Question: Did Barack Obama give Hillary Clinton the finger at a
campaign rally after last week's debate? Could he actually have been that
arrogant, malevolent and flat-out dumb?
Answer: Yes. Yes, yes and yes.
Think I'm kidding? I'm not.
Here are two different camera angles for you. Note which finger Mr. Obama uses to
scratch his face when he mentions her name, note the reaction of the supporters he
was speaking to (they understood perfectly) and then notice his broad grin, the one that
says "yeah, I did it, isn't this great
He flips Ms. Clinton the bird about 20 seconds into the first video
and 1:22 into the second. It takes longer in the second video because that
one prefaces his finger gesture with a minute of whining over
his being asked about jeremiah wright and william ayers, and
pretending that neither of those associations is of any interest to voters
NOTE: If you have
trouble seeing either video, just click
here and follow the links provided by Lee Cary of www.americanthinker.com. Be sure to read his
commentary as well):
This is a lesson for anyone who has been beguiled and deluded into thinking
that Barack Obama is above such behavior. Hillary Clinton may scream it in
private, but he does it right in your face.
This is the guy we're supposed to vote for on the basis of his superior
BOZELL, EXPELLED AND STEIN
It is possible that you are aware of Ben Stein's new movie, "Expelled", especially if you watch or read conservative
media. If you don't, it is more than a little possible that you
are not aware that it even exists, let alone what it is about.
L. Brent Bozell has written a really good column on Mr. Stein's movie and
what it tells us about the current state of liberality in the sciences.
I confess that when the
producers of Ben Steins new documentary Expelled called, offering me a
private screening, I was less than excited.
It is a reality of PC
liberalism: There is only one credible side to an issue, and any dissent is not
only rejected, it is scorned. Global warming. Gay rights. Abortion rights.
On these and so many other issues there is enlightenment, and then there is the
Idiotic Other Side. PC liberalisms power centers are the news media, the
entertainment industry and academia and all are in the clutches of an
unmistakable hypocrisy: Theirs is an ideology that preaches the freedom of
thought and expression at every opportunity, yet practices absolute intolerance
Evolution is another one of
those one-sided debates. We know the concept of Intelligent Design is stifled in
academic circles. An entire documentary to state the obvious? You can see my
reluctance to view it.
I went into the screening
bored. I came out of it stunned.
Ben Steins extraordinary
presentation documents how the worlds of science and academia not only crush
debate on the origins of life, but also crush the careers of professors who dare
to question the Darwinian hypothesis of evolution and natural selection.
Stein asks a simple
question: What if the universe began with an intelligent designer, a designer
named God? He assembles a stable of academics experts all -- who dared to
question Darwinist assumptions and found themselves expelled from intellectual
discourse as a result. They include evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg
(sandbagged at the Smithsonian), biology professor Caroline Crocker (drummed out
of George Mason University), and astrophysicist Guillermo Gonzalez (blackballed
at Iowa State University).
Thats disturbing enough,
but what Stein does next is truly shocking. He allows the principal advocates of
Darwinism to speak their minds. These are experts with national reputations,
regular welcomed guests on network television and the like. But the public knows
them only by their careful seven-second soundbites. Stein engages them in
conversation. They speak their minds. They become sputtering ranters, openly
championing their sheer hatred of religion.
PC liberalism has showered
accolades on atheist author Richard Dawkins best-selling book The God
Delusion. But when Stein suggests to Dawkins that hes been critical of the Old
Testament God, Dawkins protests not that Stein is wrong, but that hes being
too mild. He then reads from this jaw-dropping paragraph of his book:
The God of the Old
Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and
proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive,
blood-thirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal,
genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic,
capriciously malevolent bully.
Dawkins has a website. Its
slogan is A clear-thinking oasis.
Its understood that God
had nothing to do with the origins of life on Earth. What, then, is the
alternate explanation? Stein asks these experts, and their very serious answers
are priceless. One theorizes that life began somehow on the backs of crystals.
Another states electric sparks from a lightning storm created organic matter
(out of nothing). Another declares that life was brought to Earth by aliens.
Anything but God.
The most controversial part
of the film follows Stein to the Dachau concentration camp, underlining how
Darwins theories of natural selection led to the eugenics movement, embraced by
Adolf Hitler. If there is no God, but only a planetary lab waiting for
scientists to perfect the human race, where can Darwinism lead? Stein insists
that he isnt accusing todays Darwinists of Nazism. He points out, however,
that Hitlers mad science was inspired by Darwinism.
Now that the film is
complete, the evolutionist prophets featured in the film are on the warpath
inveighing against it, and the alleged idiots who would lower themselves to
watching it. Richard Dawkins laments how the film will solicit cheap laughs
that could only be raised in an audience of scientific ignoramuses. Minnesota
professor and blogger P.Z. Myers predicts the movie is going to appeal strongly
to the religious, the paranoid, the conspiracy theorists, and the ignorant
which means they're going to draw in about 90% of the American market. Myers
and Dawkins now both complain they were duped into appearing in the movie (for
Everyone should take the
opportunity to see Expelled if nothing else, as a bracing antidote to the
atheism-friendly culture of PC liberalism. But its far more than that. Its a
spotlight on the arrogance of this movement and its leaders, a spotlight on the
choking intolerance of academia, and a spotlight on the ignorance of so many who
say so much, yet know so very little.
Now you know how liberal the sciences are today. The answer? They
Toe the line and you'll be fine. Think for yourself and be put on the
shelf. How sad.
ONLY IN ISRAEL......
Did you know that Israel supplies Gaza with almost all its electrical
power? And much of its food?
Did you know that Israel provides hospital services to Gazans as well?
Does this seem a little odd to you? After all, Gaza is controlled by
hamas, a terrorist group that is committed to the destruction of Israel.
But despite this, Israel provides services to the people of Gaza - its blood
enemies - that Gaza's own government does not.
Not only that, but there is an obviously valid argument that, by doing so,
Israel frees up the money which would have been used for these services, thus
allowing hamas to purchase more weaponry and kill more Israelis.
Nowhere else in the world can you find a situation like this.
Nowhere else in the world does a country provide humanitarian services to a
sworn enemy bent on its annihilation. Only in Israel.
Just how bizarre does it get? Read the following story from the
Jersusalem post and see:
Shin Bet: Gazans
pay doctors to declare them ill
Izenberg , THE JERUSALEM POST
Apr. 21, 2008
Palestinians from Gaza bribed local doctors to
declare that they were seriously ill and required treatment in Israel, the Shin
Bet (Israel Security Agency) charged on Monday.
"Recently there has been an increase in the
exploitation of Israel's humanitarian policy by way of fraudulent medical
permits in return for bribes to doctors in the Gaza Strip," a Shin Bet spokesman
told The Jerusalem Post. "This, plus the requests of terrorist activists
to enter Israel for medical treatment, increases the danger to state security."
The statement came in response to the latest
allegations by Physicians for Human Rights, which charged that since the
beginning of April, the Shin Bet has been preventing 12 new cancer patients from
receiving life-saving treatment in Israel. In addition to these 12, the Shin Bet
had for several weeks been preventing dozens more, including cancer and heart
patients, from passing through Israel on their way to treatment in Jordan and
PHR charged that the Shin Bet response to requests
for entry permits to Israel is complicated and takes a long time, and thereby
ignores the urgency of the situation. The slow processing by the Shin Bet
follows an already protracted process in the Palestinian committee that approves
the requests and in the IDF Liaison Office, before the matter comes to the Shin
PHR also charged that the shuttling of patients
who are barred from entering Israel directly to Egypt and Jordan did not work
properly. They said the shuttle operated on an average of once every five weeks,
that buses could not accommodate all the patients, so some were forced to wait,
that many of the shuttles were canceled and that patients did not know when the
next shuttle would be running.
"The Shin Bet and the army portray the shuttle
service as a genuine solution for the distress of many patients, including
cancer patients, and as a worthy alternative to their demands to enter Israel
for treatment," wrote PHR. "In this way, a flawed and unsuccessful procedure
becomes a fig leaf for the continuation of the Shin Bet's harmful policy towards
the sick population of Gaza and as a tool for the state to portray its alleged
'humanitarian' policy towards them."
In its response to these charges, the Shin Bet
added that the question of allowing sick Palestinians from the Gaza Strip into
Israel cut across many authorities and was not the sole responsibility of the
The spokesman said that in all 12 cases, the
agency had given its replies to the requests long ago, and therefore could not
be held responsible for any delays that followed.
What you just read is true. And it is incredible to the point of being almost impossible
Israel literally suspends security procedures to give hospital treatment to
Gazan citizens - who have a history of blowing up Israelis in the name of
Allah. That is humanitarianism beyond anything you can find anywhere else
in the world.
Gaza itself, by contrast, has no such humanitarianism at all. Not for
its own perople and certainly not for Israelis.
In the past, Gaza has sent women and children to detonate themselves in order
to kill Israeli Jews. Gaza has even used ambulances to transport bombs for
this purpose. So who knows if the next hospital emergency is, in reality,
a suicide/homicide bomber perfectly willing to blow up the hospital he/she is
being transported to?
Yet Israel not only allows Gazans into the country for medical attention, its
internal agencies argue over how quickly and expeditiously it can be
In the UN, and among most countries around the world, Israel gets exactly
zero credit for the amazing, unique level of humanitarianism it provides
its enemies. But in this blog you can bet Israel will get all the credit
And be sure to tell your friends.
THE NEW YORK TIMES' LATEST SHOT AT JOHN MCCAIN
You'd think that after making abject fools of themselves regarding that
unevidenced gossip about John McCain and a female lobbyist, the "brain trust"
(such as it is) at the New York Times would think twice before doing it
You'd think that.
Well, here is the Times' latest evidenceless shot at McCain, which comes to
us from Michelle Malkin (www.michellemalkin.com):
April 22, 2008
John McCain's Real Estate
The NY Times takes another shot at John McCain, this time conclusively establishing that (a) real estate
development can be a politically arduous process involving politicians, and (b)
John McCain is a politician. The Times also spends time on some
corollaries - politicians need money, and real estate developers often have
What the Times does not bring forward is any
evidence of anything like corruption. Relatives on the payroll?
secret investments in land being swapped? Nahh, that sort of thing is for
the Senate Majority Leader to do, and the Times to ignore.
But that's OK! McCain's critics want
to pretend that McCain's standard is "If you write me a check I will never talk
to you again". My (unreasonably sympathetic) understanding of his position
is that he won't do for a donor what he wouldn't otherwise do for an ordinary
constituent. (Whether ordinary constituents get their phone calls returned
promptly and their problems dealt with crisply, I cannot say.)
The Times tries to hang McCain with some land
swaps, and with the redevelopment of Fort Ord. The funnier bit is in the
land swap, so here we go:
The first two swaps involving Mr. Diamond that
Mr. McCain helped sponsor were initially supported by local governments and
conservationists, and Mr. Diamond argues the land would be worth far more
today. But many Arizona conservationists later protested that the federal
deals gave away too much.
That dastard McCain - supporting deals being
pushed by conservationists! The humanity.
And later, when they discover the private side of
the public-private partnership made money, they go into a tizzy. Oh,
boy. If only private developers would consistently and reliably lose
money, like those nice sub-prime lenders. No, they're bad guys too...
The more puzzling piece revolves around two deals
tied up in the closing of the military base at Fort Ord. The first
In the mid-1990s, Mr. Diamond set his sights on
Monterey County, Calif., where the Army was closing Fort Ord. It was a dream
property hundreds of undeveloped acres and two golf courses in the
ocean-misted hills overlooking Monterey Bay, one of Californias great tourist
Tipped off by a fellow Tucson developer, Mr.
Diamond had snapped up a housing complex there that had been built on land
leased from the Army, giving him the inside track to buying the land when the
base shut down.
After the Army did so in 1994, Mr. Diamond asked
Mr. McCain, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, for an
introduction with an Army official who could work out a sale. Mr. McCains
legislative aide, Ann Sauer, arranged a meeting with Paul W. Johnson, a deputy
assistant secretary, a Diamond executive involved in the deal said.
When the talks stalled over price and water
supply, Ms. Sauer interceded with the Army, according to Mr. Diamonds
deposition and others involved. She showed up and got the thing resolved,
Mr. Diamond said.
Mr. McCains campaign aides said in a statement
they did not believe Ms. Sauers involvement went beyond setting up the
Pentagon meeting. Ms. Sauer, who no longer works for Mr. McCain, said she
could not recall details of her role. A spokesman for the Army declined to
Mr. Diamond finally bought the land for $250,000
in 1999. He obtained an unusual guarantee from the Army that provided a
generous water allowance outside the standard allocation process a bonus
that continues to rankle municipal officials on the dry Monterey
Those guys got a sweetheart deal, said Michael
Keenan, whose family bought the housing complex from Mr. Diamond for nearly
$30 million two years later. Mr. Diamond acknowledged turning a profit of $20
Progress toward production of new workforce
housing has been slow. Barriers to housing development such as complex
regulatory procedures and approvals, antiquated infrastructure on the former
Fort Ord, and environmental contamination and costly building removal have
made the reuse of Fort Ord a particularly difficult challenge for any kind of
development, including workforce housing.
Secondly, it is absurd to think that McCain and
his developer buddy pulled a fast one - the closing and redevelopment of Fort
Ord got Presidential attention,
was subject to Senate legislation, and had a member of the California
Congressional delegation overseeing it. In addition, the Fort Ord Reuse
Authority won a planning award in 1998, so they weren't utterly stupid and corrupt, at least that
Third, the redevelopment has been a political quagmire caught up in a tussle over affordable housing. On that point, if
the Times would tell us the name of the leased housing complex purchased by
Diamond we would be a step closer to pinning down some details. The
Fort Ord Reuse Authority, under "Housing", shows pictures of Preston Park
and Schoonover Park. Schoonover Park is now college housing; Preston Park was
"Mid-Peninsula Housing, ... a non-profit organization that develops
high-quality affordable housing communities". Which one was the
developer's dream - the college housing, or the affordable housing? Or was
there a third choice of properties? I am running out of time and Google,
unfortunately, but if anyone can help me out here, that would be
More background on the golf course deal is here, and
it sounds less savory. Of course, McCain's involvement was to write a
letter of introduction, but still.
I love that reference to Senate majority leader Harry Reid, by the way.
The land deals he cooked up with his family (and the money he got from clients of
Jack Abramoff - some $60,000 of it)? Nothing to talk about. But an
innuendo-laden bowl of hot air about John McCain? Big story. First
page above-the-fold news.
It should be remembered that the New York Times ENDORSED John McCain before
throwing everything but the kitchen sink at him (and that's probably being held
back for later).
These people have no shame, no honor and no integrity anymore.
THE HAMAS "PEACE" OFFER
During the past week, jimmy carter ignored everyone's pleas, even
the state department's, and went to the Middle East to meet
with hamas, a terrorist group specifically committed to Israel's
destruction. Having done so, he called a press conference and told us
hamas would cut a peace deal if Israel would only go back to the 1967
(As you may recall, in 1967, when Arabs from 7 different nations, including
three of its immediate neighbors (Egypt, Syria and Jordan) fought a war of
annihilation against Israel, these were the borders. That doesn't
exactly give you confidence it's the basis of a peace deal, does it?)
So, did jimmy carter get it right?
Well, here, courtesy of al-jazeera, is what hamas has to say about
those same meetings:
Hamas ready to accept 1967 borders
said it is ready to accept a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders but "will
not recognise Israel".
at a news conference on Monday, Khaled Meshaal, the exiled Hamas political
leader, reaffirmed Hamas's stance towards Israel and clarified his comments as
relayed earlier by Jimmy Carter, the former US president.
"We accept a state on the June 4 line with Jerusalem as capital,
real sovereignty and full right of return for refugees but without recognising
Israel," Meshaal said.
leader was making his first public comments following two meetings with Carter
in Damascus last week.
Carter, speaking in Jerusalem earlier on Monday, said that Hamas
had told him it would accept the right of Israel "to live as a neighbour" if a
peace deal was approved by a Palestinian referendum.
said Hamas leaders had told him they would "accept a Palestinian state on the
1967 borders if approved by Palestinians".
Carter also said Meshaal turned down his appeal for a unilateral ceasefire with
Israel to end violence threatening peace efforts.
the best I could on that," Carter said of his failure to persuade Hamas to halt
rocket fire for one month from the Gaza Strip it has controlled since June when
it ousted the Fatah movement of Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian
TheUnited States brushed off Carter's
report on Hamas on Monday, saying the group's basic stance had not changed.
"What is clear
to us ... is that nothing has changed in terms of Hamas's basic views about
Israel and about peace in the region," Tom Casey, the state department
refuse to acknowledge or recognise any of the basic quartet principles,
including recognising Israel's right to exist; renouncing terrorism;
and acknowledging all the previous agreements that have been made between the
Palestinian Authority and Israel," he
the White House press secretary, said the Hamas position should be taken "with a
grain of salt".
"We have to
look at the public comments and we also have to look at actions, and actions
speak louder than words."
said his understandings with Hamas called for a referendum to be preceded by
reconciliation between the group and Abbas's Fatah faction.
news conference, Meshaal said Hamas would "respect Palestinian national will,
even if it was against our convictions".
Zuhri, a Gaza-based Hamas official, said Palestinian refugees living in exile
must take part in a referendum - a condition that could dim the chances of
approval since Israel opposes their mass return, which could skew the state's
ethnic make up.
Hamad, a former Palestinian government spokesman, told Al Jazeera that Hamas
would be willing to accept a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders (leaving
a reduced Israeli state inside its 1948 borders) but insisted that Hamas would
not recognise Israel.
says frankly - we will not recognise the right of Israel," he said.
until now has no clear position on recognising the rights of the Palestinian
people within the 1967 borders or the right of return or the rights in
said that a ceasefire with Israel was possible.
times Hamas has stopped firing missiles from Gaza but Israel continues its
aggression against our people, especially in Gaza," he told Al
Israel stops all military aggression against our people, I think Hamas will have
no problem in reaching a compromise."
meeting with Hamas has drawn criticism from both the Israeli and US
Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, has refused to see Carter, who has for years
been critical of Israeli policy towards the Palestinians.
who helped negotiate a 1979 peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, said
excluding Hamas is "just not working".
problem is that Israel and the United States refuse to meet with these people,
who must be involved," he said.
Wow, hold the presses!!!! What a great deal jimmy carter worked
IF Israel gives back all the land it won in 1967 when it was fighting for its
IF Israel gives up Jerusalem, its capital city, which contains its most holy
site, the wailing wall, and....
IF Israel allows all Arabs who claim to have been dispossesed of their land in 1948 and all
their families that came afterward, to enter the country, which would immediately
create a majority Arab population and end the one Jewish state on earth....
THEN hamas would accept the land Israel is handing them on a silver platter
and call it Palestine....
BUT hamas would not recognize Israel anyway.
Oh, and by the way, they'll keep on bombing Israel from Gaza, the area that hamas
violently took over from their own brethren last year. (I.e. hamas violently
overthrew the fatah government from their fellow Arabs. But Jews,
who both hamas and fatah agree are subhumans who should be dead,
should trust them to make peace).
Are you laughing, shaking your head in disbelief, or both? I can't
think of any other likely reaction.
There is one small silver lining here: Until the last year or so, much
of the country was convinced by his sycophants in the media that jimmy carter
was a lovable philanthropist and promoter of world peace. Now, I suspect,
most people see him for the benighted, gullible, Jew hating moron that he
Fine. Let's keep it that way. For once, truth will
JACOBY ON ZIMBABWE
I've written a great deal about Zimbabwe over the past two weeks.
Zimbabwe, under the corrupt, murderous racist robert mugabe, is one
of the true horror shows - maybe the single worst - in the world. I hope I
have communicated this, along with the fact that the agencies most responsible
for doing something about it are sitting on the sidelines like spectators
at a soccer game.
Here is Jeff Jacoby's column from today's Boston Globe. He hits at the
points I've made and adds a few of his own. It is very important reading,
so I'm posting every word:
ONE MANS MISRULE
April 20, 2008
retrospect, it was the sheerest naivet to have imagined that Zimbabwes brutal
strongman, Robert Mugabe, would relinquish power just because he had lost an
election. It has been more than three weeks since the March 29 vote in which
Mugabes party, known as ZANU-PF, lost control of the lower house of parliament.
Yet official results in the presidential contest between Mugabe and opposition
leader Morgan Tsvangirai have yet to be released.
There isnt much doubt who won. Public
tallies posted at each polling station immediately after the ballots were
counted showed Tsvangirais party, the Movement for
Democratic Change (MDC), garnering more than 50 percent
of the vote. Were the electoral commission to certify those tallies, it would
mean Mugabes 28 years at the top had come to an end. But the electoral
commission, like everything else inZimbabwes government, is controlled by ZANU-PF. So there will be no
official results until the books have been cooked to Mugabes satisfaction.
Meanwhile, the regimes thugs have been busy, staging raids against
foreign journalists and opposition-party offices, invading farms owned by white
Zimbabweans, terrorizing voters in the countryside. US Ambassador James McGee
warned last week that
Mugabes goon squads were carrying out "threats, beatings, abductions, burning
of homes, and even murder" in areas where the opposition party ran strong. A
group of Zimbabwean doctors
say they have treated more than 150 people who had been beaten since the
election. Hundreds more have been detained, and the MDC says at least two of its
workers have been murdered.
the first time, Mugabe is viciously stealing an election, and not for the first
time, the international community is doing nothing to stop him. Particularly
feckless has been
South Africa s president, Thabo Mbeki. More than any
other regional leader, he could exert the leverage to force Mugabe to abide by
the voters decision. He has refused to do so.
after the election, Mbeki insisted there was "a
hopeful picture" in Zimbabwe; several days later he held a friendly session with
Mugabe, then declared to the world that "there is no crisis in Zimbabwe" -- merely a "natural process taking place."
Is it any
Africa is so often thought of as
the planets most miserable continent? "By failing to come together to denounce
Mugabe unequivocally," The Economist lamented, Mbeki and other African leaders "have not only prolonged
Zimbabwes agony; they have
damaged the whole of southern Africa, both materially and in terms of Africas reputation."
has one mans misrule so horribly wrecked a country. The MDCs David Coltart, a
parliament who serves as shadow justice minister, surveyed some of the data
recently in a study for the Cato Institute in
country once known as
agriculture has been all but destroyed. Annual wheat production is a fraction of
what it was in the 1990s. The tobacco industry, once a mainstay, has crashed and
burned. Manufacturing has collapsed. So has mining -- gold production has fallen
to its lowest level since 1907, even as world gold prices soar to record
ZANU-PF thuggery, 90 percent of foreign tourism to
evaporated. Insane economic policies have fueled an inflation rate of well over
100,000 percent. Zimbabweans by the millions have fled the country, and 80
percent of those who remain live below the poverty line. Death from disease and
malnutrition has exploded. Life expectancy for men in Zimbabwe has fallen to 37
years -- to 34 years for women.
and his loyalists stop at nothing to ensure their grip on power, Coltart writes.
As of 2004, an astonishing "90 percent of the MDC members of parliament elected
in June 2000 had suffered some human rights violation; 24 percent survived
murder attempts, and 42 percent had been tortured." Three opposition members of
parliament were killed, as were more than 600 of the partys supporters. Yet
"not a single suspect has been tried, let alone convicted, for any of those
government, meanwhile, is now accusing Tsvangirai of treason. State-run media
claims he has been plotting with Great Britain to overthrow the regime. But the
real menace is Mugabe, who was preparing at week's end to receive
a 77-ton shipment of Chinese arms, including AK-47 rifles, mortars, rocket-propelled
grenades, and more than 3 million rounds of ammunition. What is he planning to
do with so much additional firepower? That,
Zimbabwe 's deputy information
minister said, is "none of anybody's business."
On Thursday, a South African
government spokesman belatedly acknowledged that the situation in
Zimbabwe "is dire." How much more
dire it must get before South Africa -- or any other country -- finally does
something about it?
When? When does the UN act? When does the African Union
act? When they're through condemning Israel for the 47,356th time?
This is the state of our world today. It is more than a little
Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site,
third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser,
or using web beacons to collect information.
At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small.
In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.
So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.
And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!