THE TYGRRRR EXPRESS

A tragic plane crash in Alaska took the life of longtime Senator Ted Stevens. Meanwhile, a metaphorical tragic train wreck is taking place in Harlem as Charles Rangel fights for his political life.

In both cases, there is much cause for sadness. While the loss of a human life trumps everything else, I find these two men intertwined today. I am genuinely sad, and have so many questions that I know will never be answered.

Nine people were on the Alaska plane including Senator Stevens, former NASA Chief Sean O’Keefe, and Mr. O’Keefe’s son. Senator Stevens died. Both of the O’Keefes lived.

Why?

We will never know. For those who believe in God, did God arbitrarily spin a roulette wheel and let fate decide? Did God make intentional decisions?

For those who are atheist or agnostic, was this just chance?

We will never know why a plane crashed, several people died, and others lived.

I fly very frequently. My Rabbi has often said that “There is no such thing as an atheist on a turbulent plane.”

Everything is fragile, but why do some people suffer more than others? Ted Stevens lost his first wife in a plane crash in 1978. Isn’t one such tragedy per family enough?

(This makes the legacy of the Kennedy family even more eerie.)

While I wish the deepest of condolences for the Stevens family, I wonder why he had to die before such glowing tributes could be offered.

Remember, one year ago he was a corrupt former Senator who left in disgrace. Then months later he was exonerated when the conviction was thrown out due to prosecutorial misconduct.

(Today is not the day to analyze the case. I have no idea.)

What if he died before being exonerated? This matters greatly because history matters.

This brings me to the saga of Charles Rangel.

I have been fairly tough on Rangel. I believe he has been corrupt for a long time. Yet if he were to die tomorrow (of course I am not wishing that), people would mention other things.

For one thing, Congressman Rangel is a war hero. He served his country honorably in Korea. This cannot and should not ever be forgotten.

Yet the bad stuff cannot be whitewashed. He once compared Republicans to Klansmen for wanting to cut taxes.

Given that this was one very bad comment and not a pattern, perhaps he should retract them and the matter can be dropped.

I have been thinking a lot about Rangel the last few days because I find myself feeling pangs of sympathy for him. While I do believe he is corrupt (and will eat my words if he is exonerated, and yes he gets presumption of innocence…I am offering my feelings, not facts.), it is still sad to see a career end this way.

Mr. Rangel has said many times that since he was shot at in Korea, he “has not had a bad day since.” Yet the other day he followed that sentiment with the comment of “I may have to reassess that.”

Charles Rangel is on the verge (if he is not there yet) of being a beaten and broken man.

I never mustered sympathy for Ted Kennedy. Because of him Mary Jo Kopechne died. He also brutalized innocent people such as Robert Bork, beginning the cycle of political violence that may never be broken. I truly believe those two actions, especially the first one, trump any positive deeds he may have done.

I cannot muster sympathy for Maxine Waters. I have always found her contemptible.

(Today is not the day to elaborate.)

Rangel is different. He has a likable side. Being a likable scoundrel is not better than being a mean one, but I look at Rangel and think that he started out wanting to do right by his constituents. He simply hung around too long.

What if Mr. Rangel (again, heaven forbid), were to die, and only after his death, be exonerated? Would we be guilty of sending an innocent man to his death due to sadness?

(Richard Jewell and the Atlanta Olympic bombing come to mind.)

Ted Stevens and Charles Rangel both lived to ripe old ages. Yet they both saw decades of distinguished service clouded by ignominy. Exoneration helps, but it does not take away the pain of being accused.

If Mr. Rangel is guilty, he must suffer the consequences. Yet he did not kill anybody, and there should not be celebration or bloodlust if he falls. It really is a disappointment.

It is too late to treat people with kindness and decency when they are gone. It is too late for those who persecuted Ted Stevens to say to his face that they know he was exonerated. Even if he was guilty, it should not invalidate his lifetime of service. Again, his negative deeds would not come anywhere near close to outweighing his positive deeds.

I do hope that if Mr. Rangel is guilty, that he resigns and spares the country a trial. He has stated he will not go anywhere voluntarily.

I genuinely want Mr. Rangel to preserve his dignity, but at this point it is up to him.

I also hope that the obvious despair he is showing on television does not end his life. Even if he is guilty, it will not erase his entire career. It will certainly not erase his military heroism.

Maybe if enough people on the right are able to show some compassion (this does not mean dismissing charges unless facts warrant that) for Mr. Rangel, the left will stop being so hostile all the time and begin to see conservatives as human beings. I am not counting on this.

Let us see how the left reacts to the tragic death of Ted Stevens. More importantly, let’s see how they react to the next conservative to face public humiliation the way Stevens did and Rangel is now.

Even if these people are guilty, they are still human beings. Human failings brought them down.

Mr. Rangel, whether or not you did wrong, I hope in the end you make this right. I hope when your time does come, you will be at peace.

Farewell Mr. Stevens. May peace be upon you and your loved ones always, now and forever.

eric

Update: Dan Rostenkowski has died. Like Mr. Stevens and Mr. Rangel, we should make an effort to look at the totality of his career, not just the ignominious end.

eric

I recently had the pleasure of attending the 2010 Nevada GOP Convention in Henderson, just outside Las Vegas.

From a social standpoint, this convention was very disappointing for me. There were no afterparties! How can a city right near Las Vegas not have a ton of political social events in the hotel suites at night?

I suspect that because the convention had so much action of political floor battles, people were drained at the end of three days. From a political standpoint, this convention was very successful.

The Friday night dinner was fantastic. Comedian Rich Little did many of his famous impressions, including several past GOP presidents. His routine was bawdier than I expected, but because he is Rich Little, he got away with more than an up and coming comic would. His sidekick, a Ms. Walker, did a fabulous impersonation of Katherine Hepburn.

Senate candidate Sharron Angle spoke, but she was preceded by her defeated rival Danny Tarkanian. The theme of the night was unity, and Mr. Tarkanian gave a rousing and very gracious concession speech. When people want to have a political future, they have to fall in line during the president. He did, and his very classy remarks helped unite the party after the brutal primary.

When I met Mr. Tarkanian I told him that although I did not know Nevada politics, his father Jerry was one of my favorite college basketball coaches of all time. Tark the Shark was awesome at UNLV.

Sharron Angle’s greatest strength is also her greatest weakness. She is not a professional politician. I have done events with her since the convention, including a couple days ago. She is a Tea Party favorite, which means that the left will try to demonize her as a nutcase. She is nothing of the sort.

She is one of the nicest people you will ever meet. I kept calling her Mrs. Angle, and she kept insisting I call her Sharron. Although I was the comedian, she got laughs and applause when she referred to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as Phony Mae and Fraudie Mac.

Her appeal as a citizen candidate has been a double edged sword. She has made some gaffes, and Harry Reid is a seasoned politico willing to get as far in the gutter as necessary to save his job. The issue will be if Mrs. Angle is tough enough to throw elbows back. She speaks in such a soft, calm voice. She does not yell. If she keeps reminding the voters that the election is a referendum on Reid, she wins. If Reid convinces voters it is about her, he has a chance.

As I said, Sharron Angle is one of the nicest people you will ever meet. We shall see if there is steel underneath that velvet exterior. One issue she brought up is that while Harry Reid does have a respectable B rating from the NRA, she has an A. Gun owners should not be fooled.

The main speaker at the convention dinner was RNC Chairman Michael Steele.

I have said before that I love the man. I was not sure he would remember me even though I had spoken in front of him only a couple weeks earlier. He meets hundreds of people. However, he saw me and gave me a big bear hug.

When I brought up the event a couple weeks ago, I said, “Mr. Chairman, not only did the media write a hit piece on you from that event, but they even came after me. Who am I?”

He laughed, and I let him know that I offered a full throttled defense of him. He deserved that.

Steele did not back down, nor should he. In a fiery speech that had people repeatedly interrupting him with ovations, he went after the left, and the weak kneed jellyfish that claim to be on the right. Unlike our current president, Chairman Steele offers soaring rhetoric, but actually backs it up with substance. He is not a human platitude machine. He understands that the 2010 elections are critical, and he reminded us to stay focused, and not turn inward.

Yes, he has been under fire by people determined to undermine him. He is still standing, and I suspect he will be tall in the RNC saddle after these elections.

The blinding beauty of the convention came in the form of a woman who could easily have a modeling career if she gets bored with politics. Elizabeth Hurley is now the other Elizabeth. Nevada offers us Elizabeth Halseth. In addition to being stunning, she is also a solid substantive conservative Republican.

(Sorry boys, she is happily married with children.)

The gubernatorial candidate who ousted Jim Gibbons spoke to the crowd. He was tall with very good hair. He could run for president.

I mistook the local congressman for the valet guy, but that was only because he was dressed so nicely. Besides, if a congressman is not noticed, it means he is doing his job.

Naturally the ladies of the Nevada Federation of Republican Women were in attendance. The days bracketing the convention were spent speaking to the Sparks (Reno) and Pahrump groups, and they were fabulous. The Active Republican Women of Las Vegas have their 40th anniversary celebration in mid-October.

One thing I noticed at this convention was that I was not the only vendor who was “convention-hopping.” Jeff Reul has great merchandise, and another guy name Tom Wild has some of the best t-shirts in the country. He has t-shirts of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi that say “Replace this face.” I have decided to do business with him since I like him and trust him.

http://www.replacethisface.com

The convention itself, despite the lack of afterparties, was very successful. Nevada had some of the most brutal primaries in the country, and the party appeared very unified by the time the weekend was over. Republicans in Nevada will not be engaging in a circular firing squad. They understand that a certain liberal majority leader needs to go. Republicans need to stick together if they are to, as my new friend Tom Wild says, replace his face.

eric

Today I am channeling my inner Bernie Goldberg. I am less focused on events themselves than the pathetic sources who bring us the misinformation.

(My words, not his…he is nicer than me.)

For those who have not noticed, the news is garbage.

I do not mean the sad sorry state of the world today. I mean the reporting of it. We have gone from Edward R. Murrow to absolute nonsense. It is one thing for Will Ferrell to play Ron Burgundy in Anchorman. It is quite another for Katie Couric to bring stupidity to CBS News by incorporating that into her inaugural broadcast.

Below is my list of the Top 10 people affiliated with the news in some form.

There were several criteria to make the list.

The news reporters had to present the news in an unbiased manner. This eliminated most liberal newsmakers, which eliminated most newsmakers altogether.

The content had to be hard news, not opinion. So for those who want to rant and rave about the evening programming on Fox News, that is opinion.

Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, and Sean Hannity all get eliminated based on the opinion criteria. Greta Van Susteren is unbiased, but she spends way too much time focusing on nonsense. She was made famous by Larry King, who also misses the cut for simply not asking tough enough questions.

I am not on the list because I know that I write an opinion column. I try my best to get it right, but being fair does not mean being neutral. I am biased and freely admit it. MSNBC and the JBT could fail to learn a ton from me.

Campbell Brown might have made a Top 11 list. She just missed the cut. Candy Crowley is not bad. Even George Stephanopoulis and Charlie Gibson have their good days.

(Van Susteren is much better than before, but she still does not spend enough time on hard news.)

Megyn Kelly is a brilliant legal analyst, but she also allows too many soft news stories.

MSNBC was obviously eliminated because they make the same mistake the Jayson Blair Times makes. They refuse to separate their news and opinion divisions, fusing them together in one long left-wing rant. Calling this a mistake is charitable.

Walter Cronkite did not make the list because he always had his liberal agenda. He was “respected,” which meant liberals loved their fellow liberal. Dan Rather and Mary Mapes were not on the list because this list is the very best, not the very worst. Tom Brokaw and Peter Jennings helped Rather take the news and wreck it.

The cast of 60 minutes (before the show veered left) was good, with Morley Safer, Ed Bradley, and Harry Reasoner being rocks of stability.

The Wall Street Journal remains the best newspaper, with the New York Post getting an honorable mention. However, this is about individuals.

With that, here are the very best newspeople.

1) Edward R. Murrow, CBS News–Obviously he is the gold standard. He would role over in his grave if he saw what happened to CBS News after he left.

2) Tim Russert, NBC Meet the Press–He was the epitome of a man who put his biases aside to cover the news in a fair way. He also asked tough questions and even tougher follow-up questions. He was rewarded with a reputation that should be what every reporter today should strive to emulate.

3) Bernard Shaw, CNN–He may have been the man who inadvertently decided the 1988 presidential election. He asked Michael Dukakis how he would react to his wife being raped and murdered, and George HW Bush what would happen if he were to die the following day. Dukakis gave a cold, technocratic answer while Bush showed emotion and humor. The questions were tough and fair. CNN suffered when he retired.

4) Jim Lehrer, PBS–He gets to moderate many presidential debates because he is trusted. He says that before going on stage as the moderator, he looks in the mirror and repeats several times the phrase, “This is not about me.” Every newsperson should do that.

5) Chris Wallace, Fox News–He is best positioned to be the next Russert. He asks very tough questions, but without crossing the line into rudeness. The left hates him because he is on Fox New and not reflexively liberal, but he is plenty tough on both sides.

6) David Brinkley, ABC News–He was crusty and matter of fact. He was all business, which is what a news anchor should be. He had no patience for nonsense. His partner Huntley also deserves an honorable mention.

7) Neil Cavuto, Fox News–He is one of the few people with an economics show that is actually about economics. Lou Dobbs and Paul Krugman wish they were as respected as Cavuto. He asks hard questions of CEOs, but in an unfailingly polite manner. He is smart and likable.

8.) Carl Cameron/Major Garrett/Wendell Goler, Fox News–This trio of newsmen is a powerful hydra. When people attack Fox News, they are never attacking any of these men. They all cover the White House in an ultra-professional manner. While Fox News can be controversial, these men are as non-controversial as it gets. They are the men who put the news in Fox News, as they report without editorializing.

8 1/2) Bret Baier, Fox News–He is too new as the host of his program to get a full grade. Nevertheless, even when he moderates the Fox All Stars political panel, he does so in a fair and evenhanded manner. He is even tempered and keeled.

9) Hal Bruno, ABC News–The only reason he does not rank higher is because many people have no idea who he is. He moderated one presidential debate ages ago, and he struck the perfect balance of giving the candidates some latitude without losing total control of the event. A lighthearted moment after a very spirited debate occurred when he said that he was shifting to a much more quiet, non-controversial topic…abortion. The audience laughed, as he was quietly beleaguered but outwardly calm.

10) Bill Schneider, CNN Inside Politics–Long before political gabfests turned into shouting matches (Crossfire being the first), Inside Politics was a fun, easygoing political show. Bill Schneider has his trademark smile, but without a smirk or a hint of smugness. He is just a guy who loves reporting on and discussing politics. I still cannot figure out which side he is on, which tells me he is doing his job.

I hope that the rest of the people at discredited institutions such as the JBT, AP, Newsweek (which should be renamed Opinionweek) learn from those on this list. They have credibility, and the ratings in most cases to prove that honesty, integrity, and fairness will be rewarded in the short and long run.

eric

On 9/11, Arab Islamofascist terrorists murdered 3000 people in New York. Osama Bin Laden and his ilk were given protection by the Taliban in Afghanistan.

President George W. Bush gave his world famous speech 9 days later where he promised to go after all those who were terrorists, and those who harbored or funded them. There was no distinction.

One of those terrorists was Iraqi madman Saddam Hussein. While not directly related to 9/11, he was a worldwide sponsor of terrorism and a destabilizing force.

In October of 2001, the United States waged war in Afghanistan. In March of 2003 the fight was taken to Iraq. In both cases Democrats voted for resolutions authorizing war, after taking many polls and conducting many focus groups. Democratic presidential candidates were particularly troubled by how to be for and against the war so that either outcome would help them at the polls. Democrats also had to figure out how to support the troops while undermining President Bush, a delicate balancing act.

In both cases, initial military success came easy. In both cases, the longer sustainable efforts post-war were difficult. Since the Taliban did attack us on 9/11, it was much tougher to be against that war. Even some liberals totally against the Iraq War supported the war effort in Afghanistan.

It is through this prism that Iraq was the “bad war” and Afghanistan was the “good war.”

When sectarian violence broke out in Iraq in 2006 and 2007, Democrats still burning with rage (over the 2000 and 2004 elections, not the loss of human life) found a way to hammer President Bush. He was “focusing on Iraq and ignoring Afghanistan.”

This was the narrative. If Democrats were given control, we would be out of Iraq, and going all out to win militarily in Afghanistan.

The Demagogic Party presidential candidates from Hillary “Sniper Fire” Clinton to Barack Obama to John (where do the jokes begin?) Edwards to Christopher “Friend of Angelo” Dodd all stated that they would go all out to win in Afghanistan. Despite bragging that they would “stand up to Bill O’Reilly” (who did not murder anyone), the whole purpose of ending the conflict in Iraq was to focus more on Afghanistan.

I looked at these lilliputians and knew that they were lying through their liberal teeth. If Iraq had never existed, they would want us out of Afghanistan just as quickly.

Sure, things were trickier with a liberal president. The Jayson Blair Times could no longer run front page stories about body counts. No criticism of either war was to be printed unless it could in some way be tied, even tangentially, to President Bush.

Yet give the anti-war lunatics credit. They may be bat spit crazy, but at least they are consistently crazy. They wanted out of all war forever.

Not everybody has been completely irresponsible. Mr. Obama, after much dithering and consulting with political strategists, gave his general 75% of the requested troops. It was more than the 0% the Code Pinkos wanted.

Yet the liberals in congress were as disgusting as ever, led by the Pelosiraptor and Harry Reid. Votes to cut off funding received over one hundred votes from the left. So they supported the Good War in their hearts. They just refused to fund it. They are still trying to defund that war today.

In 2004 the left was willing to lose a war to try and win an election. In 2010 they are just as vile.

There are no more excuses. Withdrawal from Iraq, while totally misguided, will be happening. The bad war they hated is no longer an issue for them. They are leaving. If all the good work President George W. Bush and General David Petraues did is undone, they will blame President Bush anyway.

The Good War needs to be won. Congressional liberals and other violent (anti-war people are as violent as it gets) peace activists are fully prepared to lose.

In liberal land, Afghanistan never was the good war. It was just the good political issue.

America won Vietnam on the battlefield and lost it in the liberal media and congress. The left is fully prepared to repeat this folly in Afghanistan, since that is what they wanted all along.

Somewhere in a land where Democrats actually cared, FDR, Harry Truman and JFK must be weeping. JFK said we would “pay any price and bear any burden” for victory.

Until we get attacked again on American soil (God forbid) while a liberal Democrat is president, there will be no effort to win that conflict. If Americans will rally around the flag and a Republican president, that price is too high and that burden is to great for liberals to bear.

eric

One of the common themes of my blog is that liberals are gutless little rats who are ashamed of who and what they are. Conservatives get elected by stating who they are, what they believe, and following through on it. They lose elections when they get away from their core. Liberals win elections by denying who they are and hiding behind phony words like “progressive.”

This phoniness exists in domestic and foreign policy, with the main area of domestic fraud being in the form of taxes.

Conservatives believe in lower taxes. Liberals believe in higher taxes. While lower taxes is an easier political sell, honest liberals (they do exist) will justify why they want higher taxes. Higher tax revenues can be used to redistribute wealth and be used for more social programs to help the working class.

While I disagree with this philosophy, it is a legitimate philosophy. What is disgusting is when liberals refuse to admit their desire to do this.

Liberals are on the verge of supporting mass tax hikes. This is bad policy in normal conditions and economic suicide during a recession. This is also being done in a dishonest manner as the left refuses to admit that taxes are being raised.

The Bush tax cuts are set to expire on December 31, 2010. Liberals refuse to acknowledge that letting tax cuts expire is the exact same thing as raising taxes. Rather than justify why they are raising taxes, they simply bash President Bush.

In 1984 Walter Mondale gave his word that he was going to raise taxes. He lost 49 states. The left learned from his shellacking to never again tell the truth about anything if it would cost votes. The ends justified the means. Winning at all costs became the Democratic Party philosophy. Policy was peripheral.

The right has offered a clear cogent explanation for why the Bush tax cuts should be made permanent. It is called Supply Side Economics. It works. If the left wants to offer an argument of why raising taxes in this climate would be proper policy, that would be a welcome debate.

Hiding behind gutless phrases such as “letting them expire” is like trying to differentiate between passive and active euthanasia. Either way, the person has been killed.

This brings me to the death tax. People spend their whole life paying taxes. The idea that they should then have to have more taxes taken out on death is disgusting. It is not billionaires who get punished. It is small business owners such as farmers. Rich old people dying today pay nothing. Starting January 1 of 2011, 55% of their estate gets confiscated.

If the liberals truly believe that paying more taxes is patriotic, they should just pay more. Nobody is stopping them. They can fire their estate planners, tax attorneys, and accountants and just send in extra funds to the IRS. Instead liberals from Timothy Geithner to Charles Rangel to John Kerry mandate higher taxes for everybody else. Why should they care about taxes? It is not like they pay them.

John Kerry just bought a 7 million dollar yacht. This is his right. He kept the yacht in Rhode Island instead of Massachusetts to save almost 500,000 dollars annually in taxes. Does anybody see the hypocrisy in this?

George Soros spends millions attacking the rich all the while making his money destroying currencies and hurting the very working class people he claims to care about.

These are liberals. This is how they behave.

The left will claim that they only want to raise taxes on “the wealthy.” Yet when asked to define wealthy, they never offer a number. Sometimes it is 250k salary, sometimes 200k…the number keeps changing.

What the left will never grasp is that these wealthy people create jobs. The government does not. Many wealthy people right now are hoarding cash. They are scared to spend or hire, because they know that a financial time bomb in the form of higher income and estate taxes is about to explode.

The stock market is nervous. People do not want to take new large positions out of fear that the capital gains tax will be increased.

The American people are not stupid. They know that the left wants to vastly increase taxes, and that the rich will just pass the costs on to the middle class since the lower class is already largely subsidized.

The solution is to cut taxes and spur the private sector to grow the economy.

The left disagrees with this, but they should at least have the guts to justify their position.

Until the left acknowledges that letting tax cuts expire is exactly the same as raising taxes, there is no reason to trust a single thing they have to say.

The left needs to stop lying. They need to stop advancing the absolute falsehood that the cuts were always meant to expire, and that President George W. Bush set them up to have a limited shelf life. He wanted permanent tax cuts but the liberals threatened a filibuster, as was their constitutional right. To get the tax cuts passed, he lowered the cuts from 1.6 trillion to 1.3 trillion and gave them a sunset provision after a decade. So technically, the Democrats actually raised taxes by $300,000 by forcing President Bush to come down in numbers.

If the left wants to raise taxes, they need to be honest with the American people. Of course, if they did this they would not be liberals. They know the people are against them on this and so many other issues. For a party who hates anything related to the military, they sure know how to wear camouflage.

Either be proud and stand up for core beliefs, or scurry away like desperate little rats.

The left has chosen the latter.

eric

Shirley Sherrod is now doing her best imitation of Bill Murray in “What About Bob.” The line is uttered by Richard Dreyfuss when he angrily refers to Murray and says, “Gone? He’s never gone!”

Shirley Sherrod has now decided to sue Andrew Breitbart.

(Full disclosure: I used to write for his site Big Hollywood. I currently have no affiliation with him whatsoever.)

For those who need a lightning quick recap, administration bureaucrat Shirley Sherrod made some remarks. Those remarks were caught on videotape. Somebody (as of now unidentified) gave the tape to Breitbart, who ran it. The tape was taken out of context, causing her to be seen as making anti-white racist remarks. President Barack Obama, who is more concerned about Glenn Beck than Osama Bin Laden, fired her in a panic through Tom Vilsack. When the entire tape was played, the White House panicked again and she was offered her old job back. Nilsack took the fall for Obama.

While Breitbart got the ball rolling, the White House fired her. Yet she is suing Breitbart.

There are several reasons she is doing this.

To start with, liberals love suing. It’s what they do. Liberals fail at the executive and legislative levels, so they achieve what few gains they have through the judiciary. Liberals filing lawsuits is as natural as swimming in Summertime in Los Angeles. It is a given.

As for the target, the trick is to maximize sympathy. Nobody makes for a delightful villain in liberal fantasyland like either a landowner, a corporation, or anybody else that can be portrayed as greedy and sleazy just for being successful. When in doubt, sue a conservative.

Andrew Breitbart is a conservative. Therefore, the left will not stand up for him because even if he is innocent, he is most likely of being guilty of something else. He should be sued because the legal system for liberals is not about justice. It is about vengeance, and harassing conservatives out of existence. Become a Republican small business owner and see how tough it is in a liberal city to get permits for anything.

Some will say that since Breitbart showed the tape, the lawsuit has merit. That could be right in some situations, but in this case that is wrong.

The first requirement to sue is the concept of “standing.” This is why the leftists freaking out over the Patriot Act keep getting their cases thrown out. Hypothetical and theoretical potential injuries do not hold up in courts of law. Actual injuries must occur, and only the aggrieved can go forward.

In this case Ms. Sherrod can go forward. She is the person who was victimized.

Where Ms. Sherrod’s case breaks apart is the concept of suffering. A person has to actually suffer some loss of some kind, be it physical, financial, or emotional.

What has Ms. Sherrod lost? Nothing.

Within 24 hours, she was offered her old job back. She was also offered an even better job, a raise and a promotion. So their is no financial loss. In fact, there is potential financial gain. If she takes the raise, does Mr. Breitbart get a portion of that money? If she writes a tell all book or becomes the subject of a Hollywood movie (Hollywood loves people like her and loathes Breitbart types, in both cases due to ideology), does Breitbart get a share of the profits?

Some will say she suffered emotional loss due to her attacks on her reputation. Her reputation was quickly restored. Everybody on the left except Barack Obama apologized, while many conservatives did likewise. Glenn Beck, who supposedly was the impetus behind the President freaking out, was defending her from the very beginning.

Breitbart did not fire her. President Obama did. Therefore, if she were to have grounds to sue anybody, she should be suing him.

(The Supreme Court ruled in the Paula Jones case against President Clinton in a unanimous 9-0 decision that sitting presidents could be sued civilly while in office. It was a terrible legal decision, but it is the law of the land for now.)

Shirley Sherrod is falling in line behind her president. If she goes after him, she is toast. He has the weight of the presidency. By going after Breitbart, she is now an instant celebrity. Prestigious dinner parties in upper class liberal neighborhoods await her. Tying Breitbart up in court also has the added bonus of taking valuable time away from a conservative threat. The Clinton White House (ironic give that they were sued themselves) used this tactic against political rivals, from the NRA to many others. When that did not work, they sicced the IRS on political enemies.

Shirley Sherrod did not want any of this attention. She was minding her own business when she confronted with her remarks. Yet that does not change the fact that the net result to her from this situation has been a plus. After all, she has learned from the Obama White House never to let a good crisis go to waste.

Until the right learns the depth of hatred that the left has for them, they will continue to try and fight back with hands tied behind conservative backs. Perhaps a few well placed lawsuits against every wealthy liberal in America might teach them a lesson.

This will not happen because we have better things to do. We don’t wake up in the morning looking for an ambulance to chase or a wealthy construction site to trip over and fall.

Shirley Sherrod suffered what the medical community would call a “boo-boo.” She needed a band-aid, not open heart surgery.

Either she should sue President Obama (I will not lose sleep either way), or just get over it and go away.

It is time for her to exit, stage (angry far) left. Her 15 minutes are up.

eric

We need to immediately send storm troopers into congress to arrest 10 white liberal democrats.

To quote Johnny Cochran, “forget the evidence.”

Just round them up, use batons or tasers if necessary, lock them up, and throw away the key.

We can select these 10 unlucky losers at random, or actually make the decision based on merit (or in the case of liberals, total lack of it). The Pelosiraptor, Henry Waxboy, and Jim McDermott can be the first three to go. David Bonior can join them as well. Although he is thankfully no longer in Congress, he is still an anti-Israel leftist with a sinister looking beard. Take him away. Barbara Boxer can be the upper chamber delegate to wear the orange jumpsuit, given her history of check kiting. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd would look great in orange jumpsuits.

So why is it so important to arrest 10 white democrats?

Because this is the only way to shut the leftist racial bombthrowers up about corrupt liberals Charles Rangel and Maxine Waters.

I have stayed largely silent on these two miscreants because going after them is pointless. They are above the law. They are as safe as Goldman Sachs (boy was I right when I pointed out they would get away totally free and clear). Unless either Waters or Rangel get caught with an underage child (Mel Reynolds) or with cash in the freezer (William Jefferson), they are not going anywhere.

However, just to be on the safe side, the race card is already being played.

(Those claiming not to have seen an ounce of such behavior should win an ostrich imitation award, and then be tested for syphilis, glaucoma, or any other affliction that causes blindness.)

This has absolutely nothing to do with race. The previously mentioned Cochran said that “race is a part of everything we do.”

No it isn’t.

We do not need a national conversation on race. We need everybody to shut up and sit down.

Rangel and Waters are accused of breaking the rules. Investigations are being conducted. Findings are being released.

This has nothing to do with Selma, Alabama, fire hoses being turned on people, James Byrd being murdered, the real color of vanilla extract, or the Rolling Stones song “Brown Sugar.”

Real racism exists in America. Yet false accusations of racism have become so prevalent that the accusations have gone from being hurtful to downright boring.

(Liberals cautioning about a rush to judgment still blame the previous administration for everything from war crimes to arthritis flareups. Their cries of patience and process are laughable.)

Rangel and Waters are not proof that we live in the same society as in 1863.

The only solution is reverse affirmative action.

Arrest as many white liberal democrats as possible. We can start with 10, and then expand the list to include all hybrid drivers, teachers unions, and every Massachusetts liberal, with waterboarding required for the ones with the worst Brahmin accents.

Those who will fight tooth and nail for Waters and Rangel will prove nothing other than their ability to let a pair of racial hucksters be given a free pass. Ironically, most of the people they cheated were also black, which will go unnoticed since black on black crime (white collar or blue collar) does not sell as many papers as stories of being oppressed by whitey.

If anybody wants proof of their guilt, just look how quiet the First Gasbag in Chief is being. If President Obama had an inking of their innocence, he would stand up for them. He knows they are toxic to him, so under the bus they go. In this case, I agree with his silence.

So to avoid having to listen to how nothing has changed, America is racist, and conservatives are to blame for everything that has ever gone wrong since the beginning of existence, let’s just show racial solidarity by arresting white liberal democrats right now.

We can replace every single one of them with black conservative Republicans.

Until then, somebody please take these white liberal racists and introduce their mouths to the soft, sensuous feeling of high quality ductape.

Black people are only 12% of the population, yet they make up close to half the prison population. This has often been cited as proof of racism. Therefore, for every black congressman who gets in trouble, 10 white liberal congressman need to have their careers ended as well. It’s only fair.

As a top civil rights leader in America, there is only one thing left for me to say.

You’re welcome.

eric

On August 2, 1990, Iraqi Leader Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.

A visibly angry President George Herbert Walker Bush said that, “this will not stand.”

On August 20, 2010, the only thing standing in Iraq is freedom. In America, quiet on his ranch, George W. Bush stands as tall in the saddle as ever.

In the 1980s the U.S. supported Saddam because he was less crazy than Iran. Yet by 1990 he was out of control. He referred to Kuwait as the 19th Province, and Saudi Arabia as the 20th Province. He had to be stopped.

As would be the case for many years to come, liberal Democrats stung by Vietnam Syndrome wanted to be against the war in case it failed, while being for it to avoid being seen as unpatriotic. Democrats running for president in 1992 took carefully calibrated positions on both sides.

(Senator Sam Nunn, to his credit, took a clear stand against the war. He was wrong, and his presidential ambitions died.)

With Colin Powell, Norman Schwarzkopf, Dan Quayle, and Dick Cheney providing valuable advice, decisions were made without the media leaks that wreck military operations today.

With a multilateral coalition, Saddam was driven out of Kuwait. The decision was made not to go into Iraq, because the mandate the coalition agreed to was only to get Iraq out of Kuwait.

Democrats decided that Saddam could be “contained.” Europe and the U.N. decided that “sanctions” were the solution, even though sanctions was code for doing nothing, and doing even that ineffectively. The corruption at the U.N. and the Oil For Food scandal showed that Europe put profits above human decency.

(When leftists do this it is somehow ok.)

After 9/11, President George W. Bush declared that America would go after the terrorists themselves, and those who funded are harbored them in any way. Democrats gave him this authority through the Patriot Act, although they again tried to be for and against everything in case sentiments changed, as they inevitably do.

Saddam Hussein was not responsible for 9/11, but he absolutely was a terrorist. He funded worldwide terrorism, including paying the family of every Palesimian suicide bomber $25,000.

After violating 16 UN resolutions that were as meaningless as expected from the U.N., Rule 1441 gave Saddam one final chance to comply. He violated that 17th resolution, and George W. Bush gave him 48 hours to step down peacefully. He refused, and the Iraq War of 2003 was led by Tommy Franks.

Democrats running for president again were for and against the war depending on polls. Militarily, the United States, again led by a multilateral coalition of over 30 nations, crushed Saddam.
(Liberals called the U.S. action unilateral because socialist France was not included. Now that a conservative leads France, the left no longer asks for French opinion.)

Saddam’s sons Uday and Qusay were killed. Saddam was captured cowering in a spiderhole.

Liberals had to pray for something bad to happen in Iraq because George W. Bush kicked Saddam’s @ss, and was about to kick theirs in the 2004 election.

The left latched on to the argument that WMD never existed. Of course WMD existed.

(Conservatives who apologized also get blame for being as gutless as liberals. Never apologize for being right.)

WMD were found in 2005, and most of the WMD are now most likely buried deep underground in Syria. Yet because most of the WMD were not found, liberals decided that George W. Bush, being a bigger threat to them than Saddam, needed to be taken down by any dishonorable means necessary. The man who took down Saddam was called a liar.

It is 100% completely impossible to praise the removal of Saddam Hussein without giving credit to the man who ordered him removed and got it done. Those who admit we are better off with Saddam gone but not praising those who removed him are those that are still for and against everything depending on how the polls look.

The polls showed frustration with the reconstruction and nation building efforts of Iraq, and an insurgency played out on the daily pages of the Jayson Blair Times.

(With a liberal American president, the JBT and their leftist ilk have lost interest in any war casualties. This would also be a great time for Abu Gharaib style behavior to be done on purpose worldwide. Until a Republican gets elected to the White House, the media would ignore the story. Summer Camp fraternity hijinks do not come close to the beheadings our enemies engage in.)

Some claim the world is no different with Saddam gone. I wish they had lived under his reign in Iraq. It is easy to be brave from an overpriced coffee shop in Seattle or a marijuana clinic in San Francisco.

It was not unpatriotic to be against the war on principle. It was treasonous to hope George W. Bush failed once the decision to go to war that many Democrats grudgingly supported was made. The left even threatened to defund the troops.

Saddam Hussein was given a democratic trial in Iraq. Yes, democracy in Iraq came when he was removed. Like any fledgling democracy, Iraq has its bumps and bruises along the way. Yet Saddam was given the death penalty, over the objections of the ACLU.

Western style democracies across the globe from England to Australia to Israel to Italy to Spain supported removing Saddam.

(Again, virtually everybody except France, hence the leftist blathering about unilateralism.)

George W. Bush, Tony Blair, Ariel Sharon, John Howard, Silvio Berlusconi, and Joseph Aznar will forever go into the history books as the leaders who saved the world from a bloodthirsty madman.

On the 20th anniversary of Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait, let us celebrate the fact that over the objections of leftist pacifists and America haters everywhere, liberty and freedom reign supreme in one more nation.

If the appeasers on the left had carried the day, Saddam would most likely still be in power, and well on his way to developing nuclear weapons. The situation in Iran proves that tough talk from the left is code for diplomatic impotence, which is redundant anyway.

To the aforementioned leaders who never wavered, I will go to my grave knowing that removing Saddam Hussein by force was the right thing to do.

20 years ago was terrorism at its worst.

Today, Saddam Hussein is dead and Iraq is a democracy.

Freedom and liberty are gifts from God.

So I thank God for giving us President George W. Bush.

Those who scoff in their typical leftist condescending tones can go to Saddam for a second opinion.

Oh, wait, they can’t. He’s dead because we took him out.

Luv ya Dubya!

eric