” Well, I Googled “Movies that A. O. Scott likes”, and this column from Rotten Tomatoes came up–it lists A.O. Scott’s top five favorite movies. Now, if you click on the link and look at that list, “The Godfather” was the only one that I had even heard of–and it was the only movie that Scott named that was made after 1971 (“The Godfather” was made in 1972).

Oh, but I almost forgot the best part. When I Googled “Movies that A. O. Scott likes”, I found out that A.O. Scott had given a positive review to “Harold & Kumar escape from Guantanamo Bay”. Seriously, you can’t make this stuff up. To be specific, Mr. Scott opened his column by writing the following with regard to this movie–

“If you think the last seven years have been one long, dumb, dirty joke — or maybe if, sometimes, you just wish you could believe as much — then “Harold & Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay,” written and directed by Jon Hurwitz and Hayden Schlossberg, just might be the perfect movie for you.”

Then, in the latter part of his column–after writing that “Paranoia is no longer an occasional, bong-induced side effect, but rather standard operating procedure at the highest levels of government”–Mr. Scott gives us this brilliant insight–

“But precisely because their attitudes are so bluntly hedonistic and apolitical, Harold and Kumar manage to be fairly persuasive when they get around to criticizing the status quo, which the movie has the wit to acknowledge itself as part of. “

Apolitical? Really????!!!!! First of all, this movie was nothing but one great, big political tirade–and, A. O. Scott acknowledges as much when he writes that the last seven years have been “one long, dumb, dirty joke”. I mean, the entire plot of this movie revolves around the idea that the Department of Homeland Security is racist, stupid and will throw innocent people into Guantanamo for smoking a bong on an airplane–and, will assume that anyone with brown skin is a terrorist until proven otherwise.

Second of all, “Harold & Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay” is probably one of the top five WORST movies that I’ve ever seen. Besides the fact that the plot is totally ridiculous and asks the audience to have a willing suspension of disbelief, this movie is unfunny, highly offensive and anti-American as well. I could only get through the first half of it because it is, literally, unwatchable. “Harold & Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay” glorifies drug use, implies that America is a racist country that will throw any brown person in Gitmo for no reason at all, and mocks southerners as incestuous hicks who have sex with their siblings and have inbred, one-eyed cyclops children that they hide in their basements–which is probably why A.O. Scott likes this movie so much. In other words, “Harold & Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay” echoes every left wing talking point about the Bush Administration, America, and the south perfectly. Furthermore, what’s so tragic about this movie is that “Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle” (the first movie in this series) was probably one of the funniest movies that I’ve ever seen. Sure it also glorified drug use, but unlike “Harold & Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay”, it was actually funny, unoffensive and truly apolitical.

So, in a nutshell, if you ask A.O. Scott, The New York Times, and most film critics and liberals in general to recommend a movie to you, they will tell you “Robin Hood” no, “Braveheart” no, “The Passion of the Christ” no, “300″ no, “Apocalypto” no, “Kingdom of Heaven” no, “Gladiator” no, “The Dark Knight” no–but, “Harold & Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay” and any movie made before 1972, yes. Oh, and I’m sure that they will all love any movie with a title like, “A Room With a View and a Staircase and a Window and a Bunch of Polite British People Staring at Each Other”, but I digress.

Now, I’m sure that you all have figured out by now that, to me, this issue is a lot larger than if liberals like “Robin Hood” or not (otherwise, this diary wouldn’t be so darn long). In my opinion, the larger issue here is that liberals NEVER pass up an opportunity to indoctrinate people. For instance we all know that all of the MSM–with the exception of Fox News and The Wall Street Journal–was unabashedly in the tank for Barack Obama throughout the Democratic primary, as well as throughout the 2008 general election. Furthermore, I have written, in great detail, about how rampant liberal indoctrination of our children is throughout our public schools (see the Highland Park High School girls basketball team for further proof). Not to mention, we all know that it is the raison d’etre of every Hollywood liberal to obnoxiously shove their political views down everyone else’s throats (Sean Penn, I am talking to you). And now, I think that I have clearly proven that liberal film critics are guilty of reviewing movies through a political lens.

Alright, I think that I know what you all are asking right now–”Susannah, why do liberals always feel the need to indoctrinate people and proselytize about their political views to captive audiences?” In other words, why don’t they just shut up and report the news, or shut up and teach the kids, or shut up sing/act, or shut up and objectively review a film without injecting politics into the mix? Well, the answer is really quit simple. It’s because they are out-numbered. There are a lot more of us than there are of them–and by “us”, I don’t even mean liberals vs. conservatives (although there are more conservatives in America than liberals). I mean, people who value liberty, family, honor, religion, and individual rights, and don’t think that they are dirty words to be scoffed at.

For instance, I can enjoy a left-leaning film like “Frost/Nixon” or “Michael Clayton” (I thought that both were excellent), because I’m not so insecure that I need a movie to validate my world view. As long as it’s entertaining and not offensive, I’m there. However, liberals aren’t like that. To quote “Glengarry Glen Ross”, they must “always be closing”. I think this is because they know that they are out-numbered by traditional Americans; however, they are also aware that they have the bigger megaphone (i.e., the MSM, academia, Hollywood, entertainment, etc.). Therefore, I think they must feel like they have to always be shouting into that megaphone–otherwise they fear that they are leaving loose threads hanging off of their clothes. And, then, all we traditional Americans have to do is yank on those threads, and then the whole facade of liberalism unravels and they are left standing there naked and unmasked for all to see.

So, in conclusion, I think that if you like action movies with manly men, lots of battle scenes and sword fighting, then you will love “Robin Hood”, because it is extremely well made and well directed. The opening battle scene where the English were storming a French castle was so realistic, that when they blew the gate off of the castle, I actually crouched down in my seat to avoid the falling debris and fiery rubble. Furthermore, the acting was very good–Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett were great as usual, and the guy who played Prince John (Oscar Issac) was such a cutie. (I love it when a movie villain is a bit complex and has some redeeming qualities–and, Oscar Issac played Prince John as a charming rogue who was indifferent to his people’s suffering, but did love his wife.) The only criticism that I have is that I feel that I would have liked to have seen more of Matthew Macfadyen, who played the Sheriff of Nottingham, because I’ve been a big fan of his ever since he played Mr. Darcy in “Pride and Prejudice” (and I loved him in “Frost/Nixon” as well). (Yes, it is possible to love “Pride and Prejudice” and “300″.)

Now, if you don’t like action packed historical epics like”Braveheart”, “Gladiator” or “Kingdom of Heaven”, then you probably won’t like “Robin Hood”–no matter how well-made it is. This is not an exact science–there is some subjectivity involved. All I’m saying is that, if the “Robin Hood” trailer initially appealed to you and you thought that it looked like a good movie, then don’t be scared away from seeing it by A.O. Scott or The Village Voice. I mean, we don’t let these people tell us how to vote, what to think, or even how to educate our children anymore. So, I ask you, why in the world should we let them tell us what movies to see? Just a thought.

But hey–what do I know. I’m no professional film critic. However, I do share your values a lot more than than A.O. Scott or The New York Times does. So, the way I see it, you can take my advice and see this movie–

….or this movie–

….or this movie (don’t worry, it’s the PG preview)–

….or this movie–

….or this movie–

….or this movie–

….or this movie–

….or this movie–

….or you can take A.O. Scott’s advice and see this movie–

The choice is yours.

PS–A lot of the people who would scoff at most of the movies that I embedded above, also want your children to do this in school–

PPS–Just because I love you guys and because I KNOW that you aren’t wussies, I embedded a video called “Epic War” below. It is a compilation of battle scenes from “Braveheart”, “Gladiator”, “Kingdom of Heaven” and “King Author”. It is teh awesome!!

This diary was originally posted on The Minority Report.

Well, if you want to know a bit about Tim Scott, here it is. Tim Scott has been in the SC House of Representatives for the last two years–and he is the first black Republican elected to the state assembly since Reconstruction. Before serving in the SC House of Representatives, Tim Scott served on the Charleston County Council for thirteen years. Not to mention, he is just one of eleven candidates to be endorsed by the Club for Growth.

Now, all of this is fine and good; however, to me, Mr. Scott’s resume is not the best part of his candidacy. What is so awesome about Tim Scott is that the man has an inspirational life story, he is a great public speaker, and he has a magnetic personality. I mean, the dude oozes charisma out of every pore. Unlike Barack Obama, he doesn’t speak in bumper stickers (“Hope”….”Change”….). No, instead, Mr. Scott speaks from the heart about his real life experiences and draws people in. And, unlike Obama, Tim Scott radiates sincerity instead of coming across as too cool for school. And finally, unlike Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi, Tim Scott actually seems to like people (imagine that!)–instead of just using them for his own personal gain.

I have embedded a video below of Tim Scott’s speech to RNC members at Myrtle Beach, SC. If you don’t have the time to watch the entire speech, then at least watch the first twelve minutes of it–that should be enough to give you an idea of who Mr. Scott really is and what he is about. I highly suggest that we at The Minority Report and Redstate start throwing our support behind Tim Scott.

PS–If you want to contribute to Tim Scott’s campaign, then click here.

PPS–Don’t you just love the little frying pan that he whipped out?

This diary was originally posted on The Minority Report.

…..I’m serious as a heart attack—right now, you are actually peering inside the mind of a liberal. Scary, huh?

You see, yesterday, Sarah Palin officially became my hero when she shined the national spotlight on the fact that Highland Park High School in Chicago, IL is not going to let their varsity girls basketball team compete in a national championship tournament, simply because the tournament is being held in Arizona (H/T Allahpundit of Hot Air). So basically, these poor girls worked their butts off all year to become the state champions—however, their school superintendent decided that it was more important to use them to make a political statement about the AZ anti-illegal immigration law (that 73% of Americans now support), than it was to reward them for their hard work. I’m telling you, liberal indoctrination of kids in the public schools never takes a holiday—even if it hurts their own students.

Furthermore, what really galls me about this story is the mealy mouthed excuse that Highland Park High School gave for not wanting these girls to go to AZ. Wait for it—they were “concerned for their safety”. I’m not kidding. Now, what’s even more unbelievable, is that, two years ago, this same high school allowed their students to visit CHINA! So now, communist China is “safer” than AZ?! REALLY????!!!!! Yeah, because as Palin pointed out on a radio show yesterday (see embed below), nothing says women’s rights like China—where they kill baby girls or leave them to die in garbage dumps. God Bless Sarahcuda, because if she hadn’t of pushed this, then this never would have become a national story (Palin has even offered to help raise money to send the girls to AZ).

Reason number 999,999,004 to homeschool or send your child to a private school.

Now, naturally, these pesky students aren’t too happy about a year of their hard work going down the drain, just so their school can use them as political pawns in order to continue the liberal indoctrination of its students. They were so upset, that two of the girls even went on Fox News to complain about it (gasp—the horror!).

Wait, what’s that you say liberals? There is no liberal indoctrination of children going on in the public schools? OK—well then, I would like to kindly ask that you please take a look at the Live Wire that I wrote a few days ago that had videos of and links to multiple stories about children being told that drawing the American flag is “offensive”, children being sent home from school for wearing the American flag, children being browbeaten by teachers for saying that they supported John McCain, children being forced to draw pro-Obama campaign art, and, finally, children being forced to chant accolades to “The One” (“MMM—Barack Hussein Obama”).

Ouch—I bet that hurts having the truth slap you in the face like that. Well, because it’s common knowledge that liberals think that people will believe anything that they say if they repeat it often enough—even if the facts are stacked against them—I suggest that liberals repeat to themselves over and over again, “There is no liberal indoctrination in public schools”……”There is no liberal indoctrination in public schools”. Is that removing the sting of truth yet? Nah, I never thought that it would—I was just messing with you guys.

UPDATE: My girl Jaded has been kind enough to bring this unbelievable article to my attention. Apparently, I was wrong about the title of my diary. Instead of “China Yes, Arizona No”, the title should have been “China and Gay Sex Stories Yes, Arizona No.” Come to find out, Suzan Hebson, the IL school official that put the kibosh on the Highland Park High School girls basketball trip to AZ, supported a program in 2007 that required ninth-graders to attend a “freshman advisory” class at which gay upperclassmen shared stories of their high school experiences. Oh, but it gets much worse than that. Here’s the kicker–”students who attended were asked to sign a statement promising not to tell others — including their parents — about what was said in class”.

OK liberals–now, I realize that the truth can be a harsh mistress. So, again, just keep repeating to yourselves over and over, “There is no liberal indoctrination in public schools”……”There is no liberal indoctrination in public schools”. Is it working yet? I didn’t think so.

This diary was originally posted on The Minority Report.

Now, Mr. Blow wrote another column this past Friday that was equally as outrageous as the “minstrel show” one. In this column titled, “Trying to Outrun Race”, Charles Blow, again, accused the Tea Party of Racism (big surprise there) with little facts to back up his assertion, and he also called the Tea Party “a Frankenstein movement”. (Classy, huh?) However, this time around, for some reason, I just wasn’t as livid as I was after initially reading the “minstrel show” column. What I felt more than anger was simply boredom. I mean, the guy is just so predictable—he says the same things over and over and over again. In other words, in order to be outrageous, the element of surprise has to be there. I think that Robert Stacy McCain summed up Charles Blow perfectly when he wrote the following—

• The Tea Party movement is anti-Obama;
  • Obama is black;
  • Ergo, the Tea Party movement is racist.

However, if you will permit me, I would like to read between the lines and sum up what Mr. Blow really meant when he wrote his last two columns (and what he is really trying to say in every column that he will write for next six months)—

“God, I hate those bitter, gun-clinging, racist, redneck “Deliverance” cast members that attend those stupid Tea Parties. When I was attending the Dallas Tea Party, I felt like I was trapped in an episode of “Hee Haw”. In fact, I hate them almost as much as those Uncle Toms that get up and do a minstrel show for those teabaggers in order to get their approval. I don’t know who is worse.

Yeah, yeah, I know that I caught some grief for writing that the minorities speaking at the Dallas Tea Party were “putting on a minstrel show”, but hey, I’m a brilliant writer for The New York Times (they must think that I’m brilliant, because I’m really a graphic designer, and yet they let me write about politics—I know, it’s a great business model), so I have to call it like I see it. And, I know that I also caught some grief from Laura Ingraham when I admitted on her radio show that I didn’t talk to a single person at the Dallas Tea Party (remember—I am not not a journalist after all), but hey, why should I lower myself and go converse with those troglodytes? They’re all a bunch of stupid hillbillies and Uncle Toms. They don’t like Obama, so it’s only logical that they are all racists or self-loathing blacks, right? Besides, they are totally unlike me. I am an enlightened beacon of tolerance who would never judge a person by their appearance without getting to know them first. They wouldn’t know a true racist if he was staring at them in the mirror”.

Now, about Frank Rich. Well, he is a little simpler to dissect than Charles Blow—and even more predictable (if that’s possible). Put it this way—Frank Rich detests the Tea Party and conservatives so much, that he makes Charles Blow look like an amateur in the hatred department. For instance, in one Frank Rich’s recent columns, he stated that all opposition to Obamacare is rooted in race hatred. In fact, Frank Rich hates the Tea Party with such a passion, that he, literally, hallucinated and wrote in that same column that he “watched goons hurls slurs at John Lewis”. Well, we all know that would have been impossible, because no video has EVER surfaced of ANY protester at that infamous DC Tea Party shouting any racial slurs at any of the black congressmen (even though Andrew Breitbart offered a $100,000 reward to anybody who could produce one).

So, I bet you are now asking yourself if Frank Rich ever apologized to the DC Tea Party protesters for slandering them? No such luck. Instead, he wrote another column where he admitted that no video had ever shown up of anyone shouting racial slurs at black congressmen, but still managed to insist that the Tea Party movement was based on racism none the less. Now, I bet you are wondering on what evidence did Mr. Rich base his insightful deduction that the Tea Party is based on racism? Well, in his column Frank Rich claimed that the Tea party is racist because Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell decided to bring back Confederate History Month. Now, I agree that might have been a kind of tone deaf and insensitive move on Governor McDonnell’s part (and McDonnell has since apologized for not mentioning slavery as part of Confederate History Month). However, I don’t know what in the world Bob McDonnell and Confederate History Month have to do with the Tea Party. That’s a whole six degrees of Kevin Bacon that I simply can not follow.

And what’s more unbelievable, is that Frank Rich has become so predictable with his race baiting, that he’s even starting to bore liberals with it (and my friends, that’s quite an accomplishment). Liberal Daily Beast columnist, Lee Siegel, wrote the following about Frank Rich and his perpetual obsession with the Tea Party—

“Frank Rich portrays them as democracy’s most powerful nemesis in just about every column he writes. “

“They’re racists, concludes the ever sanctimonious Frank Rich, and you come away from one of his complacent squibs feeling that you’ve met the enemy, had him analyzed and explained to you, and now you—and all decent-minded people—have your work clearly cut out for you.”

Anyway, it’s been my experience in life that people will forgive you for being stupid (stupid people are at least entertaining); however, they will not forgive you for being boring.

Now, since I’ve already analyzed what Charles Blow was really thinking when wrote his nasty columns, please indulge me and allow me to crawl into Frank Rich’s head as well—

“OK—I freely admit it. I am totally unqualified for this job (I am really a theater critic, not a political analyst), and I see racist people. Now, the reason why I see racist people is because all of my liberal friends at The New York Times, who claim to know so much about politics, tell me that everyone outside of Manhattan and Hollywood is a racist (even Massachusetts voted for a teabagging pick-up truck driver). As previously stated, I really know NOTHING about politics or about people who don’t run in my narrow circles, so I just assume that my colleagues are correct. Furthermore, my colleagues at The New York Times and my liberal readers really seem to love it when I scream “RAAAAACIST!!” in every column, so I say if it’s not broke, don’t fix it. Besides, “Cats” ran on Broadway for almost twenty years—so, if they could run the same show night after night for that long, and people didn’t tire of it, then I should be able to write the same column week after week.”

“Oh, and one more thing. I have a serious man-crush on Obama. I mean, the man just radiates awesomeness; therefore, racism HAS to be the only reason why someone could not like him. It couldn’t possibly be his policies (which I really don’t know much about anyway), because everything he does is just so magical. No, if someone doesn’t like Obama, it MUST be racism dammit! Well, I’m telling you that there are racists all around America (heck, America is a racist country—my friends all tell me so), and so I’ve made it my raison d’etre to root them out.”

“There are racists on my floor, there are racists at my door. There are racists at the bar, there are racists under my car. There are racists under my bed, there are racists in my head. There are racists here and there, there are racists EVERYWHERE!!”

“I do not like green eggs and ham, I do not like them Sam I Am—but, I really don’t like eating them with RAAAAACISTS!!”

So, in conclusion, yes, I used to get outraged whenever I read one of Charles Blow’s or Frank Rich’s slanderous columns—now, I just feel like I’m in the movie “Groundhog Day”, because they both write the same columns over and over and over again. I’m sorry, but I can’t help but be reminded of Chris Rock’s stand up when he jokes about how exasperating it is to listen to someone tell the same story over and over again—

“Hey, honey, did I tell you about the time I….”

“Yeah, you told me about that time you…!”

“Okay, well, then, honey, did I tell you about the time I….”

“Yeah, you told me about that time you…”

“Well, how about the time I…..”

“YEAH YOU TOLD ME ABOUT THAT TIME! NOW, WHY DON’T YOU GO OUT AND GET KIDNAPPED OR SOMETHING SO YOU HAVE A NEW STORY TO TELL ME!”

Please don’t get me wrong—I am NOT hoping that Charles Blow or Frank Rich will get kidnapped. Unlike them, I am not dripping with hatred. I just wish that they would totally lie and make up a story about getting kidnapped, so that I wouldn’t have to read the same boring and predictable drivel every weekend in The New York Times. However, knowing those two, they would probably even find a way to screw that up and make it boring by race-baiting. I can see the headline of their columns now—“I was Kidnapped by a Pregnant, Racist Teabagger Wearing a Sarah Palin Shirt who was Screaming Racial Slurs”. But, I digress.

Anyway, my point is that after much soul-searching, I realized that I actually feel sorry for Charles Blow and Frank Rich (gasp). They are, literally, pitiful. I mean, it must totally suck having to walk around with that much hatred for your fellow man (and fellow Americans) bottled up inside of you. Oh, and one more thing—it must really suck to be that boring. Come to think of it, I also feel sorry for their friends and family. Could you even imagine having to hang out with either one them for an extended period of time and having to listen, repeatedly, to them rail on about how the Tea Party is a racist militia group that’s trying to ruin America?!

And, what’s more is that what makes these guys even more pathetic than they already seem, is that they are completely oblivious to the fact that they are pathetic. They think that they are awesome! I hate to unleash my inner mean girl here, but they seem like the kids in high school who think that they are so cool, but don’t realize that everyone is either laughing at them or feeling sorry for them. (The video that I embedded below totally reminds me of Charles Blow and Frank Rich—and pretty much the entire New York Times op-ed page with the exception of Ross Douthat. I think that it should be their theme song.) Tonight, before I go to bed, I am going to say a prayer for Charles Blow and Frank Rich. First of all, Jesus said, “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you”. And second of all, these guys need all of the prayers/help that they can get because they are just brimming with hatred, which is extremely unhealthy—oh, and they are really, really BORING!

PS—Thanks for reading. You guys are DEFINITELY AWESOME!!  

This diary was originally posted on The Minority Report.

From the diaries by Caleb

Americans are an extremely charitable people. We NEVER turn our backs on those in need—whether it be our fellow Americans in New Orleans, or strangers in distant lands like Haiti. However, even though Tennessee has been ravaged by floods that will take months to clean up and will wind up costing over a billion dollars in damage, the MSM has pretty much given Tennessee the back of its hand.

In a nutshell, Tennessee seems to be the disaster that nobody cares about. To me, this is shameful because Tennesseans are some of the most gracious people that I know. My fellow contributor from Hillbillypolitics, Steph C, lives in Nashville, and I can personally attest that she would give you the shirt off her back (and so would my other friends at Redstate and TMR who are from TN). Well, I’m not suggesting that we even go that far – I’m just saying that we stop giving our fellow Americans in Tennessee the Heisman, and start showing them some love by helping them out as much as we are able.

Michelle Malkin has a multitude of links to many different charities on her website where you can make a donation to help out the good people of Tennessee. I’m sure that they would do it for us without even blinking. It’s time to love our neighbors and help the people of Tennessee get through this horrific disaster.

(H/T to Newsbusters for the video.)

This diary was originally posted on The Minority Report and Hillbillypolitics.

As some of you may be aware, New York Times columnist Linda Greenhouse wrote a column a couple of days ago comparing the new Arizona immigration law to Nazi Germany, apartheid era South Africa, and states that “the system of internal passports was one of the more distasteful features of life in the Soviet Union”. (I would love to know what the “tasteful” features of life in the Soviet Union were.) Then, Ms. Greenhouse further states that “breathing while undocumented is now a perilous activity anywhere in Arizona”. Note to Ms. Greenhouse and the rest of the liberal elites—it is supposed to be a crime to be an undocumented immigrant in every state (hence the term “illegal immigrant”). That is why legal immigrants are supposed to carry their green cards with them everywhere at all times.

However, I don’t think that most liberals really grasp this fact, because a few days ago on MSNBC when Contessa Brewer was foaming at the mouth about the possibility of “families turning in families”, the headline on the screen read “Law Makes It A Crime To Be Illegal Immigrant”. (Thank you Captain Obvious.) Not to mention, we’ve all seen liberals and members of the MSM get all lathered up in self-righteous outrage over the new AZ law—Richard Cohen of The Washington Post called it “the Anglos last stand”. And, of course, even Barack Obama weighed in calling the bill a “misguided piece of legislation that threatened to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe. ”

Now, my problem is not with President Obama calling the AZ law “misguided”. My problem is with Obama calling the AZ law “misguided” and then not proposing a solution of his own—or following John McCain’s advice and sending 3000 National Guard troops to seal the border (yeah, yeah, I know that McCain is late to the party—but, better late than never I always say). Someone needs to tell President Obama to take Thomas Paine’s advice and “Lead, follow or get out of the way”. And, since it’s quite obvious by now that Obama’s raison d’etre seems to be preening in front of the cameras and giving speeches rather than governing, I suggest that he get out of the way and let the grown-ups handle this one. Besides, dumping on “Jesusland” just to make your base happy is not leadership.

OK—I must admit that I’m not completely surprised by President Obama’s inaction regarding our border crisis, because, during the 2008 election, he did say that “we should teach our children Spanish”—therefore, Obama’s total indifference to the people of Arizona should have been somewhat predictable. However, I do find it quite annoying, to say the least, that President Obama would send out the SWAT team—in full riot gear—to intercept 30-40 grannies protesting his speech in IL (H/T Moe Lane), and yet he won’t send the National Guard to AZ to secure our border from invasion by the Mexican drug cartel, but I digress.

Now, I definitely would love the pleasure of responding to Ms. Greenhouse, but before I do, I would first like to explain just exactly how bad things are for the good people of AZ in order to establish that their fears are indeed legitimate, and not based on anti-Hispanic sentiment.

I assume that most of you who haven’t been living a rock have heard about Robert Krentz, but for those of you who haven’t, Robert Krentz was the Arizona Rancher who was recently murdered by an illegal immigrant that he was trying to help (his brother thinks that he was bringing him water). (Oh, and for all of you dog lovers like me, the illegal immigrant shot and killed Mr. Krentz’s dog as well.) Now, what makes this story particularly heartbreaking, was that Mr. Krentz was known as a good Samaritan who would bring illegal immigrants water and help injured ones cross the desert in 120 degree heat. Furthermore, Mr. Krentz continued to be a good Samaritan despite the fact that in 1999, his house was broken into (by illegal immigrants) and $700 worth of items were stolen. Not to mention, in 2007, his wife wrote a letter to Congress begging for help because she thought that her family’s lives might be in danger. (See embed below where Megyn Kelly explains how Krentz found 290 pounds of Marijuana on his property the day before he was killed.)

Oh, and here is Glenn Beck explaining how Phoenix, Arizona is now the second largest kidnap capital in the world after Mexico City—try putting that on your travel brochures. (See embed below—watch first two minutes to get the idea.)

And, here is Geraldo Rivera doing a story about how the lawlessness in Mexico (which Geraldo says is “more vicious than anything going on in Afghanistan or Iraq”) has spilled over into our country, and how the Mexican drug cartels have, literally, invaded Phoenix, Arizona. (See embed below—watch 2:20 to get the idea.) Furthermore, here is John McCain telling Bill O’Reilly that illegal immigrant smugglers are intentionally causing car accidents along the AZ state freeways.

And finally, here is the AP doing a story on how nine decapitated bodies were found in a Mexican border town just a few miles from San Diego (see embed below), and here is The New York Times doing a story on how people in Mexico City wear bullet-proof clothes.

(See Frugal Cafe for more details of border violence.)

OK—now I know what you all are asking: “How long has the violence on the border been this bad?” Well, at least since 2005. How do I know this? Because in 2005, Janet Napolitano who was then the governor of AZ, but is now Obama’s head of the Department of Homeland Security, issued a state of emergency and stated the following—

Gov. Janet Napolitano on Monday declared a state of emergency along Arizona’s border with Mexico, freeing up $1.5 million in disaster funds to help border counties combat booming illegal immigration and drug smuggling.

Napolitano criticized the federal government for “moving too slow” on border security, evolving into a hot-button, election-year issue in Arizona and across the country.

“This is a federal responsibility, and they’re not meeting it,” Napolitano said. “I’ve just come to the conclusion (that) we’ve got to do what we can at the state level until the federal government picks up the pace.”

However, a couple of days ago when Senator Lindsey Graham asked Ms. Napolitano if our southern border was secure, she issued the following response—

“I believe it is as secure as it ever has been.”

Translation: “Now that I’m not the AZ governor anymore, it’s not really my problem or the Obama Administration’s problem. You hicks in AZ are SOL if you think that we’re going to help you. However, be prepared for us to demagogue on this issue and call you all “RAAAAACISTS!!” if you try to help yourselves.”

By the way, between Janet Napolitano’s botching of the panty bomber and, now, not foreseeing this disaster in AZ (when she is their former governor), how in the world does she still have a job? But, I digress.

Alright, now that I have established how violent our southern border is, and how Arizona’s security is threatened by illegal immigration, I would also like to discuss how much illegal immigration stresses out AZ financially—especially since AZ has almost a 10% unemployment rate. A few days ago, Pat Buchanan wrote an excellent column titled, “Whose Country is This?” where he explains how African Americans and low income Americans are most hurt by illegal immigration. He, then, further illustrated the financial burden that illegal immigration has been on Arizona’s schools, hospitals and public services when he wrote the following—

“Obama has done everything but his duty to enforce the law.

Undeniably, making it a state as well as a federal crime to be in this country illegally, and requiring police to check the immigration status of anyone they have a “reasonable suspicion” is here illegally, is tough and burdensome. But what choice did Arizona have?

The state has a fiscal crisis caused in part by the burden of providing schooling and social welfare for illegals and their families, who consume far more in services than they pay in taxes and who continue to pour in. Even John McCain is now calling for 3,000 troops on the border.

Police officers and a prominent rancher have been murdered. There have been kidnappings believed to be tied to the Mexican drug cartels. There are nightly high-speed chases through the barrios where innocent people are constantly at risk.

If Arizona does not get control of the border and stop the invasion, U.S. citizens will stop coming to Arizona and will begin to depart, as they are already fleeing California.”

However, another great column about how Illegal immigration hurts America’s poor was written in 2006 by New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof—it’s titled, “Compassion That Hurts”. (Yeah, I know. I couldn’t believe it either.) Here is a sample of some of Kristof’s column—

“I used to favor a program to allow in guest workers, thinking it would be good for them and also great for America by providing a source of low-cost labor — just as it was good for America to admit our own ancestors. And illegal immigrants overwhelmingly are hard-working people who keep the economy humming, so they deserve respect rather than xenophobic resentment and a marginalized life in the shadows.

But I’ve changed my mind on a guest worker program, because of growing evidence that low-wage immigration hurts America’s own poor.

It’s often said that immigrants take jobs that Americans won’t take. But look at employment statistics, and you see that even among maids and agricultural workers, only four out of 10 people are immigrants.

I can’t write about this issue without thinking of Elmer, a neighbor when I was growing up. He’s a high school dropout now in his 50’s, but when I met him in 1971, he was earning $26 an hour in a union job. He’s very hard-working, but for the last decade he’s been reduced to janitorial jobs paying not much over minimum wage. People like Elmer haven’t been heard from in the immigration debate, but they have the most at stake.”

Oh, and speaking of compassion, I don’t know what’s compassionate about allowing immigrants to die in the desert, which is what frequently happens when they are smuggled through the AZ desert. And, I don’t know what’s compassionate about paying them slave wages either (H/T Jaded).

[On a side note, this discussion about compassion has reminded me of a recent argument that my husband got into with another blogger. This blogger posted on a website that he loved illegal immigration, because he loved having someone who would clean his huge house for forty dollars. When my husband responded to him and explained to him that illegal immigration hurts the poorest Americans (and African Americans), the man responded by calling my husband a “RAAAAACIST!!”. Man, these people are so predictable, but I digress.]

Anyway, now that I have established how violent our southern border is, and how taxing illegal immigration is on Arizona’s services and job market, I would like to take a look at the infamous AZ law, before responding to Linda Greenhouse. A few days ago, Byron York wrote an excellent column where he clearly explained how all of this talk about about the AZ police “asking brown people for their papers” was literally crazy talk. In his column, York explained that the new AZ law specifically forbids racial profiling, that the AZ police have to already have pulled you over for another infraction of the law before they can ask for proof that you are in the country legally, and that if the person in question has a driver’s license, then that is considered to be sufficient proof of legal status. I have pasted some excepts of Byron York’s column below.

“The chattering class is aghast at Arizona’s new immigration law. “Harkens back to apartheid,” says the Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s Cynthia Tucker. “Shameful,” says the Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne. “Terrible…an invitation to abuse,” says the New York Times’ David Brooks.

Has anyone actually read the law? Contrary to the talk, it is a reasonable, limited, carefully-crafted measure designed to help law enforcement deal with a serious problem in Arizona. Its authors anticipated criticism and went to great lengths to make sure it is constitutional and will hold up in court. It is the criticism of the law that is over the top, not the law itself.

Critics have focused on the term “reasonable suspicion” to suggest that the law would give police the power to pick anyone out of a crowd for any reason and force them to prove they are in the U.S. legally. Some foresee mass civil rights violations targeting Hispanics.

What fewer people have noticed is the phrase “lawful contact,” which defines what must be going on before police even think about checking immigration status. “That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he’s violated some other law,” says Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri Kansas City Law School professor who helped draft the measure. “The most likely context where this law would come into play is a traffic stop.”

For example: “Arizona already has a state law on human smuggling,” says Kobach. “An officer stops a group of people in a car that is speeding. The car is overloaded. Nobody had identification. The driver acts evasively. They are on a known smuggling corridor.” That is a not uncommon occurrence in Arizona, and any officer would reasonably suspect that the people in the car were illegal. Under the new law, the officer would get in touch with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to check on their status.

But what if the driver of the car had shown the officer his driver’s license? The law clearly says that if someone produces a valid Arizona driver’s license, or other state-issued identification, they are presumed to be here legally. There’s no reasonable suspicion.

Is having to produce a driver’s license too burdensome? These days, natural-born U.S. citizens, and everybody else, too, are required to show a driver’s license to get on an airplane, to check into a hotel, even to purchase some over-the-counter allergy medicines. If it’s a burden, it’s a burden on everyone.”

OK—since I have not only successfully established that AZ is indeed in a state of crisis with regard to illegal immigration, but also established that the law does not turn AZ into a police state, I would like to, now, take this opportunity to respond to Linda Greenhouse.

Dear Ms. Greenhouse,

It has not escaped my attention that you and your liberal friends in the MSM have been huffing and puffing over the recent AZ law that—you know—does what the federal law is supposed to do, but refuses to do—i.e., shut down the border. In fact, just today, The New York Times wrote another scathing op-ed condemning the state of AZ. However, I can’t help but notice that you people seem to be high on over the top rhetoric, but low on actual solutions to a real problem.

I mean, just yesterday, I heard Megyn Kelly explain that AZ has roughly the same crime rate as NY, even though New York has SIX TIMES the population of AZ. Furthermore, a lot of these people who are currently committing crimes in AZ, are the exact same people who were kidnapping people, cutting off fingers, and killing kids when they previously lived in Mexico (and some of them are the Mexican police). (See embed below.)

But hey, I can understand why you and your ilk don’t want to seal the border. I mean, who cares if a few illegal immigrants might die crossing the desert, be taken advantage of and have to work for slave wages in the US, or possibly get kidnapped in Phoenix and get their fingers cut off or get killed—you guys might get some new voters who will vote “Democrat” if you make these guys citizens in, say, ten years. And in the meantime, you all get someone to clean your house and mow your lawn for real cheap (I know, good, cheap help is hard to find). Man, you guys really had a good thing going until those “bitter clingers” from AZ had to come in with their whole “law and order” nonsense. You would have to be a redneck and a Nazi to care if your state had been invaded by the Mexican drug cartel, right? And really, who cares about low income Americans, like Nicholas Kristof’s friend Elmer, who are worried about their jobs. We all know that they are just a bunch of ignorant bigots anyway.

So, since you didn’t offer any solutions to the problems that the good people of AZ (and the rest of the nation) face, I thought that I could offer some suggestions that you might agree with.

My first suggestion is called “Operation Canadian Buddy System”. I say that we come up with a buddy system with Canada where we send about 12-20 million low skilled workers, criminal gang members, drug smugglers, and hard-working individuals who have lost their jobs to Canada (this program is very similar to what the Mexican government has done to us). Now, of course, we don’t consult the Canadians about “Operation Canadian Buddy System”—that would be silly—we just do it. Hey, it would certainly solve a lot of our unemployment and crime problems. Now, when we send our citizens up there, we would give them maps (just like the Mexican government does to their citizens) and parkas (instead of jugs of water). And, if the Canadian government complains about all of the illegal immigrants that we are sending their way, we will simply just call them “RAAAAACISTS!!” and inform them that they are not “illegal aliens”—they are “undocumented workers”.

Wait—what’s that you say Ms. Greenhouse? You don’t think the Canadian government will fall for that for one second? You think that the Canadian government will deport all of those people the first chance that they get? Well, you are probably right. I mean, it’s common knowledge that both the Canadians and the Europeans have much stricter immigration laws than we have, and much stronger border security (and we know that liberals think that everything that the Europeans and Canadians do is superior to everything that Americans do). In fact, as George Will pointed out last week on “This Week”, we are the only developed nation (that shares a border with a narco state) that doesn’t secure its borders. Furthermore, the Mexican government (which has been quite vociferous in denouncing the AZ law), is notorious in how badly it treats its illegal immigrants, and has been cited several times by The Red Cross for human rights abuses (H/T Erick Brockway). So, Ms. Greenhouse, if the Europeans, Canadians and Mexicans would never put up with the chaos on our southern border, then, tell me, why are we?

OK—my second suggestion is called “Operation Let’s Send All of the Illegal Alien Criminals to Linda Greenhouse’s Neighborhood”. Well first of all, Ms. Greenhouse, it’s pretty obvious that most of the people that will be caught by this new law will be criminals, since there is no racial profiling and only way that a police officer will come into “lawful contact” with an otherwise law abiding person is through a traffic stop (and the law says that a driver’s license is sufficient documentation, and illegals without licenses will probably take the bus). Now, since you seem to not be bothered by open borders and think this whole sovereignty thing is silly, I say that we dump all of the drug smugglers, gang members, kidnappers and criminals, that are caught by this new law, in your neighborhood (don’t worry, we’ll send you a bullet proof blouse). Granted, some of your neighbors might protest a bit about having to pay higher taxes in order to support these people, having their hospitals over-run, having an increase of traffic accidents and kidnappings, and about not feeling safe when they go outside after dark. However, I say just respond by calling them “RAAAAACISTS!!”. (I’m telling you, the race card works on liberals every time.)

Wait–what’s that you say? You think that severed heads and multiple kilos of drugs in the hallway might ruin the whole feng shui of your building? Yeah, I tend to agree with you that those things would indeed drive down the value of a Manhattan flat—plus I heard that co-op boards can be a pain about such things. Well then, on to my next suggestion.

Finally, my third and final suggestion for dealing with the immigration crisis is called “Operation Give Your Job at The New York Times to an Illegal Immigrant”. OK—let’s be honest here Ms. Greenhouse. Since you don’t seem to be troubled by illegal immigrants taking jobs from poorer American citizens and driving down their wages, I thought that maybe you wouldn’t mind if The New York Times hired some illegal Mexican, Canadian or, say, Indian journalists who would work for half the price, and without any benefits.

Wait—what’s that you say? You like your job and don’t want to give it up and don’t think that your co-workers do either? And, you don’t think that your co-workers would want illegal immigrants coming in and driving down their wages? Well, I’ll be darned!

Well Ms. Greenhouse, you just exhausted all of my suggestions. The only other one that I have is the obvious one—for President Obama to send 3000 National Guard troops to secure our southern border. However, we both know that he’s not going to do that because it would upset the liberal members of his base too much (like you) and it would take away valuable time from his whole “Celebrity-in-Chief” act. Furthermore, the Senate Majority Leader seems to think that climate change is more important to pass this year than immigration. (Seriously?!) So, since neither you nor your president seem to have any solution to the crisis in AZ, I would suggest following Thomas Paine’s advice and just getting out of the way of the Arizonans and letting them do what they think is best—hey, at the very least you can withhold judgment and refrain from implying that they are Nazis or in favor of apartheid (especially since their new law seems to be working).

Oh, and one more thing. The fact that, as previously stated, Arizona has almost a ten percent unemployment rate, has roughly the same crime rate as New York, has the largest rate of kidnappings in America, and has had several policemen and a rancher recently murdered tells me that things are seriously out of control for Arizonans, and I wouldn’t wish their situation on my worst enemy. And, the fact that seventy percent of Arizonans support this law (and fifty-one percent of AZ Democrats do as well), and that the majority of Hispanics in Arizona support this law, tells me that these people are not “RAAAAACIST!!”—they’re desperate.

By the way, you know what’s so sad about this whole situation in AZ? If you guys in New York were in a similar situation where you were being invaded by drug cartels from a country “with more violence than Iraq and Afghanistan” (to quote Geraldo Rivera who is actually very pro-illegal immigrant and once sparred with Bill O’Reilly over the subject), we in the red states would not be judging you and implying that you were Nazis if you went all Giuliani on them—we would have your back and be demanding that the president and Congress do something to help you. I guess the difference between liberals and conservatives is that we believe in the whole “There are no red states or blue states—there is only the United States” thing all of the time—you guys only seem to believe it during an election year.

Have a nice weekend!

Sincerely, Susannah

PS—Ms. Greenhouse, the only part of your column that I liked was when you wrote that you were going to personally boycott AZ. I think that’s best for all parties involved. However, I don’t think that you will be missed. I mean, I can’t picture the people of AZ saying, “Omigod, our state’s on fire and we are the kidnap capital of America! It sure would improve things if we had a snooty liberal from NY down here to judge us.”

PPS—On a personal note, when my husband and I moved recently from GA to SC, I was following him in my car when a SC policeman pulled me over. The first thing that he did was ask for my driver’s license. (Were my civil rights violated?) The officer who pulled me over was African American. I make this point only to say that when he asked for my license, I didn’t accuse him of just pulling me over because I was white, or tell him “Your mama has my driver’s license”. I just gave the man my license, apologized for my crappy driving (he said that I was weaving—I probably was), explained that I was tired from moving all day, and then he let me go without giving me a ticket and even gave me directions. Now, if I had accused him of racism and and made the “your mama” quip to him, do any of you think that I would have gotten a beer summit with the president? Nah, I probably would have spent the night in the clink for being an @&shole—and I would have deserved it too.

This diary was originally posted on The Minority Report.

As some of you are aware, last Friday, I wrote in a Live Wire for The Minority Report that Charles Blow of The New York Times was an idiot and a racist. (And, my girl Jaded was kind enough to put my Live Wire in a Red Hot on Redstate—thank you Jaded.) Normally, I believe that name-calling is the hobgoblin of puny minds, and I loathe people who carelessly toss around the term “Raaacist!!” without any proof. However, if you read Mr. Blow’s column, you will most probably agree that Charles Blow definitely deserves the title of “racist idiot”.

In Charles Blow’s ridiculous column, he discusses his impression of a Dallas Tea Party that he attended–and yet he spoke to no one else there (he admitted this fact on Laura Ingraham’s radio show). (If you are interested, here is a good promotional video of the Dallas Tea Party.) There were so many offensive things in Mr. Blow’s column, that I don’t even know where to begin—like when he wrote that seeing a black doctor, a Mexican immigrant and a Vietnamese immigrant on stage together reminded him of “a bizarre spoof of a Benetton ad”, or when he complained about how many white people were at the Tea Party. However, what I found to be particularly appalling was when Mr. Blow referred to the minorities speaking at the Dallas Tea Party as “a political minstrel show”. What Charles Blow implied by calling the Dallas Tea Party “a political minstrel show” is that African Americans and minorities should all think alike and be liberals—and if they dare to think for themselves or speak at a Tea Party, then they are “putting on a minstrel show” for the white man. Now, in his nasty column, Mr. Blow singled out Alfonzo “Zo” Rachel, an African American conservative comedian who was performing at the Dallas Tea party, as part of “the political minstrel show”.

By the way, someone needs to inform Mr. Blow that it is quite normal for a comedian to perform for an audience—it’s what they do for a living. Was Bill Cosby putting on a “minstrel show” when he used to perform for predominately white audiences? What about Oprah Winfrey? Her audience is mainly white as well. Oh, and what about MSNBC? As our own Lori Ziganto points out, their entire staff is white. So if a black pundit is a guest on MSNBC, is he putting on a “minstrel show”? But, I digress.

Anywho, Zo finally got around to responding to Charles Blow, and it was a sheer delight to see Zo tell that pompous New York Times columnist just how much his column blows (pun most definitely intended). (H/T to Aaron Gardner and Big Journalism for the video. Please read Aaron’s excellent column about the “minstrel show” incident here).

Man, that was a thing thing of beauty, wasn’t it?

Y’all have a good night. (I know that I will after seeing Zo hand Blow his you-know-what.)

This diary was originally posted on The Minority Report.

OK—As some of you are aware, I recently wrote a diary titled, “Dissent is the Highest Form of Patriotism”. In this diary, I discussed how Andrew Breitbart proved that the allegations from the DNC and the MSM that the Tea Party is fueled by racism and violence is one gigantic hoax. Furthermore, I also demonstrated how the left often resorts to acts of civil disobedience, threats, name-calling, and sometimes out-right violence, when they protest or try to suppress dissent. Some examples of this behavior are threatening voters with nightsticks, throwing food at people, posting death threats to Eric Cantor and shooting up his office, calling people “Raaaaaacists!!”, “hooligans”, “The Mob”, “Nazis” and writing in the WaPo that “I want to knock every racist and homophobic tooth out of their Cro-Magnon heads.”

Our own Caleb Howe even covered the story of SEIU union thugs beating up an African American conservative (Kenneth Gladney) for handing out “Don’t Tread on Me” flags, and then slapping the camera woman in the face (see embed below).

Moreover, I also embedded a video of the actual March 20th Tea Party protest (where the protesters were falsely smeared as “Raaaaacists!”) in order to demonstrate just how orderly and respectful our side is compared to their side when protesting.

Well, well, well—after viewing some of the more recent news stories that have been reported on over the last few days, I’m beginning to think that I was even more prescient than I realized in regard to liberals being more aggressive protesters than conservatives. (Not to pat myself on the back or anything—I’m just being honest.)

First of all, you had a video recently made public that showed some Harry Reid supporters throwing eggs at The Tea Party Express bus and at Andrew Breitbart—and one of Reid’s supporters even went so far as to threaten violence against Breibart, even though he was just standing around doing nothing provocative.

Second of all, you had Michelle Malkin reporting on what a bust the “Crash the Tea Party Movement” was (that was organized by desperate leftists that were going to try to infiltrate the Tea Party in order to make them appear racist, because all of their past attempts to smear them have failed). In her blog, Ms. Malkin even has a picture of some idiot walking around with a picture of a noose while other real Tea Party members are holding up signs pointing him out as an infiltrator.

Furthermore, our own Moe Lane reported that Politico interviewed an African American Obama supporter (who wore an Obama T-shirt to a Tea Party) saying the following regarding his experience at the Tea Party—

Brooks Alexander, a 23-year-old Olney, Md., hotel worker and Obama supporter who wore an Obama t-shirt to the evening rally, said infiltrators were being disrespectful.

“They’re doing a disservice not only to themselves, but to the people who are here trying to express their views,” said Alexander, who is African American and said he traveled to the rally to verify for himself liberal accounts blasting the tea party as racist.

“All my friends told me I was crazy to come down here in an Obama shirt,” he said. “Obviously I have political disagreements [with the tea party], but I cannot lie. I cannot say that people have been anything but nice to me. They have been shaking my hand. One guy told me I had a lot of [guts] for coming down here. I will definitely walk away from this with a new understanding of the tea party.”

Man, those Tea Parties sound like a real “scary”, “raaaaacist” bunch, don’t they?

However, speaking of scary, Michelle Malkin has reported that LA governor, Bobby Jindal’s campaign fundraising chief, Allee Bautsch, and her boyfriend were savagely beaten leaving Brennan’s Restaurant after the SRLC (Southern Republican Leadership Conference). The Louisiana blog, The Hayride has all of the details, including multiple videos of people protesting the SRLC right outside of Brennan’s. Now, neither the Hayride, nor Michelle Malkin are 100% sure that the attacks were political in nature. However, the victims were horrifically beaten (Bautsch had her leg broken in four places and has had five screws put in it, and her boyfriend had his jaw and his nose broken), they weren’t robbed by the perpetrators, and there were numerous protesters surrounding the SRLC, so it’s fair to say that I wouldn’t at all be surprised if the attacks turned out to be political. (Put it this way—if this kind of attack had happened anywhere near a Tea Party protest, the MSM would be all over it and already jumping to conclusions.)

And finally, this video is a perfect compilation of left wing protests being contrasted with conservative protests. Watch it and tell me which group you honestly think is scarier.

Just a thought, but maybe the reason why smarmy, self-important liberals, like Anderson Cooper and Janeane Garafalo, feel so free to call us all “Raaaaacists!” and “teabaggers” (which is a vile oral sex term) is because they aren’t at all afraid of us, because they KNOW we aren’t violent or racist.

I mean, could any of you IMAGINE wearing a Palin or a McCain T-shirt to a left wing rally or to a protest group with people similar to the ones in the videos or the links that I provided for you? You would have to be certifiable to do that in my humble opinion. Furthermore, could you imagine what would happen to you if you called those left wing protesters a lude term like “teabagger”? At best they would throw food at you—at worst, you might end up in the hospital.

Y’all have a nice weekend.

This diary was originally posted at The Minority Report.

UPDATE: As if everything that I’ve shown you isn’t overwhelming enough, Return to Revolution was kind enough to give me a link to pictures of protesters issuing death threats to George Bush and a link to numerous pictures of protesters likening Bush to Hitler. Could any of you imagine what the left would do if Tea Party protesters showed up with pictures half as heinous as these?! (I’m DEFINITELY not advocating that they do, I’m just pointing out the extreme double standard.) I mean, just today Joe Klein accused Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck of sedition for simply speaking at Tea Parties, so you be the judge.

Oh, and Return to Revolution also gave me this video that Caleb Howe shot of anti-war protesters at the Democratic Convention calling US soldiers “Nazis” and ‘baby killers”. Classy, huh?

As many of you are already aware, Lee Siegel of The Daily Beast recently wrote an interesting column about Redstate titled, “The New Republican War Room”—and that our own Josh Trevino wrote a diary in response to Mr. Siegel’s column. Josh felt the need to correct Mr. Siegel on the error in his column where he stated that Erick Erickson was the original founder or Redstate. (By the way, I thought this too during my first year at Redsate—probably because Erick is such a natural leader.) Josh calmly explained that, although Redstate has definitely expanded under Erick’s excellent leadership, it was he, Mike Krempasky and Ben Domenech who actually founded Redstate. Well, since Lee Siegel also mentioned me in his column, I would like to take the opportunity to respond to him as well, so here goes—

Dear Mr. Siegel,

First of all, I would like to sincerely thank you for giving Redstate so much publicity. You know what “they” say—“There’s no such thing as bad publicity”. Second of all, I would like to thank you for mentioning me at all. You mentioned how “likeable” Erick is (and I agree with you that he’s quite likeable) and how E Pluribus Unum was one of our resident firebrands (we love you EPU ). And, you also mentioned how Tabitha Hale discussed how “beautiful” the weather was at a DC anti-Obamacare rally, and how hogan has a penchant for Latin phrases. You then wrote the following about me in regard to this diary that I wrote about Karl Rove debating David Plouffe on ABC’s “This Week”—

“And over in Redstate’s culture section, “Susannah” posts a video in which Karl Rove debates David Plouffe, concluding that “Rove ate his lunch—and that’s putting it politely.” In fact, Rove rants and raves, waves a clipboard cluttered with statistics that is not visible to the camera, and barely lets Plouffe get a word in edgewise, but Susannah goes on to colorfully say that “Plouffe was basically reduced to a rubble of transparent Obamaisms” and “when all is said and done, pixie dust and unicorn farts are no match for real knowledge, fact, and cojones.” That’s a jarring note on Redstate’s mostly genteel Web site, but Susannah appends to her post a calm, temperate smiley face. “Have a happy Sunday!” she signs off, as if to say that in the Redstate world, guns, a single religious creed, and the marketplace might rule, but not out of anger or bitterness, gosh darn it, and certainly not when the weather is so “beautiful.””

Again, I would like to say a sincere thank you for mentioning me in the same column where you mentioned Erick Erickson, EPU, Tabitha Hale and hogan—those are awesome bloggers and I am extremely flattered to be mentioned in the same article with them.

Second of all, I take it as a compliment that you find my writing to be “colorful”—hey, it’s better than being boring. And, you are completely right that I have a tendency to over-do the smiley faces—I even put them on most of my comments responding to fellow posters (I plead guilty—take me to blogger jail). However, I, like Josh, feel the need to correct a couple of misconceptions that you seem to have (I know, I know, everyone’s a critic).

The following are a few of the paragraphs that I have pasted from your column—

“Politics is, to a great extent, the artful manipulation of the appearance of moral rectitude, and both liberals and conservatives have their styles of virtuous display. Among other things, each style is intended to contradict each ideology’s popular image. Liberals, for example, will prove their moral bona fides by railing against the certified villains of reactionary obstructionism with passionate intensity. The display of outrage and passion is meant to rebut the stereotype of the liberal as an elitist untouched by ordinary problems.

Conservatives have the opposite problem. They have to play down their outrage and passion lest they give the appearance of being driven by anger and bitterness. So the conservative style of virtuous display is at the other end of the spectrum from the liberal style of virtuous display. The conservative out of power can break windows, carry guns to rallies, scream “baby killer” and, in general, satisfy every liberal stereotype of the angry and bitter right-winger. But once in power, the conservative must look rational, even-tempered, and seem steeped in the conventions of an older, more graceful culture.

Despite the fact that Redstate is in the forefront of the newly formed repeal movement and fighting the good fight against every one of Obama’s legislative initiatives, big and small, the main posters’ tone is mostly polite and relaxed.

This vitriol with a human face might summon up unpleasant images from Sinclair Lewis’s Babbitt to Arthur Miller’s Joe Keller—dishonest businessmen who hide their venality behind a broad smile and a vigorous handshake. This is one version of Homo Americanus, who wreaks a havoc of self-interest on the world behind sunny platitudes and respectable appearance.

But the appearance of calm doesn’t have to be a coward’s camouflage. It can also mean a commitment to some kind of shared fate even with your adversaries. This is another version of Homo Americanus, who at his very worst, just wants to be liked. I’d rather confront someone trying to impress me with a Latin phrase than someone trying to intimidate me with an AK-47 any day.”

OK—Please allow me to begin by stating that if liberals are attempting to rebut the stereotype that they are ” elitists untouched by ordinary problems”, a good place to start might be refraining from calling concerned citizens “redneck, racist teabaggers”—it hardly makes one sound like a man or woman of the people (see embed below).

Now, I also noticed that in your column you keep referring to us Redstate bloggers as “calm” and “polite”, but imply that we might be “dishonest businessmen who hide their venality behind a broad smile and a vigorous handshake.” In other words, we are similar to the creatures in the miniseries “V” in that we are hiding behind a facade of “calm temperate smiley faces”, but at any moment, we might pull off our human masks revealing the bitter, AK-47 toting, reptilian alien species underneath (see embed below so it’s not some vague cultural reference).

Well, I hate to burst your bubble, but I don’t even own a gun. Even though I’m a former ballerina, I’m so clumsy that I think that would probably shoot my big toe off (but, I have no problems at all with the second amendment). Second of all, I’m not polite and friendly because I’m trying to pull one over on people in order to convert them to my way of thinking. I’m polite because I’m a southern girl whose Mama told her to always be polite and that, “You can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar.”

Boooooo! That was boring. Now I feel that my “mystique” is all gone. I think I liked it better when I was an AK-47 toting, mask wearing alien, but I digress.

And finally, you made a mistake in the first paragraph of your column where you referred to Chuck DeVore as one of Redstate’s contributors. Chuck DeVore is actually a Republican candidate for the US Senate seat in CA that is currently held by Barbara Boxer. However, to me, this is a minor mistake. I mean, I’m not familiar with all of The Daily Beast’s contributors (I was much more concerned with debunking the whole “Redstaters aren’t as calm as they seem” myth). I’m not mentioning it to be petty, but rather to point out that we have all kinds of people who post at Redstate (and The Minority Report). We have conservative bloggers, politicians, and even liberals who post here (some of the liberal posters at Redstate have been here longer than I have).

Anyway, since you seem to be interested in Redstate (you wrote a column about it after all), I thought that it would be a nice gesture to extend to you an invitation to come here and engage us. Believe it or not, we at Redstate are not like the liberal blogosphere—we welcome dissent. The only two things that we ask is that you don’t be a Moby (a special kind of troll that took his cue from the musician Moby who told liberals to go on conservative websites and pretend to be conservatives and say ridiculous things in order to make conservatives appear crazy), and don’t be boring (i.e., writing one sentence diaries declaring how you’re mad at the world/media or how you are happy that you just got a pedicure).

Well Sir, I recently went on your blog and I can say without a doubt that you are not at all boring. I especially liked your most recent column where you called out Frank Rich and the MSM for their race-baiting. I bet that your inbox is full of lovely emails from Kossacks (and by “lovely”, I mean really vile). Huevos Grandes Amigo for taking on the left (that’s “conservative” for “I appreciate what you did—it probably wasn’t easy”). Granted, I didn’t agree with everything that you wrote in your column. (Like when you called the Tea Party members “the political Keystone Cops”. That was, how would I phrase it, “a jarring note”.) However, I am so happy to have an intellectually honest liberal take on the left’s race-baiting that I’m not going to sweat the small stuff.

So, in conclusion, I look forward to seeing you around here if and when you decide to post on Redstate. I just have one question that I would like answered—out of nothing more than my own curiosity—if you do decide to take me up on my offer. I felt like, in the first column of yours that I linked to, you spent a lot of time trying to figure out why we at Redstate are so “calm”, “polite” and sunny. Well, my question to you is this—

Why in the world is the left so pissed off?

I mean you guys won the last two major elections. Not to mention, you have the presidency, the House and the Senate—and, yet, so many liberals are so darn angry. And I’m not imagining this either. Dana Milbank of The Washington Post wrote a hilarious column where he admits that he gets more hate mail from the left than the right, and that “even under Obama, the anger on the left is, if anything, more personal and vitriolic than on the right. ” (Someone even asked him if tortured cats. Milbank refers to all of this vitriol as “sore-winner phenomenon”.) Furthermore, all you have to do is just venture on to the Daily Kos, where every other word is the F-word, to see what I’m talking about. Anyway, no biggie—I was just wondering what your insights might be.

Again, thanks for showing such interest in Redstate and I hope to see you around.

Sincerely, Susannah

PS—Have a Happy Easter!!

This diary was originally posted on The Minority Report.