If owning so many houses (or being married to an heiress) is a problem, I do hope someone asks Barack why he was so enthusiastic about John Kerry in 2004.
Democrats seem unaware that “big corporations” — including oil companies, pharmaceutical companies, and insurance companies — are people. And that these corporations are also indispensable to our free, thriving society.
From whom are we supposed to get our oil, pharmaceuticals, and insurance? Ralph Nader? Nancy Pelosi? Molly Yard?
Moreover, these corporations are employers. I ask another question: From whom are people supposed to get their jobs? The Obamas? As the great John Derbyshire says, we can only use so many “community organizers” and “diversity-enforcement officers.”
Talking about herself and her husband, Michelle said not long ago, “We left corporate America, which is a lot of what we’re asking young people to do. Don’t go into corporate America.” That is not so much disgusting as it is pathetic and ignorant. Look, I grew up with the same left-wing clichés. It’s just that some of us grew out of them, where, with others, they stuck.
Look, I understand the attraction of voting Democrat. I understand how easy it is to demonize the rich, to pretend that your problems are all the fault of big-whatever, to refuse to have any moral backbone on issues like abortion so as not to "offend" anyone or "impose your values," God forbid. I get it. It's just easier to be liberal, because it requires virtually nothing of you. Just like childhood, right?
Oh, I hope there are still enough grown-ups out there to derail Obama. It seems like there might be, but who knows...
We head north once again to Canada, land of human-rights trampling "human rights commissions," to examine the case of the York University student union's effort to ban pro-life groups from campus, citing their inherently "sexist" nature:
In response to a series of controversies over abortion debates on Canadian campuses, the student government of York University in Toronto has tabled an outright ban on student clubs that are opposed to abortion.
Gilary Massa, vice-president external of the York Federation of Students, said student clubs will be free to discuss abortion in student space, as long as they do it "within a pro-choice realm," and that all clubs will be investigated to ensure compliance.
"You have to recognize that a woman has a choice over her own body," Ms. Massa said. "We think that these pro-life, these anti-choice groups, they're sexist in nature ... The way that they speak about women who decide to have abortions is demoralizing. They call them murderers, all of them do ... Is this an issue of free speech? No, this is an issue of women's rights."
The school's administration condemned the decision as contrary to its academic mission.
I realize that Canada doesn't have the First Amendment, and as such the freedom of speech isn't as protected there as it is here in the US. But come on. To simply preempt any discussion of the issue of abortion unless it comes from a "choice" perspective? These people can't be serious.
And yet, there it is in black and white. The horror of being exposed to a contrary view - one that views abortion as morally wrong to boot (imagine that!) - is just too much for these tender souls to bear. So rather than expose the student body to the dangers of persuasion, the student union is going to preemptively ban the offending speech.
Do these people have no clue how clueless this makes them look? How dictatorial? How fascist? Ah well, this can at least serve as yet another example of the vaunted "tolerance" of the left.
Uncalibrated Irony Meter Alert: It turns out that Ms. Massa, the spokesperson for the York Federation of Students, has a pretty selective idea of what constitutes "free speech":
Gilary Massa, the vice-president, external, of the York Federation of Students and the driving force behind the proposed ban on anti-abortion groups, earlier this year defended free speech as she called for the lifting of a ban on the phrase "Israeli Apartheid."
In a letter to McMaster's provost and the Students Union Executive, Ms. Massa said she was shocked and dismayed to hear that the administration and McMaster Students Union had banned the use of the phrase "Israeli Apartheid" on campus.
The letter called for the ban on the phrase to be rescinded "in accordance with a basic commitment to freedom of expression and organization in the democratic context of the public university."
The letter added, "This strange and unprecedented ban is a blatant violation of democratic freedoms of speech and dissent, and an attack on students' right to organize. It is the position of the YFS and GSA [Graduate Students] that universities are sites where discussions and debates about difficult geopolitical questions should be promoted, not stifled. International controversy about use of the phrase 'Israeli Apartheid' cannot be resolved through repression, but through ongoing intellectual exchange."
Here's some free speech for you: Massa is DUMBER THAN A SACK OF HAMMERS.
Note to self: When transferring large amounts of money to an illegal business, try not to act in a blatantly suspicious manner.
Spitzer last year had wanted to wire transfer more than $10,000 from his branch to what turned out to be the front for the prostitution ring, QAT Consulting Group, which also uses a number of other names, in New Jersey, the sources said.
But Spitzer had the money broken down into several smaller amounts of under $10,000 each, apparently to avoid getting around federal regulations requiring the reporting of the transfer of $10,000 or more, the sources said. The regulations are aimed at helping spot possible illegal business activities, such as frauds or drug deals.
Apparently, having second thoughts about even sending the total amount in this manner because it still might reveal what he was doing, Spitzer then asked that the bank to take his name off the wires, the sources said.
Bank officials declined, however, saying that it was improper to do so and in any event, it was too late to do so, because the money already had been sent, the sources said.
The bank then, as is required by law, filed an SAR, or Suspicious Activity Report, with the Internal Revenue Service, reporting the transfer of the money that exceeded $10,000, but had been broken down into smaller amounts, the sources said.
...an analyst at the regional IRS office in Hauppauge noted Spitzer's particular SAR and singled it out for attention to criminal investigators, the sources said.
The assumption, the sources said, was that Spitzer was somehow being victimized either by a blackmailer or an impostor. The agents also speculated that perhaps the governor was involved in some sort of political corruption, the sources reiterated.
The agents, located at an IRS office at 1180 Veterans Memorial Hwy. in Hauppauge, then joined with prosecutors in the Southern District in New York to determine the circumstances surrounding the transfer of the money and the nature of the company it was going to.... To the surprise of the prosecutors and the agents, what they uncovered apparently was an international prostitution ring, whose most significant client was likely the governor of New York.
One might call it Shakespearian if there were a shred of nobleness in the story of Eliot Spitzer's fall. There is none. Governor Spitzer, who made his career by specializing in not just the prosecution, but the ruin, of other men, is himself almost certainly ruined.
Mr. Spitzer's brief statement yesterday about a "private matter" surely involves what are widely reported to be his activities with an expensive prostitution ring discovered by the U.S. Attorney's office for the Southern District of New York. Those who believe Eliot Spitzer is getting his just deserts may be entitled to that view, but it misses the greater lesson for our politics.
It looks as though Eliot Spitzer, the awful governor of New York, will be resigning after it was revealed today that he has been caught in a federal prostitution sting. Spitzer was the worst kind of abuser-of-power when he was the New York state Attorney General, and his governorship has been marked by allegations of serious corruption and ham-fisted attempts to ram unpopular legislation through the state assembly (for instance, driver's licenses for illegal aliens). I won't be shedding any tears for the (soon to be ex-) governor tonight, and Dean Barnett notes that this episode could have ended better:
Today would be a happier day if Spitzer were driven from public life because the public recoiled at his holier-than-thou prosecutions that were driven much more by a sense of ambition than a desire for justice.
Phil Sowell, a retired government official, scarcely pauses for breath when asked what Barack Obama would do as President: "He will bring peace to the Middle East and anywhere in the world where there is tragedy."
But Larry Milton, 56, thinks that "he will be more worried about what happens here and less worried about other countries". Carrie Thompson hopes that he will "address global poverty and other issues which Republicans keep overlooking", while Ron Gaynor, 52, a lifelong Republican, says: "He will bring the power of veto and say `no' to a lot of this government spending - we seem to give money to people all around the globe."
Ron Gaynor is not a lifelong Republican. I'd put money on it. And the idea that Obama would reduce government spending, well, let's just call that idea "audacious."
They are all waiting to hear the man himself speak. It is a familiar scene, repeated across America dozens of times in recent weeks. Long queues snake around a sports hall - comprising people of all ages, races and social class - to gather under the Democrat presidential contender's slogan of "change we can believe in". But what, exactly, is this change in which they all believe? The Times conducted more than 50 interviews at a rally in Westerville, Ohio, where many supporters made plain they have contradictory - and burgeoning - expectations of what "President Obama" would do.
Sarah Jaffy, 41, says: "I really like his healthcare plan. And there's another policy - it's my favourite - ooh, I can't remember right now." Erin Henderson, 18, has gone with a gaggle of friends to see Mr Obama and she declares: "We're all really excited about him and we heard he might make it easier to get into college."
Seriously, is it really all that difficult to get into college these days? Perhaps things are different now, but I don't remember it being that difficult to get in. Perhaps she's referring to some Obama plan to help pay for college, but really, what politician doesn't want to help people pay for college?
Sitting in the audience, Alex Dukeman, 17, says that she expects Mr Obama to introduce universal healthcare. But isn't his plan voluntary while Mrs Clinton promises a compulsory mandate? "I just think he is a likable guy and he inspires people," she replies. Zach Adriaenssens, 20, says that Mr Obama is a "unifier" who can negotiate with Republicans "and will sort healthcare".
So Obama is so likeable and such a unifier that he can introduce a health care plan that previously (and frankly still) faces vehement opposition and just magically make it happen on the force of his personality?
Donny Murray, 21, says that Mr Obama "has definitely got a better plan" for tackling global warming. How so? "I'm not sure about the specifics, I just think he'll get more people involved," he says. Freda Graan, 27, a Spanish teacher at Ohio State university, explains: "If you listen to Hillary, she says, `I will do this'. Obama says, `We will do this'. I'm not scared to be idealistic, it's my responsibility as a voter not to be cynical."
Yusuf Abdi, 55, says: "He will change everything - healthcare, no war, education. He can do anything." Karen Clark, a teacher, 58, says that she has switched her support from Clinton because "I want to be on the winning side".
Yusuf Abdi is probably the creepiest of all - Obama will end war! Obama will give everyone healthcare and a good education! HE CAN DO ANYTHING!! Get a grip, man! He's a politician, just like George W. Bush. He wasn't immaculately conceived.
