Sunday, 08 June 2008
Ever wonder what Barack Obama would sound like if his teleprompter and/or
earplug were disengaged? Whether he'd be as smooth, eloquent and
articulate as our fawning media tell you he is?
Well, that apparently is what happened on Thursday during a speech of Mr.
Obama's in Bristol, Virginia. And here is how he sounded:
Now: think about two things: 1) did you even see/hear/read about
this in the media? 2) What would those same media have said if it were
John McCain instead of Barack Obama?
THE END OF FREE SPEECH IN CANADA
Canada's history of, and reputation for, free speech is over.
The country has decided to put together a "human rights tribunal" to tell its
citizens what they can and cannot say - one that even the UN would be ashamed
of, which should tell you how consummately fraudulent, biased and arbitrary it
Here is an explanation from Ezra Levant, himself an attempted victim of this
commission. It talks about what happened to a clergyman who spoke out
What could Mark Steyn's punishment look like? Look
What could Mark Steyn's punishment look like, if
he's convicted by the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal?
It could look like this order, issued
just last week by Alberta's human rights commission, against a Christian pastor
named Rev. Stephen Boission. (The
substantive ruling against Rev. Boissoin can be found here. See paragraph
357 where the right not to be offended "trumps the freedom of speech afforded in
the Charter." And see a thoughtful response by the former executive director of
the gay rights lobby, EGALE, here.)
The kangaroo court judge in this case is a Tory
patronage appointee, a divorce lawyer from Lethbridge named Lori Andreachuk,
(pictured at left). That's her expertise: divorce law. Not constitutional
law; not freedom of speech or freedom of religion. And it shows.
Last November, she convicted Boissoin. Last week
she ordered her "remedy".
It is the most revolting order I have ever seen in
I'll excerpt a few lines from her ruling:
In this case, there is no specific individual
who can be compensated as there is no direct victim who has come
That's insane already. No-one was hurt. The
complainant was an officious intermeddler, a busybody, the town scold, an
anti-Christian activist named
Darren Lund who had an axe to grind, and Andreachuk gave it to him.
Dr. Lund, although not a direct victim,
did expend considerable time and energy and suffered ridicule and harassment as
a result of his complaint. The Panel finds therefore that he is entitled to some
So a busybody with no standing spends time filing
complaints -- and gets a tax-free reward for doing so. Oh -- and for his
"suffering". Not suffering at the hands of Rev. Boission, but "as a result of
his complaint". People in the community ridiculed Lund for filing the complaint
-- as they should. And so Andreachuk will get the pastor to pay for that. Why
the hell not? Who's going to stop her? Her political patron, Ed
Mr. Boissoin and [his organization] The
Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. shall cease publishing in newspapers, by
email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the Internet, in future,
disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals.
There's a lot there, starting with a small but
telling point. Darren Lund is a not a medical doctor. He's a professor. But
Andreachuk refers to him as Dr. Lund. Stephen Boissoin is a pastor. But
Andreachuk calls him "Mr. Boissoin". No "Rev. Boissoin" for her.
But look at the staggering order there. Boissoin
can never -- ever -- communicate anything "disparaging" about gays. It's a
lifetime ban -- and it applies to every conceivable medium, including his
But nothing "disparaging"? That means nothing
She didn't order him not to communicate anything
"illegal" or even anything "hateful". She ordered him to say nothing
disparaging. Ever. For the rest of his life.
A divorce lawyer from Lethbridge with a
second-rate patronage job just ordered a Canadian pastor to
stop communicating to anyone, ever, about gays. Not to stop "hate
speech" -- whatever that malleable legal definition is. She just told him to
shut up, period.
And then she orders that Rev. Boissoin and his
...prohibited from making disparaging remarks
in the future about Dr. Lund or Dr. Lund's witnesses relating to their
involvement in this complaint..
Again, not banned from "hate speech", whatever
that is today; but banned from disparaging remarks about Lund, an anti-Christian
activist, who now is "protected" not just from Rev. Boissoin's alleged anti-gay
remarks, but from his political criticism of his own tormentor. Apparently,
being a busy-body human rights complainant-of-fortune is a new "protected
ground" of hate speech. Become one, and no-one can ever say anything
"disparaging" about you again. Ever. Not even in an e-mail.
But Chief Kangaroo Andreachuk is just getting
Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian
Coalition Inc. provide Dr. Lund with a written apology for the article in the
Red Deer Advocate which was the subject of this complaint.
So Ed Stelmach's "conservative" government now
believes that if it can't convince a Christian pastor that he's wrong, it will
just order him to condemn himself? Other than tribunals in Stalin's Soviet Union
and Mao's China, where is this Orwellian "order" considered to be
This is like a Third World jail-house
confession -- where accused criminals are forced to sign false statements of
guilt. But the thing about jail-house confessions is that they at
least pretend to be real. The forcible nature of them is kept secret. Not
here: Andreachuk just comes out and says it: you're going to say you're sorry,
even if you aren't.
That's a bizarre "remedy". It's meaningless, other
than as a thought crime. We don't even "order" murderers to apologize to
their victims' families. Because we know that a forced apology is
meaningless. But not if your point is to degrade Christian
Oh, and by the way, Rev. Boissoin and his
organization are ordered to:
request their written apology for the
contravention of the Act be published in the Red Deer Advocate.
That's the local newspaper. So Rev. Boissoin
doesn't just have to issue a false apology. He has to publicly humiliate
himself, by publicly declaring his contrition -- contrition he does not feel --
and his abandonment of his deeply-held religious beliefs. A second-rate
government bureaucrat has ordered a Canadian pastor to publicly renounce
his religious beliefs.
Does that happen anywhere outside of Communist
China, or theocratic Saudi Arabia?
OK. Now the cash. Rev. Boissoin and his
shall pay to Dr. Lund an award for damages,
jointly and severally, in the amount of $5,000.00.
Andreachuk already said Lund suffered no damages.
But so what. When you're forcing a man to publicly renounce his conscience, why
not stick him with the bill? In Communist China, the family of prisoners who are
executed are sent the bill for the bullet that killed them. So while Rev.
Boissoin's money is being divvied up, why not make him pay for the hearing, too?
A witness against Rev. Boissoin, Janelle Dodd, will get her expenses
up to the maximum amount of
So, let's re-cap.
A Christian pastor has been given a lifetime ban
against uttering anything "disparaging" about gays. Not against anything
"hateful", let alone something legally defined as "hate speech". Just
So a pastor cannot give a sermon.
But he must give a false sermon; he
is positively ordered to renounce his deeply held religious beliefs, and
apologize to his tormentor for having those views.
And then that pastor is ordered to
declare to his entire city that he has renounced his religious views, even
though he has not.
That's Alberta's human rights commission.
That's the group where 15 bureaucrats are busily beavering away against me, because I published some
Danish cartoons two years ago.
That's the same "law" under which Maclean's and
Mark Steyn are charged.
Speaking personally, I have no problem whatsoever with
homosexuality. Sexual preference is a personal matter, not a
referendum by others.
I also have no problem with people disagreeing with me
on homosexuality (though I might not think very much of their logic or
reasoning). That is a matter of free speech.
But regardless of what I or anyone else thinks about homosexuality, empowering a
government judge -a wholly unqualified one at that - to censor what a citizen
can say publicly or privately? That is what they do in fascist
societies, not free ones.
So goodbye to freedom of speech in Canada. Believe me, they'll miss
And there will come a time in the very near future when the good people of
this country will either speak out against what Canada has become, or will not
do so out of fear that the next convicted offender will be them.
What a horror show.
OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY
Want to know which politicians are and are not generous to the needy?
Then take a look at Peter Schweizer's eye-opening column in today's American
Spectator (www.spectator.org) and be
prepared to marvel at the hypocrisy level you see.
To make things easy for you I have put the names in bold print:
6/6/2008 12:07:19 AM
Samuel Johnson once reported on a man who was
privately stingy but publicly touted the merits of sharing. Dr. Johnson said
sarcastically that the man was a "friend of goodness." What he meant was that
flesh-and-blood goodness is very different from supporting "Goodness" in the
Many modern liberals like to openly discuss their altruism.
Garrison Keillor explains that "I am liberal and liberalism is the politics of
kindness." But it rarely seems to turn into acts of kindness, especially when it
comes to making charitable donations.
Consider the case of
Andrew Cuomo, current New York Attorney General and advocate
for the homeless. He has, according to his website, "compassion toward the most
vulnerable of us." And this is how the New York Times described the
courtship of Kerry Kennedy (of guess which family): "Ms. Kennedy-Cuomo, 43, said
she fell in love with Mr. Cuomo, 45, when he took her on a tour of a homeless
shelter on their first date and agreed to fast for the labor leader Cesar
But that advocacy should not be confused with actually giving to
the less fortunate. Cuomo was a homeless advocate throughout the 1990s, but
according to his own tax returns he made no charitable contributions between
1996 and 1999. In 2000 he donated a whopping $2,750. In 2004 and 2005, Cuomo had
more than $1.5 million in adjusted gross income but gave a paltry $2,000 to
Cuomo made no charitable contributions in 2003, when his
income was a bit less than $300,000.
CUOMO IS NOT alone in this
Scroogery of course. Barack Obama has a rather poor track
record when it comes to charitable contributions. He consistently gave 1 percent
of his income to charity. In his most charitable year, 2005, he earned $1.7
million (two and a half times what George W. Bush earned) but gave about the
same dollar amount as the President.
The last two Democratic Party
nominees for President have come up short on the charity scale. Al
Gore has been famously stingy when it comes to actually giving his own
money to charities. In 1998 he was embarrassed when his tax returns revealed
that he gave just $353 to charity.
Gore's office initially defended the
action, claiming that the Gores had often given "food and clothing to the
homeless." But when no one showed up in cast-off clothes, Gore's spokesman Chris
Lehane offered a typical "friend of Goodness" response saying that you could
only "truly judge a person's commitment to helping others" you needed to see
"what they have done with their lives." In other words, politics was charity
Senator John Kerry likewise has a poor record. In
1995 he gave zero to charity, but did spend $500,000 to buy a half stake
in a seventeenth century painting. In 1993, he gave $175 to the needy. Later, of
course, Kerry married the rich widow Theresa Heinz, and today is active in
charitable causes using the Heinz foundation as his vehicle.
Ted Kennedy has clearly relished his role over the years as a
liberal Robin Hood. He once told Al Hunt of the Wall Street Journal, "I
come from an advantaged life, and I'll be goddamned if I'm going to get
re-elected to the U.S. Senate by taking food out of the mouths of needy
children." But this should not be confused with Senator Kennedy actually giving
much money to needy children.
Kennedy's tax returns are obviously a
closely guarded secret. But when he chose to run for President in the 1970s, he
released some of them. With a net worth of more than $8 million in the early
1970s and an income of $461,444 from a series of family trusts, Senator Robin
Hood gave barely 1 percent of his income to charity. The sum is about as much as
Kennedy claimed as a write-off on his fifty-foot sailing sloop
Robert Reich, once Bill Clinton's Secretary of
Labor and now a professor at Berkeley, has been outspoken about how greedy
conservatives are. Conservatives believe in "reviving social Darwinism" and
because of conservatives, "America has placed too high a value on
But when he ran for governor of Massachusetts in 2002, he
was all but forced to release his tax returns. It's not a pretty picture.
Reich's 1040 reveals an income of more than $1 million, much of it giving
speeches to corporations and universities for up to $40,000 a pop. He
contributed just $2,714 to charity, or .2 percent of his income -- note the
decimal -- and not all of that was cash. Part of it was the value of a donation
of a used drum set to an organization called City of Peace.
Jesse Jackson has often claimed that he operates from a
"liberal spirit of compassion and love" while conservatives are "heartless and
uncaring toward the silent poor." But according to his publicly-released tax
returns, he regularly donates less than 1 percent to charity.
his family have also established a charitable foundation called the Jackson
Foundation to support the underprivileged. According to tax records, the
foundation board is controlled by family members and they receive large
contributions from corporations. In 2004, for example, they collected $964,000
from corporations like McDonald's, Anheuser-Busch, and GMAC.
asked on the tax form to described "direct charitable activities," the
foundation responded: "none." From the close to million dollars collected, they
gave away only $46,000 to a couple of colleges. The Jackson Foundation spent
nearly twice that amount -- $84,172 -- on a "gala celebration" in honor of --
you guessed it -- Jesse Jackson.
NOR IS THIS liberal
tightfistedness anything new. The greatest liberal icon of the 20th Century is
Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He is regarded by many on the left as the
personification of charity and compassion, but FDR actually has a slim record
when it comes to giving to charity.
Roosevelt had an average income of
$93,000 ($1.3 million in today's dollars) but gave away about 3 percent of his
income to charity. In 1935, during the height of the Great Depression, when
people really could have used it, he donated just 2 percent.
evidence of liberal hypocrisy is damning enough, but what really amazes is how
poorly these liberals do in comparison to so-called "heartless conservatives."
President Ronald Reagan, for instance, was often called heartless and callous by
liberals. Unlike Roosevelt or JFK, Reagan was not a wealthy man when he became
president. He had no family trust or investment portfolio to fall back
And yet, according to his tax returns, Reagan donated more
than four times more to charity -- both in terms of actual money and on a
percentage basis -- than Senator Ted Kennedy. And he gave more to
charities with less income than FDR did. In 1985, for example, he gave away 6
percent of his income.
George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have continued this
Reagan record. During the early 1990s, George W. Bush regularly gave
away more than 10 percent of his income. In 2005, Vice President Dick Cheney
gave away 77 percent of his income to charity. He was actually criticized by
some liberal bloggers for this, who claimed he was getting too much of a tax
The main point of liberal compassion appears to be
making liberals feel good about their superior virtue. Such are the rewards of
being a "friend of goodness."
There are the facts in black and white. But don't expect to see them
featured in mainstream media any time soon. Especially the facts about
BARACK OBAMA ON THE VALUE OF TENACITY
From IBD via www.powlineblog.com,
here is Michael Ramirez, on Barack Obama's selective
admiration for tenacity; click to enlarge:
MELTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN
keith olbermann is the most vicious, obnoxious, nasty,
below-the-belt commentator on TV. Using these "attributes", he has
developed something of a following by presenting an hour of male PMS
weekday evenings at 8PM on MSNBC.
Fox News' Bill O'Reilly is the main competition in
olbermann's time-slot. And O'Reilly blows him away in the
ratings. This absolutely infuriates olbermann, who reacts by
spewing vile personal attacks on Mr. O'Reilly which are so disgusting that
they shred his, and MSNBC's, reputation as a news venue.
Simply stated, keith olberamann is a 49 year old man with a 49 month old maturity
level. But because MSNBC's other shows do so poorly that olbermann
is the network's biggest draw, they are loving it.
With this in mind, here is a fascinating article from one of olbermann's
targets: www.newsbusters.org. Read Brent Baker's
explanation of what
olbermann said about newsbusters.org and O'Reilly. Then read the transcripted
material and see what the actual truth is:
Inaccurate Olbermann Ridicules
O'Reilly for Relaying Accurate Item from 'Hilariously Inept Right-Wing Web Site
Erroneously recounting a Tuesday
NewsBusters post I wrote about how, unlike ABC and CBS, the NBC Nightly News did
not report the lowest U.S. death level in May for any month since the war in
Iraq began, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann on Friday night made FNC's Bill O'Reilly
his Worst Person in the World runner-up for picking up some of his features
from the hilariously inept right-wing Web site NewsBusters. Olbermann
proceeded to claim that NewsBusters had criticized our colleague Brian Williams
of NBC Nightly News for leading Monday's newscast not with the lower May
casualty figures from Iraq, but with a story on how underfunded mass transit
system can't keep up with increased ridership caused by the rape of the driver
by Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and their oil buddies.
But Olbermann is the
inept one. The June 2 NB item did not scold Williams for failing to lead with
the development (nor, of course, for any rape of drivers by Bush), but for not
mentioning it at any time in his newscast: ABC and CBS on Monday night managed
to squeeze in -- more than 20 minutes into their evening newscasts -- brief
mentions of how in May the fewest number U.S. servicemen were killed in Iraq in
any month since the war began five years ago. But not NBC Nightly News.
Derogatorily impersonating O'Reilly, Olbermann recited O'Reilly's
Wednesday hit on Williams as his pinhead of the night. Olbermann then asked
and answered about O'Reilly: Surprised that you're a blithering sociopath
cutting and pasting items from NewsBusters? No, I am not...
MP3 audio clip of Olbermann (1:13,
430 Kb). Windows Media video
As opposed to Olbermann who often cuts and
pastes from Media Matters and other left-wing sites to find people to ridicule
in his Worst Persons in the World segment?
Bill O'Reilly in his
Pinheads and Patriots segment on the Wednesday, June 4 The O'Reilly
On the pinhead front, both Charles
Gibson and Katie Couric told their viewers that in May U.S. casualties in Iraq
were the lowest since the war there began. But somehow, NBC's Brian Williams
neglected to mention that. Somehow, old Brian could not work that in, even
though his network was the biggest offender of the explosion de jure in Iraq
-- carnage without context -- that we exposed last year. Since then it has
stopped. Anyway, for ignoring what he has to know is an all-important story
for America, Brian Williams is a pinhead. Questions: Are you
surprised?Olbermann's silver in
the Friday, June 6 Worst Person in the World segment on MSNBC's
The runner-up: Bill O, who continues to
mail it in, now picking up some of his features from the hilariously inept
right-wing Web site NewsBusters, such as one that criticized our colleague
Brian Williams of NBC Nightly News for leading Monday's newscast not with the
lower May casualty figures from Iraq, but with a story on how underfunded mass
transit system can't keep up with increased ridership caused by the rape of
the driver by Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and their oil buddies. My June 2 item, NBC Nightly News Spikes News About Fewest Troop Deaths of
Bill O said
[impersonating O'Reilly's voice]: On the pinhead front, both ABC and CBS told
their viewers that in the month of May U.S. casualties in Iraq were the lowest
since the war there began, but somehow NBC's Brian Williams neglected to
mention that. Somehow, old Brian couldn't work that in. For ignoring what he
has to know is an all-important story for America, Brian Williams is a
pinhead. Questions? Are you surprised?
Surprised that you're a
blithering sociopath cutting and pasting items from NewsBusters? No, I am not.
Surprised that you don't have a clue about what's all-important or news to
Americans like any casualties in Iraq are too many, Bill, and the country's
being strangled by big oil? No, I am not. Surprised that you're going on 59
and he's 49, yet you refer to him as old? No, I am not.
As lead-ins to short reports on the
posthumous presentation of a Medal of Honor, ABC and CBS on Monday night
managed to squeeze in -- more than 20 minutes into their evening newscasts --
brief mentions of how in May the fewest number U.S. servicemen were killed in
Iraq in any month since the war began five years ago. But not NBC Nightly
News. (And Sunday's Today and Nightly News, as well as Monday's Today, also
skipped the good news.) NBC anchor Brian Williams on Monday led with worries
that because it's been underfunded for decades, mass transit may not be ready
for all the Americans leaving their cars behind, and ran his short update, on
the Medal of Honor going to Army Private First Class Ross McGinnis, without
anything about the decline in troops killed.
Fill-in ABC anchor George
Stephanopoulos set up his report on the White House ceremony presenting the
honor to the parents of McGinnis by dampening the positive news with the total
The Pentagon reported 19 American
troops were killed in May. That's the lowest monthly toll since the war
began. The total number of Americans killed in the war is now approaching
On the CBS Evening News, anchor Katie
Couric also noted the total, but CBS didn't display it on screen, as she
painted the fewest killed as perhaps a sign violence is going
In Iraq, a sign perhaps that violence
is decreasing. In the lowest monthly death U.S. toll since the war began, 19
Americans were killed in May. The total U.S. toll for the war is now
That makes it pretty clear, doesn't it?
olbermann, whose vitriol in this segment included calling Bill O'Reilly a
"blithering sociopath" is, of course, free to say things like this every day
without being challenged by almost any mainstream media for his unbelievable
hatred level and lack of even the slightest zephyr of
professionalism. If you read anything at all about this disgusting
spectacle it is almost certain to suggest that the two of them are going at it
just about the same way (you read things like "the feud between keith olbermann
and Bill O'Reilly").
Point of order: O'Reilly has gone further than anyone I have ever seen
in NOT answering in kind. I do not believe I have ever heard him so much
as mention keith olbermann's name. He will attack MSNBC generally, but not
olbermann personally. I suspect this is because he has determined
(correctly in my opinion) that if he responds in kind it creates an
equality between the two that benefits olbermann and hurts him.
As far as most of our mainstream media are
concerned? Try and find an article that mentions the things olbermann says about
O'Reilly and that O'Reilly does not respond in kind.
It is hard not to conclude that many of them cover olbermann's back
because, politically, he is on their side.