Liberal Forum

NYPD Commissioner's Son Cleared of Rape ChargesNEW YORK Greg Kelly, the NYC police commissioner's son, has been cleared of the prospect of criminal charges of raping a woman he met for a drink, and will return to his job as host of a popular local morning TV talk show this week, his station said.Greg Kelly took a leave of absence from his job at "Good Day New York" after the allegations surfaced late last month. The station, local Fox affiliate WNYW-TV, confirmed Wednesday he would return Friday.Prosecutors said Tuesday that they hadn't found cause to charge Kelly with a crime. Kelly said then that he was looking forward to getting back to work but didn't say when.The woman told authorities that Kelly raped her in her lower Manhattan office after they went out for drinks on Oct. 8, assaulting her while she wasn't capable of consenting to sex, a person familiar with the investigation said. She told authorities she became pregnant from the encounter and had an abortion, according to a law enforcement official. Neither the person nor the law official was authorized to speak publicly, and they spoke to The Associated Press on the condition of anonymity.The New York Police Department turned the matter over to the district attorney's office when the woman walked into a police station Jan. 24, citing the potential conflict of interest in investigating a son of the commissioner, Raymond Kelly.Prosecutors interviewed "numerous relevant fact and expert witnesses," analyzed receipts, security logs, text messages and telephone records and interviewed the woman and Kelly, the chief of the Manhattan district attorney's office sex crimes unit, Martha Bashford, wrote in a letter Tuesday to Kelly's lawyer, Andrew M. Lankler."After reviewing all of the evidence, we have determined that the facts established during our investigation do not fit the definitions of sexual assault crimes under New York criminal law," Bashford wrote. "Therefore, no criminal charges are appropriate."Kelly had vehemently denied doing anything wrong, and he portrayed the prosecutors' conclusions as vindication."I am thankful that the investigation established what I've known all along, that I am innocent of the allegations that were waged against me," Kelly, 43, said in his statement.The woman, who works at a downtown Manhattan law firm, told police she met Kelly on the street; they then arranged to meet for drinks three days later at a bar at the nearby South Street Seaport, a second person familiar with the investigation has said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss details not made public. The woman and Kelly stayed in contact afterward, the first person said.The woman's boyfriend learned the story and became enraged, that person said.Read More: http://www.huffingto..._n_1265129.htmlThis woman cheated on her boyfriend, and got pregnant. The boyfriend got pissed, so she cried rape.Now, I wonder if Clem will call Greg Kelly a rapist?

This woman cheated on her boyfriend, and got pregnant. The boyfriend got pissed, so she cried rape.Now, I wonder if Clem will call Greg Kelly a rapist?If she has four contemporaneous witnesses who saw her trauma and badly bitten lip and heard her story immediately afterward, including a nurse who treated her lip. Evidence so powerful that even many Clinton supporters believed it. Did she? No? Then the comparison is just another attempt to dishonestly defend an actual rapist. Say, why haven't you answered my questions?Because they'd reveal you as an imbecile or a liar, of course.Please cite me the part of the Constitution where it says that corporations have the same rights as individual people.How about answering my question, moonbat. Are you advocating we be able to violate unions' free speech? If not, why not? Are unions "people?"I don't need to, moonbat. Where does it say that unions have a right to free speech? Business or civic groups? Any group?What do the following words mean? Congress shall make no law.....abridging the freedom of speechThat is uncategorical, unequivocal, crystal clear, concise, self apparent, obvious.Congress cannot abridge ANY speech. Is that clear enough, moonbat?

[quote name='MistyBlue' timestamp='1328808689' post='2434339']Please cite me the part of the Constitution where it says that corporations have the same rights as individual people.[/quote]I have no problem with corporations not being given personhood. That way, there would be no legitimate mechanism to tax the hell out of them. Taxation without representation...... [quote]So why have they enjoyed those rights?Cite the SCOTUS ruling where corporations were declared 'people' and were said to be entitled to the same Constitutional rights as individuals.I won't hold my breath.[/quote]Time to exhale........[quote]U.S. Supreme Court LOUISVILLE, C. & C. R. CO. v. LETSON, 43 U.S. 497 (1844) 43 U.S. 497 (How.) THE LOUISVILLE, CINCINNATI, AND CHARLESTON RAILROAD COMPANY, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. THOMAS W. LETSON, DEFENDANT. January Term, 1844 .......... [size="7"]It is, that a corporation created by and doing business in a particular state, is to be deemed to all intents and purposes as a person[/size], although an artificial person, an inhabitant of the same state, for the purposes of its incorporation, capable of being treated as a citizen of that state, as much as a natural person. Like a citizen it makes contracts, and though in regard to what it may do in some particulars it differs from a natural person, and in this especially, the manner in which it can sue and be sued, it is substantially, within the meaning of the law, a citizen of the state which created it, and where its business is done, for all the purposes of suing and being sued

So why have they enjoyed those rights?Cite the SCOTUS ruling where corporations were declared 'people' and were said to be entitled to the same Constitutional rights as individuals.I won't hold my breath.U.S. Supreme Court LOUISVILLE, C. & C. R. CO. v. LETSON, 43 U.S. 497 (1844) 43 U.S. 497 (How.) THE LOUISVILLE, CINCINNATI, AND CHARLESTON RAILROAD COMPANY, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. THOMAS W. LETSON, DEFENDANT. January Term, 1844 .......... It is, that a corporation created by and doing business in a particular state, is to be deemed to all intents and purposes as a person, although an artificial person, an inhabitant of the same state, for the purposes of its incorporation, capable of being treated as a citizen of that state, as much as a natural person. Like a citizen it makes contracts, and though in regard to what it may do in some particulars it differs from a natural person, and in this especially, the manner in which it can sue and be sued, it is substantially, within the meaning of the law, a citizen of the state which created it, and where its business is done, for all the purposes of suing and being sued.Because if they didn't have Constitutional rights, corporations could be searched without warrants, have its phones tapped, its assets seized, etc. etc. etc.Stunning how little understanding the moonbat left has about American freedom.Here's a leftist moonbat arguing for the Obama administration against Citizens United.In the course of oral argument before the Supreme Court in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, United States deputy solicitor general Malcolm Stewart inadvertently revealed just how extreme our campaign-finance system has become.The case addressed the question of whether federal campaign-finance law limits the right of the activist group Citizens United to distribute a hackneyed political documentary entitled Hillary: The Movie. The details involved an arcane provision of the law, and most observers expected a limited decision that would make little news and not much practical difference in how campaigns are run. But in the course of the argument, Justice Samuel Alito interrupted Stewart and inquired: "What's your answer to [the] point that there isn't any constitutional difference between the distribution of this movie on video [on] demand and providing access on the internet, providing DVDs, either through a commercial service or maybe in a public library, [or] providing the same thing in a book? Would the Constitution permit the restriction of all of those as well?" Stewart, an experienced litigator who had represented the government in campaign-finance cases at the Supreme Court before, responded that the provisions of McCain-Feingold could in fact be constitutionally applied to limit all those forms of speech. The law, he contended, would even require banning a book that made the same points as the Citizens United video.There was an audible gasp in the courtroom. Then Justice Alito spoke, it seemed, for the entire audience: "That's pretty incredible." By the time Stewart's turn at the podium was over, he had told Justice Anthony Kennedy that the government could restrict the distribution of books through Amazon's digital book reader, Kindle; responded to Justice David Souter that the government could prevent a union from hiring a writer to author a political book; and conceded to Chief Justice John Roberts that a corporate publisher could be prohibited from publishing a 500-page book if it contained even one line of candidate advocacy.http://www.nationala...-finance-reform

RichClem, on 11 March 2011 - 03:48 PM, said:"Meanwhile The Chosen One and Democrats are running a $1.6 trillion deficit and refusing to cut spending." Meanwhile, Congressional Republicans are running a $1.6 trillion deficit and refusing to restore taxes on the rich to their NORMAL levels of most of the past 95 years (70-94%) And endangering US National Security in the process, all the while, ludicrously trying to pass themselves off as Conservative. In my avatar, it looks like Eisenhower wants to do a Patton job on them - and get out of his jeep and give them a SLAP.

How about answering my question, moonbat. Are you advocating we be able to violate unions' free speech? If not, why not? Are unions "people?"What I'm advocating is that no entity or person should be allowed to donate obscene amounts of money in secret to super PACS. Please explain to me how that is good for democracy?

Misty: Cite the SCOTUS ruling where corporations were declared 'people' and were said to be entitled to the same Constitutional rights as individuals.U.S. Supreme Court LOUISVILLE, C. & C. R. CO. v. LETSON, 43 U.S. 497 (1844) 43 U.S. 497 (How.) THE LOUISVILLE, CINCINNATI, AND CHARLESTON RAILROAD COMPANY, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. THOMAS W. LETSON, DEFENDANT. January Term, 1844 .......... It is, that a corporation created by and doing business in a particular state, is to be deemed to all intents and purposes as a person, although an artificial person, an inhabitant of the same state, for the purposes of its incorporation, capable of being treated as a citizen of that state, as much as a natural person. Like a citizen it makes contracts, and though in regard to what it may do in some particulars it differs from a natural person, and in this especially, the manner in which it can sue and be sued, it is substantially, within the meaning of the law, a citizen of the state which created it, and where its business is done, for all the purposes of suing and being suedTulane Law ReviewARTICLE: THE CORPORATION IS A PERSON: THE LANGUAGE OF A LEGAL FICTION.February, 198761 Tul. L. Rev. 563Author SANFORD A. SCHANE ExcerptThe law allows corporations to do some of the things that people do. They may enter into contracts, buy and sell land, commit torts, sue and be sued. Other rights and liabilities are denied. Corporations cannot hold public office, vote in elections, or spend the night in jail. In spite of evident differences between a corporation and a flesh-and-blood human, there are sufficient similarities for the law to treat the corporation as a person. The word "person" as used in a statute will usually be construed to include corporations, so long as such an interpretation fits within the general design and intent of the act. The edification of the corporation to the status of person is one of the most enduring institutions of the law and one of the most widely accepted legal fictions.https://litigation-e...f3393a84e979b81Because if they didn't have Constitutional rights, corporations could be searched without warrants, have its phones tapped, its assets seized, etc. etc. etc.Stunning how little understanding the moonbat left has about American freedom.Well apparently corporations don't have Fifth Amendment rights, Puss.Some have argued in court that corporations should be allowed to refuse to hand over incriminating documents under the Fifth Amendment. In one case, appellants suggested that the use of the word "taxpayer" several times in the regulations requires that the fifth-amendment self-incrimination warning be given to a corporation."However, the court did not agree in United States of America v Steve Sourapas and Crest Beverage Company, a 1975 case.LinkHmmmm....no 5th Amendment rights. That would mean that corporations don't have all the same rights as individuals, wouldn't it Puss?

Here is a very interesting article about how corporations hijacked the 14th Amendment (meant to secure the political rights of former slaves) in an attempt to establish corporate personhood.The Fourteenth Amendment offered an opportunity to advance corporate interests, and the corporate attorneys set out to exploit it.In what was to become a familiar assertion, railroads in Illinois complained in the State Railroad Tax Cases that the Illinois tax laws violated due process because corporations were taxed differently.In Kentucky Railroad Tax Cases the assertion again was made that taxes violated a railroad’s due process rights. The assertion was also made - for at least the third time before the Supreme Court – that corporations are persons under the Fourteenth Amendment.The corporate legal campaign to gain ‘personhood’ status finally succeeded when the report of the opinion in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific. R.R. contained a statement purportedly made by Chief Justice Waite before oral argument that “the court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State todeny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does.” The statement is suspect because the issue was argued. The case was decided on other grounds and the Court directly declined to decide the Constitutional question. Justice Field cited Santa Clara as holding that corporations are persons in a later case , and that notion of Santa Clara’s holding has stuck.http://reclaimdemocr...hammerstrom.pdfOnce again it all comes back to Chief Justice Waite's court reporter (J.C. Bancroft Davis) who wrote in his headnotes that the court had ruled that corporations were considered persons under the 14th Amendment. They didn't.Here's what happened.Santa Clara County in California was trying to levy a property tax against the Southern Pacific Railroad. The railroad gave numerous reasons why it shouldn't have to pay, one of which rested on the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause: the railroad was being held to a different standard than human taxpayers. When the case reached the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Morrison Waite supposedly prefaced the proceedings by saying, "The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." In its published opinion, however, the court ducked the personhood issue, deciding the case on other grounds. Then the court reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis, stepped in. Although the title makes him sound like a mere clerk, the court reporter is an important official who digests dense rulings and summarizes key findings in published "headnotes." (Davis had already had a long career in public service, and at one point was president of the board of directors for the Newburgh & New York Railroad Company.) In a letter, Davis asked Waite whether he could include the latter's courtroom comment--which would ordinarily never see print--in the headnotes. Waite gave an ambivalent response that Davis took as a yes. Eureka, instant landmark ruling. Does this flaky procedure mean all later cases relying on Santa Clara are null and void? Nope--in the world of the law, a precedent is a precedent, even if it's a stupid one.LinkAnd it is a stupid one. Edited by MistyBlue, 10 February 2012 - 12:57 AM.

How about answering my question, moonbat. Are you advocating we be able to violate unions' free speech? If not, why not? Are unions "people?"What I'm advocating......How about answering my question? How about answering my question, moonbat. Are you advocating we be able to violate unions' free speech? If not, why not? Are unions "people?"Unions spend many millions in secret. Should we outlaw that?What I'm advocating is that no entity or person should be allowed to donate obscene amounts of money in secret to super PACS.What you're advocating is a blatant violation of the Constitution and freedom of speech.Please explain to me how that is good for democracy?Violating the Constitution is "good for democracy?" Duuh.RichClem, on 11 March 2011 - 03:48 PM, said:"Meanwhile The Chosen One and Democrats are running a $1.6 trillion deficit and refusing to cut spending." Meanwhile, Congressional Republicans are running a $1.6 trillion deficit......What utter bulls***. Repubs have tried as hard as reasonably possible to cut spending. It is Obama and Senate Dems who refuse to allow it.Even if Repubs caved to a tax hike on the rich, it would bring in chump change, roughly $50 billion annually while the annual deficit is $1.1 trillion.Lie much?Hmmmm....no 5th Amendment rights. That would mean that corporations don't have all the same rights as individuals, wouldn't it Puss?I think that what I claimed was that they had most if not all rights. I honestly didn't know. Edited by RichClem, 10 February 2012 - 01:02 PM.

How about answering my question? How about answering my question, moonbat. Are you advocating we be able to violate unions' free speech? If not, why not? Are unions "people?"Unions spend many millions in secret. Should we outlaw that?What you're advocating is a blatant violation of the Constitution and freedom of speech.Violating the Constitution is "good for democracy?" Duuh.What utter bulls***. Repubs have tried as hard as reasonably possible to cut spending. It is Obama and Senate Dems who refuse to allow it.Even if Repubs caved to a tax hike on the rich, it would bring in chump change, roughly $50 billion annually while the annual deficit is $1.1 trillion.Lie much?I think that what I claimed was that they had most if not all rights. I honestly didn't know."Corporations are people too, my friend" -Mitt RomneyAll of you pro-oligarchs should run on your nonsense, Clem!HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaa, HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA, HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!No, a "union" is not a "person." And people belonging to both unions and corporations should be severely restricted in how the people belonging to either can hide behind the legal entity in donating money to political campaigns -- PARTICULARLY if any such legal entity is a profit-seeking legal entity.

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaa, HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA, HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!No, a "union" is not a "person." And people belonging to both unions and corporations should be severely restricted in how the people belonging to either can hide behind the legal entity in donating money to political campaigns -- PARTICULARLY if any such legal entity is a profit-seeking legal entity.Which has nothing or next to nothing to do with Citizens United and the way it freed speech and upheld the Constitution.It wasn't about contributions. It was about advertising one's political opinions; i.e political speech.The decision reached the Supreme Court on appeal from a January 2008 decision by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The lower court decision had upheld provisions of the 2002 act, which prevented the film Hillary: The Movie from being shown on television within 30 days of 2008 Democratic primaries.[1][3]The Supreme Court reversed the lower court, striking down those provisions of the McCain–Feingold Act that prohibited all corporations, both for-profit and not-for-profit, and unions from broadcasting "electioneering communications."Citizens United campaign contributions Edited by RichClem, 10 February 2012 - 02:29 PM.

If she has four contemporaneous witnesses who saw her trauma....Juanita Broaddrick didn't have 4 contemporaneous witnesses.Do you even know what the word means?contemporaneous - occurring in the same period of timeShe was traveling with one other person.No one else saw her trauma contemporaneously.

If she has four contemporaneous witnesses who saw her trauma....Juanita Broaddrick didn't have 4 contemporaneous witnesses.Do you even know what the word means?contemporaneous - occurring in the same period of timeShe was traveling with one other person.No one else saw her trauma contemporaneously.The term is relative. They saw her immediately after the incident, not during it, as opposed to them being told by Broadrick 10 years later, which would greatly lower her credibility.Way to ignore the overwhelming evidence that Clinton is a rapist, but focus on minor rhetorical differences. Edited by RichClem, 10 February 2012 - 08:27 PM.

Which has nothing or next to nothing to do with Citizens United and the way it freed speech and upheld the Constitution.It wasn't about contributions. It was about advertising one's political opinions; i.e political speech.If corporations have all the same Constitutional rights as individuals, then why don't they have 5th Amendment rights?In a 1975 case, United States of America v Steve Sourapas and Crest Beverage Company, the court ruled that corporations do not have 5th Amendment rights.William Renquist saw the danger of too much corporate money in politics.He wrote this in his dissent in the case of the First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, in which he said that states should be permitted to limit corporate political speech.It cannot be so readily concluded that the right of political expression is equally necessary to carry out the functions of a corporation organized for commercial purposes. A State grants to a business corporation the blessings of potentially perpetual life and limited liability to enhance its efficiency as an economic entity. It might reasonably be concluded that those properties, so beneficial in the economic sphere, pose special dangers in the political sphere. http://reclaimdemocr...nt_bellotti.php

Which has nothing or next to nothing to do with Citizens United and the way it freed speech and upheld the Constitution.It wasn't about contributions. It was about advertising one's political opinions; i.e political speech.If corporations have all the same Constitutional rights as individuals, then why don't they have 5th Amendment rights?In a 1975 case, United States of America v Steve Sourapas and Crest Beverage Company, the court ruled that corporations do not have 5th Amendment rights.As I have several times noted, they have all or "almost all" of the same rights.Can the police enter a corporation without a warrant? Wiretap its phones? Seize its property?Duuuh.William Renquist saw the danger of too much corporate money in politics.He wrote this in his dissent in the case of the First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, in which he said that states should be permitted to limit corporate political speech.The country isn't governed by Rehnquist. It's governed by the Constitution. Duuh again.Can a union's speech be restricted? A union is not a person.What do the following words mean?Congress shall make no law.... abridging the freedom of speechIt says uncategorically that no speech can be restricted, not a corporation's, not a union's, not an assocation's.Duuh for the third time.

The term is relative. They saw her immediately after the incident...They did not. Broaddrick was away from home, and traveling with only one other person.NOT FOUR!The FBI didn't believe her, but you do.In 1997, Broaddrick had filed a sworn affidavit with Paula Jones' lawyers, denying that Clinton had ever assaulted her: "During the 1992 Presidential campaign there were unfounded rumors and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies... These allegations are untrue ...." In November 1998, Broaddrick contradicted her sworn statement in an interview with Dateline NBC. Broaddrick recanted her earlier sworn statement when interviewed by the FBI about the Jones case; the FBI found her account inconclusive, and the affidavit denying the allegations remains her only sworn testimony. http://en.wikipedia....nita_BroaddrickThis post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by RichClem . View it anyway? Bite me. I'm not wasting any more time arguing with an idiot and a liar like you.I have better things to do. Edited by MistyBlue, 10 February 2012 - 08:39 PM.

They did not. Broaddrick was away from home, and traveling with only one other person.NOT FOUR!Hey, nice job at arguing about minor rhetorical differences, moonbat.They heard the story almost immediately after, saw her trauma and saw her badly bitten lip.The FBI didn't believe her, but you do.Did they have access to all the pertinent information including the witnesses? I doubt it.Schippers and the House Impeachment Managers all found her very credible, as did many Clinton supporters.Clinton's allowing his minions to bully, intimidate and blackmail women was one of the many impeachment charges that was going to be filed against him.Tell your stupid lie that impeachment was all about a BJ or about lying about a BJ.We believe you, Juanita (we think)Susan Faludi, Susan Brownmiller, Katie Roiphe, Gloria Allred and others respond to Juanita Broaddrick's explosive charges....Susan Brownmiller(author of "Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape")I think Juanita Broaddrick's story is credible. You judge a witness when you see them. I watched her on television and she struck me as telling an honest story.....Gloria Allred(attorney -- filed a friend of the court brief in Jones' sexual harassment suit against Clinton)I think Juanita Broaddrick appeared very credible on the interview on NBC. I don't find it a problem that it occurred 20 years ago and it was in a hotel room -- just because it was in a hotel room doesn't mean that she couldn't have been a victim of sexual assault. Because she didn't report it doesn't mean it didn't happen.I can identify with her because I was a victim of sexual assault in a hotel room. I never went to the police....I'm very disappointed with the president. I supported him for six and a half years, I contributed to his campaign, I know him personally. I'm very disappointed in his conduct, and the fact that he lied to the American people. I think he should resign. I'm probably the only feminist who is calling for his resignation.http://www1.salon.co..._03feature.htmlThis post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by RichClem . View it anyway? Bite me. I'm not wasting any more time arguing with an idiot and a liar like you.I have better things to do.Well of course. You can't answer the following questions without having your lies and BS exposed.The country isn't governed by Rehnquist. It's governed by the Constitution. Duuh again.Can a union's speech be restricted? A union is not a person.What do the following words mean? Congress shall make no law.... abridging the freedom of speechIt says uncategorically that no speech can be restricted, not a corporation's, not a union's, not an assocation's.Duuh for the third time. Edited by RichClem, 10 February 2012 - 08:49 PM.

White Nationalist Speaks At CPAC - The Annual Conservative HatefestToday, GOP presidential candidates Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich will kiss the ring of CPAC, the annual gathering of hundreds of conservative activists in Washington, DC. This is a must-do pilgrimage for anyone running for president on the GOP ticket; in fact this is where Romney ended his 2008 campaign. There are usually a host of controversial panelists and topics, but this year theyve outdone themselves. As noted by PFAW, this year, among the participants in the conference is Peter Brimelow and Robert Vandervoort. Brimelow is the founder and head of the White Nationalist hate website VDARE, a site known for publishing the works of racist and anti-Semitic authors. Robert Vandervoort is the director of ProEnglish, an English-only group, and is a former leader of the White Nationalist group Chicagoland Friends of the American Renaissance. These arent just your average conservative activists. They have actively pushed the idea that our diversity is killing us, that Jews are destroying the American white majority, and that non-white immigrants are the cause for our economic problems. Weve already seen a GOP more than willing to use racially-coded language throughout the primary season. But is presumed front runner Romney really going to appear at the same conference as people who spew such hatred towards people of color and ethnic minorities? If he wants to be the president of ALL Americans and not just white Americans, Mitt Romney should refuse to speak today. And if he feels he must go on stage, then he needs to denounce Brimelow and Vanervoorts odious beliefs from the stage. Anything less is tantamount to agreeing with what they say.LinkAs we now know, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich did speak at CPAC today, thereby legitimizing White Nationalists.White Nationalists like Peter Brimelow were invited to participate in a CPAC conference, but the Republican gay group GOProud was not invited to the convention.BTW the panel that Peter Brimelow and Robert Vandervoort took part in was called, "The Failure of Multiculturalism: How the pursuit of diversity is weakening the American identity."The Republican Party has now managed to alienate, Blacks, Hispanics, Jews and Gays, not to mention women, with the war they are waging on women's reproductive rights.I guess they think they can win an election with only racist, anti-semitic, women hating white males.

MistyBlue, on 10 February 2012 - 08:37 PM, said:Broaddrick was away from home, and traveling with only one other person.NOT FOUR!Hey, nice job at arguing about minor rhetorical differences, moonbat.Hey, nice job at calling a lie a minor rhetorical difference, wingnut.Facts are irrelevant to you.

Yeah, I heard about it.A teleprompter is used for speeches, usually in front of large crowds, as part of a professional appearance.Not for elementary school visits