Sixteen states, including South Carolina, must submit all election law changes to the United States Justice Department for approval.  States also have the option of bypassing DOJ and going straight to court for approval, an option they should readily choose.  This law, unlike so many federal laws, actually has a legitimate Constitutional basis – the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which bars racial discrimination in voting.  Passed in 1965, it was designed to prevent states from drifting toward renewed discrimination.  It is now being challenged as unconstitutionally outdated by Arizona and Shelby County (AL) in federal court.

Eric Holder’s Voting Section, where I used to work, interposed an objection late in the day today.  These Christmas Eve gifts are becoming tiresome.  In 2009 it was Obamacare.  Today, it was blocking Voter ID.

In the objection letter, DOJ said that South Carolina did not meet its burden to prove that photo identification laws did not have any discriminatory effect.  Notice the word “any,” more on that later.  The data show, according to DOJ, that 1.6 percentage points more voting blacks don’t have a driver’s license than whites.  Roughly 10 percent of blacks registered to vote don’t have a photo ID, and 8.6 percent of whites don’t.  That represents a “discriminatory effect” under the statute.

There are several problems with the objection.  But some law first:

Those on the right like to say that the Supreme Court already upheld voter ID as constitutional.  Wrong.  In the Crawford vs. Marion County case the Supreme Court merely held that voter ID was not per se unconstitutional.  It did not say it was per se constitutional, there is a big difference and proponents of voter ID should not argue bad law.  Plus, under Section 5, the burden is on the state to prove a negative, an absence of discrimination.  Crawford was brought under a different law and the burden was on the plaintiff to prove that Indiana discriminated.

Now the problems with the objection.  The DOJ summarily rejected all of the mitigating provisions of the South Carolina voter ID law.  For example, if you didn’t have an ID, you could still vote by filling out an affidavit, and later show evidence of your identity.  Extraordinary steps were taken to ensure everyone could get a free ID.  Governor Nikki Haley even offered rides.

DOJ turned their nose up at these mitigating facts, because personnel is policy, and the personnel reviewing the change have philosophical objections to voter ID.

DOJ also turned their nose up at the late breaking development that the data were wrong.  South Carolina discovered that the state election commission sent data that probably included tens of thousands of people on the voter rolls who moved out of state.  That explains why they had no driver’s licenses but were still on the voter rolls.  Instead of waiting to review the new data, DOJ rushed the objection out the door.  A credible operation, not interested in scoring political points, would have waited to review the correct data.

DOJ Attorney Catherine Meza was one of the lawyers on the case.  If you’ve read my book Injustice, you know I provide the biographies of many of the new radicals hired by Eric Holder who will be in charge of federal election laws for the 2012 elections.  Meza is one.  Her biography:

Catherine Meza. Ms. Meza, who contributed $450 to Barack Obama’s presidential campaign before getting hired by the Voting Section, has a rich history of liberal advocacy. During law school at Berkeley, she interned for (i) the NAACP LDF, where she worked on voting rights and “economic justice” issues, (ii) Bay Area Legal Aid, (iii) the ACLU of Northern California, (iv) the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), (v) Centro Legal de la Raza, and (vi) the East Bay Community Law Center Workers’ Rights Clinic. She also worked as a legislative intern for Democratic Rep. (now Sen.) Robert Menendez of New Jersey as part of a fellowship with the liberal National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials. On her resume, Meza proudly proclaims her membership in the American Constitution Society and her role as an Advisory Board Member of the Thelton Henderson Center for Social Justice. Talk about filling the whole bingo card! Meanwhile, while working a brief stint at the Fried Frank law firm after law graduation, she assisted on a pro bono case seeking to preserve the confidentiality of ID cards issued to illegal aliens by the city of New Haven, Connecticut, an effort to help illegal aliens avoid being prosecuted for violating federal law. She also helped draft a report for the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in which she suggested that the U.S. “government’s programs and policies continue to perpetuate segregation and concentrate poverty in communities of color.”

Lexington County (SC) GOP Chairman Richard Bolen wrote a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder asking for Meza to be removed from the review based on her partial background.  Bolen, who recently announced a run for South Carolina Senate and is a zealous advocate for Voter ID, received a reply back that can best be characterized as a joke.  Despite Bolen’s request, Meza stayed on the case.

The voter ID objection letter also plays fast and loose with phony statistics.  Naturally, Charlie Savage at the New York Times published these numbers prominently.  Whenever the government has talking points, Eric Holder can always count on his loveable pup.

The letter says “minority registered voters were nearly 20% more likely to . . .  be effectively disenfranchised.”  A difference of 1.6 percent between black and white is now 20%.  This statistical sleight of hand was necessary because the actual difference of 1.6 percent (10% vs 8.6%) was laughable to the public.  Like a puffer fish that bloats its size to scare predators, the DOJ did the same thing with a 1.6% point difference to scare off critics.

Of course, Savage prominently features the 20% statistical puffery in his piece.

The Voting Rights Act says that states must prove an absence of “any” discriminatory effect.  Simply, they must prove a negative.  Since 1.6% is greater than zero, Holder objected.

The word “any” was inserted in 2006 at the urging of Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner and his staff.  Some Republicans, particularly in Congress, see Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act only through the lens of redistricting.  Republicans love it because it creates more republican seats in Congress and in state legislatures.

Unfortunately adding “any” also undermines election integrity efforts.  House Republicans failed to anticipate its future use in striking down voter integrity efforts like photo ID.  In 2009 and 2010, the word “any” was also used to block Georgia’s citizenship verification law to ensure that only American citizens were registering to vote.

Georgia’s law was only approved when Georgia went to federal court and challenged the constitutionality of Section 5.  DOJ backed down because they didn’t want the law overturned.

Arizona’s challenge to Section 5 will be hampered by today’s objection.  DOJ will introduce the objection as evidence that discrimination still exists justifying the preservation of Section 5.  Lots of well paying jobs are part of Section 5 enforcement at the DOJ.

Here is the best part – the DOJ staffers who recommended the Section 5 objection helped preserve their own jobs by doing so.  Because Holder objected to South Carolina voter ID, it will make it harder to strike down Section 5 in the Arizona case, and thus lay off all those people who recommended the objection in the first place.  Worst of all, the objection memo used to support the objection, and ultimately these jobs, will remain secret and free from scrutiny.

Finally, don’t fall into the silly and constitutional incorrect argument that you have to show ID to cash a check and get on a plane.  Flimsy arguments like that are what the left wants from you.  The 15^th Amendment is in play when it comes to voting.  It prohibits racial discrimination in voting, and Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is passed to enforce that part of the Constitution.  Cashing a check isn’t found in the Constitution, and people who love the Constitution shouldn’t equate a plane trip with the right to vote free from racial discrimination.

The better course of action, at least if you live in Texas, is to urge your Attorney General and Secretary of State to withdraw the Texas Voter ID submission and go straight to court before Eric Holder wrecks your law too.

SAFE. End of story.

Please read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4 [Editor: Please link to each]

Contrary to recent media reports, the Brazilian Blowout hair treatment is safe for use.  Here is a review of all the studies done on Brazilian Blowout.

Oregon OSHA:  Pass

Federal OSHA:  Pass

Health Sciences Associates:  Pass

Dr. James Haw – USC: Pass

FDA:  Conducted no studies

ChemRisk: Too much product used = faulty study

Brazilian Blowout passed every single properly performed study for both state and federal short-term and long-term exposure limits, known as the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL – an 8-hour time-weighted average) and Short-Term Exposure Limit (STEL – a 15 minute exposure measurement).

So why the witch hunt on Brazilian Blowout?  The answers are simple:

1) Government Bias

As described in Part 1 [Editor: Please link], Oregon OSHA is guilty of :

• Equating methylene glycol with formaldehyde in contradiction of all accepted scientific nomenclature methods.  Doing so allowed them to…
• Claim extremely high levels of formaldehyde in the product.
• Ideological bias, as at least one scientist who authored the study aligns himself with a hardcore Liberal Senator known as an environmental activist.
• Editorializing what should be a neutral scientific report, thus demonstrating its own bias.
• Deliberately taking samples longer than 15 minutes and applying those results to 15 minute periods.
• Issuing a false and misleading press release that did not report the product actually passed the PEL and STEL tests.

As described in Part 2 [Editor: Please link], Federal OSHA is guilty of:

• Collecting a 35 minute air sample and reporting it as a 15 minute sample.
• Negligently allowing that sample to be included in their analysis.
• Using that faulty sample to declare the product unsafe.
• Issuing a false and misleading press release that did not report that the product actually passed all PEL and STEL tests.

As described in Part 3 [Editor: Please link], Rep. Earl Blumenauer is guilty of:

• Not performing his own due diligence to verify Oregon OSHA’s or OSHA’s results.
• Failing to properly consider other exculpatory studies
• Asking the FDA to ban a safe product
• Issuing a false and misleading press release that declared a safe product to be unsafe.

"Shall I regulate this, too?"

Also as described in Part 3, the FDA is guilty of:

• Relying on Oregon OSHA’s and OSHA’s faulty results.
• Not performing its own tests.
• Caving to political pressure from Rep. Blumenauer
• Ignoring its own chemical nomenclature methods that distinguish methylene glycol from formaldyhyde.
• Issuing a warning letter for a safe product
• Issuing a false and misleading press report that a safe product is unsafe.

Lesson: Once you get dragged into the government regulatory labyrinth, you’re screwed.  The government, in its zeal to “protect citizens”, has no obligation to engage in an honest assessment of your case.  Even worse, they will tar and feather you publicly, either by design or incompetence.  In the case of Oregon OSHA, it appears to this reporter to be entirely by design. In the case of OSHA, it appears to be incompetence at best, and withi malicious intent at worst.

A government regulatory agency cannot, by definition, create anything.  It can, at best, only determine that a business is “in compliance” – a neutral stance.  All other scenarios are negative for a business.  In other words, all government can do is destroy.  In this case, a business is, at best, being destroyed by incompetence and, at worst, maliciously.

The company has no legal recourse whatsoever, and the regulatory bodies have no accountability whatsoever.  Do we need regulatory authorities?  Yes — for blatantly egregious violations.  None exists here.  Yet by the same token, we need a check and balance on a regulatory entity’s mistakes (at best) and ideological bias that has intent to harm (at worst).

2) Media Bias

As I’ve proven through this series, the media has trumpeted every negative aspect of this story.  They have paid no substantive attention to the company’s side of the story at all.   At best, this is sloppy journalism — in which media outlets deliberately focus on fear to sell newspapers and boost ratings.  At worst, this is yet another example of the media siding with Leftist interests and big government — just like the endless examples of the same exposed at BigJournalism.com for the past two years.

Again, looking at the big picture, media coverage like this serves nobody.  All it does is destroy, and facilitates the government’s purpose to do the same.

Bottom Line

The Brazilian Blowout company, GIB LLC, is a small business.  If they get hurt, so do their employees.  Stylists, who enjoy substantial revenue from these expensive treatments, may have lost clients and income during a terrible recession.   Clients lose whatever substantial personal benefits they receive from the product should they be scared away from it — and they must be substantial as the product is so popular.

The Brazilian Blowout product is safe for use by clients.

The Brazilian Blowout product is safe for use by stylists.

Ignore the government.

Ignore the media.

Get your hair straightened.

But Armageddon never happened. Newly released data for Chicago shows that, as in D.C., murder and gun crime rates didn’t rise after the bans were eliminated; they plummeted. They have fallen much more than the national crime rate, but the national media has been completely silent. One can only imagine the coverage if crime rates had risen.

In the first six months of this year, there were 14% fewer murders in Chicago compared to the first six months of last year– back when owning handguns was illegal. It was the largest drop in Chicago’s murder rate since the handgun ban went into effect in 1982. Meanwhile, the other four most populous cities saw a total drop at the same time of only 6 percent.

Similarly, in the year after the 2008 Heller decision, the murder rate fell 2.5 times faster in D.C. than in the rest of the country. It also fell more than three times as fast as in other cities that are close to D.C.’s size.

And murders in D.C. have continued to fall. If you compare the first six months of this year to the first six months of 2008, the same time immediately preceding the Supreme Court’s late June Heller decision, murders have now fallen by 34%.

Gun crimes fell more than non-gun crimes. Robberies with guns fell by 25%, while robberies without guns have fallen by 8%. Assaults with guns fell by 37%, while assaults without guns fell by 12%. Just as with right-to-carry laws, when law-abiding citizens have guns, some criminals stop carrying theirs.

Read the full article at Fox News.

Recall that we posted a story a couple of weeks ago, with video of her filming Ohio Treasurer Josh Mandel at a tea party event, apparently conducting opposition research. Mandel is the likely opponent for US Senator Sherrod Brown, who is also Schultz’s husband.  Brown is up for re-election next year.  Mandel, a former US Marine who has served two tours in Iraq, will be a formidable opponent.  Schultz was at the event to write a story about the tea party for the Plain Dealer, when she put her employer into an awkward situation by creating a clear conflict of interest when she filmed Mandel.

More often than not, we disagree strongly with her, but let’s give credit to Connie Schultz for doing the right thing here. She clearly recognized the situation she was creating for the Plain Dealer.  In her letter to readers, she explains why she is leaving the paper.

In recent weeks, it has become painfully clear that my independence, professionally and personally, is possible only if I’m no longer writing for the newspaper that covers my husband’s senate race on a daily basis. It’s time for me to move on.

Or did she only apologize, and then later resign, because she was caught?  You be the judge.  Click here to view the video that started it all.

We also have obtained a copy of a letter from the Ohio Republican Party to the Plain Dealer. Last week, they wrote and asked the PD not to let Connie Schultz write any more stories of a political nature, due to the obvious conflict of interest. They agreed to meet about the matter this week, but with today’s resignation, it appears that the matter is settled. Here is the letter:

Editor
The Plain Dealer
1801 Superior Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44114-2198

September 14, 2011

Dear Ms. Simmons:

I respectfully request that Connie Schultz not be allowed to write about political matters for the Plain Dealer as her conflict of interest does not pass the most basic test of journalistic fairness and integrity.

I’m sure you would agree the first priority of any journalist is to avoid instances which the public may regard as a real or perceived conflict of interest with the subject matter they’re covering.

On September 3, 2011 Connie Schultz, a columnist with the Plain Dealer, and the wife of U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown, attended a political rally sponsored by the Tea Party Express at All Pro Freight Stadium in Avon.

On September 7, 2011 Ms. Schultz wrote a column about the Tea Party event. She decried many things about the event, and interestingly called into question the integrity of the editor of the Lorain Morning Journal by linking a column he wrote last spring to how the newspaper reported attendance at the event.

Later on September 7, it was reported by Third Base Politics that Ms. Schultz not only attended the event, but when her husband’s potential political opponent for the U.S. Senate in 2012 began speaking, she took out her camera and began filming his speech.

On September 8, Ms. Schultz posted another column offering a highly suspect explanation for her actions. She said “When I held up my camera, I thought the journalist in me was making an in-your-face point about public forums.” With all due respect why didn’t she mention this episode in her September 7 column before she was caught red-handed performing a blatantly political act? I think we all know the answer to that.

In fact, Ms. Schultz’s actions run completely counter to thoughts she offered in her 2007 memoir, entitled “…and His Lovely Wife”:

On page 49, Ms. Schultz writes, “I have to avoid even the appearance of conflict, and that list of topics is growing too long.” On page 51, Ms. Schultz writes, “I had stopped attending newsroom meetings about political coverage, to avoid even the appearance of scouting for the campaign.”

Oftentimes it is print media which serves as the lens through which the general public views information, and in turn ultimately renders its judgments. The faith the public places in the media stems directly from the ability of reporters to remain free from bias. Your readers not only value this relationship, they depend upon it.

Thank you for your consideration of my request.

Regards,

Kevin DeWine
Chairman, Ohio Republican Party

The blogosphere continues to embarrass the mainstream media.  Next up, the people of Ohio get to choose whether Sherrod Brown keeps his job.  Sherrod Brown is the most liberal Senator in the country, representing a moderate swing state.  Let’s hope Ohioans send him packing, too.

Connie Schultz records Josh Mandel at Tea Party event

She has written frequent columns blasting the Tea Party movement.  However, she had never attended one, only criticized from afar.  So last weekend, she decided to attend a Tea Party Express event that was being held near her home in Avon, Ohio, to experience the Tea Party up close and personal.  It might have been a better idea for her not to attend.  In the conservative Ohio blog Third Base Politics, which I write for, we wrote an exclusive post about what happened at the event.

In her column today, she talks about her experience at a Tea Party event in Avon, here in Lorain County. Reports are that she spent most of her time interviewing attendees for her column. That’s what they pay her to do, right? In her column, she pays a lot of attention to who didn’t show up. However, she fails to mention one of the speakers who WAS there. That speaker would be Ohio Treasurer Josh Mandel.

I wonder why she didn’t mention this. Why didn’t she mention that when Josh’s name was announced, that she rushed to the seats to sit in a row up front, and pulled out her video camera? Well, maybe SHE didn’t mention it, but SOMEBODY noticed it. See the photo and video.

Our reports also say that Connie didn’t record the other speakers at the event. But she certainly made sure she recorded Mandel. Why was Connie Schultz so interested in Josh Mandel? Oh, please forgive me. I forget to mention something else. Connie’s husband is up for re-election next year, and Josh Mandel is almost certain to be the Republican nominee.

So, it appears that while being paid by the Plain Dealer to write a column about the Tea Party event, she was also stalking her husbands opponent and doing work for his re-election campaign.

Be sure to follow the link and watch the video.  3BP had some tough questions for Schultz and the Plain Dealer:

Was Connie Schultz at the Tea Party event to provide video and do opposition research for Sherrod Brown’s reelection campaign?

Did Sherrod Brown break the law by accepting this opposition research as an illegal corporate contribution from The Plain Dealer?

Will The Plain Dealer publicly acknowledge this giant conflict of interest, punish her and publicly denounce her abuse of their money and journalistic integrity?

Who did Connie give the video to, the Plain Dealer or her husband, Sherrod Brown?

Was Connie there as a reporter for the Plain Dealer, or as a Democrat videographer?

Honestly, we didn’t expect Schultz or the Plain Dealer to acknowledge what happened.  The very next day, however, we had to write a follow-up to our story. Schultz dedicated her entire next column to “acknowledging her mistakes.”

I didn’t mention all the speakers in my column, but there was one who showed up at the end of the event whom I should have named: Ohio Treasurer Josh Mandel.

For months, The Plain Dealer has identified Mandel as the likely 2012 Republican opponent of my husband, U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown. Mandel is raising money for a Senate race, but has not declared his candidacy. He frequently attacks my husband in public interviews and speeches, and the Tea Party event was no exception.

I did not mention him because I wanted to avoid the appearance of singling him out for criticism, or promoting my husband. In retrospect, that was a mistake.

You, the reader, should always be trusted to make up your own mind about whether my writing presents a conflict. That’s why transparency matters. I am in the unique position of being a newspaper columnist married to a U.S. senator. My opinions are my own, but I must be ever vigilant to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. I’m sorry I didn’t let you know Mandel showed up.

She then tries to explain what she was doing with the video camera.

I made a second mistake. A few minutes before Mandel walked onto the field to speak, police officers ejected a videographer for the Democratic Party, at organizers’ request. When I found out about this, and noticed that two other men with video cameras were allowed to stay, I pulled out my Canon PowerShot camera, set it to video and held it in plain sight as Mandel spoke.

Connie goes on to say she was “making a statement” of protest regarding the Democrat videographer who was kicked out, if such person existed at all.  I don’t buy it.  I think she was taking his place and intending to give the video to her husband’s campaign people.

Obviously, her mea culpa was a result of getting caught, and her employer being embarrassed by a local blog.  But we do give her credit for owning up to it and mostly taking complete responsibility for crossing over the ethical line.  She continues:

Taping the speech gave the appearance that I was covering Mandel for The Plain Dealer. That was not, and never will be, the case. It doesn’t matter that I did nothing with my video, or that someone else posted a video of Mandel’s speech on You Tube. I should have taken a deep breath and kept my camera in my bag.

This is my debut column for the Plain Dealer’s Metro section. Not what I had planned. But it’s the only way to proceed if I am to ask for your trust.

My error in judgment also caused unnecessary anguish for editors who trust me, and champion my work. I feel just sick about that.

What did the Senator have to say?  WKYC’s Tom Beres caught up with him.

Her husband told Tom Beres his wife has great integrity.

“She was not doing campaign work. Somebody that wanted to tape the speech was thrown out, probably illegally, because it’s a public-funded venue. And she taped it. She didn’t give it to the campaign. She’s a citizen. She was there,” he said.

Brown acts oblivious to any possible charges of conflict of interest here.  No, Senator, you’re wrong.  In this case, she was not just “a citizen”.  She was a journalist.  A journalist engaging in political activity.

Finally, the Plain Dealer still doesn’t seem to be handling the situation very well.  For a newspaper who was just caught in an embarrassing conflict of interest with their star columnist, going forward with less transparency about the situation seems like an odd choice to me.

Follow @Bytor3BP

A very curious, but not surprising, piece from Reuters this morning chronicled a speech by Michele Bachmann given to senior citizens this weekend in Poinciana, Florida.

This seemingly straightforward piece illustrates how bias toward evangelical Christians can work to marginalize their conservative views and potential candidacies.

Here are Congresswoman Bachmann’s words:

“Washington, D.C., you’d think by now they’d get the message. An earthquake, a hurricane. Are you listening? The American people have done everything they can, and now it’s time for an act of God and we’re getting it.”

We presume that Representative Bachmann’s comments were mostly, if not completely, tongue-in-cheek. Video of the speech shows that she was clearly joking. Reportedly, several audience members chuckled as if they understood it as humor; her spokeswoman has recently acknowledged that it was indeed a joke.

Reuters’ headline, however, painted a different picture:

For Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann, Hurricane Irene and last week’s earthquake in the eastern United States were a message from God that Washington needs to change its policies.

The article added that Bachmann asserted that that “the hurricane was an ‘act of God’ that Washington should heed.”

That is one interpretation of those words—one that serves a liberal agenda, certainly not that of Mrs. Bachmann’s candidacy.

If, by chance, she truly believes she can interpret meteorological events as acts of God, then we are mistaken. Our recommendation to Mrs. Bachmann, in that case, would be that she remove prophesying from her political repertoire.

Granted, conservative, evangelical Christians like us believe that God can, in fact, work through human events and earthly changes to communicate with His people or bring about His will. Both of us, however, believe that it is foolish and borderline insane to attempt to proclaim with prophetic voice about specific events. The American people generally want their political leaders to believe in God, rely on Him, and base their philosophy on Biblical principles. They generally do not want them to walk about and speak as if they were a modern Jeremiah.

But, given that her comments don’t represent a dogmatic statement about God’s using earthquakes and hurricanes to wake up the federal government of the United States, we advise Representative Bachmann—and all GOP candidates—to refrain from comments that could possibly be misinterpreted in this way.

It is imperative to remember the mainstream media’s Prime Directive: marginalize conservatives and Christians, while boosting the image of progressives and secularists. Getting them both in one stroke is ideal. One of the primary methods of marginalizing involves misinterpreting (or malinterpreting, rather) public statements. Presuming that a silly statement about Hurricane Irene represents a radical—and goofy—theological viewpoint clearly serves the Prime Directive.

Perhaps it was unconscious; perhaps not. Regardless, conservatives must be wary; the media will take every opportunity to twist their words to make them look like Fred Phelps or other lunatics.

In general, it is not a good idea for candidates to speak with prophetic assurance about events. Leave that—and the criticism that will inevitably come—to clergy and political talking heads.

To clarify, we are not suggesting that conservative candidates speak timidly about their beliefs or about those issues that confront our nation. That is quite different than claiming a spiritual gift that is generally not considered an asset for a presidential contender. Conservative views may inevitably marginalize or anger some; let us not allow idiosyncratic spiritual views to make that marginalization any easier.

Here are a few examples of watered-down words in modern American lexicon.

Fascist. That was a good one. But no, you went and watered it down. It was once a serious word that described a real threat and a growing ideology. Now it’s used to describe those who believe that “In God We Trust” on our currency is OK. Or simply just happen to disagree with you over the right to prayer at a high school graduation.

Nazi. A little more nuanced than fascism but doubly meaningful when directed at someone. Nazism was the closest thing to the Devil’s army that man has ever produced. Writers have been trying for over 60 years to understand its origins and existence. It’s so deep and dark and evil that it was really a rare phenomenon in human history. So inhuman were their actions, we still can’t grasp it all. Now ironically, if you are pro-life, you are a Nazi.

Racist. Ah, now there’s a word you never get tired of hearing. Racism is a clinical condition. I personally think you have to be somewhat insane to fully subscribe to it. That’s not to say there aren’t real differences between cultures and values. And certainly some are indeed better than others. See, I’m a racist. I just held and expressed a less than flattering idea. Ergo, racist! That’s not its only use, though. If you are pounding a liberal opponent in debate, you can expect to be called racist. For instance, if you hold the view that lower taxes are better than higher taxes, you run the danger of being a racist. It is like the nuclear bomb in the liberal arsenal.

Which now leads us here.

Terrorist. I expect everyone to know the meaning behind this word. Sure terror comes in many forms. And I know not all Muslims are terrorists. However, strictly speaking from the numbers, most terrorists are Muslims. They seek to harm us, destroy us, kill us in piecemeal, and would like nothing more than to level a major US city. They hate us. The world witnessed what they were capable of on September 11th. They will do it again in a heartbeat. They want to do it again. These turds can sleep at night after cutting the throat of infant and beating to death a toddler.

Thankfully, I don’t personally know any terrorist. Though, I do know plenty of conservatives. I’ve met a few terrorists in Iraq and I can say with all certainty those who spoke out and held debate over the debt ceiling are not terrorists. So stop using the word as another way to hide your cowardness and your inability to compete in ideas. You are going to ruin it for the real terrorists.

Note: I suspect liberals today were a lot like the jackasses who went and ruined the word leper years and years ago.