Last week, Fox News talking head and columnist Kirsten Powers wrote a column for USA Today that accused legislators in Kansas of creating a new system of “Jim Crow” laws with their efforts to protect religious believers from being forced to violate their consciences by providing services to gay nuptials.

Four days later, she published another piece, this time in The Daily Beast, taking aim at similarly minded legislation in Arizona.

There’s some debate about the breadth and effects of the Kansas and Arizona legislation. I’m not particularly interested in the specifics of the proposed laws, mainly because the U.S. Supreme Court will overturn them in the blink of an eye as they did with California’s Prop. 8.

There’s no doubt, however, that there is need for this type of legislation. From Colorado to Oregon to New Mexico, religious believers are being threatened with fines, the shutdown of their businesses and even jail time for refusing to participate in same-sex “wedding” ceremonies.

Pope Powers conveniently absolves any Christian wedding service supplier of what they might see as complicity in a sinful act because apparently gays don’t see their relationship as sinful or something.

 This is why the first line of analysis here has to be whether society really believes that baking a wedding cake or arranging flowers or taking pictures (or providing any other service) is an affirmation. This case simply has not been made, nor can it be, because it defies logic.  If you lined up 100 married couples and asked them if their florist “affirmed” their wedding, they would be baffled by the question.

Well, if the gay couple doesn’t see it that way, then you’re absolved. That makes everything so easy. In her first column, Powers likened serving the gay couple to prison ministries. I never really thought that prison ministries provided shivs to inmates who wanted to use them on guards or other inmates, but there are plenty of grossly imperfect analogies to go around.

Everything that should be said on this topic has already been said, somewhere, online. So I’ll just highlight a couple of parts of responses that mirror my thinking on this issue.

First, I’ve mentioned it before, but remember when this whole issue was all about tolerance? This headline says it all: “When ‘leave us alone’ became ‘bake us a cake!'”

Second, this bit from Elizabeth Scalia:

Powers ends her piece writing, “Maybe they should just ask themselves, ‘What would Jesus do?’ I think he’d bake the cake.”

Perhaps he might; it seems to me that baking a cake for a same-sex wedding, even if one does not agree with the concept, may well come under the heading of walking along a road for two miles with someone who “presses you into service” for one.

But perhaps he wouldn’t; all we can do is make our best guesses. True, if the road is heading toward that nebulous region of “tolerance” that has become so difficult to locate in American society, we should all be willing to walk a ways with each other, but eventually we will reach departure points that can and should be respected. Many can travel as far as Powers’ “he’d bake the cake” exit, but then must get off, before the road reaches “Jesus would officiate at a same-sex wedding.” That is the logical next stop, and a place we simply cannot get to, if we are following Jesus’ map.

And from Erick Erickson over at RedState comes the crux of the entire issue:

It is not staggering that there are aggrieved gay rights activists who think the state should be able to force people to recognize as normal that which most Christians view as sinful. What is staggering is the number of Christians who apparently think the State has the right to decide and enforce this issue.

You might think Jesus would bake a cake for a gay wedding. I think you are wrong. I do not think Jesus Christ would participate in the ratification of a sin — and a marriage between two people of the same sex is a sin.  Are you really going to tell the millions of Christians in the United States who think otherwise that not only are they wrong, but the state should be able to force your opinion of what Jesus would do on them? In your pride, you might think 2000 years of Christian orthodoxy and the majority of practicing Christians in the world today are wrong — but don’t think among people of practicing Christian faith you are in the majority.

I understand if you are not a believer and define yourself based on your sexual preference that you think the government should legitimize you by forcing others to treat you in a particular way. But it boggles my mind to think any Christian should want the government to force their view of Christianity on another believer.

If you think the government should be able to force Christians to provide goods and services to a gay wedding or risk losing their business, why not command a preacher’s service? If a Christian baker cannot opt out, why should a preacher be able to opt out? And why not take from churches their tax exempt status if they fail to participate?

Christians should serve. But the government should not force them to.

When George W. Bush is in the White House, the shrill screams from the left was about the imminent theocracy that was going to be forced on the nation because Christians believed abortion was wrong. Now, the same leftists who were waving the bloody flag are intent on forcing religious believers into second-class citizenship. You may not operate a business according to your conscience or your principles or the HHS with its contraceptive mandate or gay-rights activists with their “human rights” commissions and allies like Powers will stop you.

And it’s not clear how far Powers would actually allow the standard that she has set to be applied. Would a Christian IT worker be forced to get a porn site up and running? Would a gay business be forced to cater a Westboro Baptist Church social?

Finally, Ed Morrisey:

The religious beliefs of these vendors can and should be assumed to be sincerely held, and under the law the government is required to assume that about religious beliefs. Wedding cakes and photographers are not exactly scarce commodities, nor are they an overriding state interest in the same sense that housing might be in discrimination claims. Both sides have used the legal and legislative systems like sledgehammers, and states have been too eager to impose forced participation rather than foster tolerance and let adults figure out their options.

Tolerance does not mean acceptance or participation. It means allowing people to make their own choices about what they choose to do, and to respect the ability of their fellow citizens to do the same as long as it does no injury to them. What this contretemps shows is that America is getting a lot more intolerant the more “tolerant” we become.


Other interesting reading on this issue:

A Live-And-Let-Live Law

Why I cannot sell a wedding cake to a same-sex couple

Of Consciences and Cakes

Against Christian Hypocrisy


VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)

Back at the height of Catastrophic Anthropogenic (human-caused) Global Warming alarmism, our betters in Sacramento passed Assembly Bill 32 which created a carbon marketplace (a concept championed by the likes of Enron) that oil producers and power plant operators would have to participate in by buying credits to offset their carbon dioxide output.

After several years of ramping up, AB32 kicks into high gear next year. Like most government forays into the marketplace, it’s having unintended consequences in the form of even higher gas prices.

Experts expect that will lead to a rise in gas prices that could fluctuate unpredictably.

Read that carefully. It’s not suggesting that under some circumstances gas prices would go down. No, gas prices will fluctuate from “a little higher” to “Arm, leg.”

But Democrats have a plan that will solve this problem: A new tax.

“We must reduce the amount of carbon we put into the air, and that will come with a price.
Nothing is free. A carbon tax is not free and cap and trade is not free,” Steinberg said while unveiling the proposal to the Sacramento Press Club.

“Under either, applied to fuel, consumers will undoubtedly pay more at the pump. It may not be popular to say, but that’s necessary. Higher prices discourage demand. if carbon pricing doesn’t sting, at least a little bit, we won’t change our habits.”

Which, of course, will further the income inequality in the state as gas taxes are inherently regressive. Google’s billionaires in the Silicon Valley will whine, but the people in the Central Valley will feel the real pinch.

But this is all for your own good.

Steinberg’s plan calls for spending the taxes generated — estimated at more than $3 billion in the first year — to improve public transportation and give income tax credits to California families making up to $75,000 a year. That would give about $600 back to the average qualifying household, Steinberg said.

“How many more Californians could we lift from the reach of poverty while healing our climate at the same time?” Steinberg said.

It’s a tax that heals the planet and lifts people out of poverty! Also, unicorns!

Seriously, think about the math there for a second. Does anyone really believe that anyone making less than $75,000 is going to come out ahead under this scheme?

On a related note: Government raises taxes on cigarettes with the belief that higher prices will lower demand. It raises taxes on gasoline in the belief that people will drive less the more the price goes up. Both of these are logical and have sound economic theories behind them. Then they go and raise the minimum wage and state that higher prices on labor won’t cause businesses to try and use less of it.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

And you shouldn’t get angry at a lefty hack for being a lefty hack.

I don’t blame MIT Economist Jonathan Gruber for this laughable piece of analysis that purports to claim that Obamacare is a net gain to the economy less than a week after the Congressional Budget Office released a report that estimated Obamacare will reduce employment by 2.5 million full-time equivalent positions over the next decade.

Who I do blame is the Los Angeles Times for their vanilla tagline describing Mr. Gruber.

Jonathan Gruber is a professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a member of the Scholars Strategy Network.

What the Times didn’t bother to tell its readers is that Mr. Gruber has been paid almost $300,000 by the Obama administration for “special studies and analysis” of health care bills.

This is pretty poor journalism not to disclose this fact, but not unexpected by the left-leaning editorial page.

Don’t let journalists sell you on their unbiased umpire who calls ‘em as they see ‘em schtick. The difference between journalism now and journalism more than a decade ago is that journalists in 20th century at least made an effort to fake impartiality.

Journalism. Wound. Self-inflicted.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)

I posted a link to this article by Chris Conover at Forbes’ Apothecary blog at my “night job” website the other day. If this graphic turns out to be true, then expect Obamacare to go down in flames, taking a lot of Democrats with it.


These numbers, if accurate, are devastating. The “losers” category is 55.3 percent of Americans. The “winners” is just over 11 percent. For that 1/3 who experience no real consequences from Obamacare, you can bet the majority of them will turn against it as well—they’ll know more losers than they will winners.

When all is said and done, were Obamacare fully in place right now, 166 million of today’s population could reasonably count themselves as losers in various ways, while only 34.6 million would be lucky enough to count as winners. That’s a ratio of 4.8 losers for every winner–not a particularly good outcome for any policy initiative, much less a “signature” legislative initiative.

Even if we focus on big winners (11.4 million) vs. big losers (40.3 million) this imbalance does not change appreciably: there are 3.6 big losers for every big winner. Similarly, if we ignore “minimal” winners and losers, there’s still 2.7 remaining losers for each remaining winner. No matter how we slice and dice the results, the conclusion challenges the conventional wisdom of the law’s proponents. Losers actually vastly outnumber winners regardless of which definition is used.

If this was how Obamacare was originally sold, you can guarantee that it would never have passed Congress in the first place. If this had come out in 2012, you can bet that President Obama would’ve never been reelected.


VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)

As my time in journalism school at Cal Poly continues to retreat into the dim corners of my memory, there are still handful of in-class incidents that I remember from those halcyon days of the early ’90s.

This morning on “Fox News Sunday,” host Chris Wallace made a statement that triggered on of those memories.

Professor Victor Valle, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, had just started teaching in the journalism program and I was in his reporting class. The day’s topic was how to cover a story with competing interests and the example he used to start the discussion was a video of the homosexual rights group ACT UP vandalizing a Catholic church.

After showing the video, Valle opened up the class discussion with something along the lines of you have two competing interests here: The Catholic has the right not to be vandalized, but the gay activists are protesting the church’s position on contraception and how it leads to the spread of AIDS in the gay community. How do we weigh these two sides when writing a story on this topic?

I didn’t see it. I raised my hand and pointed out the logical leaps required to hold the Catholic church to blame for the spread of AIDS because they opposed condom use.

  1. Yes, the Catholic church opposes the use of condoms, but…
  2. The Catholic church also preaches sexual abstinence before marriage.
  3. Gays cannot marry. (This is the early ’90s, so I didn’t even need to get into fact that Catholics believe homosexual behavior is sinful in and of itself.)
  4. If the ACT UP protesters followed Catholic teaching from A-Z, it would be nearly impossible for them to become infected with AIDS. What right did they have to attack the Catholic church for its position on condoms as if that’s the only Catholic doctrine they were violating that was getting them sick.

By the time I was finished, there were no “competing interests” to weigh. The vandals were wrong and you wrote the story with just one interest: The church didn’t deserve to be vandalized.

This morning, during a debate between the head of NARAL and the lawyer defending the Little Sisters of the Poor in a lawsuit over Obama’s contraception mandate, host Chris Wallace wrongly used the same formulation from Professor Valle’s class more than two decades ago.

Let me bring this back, because it seems to me that there were two legitimate competing interests here. One is religious freedom and the other is women’s access to health care.

No, the problem as it’s been stated so many times before the only interest here is religious freedom. The nuns aren’t seeking to prohibit anyone’s “access to health care.” (Is the local Rite-Aid pharmacy limiting my access to “health care” when they put the condoms in a locked display case?) They don’t want to be forced to pay to fund what they see to be someone else’s sinful behavior.

As National Review writer Charles C.W. Cooke (and others) have pointed out, the formulation NARAL and the Obama administration is pushing would be paralleled by saying that National Review is infringing on Cooke’s 2nd Amendment rights because they refuse to buy him an AR-15.

There is no “access to health care” issue here. There never has been. It would be nice if the mainstream media could wrap their simple minds around it.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 5.0/5 (3 votes cast)

Let me start out by saying that I think there needs to be some sort of social safety net for Americans who find themselves out of work or  down on their luck.

However, I think the one we have now is far too generous and we’ve reached a point where too many Americans are far too eager suckle at the public teat and the easy availability of government assistance has caused a breakdown in societal and family ties.

Case in point: Former GOP Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts on “Fox News Sunday” this morning discussing the possible extension of unemployment insurance to 99-weeks (again, for going on 5 years):

We have done it before. We did it — it will probably pass, the three-month proposal put forth by Reid and Heller is something that will move forward. But as a Republican, I made proposals to just find a way to pay for it. Happy to help. My mom is on welfare. [emphasis added]

Really? The mother of a former U.S. senator whose net worth two years ago was estimated between $314,652 and $1,927,614? (And it would be decidedly atypical if his income as a former senator went down after leaving office.) Is  he really not helping his needy mother out? If he is, is she not reporting that income to continue receiving aid from taxpayers?

Prior to FDR’s New Deal and its extension under LBJ’s Great Society, churches, mutual aid societies and families were the social units that helped out those down on their luck. Government takeovers through various welfare programs have largely caused mutual aid societies to cease to exist, and churches are no longer seen by many as a primary source of help to the needy. (Test: Commission a poll to gauge awareness of SNAP, Obamaphones, etc. vs. the term “mutual aid society” and see if most of the public even knows what the latter are/were.)

Now, the family unit is no longer a bedrock societal building block. It’s one thing if you’re talking about a minimum wage, part-time employee at McDonald’s being unable to help out a sibling or parent who doesn’t have a job, but it’s something completely different when you’ve got a former U.S. senator of substantial means who is unwilling to help his own mother.

Instead of creating a safety net where the government is the last resort of the needy, it is the first resort. Government, then church, then the wealthy will help out their own family if the first two somehow fail.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)

To borrow a line from “Best of the Web Today”: Longest blog post ever written.

I’m not going to actually try to provide a one-stop post detailing every screw-up surrounding the president’s signature health insurance reform. I’ve spent a lot of time over at my “second job” posting link after link after link to stories of Obamacare SNAFUs, FUBARs and glitches.  If Democrats continue to hold fast to defending the clusterf— that is Obamacare, I can see a decade or two of GOP dominance (if they don’t screw it up), simply because those swing voters in the middle aren’t going to quickly forgive or forget what’s been done to the health insurance, doctors and hospitals they liked.

While much of the reporting in the past couple of months has been focused on Obamacare horror stories, make no mistake there will be “winners” in this debacle—even if it’s only limited to those who will be going on Medicaid due to the expansion of that program to people at 400 percent of the poverty level. (And those new Medicaid enrollees might be wary of what they’re getting.)

The recent focus has been on the “losers” because of that old journalism saw: “If it bleeds, it leads.” You can get some “happy” stories about the Obamacare winners, but the ones that are gripping, the ones that people remember, are the horror stories.

Which brings me to this article from a couple weeks ago courtesy of the New York Times.

Mike Horrigan is a lifelong Democrat with heart problems who supports President Obama’s health care law because he expects it will help many people obtain better insurance, including himself.

But under the new law, the Affordable Care Act, Mr. Horrigan’s coverage by a state high-risk insurance program was eliminated, then replaced by a more expensive plan. His wife’s individual plan was canceled for being substandard, then suddenly renewed — also at a higher price.

Here’s the big problem with Obamacare: Mike Horrigan is supposed to be a winner under the program, instead he’s a loser.

Horrigan was one of those disadvantaged under the old system. He had a pre-existing condition. He was difficult to insure. He got his insurance through a high-risk program run by the state.

One of the key equalizers in Obamacare was that health insurance companies could no longer charge sicker individuals more than healthy ones. (Which effectively made health insurance companies no longer health insurers, but healthcare “facilitators” of some sort.) So, apply that Obamacare regulation to Horrigan and what should you expect to happen?

You expect Horrigan’s costs to go down. He’s now supposed to be subsidized by the premiums of all those healthy people. Their costs should be higher than they would be pre-Obamacare, and Horrigan’s should be lower.

But it isn’t.


I suspect it’s some combination of the ridiculous one-size-fits-all mandates that Democrats put into the legislation (does Mr. Horrigan really need maternity coverage?) and the government and insurance companies trying to torture actuarial tables to produce some numbers they were never designed to produce so the companies don’t simply go bankrupt by guessing wrong.

Imagine the idiots in Washington passing a law that says that you can’t have different auto insurance rates based upon age, gender and driving history. Now, suddenly, insurance companies have to figure out how much to charge so they can stay a going concern when they can’t charge different prices to a 16-year-old “invincible” boy and a 45-year-old mother of two. That’s what they’ve done to the health insurance market.

It’s quickly becoming obvious that Obamacare (not just the web portal) isn’t going to do even the smallest portion of what President Obama and the Democrats promised. It’s not going to solve the problem of 30 million uninsured Americans. (In fact, it’s very likely that due to the 5 million-plus individual plan cancellations and the slow pace of Obamacare enrollments, that there will be more uninsured Americans on Jan. 1 than their were on Sept. 31.) It’s not going to bend the cost curve down. It’s not going to improve peoples health outcomes.

Is the average family going to save $2,500 over their 2009 premiums under Obamacare? No. It’s likely that the only people who save money under Obamacare are those who are put on the expanded Medicaid program  or receive heavy subsidies.

Back to the Times article:

Rachel Bryant, a small-business owner who lives just outside Winston-Salem, felt unlucky when she received a notice from Blue Cross saying that her plan was being canceled and that the replacement would raise her monthly bill to $675 from $408.

But when Ms. Bryant, a single mother of two young children who earns about $30,000 through her legal services business, finally succeeded after many tries to log onto the online marketplace,, she learned she was eligible for subsidies that would bring down her premiums to just $150 a month.

“I’m extremely happy,” said Ms. Bryant, 36. “I’m not going to go bankrupt because of medical bills. I’m looking forward to it, and I’ll put up with the frustration and the bother.”

Well, she had insurance before, so she wasn’t going to go bankrupt. But if she could afford $408 a month for her health insurance, can someone explain to me why the government wants to raise that price to $675 and then put other taxpayers (or the Chinese) on the hook for $525?

Any honest individual with a basic grasp of math will quickly understand that this funding model is not sustainable.

I believe President Obama when he says he will block any repeal of Obamacare while he is president. I suspect there are enough Americans like the Horrigans who will continue to whistle past the graveyard and keep enough Democrats in the House and Senate to prevent a 2/3rds majority to override a veto.

But it won’t long survive Obama’s departure.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 5.0/5 (2 votes cast)

The Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto has uncovered these hypocrisies on the part of  New York Times columnist Paul Krugman before, but today’s is especially amusing.

Paul Krugman tells different stories depending on his audience

Paul Krugman tells different stories depending on his audience

The tune never changes. Krugman will deny the obvious in an effort to forward the ball for his team.

I fully expect in the coming days to hear my House Rep., Lois Capps, recycle her bogus claim that somehow unemployment insurance is an economic stimulus. It’s a crock, but it’s as predictable as the sun rising in the East.

And you’ve also got this howler from National Journal’s Ron Fournier a purported journalist who sees his job to bash the GOP (I’ve considered applying to National Journal as their “Democrat Bashing” columnist, but they’re apparently not filling that position), calling the GOP “heartless” because they won’t spend money they don’t have.

This prompted an appropriate question from Andrew McCoy:

And one wonders why there’s so little trust of politicians or the media.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)

House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi went on NBC’s “Meet the Press” yesterday and demonstrated an impressive tenacity. She holds fast to her talking points with such tenacity that Lawrence Taylor in his prime couldn’t have ripped a football from her grasp.

I love how Pelosi (and interviewer David Gregory) seem oblivious to the fact that if the people in question already have a health care plan that Obamacare is now making illegal, the fact that now they can’t be denied for a pre-existing condition isn’t exactly a selling point—they already had a plan.

This next one demonstrates similar tenacity. Commentator Zerlina Maxwell has been handed the talking points and not even the 16-ton weight of reality can knock it out of her relatively empty head.

Two points to make:

  1. At  about 2:45 Maxwell makes the point that she’s currently uninsured. Here’s someone who has quite nice clothes, is a New York Daily News contributor, and I’m pretty sure she doesn’t show up on Fox News for free, confessing that she’s irresponsible and currently does not have insurance.
  2. At about 3:10, in response to the obvious truth (Maxwell: “That’s Not True.”) that young people are needed to pay to make the exchanges work says that people will sign up for insurance—particularly women—will buy insurance because they “don’t want to roll the dice” and then she plays the “gender” card.

Try to get into Maxwell’s head for a minute (there’s a lot of free space, we can all fit in) and try to reconcile the fact that she doesn’t have insurance right now (by choice!) and that its somehow sexist to suggest that young women will be hesitant to buy expensive insurance they likely won’t need (as she is currently doing).

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)

Politics ain’t beanball.

Despite repeated claims that America is more divided politically now than ever (often forgetting the unpleasantness from 1861-65 during which many feelings were hurt), modern-day politics aren’t really appreciably nastier than they have been for the past two centuries. (I heartily recommend Edward J. Larson’s “A Magnificent Catastrophe” on the election of 1800 as evidence of this fact.)

Once upon a time, the same could be said for journalism. There were Democrat papers and there were Republican papers (and Whig papers, etc.). Journalists took sides.

Then, about 50 or so years ago, in a fit of marketing genius, newspaper publishers sought to sell papers to both the left and right by trumpeting unbiased journalism. Journalism ceased to be a trade that was learned in actual newsrooms and became some sort of higher calling learned at universities. (Blame Woodward and Bernstein.)

If they believed it for a few decades, it’s become clear since then that journalists are no better than any other human being at putting aside their preconceptions and biases—they’re just better at hiding them.

On cable news, we’ve largely returned to the days of journalists (or commentators or analysts) having opinions and not being afraid to share them. Fox News came out with a more conservative take on the news (which I would argue puts them pretty close to the political middle) and about five years ago, MSNBC, languishing in 3rd place in the cable news ratings, decided to tack leftward.

And all this is perfectly fine. I’m for more speech, not less. More debate, not less.

But I also believe there’s such a thing as “polite company” and that certain acts should result in public shunning and that employers should be willing to sack employees that step over the line of decency.

Which is to say, MSNBC should fire host Martin Bashir first thing tomorrow morning for this:

MARTIN BASHIR: It’s time now to clear the air. And we end this week in the way it began – with America’s resident dunce, Sarah Palin, scraping the barrel of her long deceased mind, and using her all-time favorite analogy in an attempt to sound intelligent about the national debt.


SARAH PALIN: Our free stuff today is being paid for by taking money from our children, and borrowing from China. When that note comes due – and this isn’t racist, so try it. Try it anyway. This isn’t racist. But it’s going to be like slavery when that note is due.


BASHIR: It’lll be like slavery. Given her well-established reputation as a world class idiot, it’s hardly surprising that she should choose to mention slavery in a way that is abominable to anyone who knows anything about its barbaric history. So here’s an example.One of the most comprehensive first-person accounts of slavery comes from the personal diary of a man called Thomas Thistlewood, who kept copious notes for 39 years. Thistlewood was the son of a tenant farmer who arrived on the island of Jamaica in April 1750, and assumed the position of overseer at a major plantation. What is most shocking about Thistlewood’s diary is not simply the fact that he assumes the right to own and possess other human beings, but is the sheer cruelty and brutality of his regime.

In 1756, he records that “A slave named Darby catched eating canes; had him well flogged and pickled, then made Hector, another slave, s-h-i-t in his mouth.” This became known as Darby’s dose, a punishment invented by Thistlewood that spoke only of the slave owners savagery and inhumanity.

And he mentions a similar incident again in 1756, this time in relation to a man he refers to as Punch. “Flogged Punch well, and then washed and rubbed salt pickle, lime juice and bird pepper; made Negro Joe piss in his eyes and mouth.” I could go on, but you get the point.

When Mrs. Palin invoked slavery, she doesn’t just prove her rank ignorance. She confirms that if anyone truly qualified for a dose of discipline from Thomas Thistlewood, then she would be the outstanding candidate.

This is beyond the pale. I have no doubt that had a Fox News host suggested similar “punishment” for Kathleen Sebelius (to pick another female, former governor) that he would be gone before you could tweet it. The typical media watchdogs would jump from zero-to-handwringing in less than a second. Yet, CNN’s “Reliable Sources” didn’t utter a peep about it. Neither did Fox News’ “Media Buzz” hosted by longtime media critic Howard Kurtz. The Columbia Journalism Review apparently doesn’t work weekends.

And the kicker is that Bashir is faux outraged that someone would compare slavery to anything other than slavery (comparing slavery to debt  is not an original analogy that Palin was the first person ever to make). Just two years ago, Bashir didn’t hesitate to compare those who oppose gay “marriage” to wanting a return to slavery. So, traditional marriage support=slavery, debt ≠ slavery. (So those of you playing at home can keep everything straight, no pun intended.)

Remember this the next time the holier-than-thou left starts preaching about “civility:” liberals’ pleas for civility are nothing more than a polite request for their political foes to shut up.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)

All content copyright Matthew Hoy 2002-2013


Compleat Hoystory