The Witch Hunt Is Back?

Paul Krugman in the August 29th New York Times wrote an op-ed piece lamenting the return of "Witch-Hunt Season" because...get this...Republicans and conservatives oppose President Obama. Krugman compares Obama's Administration to the Clinton Administration in terms of "political opponents" trying to dig up anything they could on the President, regardless of how far-fetched it might be.

I'll be the first to admit Republicans and conservative bought into a lot of anti-Clinton conspiracy theories and that they're buying into a lot of anti-Obama conspiracy theories. Some are far-fetched, and some have at least some basis in fact.

Kind of like Krugman's column, if you think about it.

Krugman's defense of Obama against "Witch-Hunt Season" relies on a carefully-crafted distortion: that Republicans have no reason to investigate the President. With some of the questionably-legal actions the Administration has taken, I believe there are grounds to investigate if for no other reason than to put the questions to rest once and for all. That's pretty much the same way some Republicans went after Clinton, and as we saw then, there were some highly questionable actions the Clinton Administration and the Clintons specifically did. That's not to say all of the suggested investigations were valid, but suggesting that all of the investigations into Clinton and Obama amount to a witch-hunt is laughable.

Krugman's assessment of the situation seems to miss the 8 years between Clinton and Obama where George W. Bush was assaulted on almost a daily basis with accusations, not unlike what Krugman says happened to Clinton and is happening to Obama. Here's a brief list of the accusations against Bush:

- He didn't really win the Florida recount.
- His brother Jeb and Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris conspired to cheat Al Gore.
- He knew about 9/11 and allowed it to happen.
- He arranged for relatives of Osama Bin Laden to be flown out of the US days after 9/11.
- Bush went into Iraq for oil.
- Bush made up the story about Iraq having WMDs.
- Bush made up the story about Iraq trying to acquire yellowcake uranium.
- Bush was ordered to attack Iraq by Big Oil
- Bush was ordered to attack Iraq by Israel.
- He stole the 2004 election in Ohio.
- He allowed Halliburton to get no-bid contracts because of Dick Cheney.
- Bush was responsible for outing CIA agent Valerie Plame because her husband was critical of the Administration.
- He controlled gas prices to make money for his Big Oil buddies.
- Bush ignored the victims of Hurricane Katrina because they were primarily black.
- He allowed banks to run roughshod and worked against regulating them, thus causing the subprime mortgage crisis.

Most, if not all, of these statements have been made by Leftists who have demanded (and in some cases gotten) investigations into these subjects, regardless of how far from the truth they are. But I'm guessing that Krugman didn't have a problem with these investigations because of a) who was the President being investigated, and b) who was pushing for the investigations. That undermines his credibility, what little he has, on this subject.

And let's not forget that it was Democrat strategist James Carville who talked about going to "war" against the Republicans in the latter part of the Clinton years, suggesting that Democrats would investigate any Republican President as vigorously as the Republicans investigated Clinton. Surprise surprise, that happened. Yet, no admonition from Krugman. Funny, huh?

Seems as though the "Witch-Hunt Season" isn't back...because it never stopped.

Ignoring a Problem Doesn't Make It Go Away

Politico reports that President Obama blasted "lies" and "disinformation" recently. Although I hoped he was talking about his own Administration, that hope was crushed when he started talking about the controversies surrounding his birth certificate and whether he's a Muslim. Although I'm not a "birther" or an "Obama is a Muslim" type, I do want to make a point about the President's handling of these issues.

Although they are relatively minor issues from the larger perspective, they persist and grow because the President hasn't definitively addressed them. Contrary to what the Left says, the President has not released a Birth Certificate yet. He has, however, released a Certificate of Live Birth, which isn't quite the same thing. And, no, it's not sufficient to quell the rumors that his Birth Certificate proves he wasn't a natural-born citizen.

This is where his actions come into play. Although he has tried to downplay the significance of the issue, his actions or his apparent actions that seem to underscore the validity of the charges. It's all about the actions matching up with the statements. Walking the walk, and talking the talk. When a leader doesn't walk the walk and talk the talk, his or her leadership is understandably questioned, even by people who might normally let him or her slide on other issues. That's a failure of leadership and that failure has come into play yet again with the "Obama is a Muslim" talk. By not walking the walk and talking the talk, Obama has invited the kind of speculation about which he laments.

The solution is easier than the President thinks or wants to admit: start walking the walk and talking the talk. Give a little, Mr. President, and put these rumors to rest for no other reason than to give everyone peace of mind. Plus, imagine what it would do to those people who have said "Obama wasn't born here" and "Obama is a Muslim." It would make them look absolutely foolish and unreliable, while you would come away from it looking more honest (which is something you really need to do right now...). That's a pure win-win for you, Mr. President. All it would require you to do is suck it up and lead.

Something tells me that won't happen.

Restoring Dishonor

Today is the day of Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor rally on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, an event that could be a historic event in modern times. So, naturally since Glenn Beck is involved, the Left has been trying to tear it down. Here's a sampling of what Leftists have been saying about the event:

- At Beck's "Divine Destiny" event at the Kennedy Center the night before, Media Matters (the Soros funded Leftist lying media organization headed up by proven and admitted liar David Brock) said that the event was "steeped in politics" in spite of Beck's claims to contrary because...some of the speakers spoke out against abortion and political correctness! Oh, horrors! We can't have people exercising their free speech and making points that have religious undertones, can we? By the way, kids, there are people who skew to the left politically who agree with the speakers who came out against abortion and political correctness. Nat Hentoff comes to mind.

- Media Matters also rattled off a list of conservative groups and people with connections (no matter how weak the connection - seriously, they bashed a conservative group for putting ads in one of their publications promoting the 8/28 events) to "prove" the 8/28 event was political. Wow. No wonder Media Matters is so revered by the Left. They dig to find completely irrelevant points to "expose" the Right's "real agenda." Bravo, you magnificent bastards!

- Media Leftists have gone out of their way to portray Beck as a "conservative" and a "controversial talk show host," but have called blacks who oppose the 8/28 rally (like the Rev. Al Sharpton) as "civil rights leaders." Yeah, like Sharpton's new to the controversy scene. Beck's controversial because he said the President has a problem with white people, but Sharpton isn't controversial because he actually does have a problem with white people?

- ABC's Claire Shipman did a report about the 8/28 rally where she took one of Beck's statements out of context and used it to bash him. The statement used in the ABC report shows Beck saying, "Blacks don't own Martin Luther King." However, there was more to the statement. Here is Beck's full statement to put the segment ABC used in context: "Whites don't own Abraham Lincoln. Blacks don't own Martin Luther King." By leaving off the first half of Beck's statement, it changes the context of it all. But I'm sure it wasn't part of an orchestrated effort on the part of the Leftist media to malign Beck and those who are attending the rally today, right?

- NBC's "Today" show featured a report about the rally, Tom Costello suggested that it might be difficult to stop people from having signs "with racial overtones" given how there were similar signs at a rally in DC last year. Of course, when Beck says no signs will be allowed and has done so repeatedly and clearly. I'm sure Costello was going to mention that but just ran out of time, what with trying to drag in Dr. Laura's allegedly racist rant into a completely unrelated matter because Sarah Palin defended Dr. Laura and will be a speaker today.

- MSNBC's Ed Schultz compared the TEA Party movement to the Nazis to try to malign the 8/28 rally and suggested Beck was trying to incite race riots. Of course, the TEA Party folks have clearly said the 8/28 rally isn't anything they are putting on, but why let that fact get in the way of attacking Beck by proxy?

Wow. It's almost as if the Left is scared that conservatives are exercising their First Amendment rights today to express a different opinion than the Left espouses. How radical! How "dangerous."

How utterly predictable. Leftists attack anything they don't understand (which is quite a bit, it turns out) and call anything that deviates from their norm as not just wrong, but morally corrupt and intellectually devoid of anything worthwhile. That gives them the self-imposed righteousness to justify any means necessary to slander the Right. After all, they're fighting evil, so they have to fight fire with fire, right?

Yeah, not so much. See, when you resort to blatant and subtle dishonesty to make a point, your point isn't that strong to begin with. All the Left is doing with Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally is showing how dishonorable they can be.

Surprised? I Didn't Think So

In the "This Shocks Who?" Department, Shirley Sherrod declined the offer of a different job within the Department of Agriculture this week. While Leftists cheer her integrity for ask for Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack to step down, there are questions to be asked about why she decided not to take the job. After all, she said she accepts Vilsack's apology, so that should be the end of it, right?

Not so much. As I suggested in a previous blog post, Sherrod appears to be an opportunist looking for any way to elevate her standing in the world. Going back to the Department of Agriculture, even after the media frenzy surrounded her firing, would not elevate her, no matter how high profile the job would be.

Plus, there's still the possible lawsuit against Andrew Breitbart to consider. With her recent payday from the federal government, she certainly has made money off playing the race card when it suits her needs. If she accepted the job, there is a chance that her superiors might ask her to drop the idea of suing Breitbart, which would mean any potential payday from that venture would disappear. And seeing how she's played her firing so far, I don't think she'd allow that. Instead, she's passing up a sure thing for a chance at hitting the legal jackpot.

And that's a big risk, in my opinion. Filing suit against Breitbart may get her a big payday, but it has a greater chance of backfiring against her, leaving her with legal fees and no job, at least in the short term. And, really, who in their right minds would hire someone who took on her own employer in court?

Sherrod had a chance to show she has moved on, and she didn't take it. That, in and of itself, should show us all where her heart really is.

Distort the Constitution Much?

The Left has never really been that keen on following the Constitution as written because they feel it is a "living document" (meaning that they believe the Constitution means what they say it means, regardless of whether it's grounded in the Constitution). Now, the Left has taken the Constitution to a whole new level with the "community center" that is proposed to be built a few blocks from Ground Zero.

The First Amendment gives Muslims the right to build the mosque/community center under the Establishment Clause, and if you disagree, you're anti-Muslim, stupid, or any number of other derogatory labels. But the thing of it is...the First Amendment doesn't state or imply a right to build anything, let alone a mosque/community center.

The Left's main argument is that the construction of a mosque/community center is an extension of the right to worship. There are two main problems with that argument. First, a person of faith doesn't require a building to worship openly. In my faith, all that's required to establish a church is two people sharing their common faith. Besides, given that there's a mosque within walking distance of the proposed site of the mosque/community center, there are options that are readily available for their religious needs. If the mosque/community center isn't built, nobody is denied their right to worship. It's not the building that makes the right to worship; it's the exhibition of faith.

Second, the Left is being contradictory with its position on the mosque/community center. When it's come to expressions of Christian or Jewish faith, the Left has firmly come down against public expressions of faith, especially on public land. Their logic in those instances is that people of faith should pray only in churches and synagogues since someone might be offended at a public expression of faith. In short, you can pray all you want, just not where people might take offense.

And building a mosque/community center where Muslim prayer will be allowed within a couple of blocks of an act of extremist Muslim terrorism isn't offensive?

Put simply, the Left has no real Constitutional grounds under the Establishment Clause on which to defend the building of the mosque/community center. There may be other Constitutionally-based arguments that could be made, but suggesting that the building of a mosque/community center is an extension of freedom of religion is intellectually dishonest and a gross misinterpretation of the First Amendment.

You Break It...

Now, my administration has a job to do, as well, and that job is to get this economy back on its feet. That's my job. And it’s a job I gladly accept. I love these folks who helped get us in this mess and then suddenly say, "Well, this is Obama’s economy." That’s fine. Give it to me. My job is to solve problems, not to stand on the sidelines and carp and gripe. --- Barack Obama, July 14, 2009

What a difference a year makes. From "Give it to me," to "Don't blame me."

Well, I hate to tell you, Mr. President, but the economy is yours, not just because you're the man at the helm of the American ship or because you said the economy is yours. It's because you took decided action that impacted the economy. From the "stimulus package" that failed to stimulate anything but the wildest dreams of bureaucrats to the various spending proposals that will add to the debt without adding much to the economy, the current economic situation is as much Obama's as it is Bush's, if not more so.

But you'd never hear the President say that these days. Oh, no, he "inherited" this economy according to Obama, so he can't be to blame. However, who will be front and center to take credit for any good economic news? You guessed it.

That's the sign of a weak leader. Although Obama and his followers like to compare the President to Ronald Reagan, there is a vast difference between the two men. Reagan didn't care who got the credit for getting something done as long as it was done. Obama cares about getting the credit, but avoids any criticism, regardless of whether it's legitimate.

Yes, what a difference a year makes. Obama laid claim to the economy, but only when it makes him look good. The problem: he laid claim to it when he thought his plans were going to work. Now that they haven't, he's stuck with it.

The Elephant in the Room

For the past couple of years, Iran has been making moves to build nuclear reactors, citing their desire to move away from an oil-based energy policy. The Left has cheered this move, marking one of the first times in recent history that Leftists have actually cheered for nuclear power.

But, here's the funny thing. Iran is sitting on one of the largest oil reserves in the world. And I can't say that Iran's done much to tap into that reserve. Why would they go nuclear when they have oil? I have a few thoughts on the matter, and none of them are as blissfully ignorant as the Left's thoughts on the same matter.

1) Iran knows they have the US over a barrel. An oil barrel, to be precise. It's no secret that America has a jones for oil. One of our sources of foreign oil is the Middle East, and one of the primary tanker routes is the Strait of Hormuz. And guess where Iran sits. Right along the Strait of Hormuz. Combine that with the fact about Iran's oil reserves that I referenced above and you get a situation that could create an artificial spike in oil prices if Iran decides to cut us off. Going nuclear allows them to hold onto more oil which they can sell back to us as economy-busting prices.

2) They're gearing up for an attack on Israel. It's not secret that the current leadership in Iran wants Israel out of the picture in the Middle East. One of the great advantages Israel has over their Muslim counterparts in that neck of the world is their military. One way to counteract that military is through bigger, more dangerous weapons. Like...oh I don't know...a nuclear bomb. And given that Iran has a deal with Russia to get the kind of uranium used in nuclear weapons instead of the uranium used in nuclear reactors, I'm guessing Iran's going to play a much bigger role in the Middle East's conflict with Israel very soon.

3) Iran will be a battlefront in an impending geopolitical conflict akin to the Cold War. This is a radical notion, but one that has a basis in fact. The fall of the Soviet Union left great opportunity, but also a lot of hard feelings among the communists still there. Although we saw Russia moderate its relationship with the West early on, one would be hard-pressed to say that the relationship hasn't soured again. Blame Bush if you want, but it wouldn't have mattered who was President because they have been planting the seeds for this for decades. Now, consider China's growing influence on the global scene. The fact that China and Russia are on the same page is scary, especially considering both are actively supporting Iran's nuclear aims. Both countries have an ax to grind with America, and they're not above making us fight on ground that isn't theirs. If events continue to unfold like I think they will, once Iran goes nuclear, Russia and China will get more vigorous in their defense of Iran, which would embolden Iran to attack Iraq. That has the potential to draw us into a global war that we won't be able to afford and will most likely lose.

I sincerely hope I'm wrong on these (especially on that third one). But until we're willing to look at the facts and act accordingly, Iran's nuclear capabilities will continue to be the elephant in the room that we're trying to ignore.

And He's a SMART Leftist?

My Leftist counterpart tried to rip me a new one, and I know he'll be reading this since he needs me for his own blog since he's incapable of original thought. But, as he often does, he misses the point completely.

Here is the blog post in question with comments from yours truly.

Reality Now Has An ACTIVIST Bias!

No. As we'll see, the Leftist blogger has little connection to reality.

Lindaman writes:

With all the discussions about a federal court judge overturning California's Proposition 8 on constitutional grounds, there's a concept that has been missed, one that fundamentally changes the judicial system as we know it.

When there is an actual or perceived conflict of interest with a judge trying a case, he or she is expected to recuse himself/herself from the case. That conflict of interest can be either for or against one of the parties involved, such as a racist judge overseeing a murder trial where the accused is a member of a race the judge doesn't like. At that point, a judge that cannot be fair and just to all parties and justice cannot be done.

What does that have to do with the Prop 8 decision? The federal judge is openly gay. Considering the matter before him was a ban on gay marriage, I would say his sexual orientation may have had some role in his decision. And, yes, I would say the same thing if it were a straight judge ruling on the same case.

Uh... so what judge CAN preside over the case?

That's the point. No judge can preside over this case, but Leftists forced the issue and managed to get a practicing gay man to preside over it. This raises the issue I referenced, and the Leftist blogger completely ignored because it he would have to concede the fact that I was right.

The reason I would is because any judge worth his or her salt would have to admit they couldn't rule on the Prop 8 case for the reason I cited above. When people are either straight, gay, or bisexual, there is truly no impartial party who could rule on such a case in a fair and just manner for all parties. Thus, there will always be a conflict of interest in cases like this.

Yet, the Left has no problem with a gay judge overturning a law on constitutional grounds

That's because... THE LEFT DOESN'T DISCRIMINATE LIKE THE RIGHT.

Ooooh, sor-ray. As we've seen repeatedly (ex. Joe Lieberman, the small number of blacks allowed to head up the DNC in lieu of letting rich white men head it up, the Left's support of Margaret Sanger), the Left does discriminate much more frequently than the Right.

(even though there is no civil right to marriage).

There's no constitutional right for ugly, obese bigots to get married, either. It's not the purpose of the Constitution to explicitly list which rights you have. The purpose is to place restrictions on the federal and state government's ability to limit your rights. What Prop 8 did was to declare that a certain segment of the population are entitled to special rights for no other reason than that they promote the status quo, and you just can't do that under the Constitution.

Actually, that's exactly what the Bill of Rights does by laying out the prohibitions of government to intrude on citizens' rights. And last time I checked, the Bill of Rights is considered part of the Constitution.

The burden isn't to prove why there should be a right to gay marriage, the burden is to prove why it is okay to keep gays from exercising that right.

Under your logic, a straight man has the right to sue a lesbian if she denies his "right" to marry her. Under my logic, the case wouldn't even get to trial because no judge has standing to deliver a just verdict.

There is only a right to marry, not a right for heterosexuals and a separate one for homosexuals. Excluding people from that right without a legitimate government interest is unconstitutional, as anyone with common sense knew all along. The words "No Rational Basis" mean something.

How about the fact that the 14th Amendment secures equal protection under the law? Inventing a right out of whole cloth so that gays can "marry" violates the 14th Amendment at its face, as it does not provide equal protection under the law since it elevates one portion of the population above another. And we still haven't gotten to the fact that the 10th Amendment gives the states and the people the authority to rule on this matter since the federal government lacks the authority under the Constitution to rule on this matter and the states haven't given up their authority to the federal government.

Oh, wait. I just did. Sorry. :-)

Of course, nobody loves you from either gender... so naturally you're going to be bitter.

Awww...two personal attacks in lieu of an intelligent comment on the issues I raised? I'm flattered!

But let's switch the roles a bit. Let's say the judge was someone who was to the right of, say, Rush Limbaugh. The Left would be screaming at the top of their lungs about how the judge couldn't possibly be fair and, thus, his ruling should be overturned.

ROFL! Considering Rush Limbaugh's preference for Dominican boys, that's not a good right-wing example.

Of course, this lame attempt at slandering Limbaugh would make more sense if I had said Limbaugh was the judge in this hypothetical example. After all the times the Leftist has blasted me for "mistakes" from a "lack of reading comprehension," one would think that he wouldn't have made such a glaring error. But why let intellectual consistency get in the way of spreading another Leftist lie?

You know, like the Right is doing with this case?

The problem with the Left/Right dichotomy in this situation is that there's a greater principle at work: impartial judges. When we have judges on either side who selectively apply ethics depending on what side they want to win, justice cannot be served. Instead, only political needs are met, and the Prop 8 case is a prime example of that. And thanks in part to a gay judge in California, we've crossed that Rubicon yet again.

Of course, the Left will try to paint anyone opposed to the judge's ruling as homophobic. Be my guest. Call me a homophobe all you want,

Okay! "Homophobe Homophobe Homophobe Homophobe!"

Your attempts to stop being called a homophobe by saying "Call me a homophobe!" doesn't change the fact you're a homophobe. But hey, you've already exposed yourself as a bigot and a racist, and even support anti-semites. So I guess it was about time that you went all the way to the Right and exposed yourself as a homophobe, too.

So, by raising a legitimate question about whether a practicing gay judge can deliver impartial justice to all parties involved and by questioning whether anyone has a right to marry, the Leftist calls me homophobic. That's illogical, even for the Left. Under the Leftist definition of homophobia, wouldn't I have to exhibit a clear hatred for gays? And, no, questioning a "right" of anyone to marry doesn't constitute homophobia, as it covers both straight and gay people. Try again.

but you've just justified another activist judge with more conservative leanings to overrule you should you challenge a gay marriage ban in another state.

And there's not a damn thing you can say about it without looking like a hypocrite.

We can say plenty, liar. For example:

And as far as the age-old right-wing meme of "activist judges!": Should a black judge recuse himself from a civil rights case? Debate over, in one question.

Oooh, sor-ray. See, civil rights cases involve more than just blacks, so a black judge can rule on a civil rights case if the particulars of the case are such that the judge can avoid a real or perceived conflict of interest.

Which is the point I've been making all along.

Oh, look! After all this time, Lindaman finally has a commenter! Now we get to see that "open discussion" you kept whining about on your little "Leftist Coward Watch". Remember that?

For those that are just tuning in: Thomas Lindaman went on a two week bitchfest because I wasn't opening this blog to comments, and he called it a "Leftist Coward Watch". He kept leaving out the fact that this blog was created because he repeatedly backed down.

Actually, it wasn't. The Leftist's own masthead states he is "Exposing Right Wing Lies and Lunacy." Yet, the vast majority of his posts deal with...me. Unless I'm the only "right winger" who lies and is a lunatic, then one could conclude that one of his statements (his masthead or the portion quoted above) is a lie.

And given that he's purposely misstating the purpose of my "Leftist Coward Watch" (which was to point out how it was hypocritical of him to post comments but not allow others to post), it's clear who the liar really is.

And even so, I did offer to open a comment box for him, if he would answer the question as to why he lied about 97% of climatologists being "generic scientists", and why he lied about it again after being faced with that fact. He never acknowledged any of those three facts during his two weeks of bitching. And he still hasn't.

Funny, but I didn't lie about that. Besides, why make it a condition that I accept your discredited premise to allow for me to comment? Shouldn't you want an intellectual exchange if your ideas are superior?

Anyway, now he FINALLY has a commenter on his blog. Let's see what the commenter has to say:

"Karl: It seems the only option is to find a bisexual or asexual judge to avoid the conflict you speak of. Good luck with that. Practicality has to enter into the equation at some point."

Oh, SNAP! This guy ain't one of your good close racist AOLers! That comment is... rational! And a tough one for a right-winger to respond to! Will Lindaman rise to the challenge?

Now, let's see what Lindaman had to say in response to him, after TWO WEEKS of waiting...

Hmm... Lindaman replied with ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.


Of course, the Leftist missed the point Karl made. Karl actually agreed with me. Unless he wanted me to post "dittos," there really isn't a need to respond.

Unless, of course, the Leftist is trying to set up a straw man argument in lieu of an actual argument...

Lindaman... you mean you aren't even going to do what you've done before in your comment boxes, and call Karl a "slapnutz"? Which is an insult that doesn't even make sense, and in fact exposes you as a self-loathing closet case?

Except for the fact that Karl agreed with me. Why would I insult someone who agreed with me?

Of course, now that you've been exposed as ducking a comment, you might scramble for a response now. It won't be easy considering you don't make passive-aggressive smileys on the blog like you did chatrooms.

Ducking a comment I agreed with? That makes no sense, even for a Leftist. :-)


Now that I've spent far too much time pointing out the Leftist blogger's intellectual failures, I think we can all see he doesn't allow comments. He's afraid that a commenter will take him to task for his dishonesty and hypocrisy.

Uncommon Allies

What do humorist Mark Twain and soon-to-be-ex-talk radio show host Dr. Laura Schlessinger have in common? The answer may surprise you, but we'll get to that in a bit.

First, I have to say that I'm not a Dr. Laura fan. In the few times I've listened to her, I've found her to be sanctimonious, condescending, and above all else, unoriginal. Every problem seems to have the same answer: listen to Dr. Laura's brusque advice. And while we're here, if you rely on a talk radio host as your moral authority, you have bigger problems than shacking up with someone to worry about.

Having said that, I feel the controversy surrounding her use of the n-word is nonsense contrived by the Left to try to take down someone who has been a thorn in their collective sides. It's spiteful at best, but at worst it's dangerous to free speech. Like it or not, racism (even imaginary racism) is protected speech. The thing about free speech is that, although you are guaranteed a right to speak, you are not guaranteed a right to an audience. If you don't like Dr. Laura, turn on NPR, and vice versa.

This is not to say Dr. Laura's without fault here. As a target of the Left, a political group that has no problem taking comments out of context and railing against them (ex. Media Matters talking about Glenn Beck), she should have known the use of the n-word would have gotten them salivating and calling for her to be taken off the air. She unwittingly gave the Left what they wanted: a reason to take her out of context and then take her down.

Of course, the Left never lets a little thing like context get in the way of a good narrative. It's like how the Left has railed against Huckleberry Finn in the 90s. They didn't bother to understand the setting of the book or the context of the use of the n-word. All they saw was the n-word, and on that, they called the book racist. Yet, the book makes a serious point about being colorblind when it comes to racial relationships and points out the hypocrisy in those who saw (and continue to see) only race.

So, what do Mark Twain and Dr. Laura have in common? They've both been criticized by the Left for making a valid point about race relations that the Left was able to take out of context.

Fitzgerald's Fumble

With former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich being found guilty of 1 out of 24 counts, a lot of people are focusing on one juror as the reason the jury was deadlocked. However, one person seems to be escaping what I feel is well-deserved scrutiny.

US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald.

The Blagojevich trial is the second high profile case Fitzgerald has botched, the first being the investigation into who "outed" Valerie Plame. Even after it came out that Richard Armitage "outed" Plame, not Robert Novak or Scooter Libby, Fitzgerald went ahead with the prosecution of Libby and won a conviction over an immaterial point, and only after the jury was stacked and admitted they didn't have any real reason to convict Libby, aside from a desire to see someone take the fall for it.

And now, he earned a similar meaningless conviction against Blagojevich.

At some point, shouldn't we be expecting a federal prosecutor to, oh I don't know, win a meaningful conviction every so often? I know he's a government employee, but damn! Even they have some performance standards.

Fitzgerald's handling of the two big cases on his recent resume shows he's not capable. He seems to love the sound of his own voice, making statements that backfire on him on a regular basis and make him look foolish. Just like Joe Biden, only with the power to prosecute you...badly.

If we were serious about cutting government waste, I'd say a good place to start would be to fire Fitzgerald.

A Slogan By Any Other Name

With everything on his plate, President Obama is trying his hand at stand-up comedy. During a speech at a fundraiser, Obama said that the slogan of the Republican Party is "No, We Can't." Wow. I'd slap my knee, but it would require me to actually think such a hack line was funny and I'm afraid all the hopeity-change in the world isn't going to make it suck any less.

It's nice that the President is taking the time to take swipes at the Republican Party for being negative, but I think he should spend a little more time looking at the Congressional makeup. His party controls both houses of Congress and they have the votes (at least the House) along party lines to push through anything they want. Calling the GOP the "Party of No" may win you points with the Daily Kosmonauts, but it doesn't work with people who actually pay attention.

In other words, anyone who isn't a Leftist.

And while we're here, why don't we take a closer look at what the GOP has said "no" to and why.

- Republicans said no to extending unemployment benefits recently because keeping people on unemployment won't get them back into a job. And right now, we need people employed more than we need them beholden to government. What will happen after this extension runs out? Wanna bet there'll be another bill to extend benefits out further?

- Republicans said no to a health care reform bill written by the very industry that the bill would allegedly regulate because there was very little actual reform in the bill. Gee. Maybe that's why the health care reform bill was supported by the insurance industry so much...

- Republicans said no to a stimulus package because they realized that it was the federal equivalent of a "honey do" list. The more we dive into how the stimulus funds were allocated and spent, the more we realize just how misguided it was to give away the money in the first place. All it did was make busy work for people who would vote Democrat anyway without actually doing much economic stimulation.

- Republicans said no to a government takeover of the automotive industry because government control of anything tends to make it less efficient and more costly. Plus, with the government's thumb on the scales, it's hard to know for certain whether the automakers who took bailout money actually stayed afloat on their own or solely because the government kept pumping money into them. Seriously, the Chevy Volt? It's a pimped-out Prius!

- Republicans said no to Wall Street reform because...well, because it was exactly like the health care reform bill, only with "Wall Street" being substituted for "insurance providers."

- Republicans said no to a mosque/Muslim community center possibly being built two blocks from Ground Zero because they understand that it's not about religious freedom; it's about radical Islam fooling enough people to allow them to put a mosque near the site of a terrorist act that they committed. Is there anyone on the Left who sees the problem with the location of this community center? I hope so, but I fear not.

Seems to me that the "Party of No" is on the right side of these issues. Sometimes saying yes to everything is the worst thing you can do. It's like asking an alcoholic who is having a rough go of sobriety whether he or she wants some booze. Once you say yes to something like that, it gets harder to say no because you're feeding the very thing that threatens to destroy us. All it takes is one moment of weakness for the slide down the slippery slope to begin.

As far as the slogan, Mr. President, let me help you. The Republican slogan isn't "No, We Can't." It's "No, We Shouldn't." And they'd be right.

A Bad Judgment Call

With all the discussions about a federal court judge overturning California's Proposition 8 on constitutional grounds, there's a concept that has been missed, one that fundamentally changes the judicial system as we know it.

When there is an actual or perceived conflict of interest with a judge trying a case, he or she is expected to recuse himself/herself from the case. That conflict of interest can be either for or against one of the parties involved, such as a racist judge overseeing a murder trial where the accused is a member of a race the judge doesn't like. At that point, a judge that cannot be fair and just to all parties and justice cannot be done.

What does that have to do with the Prop 8 decision? The federal judge is openly gay. Considering the matter before him was a ban on gay marriage, I would say his sexual orientation may have had some role in his decision. And, yes, I would say the same thing if it were a straight judge ruling on the same case.

The reason I would is because any judge worth his or her salt would have to admit they couldn't rule on the Prop 8 case for the reason I cited above. When people are either straight, gay, or bisexual, there is truly no impartial party who could rule on such a case in a fair and just manner for all parties. Thus, there will always be a conflict of interest in cases like this.

Yet, the Left has no problem with a gay judge overturning a law on constitutional grounds (even though there is no civil right to marriage). But let's switch the roles a bit. Let's say the judge was someone who was to the right of, say, Rush Limbaugh. The Left would be screaming at the top of their lungs about how the judge couldn't possibly be fair and, thus, his ruling should be overturned.

You know, like the Right is doing with this case?

The problem with the Left/Right dichotomy in this situation is that there's a greater principle at work: impartial judges. When we have judges on either side who selectively apply ethics depending on what side they want to win, justice cannot be served. Instead, only political needs are met, and the Prop 8 case is a prime example of that. And thanks in part to a gay judge in California, we've crossed that Rubicon yet again.

Of course, the Left will try to paint anyone opposed to the judge's ruling as homophobic. Be my guest. Call me a homophobe all you want, but you've just justified another activist judge with more conservative leanings to overrule you should you challenge a gay marriage ban in another state.

And there's not a damn thing you can say about it without looking like a hypocrite.

The Revolving Door

There's an old saying: "When it rains, it pours." Usually, it's a saying that's invoked when a series of unexpected negative events happens in a short span of time. And given some of the issues that have come up recently, Democrats have to feel like they're caught in a monsoon.

Although it may be raining cats and dogs on the Left right now, there is an element of repetition in the bad news that is coming their way. I get the feeling as this election season rolls on, we're going to see more than a few of the following situations come back over and over again.

- Charlie Rangel's ethics violations. When Nancy Pelosi was preparing to take the reins of power in the House, she promised to "drain the swamp" to take a bold stand against the "Culture of Corruption." With Rangel being brought up on a number of ethics violations and welcoming an investigation into said charges in an attempt to clear his name, Congressional Democrats have to be praying that Rangel will either step down voluntarily or that the investigation ends quickly. The longer it goes into the election year, the worse it looks for Congressional Democrats.

- Maxine Waters' ethics violations. Same as above, but with Maxine Waters instead of Charlie Rangel. And what's worse for the Democrats is that the Waters situation is just getting started. Not good.

- Shirley Sherrod. On the surface, the Left thinks the Sherrod situation is a winner for them, but from a larger perspective, it could wind up being a loser. And the sad thing is that they could have seen this coming if they had paid attention to the red flags that were being raised. When Sherrod couldn't decide whether to take a new position within the Obama Administration but decided to sue Andrew Breitbart relatively quickly, that should have made someone at DNC headquarters say, "This is going to come back to bite us." And I think it will because it reflects a level of incompetence by the Obama Administration that won't help the party make a cogent case for reelection in Congress.

- The economy. Joe Biden's overly optimistic (and often contradictory) statements about the economy aside, we aren't seeing much positive activity with the economy. Elections are driven by voters' pocketbooks, and there are a lot of people who are out of work and wondering when the Obama Administration and Congress are going to do something to help them get back on their feet. And they aren't seeing anything happening. What they're seeing is a bunch of promises that aren't being fulfilled. TARP, the stimulus package, HAMP, nothing seems to be working, and all the Administration and Congress can do is pat itself on the back for averting a disaster that they can't tell for sure they stopped and won't admit they had a hand in causing.

- Attacks on the TEA Parties. The Left's attacks on the TEA Parties have gone from the ridiculous (the TEA Parties are whites-only events) to the sublimely ridiculous (the TEA Parties are irrelevant). As it turns out, public opinion is largely in favor of the TEA Party movement because the TEA Parties echo the sentiments of a wide swath of the population. Calling it racist or out of touch or irrelevant is like saying those things to most of America, and the Left isn't going to win by torquing off voters like that.

- Immigration. Although the Obama Administration may have won a judicial victory by having portions of the Arizona immigration law suspended by a judge, there are a number of ways it could come back to blow up in the Left's faces. By standing against the Arizona law, the Left has stood against the opinions of a majority of Americans, but has also risked losing support of union workers since they will be the ones directly impacted by letting illegal immigrants stay here and take jobs that could go to union workers. And that's not counting other ways that the Arizona situation can come back to haunt Democrats, such as whether local and state officials will be allowed to act on potential terrorist activity given the judge's ruling. Let's see how that works out.

- The growing rift between the Obama Administration and Congress. As I stated in a previous blog, the Administration and Congress aren't getting along as well as expected. The health care reform debate exposed a disconnect between the Obama Administration and Congress, much to the chagrin of Congressional leadership. When Obama pushed for health care reform, Congress expected him to take the lead on it, but instead he took his hands off the wheel and allowed Congressional Democrats to try to steer it. As we saw, they didn't do a very good job, which made the approval process that much longer, and did far more damage to Obama and Congressional Democrats. It's gotten to the point that many Congressional candidates don't want Obama anywhere near them, which is something the Left reveled in when it happened to George W. Bush later in his Presidency. Now, they're experiencing what they mocked, and it's not working out well for them.

These, and others that I haven't mentioned, may become the Left's Waterloo in November. And I, for one, will be enjoying the fireworks.