Who's To Decide

Just remember, that the modern American right are above making it about race.



Considering that this sort of language is quite commonplace within the confines of the Right Wing, it should be no surprise to anyone.

While the topic at hand was abortion, and ultimately a question that Obama was never asked, this blatant inference that black people aren't capable of making decisions that could affect the lives of others is not only a glaring example of the racial animus that flows like water from the modern American Right, but a signifier that it's speech acceptable by an alleged "Christian" organization.

O Rly, Orly? Ya Rly!

I didn't know that Orly Taitz was a dentist too!

Seems that she's using that angle now to file papers against Obama, adding it to her continued "birther" suit.

The challenge comes in the form of an amended complaint in a Birther case in district court in Washington, Taitz v. Obama, that challenges the president's citizenship.

Along with raising the specter of death panels and charging that Obama, as an illegitimate president, does not have the right to sign the health bill into law, Taitz writes in the new section of the complaint, titled, "VIOLATION OF COMMERCE CLAUSE AND OF PLAINTIFF'S RIGHTS TO GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT AS A DOCTOR OF DENTAL SURGERY UPON DEFENDANT'S IMMINENT SIGHNING OF THE HEALTH BILL"

She goes on to allege that she would be subjected to multiple, undo, lawsuits. That's right, the woman that has filed more legal papers against the Obama administration than just about anyone is afraid she'll get sued. Oh, the irony.

Here's another thought. I'm wondering about Taitz's skill-level as a dentist, because if she doesn't understand how to fill out a simple document then I certainly don't want her putting sharp objects in my mouth.

Declarative Nonsense

It appears that some conservatives are going to get together somewhere and make a big deal out of some "manifesto" that sounds like the same old same old. But don't tell them that.

Among the conservative leaders involved in the Mount Vernon Statement were Edwin Meese III; Becky Norton Dunlop, a Heritage Foundation vice president and Reagan administration official; American Conservative Union Chairman David A. Keene, who also heads CPAC; Reagan administration Labor Department official Patrick Pizzella; Heritage Foundation President Edwin J. Feulner; Family Research Council President Tony Perkins; Media Research Center President Brent Bozell; and Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist.

( h/t Right Wing Watch )

Here's an excerpt:

"Some insist that America must change, cast off the old and put on the new. But where would this lead -- forward or backward, up or down? Isn't this idea of change an empty promise or even a dangerous deception?

"The change we urgently need, a change consistent with the American ideal, is not movement away from but toward our founding principles. At this important time, we need a restatement of Constitutional conservatism grounded in the priceless principle of ordered liberty articulated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

"The conservatism of the Declaration asserts self-evident truths based on the laws of nature and nature's God. It defends life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It traces authority to the consent of the governed. It recognizes man's self-interest but also his capacity for virtue."

Talk about glittering generalities.

This is standard fare for the conservative movement, speak about how the "Founders" would be so distraught with the direction that nation has taken without given any detailed outline as to what should, could, and can be done to put the nation "back on track".

Is this to be connected with the Tea Bagger movement? Is this intended to stand alone in the hopes that it will be adopted by the Tea Baggers? Is this really anything different than what has been said by these people before? No.