By Selwyn Duke

First up, Mexico has awarded its highest honor to Ted Kennedy for the work he has done on behalf of immigrants and invaders.  I think it’s called the Medal of the American Traitor.  Congrats, Ted.

As you may know, The New York Times has again tipped its liberal hand, refusing to publish a commentary written by John McCain.  This is staggering since the paper had just published a piece on Iraq by Barack Obama and McCain’s article was merely a rebuttal.

The Times‘ reasoning was that McCain’s piece didn’t "advance" the story, which is a laughable cop-out.   What’s especially amusing to me is that it’s the kind of lame comment a liberal editor would make to a journalist in a rejection letter.  Like everyone else, I’ve received such unwelcome notifications, and you can always know when they’re legitimate.   I’ve had polite editors — they’re always traditionalists — who told me that my subject matter wasn’t congruent with the theme of their publication, and I often knew they were right.  Other editors have presented reasoning that was equally honest, but stupid.  Then there’s the liberal editor.

Allow me to interpret for the Times.  "It doesn’t ‘advance’ the story" usually just means it doesn’t advance their agenda.  What they’re really saying is, "We hate your opinion because it doesn’t conform to our ideology, and we’ll publish your work when Hell freezes over.  Now begone, you vile knuckle-dragger."

Regardless, McCain isn’t a journalist — he doesn’t have to "advance" the story.  He’s the presidential nominee for one of our two major parties, and nothing more needs to be said.  And there’s no doubt that his piece would have been read by a high percentage of the readership, so it would have been a good business decision, too.

As far as I know, a paper refusing to publish a piece written by a major-party presidential nominee is unprecedented.  It’s simultaneously unbelievable and believable.  But the good news is that the Times is in decline and is losing readership and influence daily.

Next up, Katie Couric says sexism is more common than racism.  I think she’s absolutely right: Anti-male sexism is probably more common than anti-white racism.  It’s close, though.  I’m sure that was her meaning, too, since she only occupies her position because of her sex.

Liberal reporterette Andrea Mitchell has accused Barack Obama of offering up "fake interviews."  Well, are you surprised, Andrea?  The man has presented a fake personality, fake ideology, a fake representation of his associates, a fake image of his anti-American wife, fake rhetoric, fake campaign themes, and fake hope.  The man’s a faker.

There’s one exception to that, though: The change he’d effect would be very real.  Socialism exists, after all.

On the sissy-state front in Britain, police-dog handlers have been instructed to avoid frightening criminals with their canine charges and also consider whether or not thugs might be allergic to dog hair. Wow, the Islamists and communist Chinese must really be shaking in their boots at the prospect of confronting the West. 

Come to think of it, police dogs would be very effective against Moslem terrorists; a Chinese criminal, on the other hand, might just eat the dog.

Last but not least, Bill O’Reilly recently experienced a sublime insight, an epiphany most esoteric in nature.  He announced last night that he has lost "all respect for Al Gore,"  calling him an "evil enabler."  What was Ozone Man’s offense?

He spoke at a DailyKos Convention.

Now, having truck with the dishonorable slugs that slink around at such gatherings is damnable, no doubt about it.  But what took Mr. O’Really! so long to lose respect for one of the most contemptible creatures in the American political jungle?   After all, Gore served notice long ago about his true nature.

First there was the pang of conscience he experienced that caused him to transition from pro-life to pro-abortion at precisely the time he wanted to succeed on the national Democrat stage.  Then there are the constant lies and propaganda, including but not limited to the fiction he has been peddling about climate change.  I should also mention how he used he sister’s lung-cancer death for political gain.  At the 1996 Democrat Convention, he claimed he was so traumatized by her 1984 passing  that it made him an ardent, unrelenting foe of Big Tobacco.  The only problem with this is that while campaigning for the presidency in the Carolinas in 1988, he boasted of his involvement in the tobacco business.  Of course,  I’m sure that had nothing to do with those states’ status as big tobacco-growing regions.

I know, Al, you grew tobacco but you never smoked.  You also blow hot air but don’t contribute to global warming.

     Protected by Copyright