Patum Peperium

How rare it is.

.

Madame's Nightshirt

Mrs. Peperium

 

.

Fedex Field capacitiy : 4,431 more individuals

than were aborted in New York City in 2009.

Or 91,974.

 

For many people, abortion is not just a religous fight-it is a debate about permissiveness and its consequences. Joe and Eileen [Bailey] are offended at the idea that abortion is a tool of liberation. They are offended at the idea that people might use abortion as a form of birth control. To them, these are symptoms of a culture that has lost its moral compass. They are turned off when people claim that every choice is as good as every other choice.

Joe and Eileen believe in a moral right and wrong. They believe that promiscuity should be avoided-- by both men and women. They know that when is isn't, it can cause real pain and unhapiness. The choices the Baileys consider immoral, whether it's underage sex or adult infidelity, have consequences. They have seen the consequences. They fear a society that ignores the morals it depends upon.

Yet they also live in the real world. They know about human frailty. They know people make mistakes. They believe in second chances. They believe in forgiveness and redemption. They believe when people have made mistakes, they should have the right to deal with them themselves, to choose how to solve their own problems, without the government dictating to them. [...]

There is a need for a societal superego to counteract our individual id. For many people this is the role of the church, the synogogue, or the mosque. The Baileys may not agree with all of their church's views-- and they may not always follow it dictates-- but they are glad what it is saying. Their church advocates taking responsibilty and maintaining values. In a society that sometimes seems to have too little of that, they're glad for its voice, even when they disagree with it.  As much as family and country, it is a critical part of their value system, their worldview and their life.

When government officials talk about abortion too much or in a way that is morally neutral, it seems like the opposite. It comes across as an endorsement.  While the Baileys don't believe abortion should be prohibited outright, they never want it to be endorsed. They believe, as Bill Clinton masterfully put it, that abortion should be "Safe, legal, and rare."

To be in step, the Democrats need to focus not only on the "safe and legal," but also on the "rare". Too often, it doesn't seem like "rare" is very important to us. But "rare" is critical to Joe and Eileen Bailey. When faced with Republicans' "never, never and never" cry [an intellectually dishonest mischaracterization]  or the Democrats' "safe and legal" mantra, they are ambivalent. The Baileys cannot in good conscience support "safe and legal" abortions without the clear understanding they must also be "rare".

Recently, Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton, two Democrat leaders with very different views on abortion, have both been pushing the party in the right direction. They have been holding the line on safe and legal and articulating the importance of "rare."

Safety and legality are critical. There are parts of this country where safe abortions are not available [where?]. This must change. There are states in which Roe vs. Wade is under assault. We must defend it. To be fair most American have access to safe and legal abortion -- and of course we must keep it that way.

On the other hand, 1.3 million abortions are performed each year in this country. That equals about one abortion for every four live births. Abortion is a long way from being rare.

The answer is not and never has been, criminalization. Making a it a crime undermines its safety and creates criminals where there are none. As Democrats, we must never accept that. Instead we should make it a top priority to reduce abortions by half...

[..big snip as in about 3 pages...]

Medical insurers should be required to get on board with reducing abortions. All individual and group health plans should cover the costs of abstinence education courses and the costs of contraception, including emergency contraceptives. Families should be allowed to opt out of this coverage in accordance with their religious beliefs.

 

- from The 50% Solution by Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Daniel Squadron in "Positively American: How the Democrats can win in 2008."

 Epilogue

 

Democrats did win in 2008 without needing to promise Senator Schumer's The 50% Solution. Since that win, the Democrats federalized our health care system; Obamacare. Under Obamacare, they did not criminalize abortion. Rather, they federally funded it with  $7 billion that has been earmarked for Community Health Centers program for primary health care, which specifically includes gynecological and obstetrics care. This money appears in the bill so is unaffected by the Stupak Ammendment. It is also specifically without restrictions on the use of the money for abortion. Admittedly, with 7 billion more dollars going towards all forms of reproductive services it will be much harder to maintain or even just pay lip service to the rare aspect of "the Democrats' "safe and legal"" mantra".

What will be even harder for the Democrats to maintain is the idea they are not at war with people's religious freedoms. They criminalized opting out of Obamacare. With fines and imprisonment levied as punishment. Senator Schumer in his 50% Solution said families should be allowed to opt out of private insurance coverage providing reproductive services in accordance with their religious beliefs.

Democrats only provided an opt-out for Amish, Mormon and Muslim Americans.

Senator Schumer wrote,

 

"When government officials talk about abortion too much or in a way that is morally neutral, it seems like the opposite. It comes across as an endorsement. "

 

With Obamacare now the law across the land complete with the criminalization for opting out unless you fall in one of three religious groups -Amish, Morman or Muslim, it has become much, much harder for the rest of America to not view the Democrat Party as an active endoser of abortion.

 

.

.

 

 

Dr. Krauthammer Is In, Again

...

Madame's Nightshirt

Mrs. Peperium

 

..

// ...

..

The Last Refuge Of A Liberal

By Charles Krauthammer

 

Liberalism under siege is an ugly sight indeed. Just yesterday it was all hope and change and returning power to the people. But the people have proved so disappointing. Their recalcitrance has, in only 19 months, turned the predicted 40-year liberal ascendancy (James Carville) into a full retreat. Ah, the people, the little people, the small-town people, the "bitter" people, as Barack Obama in an unguarded moment once memorably called them, clinging "to guns or religion or" -- this part is less remembered -- "antipathy toward people who aren't like them."

That's a polite way of saying: clinging to bigotry. And promiscuous charges of bigotry are precisely how our current rulers and their vast media auxiliary react to an obstreperous citizenry that insists on incorrect thinking.

-- Resistance to the vast expansion of government power, intrusiveness and debt, as represented by the Tea Party movement? Why, racist resentment toward a black president.

-- Disgust and alarm with the federal government's unwillingness to curb illegal immigration, as crystallized in the Arizona law? Nativism.

-- Opposition to the most radical redefinition of marriage in human history, as expressed in Proposition 8 in California? Homophobia.

-- Opposition to a 15-story Islamic center and mosque near Ground Zero? Islamophobia.

Now we know why the country has become "ungovernable," last year's excuse for the Democrats' failure of governance: Who can possibly govern a nation of racist, nativist, homophobic Islamophobes?

Note what connects these issues. In every one, liberals have lost the argument in the court of public opinion. Majorities -- often lopsided majorities -- oppose President Obama's social-democratic agenda (e.g., the stimulus, Obamacare), support the Arizona law, oppose gay marriage and reject a mosque near Ground Zero.

What's a liberal to do? Pull out the bigotry charge, the trump that preempts debate and gives no credit to the seriousness and substance of the contrary argument. The most venerable of these trumps is, of course, the race card. When the Tea Party arose, a spontaneous, leaderless and perfectly natural (and traditionally American) reaction to the vast expansion of government intrinsic to the president's proudly proclaimed transformational agenda, the liberal commentariat cast it as a mob of angry white yahoos disguising their antipathy to a black president by cleverly speaking in economic terms.

Then came Arizona and S.B. 1070. It seems impossible for the left to believe that people of good will could hold that: (a) illegal immigration should be illegal, (b) the federal government should not hold border enforcement hostage to comprehensive reform, i.e., amnesty, (c) every country has the right to determine the composition of its immigrant population.

As for Proposition 8, is it so hard to see why people might believe that a single judge overturning the will of 7 million voters is an affront to democracy? And that seeing merit in retaining the structure of the most ancient and fundamental of all social institutions is something other than an alleged hatred of gays -- particularly since the opposite-gender requirement has characterized virtually every society in all the millennia until just a few years ago?

And now the mosque near Ground Zero. The intelligentsia is near unanimous that the only possible grounds for opposition is bigotry toward Muslims. This smug attribution of bigotry to two-thirds of the population hinges on the insistence on a complete lack of connection between Islam and radical Islam, a proposition that dovetails perfectly with the Obama administration's pretense that we are at war with nothing more than "violent extremists" of inscrutable motive and indiscernible belief. Those who reject this as both ridiculous and politically correct (an admitted redundancy) are declared Islamophobes, the ad hominem du jour.

It is a measure of the corruption of liberal thought and the collapse of its self-confidence that, finding itself so widely repudiated, it resorts reflexively to the cheapest race-baiting (in a colorful variety of forms). Indeed, how can one reason with a nation of pitchfork-wielding mobs brimming with "antipathy toward people who aren't like them" -- blacks, Hispanics, gays and Muslims -- a nation that is, as Michelle Obama once put it succinctly, "just downright mean"?

The Democrats are going to get beaten badly in November. Not just because the economy is ailing. And not just because Obama over-read his mandate in governing too far left. But because a comeuppance is due the arrogant elites whose undisguised contempt for the great unwashed prevents them from conceding a modicum of serious thought to those who dare oppose them.

 

...

Just A Thought

..

Madame's Nightshirt

Mrs. Peperium

..

.

I wonder how gun ho the Left would be in asserting former President Bush's right to build a 13 story presidential library in a building two blocks from Ground Zero?

..

--

Hahahahahahahahaha, Pt. VII

..

Madame's Nightshirt

Mrs. Peperium

..

.

Worse Than Carter

By R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. 

..

WASHINGTON -- It is becoming apparent for all to see, that a man who made his name as a community organizer does not have the skills to be President of these United States. Maybe he could develop the requisite skills as a governor. Possibly, he could develop such skills were he to sit in the Senate for a couple of terms. Yet there are delicate sensitivities, the ability to listen, to stick by your guns, occasionally to remain reticent. These are the fundamentals of a leader, and President Barack Obama has demonstrated that he lacks all of them, most notably reticence. I now think it is clear even to Official Washington that President Obama is the worst president of modern times. President Jimmy Carter is redeemed...

.

[keep reading]

...

Hahahahahahahahaha, Pt. VI

..

Madame's Nightshirt

Mrs. Peperium

..

Abject panic at the White House

By: David Freddoso
..

That’s my immediate reaction to this.

Key White House allies are dramatically shifting their attempts to defend health care legislation, abandoning claims that it will reduce costs and deficit, and instead stressing a promise to “improve it.”

The messaging shift was circulated this afternoon on a conference call and PowerPoint presentation organized by FamiliesUSA — one of the central groups in the push for the initial legislation…The confidential presentation, available in full here and provided to POLITICO by a source on the call, suggests that Democrats are acknowledging the failure of their predictions that the health care legislation would grow more popular after its passage, as its benefits became clear and rhetoric cooled. Instead, the presentation is designed to win over a skeptical public, and to defend the legislation — and in particular the individual mandate — from a push for repeal.

Very different from the old days, isn’t it?

“If Republicans want to campaign against what we’ve done… that is a fight I want to have.” – Barack Obama on health care, Jan. 14.

..

..

Hahahahahahahahaha, Pt. IV

..

Madame's Nightshirt

Mrs. Peperium

..

White House says Obama is Christian, prays daily

The Associated Press

Thursday, Aug. 19, 2010 | 11:06 a.m.

The White House insisted on Thursday that President Barack Obama is a Christian...

..

Do you know how bad this is PR-wise for the entire Democrat party? 

Apparently a Time poll has discovered 24% of Americans, including 1 in 10 Democrats think our president is a Muslim.  The best bit is 43% don't know what he is. Up from 34% last year.

Obviously this is the religion we've been waiting for.

I can tell you what he is, a failed president.

..

This number will only go higher if Obama lets Iran go nuclear or if he lets Israel go it alone in preventing Iran from becoming nuclear. A classic lose-lose situation that the president created for himself.  Expect to see him, Michelle and the girls at church now.

..

.

..

..

Hahahahahahahahaha, Pt. III (And it's not even noon!)

..

Madame's Nightshirt

Mrs. Peperium

..

Columnist: Obama having trouble because rest of America ‘not as gifted’

By: Mark Hemingway
Commentary Staff Writer
08/19/10 11:05 AM EDT

Here’s Bloomberg’s Margret Carlson this morning on the mosque controversy:

How can President Barack Obama be so right about the mosque and yet get it so wrong? Here’s how: 

He is so supremely confident in his intellect that he forgets, on his way to the correct decision, to slow down and pick up not-so-gifted stragglers. The controversy over locating a mosque close to Ground Zero in New York City created the perfect storm, putting Obama’s strengths and weaknesses into play.He’s an intellectual comfortable with abstractions, a former editor of the Harvard Law Review, a constitutional scholar, a community organizer. When convinced he’s right — which is often — he turns his head at the podium to the right and left, gazing above his audience into the near distance, chin elevated, and makes his pronouncement about what is just and reasonable. We are expected to nod.

With the mosque, he didn’t bother with feelings when he saw that the U.S. Constitution and facts were on his side.

Everytime I think commentators can’t possibly hit new levels of arrogance and condescension on this mosque issue, I’m surprised yet again. Reciting Obama’s resume for the millionth time prove exactly nothing, and if you’re going to flatly declare that the “facts” and Constitution are firmly on one-side of the debate right away, why even bother writing the column? Further, if the idea is that Americans can’t handle abstractions, Carlson’s dead wrong about that. Here’s the Siena poll of New Yorkers on the mosque issue from yesterday:

Opposition remains strong against building the mosque, 63-27 percent, however, by a margin of 64-28 percent voters say that the  developers of the Cordoba House have a Constitutional right to build it.

Clear majorities in New York both don’t want it built, and recognize it’s generally not the government’s place to tell people whether they can build a church on private property. Those positions are not inconsistent. Holding fast those beliefs does, however, put one at odds a liberal elite desperate to prove they’re so much more tolerant than the little people.

..

Hahahahahahahahaha

...

Madame's Nightshirt

Mrs. Peperium

..

 

..

Judge Walker and the Language of the Law

By Hadley Arkes

Archeologists of the law may one day come upon these words: “Relative gender composition aside, same-sex couples are situated identically to opposite-sex couples in terms of their ability to perform the rights and obligations of marriage under California law.” Now imagine recasting the sentence in this way: “Relative gender composition aside, same-sex couples are situated identically to opposite-sex couples in terms of their ability to beget children.” The first line was written by federal Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco as he struck down the constitutional amendment passed by the voters of California, a move to restore the traditional understanding of marriage as a legal relation of a man and a woman.  Judge Walker’s argument made sense only if the notion of begetting was conspicuously removed from the very meaning and purpose of marriage. Surely, marriage is not necessary for love: There is genuine love between grandparents and grandchildren, brothers and sisters, and in the nature of things they cannot be lesser loves because they are not attended by penetration and expressed in marriage. 

Marriage is not necessary for love, but the law of marriage finds its deep justification as a framework for the begetting and nurturing of children. A commitment confirmed in law is a commitment in the truest sense: it marks the fact that the parents have foregone the freedom to quit their relation to each other and their children as it suits their convenience.  And if the purpose is begetting children . . . well, that is the very reason that there are, in nature, men and women. That is the telos or very purpose contained in the fact that we were made, each of us, as a man or a woman. 

That opening line from Judge Walker is one of only a few score that have been zinging around the Internet, soaring well beyond the tethers of reason and propositional logic. Walker’s opinion may not hold up on appeal, but his lines could lighten up our lives for years to come as they make their way into fortune cookies.

There was never actually much doubt about the outcome in Perry v. Schwarzenegger. Judge Walker’s handling of the case revealed a leaning flamboyantly out of the closet. There has been much complaining about the so-called “facts” that Walker was willing to proclaim on the basis merely of opinions offered by so-called “experts.” But the outcome of the case on appeal will not turn on any facts gleaned from the social sciences. That is a long story, best left to another time. What is more striking here is that the resolution of the case was virtually determined by the premise planted in the law by Justice Anthony Kennedy in Romer v. Evans in 1996: The willingness to cast an adverse judgment on the homosexual life can be explained only by an “animus [lacking] a rational relationship to legitimate state interests.” Generations of reflection, running back to the ancients, could be dismissed as one long, thoughtless spasm of irrational “animus.”

With that premise planted, the arguments over Due Process or Equal Protection could be churned out in an instant. Due Process? People were suffering a harm, they were denied a benefit, their liberty to marry was being denied, on grounds that were irrational, and therefore arbitrary. Hence, the denial was unjustified, wrong. Equal Protection? Couples of the same sex were not accorded the same rights to marry as couples composed of men and women. Even if “domestic partners” were given many of the same benefits of marriage, they were treated as morally inferior, not worthy of marriage. They suffered a harm or wounding because they were treated unequally and for no rational reason. Hence, the unequal treatment was unjustified, wrong. 

But behind all of this was a trend long in the making, a radical recasting of the language and logic of a “moral” judgment. In the relentless march of “relativism,” good and bad, right and wrong, were translated to mean merely the things we “like” or “dislike,” a matter of personal taste. Justice Hugo Black would famously deride appeals to natural law and moral reasoning by reducing them to subjective beliefs. An argument with strenuous reasoning would be translated to mean that the advocate simply “liked” or “disliked” the policy. 

And curiously enough that same translation has come even from conservative and Catholic jurists in our own day who have been suspicious of natural law and the judges who invoke it. With Judge Walker the conversion of terms took this form: “the state cannot have an interest in disadvantaging an unpopular minority group simply because the group is unpopular.” Walker simply rules out the notion that there may have been reasons for turning away from the homosexual life. Homosexuals were simply “disliked,” an aversion without reason. “Moral judgments” come down in the end to irrational beliefs; and they could supply then no justification for the law.

In this way, the wave of relativism inverts language and dissolves any moral ground for the law. What is left then is the bald power of a judge to strike down whatever is enacted. Justice Holmes hoped that “every word of moral significance could be banished from the law altogether,” and Judge Walker stands in the line of his heirs. The result, in this case, is to deprive the people of California of the freedom to deliberate and vote on a matter of moral significance that stands at the very matrix of the laws.

 

Hadley Arkes is the Ney Professor of Jurisprudence at Amherst College. His most recent book is Constitutional Illusions & Anchoring Truths:  The Touchstone of the Natural Law. 

Afraid To Mention To Voters They're Democrats?

..

Madame's Nightshirt

Mrs. Peperium

..

.....

.

.

We've officially reached the point where they can malign you as a racist, homophobe or xenophobe but you can't call them what they are; Democrats.

..

..

Obama Is Not Reagan

..

Madame's Nightshirt

Mrs. Peperium

..

..

...

..

News flash: This is not 1982, and Obama is not Reagan.

The important difference is this: There was a good reason for the Volcker-Reagan recession: defeating inflation. American voters may not be terribly economically sophisticated, but they sure as heck did notice when inflation went from 13.5 percent to 3.2 percent — in two years. Presidents’ effects on the economy are overstated (economies are complicated and many of the most important factors are exogenous to public policy), but tackling inflation was a matter of politics and policy. The recession was hard, but we came through with something to show for it. For instance, mortgage rates that were 7 percent instead of 19 percent.

What, precisely, will we have to show for having come through the Obama recession(s)? A gigantic new federal entitlement program? Staggering amounts of debt? Persistently high levels of unemployment? That’s the best-case scenario. The worst case scenario includes pre-Reagan levels of inflation, a debased dollar, and a deep double dip in Recession Round 2. Obama’s first-class temperament is not going to do him a lot of good with a third-class economy.

...
..

Judge To Voters : Drop Dead

..

Madame's Nightshirt

Mrs. Peperium

..

Step back and consider the scene. Judge Walker held a trial to determine whether millions of people living in widely varying circumstances across many centuries had any legitimate reason at all for defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. To make this assessment, the judge needed from those challenging the law only eight lay witnesses and nine expert witnesses. He needed 16 days of trial time. And, of course, he had to apply his own formidable mind to the problem. After bringing the judgment of history before this tribunal, Judge Walker concluded that there was no evidence justifying the traditional definition of marriage. Indeed, the issue did not even present “a debatable question.”

..

..

Do We Still Know?

..

Madame's Nightshirt

Mrs. Peperium

..

..

Today on Uncommon Knowledge, Thomas Sowell, author of Dismantling America, on the continuing outrage of judges who read their own ideological values into the Constitution.  Case in point?  Yes indeed.  Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision to declare Proposition 8 unconstitutional—even though it ratifies the concept of marriage as universally understood at the time the Constitution was drafted and ratified, and even though it received the votes of seven million Californians. 

"The most important decision is always who makes the decision.  The question of the role of gender is not for this judge to decide – since we’re presumably still, for the moment at least, a self-governing nation – it is for the voting public to decide.  So the fact that Judge Walker feels the way he feels—wonderful!  Let him vote that way in the privacy of the voting booth.  But don’t let him say that this is now the law of the land."

Click here to watch.

...

H/T to Dewey In Detroit 

...

So Democrats, How's That Strategy Working For You?

..

Madame's Nightshirt

Mrs. Peperium

..

Contrary to what the White House would like you to most fervently believe, the NAACP story is not about Shirley Sherrod and Andrew Breitbart. It is about the Democrats trying to prevent Category Level 5 Hurricane losses come this November's election.

Borrowing the simple formula put forth by the National Ad Association we will approach this story,

..

..

..

This is the brainiac, placing the story in its proper context: s the brais is your brainiac placing the story in its proper context:

..

Tainting the tea party movement with the charge of racism is proving to be an effective strategy for Democrats. There is no evidence that tea party adherents are any more racist than other Republicans, and indeed many other Americans. But getting them to spend their time purging their ranks and having candidates distance themselves should help Democrats win in November. Having one’s opponent rebut charges of racism is far better than discussing joblessness.  - Dr. Mary Frances Berry

..

This is the brainic's, Dr. Mary Frances Berry, resume from her employer's website, UofPenn :

Mary Frances Berry has been a Geraldine R. Segal Professor of American Social Thought and Professor of History since 1987. She received her Ph.D. in History from the University of Michigan and JD from the University of Michigan Law School. She is the author of nine books, including And Justice For All: The United States Commission On Civil Rights And the Struggle For Freedom in America (2009); My Face is Black Is True: Callie House and the Struggle for Ex-Slave Reparations (2005); The Pig Farmer's Daugher and Other Tales of American Justice: Episodes of Racism and Sexism in the Courts from 1865 to the Present (1999); Black Resistance, White Law: A History of Constitutional Racism in America (1994, orig. 1971); The Politics of Parenthood: Child Care, Women's Rights, and the Myth of the Good Mother (1993); Why ERA Failed: Politics, Women's Rights, and the Amending Process of the Constitution (1986); Long Memory: The Black Experience in America, with John Blassingame (1982); and Military Necessity and Civil Rights Policy: Black Citizenship and the Constitution, 1861-1868 (1977).
Professor Berry has had a distinguished career in public service. From 1980 to 2004, she was a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and from 1993-2004 served as Chair. Between 1977 and 1980, Dr. Berry served as the Assistant Secretary for Education in the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW). She has also served as Provost of the University of Maryland and Chancellor of the University of Colorado at Boulder.

In recognition of her scholarship and public service, Professor Berry has received 32 honorary doctoral degrees and many awards, including the NAACP's Roy Wilkins Award, the Rosa Parks Award of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and the Ebony Magazine Black Achievement Award. She is one of 75 women featured in I Dream A World: Portraits of Black Women Who Changed America. Sienna College Research Institute and the Women's Hall of Fame designated her one of "America's Women of the Century." In 1990-91 she was President of the Organization of American Historians.

Professor Berry teaches the History of American Law, and the History of Law and Social Policy. She also advises students in African American History.


..

So once again, this is the brainiac who interestingly has spent her life dealing with the issue of racism doesn't seem to have moral issues with the Democrats' tactic.  In fact, she terms it effective:

..

"Tainting the tea party movement with the charge of racism is proving to be an effective strategy for Democrats. There is no evidence that tea party adherents are any more racist than other Republicans, and indeed many other Americans. But getting them to spend their time purging their ranks and having candidates distance themselves should help Democrats win in November. Having one’s opponent rebut charges of racism is far better than discussing joblessness."

..

The state of joblessness among African Americans  :

..

Unemployment for African Americans is projected to reach a 25-year high this year, according to a study released Thursday by an economic think tank, with the national rate soaring to 17.2 percent and the rates in five states exceeding 20 percent.

..

Now we get to the eggs of the story:

..

:Why we passed our Tea Party resolution

This week at the NAACP annual convention, we passed over 75 resolutions. They addressed critical issues from education equity, to fixing our broken criminal justice and immigration systems, to our top priority: jobs, jobs, jobs.One resolution, which was highlighted in my convention speech, created media frenzy: The unanimously passed resolution demanded that the leadership of the Tea Party repudiate its racist elements and make it clear that there is no space in the organization for bigotry...

-Ben Jealous, President of NAACP,

..

A butter pat of a quote regarding the unanimously passed resolution :

..

"Over 2000 [NAACP] delegates voted."

..

Over 2000 delegates to the NAACP have decided there are racist elements within the tea party based upon no proof. Interesting, no? Even more interesting, the actual language of the unanimously passed NAACP resolution claiming yet-to-be-proven racism in the Tea Party has yet to be released.  The NAACP has said they are waiting until October to surprise us. A brief yet sizzling discussion on the unanimously passed, yet-to-be released NAACP resolution claiming yet-to-be-proven racism in the Tea Party,

..

..

Finally the eggs begin tossing with a direct hit to the face of the President of the NAACP,

..

..

Egg on face - "...you are manufacturing this the summer where the economy is the number one issue affecting blacks and whites. This country can ill-afford the schism of race to be exploited on the false premise of the tea party being racist" - Andrew Breitbart to NAACP President Ben Jealous.

..

More egg, courtesy of Breitbart, arrived a few days later with a video snippet of a woman speaking at a NAACP dinner last March. The woman, an employee of the USDA, was relating a story to the audience of her epiphany when being faced with a white farmer who needed help. In the audience sat the President of the NAACP. The same NAACP President who defended the unanimously passed, yet-to-be-released-to the-public NAACP resolution claiming yet-to-be-proven racism in the Tea Party a few months later. The epiphany the woman was relating happened 20+ years earlier when she was at a non-profit.  In other words, long before the woman had gone to work for the government.  Interestingly in and among her remarks that day, she did tell the NAACP audience to consider seeking work within the government as you cannot be fired.

Why that was interesting because when the video snippet was released she was fired.  That's right a government employee was fired. By the White House no less.  Yes, the White House came out of nowhere and demanded she pull over to the side of the road.  (What road it was she was to get to the side of has yet to be determined) Truth be told the White House's firing did happen after the NAACP issued a statement condemning the woman's remarks as well as the behavior of the audience members.  That aspect was even more interesting because the President of the NAACP who had passed the unanimously passed, yet-to-be-released-to-the-public NAACP resolution claiming yet-to-be-proven racism in the Tea Party had been in the audience listening to the woman speak.  He had heard her remarks when she originally said them-- last March. Even more interesting The NAACP president had the full tape of her full remarks which Andrew Breitbart did not have. Talk about the haves and have nots but I digress.  Interestingly, the snippets of the speech Andrew Breitbart did have included the fact the NAACP president was in the audience and now the NAACP was concerned with the audience's behavior as well as the woman's words --some 4 months later.

Then something even more interesting happened. In the middle of the night the White House decided they were wrong in firing the woman. They wanted her to come back to the USDA.  The WH press secretary even issued Wikopedia's textbook example of a  non-apology "mistakes were made" to the woman from that day's presser.  He said they --the White House--didn't know where she was so, pressed by a reporter, took the chance to speak directly to her by speaking directly in the camera. Then, even more interestingly the next day, the President called the woman (a seven minute phone call)  to encourage her to come back to work. Then even more interestingly the President gave an interview a few hours later where he said the head of the USDA was the one who jumped the gun by firing her. The woman said to the media she pleased the President called her but doesn't know yet if she really wants to return to work.  She's examining her options. But what is really interesting, she's now saying far more interesting things than she said at the NAACP dinner.  These new and even more interesting remarks come after the WH press secretary publicly issued his non-apology apology, the head of the USDA apologized for letting the President fire his employee and the President let the country know about her unique life story/pain experience that qualifies her for the new job at the USDA he's now offering her,

..

..

..

..

On Andrew Breitbart SHERROD : I know I've gotten past black versus white. He's probably the person who's never gotten past it and never attempted to get past it. [...]

I think he would like to get us stuck back in the times of slavery. That's where I think he would like to see all black people end up again. And...

COOPER: You think -- you think he's racist?

SHERROD: ... I think he's so vicious. Yes, I do.

And I think that's why he's so vicious against a black president, you know. He would go after me. I don't think it was even the NAACP he was totally after. I think he was after a black president.

..

If we are in luck, when Andrew Breitbart returns from his 3 day holiday, he will take the-still-unclaimed-after-all-of-this $100,000 reward for video proof of the tea party calling members of the Black Caucus the n-word, and offer it up for video proof that he, Andrew Breitbart is the racist and that he's after a black president.

If there isn't such a thing as a Category Level 6 Hurricane, fear not, if the Democrats keep this going we will see one come election day.

...

Talking Truth To Power

..

Madame's Nightshirt

Mrs. Peperium

..

..

.....

"He said this to me, ""Governor if people lose their jobs because of the moratorium they can file a BP claim."" I said with all due respect Mr. President, ""what if BP doesn't pay the claim? He said"" Don't worry, they can file for an unemployment check with the government.""

..

.

Spoken like a true blue community organizer who can't organize his own closet.

,,

..The Repub

..

..

.

Highly Amusing, But Then I'm Easily Amused

..

Madame's Nightshirt

Mrs. Peperium

..

..

..

..