Lars Hedegaard Acquitted by Danish Court via Leftwing Trickery of Language

Trickery or no, Hedegaard was Acquitted, and here is his written response to the verdict:

“Copenhagen, January 31, 2011

As my ancient forefathers, the Vikings, would have said: It is always good to fight. It is better to win.

My detractors — the foes of free speech and the enablers of an Islamic ascendancy in the West — will claim that I was acquitted on a technicality, namely that the judge in the Court of Frederiksberg resolved that my supposedly offensive comments on the violations against little Muslim girls were not intended for public dissemination.

That is absolutely true. The judge chose to the way out provided by my capable counsel.

However, the public prosecutor has been privy to the circumstances surrounding my case for a year — and yet he chose to prosecute me. Obviously in the hope that he could secure a conviction given the Islamophile sentiment among our ruling classes.

My acquittal is therefore a major victory for free speech.

I have no doubt that the massive support I have received from freedom fighters around the world has been instrumental in securing my acquittal.

This outcome will encourage people all over the West and beyond to speak up.

The battle for freedom is far from lost.

Courage!”

Comment:   The above response was printed at Gates of Vienna.   Although there never should have been a verdict for there never should have been a trial.   But Europe is not America.   And as long as the Obama Marxists do not stay around very long politically America will remain more free than any European state.

Canada is not America either for it has a long list of hate crime laws to use against free speech under the aegis of the Human Rights Commisions in  the Provinces and at the  national level  as well to limit  how people speak and breath in criticism of those in  government favor.

Behind the terror of the jihadists  muslims scare  nearly everyone in government.

Marxist Response to Court Decision on ObamaCare (‘Affordable Care Act’ in Marxism Language)

Justice, White House, legal experts react to Vinson

Affordable   Care Act   decision

by Joan McCarter

The Department of Justice released a statement today saying that the government “strongly disagrees with the court’s ruling today and continue to believe – as other federal courts have found – that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional.”  The White House’s Stephanie Cutter blogged that this is a “plain case of judicial overreaching.”

The judge’s decision contradicts decades of Supreme Court precedent that support the considered judgment of the democratically elected branches of government that the Act’s “individual responsibility” provision is necessary to prevent billions of dollars of cost-shifting every year by individuals without insurance who cannot pay for the health care they obtain. And the judge declared that the entire law is null and void even though the only provision he found unconstitutional was the “individual responsibility” provision. This decision is at odds with decades of established Supreme Court law, which has  consistently found that courts have a constitutional obligation to preserve as a much of a statute as can be preserved. As a result, the judge’s decision puts all of the new benefits, cost savings and patient protections that were included in the law at risk….

We don’t believe this kind of judicial activism will be upheld and we are confident that the Affordable Care Act will ultimately be declared constitutional by the courts.

History and the facts are on our side. Similar legal challenges to major new laws — including the Social Security Act, the Civil Rights Act, and the Voting Rights Act — were all filed and all failed. And contrary to what opponents argue the new law falls well within Congress’s power to regulate economic activity under the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the General Welfare Clause.

Comment:  In Obama ‘Newspeak’  of Political Correctness, ObamaCare is now called, “Affordable Care Act”.

 

Good News for Democratic America!! Judge Rules ObamaCare UNCONSTITUTIONAL

A SETBACK FOR MARXISM IN AMERICA!

SO FAR SO GOOD.   One more step is needed.  That step will be to the Supreme Court!

Click here for a RealClearPolitics video of the decision:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/01/31/florida_judge_rules_individual_mandate_is_unconstitutional.html

This Great News  came by way of PowerLine and John Hinderaker.  Please read further:

“Federal district court judge Roger Vinson issued his ruling today on summary judgment motions in the Florida case, State of Florida v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, in which 26 states allege that Obamacare is unconstitutional. Judge Vinson agreed with their arguments and granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs.

Judge Vinson’s ruling evens the score at 2-2; two federal courts have upheld the act against constitutional challenges, while two have now found it to be invalid. The ultimate decision will be made, of course, by the Supreme Court, some time in the next few years.

Judge Vinson held that the Commerce Clause cannot be stretched so far as to require individual Americans to buy health insurance approved by the government. This conclusion may not seem surprising to those who simply read the clause–It gives Congress the power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”–but beginning in the 1930s, broad interpretations of the clause have greatly expanded federal powers. Still, Judge Vinson was certainly correct in saying that “Never before has Congress required that everyone buy a product from a private company (essentially for life) just for being alive and residing in the United States.”

Judge Vinson held that valid legislation under the Commerce Clause must regulate an “activity:”

It would be a radical departure from existing case law to hold that Congress can regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause. If it has the power to compel an otherwise passive individual into a commercial transaction with a third party merely by asserting — as was done in the Act — that compelling the actual transaction is itself “”commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce”” [see Act § 1501(a)(1)], it is not hyperbolizing to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted. … If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failing to engage in commerce, the enumeration of powers in the Constitution would have been in vain for it would be “difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power” [Lopez, supra, 514 U.S. at 564], and we would have a Constitution in name only.

He next rejected the federal government’s claim that failing to buy health insurance is an activity:

The Commerce Clause originally applied to the trade and exchange of goods as it sought to eliminate trade barriers by and between the states. Over the years, the Clause’s reach has been expanded from covering actual interstate commerce (and its channels and instrumentalities) to intrastate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. It has even been applied to activities that involve the mere consumption of a product (even if there is no legal commercial interstate market for that product). To now hold that Congress may regulate the so-called “economic decision” to not purchase a product or service in anticipation of future consumption is a “bridge too far.” It is without logical limitation and far exceeds the existing legal boundaries established by Supreme Court precedent.

Because I find both the “uniqueness” and “economic decision” arguments unpersuasive, I conclude that the individual mandate seeks to regulate economic inactivity, which is the very opposite of economic activity. And because activity is required under the Commerce Clause, the individual mandate exceeds Congress’ commerce power, as it is understood, defined, and applied in the existing Supreme Court case law.

Judge Vinson concluded by finding that the individual mandate is such an essential and intertwined aspect of the statute’s overall regulatory scheme that it cannot be severed from the rest of the statute, and, therefore, Obamacare in its entirety is unconstitutional.

Based on existing Supreme Court precedents, Judge Vinson’s opinion strikes me as well-reasoned. But this case is different from any that have yet come before the Court, and the Court could go either way. The final decision will be essentially political.

While everyone purports to agree in principle that our federal government is one of limited, enumerated powers, the true liberal position is that there are no limits at all on what the federal government can do, except as set forth in the Bill of Rights. Thus, the delineation of the role and powers of the national government, as laid out in the main body of the Constitution, is ignored. On the other hand, the amendments are selectively given an expansive reading where necessary to prevent the government from doing something that liberals do not think is appropriate (e.g., enforcing laws against abortion). Affirming Obamacare would represent a new high-water mark for that philosophy.

SCOTT adds: Two notes: 1) One of the most interesting aspects of Judge Vinson’s decision is its striking down of the Obamacare law in its entirety because of its lack of a severability provision. Judge Vinson did not just strike down the mandate. 2) The final decision rendered by the Supreme Court may be “essentially political,” but a truly constitutional resolution of the case is attainable. I think it would look like Judge Vinson’s.

UPDATE by JOHN: I’ve often said that I think the Washington Post is the most respectable voice of the Democratic Party, but that paper’s instant analysis of Judge Vinson’s decision, by Ezra Klein, is pathetic. Klein has no legal training, and it shows. His reaction to the decision is shrill, partisan, and unencumbered by any knowledge of the law:

More surprising is that he’s decided that the presence of the mandate means the rest of the law is unconstitutional, too, which is an extremely radical step. The full ruling has a very Bush v. Gore feeling, as Vinson concedes that his position is activist in the extreme and a break from the court’s usual preference for limited rulings, but says, in effect, that he’s going to do it just this once. “This conclusion is reached with full appreciation for the ‘normal rule’ that reviewing courts should ordinarily refrain from invalidating more than the unconstitutional part of a statute,” Vinson writes, “but non-severability is required based on the unique facts of this case and the particular aspects of the Act. This is not a situation that is likely to be repeated.” Italics mine.

That puts Vinson on the far right of this debate….

Of course, Judge Vinson did not “concede[] that his position is activist in the extreme…” Klein just made that up. Klein’s discussion of the severability issue is frankly ignorant, and while he quotes briefly from Judge Vinson’s opinion, he shows no sign of actually having read it in its entirety.

Klein fails to acknowledge that the Democrats omitted a severability clause from the health care reform statute. (A severability clause says that if one or more provisions should be found invalid, the remainder nevertheless is intended to stand. Such clauses are common in legislation.) Judge Vinson pointed out the importance of the absence of such a provision in assessing Congressional intent:

The lack of a severability clause in this case is significant because one had been included in an earlier version of the Act, but it was removed in the bill that subsequently became law. “”Where Congress includes [particular] language in an earlier version of a bill but deletes it prior to enactment, it may be presumed that the [omitted provision] was not intended.”” Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23-24, 104 S. Ct. 296, 78 L. Ed. 2d 17 (1983). In other words, the severability lause was intentionally left out of the Act. The absence of a severability clause is further significant because the individual mandate was controversial all during the progress of the legislation and Congress was undoubtedly well aware that legal challenges were coming. Indeed, as noted earlier, even before the Act became law, several states had passed statutes declaring the individual mandate unconstitutional and purporting to exempt their residents from it; and Congress’’ own attorneys in the CRS had basically advised that the challenges might well have legal merit as it was “”unclear”” if the individual mandate had “”solid constitutional foundation.”” See CRS Analysis, supra, at 3. In light of the foregoing, Congress’’ failure to include a severability clause in the Act (or, more accurately, its decision to not include one that had been included earlier) can be viewed as strong evidence that Congress recognized the Act could not operate as intended without the individual mandate.

I assume that Klein either didn’t read Vinson’s opinion, or, more likely, failed to acknowledge this discussion because he didn’t understand it, notwithstanding the fact that it is perfectly clear, and was not qualified to comment on it.

Judge Vinson went on to note that the government’s lawyers admitted that the statute’s entire scheme of insurance regulation would fall without the individual mandate. This, too, was a strong argument against severability:

Moreover, the defendants have conceded that the Act’’s health insurance reforms cannot survive without the individual mandate, which is extremely significant because the various insurance provisions, in turn, are the very heart of the Act itself.

Again, Klein makes no mention of this important argument against severability.

The Post headlines Klein’s piece “GOP judge rules against Affordable Care Act.” This headline, combined with Klein’s ill-informed “analysis” of the opinion, is about the lowest possible form of commentary on a judicial decision. The Post owes its readers better than this.”

---

Reagan’s 100th Next Week! The Last Great American??

“MRC Remembers Media’s ‘Rewriting Ronald Reagan’ with Special Report,”  written by Tim Graham at NewsBusters:

“As the nation prepares to pay tribute to former President Ronald Reagan on the 100th anniversary of his birth on February 6, it is amazing to consider that his success at turning the U.S. away from 1960s-style liberalism was accomplished in the face of a daily wave of news media hostility. The media’s first draft of history was more myth than reality: that Reagan only brought the nation poverty, ignorance, bankruptcy, and a dangerously imbalanced foreign and defense policy.

The Media Research Center has assembled a report documenting the “objective” national media’s most biased takes on President Reagan, his record and his times. It’s now posted at MRC.org (complete with PDF), including 22 video clips and matching MP3 audio:

I. Reagan the Man: Reporters often agonized over why the American public liked Reagan, that they couldn’t see through the White House spell and see Reagan in the contemptuous light that the media did.

II. The Reaganomics Recovery: Reagan’s policies caused a dramatic economic turn-around from high inflation and unemployment to steady growth, but the good news was obscured by bad news of trade deficits, greedy excesses of the rich, and supposedly booming homelessness.

III. Reagan and National Defense: Ronald Reagan may have won the Cold War, but to the media, the Reagan defense buildup seemed like a plot designed to deny government aid to the poor and hungry, and was somehow the only spending responsible for “bankrupting” the country.

IV. Reagan and Race: Using their definition of “civil rights” — anything which adds government-mandated advantages for racial minorities is “civil rights” progress — liberal journalists suggested that somehow Ronald Reagan was against liberty for minorities.

V. The Reagan Legacy: The media painted the Reagan era as a horrific time of low ethics, class warfare on the poor, and crushing government debt.

EXTRA: Reagan, Slammed by Celebrities. Ronald Reagan’s long Hollywood career earned him no credit among celebrities, who ridiculed him and even inserted anti-Reagan jokes into everyday entertainment programming.

Our introduction contemplates Reagan’s amazing record:

As America marks the 100th anniversary of Ronald Reagan’s birth, stories abound of the man and the President — his leadership and vision, his humanity and optimism, his deep love of country and belief in the power of freedom. But any measure of his accomplishments has to begin by noting his unique placement in history as a firmly conservative president arriving at the end of an era dominated by liberalism — in both parties. Everything he accomplished he did by the force of his personality and words, aiming to pick up easily embarrassed moderate Republicans as well as conservative Democrats. Everything he changed he managed to do against a daily wave of news media hostility to his agenda.

Think of everything Reagan did, and then add: He did it all before Fox News. He did it all before the Rush Limbaugh phenomenon. He did it all before the instant battle cry of his defenders could hit the Internet. He did it all before C-SPAN caught on and people could enjoy the game of watching entire speeches and debates and then observing how the network tricksters discombobulated them into liberal hatchet jobs. He did it all when the only conservative regular on the big networks was ABC’s George Will, who appeared once weekly as a panelist on This Week with David Brinkley.

In the prologue to his book on Reagan, Dinesh D’Souza captured the flavor of how Reagan was greeted by the Washington establishment. Everything Reagan sought to accomplish seemed ludicrous and uneducated to the long-standing liberal consensus. Tax cuts would be wildly inflationary. A foreign policy based on the radical notion that Communism should be put on the ash heap of history was dismissed as a bellicose fantasy too dangerous for the nuclear age. At the end of it all, Reagan was the wise man, and all his detractors — Democrats and ersatz Republicans, political scientists and economists, “Sovietologists” and journalists — were the dummies.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2011/01/31/mrc-remembers-medias-rewriting-ronald-reagan-special-report#ixzz1CejoLgkL

“And Now for Something Entirely Different”: Yogi Berra!!

Yogi Berra played for the New York Yankees before the years of sweeping changes in major league  baseball franchise, American politics, and the collapse of decency in American culture and the manner in which culture ‘is delivered’ today.

He caught.

He was an awkward looking man, dwarfish, yet not dwarf, haggard, yet not tired, very old, even when young, and quite noisy, even when quiet.

He has been forgotten, but should remain memorable.

I had forgotten about Yogi.  His name hadn’t entered my brain for maybe 25 years, to my ‘knowledge’.  I worshipped baseball when I was a kid.  My first awakening  came in 1943 when I asked my Dad why the Philadelphia teams were always at the bottom of the baseball ‘lists’.

But it was in early autumn in  1944 while collecting milkweed pods for the  war effort during  World War II when I really got the fever.    The St. Louis Cardinals and the St. Louis Browns wound up playing each other in the World Series that fall.   My favorite uncle had just moved to St. Louis.  He, like my Dad, was a major league baseball fan. 

St. Paul and Minneapolis had AAA minor league baseball teams with the “Saints” attached to the Brooklyn Dodgers and the “Millers” attached to the New York Giants, but occasionally would work with the Boston Red Sox for players.  

Yogi Berra entered my baseball fan world sometime around 1947  or 1949 when the Yankees played the Brooklyn Dodgers in the World Series.   I was raised in St. Paul and learned to hate the New York Yankess almost as much as the New York Giants, which you’ll remember  fed its players through Minneapolis across the river.  When the Dodgers and Giants would play each other at Ebbets Field or the Polo grounds, it was like St. Paul playing Minneapolis away from home.

But that is a long time ago,  and for a long time I had forgotten about this guy, Yogi Berra.  

Everytime I and countless others from those days past would catch a memory moment about Berra there always would be a smile or laugh to go with the thought.

He was one colorful guy with a gift of gab….gab some of which has far outlasted this clever, athletically  talented, but awkward, confident, yet humble man from St. Louis who quit school after the eighth grade.

After all this time of the forgotten Yogi Berra, I heard him quoted this past week on three occasions.    I still laugh at his quotes.   I have listed a few of his better known ones  below for your review.    While you read them place firmly in your mind one of the best major league base ball catchers of all time, thuggish complectioned,  dumpy in posture, awkwardly built, Italian touched  in  languge, wonderfully American in attitude, and always maintained himself as just one of the guys.      Here is Yogi Berra:

If the world was perfect, it wouldn’t be.

A nickel aint’ worth a dime anymore.

Half the lies they tell about me aren’t true.

I never said most of the things I said.

If you don’t know where you’re going, any road will take you there.

If you come to a fork in the road, take it.

So, I’m ugly.  So what?  I never saw anyone hit with his face.

The future ain’t what it used to be.

We made too many wrong mistakes.

If you ask me anything I don’t know, I’m not going to answer.

I wish I had an answer to that, because I’m kind of tired of answering that question.

You can observe a lot by just watching.

Nobody goes there any more.  It’s too crowded.

It was impossible to get a conversation going.  Everybody was talking too much.

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice.  In practice, there is.

If you didn’t laugh as hard as I did, there probably is a generation gap or two between us, or like anything truly ‘beautiful’  it penetrated deeper into the soul of imagination everytime it is repeated.

A Note from Allen Estrin at Prager University!

Dear Friend,

Are you a liberal?  

If you’re reading this, your answer is most likely, “no way.”

But you probably know a whole bunch of people who do consider themselves liberal, right?  

They like the image it conjures up.  Being liberal means that they’re open-minded, tolerant, and accepting of new ideas. But have they ever tested these airy notions against real-life liberal policies like identity politics, nanny statism, and no death penalty for even the most heinous murderers? Hmmm, probably not. If they did, they might have to reconsider their self-definition.  

Can we prove this? I think we can.

Dennis Prager has developed a test called, appropriately enough, Are You A Liberal? It poses 21 statements that reflect conventional liberal policy positions and asks participants to state whether they agree. The more times they agree, the more liberal they are.

We’ve recently completed a five minute video course that explains the test, the theory behind it and the consequences of so many people thinking they are liberal when they might well not be.

You can see the test and video at the Prager University website, where, as we like to say, if you give us five minutes, we’ll give you a semester’s worth of knowledge. More than a million have viewed our most recent course, which deals with the Middle East. It’s now available in Hebrew, Russian, German and French. Other courses address faith, marriage, ethics and social sciences.

Take the Are You A Liberal test and see for yourself. If you’re like me, it’s like golf – the lower your score, the better.  Then, have some liberal friends take it. Some will “pass” with flying colors. They are true believers and can’t be converted. That’s fine. But others, once they begin to realize what they really stand for, can. 

And that’s where you come in. Conservatives have become comfortable with Prager U courses. But we need to preach beyond the choir on this. We need to speak to those who switched sides in 2010 and plant the idea it wasn’t just these liberals they rejected but the ideas they represent. Then, we can lock in these conservative gains and get the country on the road to recovery.

Your gift of $10 or $25 or $500 will enable us to make this test the most talked-about item on the Internet. We need to market it, to promote it to audiences friendly and not. We need to challenge members of Congress – many of whom are trying right now to establish their conservative bona fides – to take the test and make public the results.

We can do this. We can make Are You A Liberal the Big Question of 2011. Give today … so we conservatives can lock in the momentum on our side.

Sincerely,

Allen Estrin

Chancellor, Prager University

chancellor@prageruniversity.com

Charlie Schumer Slipped a Freudian. Divulged ‘Lefties Run the Courts as a Legislative Branch’

from  Noel Sheppard at Newsbusters we read the following :

“Will this network and its commentators pay as much attention (as they did to Michele Bachmann’s non-gaffe speech of days earlier) to Sen. Chuck Schumer’s (D-N.Y.) remarks on CNN’s “State of the Union” Sunday wherein he claimed the three branches of government are the House, the Senate, and the president (video follows with transcript and commentary):”          (note:   it really isn’t a gaffe…..the error  is from a  basic  understanding of America missing from ones  brain….the Leftwing lobe…..Charlie Schumer’s lobe:)

Charlie Schumer was waxing on CNN yesterday:   “That was a mistake when Newt Gingrich tried it in 1995. It will be a bigger mistake now. It’s really playing with fire because, if they were to shut down the government, not only would horrible things happen like an inability of people to get Social Security checks, you can’t fund the military, but ultimately, it risks the credit markets.

They are getting wary because of the large debt we have, which we have to get down, but if they feel that people are willing to shut down the government, you could risk the credit markets really losing some confidence in the United States Treasury, and that could create a deeper recession than we had over the last several years — God forbid, even a depression.

So I would urge my Republican colleagues, no matter how strongly they feel — you know, we have three branches of government. We have a House. We have a Senate. We have a president. And all three of us are going to have to come together and give some, but it is playing with fire to risk the shutting down of the government, just as it is playing with fire to risk not paying the debt ceiling.”

Perhaps you haven’t found the embarrassment in Charlie’s lecture.   If you haven’t, you certainly can be forgiven… at least you aren’t a Senator of the United States Congress.

Comment:  But, it is likely you did not err.  The House and Senate are part of the Legislative branch of the American government.  The other two branches of government are the Executive and the Judicial.   (One usually learns by the sixth grade unless the  student has ‘studied’  at  a public school or other similar leftwing institution managing  American education during the past several  decades .

Charlie Schumer slipped a Freudian.  He  is one of the biggest noises  coming from  the national Democrat Party’s battleship guns in Washington.   He occupies the seat designated to represent the state of New York in the United States Senate.   He is high ranking in this Party and never stops making noise colorful and without meaning, reasons for his popularity among his colleagues.   Charlie Schumer is a Democrat.   Democrats believe the American Judiciary should be part of the the Marxist wing of American rule.

Leftwing Hollywood Establishment Culture: “Join Us or Shut Up!”

“LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) – It’s not easy being a Republican in Hollywood, even if your brother is an A-list director and producer. That’s what actor Clint Howard told attendees at a California GOP convention over the weekend.

Howard, an actor since 1961 and the younger brother of filmmaker Ron Howard, said that while he is comfortable speaking publicly about his conservatism, his advice to Republicans looking to break into the industry is to keep their political opinions to themselves, even though Hollywood liberals seldom do.

About five years ago, “I came out of the closet. In Hollywood. I certainly understand that’s dangerous,” said Howard, an MTV Movie Awards lifetime achievement honoree.

“If the entertainment industry should turn on me, I’d say, ‘Well fine.’ But for young conservatives, you may hear me speak out but let me tell you: Be careful,” he said.

Howard was joined by Morgan Brittany, one of the stars of the 1980s nighttime soap opera “Dallas.” The pair noted a leftward slide in the industry and an intolerance for political dissent over the decades.

“I’d go out on location with the ‘Dallas’ crew,” she told members of the California Congress of Republicans in Valencia on Saturday. “Everybody in the van was bashing (President Reagan). I never said anything because I thought I’d lose my job. And I probably would have lost my job. I got to a point later on, after ‘Dallas’ was over and I had my two children, that I said, ‘enough is enough. I’m not going to be silent any longer’,” she said.

“If I’m silent then I’m enabling these people and I’m letting them win. They need to know that we’re out there. That we’re strong and that we have ideas and solutions.”

The reaction to her newfound political courage back then wasn’t pretty.

“Oh man, the flack I took from the people, the agencies — ‘oh, you can’t say that. You can’t do that. Casting people might see you. And directors!'”

“What is this, the blacklist?” she said. “They’re not going to hire me because I have an opinion? That’s the way Hollywood is and, unfortunately, I got that. But I still wasn’t going to back down.”

Brittany, who was one of the most visible celebrities supporting the McCain-Palin Republican ticket during the last presidential election, has a daughter in her 20s who is a struggling actress. Her advice to her is: “Don’t tell them you’re my daughter.”

Brittany told of building a friendship with actor Ed Asner, a sometimes activist for progressive causes, when the two starred in a stage-play together during the infamous Florida recount that put Republican George W. Bush in the White House over Democrat Al Gore. And she told how she lost Asner’s friendship due to politics.

“Every night he just loved me and came in and gave me a big hug,” she said. “Then one night he was going crazy about Gore and Bush and stealing the election. I’m backstage and I said, ‘Ed, chill, not everybody thinks the way you do’.”

“Well, where do I begin?” I swear. It was like a light switch,” she said. “He turned to me and said, ‘you’re not a Republican?’ I said, ‘yep.’ And he said, ‘I can’t even look at you. I can’t even talk to you’.

“From that moment on, he never spoke to me again, except on stage,” she said. “This is what we’re dealing with. The intolerance of the left.”

She said that while a starlet in her 20s she met with the late Jay Bernstein, who managed the careers of Farrah Fawcett and Suzanne Somers back in the day, but the meeting went awry after Bernstein noticed the cross Brittany wore around her neck.

She said Bernstein told her: “You’re going to have to lose that, honey.

In this town, you can’t be religious, and you can’t be conservative.”

“He was a star-making manager, but I couldn’t sign on with him,” Brittany said.

As for Howard, he said he avoids talking politics while on the set, even though the other side shows less restraint. While shooting “Frost/Nixon,” for example, he got so sick of an outspoken liberal actor (whom he wouldn’t name) “spewing venom” that he finally told him to “knock it off.”

“I had to listen to a lot of it, but I never thought the workplace was the right time to get into it,” he said.

He also said politics never comes between him and his liberal brother Ron.

“I have a wonderful older brother. It’s a shame he sits on the wrong side of the dinner table,” he said. “It never gets uncomfortable with Ron and I. We just differ politically and that’s okay. He’s just wrong and I’m right. I believe that in my heart of hearts.”

Government “Investment” Doesn’t Create Jobs, The Private Sector Does!

…….Yes, the Private Sector does, but apparently Barack Hussein Obama didn’t learn that fact in Law School,  at Harvard, or from Bill Ayers, or Jeremiah “Goddamn America” Wright, Obama’s father figure.

The Washington Examiner repeats this job creation rule in the following  editorial page article:

“With unemployment remaining above 9 percent and showing no signs of going down any time soon, there’s lots of talk in Washington about job creation. For President Obama and congressional Democrats, unemployment is an opportunity for government “investment” in massive public works projects such as manufacturing solar shingles and building high-speed rail lines. At best, such big-spending projects by the federal government mainly create temporary jobs while building things of dubious consumer value. More often, these government spending projects funnel tax dollars to Democratic political allies like the unions that benefit from Project Labor Agreements. These PLAs bar nonunion workers, thereby driving up costs to taxpayers.

The problem is that big-government public works projects allow Washington politicians in both political parties to claim to be “doing something” about high unemployment. But the reality is that every dollar spent by government is one less that is available for the private sector to invest in new businesses and technologies that spur the creation of permanent jobs. Indeed, if increased government spending were the solution to high unemployment, the U.S. economy would be short of workers. Just since the last two years of the Bush administration, the federal budget has grown 36 percent, from $2.7 trillion to $3.7 trillion annually. Discretionary spending has gone up 25 percent. The Heritage Foundation’s Brian Reidl projects that the national debt will grow nearly $20 trillion by 2021, reaching 100 percent of gross domestic product that year. The annual budget deficit will exceed $1 trillion every year for the next decade.

But it’s exactly that tidal wave of federal spending, along with the trillions borrowed from China and other overseas creditors and thousands of pages of new federal regulations, that’s preventing the economy from creating new jobs and growth. House Speaker John Boehner got it exactly right on “Fox News Sunday” when he said, “There has been a spending spree going on in Washington these last couple of years that is beyond control. … By running up the debt by spending money we don’t have, running up these huge budget deficits, we create more uncertainty in the private sector. This is where cutting spending will create jobs because it is going to bring greater fiscal responsibility here in Washington, D.C.” The speaker repeated over and over again during the interview that the American people want government spending reduced so that jobs can be created. After the midterm elections, it’s a wonder that the Beltway crowd needs reminding.”

Dennis Prager: “Why I Am Not a Liberal”

For those Americans who think that Disaster has befallen America since the election of Barack Hussein Obama, you are terribly mistaken.  

The stench from the cesspool spun  its  biggest aroma into  the tornados of the American Cultural Revolution forty years ago.  Instead of the country recovering  this ” Democrat”  Party it preferred the festering attars. 

Obama is its Marxist product.

In August, 2008 during national dance-time Marxist revivals when and where Barack Hussein Obama caused shivers up and down American media’s legs, and weeping women at Obamadramas frothed  before fainting, a few rational Americans remained alert and awake.

One, conservative, Dennis Prager, who well understood the meaning of the rise of Marxism in American, wrote the following:

“The following is a list of beliefs that I hold. Nearly every one of them was a liberal position until the late 1960s. Not one of them is now.

Such a list is vitally important in order to clarify exactly what positions divide left from right, blue from red, liberal from conservative.

I believe in American exceptionalism, meaning that (a) America has done more than any international organization or institution, and more than any other country, to improve this world; and (b) that American values (specifically, the unique American blending of Enlightenment and Judeo-Christian values) form the finest value system any society has ever devised and lived by.

I believe that the bigger government gets and the more powerful the state becomes, the greater the threat to individual liberty and the greater the likelihood that evil will ensue. In the 20th century, the powerful state, not religion, was the greatest purveyor of evil in the world.

I believe that the levels of taxation advocated by liberals render those taxes a veiled form of theft. “Give me more than half of your honestly earned money or you will be arrested” is legalized thievery.

I believe that government funding of those who can help themselves (e.g., the able-bodied who collect welfare) or who can be helped by non-governmental institutions (such as private charities, family, and friends) hurts them and hurts society.

I believe that the United States of America, from its inception, has been based on the Judeo-Christian value system, not secular Enlightenment values alone, and therefore the secularization of American society will lead to the collapse of America as a great country.

I believe that some murderers should be put death; that allowing all murderers to live does not elevate the value of human life, but mocks it, and that keeping all murderers alive trivializes the evil of murder.

I believe that the American military has done more to preserve and foster goodness and liberty on Earth than all the artists and professors in America put together.

I believe that lowering standards to admit minorities mocks the real achievements of members of those minorities.

I believe that when schools give teenagers condoms, it is understood by most teenagers as tacit approval of their engaging in sexual intercourse.

I believe that the assertions that manmade carbon emissions will lead to a global warming that will in turn bring on worldwide disaster are a function of hysteria, just as was the widespread liberal belief that heterosexual AIDS will ravage America.

I believe that marriage must remain what has been in every recorded civilization — between the two sexes.

I believe that, whatever the reasons for entering Iraq, the American-led removal of Saddam Hussein from power will decrease the sum total of cruelty on Earth.

I believe that the trial lawyers associations and teachers unions, the greatest donors to the Democratic Party, have done great harm to American life — far more than, let us say, oil companies and pharmaceutical companies, the targets of liberal opprobrium.

I believe that nuclear power, clean coal, and drilling in a tiny and remote frozen part of Alaska and offshore — along with exploration of other energy alternatives such as wind and solar power — are immediately necessary.

I believe that school vouchers are more effective than increased spending on public schools in enabling many poorer Americans to give their children better educations.

I believe that while there are racists in America, America is no longer a racist society, and that blaming disproportionate rates of black violence and out-of-wedlock births on white racism is a lie and the greatest single impediment to African-American progress.

I believe that America, which accepts and assimilates foreigners better than any other country in the world, is the least racist, least xenophobic country in the world.

I believe the leftist takeover of the liberal arts departments in nearly every American university has been an intellectual and moral calamity.

I believe that a good man and a good marriage are more important to most women’s happiness and personal fulfillment than a good career.

I believe that males and females are inherently different. For example, girls naturally prefer dolls and tea sets to trucks and toy guns — if you give a girl trucks, she is likely to give them names and take care of them, and if you give a boy trucks, he is likely to crash them into one another.

I believe that when it comes to combating the greatest evils on Earth, such as the genocide in Rwanda, the United Nations has either been useless or an obstacle.

I believe that, generally speaking, Western Europe provides social and moral models to be avoided, not emulated.

I believe that America’s children were positively affected by hearing a non-denominational prayer each morning in school, and adversely affected by the removal of all prayer from school.

I believe that liberal educators’ removal of school uniforms and/or dress codes has had a terrible impact on students and their education.

I believe that bilingual education does not work, that for the sake of immigrant children and for the sake of the larger society, immersion in the language of the country, meaning English in America, is mandatory.

I believe that English should be declared the national language, and that ballots should not be printed in any language other than English. If one cannot understand English, one is probably not sufficiently knowledgeable to vote intelligently in an English-speaking country.

Finally, I believe that there are millions of Americans who share most of these beliefs who still call themselves “liberal” or “progressive” and who therefore vote Democrat. They do so because they still identify liberalism with pre-1970 liberalism or because they are emotionally attached to the word “liberal.”

I share that emotion. But one should vote based on values, not emotions.”

Comment:   That is my list, as well.  Most of all I abhor dictatorships, particularly of the bureaucratic Marxist kind.  I prefer to remain an adult in a community of “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” without Liberal Loony world  telling me what I should eat, how I should dress, what I should think and say,  what I must read or watch on television through its cronies at universities and schools, its mass media, and   its  befouled world of entertainment or how I must appease  its present ally, the  primitives of the jihadist muslim world.

As Pat Condell recommends:  Peace!