NARAL doesn't like Hillary anymore

They just endorsed Barack Obama, leaving a lot of Hillary supporters and NARAL supporters furious. They're already feeling the backlash:

With the clock running down on a long-fought primary, NARAL Pro-Choice America leaders sent state affiliates reeling this week by endorsing Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois. It was seen as a gratuitous slap in the face to a longtime ally, and it sparked a fear even closer to home: that the move will alienate donors loyal to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

Many on this week’s conference call were stunned on learning the news, making urgent pleas for the group to remain neutral until after the June 3 Democratic primaries.

“It’s created a firestorm,” said NARAL Pro-Choice New York President Kelli Conlin, who was on the conference call. “Everyone was mystified ... saying, ‘What is the upside for the organization? And, frankly, [there was] a lot of concern about the donor base. ... There was real concern there would be a backlash.”
There was a backlash, and it was swift, starting with NARAL’s own website. At last count, there were more than 3,300 comments in an electronic chat about the endorsement, the overwhelming majority of them negative. “Shame shame shame!” read one, with many correspondents threatening never to support NARAL financially again. “No more donations from me!!!” wrote another.

In Washington, two dozen women members of Congress who support Clinton held a quickly organized press conference to tout her abortion-rights record Wednesday night. Ellen Malcolm, founder of the abortion-rights women’s fundraising group EMILY’s List, sharply rebuked NARAL for its endorsement. Two former members of Congress (and Clinton supporters) — Geraldine Ferraro and Pat Schroeder — jabbed at NARAL for endorsing before the general election. “Looks like some higher ups at NARAL are trying to get jobs in the new administration ... nothing else makes sense to us,” they wrote in a joint letter.

Whoopsie.

Now, I'm not going to cry any tears over anyone disassociating themselves with NARAL, regardless of the reason. Hey, I support you wholeheartedly. But I can't really understand what they thought they'd accomplish by endorsing Obama. It seems like Hillary is the one who has lobbied tirelessly for NARAL, and as she is the one who needs the boost, why didn't they endorse her? It isn't like endorsing a candidate who doesn't get the nomination puts a scarlet letter on you for the rest of the election, or that you won't have a voice in the administration of whoever wins. I just don't see what they thought they'd gain from it.

Ed had an idea:

NARAL picked the worst time to make an endorsement. Instead of picking someone early, they chose Obama with just three weeks left to go before the end of the primaries. Did they think they could help him in Puerto Rico, or believe him in danger of losing the nomination? What practical effect would their endorsement have on his ability to collect votes in the handful of contests remaining?

Not much, but obviously that wasn’t their motivation. They wanted to send a message to Hillary to get out of the race now, rather than ride out the short string of primaries left. NARAL wants to show some muscle in the party’s operations, and doesn’t mind throwing Hillary under the bus to do so. Instead, they have enraged their base of women who have seen Hillary as their champion both in this race and on the mission of NARAL itself — and see her opponent as an Obama-come-lately, an ally but certainly not someone who has done the trench work that Hillary has done over a long period of years.

Apparently, sticking by the person who has worked so hard for you for years now isn't all that important to NARAL.

But hey, who cares what their motives are? This is great for me! Let the chaos continue. Anything that can further Hillary's chances for winning the nomination is fantastic. Way to go, NARAL!

Hat Tip: Hot Air

Obama thanks Sioux City... while in Sioux Falls!

But, you know, remembering different cities in fifty-seven states is a tough job. So we shouldn't judge him too harshly for forgetting what city he's in.

The Democratic frontrunner Sen. Barack Obama of another state, Illinois, had an enthusiastic double-barreled stump introduction from two local luminaries, former Sens. Tom Daschle and George McGovern, who was an equally enthusiastic supporter of Sen. Hillary Clinton until recently. But he changed his mind.

McGovern knows a little about presidential races, having once been the Democratic presidential candidate himself way back in 1972. He lost though.

Both South Dakotans lavished all sorts of praise on Obama, according to reporters present, including The Times Nicholas Riccardi. As the large, enthusiastic crowd of some 7,000 supporters roared and waved "We can do it" signs and Bruce Springsteen's "The Rising" blared, Obama bounded onto stage, grabbed the microphone and said, "Thank you, Sioux City!"

Trouble is, Obama was in Sioux Falls.

So was the crowd, which suddenly fell silent. Where are those Southwest Airlines get-away flights when you need them?

"I'm sorry," Obama quickly caught himself. "Sioux Falls. I've been in Iowa too long."

Sioux City is in Iowa. Sioux Falls is in South Dakota.

Here's video:



Whoopsie. Must be such a tiring, confusing job, campaigning. Imagine being PRESIDENT. Jeesh.

Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin

Huckabee kisses his veep dreams goodbye

And all with one little quote:

During a speech before the National Rifle Association convention Friday afternoon in Louisville, Kentucky, former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee — who has endorsed presumptive GOP nominee John McCain — joked that an unexpected offstage noise was Democrat Barack Obama looking to avoid a gunman.

“That was Barack Obama, he just tripped off a chair, he’s getting ready to speak,” said the former Arkansas governor, to audience laughter. “Somebody aimed a gun at him and he dove for the floor.”

Way to go, asshat. Real classy. Joke about someone trying to kill one of your political opponents. Douchebag.

Hat tip: Hot Air

Welcome to Tennessee, Michelle, a state where we're proud of our country.

Awesome:



I'm proud of my country every time I see the flag or hear the National Anthem. I'm proud of my country every time I read about how much we've fought and sacrificed in the last century alone to defend freedom. I'm proud of my country every time I remember that no matter who you are or where you come from, you can come to America and build a better life for yourself, as long as you're willing to work hard enough. I'm proud of my country every time I visit the Duval County Veteran's Memorial Wall, where I cannot keep the grief and love I feel for her from running down my cheeks, thanks to the unbelievable sacrifice millions of American soldiers, sailors, and airmen have made for her and for freedom.

Simply put, there is not a single day that goes by when I'm not proud of my country. I love her, and I would fight for her until my dying breath. America has given so much. To say I feel pride for her is an unbelievable understatement, but it's as true today as ever.

Michelle Obama may not be able to understand why it is that so many Americans are proud of their country, and are willing to fight for her, and sacrifice for her. But it's one that's crystal clear to me, and to these Tennessee citizens, and millions of Americans everywhere.

Hat Tip: Hot Air

Barack Obama, fairy tale king!

How do you know the left has gone too far with with their idolatry of the Obamamessiah?

When this picture accompanies an endorsement of him for President.


Rising from the sea like a mythical merman, with his loyal white steed behind him, the Left presents Barack Obama, fairy tale king!!

Christ Almighty. Do lefties really not see how ridiculous they have become with the Obama-mania? Seriously.

Hat tip: Ace of Spades

Democrats are just SO above race.

They are so noble, so much better than Republicans, that they don't need to stoop to dirty tricks like race-baiting or smears.

Right?

Um... I guess not. Michelle Malkin has an ad the DCCC ran smearing a Republican, Greg Davis, in the Mississippi congressional race, linking him to the founder of the KKK. Check out the ad:

Classy.

Only problem? The, uh, DCCC got their facts wrong.

[T]he DCCC says "Greg Davis wanted to honor the founder of the KKK with a statue in Southaven" and also said the statue was of "the first Grand Wizard." But in reality, the statue was of Jefferson Davis who was not the founder and never in the KKK. In fact, another place that has a statue of Jefferson Davis is the United States Capitol Building. Jefferson Davis is one of the two statues representing Mississippi, along with James Z. George. Furthermore, Senator Thad Cochran uses the desk of Jefferson Davis in the Capitol, one of two "heritage desks" (the other goes to Massachusetts Senior Senator and belonged to Daniel Webster).

ROM further notes that the "founder of the KKK statue" (Nathan Bedford Forrest) was wanted by the Mayor of Horn Lake.

So the DCCC has attacked the wrong mayor for the wrong statue.

Who cares though? There's a margin of error for this congressional seat to eliminate. Besides, liberals can stoop as low as they want.

I always love when Democrats pull out the KKK card, anyways... considering Robert Byrd's illustrious history with the Klan and all. How do they really have any room to talk? They don't seem to mind his direct involvement with the Klan, but they'd lie about Greg Davis, linking him to the KKK, just to win an election?

And they claim that they're the ones fighting for minorities. Go figure.

In presidential election news, Hillary is expected to win has won West Virginia. Moonbattery points out how democrats, of course, are throwing a hissy fit. Because if you don't vote for the Obamamessiah, you're a racist, and don't you forget it.

The whole piece whines about how white voters are racist for leaning towards Clinton, and how the Obamamessiah is the bigger man for not getting involved in such petty identity politics. Like, um, the kind that this writer is engaging in.

So, tonight the polls will close and Mrs. Clinton will have easily collected 99 percent of the white vote in West Virginia. She will crow about her electability in a smug but meaningless victory speech on a stage featuring dozens of "hard-working Americans, white Americans" standing behind her waving flags.

Bill and Chelsea will grimace through it all, knowing that the jig is up and that the dream of the next phase of the Clinton dynasty has come to an ignoble end.

While no Confederate battle flags will be visible, they will feel it in the air. Mrs. Clinton's greatest victory will be a triumph of the kind of identity politics that makes a nation smaller.

Still, she will resist the urge to dip Skoal and spit juice into a coffee can on live television.

There will be plenty of time for that kind of nonsense when she campaigns in Kentucky. There, everyone expects her to continue her total dominance of the rural white working-class vote while perfecting the accent she used to sport back in Little Rock.

Funny how this guy can whine about the Clintons' identity politics in an article like this, that is so completely focused on race and nothing else. And of course, the fact that the majority of black voters support Obama isn't racist, because voting for him means you're above race. Or something hypocritical like that.

And anyways, why does someone's race matter? It's the color of their skin. It doesn't affect their brain or how they think. It doesn't affect their policies or politics. And those are the things that concern me when it comes to who will be running this country.

So the whiny race-baiters out there can rest assured that most Americans who don't vote for Obama aren't voting for him because they're racist... they aren't voting for him because they can't stand his politics.

I guess the Dems just can't grasp the concept of white Americans who aren't racist.

Obama likes union corruption.

Is anyone surprised? From the Wall Street Journal:

Sen. Barack Obama won the endorsement of the Teamsters earlier this year after privately telling the union he supported ending the strict federal oversight imposed to root out corruption, according to officials from the union and the Obama campaign.

It's an unusual stance for a presidential candidate. Policy makers have largely treated monitoring of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters as a legal matter left to the Justice Department since an independent review board was set up in 1992 to eliminate mob influence in the union.

Well, he likes to associate with terrorists and racists, so why not corrupt teamsters and mobsters, too?

Besides, he's a politician. Who cares about what's good for the people when he could screw them over to get a few extra votes?

Hat Tip: Stop the ACLU

Obama knows the United States, all 60 of them.

Check out this video, where Barack Obama brilliantly showcases his knowledge of American geography:



Let's see... he has been to fifty-seven states, not including Hawaii and Alaska, and he still has one left to go.

So according to Obama, there are sixty states that comprise the United States of America.

Question: shouldn't the President of the United States know basic facts about the country he's running? OK, so maybe he was "tired". He "misspoke". Who gives a crap? Everyone knows how many states there are, and they know that at approximately five years old. For him to get something so simple, so basic, so elementary wrong is mind-boggling.

Instapundit reader Jeff Cauthen suggests:

Somebody should ask him to name all 114 US Senators.

Now let's just imagine the media reaction if McCain had said this.

Hat Tip: Gina Cobb

Asking the questions the media won't ask

Everyone knows that no one is supposed to ask Barack Obama any tough questions. We're supposed to be pacified by his empty rhetoric message of "hope" and "change", and not look any deeper. Because, you know, if we do, we find a whole lot of things to be uneasy about, and he is the Obamamessiah and all.

Unfortunately, the RNC didn't get that memo.



Just, you know, don't expect to get any answers. That'd be asking too much.

Hat Tip: Stop the ACLU

A Tale of Two Rallies

Obama held a rally to celebrate his victory at Reynolds Coliseum in North Carolina. According to the media, it was a packed house. Here's how it ran on television:


Mary Katharine Ham, though, attended the rally and paints a rather different picture.

Those tables in between my position and the rally you saw on TV are about a quarter full of milling, bored, tired reporters. The rally took up maybe a quarter of the floor space in the arena. Part of running a decent campaign is knowing how big a crowd you might have and planning accordingly so as not to embarrass yourselves with a woefully understuffed venue.

I realize it's standard practice to rope off an area of a venue for crowd-wrangling and appearances, but this is a little drastic. McCain's event at the Wait Chapel at Wake Forest today was nicely filled if not overflowing, but I imagine if he had held it at Groves Stadium and filled only the endzone seats, someone in the media might have said something about it. Obama doesn't have such worries, I guess.

Here's her picture of Obama's rally:


But why report the truth? Far better to distort the facts to make their precious Snobamamessiah look good.

This time, they're REALLY going to vote. For real this time. Seriously.

Every election, the media breathlessly proclaims that this time, the youth are really, really going to matter. They're going to show up in record numbers! They're going to make a difference! And then, Election Day rolls around in November and... nothing.

But this year, this year!, it's going to be different. This year, "the youth" actually are going to vote!

Election after election, when all the obvious story lines are exhausted, the media tend to turn to an oldie but goody: "Will this be the race where young people finally start voting?" Youth vote advocates insist that young people are more dialed in than ever this year, while political hacks who have been in the business for decades roll their eyes at the notion.

Given that, The Fix recognizes the danger in making the following statement: The youth vote will matter in 2008. A look back over the last few months shows a massive increase in youth (people ages 18 through 29) voting; the number of young people voting quadrupled in Tennessee and tripled in states such as Iowa, Missouri and Texas, according to a new study by Harvard University's Institute of Politics.

The report goes on to say that the growth in young people's participation in the electoral process is not a "one-time phenomenon" but, rather, represents a "civic reawakening of a new generation."

A civic reawakening? Were 20-year-olds "awake" to politics before and somehow "fell asleep"? Um... ok. And, you know, there's the teensy problem of this poll being conducted with MTV's help, which automatically dampens the prospect of it becoming a reality.

Look, if "young people" vote, then that's fantastic. If they don't, then oh well. They aren't going to make or break elections, no matter how much the media fawns over them. Every election season its the same old song and dance, and it ain't a different tune this time around.

Hat Tip: E.M. Zanotti

Reporter to Obama: "Do your amazing good looks hinder your campaign?"

Or... something along those lines. Maybe the local reporter is getting a tingle up her leg, just like Chris Matthews, at the mere mention of Obama's name.

Oh, and stay to listen to him whine about the "underhandedness" of his atrocious bowling score being reported in the media. Apparently, he was really incensed about that -- he's not THAT bad, y'all.


Hat Tip: Hot Air

Photo of the Day

Creepiest. Photo. EVER.

Kim Kardashian, like, is endorsing, like Barack Obama.

Like, for realz. Because, like, he's totally into, like, change and stuff. That's like, totally something, like, we can all, like, believe in.

Kardashian quickly explained that their dinner was anything but one-on-one: “It wasn’t just him and I. I was at an event.”

"He just seemed very firm about the change, and that’s, like, his motto," Kardashian said, probably trying to allude to Obama’s "Change We Can Believe In" campaign slogan.

That's like, so, like, totally deep. Like.

I wonder, like, if Kim Kardashian could, like, point out one thing, like, that Barack Obama has, like, done in, like, the past ten years. Or if, like, she can explain, like, his association with, like, racist America-hating pastors, and, like, terrorists, and like, other, like, totally not hot people. But, like, how could we, like, ever expect, like, a deep thinker like Kim Kardashian, like, to think, like, about anything deeper than, like, "change". I mean, all she's, like, ever done is, like, have sex with a guy and, like, be Paris Hilton's, like, BFF.

But anyways, like, who cares? Obama is, like, so, like, totally hot right now. And that's like, totally, like, good enough for Hollywood.

Why Jim DeMint should be McCain's running mate

There's been a lot of chatter about who John McCain will choose to be his running mate. Most worrying is the speculation about Joe Lieberman taking the veep spot.

That would be a bad, bad idea. Already conservatives are angry with John McCain. And while McCain is showing that he can win crossover Democrats, he hasn't shown that he can reach out to conservatives. When he does try to, it comes across as fake, forced. For McCain to win, he needs to be genuine. He isn't a conservative, and he shouldn't try to pretend that he is. He should just be himself, be honest and up front about where he stands, and find another way to reach out to conservatives without coming across as condescending. And the best way to do that is to choose a conservative running mate.

Choosing the person to be your running mate needs to be a strategic move, not about who you've been good buddies with in the Senate. A good politician will choose someone who can balance them out -- someone who is strong where you are weak, who can be tough on the points where maybe you're a little squishy.

And that's why South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint would be a fantastic choice for John McCain's running mate. Let's take a look at his bio for starters:

Elected as South Carolina’s 55th senator in 2004 after serving six years in the U.S House of Representatives, Jim DeMint has quickly established himself as one of the most effective conservative leaders in Washington. He was recently ranked as the Senate’s most conservative member by National Journal and as the number one senator voting for responsible tax and spending policies by the National Taxpayer Union.

Even as a freshman, Jim has shown that he has no interest in sitting on the sidelines in the Senate. Instead, he has leveraged his expertise in placing products and ideas in a crowded marketplace, gained as the owner of a small market research firm. He has become an effective national voice in Washington's fight to regain the trust of the American people, most recently on the issues of immigration and wasteful spending.

In late 2006, he was elected by his colleagues as Chairman of the Senate Steering Committee, which is comprised of the majority of Republican senators and works to shape and advance conservative legislation. He also serves on the Commerce, Science, and Transportation; Energy and Natural Resources; Foreign Relations and Joint Economic Committees.

Senator DeMint is a conservative through and through. He's got experience, and he'd be able to assuage the bruised egos that many conservatives are still nursing. He's a fiscal conservative, and a leader of conservatives in the Senate. The National Journal has named Senator DeMint the most conservative senator. He's been on the front lines of the fight for earmark reform. He has a life ACU rating of 98. The issues he focuses on are earmark reform, illegal immigration, and family values -- which is a good complement for McCain. Conservatives would be happy to know that there is someone in the White House who would fight for their values, and McCain would still have his moderate appeal to capture crossover Democrats.

One of Senator DeMint's strongest positions is on illegal immigration -- which is one of McCain's weakest areas for Republicans and conservatives. McCain has stood for amnesty and open borders, and many people are understandably horrified at the thought of what will happen to our borders and immigration with President John McCain. This is where Vice President Jim DeMint would be the most beneficial. McCain is now claiming that he has changed his mind on illegal immigration and open borders (to an extent), but who can actually believe that? With Senator DeMint as his running mate, there would be a lot more credibility to that claim. Consider how he fought to defeat the shamnesty disaster last year:

After the cloture vote failure at noon on Thursday, Harry Reid could not get unanimous consent to call up amendments to the bill because Jim DeMint refused to give his consent. This was extremely problematic for Reid because he wanted to get in votes on 6 more amendments before the last try at a cloture vote.

At that point, all the senators who were participants in the "Grand Compromise" AKA the "Masters of the Universe" by the opponents of the bill, leaned on DeMint to try to get him to give consent for the bill to move forward. Unfortunately for them, DeMint wouldn't budge. This essentially killed the entire afternoon that the pro-amnesty side hoped to use to shore up support for the bill.

While DeMint was gumming up the works, the opponents of the bill, including most prominently Jim DeMint, Jeff Sessions, and Tom Coburn, huddled and came up with a list of conservative amendments they wanted considered.

The "Grand Compromise" crowd didn't want a lot of these amendments to be voted on because either some of the amendments would have been accepted and it would have killed the bill or alternately, they would have had to vote against common sense enforcement measures and made themselves look bad.

Senator DeMint would be, in my opinion, the best choice for John McCain's running mate. Because, let's face it -- McCain is not now, nor will he ever be, a conservative. We can whine, bith, and gripe all day long about that fact. But it won't change anything -- he'll still be our nominee, and he won't be any more conservative. The solution for McCain and for conservatives would be to get a true conservative in as Vice President -- and Jim DeMint would easily be the best choice.

Photo of the Day

Here's your snortworthy photo of the day:



Hat Tip: Moonbattery

Foreign Policy vs. Waffles? No contest!

Well, apparently Barack Obama can't be bothered to answer questions about foreign policy... not when he's eating his waffles, gosh darn it!


Maybe the Snobamamessiah doesn't realize that when you campaign, people will ask you questions. And if he really does have such superior foreign policy knowledge and experience, then why does it bother him if he happens to be eating a waffle? What, he can't swallow the bite he has in his mouth, answer the question, and resume eating? It should be a cakewalk for him, since he is so experienced in foreign policy. Right?

I really love how he gets so annoyed over pushy reporters. What's his reaction going to be if he's President and entire countries get "pushy"?

Thank heavens it was just a waffle and not some yummy arugula. What would his response have been then??

Hat Tips: Michelle Malkin and Right Wing News

Who do white men hate more, blacks or women?

That is the question posed by Nora Ephron -- the writer who gave us such sappy movies as "You've Got Mail", "Sleepless in Seattle", and "When Harry Met Sally". (Emphasis mine, of course.)

... But now there are two and we're facing Pennsylvania and whom are we kidding? This is an election about whether the people of Pennsylvania hate blacks more than they hate women. And when I say people, I don’t mean people, I mean white men. How ironic is this? After all this time, after all these stupid articles about how powerless white men are and how they can’t even get into college because of overachieving women and affirmative action and mean lady teachers who expected them to sit still in the third grade even though they were all suffering from terminal attention deficit disorder — after all this, they turn out (surprise!) to have all the power. (As they always did, by the way; I hope you didn’t believe any of those articles.)

To put it bluntly, the next president will be elected by them: the outcome of Tuesday’s primary will depend on whether they go for Hillary or Obama, and the outcome of the general election will depend on whether enough of them vote for McCain. A lot of them will: white men cannot be relied on, as all of us know who have spent a lifetime dating them. And McCain is a compelling candidate, particularly because of the Torture Thing. As for the Democratic hope that McCain’s temper will be a problem, don’t bet on it. A lot of white men have terrible tempers, and what’s more, they think it’s normal.

If Hillary pulls it out in Pennsylvania, and she could, and if she follows it up in Indiana, she can make a credible case that she deserves to be the candidate; these last primaries will show which of the two Democratic candidates is better at overcoming the bias of a vast chunk of the population that has never in its history had to vote for anyone but a candidate who could have been their father or their brother or their son, and who has never had to think of the president of the United States as anyone other than someone they might have been had circumstances been just slightly different.

Hillary’s case is not an attractive one, because what she’ll essentially be saying (and has been saying, although very carefully) is that she can attract more racist white male voters than Obama can. Nonetheless, and as I said, she has a case.

Holy Christ Almighty. Where to even begin.

I think it's fair that Ephron is saying in this piece that white males are dumb, angry, racist, sexist, and unreliable, and only are in positions of power because they are white males. Can we all be in agreement on that?

Good. Because it's all crap.

Why is it that liberals think that, if white men decide not to vote for Obama, it means they HATE black people? Or that if they don't vote for Hillary, they HATE women? Did it ever occur to them that they, like all intelligent people in the United States, don't like their politics? Gee, what a thought.

And what's interesting is how Ephron sneers at the "suffering" white men receive at the hands of mean women, and points out how these white men are "somehow" able to rise above affirmative action, feminism, and the myriad of benefits handed to minorities simply for... being a minority. The difference, my dear Nora, is that most white men don't see themselves as victims. A lot -- but not all -- of minorities, feminists, and liberals do. Therefore, when white men are presented with overwhelming obstacles, they find a way to overcome them. A lot of people who are women and/or minorities do this, too, but it doesn't fit into the "WHITE MEN IN POWER!!" screed.

It's called being in charge of your own life, and not letting anyone stand in the way of achieving your goals but yourself -- liberal victims should try it some time, rather than relying on government programs to give them the world.

And yes, this next election will be decided mainly by white men. They are the largest voting block. In a democratic society, that is the way it works. If the largest voting block was Hispanic women, then Hispanic women would decide. You can't force equality in the amount of people who vote -- although I'm sure liberals would love to. In the name of fairness, of course! To make sure minority voices are heard, they'd be more than happy to silence white male majority voices.

Right, Nora?

But, of course, we can't rely upon white men to do anything except, apparently, keep minorities and women down. And we women know this having dated them.

Nora, if you're reading this, I want you to repeat this after me five hundred times. Actually, just keep repeating it until it sinks into that hate-filled little brain of yours.

MEN. ARE. NOT. THE. ENEMY.

I don't know if you're single or not, but Nora honey, if you are, it isn't because men are unreliable scum. It's probably because you hate men and your insane ideas of what men should be send them running away from you screaming. If you are married to a white man, well... I'd be curious about how it is your husband lives with someone who apparently thinks so lowly of all white men.

And I hate to break it to you, but white men are not the only ones with awful tempers. In fact, I'd argue that women are worse than men are in the temper department. They may not be able to hit as hard or yell as loud, but women are malicious. They're vindictive. They don't forget anything. The quote "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" is in existence for a reason. Piss off a woman, and she will want to make your life a living hell. Settling the dispute won't be good enough, oh no. This is because most women are, quite frankly, vindictive bitches -- ask any twelve-year-old girl which sex is more cruel. I dare you. And that's probably because most women are more emotional than men are. Men can be more logical; when they're in an argument, most of them are able to keep their emotions out of it. A lot of women can't.

I really don't understand the man-hating that goes on so prevalently. Why are white men looked at so much as the enemy? You can say they're "in power", but there are white male CEOs and white male blue collar workers. It isn't like every white man looks like the Monopoly guy, living in some ivory tower, pointing and laughing at the brutal sufferings of his female and minority slaves. What reality do these people live in?

Rachel wonders if it hurts to see the world that way, and kinda hopes so. I really hope so. How awesome would it be if this kind of hate, stupidity, and ignorance was painful?

I know I'd laugh.

Hat Tip: Rachel Lucas

Leave Barry Alone!

You know, maybe us mean 'ole KKKonservatives have just been too hard on poor wittle Barack Obama...



Thanks to Conservative Intelligencer for the hilarious video.

Hillary in hot water with the FEC... again.

Well, sort of. Just consider that my MSM misleading headline of the day, phrased specifically just to get your attention.

What's actually happened is that Judicial Watch has filed a complaint with the FEC about Elton John's fundraiser for her. Uh, sorry, Hill, that's a no-no.

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it filed a formal complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) related to a fundraising concert by musician Sir Elton John on behalf of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. Elton John, a foreign national, is prohibited by federal law, from making any contribution to a federal, state or local election campaign.

“Recent news reports suggest that Hillary Clinton and Hillary Clinton for President have accepted an in-kind contribution from a foreign national, Sir Elton John, in contravention of federal electon laws,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton stated in an April 14 letter to the Office of the General Counsel for the FEC. “On behalf of Judicial Watch and its supporters, I hereby request that the FEC investigate this matter.”

According to a press release issued by the Clinton campaign, the expressed intent of the concert was to raise funds for Hillary’s campaign for president. In the release, Elton John is quoted as saying, “I’m excited to support Hillary by performing at what will be a truly memorable night.”

Press reports also show that Sir Elton John, on March 17, 2008, through the Clinton campaign, sent out a mass email announcing the concert and soliciting support. The Elton John concert took place on April 9, 2008 and raised more than $2.5 million (from the sale of 5,000 tickets) for Hillary Clinton and Hillary Clinton for President.

However, according to 2 U.S.C. § 441e, “Contributions and donations by foreign nationals,” it is illegal for any foreign national to “make a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value…in connection with a Federal, State or local election.” The Washington Times reported March 27, 2008, that a “1981 FEC decision prohibited a foreign national artist from donating his services in connection with fundraising for a U.S. Senate campaign.”

“It looks as if Elton John, a foreign national, gave a valuable, in-kind contribution to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, which is prohibited by law. The FEC and other authorities need to take appropriate action and investigate Hillary Clinton, her campaign, and Elton John,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

Whoopsie.

Luckily for Hillary, the FEC will probably do absolutely nothing about this. However, it seems to me that Judicial Watch has a good point.

Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin