Joy Behar Reveals The Democrat Game Plan

In the video below, Joy Behar calls Sharon Angle a bitch for the second time, after Angle sends Behar flowers as a sarcastic and backhanded way of thanking her for all the donations Angle received after the first time Behar called Angle a bitch on The View.

What's this all about? Well apparently Behar is offended at some political ad Angle has been running that features illegal immigrants. Behar considers it racist, and on the first episode of The View where she discussed the subject, she stated that Angle was a bitch and that she was going to hell.

After receiving the flowers from Angle, Behar stated she doesn't believe in hell, but she still calls Angle a bitch.

So what's the big deal? Just typical political sniping, right?

Well, not exactly. Behar is genuinely pissed off, probably more at the prospect of Angle winning than over the content of one particular ad. And as is so often the case, when people are genuinely pissed, they tend to lose some control. Many times, they say things they should keep to themselves.

Watch the video and see if you come to the same conclusion I did. It's really pretty blatant.



In case it went past you, I'll spell it out. Behar tells Angle "those illegal immigrants aren't going to vote for you."

Presumably, those illegal immigrants, who are disqualified from voting, are going to vote for Harry Reid. I think Joy Behar is correct. Personally, I bet he carries their vote by a one-hundred percent margin.

See, people like Behar know what's going on, and they know how the game is played. When they hear of illegal immigrants filling out voter registration forms as recently happened in Arizona, or when they canvass at the behest of the SEIU on behalf of Harry Reid, they see that as a justifiable part of the process.

It's only on rare occasions, like this one, that they slip up and admit it openly.

H/T The Blaze

MoveOn Supporter Gets Her Ass "Kicked"

IMPORTANT UPDATE FOLLOWS ORIGINAL POST-AFTER WHICH THERE'S YET A SECOND UPDATE

I've seen everything now. At the debate last night between Kentucky Senatorial candidates Republican Rand Paul and Democrat Jack Conway, a woman tried to approach Rand Paul wearing a blond wig. This was noted by some Paul supporters, who recognized the woman was in disguise, and quite naturally assumed she might be a threat to Rand Paul's safety. Some of them grabbed her and wrestled her to the ground, whereupon an as yet to be identified man pressed his foot down on her back as a means of further restraining her until the police arrived, in response, by the way, to a call from someone from among Paul's supporters.

This was caught on video, and naturally the left is howling "assault", claiming the woman was "stomped".

They do this because they assume a lot of people are never going to see the video, and a lot of the ones that do will view it subjectively the way the left describes it. Well, there was no stomping or kicking involved.

Here's the video, go and see for yourself.

Amazingly, many GOP supporters can't seem to apologize fast enough, and I'm sure it won't be long before Republican party officials trip all over each other running to the news shows to assure voters that Republicans don't condone this kind of thing.

Again, there's nothing here. The woman was putting herself across as a member of a fake group, "Republicorps", a satirical front of MoveOn that claims to advocate in favor of corporate control of the GOP. But no one could have possibly known that, and if the bitch had ended up getting her ass royally kicked, frankly I couldn't care less, and say so unabashedly.

Unfortunately she didn't get her ass kicked. The guy who held his foot to her back and briefly pressed down, to my way of thinking, wasn't as "violent" as the ones who got her ass on the ground to begin with. Unfortunately, not enough of that was caught on video for the left to make hay about, at least not yet. But take it from me, it won't be too long after they find the guy, if they do, and maybe even before then, that you're going to hear cries for the entire crowd to be arrested.

You can be sure the media is going to have a field day with this. Of course, if a Rand Paul supporter had been held down and eviscerated by union thugs or other Jack Conway supporters, you could read all about it on page seventeen.

(End of original post)

UPDATE-

It seems like there was more than one stomping that took place that night. In fact, a Conway supporter assaulted a Ron Paul supporter.

From The Kentucky Post

The second occurred after a Conway supporter stepped on the foot of a female Rand supporter, who recently had foot surgery, according to police.

The woman was wearing a surgical boot, but after the injury, her incision was cut open. Police say she refused medical treatment and also filed an assault report.

(end of report)

Crickets from the jackass Democrats about the second incident, where a Rand Paul supporter was actually injured. Yet, I'm supposed to give a shit about some leftist scum who, like all MoveOn members is out to all intents and purposes basically to subvert the Constitution and turn the USA into a mirror image of European Socialist Democracy, by whatever tactic necessary.

Not in this lifetime.

2nd UPDATE-Not so much as an update as an afterthought. The supporters of Ron Paul present and involved in this incident, including Mr. Proffit, honestly viewed the woman as a threat, possibly even a potential assassin. They didn't magically realize that she was in fact no more than a paid protester in the employ of George Soros's MoveOn the minute they had her on the ground. They understandable still viewed her as a potential threat, thinking she might have been carrying a gun or some other type of weapon. They reasoned no doubt that if this were the case, she might well be unhinged enough to use any weapon she might have at the slightest opportunity.

When viewed in this complete context, it becomes easier to comprehend why the actions of the Paul supporters were not only understandable, but appropriate, and yes this includes the actions of Proffit, who has stated that his intention was no more than to assist in keeping the woman restrained until the proper authorities arrives. He has also added that he could not bend down to restrain her with his arms because he has issues with his back.

That's the story. Contrast that with the Conway supporter who stomped on the foot of a female Paul supporter, who was wearing a clearly visible surgical boot.

Of course, this kind of selective, manufactured outrage by Democrats, aided and abetted by a complicit media, is meant for nothing more or less than to sway votes to Conway from the ranks of the yet undecided. It might even work. If it does, its only because Republicans are allowing themselves to be put on defense.

It's time for Republicans to find their collective balls and collectively put a boot up the ass of the Democratic Party-figuratively, of course-not just in Kentucky, but nationally.

Dupe And Chains

Dupes: How America's Adversaries Have manipulated Progressives For A Century is a new book by Doctor Paul Kengor, a political science professor at Grove City College in Grove City Pennsylvania. The book is based on declassified Soviet archives archives and FBI files.

One of the subjects of the book is a man named Frank Marshall Davis, who was a longtime member of the Communist Party of America. The fact that this group was nothing more, or less, than a propaganda arm of the Soviet Union seems like nothing more than an interesting piece of almost forgotten, maybe even relatively insignificant, American history.

It takes on a more timely perspective once you realize that Davis was, in fact, the mentor of a young Barak Hussein Obama.

Big Peace has posted a two part interview with Doctor Kengor, in which he goes into startling detail as to the influence of Davis on Obama, an influence that has extended to our own modern era through Obama's current policies.

Big Peace: Speaking of whom, give us an example from Davis’s columns that gets closer to what President Obama has done since taking office, given that Obama isn’t trying to “rule Russia,” for example.

Kengor: There are a lot of them, from Davis preaching government healthcare, wealth redistribution, bashing Wall Street, advocating all kinds of nationalizations, trumpeting the public sector over the private sector, lambasting profits, excoriating the “tentacles of big business,” you name it. But one that haunts me is a piece I read by Frank Marshall Davis from January 26, 1950, titled “Free Enterprise or Socialism?”

There, Davis targeted GM. Davis was enraged that General Motors, this “gigantic company,” had “made a profit last year of $600,000,000.” He felt that the federal government needed to get a hold of GM. He characterized GM as a “monopoly,” mainly because of this success, which infuriated Davis. He wrote: “the time draws nearer when we will have to decide to oust the monopolies and restore a competing system of free enterprise, or let the government own and operate our major industries.”

Davis concluded the piece by asserting, “Before too long, our nation will have to decide whether we shall have free enterprise or socialism.”

Interesting reading. Bear in mind, Davis acted as a foreign Soviet agent, who disseminated Stalin-era Soviet propaganda aimed at the American government, against such leaders as Truman and Marshall, while advocating for a good many policies Obama has advocated or enacted today.

Its amazing when you stop to consider-Obama might well have been indoctrinated by a foreign agent, propagandizing on behalf of a system long since defunct.

Change you can believe in.

Barney Frank-The Emperor Knows No Bounds

No matter how well conservatives do this coming election, they are still going to have their share of disappointments, maybe a good many more than they think they will. I would almost be willing to lay odds on what some of them might be, and one of the first races I would be willing to bet good money is going to bring a great deal of disappointment to conservatives is the race for Massachusetts 4th district House seat, where Congressman Barney Frank is in the middle of the toughest race of his political career.

But, Frank will no doubt win his race, and by the time the last votes are counted, he will have probably won it quite handily, probably with a margin of at least just south of ten percent.

That's a shame, because if anyone deserves to lose, its Barney Frank, but the Republicans, who recently released an add depicting a disco dancing Barney Frank, themselves ironically keep dancing around the issues where Frank is the weakest-his personal life.

This is no doubt because the Republicans, and by extension Frank's opponent in the race, Sean Bielat, are afraid of coming across as homophobic. That is unfathomable to me. Were Frank to be a heterosexual noted to have a string of younger girlfriends, all of whom benefited from his stature and power as one of the most influential Congressmen in Washington, could there be any doubt they would jump all over it? After all, the pertinent point isn't the Congressman's sexual preference, it is his corruption, his abuse of power, and his apparent blindness in some cases to situations that are rampant with conflict of interest. Its a good thing for Barney Frank that he is gay, as if he was straight, he probably would have been long gone by now.

But, since he's gay, everybody gives him a wide berth when it comes to these matters. As a result, Barney Frank continues on his path of vice and corruption, like some ancient Roman Emperor, so secure in his status and his standing with the masses, he no longer feels he has to worry about propriety, or appearances, or accountability.

And that my friends is where we now stand, and where we shall now proceed. What exactly would be a better electoral campaign to run against this corrupt, despicable toad than to show him for what he really is? With this in mind, I now present to you my own proposal for an ad against Barney Frank. I call it-


THE EMPEROR KNOWS NO BOUNDS

Setting-A modern day version of an ancient Roman banquet. A look-alike Barney Frank is surrounded by a bevy of men, mostly younger, all strong and well-built. “Barney” reclines in the center of the room, as all the young men view him attentively, apparently hanging expectantly on his every word. He gazes longing at a young boyish man playing a lyre. In the middle of the room is a table filled with the most exquisite foods and wines. Barney and his friends eat and drink heartily, Barney partaking lasciviously of a kebab one of his young suitors has just proffered to him, while not too far off, other young male couples dance with hedonistic delight.

(V/O-Ever since he arrived in Washington, Barney Frank has been the epitome of corruption and debauchery. He fixed parking tickets and influenced the probation officer of his live-in boyfriend, who ran a gay brothel out of Frank's own Washington home. Yet, despite his much heralded intelligence, Congressman Frank denied any knowledge of this activity, on-going under his nose. Much like his denial of knowledge that his current boyfriend was recently arrested for possession of marijuana-despite the fact that Frank was present at the time of the bust.)

At this point the camera pans around the room. One of the young gay men takes a hit off what appears to be a joint of marijuana which he then passes to another young man sitting beside him, as Barney looks on approvingly. At this point, an apparently devoted man begins massaging Frank's thighs with heated oil, while another feeds him graps and as some of the men continue to pass around the joint, others begin to dance, swaying to the sounds of raucous music suddenly playing, as the young lyre player takes a seat by Barney, and another man begins what appears to be the beginning stages of a strip-dance.

(V/O-Barney Frank even abused his position as Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, where he fought to protect the interests of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, helping them to benefit from government regulations while simultaneously hiding their many financial irregularities. And what is more telling-for some time leading up to this, he had engaged in a romantic relationship with a high-powered executive of Fannie Mae.)

Here, Barney Frank presents the young lyre player with a magnificently garish diamond necklace.

“Thank you Mr. Frank” the boy gushes appreciatively.

“Oh, don't thank me, sweetheart”, Frank replies. “Thank the American taxpayer”.

At this, the entire room erupts, joining Frank in uncontrolled laughter.

(V/O)-On November 2nd, tell Barney Frank that Washington is not the place for debauchery and corruption. Send him packing. Send Sean Bielat to Washington. Because the 4th district deserves better than Barney Frank.)

The piece could be augmented by flashes of newspaper copy with headlines to supplement the voice-over, but on the other hand-what's the point? Sean Bielat would never run an ad like this, and if he did, it would probably be strongly denounced by his own party. But, it would get the point across, despite the almost certain howls and accusations of homophobia sure to be trumpeted by the left, and for that matter most Democrats, and not a few Republicans.

But if it made the point to enough people who got the message-its about corruption, not Frank's gay lifestyle-wouldn't it be worth the criticism? What counts is the final tally of votes, and if this wouldn't do the trick, then nothing else would anyway.

And at the very least, it would show the country that the National Republican Party does have-well, balls.

October Surprise-Election Fraud Charge Leads To "Terrorist Attack"

Raul Grijalva is the Democratic incumbent House member running for re-election in Arizona's 8th district, and he's in a bit of a battle with GOP challenger Ruth McClung, a Tea-Party backed conservative who has lately been surging in the polls in what should be a safe race for Grijalva.

Evidently "somebody" sent a suspicious looking package to Grijalva's campaign headquarters. Even though the package was marked on the outside with clearly marked swastika's, it seems to have made it past Post Office scrutiny, and on to its target destination, where it was revealed to contain a suspicious white powder.

According to a Tucson Fire Department official who was in on the scam "investigated" the package and its content, the substance was a toxic agent known as hydroxyacetanilide.

Almost immediately, moonbat extraordinaire Oliver Willis insinuated this to be the work of the Tea-Party.

Unfortunately, the truth came out, courtesy of the FBI. The substance was not hydroxyacetanilide after all. Whatever the substance was, it was in fact not toxic at all-

The white powder contained in a suspicious package mailed to Rep. Raul Grijalva’s district office in Tucson, Ariz., was “non-toxic,” the FBI said Friday.

FBI Special Agent Manuel Johnson declined to identify the substance, saying the investigation is ongoing. But he said results of a chemical analysis performed on the substance came out negative.

The FBI conclusion contradicts Grijalva’s office, which said Thursday it was informed by the Tucson Fire Department that the substance found in an envelope with drawings of two swastikas was a “confirmed toxin” known as hydroxyacetanilide.

Of course, the real scandal preceded this event, and has been mostly ignored by major news organizations. As it turns out, a voter's advocacy group with connections to the SEIU had just days earlier been caught in what might turn out to be a massive case of voter fraud, on a statewide scale.

More than 20,000 new voter registration forms had been delivered, almost all registered Democrat. Roughly 3,000 of these new voter registration forms were from Grijalva's district.

And, as it turns out, at least 65% of these new voter registration forms are fraudulent, made up largely of illegal immigrants and others without a valid address.

Moonbattery calls the alleged toxin story an act of desperation on the part of the Grijalva campaign, while The Other McCain adds that the alleged terrorist attack is likely a "hate hoax"

This in fact seems to be standard practice among leftist political activists. Publius Pundit goes so far as to allege that the Grijalva campaign has so much as admitted to utilizing this tactic.

Raul Grijalva part-time staffer Emily Romero has repeatedly bragged to Democratic insiders that the campaign concocts these threats to take attention away from bad publicity. In this case, the campaign decided to fake a “terrorist attack” on themselves to cover up the story of voter fraud that had just broken.

What is more to the point is, Grijalva has more than enough reason to use a terrorist hoax in order to divert voters attention away from the facts regarding his sorry congressional record. In the recent controversy over the new Arizona law against illegal immigration-a law that almost exactly mirrors the federal law which the federal government is hesitant to enforce, Grijalva came down firmly on the side of the federal government, and on the side of illegal immigrants and their liberal activist supporters, against his own state.

Which, one could make the point that Grijalva, as a sitting Congressman, certainly has the right to speak against state laws which he considers unjust or ill-advised. Grijalva, however, did not stop there. In speaking against the law, he went so far as to endorse a recommended boycott of Arizona.

Think about that for just a few seconds. Take a few minutes to digest it. It's not enough that Grijalva has been in the front line of fighting any kind of common sense attempts at securing the border in order to stem the tide of illegal immigrants swarming into his state, and the country. It's not enough that he expects the state of Arizona to stand down in the face of such an overwhelming influx of immigrants, many of whom are draining the social services systems, and contributing to a sky-rocketing crime rate, to say nothing of all the national security implications all this might at some point entail.

GRIJALVA RECOMMENDED A BOYCOTT OF HIS STATE-HIS OWN FUCKING STATE!

Is it any wonder that Ruth McClung, an attractive candidate, one who is well-versed and well-spoken on the issues, is, even though a conservative Republican, gaining ground in what is a district which is usually considered reliably Democratic? She is down in the polls, yes, but not by much, only about seven percentage points, and surging, in what is basically a Democratic stronghold?

Of course, there's possibly another factor involved. As I posted earlier here, Grijalva was one of a group of Senators and House members who signed a letter requesting diplomatic courtesies be extended to Code Pink during their sojourn to Iraq, where they engaged in giving aid and comfort to the enemy-the same enemy who was engaged in hostile actions against American soldiers.

It should not come as a shock to Rep. Grijalva, nor to anyone, to learn that a respectable percentage of American soldiers, including but not limited to those who are or have been engaged in combat actions in Iraq, as well as Afghanistan, come from the Latino community. In all probability, a good many of them hail from Congressman Grivalja's district.

It should therefore not exactly come as no surprise that many of these Latino Americans might not look too kindly on the Congressman's actions, and though they might be among what amounts to a minority of Latinos who might choose to vote for his opponent, one should certainly not be unduly surprised were they to swell the ranks of those Latinos who are disaffected with Grijalva, and the Democratic Party in general, and therefore decide that they, Arizona and America, needs and deserves better.

Juan Williams Fired by NPR

Erick Erickson relates the story of NPR's firing of Juan Williams here. Williams made the mistake of confessing, on The O'Reilly factor no less, that he was uneasy in the presence of Muslims on planes. This did not set well with NPR executives, who terminated Williams' contract on the grounds that it did not meet their standards. Yet, Williams was not engaging in an Islamaphobic diatribe, he was just expressing a reality shared by millions of ordinary Americans, a basic human and quite understandable, natural reaction to what many under the right set of circumstances might view as a potential threat to their personal safety.

Given that he was in fact cautioning against giving in to ungrounded fear, and engaging in inflammatory rhetoric, it seems strange that he should have been terminated by NPR, and vastly unfair on top of that.

You can contact the ombudsman for NPR here, if you would like to weigh in with your opinion. If you do so, I advise a calm, moderate approach. Remember, these are liberal folks who, by the time they get around to reading your words, are likely to be either coming down from a pot high, or surrounded by a haze of pot smoke even as they read your words. You have to be gentle with them, but firm. Remember, there is also a better than passing chance they might be in the beginning stages of dementia, so a calm, soothing voice is of the utmost importance. And yes, I did say voice. It is the internet, so remember-they can probably hear you.

Following is the missive I sent them earlier. It might provide a basic guideline as to how best to approach them. You don't want to appear to angry. Yes, they can probably see you as well.

My e-mail to the ombudsman-

You not only need to rehire Juan Williams, you should issue an official, on the air apology to him. For the record, I am not afraid of Muslims when I see them on planes, for the simple fact I don't fly, in large part because of them (that and the airlines' lousy service, and policies).

Also, may I point out that Juan Williams was not promoting anti-Muslim bigotry or intolerance, (or whatever the irritating PC buzz-phrase of the day might be), he was merely reflecting a state of mind that is shared by millions of Americans. Trying to pretend it does not exist (or that it is held only by anti-Muslim "bigots") is not going to change the fact that it is a prevalent, if not a predominant, attitude.

Let's have a discussion of this issue, preferably with a minimum of condescension from the know-it-all elites who are oh so above all the rest of us.


Fire Andrea Mitchell has a bit of a different take on the matter. Although not in agreement with NPR's actions, they feel that, in reality, Juan Williams is part of the problem with the PC ethos that has pervaded and poisoned public discourse over the course of so many decades that it almost seems normal. As such, they feel that Williams got exactly what he deserved, and so "good riddance".

Which, come to think of it, finds the blog in a rare position of agreement with such stalwart leftist blogs as Talk Left and Andrew Sullivan, who describes Williams remarks as "the working definition of bigotry". In fact, this all seems to be the typical meme on the left, who all seem to concur that the firing of Juan Williams has been much too long in coming.

Professor William A. Jacobson of Legal Insurrection attributes this attitude on the left to Williams acknowledgment of the prevalence of negative stereotypes, while Riehl World View takes it a step further in positing that Williams is disliked by the left, and was ultimately fired because he is black.

No, Williams didn't go so far as to be a heretical black conservative, but perhaps even worse than that, he is a make-believe liberal who is just a little too cozy and comfortable with the rich white conservative establishment. I'm afraid that makes just a little too much sense to disregard in its entirety. Under this scenario, which I believe has a great deal of merit, Juan Williams is much worse than a mere "Uncle Tom". He's a minstrel show performer.

Here is NPR's explanation for their actions, which might better pass the smell test were it not for their continued support of a cartoon, by an NPR cartoonist, titled How To Speak Tea-Bag.

In other words, the Left has revealed itself to be, as we already knew, blatant hypocrites with one standard they apply to themselves, and quite another for everybody else who falls into that great "other"-we barbarians at the gates.

For what its worth, I think this might be the best thing that could have happened, given the timing in proximity to the coming elections now just under two weeks away.

This is the kind of atmosphere that is predominant when the left has a position of prominence. And, as we all know, the Left tends to vote Democrat (what ones don't go that extra mile and vote Socialist, Green, or Communist).

This might be one of hopefully many examples of an October Surprise to benefit the right, only one in this case which the left has gladly and arrogantly gift-wrapped and hand-delivered.

Nor Prohibit The Free Exercise Thereof

The scariest thing about the so-called "gaffe" by Delaware Republic Senatorial candidate Christine O'Donnell in the last debate between her and her Democratic opponent Chris Coons wasn't her questioning the presence in the constitution of the doctrine of Separation of Church and State. It was that there seems to have been a room full of law students who don't really know or understand the First Amendment.

It was like walking into a room full of retarded people and saying "well, I see there aren't exactly any Einsteins in here"-and being greeted by howls of laughter.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion nor prohibit the free exercise thereof" is arguably the most flawed statement in the constitution, and has caused a lot of problems, due to the inherent fact that it was, on the face of it, somewhat short-sighted. When it was first written, this was an entirely Christian nation, but of multiple denominations. The clause was meant to insure, simply, that no single one of these Christian denominations would ever be granted status as THE state religion. It was an attempt to insure there would never be a "Church of America" that would predominate and potentially oppress other Christian denominations.

Thus, if you were a Catholic, or a Baptist, etc., the government could not, on behalf of any other denomination, prohibit your freedom to exercise your religious beliefs-in public or in private. Nor could it prohibit any church or denomination from meeting, holding services, taking tithes, or proselytizing, or from performing any other generally understood and accepted function of a religious denomination.

That was the whole extent of it, and it applied solely to the limits of the power of the federal government over this matter, as indeed was and is the case with all of the Bill of Rights. With the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, these restrictions were further extended to the states in regards to the rights of its individual private citizens, or in the case of this amendment, religious organizations.

But nowhere in the First Amendment does the phrase "Separation of Church and State" occur. This was a phrase first used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists in the way of explaining one aspect of the clause, to wit, that the government could not interfere with their rights.

Of course, things have changed in ways the founders could not have envisioned. Now we have Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and even Pagans, and the clause now also applies to any of them to the extent that they are American citizens. Neither the state of Kentucky nor the federal government, nor my present hometown, has no more of a legitimate right to prevent me from participating in public rituals, or conducting my own private ones, than it does to prohibit Catholics from performing devotions to the Blessed Virgin, or to prevent Jews from conducting the next Passover celebration.

Naturally, there has been some chipping around the margins of religious expressions due to the unexpected influx of religions from then foreign cultures. As such, laws against polygamy have come into play, advocacy for women's rights and the protection of children have become predominant over the rights of religious expression, when those things have the potential to come into conflict. Other than these kinds of exceptions, however, owing solely to the extent they do come into conflict with the laws of society, government has no legitimate right to limit, restrict, or to ban religious expression, of any faith, whether it pertain to the majority Christian, or to the smallest minority sect.

Ironically, the same people that loudly trumpet the first part of the clause-Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion-seem to conveniently gloss over the corresponding portion-nor prohibit the free exercise thereof.

There is nothing in the First Amendment that gives government the right to prohibit religious expression, either on public or on private property, and it most certainly does not require, or even suggest, that the government should have the right to restrict legitimate religious expression or practice of Christian denominations for the presumed protection or other benefits of minority faiths. To imagine or to proffer that it does is turning the entire spirit of the First Amendment completely on its head. It does the exact opposite, in fact.

Not only does it prohibit such restrictions on religious expression, it actually encourages religious expressions and beliefs, of all religions. Religious expression in this country has always been a tradition. It was never restricted by the government, nor even within the government. The founders intent was quite plain on all these matters. Separation of church and state, when viewed in this context, is clearly a misnomer, and that was Christine O'Donnell's point. Separation of church and state has been used as a battering ram in order to minimize the extent of public expressions of religion. In some cases it has been used as an excuse to outright ban such religious expressions, which is not only turning the constitution on its head, its actually turning it into the very opposite of its original intent.

There is no legitimate right for the government, whether it be federal, state, or local government, to ban religious expression. In fact, it has the obligation to not do this, just as it has the further obligation to refrain from promoting or imposing a specific religious doctrine. That's the extent of it.

Again, that's what Christine O'Donnell was saying, and she was one hundred percent correct. The fact that law students in a university setting would find humor and presumably reason for derision in her remarks should give us all cause for concern. It's really quite sad, but of course, there is a political component to this.

Her opponent, Chris Coons, did not know the First Amendment as well as she did, and this is demonstrable, though of course you do not see this fact discussed by leftist bloggers and pundits. But the proof of this is a matter of public record.

O’Donnell was later able to score some points of her own off the remark, revisiting the issue to ask Coons if he could identify the “five freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment.”

Coons named the separation of church and state, but could not identify the others — the freedoms of speech, press, to assemble and petition — and asked that O’Donnell allow the moderators ask the questions.

“I guess he can’t,” O’Donnell said

The fact remains, no one has a legitimate reason to think that the establishment clause presupposes that no religious expression should ever be permitted in a public setting, whether such expressions are made by private citizens or by (gasp) public officials.

In fact, the right to free and open expression of religion is a right guaranteed by the First Amendment, and applies to all American citizens, of any and all faiths. That obligation in itself would seem to make it quite impossible for there to be "separation of church and state"-certainly to the extent that such a doctrine is defined by the left.

It Has Been Prophesied

A national Muslim civil rights and advocacy group is calling on the FBI to investigate a message written in bacon at mosque in Florence.

Three chair members of the Islamic Center in Florence discovered the words "pig" and "chump" written in strips of bacon on the walkway along the mosque Sunday afternoon.

Mushtaq Hussain was one of the members who discovered the message after concluding a prayer gathering. He initially thought the message was a practical joke.

"Then later on, we thought seriously and we thought, ‘You know, somebody doesn't like us,'" he said.

No shit Sherlock. Who would ever imagine that people in such a laid-back, easy going state as South Carolina would harbor malicious intentions towards Muslims? Granted there might be a few hotheads anywhere that might feel badly towards them, but they are doubtless a minority. Rumor has it that any day now Alvin Greene is going to hold a press conference and blame James DeMint.

Personally, though, I wonder if it might actually be the work of a little known group of cultists, who indeed have a very jealous, vengeful god. A God who demands that no other God should come before him, and who demands the utmost loyalty and devotion. I'm talking about this guy-



You will bow down before us, Muslim infidels, and worship the great God of Materialism. You will partake of the Holy Swine Flesh. We can afford to wait. We can afford to be patient. It is only a matter of time.

Mwahahahahaaaaaaa

Barney Frank Going Down

Yeah I know that post title makes me an awful person, and its really not original, but bear with me as I explain just how clever the title really is. For you see, Barney Frank is indeed going down in at least two different ways, and maybe even three.

Granted, the first one is an assumption as to his own personal peccadilloes, but lets assume its a given that he has, maybe is at any given time, and at some point in the future is likely to go down. I wouldn't care about that, except for the simple obvious fact that it is not only a reflection of who Barney Frank is and the kind of person he is-it has affected his overall judgment and defines his ethics as a member of the House of Representatives, a position he has held for going on thirty years.

As the first openly gay member of Congress, Frank came close to being kicked out of the House for engaging in an affair with a male prostitute named Steve Gobi, who ran a brothel out of the basement of Frank's Washington home. Frank got out of a jam over the affair by simply feigning ignorance, but there was no denying the myriads of strings he pulled on behalf of his then male lover, running the gamut from fixing parking tickets (more than thirty of them) to interceding on his behalf with the man's probation officer.

Only in the Democratic Party could an office-holder parlay such a history into power as a committee chairman, but in Franks case, his ultimate triumph over adversity seems to have paved the way for what has followed since. Over time, he eventually became Chairman of the Financial Services Committee.

By the time of the advent of the Clinton presidency, Frank had begun a relationship with a man named Herb Moses, who was a high-powered executive of Fannie Mae, a company that, along with Freddie Mac, Frank had a good deal of influence over. He interceded on their behalf numerous times throughout both the Clinton and Bush eras, and though his relationship ended in the late nineties, Frank still maintained close connections to the company, in addition to Freddie Mac, and received a great amount of money from them in the way of campaign donations, even though Frank's committee was charged with overseeing both of these companies.

Yet all the while, Frank was at the forefront of resisting any calls to more closely regulate and monitor the two companies activities, insisting that they had no problems that warranted any undue federal oversight over and above what was already established.

In effect, Frank not only set the stage for the housing bubble and subsequent crash that followed, he was to all practical intents and purposes, one of the main architects of the disaster.

Let's be clear about this-Frank was not the lone offender here, but he was certainly one of the most powerful and influential members of Congress involved in the debacle. Even former President Clinton said as much.

That Frank's action's leading to the collapse of the housing market are criminal, and actionable, is almost beyond dispute, and he knows it. Which would probably explain his unusual actions over the last few weeks. He has so far engaged in five debates with his opponent, Sean Bielat, who has actually raised more money than Frank in the last three weeks. Ordinarily, Frank would not be concerned enough to engage in more than maybe one obligatory show debate, if that, but five?

Even though Bielat more than likely will not defeat Frank, who typically wins re-election by well over twenty-five percentage points, he may well do enough to register as a decent opponent. I would not be surprised if he were defeated by a mere five or six points. But I am not getting my hopes up too greatly that he will win, and I find it hard to believe that Frank is inordinately worried about such a prospect.

But, Frank is worried about something.

In one debate, it came out that Frank and his current boyfriend were flown by jet to a island resort owned by a man big in the securities market, which of course Frank's committee is supposed to oversee. Of course he denied a conflict of interest, but the story is now out at any rate.

Then, in what has to be one of the most bizarre incidents of this or any campaign season (and that's really saying something) Sean Bielat, in the course of a local interview, was verbally harassed by a man holding a camera to his face who told him "you're not funny".

The man turned out to be-Barney Frank's boyfriend.

Below is a video of the incident.



Such behavior can only mean one thing. Frank knows that, even if he does win re-election, he is going to be returning to a house with an entirely different made-up from the one he knows now. He's not merely going to be a minority member of a House of Representatives with an overwhelming Republican majority, but many of those members are going to be Tea-Party Republicans-and they are going to be out for blood. And Barney Frank is already saddled with, ironically, a great big target on his ass.

For now, the least he can do-really the only thing he can do-is try to get out in front of it while he has a chance, try to make his case and possibly set up some kind of way out. Right now, I can't think of any other reason for this kind of oddball public behavior.

Despite these and whatever other desperate tactics he might try to cover his ass, or to excuse his past actions, he could very well, and more than likely will, find himself the object of a House Ethics investigation that in all likelihood will lead to his censure, possibly his expulsion from the House, and maybe even a prosecution somewhere down the line.

So yes, indeed, Barney Frank could very well go down, and maybe even spend the remainder of his years in prison orange, an old queen in a cell of his own making.

But hey-this is Barney Frank. I'm sure he'll figure out a way, as usual, to make the best of a bad situation.

Rand Paul-Pride And Petulance

Rand Paul, the Republican nominee for the Senate, debated tonight with his opponent, Democratic candidate Attorney General Jack Conway. Although I have endorsed Paul, and continue to do so, I have to admit, he did not acquit himself well tonight. Oh, for the most part, it was the typical debate, the kind that would change no one's mind, the kind geared towards winning over the relative handful of undecideds. Unfortunately, if those undecideds end up deciding the race, I am afraid Paul is in trouble.

This is due mainly to his response to one charge leveled by Conway early in the debate, a charge that has been the subject of a recent attack ad leveled against Paul. He supposedly while in college belonged to a secret society which ridiculed Christianity and the Bible. Additionally, he allegedly at one point tied a woman up and forced her to bow down to his god, which Conway described as a "false idol" named "Aqua Buddha".

Paul denied the charge, lambasting Conway for leveling untrue charges from his college days thirty years ago. I can see why. If there is any truth at all to the charge, Paul knows it would not exactly play well in conservative Kentucky. But if it is true, he should own up to it.

My guess-if there is anything to this story, it probably involves not so much a serious religious belief as a secret society, Skull-And-Bones type ritual initiation.

The name of the woman involved in the charge was never given (Paul referred to her as an anonymous accuser), but if it really happened I suspect she was a part of the ritual and the words attributed to her have been edited and taken completely out of context.

Still, Paul knows what is at stake here, and can't take the chance this late in the game, when most polls put the race at too close to call, with Paul holding a slim lead just within the margin of error.

There were other things, other charges, leveled against both candidates, and they both did a good job of answering them, despite the unmistakable hint of political snake-oil that pervaded the overall atmosphere coming from both camps.

Notably, charges that Paul wished to impose a two-thousand dollar Medicare deductible (which he has been recorded saying numerous times), as well as the charge that he did not take Kentucky's drug problem with sufficient seriousness. The charge that he wants to dismantle the Department of Education, mining safety rules, even Social Security, etc., were all par for the course insofar as charges typically leveled against conservative Republicans and especially Tea-Party favorites such as Paul. Paul did an adequate job of defending himself from these accusations, for the most part, while pointing out that under Attorney General Conway's watch, meth labs and drug related crimes were on the rise. At one point, he even suggested Conway return his salary for the month of September due to his absence from the state to raise mo0ney for his campaign, citing alleged meetings with Nancy Pelosi in California.

Conway responded that it was Paul who derived the majority of his campaign contributions from outside the state.

The most notable charges against Conway were that he accepted donations from utility companies, who have lately raised their rates, and that he supported Obama's agenda in full, especially Obamacare, which he refused to challenge in the courts at the side of various other states Attorney's General that have done so.

Conway scored one major point in his own defense, however. He claims to have challenged the EPA in court when it tried to impose Cap And Trade. I don't know if this is true, but if it is, it might be enough to sway some independents in its own right. It certainly is strange however that I was not aware of it.

Overall, however, the night ended on a sour note, when Paul in his closing statement declared that he would not shake hands with Conway, due to his accusations and slurs against his faith-making sure at the end the audience understood that he and his wife were Christians. At the very end, he all but stormed off the stage, past Conway, who just stood there.

Paul might have thought this was a matter of principle, but it looked more to me like a matter of petulance.

I still hope he wins, and I think he will still pull it out, but if he does not, you can trace his downfall to his performance this night.

Code Pink-Their Mission Was Clear

Code Pink was out in the open insofar as their goals in Iraq, and everyone in Congress knew about it, or should have known. That would especially include Congressmen like Henry Waxman, whose district many Code Pink members called home. Yet, Wzxman, through his office, denied any knowledge of the true extent of Code Pink's activities in Iraq.

In September 2004, Code Pink participated in and endorsed the Beirut communique, which supported “the right of the people of Iraq and Palestine to resist the occupations” and called for “the unconditional withdrawal of US and “coalition” forces from Iraq.”

Waxman was not the only Democrat to send a letter for Code Pink’s ‘Fallujah aid’. According to a report by Islam Online published January 4, 2005, (and mysteriously removed this past week) diplomatic letters were also provided to Code Pink/Global Exchange by Sen. Barbara Boxer (CA), Rep. Raul Grijalva (AZ) and Rep. Dennis Kucinich (OH).

Big Government first reported about the letters last year in an expose about the ties between Jodie Evans and President Barack Obama. Lt. Col. Buzz Patterson wrote last Friday at Big Peace about Waxman’s letter.

In 2009, Democrats Sen. John Kerry (MA) and Rep. Sonny Carson (IN) provided similar letters for Code Pink’s delivery of aid to Hamas-controlled Gaza.

Where to begin? Powerful members of the House and Senate, including a former presidential candidate, colluding with internal domestic enemies of the nation engaging in the treasonous act of giving aid and comfort to not just any enemy, but an enemy insurgency (which Code Pink referred to repeatedly as "freedom fighters") that was engaged in the process of attacking and killing American soldiers on the field of battle.

As aptly demonstrated, Code Pink made no secret of their beliefs and their objectives in making the trip.

If this was Talk Like A Pirate Day I would say "AAARRRGGGHHH Hang 'Em From The Highest Yardarm!"

But since its not Talk Like A Pirate Day, I'll just keep it simple and succinct-

Hang the miserable bastards.

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-California)-Traitor

From Babalu

In December 2004 a group led by Medea Benjamin and Jodie Evans, founders of Code Pink traveled from Amman, Jordan into Fallujah, Iraq to provide “humanitarian” supplies to Iraqi insurgents who, at that time, were fighting and killing American Marines. 51 Americans had been killed and 560 wounded in the US Marines’ heaviest urban combat since the Vietnam War at that time in Fallujah.

Code Pink, a radical leftist group that reviles American troops as terrorists and assassins while praising their enemies as freedom fighters, brought $600,000 in cash and supplies to enemies of the United States at the end of 2004, while war was fiercely waging. For years, Code Pink has viciously harassed wounded veterans and their families outside Walter Reed Hospital, even telling the mother of a slain Navy Seal that her son “deserved to die.” Code Pink actively supports terror groups such as Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Taliban, Hezbollah and al Qaeda.

Who was this sole Senator that provided a letter of request for diplomatic courtesy to the US Embassy in Jordan to allow safe passage for the group organized by Code Pink to travel from Jordan into Iraq. None other than the leftist Senator from California, Barbara Boxer, who, it seems, will do anything for Benjamin, Evans and their leftist Code Pink group.

Members of Families for Peace, Code Pink and Global Exchange announce that they have sent 600,000 USD in humanitarian aid to the displaced people of Fallujah.(AFP/Khalil Mazraawi)

Members of Families for Peace, Code Pink and Global Exchange announce that they have sent 600,000 USD in humanitarian aid to the displaced people of Fallujah.(AFP/Khalil Mazraawi)

I don't know where to begin. It's one thing to give aid to displaced families who are war time refugees, but its something else again to give material support to the enemy, during a time of war, when our soldiers were at the time already facing severe hardships and many were sacrificing life and limb.

Of course, you look at groups like Code Pink, and you know that kind of thing is par for the course. It enrages me that they are not prosecuted for such activities. But then you look at the likes of Senator Barbara Boxer, and you see why. She is an enabler and a supporter in more ways than one. If anyone tried to prosecute this group, Boxer would be in their corner, protecting their fictitious rights to give aid and comfort to the enemy under the guise of rendering aid to victims of war.

But then, to go so far as to write a letter requesting diplomatic privilege to this group of low-lifes, actually puts her on the same level. Whatever Code Pink did in the course of this trip, Boxer might as well have been right there with them, in person.

And the really sad thing? She might actually be re-elected as the Senator from California. To be sure, she's in trouble, and she might very well lose, but the fact that the race is so close its impossible to make a clear prediction one way or another tells you all you need to know as to why California is in such sorry shape.

Is Fiorina, Boxer's opponent, a RINO? I don't know, but she probably is. That seems to be the only kind of Republican who has a shot of winning a statewide election in California. But at least she's probably not a traitorous cunt, so I hope she pulls it out. I do hold firm to my last endorsement of Governor Moonbeam over Meg Whitman. Yes, technically, I would hands down prefer Whitman to win. But I know enough to realize that if she does, she is going to have to deal with a California legislature that is predominantly Democrat, and they will fight her every step of the way. The only way she can get anything accomplished will be by compromising, which means California's problems will never be solved. At best, it would be like the effect of Vicadin on a raging cancer. It might deaden the pain, but the final result will be inevitable. And when it happens, any Republican in a position of power is going to take the lion's share of the blame in the public mind. Let the Moonbeam take that blame, while he and his lunatic legislature brings California to the point of fiscal destruction.

Fiorina though is a different kettle of fish. Even if she is a RINO she will caucus with the GOP in the Senate and I think she will avoid any tendencies to compromise unnecessarily, although I worry mightily about any potential Cap And Trade and Immigration bills and how she might come down on them. But we will just have to wait and see about that. There's no way at least that she would be as big a leftist loon as Boxer, who has already shown her traitorous stripes.

And while were on the subject of Code Pink and their past forays into traitorous infamy, I will go ahead and point out that Boxer was not their only treasonous enabler from within the halls of Congress.

Letters were also provided by Representatives Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and Henry Waxman (D-CA).

Waxman of course is as vile a creature as ever drew breath, hut this surprised even me. Kucinich is a pure bred nutcase, so no surprises there. As for Grijalva, I just recently became aware of this creature, who is in trouble in his own bid for election to the House of Representatives from Arizona.

One reason for that might be that he, a House member representing a district in Arizona, encouraged a boycott, against-Arizona, his own freaking state.

Yet, he signs a letter encouraging diplomatic recognition for the Code Pink sojourn into Iraq during a time of war?

And liberal Democrats wonder why so many non-liberal Americans question their patriotism.

October Surprise? The Coming Storm Pt. 2

We all know how Obama and the Democrats went all out, against every obstacle put up against them, to enact the Health Care Reform Bill known as The Affordable Care Act, euphemistically deemed "Obamacare". What many are not so much aware of is the extent to which the Administration and Congressional Democrats have been willing to go, and have gone, to protect the bill and to build support for it after the fact. This may well include, but is not necessarily limited to, an all out assault on any who might oppose important elements of the bill, including people within the private sector.

The following story is significant because it might well point to an example of the extent to which Obama and his supporters might be willing to go, including abuse of power. I'll just set forth a more or less condensed version of the controversy. To get the full scope, with all its implications, you might want to read the full story at The American Spectator.

The gist of the story involves a woman who on the surface appears to be nothing more than a lowly nun. But oh, what a nun she is! You may have heard of her. Her name is Sister Carol Keehan, and she is also the CEO of a charitable organization called Catholic Health Services, which is a lobbying group for Catholic Hospitals. Her prominence in this story however is based on her support for Obama's health care initiative, and how she brought that support to bear.

You might well remember the story of Representative Bart Stupak, the Michigan House member who initially opposed Obamacare, and then, after much pressure, finally agreed to support it. When he did so, despite his initial objections based on concerns about abortion coverage, it set the stage for other Blue Dog Democrats to fall in line behind him, like so many dominoes.

Sister Carol Keehan is, in fact, the major factor behind Bart Stupak's final decision to vote for Obamacare. For this reason, Sister Carol was one of the guests in attendance at the signing ceremony for the bill, and received as a memento one of the twenty-two ink pens President Obama used to sign the bill into law. She was such an important factor in the final passage of the bill into law, she was written up in Time Magazine, in an article about the 100 most influential people of 2010, by the widow of the late Senator Edward Kennedy, Victoria Reggie Kennedy. Kennedy was another guest at the signing ceremony, and she described Sister Carol's contribution in the most glowing of terms-not just for this particular endeavor, but for her years of work in health care, work that in 2007 put her at the top of the list of important people in health care.

Yes, because of Sister Carol Keehan primarily, Michigan Congressman Bart Stupak relented and agreed to vote for the bill, as did numerous other Blue Dog Democrats-most of whom are now fighting for their political survival to no small extent due to their vote on this bill.

But Sister Carol's contributions don't end there. Before we go into that though, we have to muddle through what amounts to the immediate impact of the passage of the Affordable Care Act, as described in The American Spectator article linked at the start of the post-

Almost immediately -- it didn't take two months much less six -- the White House is confronted with a rapidly accelerating set of unintended consequences spreading across the country. As listed by the Wall Street Journal, those unintended consequences included 2011 premium increases shooting up as high as 9%; "multibillion-dollar corporate writedowns by Verizon, AT&T, Caterpillar and others"; the disruption of insurance markets, a show-down with McDonald's, the imposition of price controls on premiums, insurers withdrawing from Medicare Advantage.

In what appears to have become a pattern, the response from the Obama Administration has been repeatedly swift and harsh -- compared by one critic as an episode straight out of the Sopranos, the famous HBO mobster series.

The corporate writedowns -- done in compliance with federal law -- resulted in angry phone calls from then-Obama White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and colleague Valerie Jarrett to corporate CEO's and the heads of the Washington corporate offices of those involved. Congressman Henry Waxman threatened a congressional investigation into those companies whose obedience to the law put them at odds with the actual results of ObamaCare. Notification by insurers that rates were being forced up by ObamaCare resulted in a threatening letter from Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to insurers warning that such candor would not be tolerated -- at risk of not being allowed to participate in a future government-run health care exchange for insurers.

Unfortunately, many people involved at the receiving end of Obama's "reforms" have opted for the easy way out-by doing just that, getting out and cutting their losses while they still can.

Such seems to be the case of Mercy Health Partners decision to sell three Scranton Pennsylvania area hospitals, all of which comprise parts of two different Congressional districts, with seats currently being held by two gravely embattled House Democrats-Kanjorski and Carney. The three hospitals up for sale are-Mercy Hospital in Scranton; Mercy Special Care Hospital in Nanticoke; and the Mercy Tyler Hospital in Tunkhannock.

The announcement of the pending sale was release by Mercy Health Partners CEO Kevin Cook. And here is where it just starts to get interesting. Back to the linked article.

The Sisters of Mercy had opened Mercy Hospital in Scranton, a major facility for the city, in 1917 -- 93 years earlier. Inevitably it drew media attention. Which is where the plot thickens.

WNEP TV (Channel 16) reporter Jon Meyer filed a story about the sale at 4:40 pm. that afternoon. WNEP TV anchor Paula Giangiacomo led the story on the air by saying that "one big" reason for the sale "is the health care reform bill signed into law this year." Mercy Health Partners CEO Cook was interviewed on camera along with Sister Marie Parker. When Meyer asked Cook if ObamaCare had anything at all to do with the sale, the CEO replied:

"Health care reform is absolutely playing a role. Was it the precipitating factor in this decision? No, but was it a factor in our planning over the next five years? Absolutely."

To make a long story short, this statement by Cook led to a second statement by him which amounted to a clarification. There were many factors involved in the decision, and though he listed some, The Affordable Care Act this time around did not make the cut. It was not even mentioned in the second statement. But even this wasn't the end. A few days later, Cook released yet a third statement, in which he stated, unequivocally, that the decision to sell the three Scranton area hospitals had nothing whatsoever to do with the Affordable Care Act, or any of its provisions, in any way.

The amazing thing about this post-retraction clarification was, it was preceded by a statement, issued by Sister Carol Keehan, to the effect that any claims made involving the Affordable Care Act in any decision to sell the three hospitals was nothing but an attempt to politicize the process. Again, from The American Spectator-

Mysteriously, the very same day, came this statement, also released on the PR Newswire services. Out of the blue, suddenly released by Sr. Carol Keehan, DC, president and chief executive officer of the Catholic Health Association (CHA), the headline was sharp and pointed. The headline?

Alarmist News Reports About Catholic Hospitals Are False; CHA Supports Difficult Decision by Mercy Health Partners.

In a fury that fairly leaps from the page, Sister Carol says immediately that "false motives" have been assigned to the proposed sale of the three Mercy hospitals. Says the good Sister: "Reports that health reform is the primary motive behind the sale are completely false, misleading and politically motivated. Deliberations to sell the facilities began well before the Affordable Care Act became law and did not hinge on enactment of the legislation."

It was after this that the CEO issued first his second, and then his third statement, the later of which was an out-and-out retraction of the first statement.

Why? We can only conjecture at this point, but its fairly easy to connect the dots. Scranton is a heavily Catholic district, and home to three Catholic Hospitals, founded by the Sisters of Mercy, which date back to 1917. These three hospitals, which do not provide abortion services, are now on the auction block and may well be purchased by an entity or entities that might well provide such services. Scranton is also the home to not only two embattled House Democrats, but also to Senator Bob Casey, another Democrat who was elected on the strength of his pro-Life conservative credentials, and who is up for re-election himself in two years. Finally, it looks like the problems with these three hospitals can be traced in large measure back to the unintended consequences of the passage of The Affordable Care Act, which both House members as well as Senator Casey supported.

What is not known yet is what kind of pressure was brought to bear on CEO Kevin Cook and his associates, or how it was brought to bear on him, or by who. Sister Carol Keehan seems to be the front woman for someone else, the public face who is supposed to assuage the concerns of a Catholic constituency, while other shadowy forces lurk in the background pulling her strings.

If this story does break wide open, however, it might have far-ranging implications beyond just the Scranton area. It might explode onto the national scene as a harbinger of things yet to come, and lead to the crushing defeat of yet more congressional, and possibly Senate Democrats.

The American Spectator has been getting so many hits over this story, they have been crashing. You can also read the story, reprinted in its entirety by Pat Dollard.

You can also read of the controversy caused by Sister Carol's involvement in the health care bill in this piece by the Catholic News Agency.

The Coming Storm

This post is a work in progress, so consider this brief little bit s preview. I just don't have time to go into it now, but suffice it to say, if this news breaks, it could blow whatever slim chance Democrats have of avoiding total electoral catastrophe. I'm talking about the loss of close to a hundred house seats, and potentially enough Senate seats to put the Senate firmly in the control of Republicans.

I don't know if its true or not, which is why I don't want to venture too far down this road tonight without taking the time to do some basic fact checking. But, if it is true, it is really big. Think in terms of the voters as a big ocean, and the impact of this news, if it is true, as an earthquake below the surface, resulting in a tsunami at the polls. It could be that bad.

And it has to do with ObamaCare or, as Democrats like to call it, the "Affordable Health Care Act". It could have a major impact especially in Pennsylvania and the Mid-West in general. It could impact far beyond that, however, and since Delaware is a neighboring state, might be the news that puts Christine O'Donnell over the top.

Yes, it involves Joe Biden in a very big way, by virtue of the fact that the epicenter of the coming quake is in Scranton, his hometown. But it also involves Joe Sestak, Obama, and quite likely significant players within his Administration, as well as other congressional Democrats.

Okay, enough for now. More tomorrow.

Christine O'Donnell Kicks Coons Ass

I was going to blog about something else tonight, but after I saw the Delaware Senate debate on C-Span between O'Donnell and Coons, I had to make a comment on a number of points. First off, O'Donnell more than just held her own. To any objective observer, she handily won the debate. Coons was on the defensive almost through the entire debate, or at least through the last part of it (I missed most of the first half of the debate, so I can't fairly comment on that part).

There was one point where I thought O'Donnell had unwittingly stepped into a mine field, when she made the statement that China had plans to take over the US, plans that she was privy to by way of classified briefings. I thought to myself "okay, its over".

But then she explained that this briefing came about in the course of a trip to China which she undertook as part of some charitable group (I'm just going to assume this was some religious group, but I don't know). She went on to detail numerous ways where China has stood in opposition to our foreign policies, or has otherwise been a hindrance, on such matters as Iran and North Korea, while also pointing out the Chinese own a large part of our debt, something she went on to point out is an aspect of Democrats spending habits, stating quite pointedly that Coons as a Senator would almost certainly support this.

Coons in his attempt to rebut this started out derisively, as was his stance often through the debate, but amazingly went on to affirm that China was a real menace, economically. Of course, this was O'Donnell's major point to begin with-their main threat was economic, not military. It's almost like she baited the hook, and Coons swallowed it whole.

But even that, as bad as it was for Coons, was not the worse part. That would be when O'Donnell stated flatly that Coons and his family business stood to profit from the implementation of any Cap And Trade legislation. How? Well, the business manufactures hydrogen fuel cells, according to her.

Again, more dismissive derision from Coons, who nevertheless went on to explain that, no, his business does not manufacture hydrogen fuel cells-they merely make parts for them, but it would be years before they could stand to benefit from any type of alternative energy tax credits from the government.

Yeah, right. This affirms what I've always-well, not suspected, known. Most of these alternative energy lords are just as much out to profit from any potential energy policy as any oil company CEO. Global Climate Change is nothing more or less than a pretty clever sales pitch.

In the meantime, O'Donnell stated her own position, that it should be the states-Delaware, Virginia, etc., who decides on whether there should be off-shore drilling off their respective coasts, while pointing out further that the US is too energy and resource rich to stand for being held hostage by foreign oil under the control of potentially hostile nations.

There were multiple other points along these same lines, and I didn't always agree with her. I had to suppress a groan when she repeated the standard conservative cliche about embryonic stem cell research versus adult stem cells. But then again, even here, she made a great point. If embryonic cells were valid forms of potentially profitable medical research, private companies wouldn't need government subsidies in order to engage in the research, which, remember, is perfectly legal with private capital. It is only federal funds which are banned from use for such research.

She hit all the right notes about abortion, DADT, etc. Everything she said was right on the money. Overturning Roe v Wade, she reminded the audience, would not make abortion illegal, it would merely turn the decision over to the individual states. DADT should be decided solely by the military. Admittedly, Coons made his one valid point of the night here when he compared a potential change in the law regarding gays in the military to Truman's integration of the armed forces. But it was his one and only moment of sanity.

The rest of the night, he spent acting like an arrogant toad for the special interests of Washington and bleeping about bi-partisanship, something that might well play in Delaware sufficiently for him to win the election, but on the other hand, when you listen to this guy you get the distinct impression that, to him, like so many other Democrats, bi-partisanship is when Republicans agree to give Democrats most of what they want. That song has gotten so old you just can't dance to it anymore without feeling like an idiot.

O'Donnell deserves to win this race, but I'm afraid she more than likely will not. That's just too bad. She proved tonight she could stand up to Coons, or anybody else, and more than hold her own. She is nobody's fool, while Coons, she reminded the audience, is so beholden to special interests that Harry Reid even referred to Coons once as his pet.

"I don't know why Harry Reid said that" whined Coons.

Christine O'Donnell vs The Forces Of Evil

This is the kind of thing you have to put up with, I guess. Its politics, but I find it astounding all the same that a woman could be the victim of such demented rants as this. Of course, she's a "Tea-Bagger" so she deserves it. She's also an idiot, and "that's a fact", according to this guy, who strangely didn't go into a lot of detail as to why he felt that way, over than to toss around words like Tea-Bagger, conservative, and Republican. I picked this one out of numerous examples of assaults on Christine O'Donnell, just to make a point.

Imagine this woman was a Democrat (yes, I know this is an old screed in and of itself, but in this context it hits pretty close to home for me). Now imagine that a Republican supporter was to attack her and criticize her involvement in a "Satanic" religion, or call her a loony lefty earth worshiper.

Can you hear the roof blowing off from the Democrat outrage? I can. I think its pretty safe to say such a Republican attack would be greeted by charges of insensitivity and religious bigotry.

Sadly, she has in fact been attacked by Republicans, and not only by the leftist RINO Republican she beat in the Delaware Senate primary (quite handily at that), but by others of more national prominence, such as Karl Rove, who stated she needs to "explain" her involvement in witchcraft.

Frankly, I don't like it that she seems to feel on the defensive to such an extent that she began a recent televised ad with the heartfelt statement "I am not a witch". I don't know who advised her to make that ad, but frankly they should be fired from her campaign. A woman who quite plainly was involved at most at the fringes of what may or may not have been a Wiccan or Pagan coven, or more than likely a mere teen-age period of exploration and bullshit fun and games, owes no one an explanation, nor for that matter should she be required to explain herself even if she was, or even still is, actually involved in such a path. It would be her right, a right that is, after all, protected by the constitution.

Of course, she was not then nor was she ever a Wiccan, a Druid, a Pagan, an Asatruer, a Voudoun, or anything else in the way of a non-traditional religious path, so its really a moot point. Or it should be. Nevertheless, not only is she being mercilessly attacked by Democrats and liberals, which should really come as no surprise to any familiar with leftist hypocrisy, but sadly, protests from the leftist mainstream of the Wiccan/Pagan movement are few and far between. What there is appears mainly focused on criticisms of O'Donnell for seeming to equate witchcraft and paganism in general with Satanism-which is in fact a pretty good indication that she was never involved other than very tangentially at most with any pagan path.

Of course, as the majority of Pagans, especially Wiccans, are leftist in their political orientation, this might be understandable to a point. But this is putting the old saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" on a whole new level.

Here we have a case of Democrats and liberals condescendingly pointing to expressions of prior involvement in witchcraft as the sign of a deranged individual who is unfit for public office. And you have Pagans and Wiccans, many of whom are practicing witches, tacitly agreeing by way of their silence.

Thus, you have a mindset which proffers that such a woman is either incompetent, or crazy, or evil, and for that reason, she might and probably will lose an important election to a man who is a Democrat-in my own personal opinion lately, the personification of evil if ever there was one.

O'Donnell's opponent, Coons, is a man who over the course of several years has raised property taxes in Delaware by 48%, and supported numerous other kinds of tax hikes, seemingly as naturally as one might draw breath.

So just who again is the devil worshiper here?

I heard rumors to the effect that O'Donnell might be gaining support. I hope so and I hope she wins, regardless of her true religion-she is evidently a very conservative Christian, in reality, which might well explain the deafening silence of leftist pagans towards the derision she has faced as someone who allegedly experimented with witchcraft.

What matters to me is how she will vote in the Senate if she is elected. Who she prays to, and how she lives her personal, private life-now or in the past-is incidental at best, so long as she currently lives an ethical life of integrity, which is all that really matters.

But let's be clear about something that has been steadily overlooked. Delaware, while a blue state, is a state that is controlled by banking and corporate interests. If O'Donnell pulls this out, it won't be by way of help from them. Take that how you will.

The Crying Game-3 and 4

Previously-British soldier Jodi while off-duty was taken captive by members of the Irish Republican Army and held for ransom. Told he would be killed if the British did not accede to their demands for a hostage exchange, he was then befriended by Fergus.

Lennon-If He Were Seventy

Today is the day John Lennon would have turned seventy years old were he still alive, and many now are wondering what he would be like. How would he look at our world today. As I feel that I know him as well as anybody who never actually met the man, I can speak with some certitude about this individual who came to be seen as one of the most important voices of his generation.

Make no mistake about it. Lennon was very much an anti-war social liberal, revolutionary, and activist, but he was also complicated. He expressed once that he was an economic conservative. To many, that seems contradictory, but not to me. I would imagine his more conservative economic leanings might have arisen from a glance at his first paycheck. He was appalled as anyone at government abuse and bureaucratic malfeasance, and it made not one whit of difference to him whether this was born of liberal or conservative philosophy.

However, it is unwise to make too much of this. Without a doubt, Lennon would have been dismayed by the current state of the world's economies, and doubtless would have been a vocal critic of both of this decade's US led wars, in Afghanistan every bit as much as Iraq. At the same time, I can't see him as being an apologist for radical Islam, and probably not even traditional, mainstream Islam, for that matter.

And I personally have no doubt that he would have hailed the candidacy of Barak Obama as a watershed moment not only in US but in world history. He would have supported him, and in fact Obama might have even been the first politician to win his personal endorsement.

Having said that, I honestly believe Lennon would have been personally dismayed at the almost messianic tone of much of Obama's campaign, and would have looked at the greater mass of Obama supporters as sheep, and as outright fools. To be sure, much of this might well have been borne of jealousy.

Be that as it may, Lennon's feelings about American politics was fairly straight-forward. In his view, every four years Americans elected a "big daddy" to yell and scream at, at the end of which they often times kick him out of office, whereupon they would proceed to elect another daddy on whom to repeat the process. He would probably surmise that Obama would come to a sad end politically. No doubt, he would take a moderate view towards any resultant criticisms of him, or any politician.

I don't know how he would view the Tea-Party. While I am sure he would be opposed to most of their views, I like to think he would at least study the movement and come to an independent conclusion as to their sincerity, without jumping to the conclusion they were all or mostly racists and/or regressive reactionaries. He would almost certainly appreciate their opposition to ever expanding government control over so many sectors of society.

On certain policies, its harder to judge. He would probably jump on the Global Climate Change Bandwagon, but would probably look with suspicion on government mandates, preferring instead to encourage private individual action and initiative whenever possible or practical. He had that kind of faith. As a Brit, he probably would have seen universal health care as a no-brainer, but would probably view the current recently enacted American system with a great deal of skepticism. I can just hear him saying "what the fuck is this mess?"

More importantly, from a creative standpoint, I can't see Lennon as ever retiring as long as he lived so long as he maintained his health. I think he would have embraced modern technology. He would gladly and gleefully have released songs over the internet, for free. He would probably feel he had an obligation to reach as many as possible, and would have expressed his views on many of the topics of the day. With the wealth he would have by now accumulated, he would have no reason not to do so, for one thing, and for another, he would have seized the opportunity as a promotional gimmick. He would have been right at home over the net. In fact, if both he and Harrison had lived on and all four Beatles yet lived today, I can envision the prospect of a Beatles reunion and concert taking place live over the Internet, at John's instigation.

Another thing about Lennon that is noteworthy. He was no fan of political correctness, which is one reason I think he would have judged the Tea-Party folks more fairly than most on the left. At the same time, he would have almost certainly and consistently adopted and used the term Tea-bagger to describe them, if for no other reason than he would have thought it was funny (which, frankly, it is), and if the term had not been coined, Lennon would in all probability have coined it himself.

Lenno0n was dismayed when his song "Woman Is The Nigger Of The World" was banned from most radio airwaves due to inclusion of the word "Nigger" in the title and lyrics. The thought that the word might be too offensive to be used publicly, even in a symbolic way, never occurred to him.

And then there were his merciless jibes at former Beatles manager Brian Epstein, a known homosexual.

From his Wikipedia entry-

Lennon delighted in mocking Epstein for his homosexuality and for the fact that he was Jewish, often ridiculing him with sarcastic remarks.[111] When Epstein invited suggestions for his autobiography title, Lennon offered Queer Jew.[112] On learning of the eventual title, A Cellarful of Noise, he said to a friend, "More like A Cellarful of Boys".[113] He demanded of a visitor to Epstein's flat, "Have you come to blackmail him? If not, you're the only bugger in London who hasn't."[111] And he taunted Epstein with twisted Beatles lyrics, changing "baby, you're a rich man too" to "baby, you're a rich fag Jew".[1

Of course, this means nothing, as Lennon had a deep and abiding respect and even love for Epstein, though I am pretty certain he would take exception to later day theories about any "love affair" many wishfully think happened between the two of them.

All in all, Lennon was a man who seized the moment, and when he found himself in too deep, he stopped digging that hole, and then he pulled himself out, and then he started digging all over again. He made the most out of his situation at any given time. Or at least he tried to do so. And, as oftentimes happens when a person finds himself in a position of fame and notoriety, he arrived at the point where he thought he should make it count for something. But there were times when his heart obviously wasn't in it. He found his real true calling when he and Yoko Ono rebuilt their relationship, and started their own family. His muse was reborn, and he recaptured the moment, up until the moment of his untimely demise.

I can easily understand why he has maintained such a strong degree of affection even today. But frankly, I would not feel at home with the majority of his admirers when they gather at the various parks, such as near the Dakota, in order to mark the anniversary of his birth, or death, while playing his music, and pushing their views of what John probably would have had to say about first one or another leftist cause. I would definitely be as much of an outsider around most Lennon fans as I would be at a Democratic Party candidate's rally.

On the other hand, I think I could almost feel Lennon's spirit, playfully suggesting-

"Ah, come on mate, I know its all a load of crap, but you know, it might be a right load of fun too, right? You might even get laid."

A Conservative Novelist Wins The Nobel Prize For Literature

In a move that is likely to send shock waves though the western literary establishment, The Nobel Committee has made a daring move towards the right. The latest recipient of the Nobel Prize for Literature is Mario Vargas Llosa, a Peruvian born author currently living in Spain, and a writer who has himself turned to the right as an advocate of free-market principles and conservative politics.

The Committee has been accused of favoring leftist writers in the past, but has stated that its awards are based on literary merit alone. Its tempting to think this particular award might have been made in order to prove that point, but on the other hand, this is no quiet, mealy-mouthed, genial conservative.

If you argue politics with him, he might well punch you out. In fact, he has done just that, some decades ago, in the course of an argument with a leftist writer with whom he had been friends. That was just the beginning of a long and distinguished career as a basher of leftists.

His writing is almost universally admired in Latin America but his gradual shift from the left toward an embrace of free-market capitalism has put him at odds with much of the hemisphere's intellectual elite.

Vargas Llosa has feuded with Venezuela's leftist President Hugo Chavez and often tosses barbs at Cuba's Fidel Castro. He irritated his centrist friend Paz, the late Mexican Nobel literature laureate, by playfully describing Mexico's political system — which was dominated at the time by a single party — as "the perfect dictatorship."

In a famous 1976 incident in Mexico City, Vargas Llosa punched out former friend Garcia Marquez, whom he would later ridicule as "Castro's courtesan." It was never clear whether the fight was over politics or a personal dispute and the two have reportedly not spoken in decades.

Llosa has been the recipient of many other prizes prior to the Nobel, and the Committee which awarded this latest jewel in the crown was quite explicit about his qualifications.

The Swedish Academy said it honored him for mapping the "structures of power and (for) his trenchant images of the individual's resistance, revolt and defeat." Its permanent secretary, Peter Englund, called him "a divinely gifted storyteller" whose writing touched the reader.

"His books are often very complex in composition, having different perspectives, different voices and different time places," Englund said. "He is also doing it in a new way, he has helped evolve the art of the narration."

Peru's president, Alan Garcia, praised Vargas Llosa for his "eminent intelligence" and "libertarian and democratic spirit."

So congratulations to Senor Llosa. Who knows, this might be the start of a new trend. It might even be the start of something big. One of these days, the Nobel Peace Prize Committee might make a similarly unusual and unexpected move-it might actually award the Nobel Peace Prize to somebody who has actually done something to further the cause of peace.

10:10 Join Us Or Die

If I were the head of an environmentalist organization and hired somebody to produce a video promoting something like the 10:10 cause, and they came up with something like the video "No Pressure", I would suspect them of being a secret plant working to sabotage the movement. If you have never seen the video, here it is. If it is taken down, have no fear. It will be re-uploaded to YouTube by those who want you to see just what we are dealing with here.

True enough, the British have a strange sense of humor, to put it lightly, but this is beyond the pale even for them. This is so in your face and over the top, its hard to imagine what they could have been thinking. And remember, this is a professionally produced video, written in fact by Richard Curtis (Blackadder and Love, Actually).

I want to point something out, however. Everybody is so focused on the violent aspects of the video, they have inadvertently missed what might actually be the most subversive part of the message.

In all of the little skits which make up this compilation, one thing beyond the obvious blood and gore stands out. Those portrayed as being against the environmentalist agenda are seen as being a very small minority of naysayers, so small in fact that they can be seen in a sense as completely out of the mainstream of civilized thought.

Just a couple of schoolchildren out of an entire classroom. Only three salaried employees out of an entire company executive's seminar. One lone football player whose old-fashioned views stand out as an anachronism in the face of the team's more modern and "responsible" stand against Global Climate Change.

The underlying message is meant to be even more intimidating than the initial shocking murderous purge of the unbelievers. It can be summed up as follows-

"You are not important. If you choose not to support us, you will be one of a very few, a group whose numbers are so small and insignificant, they are of no true consequence whatsoever. And, when you are all finally gone, no one will mourn your passing, nor will it be noted by history. You will be missed by no one-not by your peers, nor your friends and associates, not even your family, or those who might have once looked up to and admired you. After an initial period of natural human shock and grief, they will quickly forget you. Before long, your very existence will be forgotten."

In other words, those who are against the cause should be seen as not only on the wrong side of the issue but, perhaps more importantly, on the wrong side of history. They should be seen as unimportant, so unimportant that they are not really worth trying to convince. If they cannot see the rightness of the environmentalist cause, they are themselves a lost cause.

Before long, their memories will and should be wiped from human memory-purged, if you will, from history, with all the sentimentality and consideration one might give to the wanton slaying of cockroaches.

Of course, the outward violence was meant to disguise this more subtle and almost subliminal message. However, although attempts were later made to explain the bloody purge of unbelievers as nothing more sinister than quirky humor, the outrageous nature of the violence displayed backfired on the producers, and on the environmentalist group involved in its production.

But the meaning is all too clear. If you are against the movement to combat Global Climate Change, you are, to their way of thinking, a part of the mindset that has not only created the problem, but would seek to perpetuate it.

Is it any wonder that dramatizations of the wanton destruction of the opponents of the environmentalist movement should be presented in such a cavalier fashion? The question should be asked, if they really believe in their cause, how could they honestly feel any differently?