Monday, August 29, 2011

Opinion Page Irony

David Sirota (on the left) and Ed Quillen

This weekend, The Denver Post featured columns by three different writers. One of them, George Will, is typically thought of as a conservative columnist. The other two, Ed Quillen and David Sirota, are more anti-Republican in their point of view.

I’ll reproduce all three columns in sequence, so that you get the impact of their messages. First the column from George Will:

CASTLE ROCK — The red stone outcropping that gives this community its name is just a facet of the histrionic geology of Douglas County. The county is named for Stephen Douglas, who defeated Abraham Lincoln in Illinois' 1858 U.S. Senate election. Lincoln opposed Douglas' repugnant "popular sovereignty" plan for allowing territories to vote for or against accepting slavery. Today, Douglas County has an admirable plan for popular sovereignty in education: school choice.

But the plan has been disrupted by a judge who says that providing parents with scholarship money that can be spent at religious or secular schools violates Colorado's constitution. That document says "no person shall be required to attend or support any ministry or place of worship, religious sect or denomination against his consent."

Such "compelled support" clauses in state constitutions were written to prevent establishment of official state religions. But Douglas County's scholarship program is religiously neutral, enabling families to choose whatever school best suits their children.

Prudently, opponents of the program do not claim that it violates the U.S. Constitution's proscription of "establishment" of religion. In 2002, the Supreme Court, considering an Ohio program legally indistinguishable from Douglas County's, said the Constitution is not violated by a scholarship plan that is "neutral with respect to religion" and involves parents directing government aid to schools by their "own genuine and independent private choice."

The Wisconsin Supreme Court, ruling on a similar school choice program in Milwaukee, cited the U.S. Supreme Court: "The crucial question is not whether some benefit accrues to a religious institution as a consequence of the legislative program, but whether its principal or primary effect advances religion."

The judge ruled against Douglas County at the behest of the American Civil Liberties Union, which is indiscriminately opposed to any public money reaching any religious institution in any way, and by others eager to protect public schools from competition. School choice usually is sought by poor parents victimized by failing schools in inner cities. Douglas County's case is notable because the median household income here is $99,522 and only 1.9 percent of families are below the poverty line.

The county opted for choice because a few years ago conservatives were elected to the school board, and conservatives are pro-choice about most things — owning guns, driving SUVs, using incandescent light bulbs, etc. — other than killing pre-born babies. Liberals are pro-choice mostly about the latter.

In 1925, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the constitutional right of parents "to direct the . . . education of children under their control." This might seem to be a facet of the privacy right so dear to liberals. Douglas County's 500 scholarships empower parents to exercise the right the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed. In 1927, Colorado's Supreme Court upheld the "right of parents to have their children taught where, when, how, what and by whom they may judge best."

This is not an abstract legal question for Diana and Mark Oakley, whose son Nate, 13, has Asperger's syndrome. Desperately unhappy at a large public school, he is, thanks to his scholarship, flourishing at a small private school.

The Oakleys have taken a line of credit to cover the $11,325 of tuition not covered by the $4,575 scholarship and other aid they have received. Such scholarships cost the county less than the more than $8,000 it spends per public school pupil, so the program frees up money for public schools.

Mark and Jeanette Anderson wanted their son Max, 8, to have the math instruction offered by a small private school where he described his initial visit as "the best seven hours of my life." This school, with just 31 students, is in peril because it hired two teachers in anticipation of the 12 scholarship students whose aid is now in jeopardy. Derrick and Florence Doyle want the religious dimension of the Catholic school they have chosen. These parents are represented by the Virginia-based Institute for Justice, which has helped make the case law that will, eventually, vindicate the county.

The judge did not enjoin the scholarship program until Aug. 12, when many scholarship recipients were already enrolled in their schools. Happily, many of these schools are trying to keep their scholarship students, pending the predictable decision by a higher court that the disrupting judge has ignored settled law.
Mr. Will presents an analysis of a public policy issue: whether or not taxpayer-funded school choice is to be allowed within the state of Colorado. He sides with the parents on this one, indicating that they should have a right to the state funds set aside for their child’s education, and that they should be able to employ those funds at schools outside the public school system.

Mr. Will is not registering an emotional appeal against one group of people or another. He simply presents a set of facts and lets the readership of The Denver Post know where he stands.

Contrast that with the work of Ed Quillen.  His column is next:

Jon Huntsman, former governor of Utah and American ambassador to China, has about the same chance as you or I do of getting the Republican nomination for the presidency. A recent survey of likely GOP primary voters by Public Policy Polling showed Huntsman as the only candidate with a net negative approval rating.

That's kind of surprising, since on the surface, Huntsman is a perfect 2012 Republican candidate: rich, white and religious.

But Huntsman has trouble with modern GOP orthodoxy. Last week he let loose at his opponents, like Texas Gov. Rick Perry: "I think there's a serious problem. The minute that the Republican Party becomes . . . the anti-science party, we have a huge problem. We lose a whole lot of people who would otherwise allow us to win the election in 2012. When we take a position that isn't willing to embrace evolution, when we take a position that basically runs counter to what 98 of 100 climate scientists have said . . . I think we find ourselves on the wrong side of science, and, therefore, in a losing position . . . ."

"I can't remember a time in our history where we actually were willing to shun science and become a party that was antithetical to science . . . . It's not a winning formula."

Obviously, there are many Republicans, perhaps a majority, who think Huntsman is wrong, that being anti-science is a winning formula. But why would any Republican think that, given that science has given us the internal combustion engine, deepwater drilling and weapons of mass destruction?

One common thread in American politics, going back at least to Andrew Jackson, is populism — opposition to elites. Populist politicians traditionally attack financial elites, complaining that "the fruits of the toil of millions are boldly stolen to build up colossal fortunes for a few" who "propose to sacrifice our homes, lives and children on the altar of mammon."

Instead of promoting traditional economic populism, the contemporary GOP practices cultural populism. In the Republican view, you don't worry about the billionaire Koch brothers, not when our country confronts a clear and present threat from the out-of-touch elitists who listen to NPR and the condescending snobs who can make subjects and verbs agree. And, of course, those elitist scientists.

When it comes to science in this country, the non-elites have some rightful grievances. Back in the 1890s, when the economic populists were organizing, many American scientists were touting what came to be known as "social Darwinism."

The doctrine of "survival of the fittest" should be applied to human society. The strong should prey on the weak, they argued, and if government tried to protect the weak, it was disturbing the natural order and dire consequences would follow.

In the 1920s and '30s, there was eugenics, a related scientific fad. Selective breeding, it was argued, could improve the national character. It influenced immigration policy — "inferior" types from Asia and southern Europe were slighted in favor of northern Europeans — and inspired compulsory sterilization laws in many states.

From 1932 to 1972, there was the Tuskegee syphilis study conducted by the U.S. Public Health Service. Impoverished black sharecroppers were denied treatment for their venereal disease, long after the discovery that penicillin was an effective treatment.

So scientists aren't always right. But the GOP base seems to believe that non-scientists are guileless innocents incapable of corruption or avarice. They seem to forget that there was only one Forrest Gump, and he was a fictional character.

Mr. Quillen uses his space to take us on a tour of anti-Republican characterizations. He teaches us that Republicans are particularly dimwitted and inclined toward voodoo science. He begins with a profile of a typical Republican politician:

“…[Jon Huntsman is] a perfect 2012 Republican candidate: rich, white and religious.”

He goes on to describe the “science” Republicans prefer, which includes eugenics and human experiments:

“Selective breeding, it was argued [by Republicans?], could improve the national character.


“…the Tuskegee syphilis study… [where] impoverished black sharecroppers were denied treatment for venereal disease [by Republicans?].”

He then summarizes the Republican mindset:

“They [the GOP base] seem to forget that there was only one Forrest Gump, and he was a fictional character.”


“…there are many Republicans…who think…that being anti-science is a winning formula.”

David Sirota is an ideological soul mate of Mr. Quillen. Here is his weekend column:

Republican guru Karl Rove recently appeared on Fox News to dispute the idea that America is a "Christian nation." And he was right to do so, but not because our country lacks an overarching canon. We certainly do have a national religion — it's just not Christianity. It's Denialism.

Some branches of this religion deny the science documenting humans' role in climate change. Others deny tax cuts' connection to deficits and deregulation's role in the recession. But regardless of the issue, Denialists all share a basic hostility to facts.

As this know-nothing theology expands, none of its denominations claims a bigger membership than the one obsessed with race. Today, many reject the fact that black people typically face bigger obstacles to economic and political success than whites. Instead, they insist that whites are oppressed.

If you've followed politics, you're familiar with this catechism. In the 1980s, lawmakers often implied that welfare programs persecuted whites. In the 1990s, the same lawmakers demonized affirmative-action initiatives that tried to counter college admission preferences for white "legacy" families. These days, demagogues cite Barack Obama's political ascendance as supposed proof that black people are unfairly privileged.

The late Democrat Geraldine Ferraro first floated this specific fable in 2008, when she said that Obama was "very lucky" to be black and that "if Obama was a white man, he would not be in [his] position." Obama rightly noted that "anybody who knows the history of this country . . . would not take too seriously the notion that [being black] has been a huge advantage."

But the meme nonetheless persists. In May, Rep. Joe Walsh, R-Ill., said Obama's election "comes back to who he was: he was black." Now, it's Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who last week declared that "as an African- American male," Obama received a "tremendous advantage from a lot of [government] programs."

Though Coburn's dog-whistle racism is (sadly) mundane, his statement is news because of its timing.

In the same week the Oklahoman insinuated that government gives African-Americans a "tremendous advantage," The New York Times reported on data showing black scientists are "markedly less likely" to win government grants than white scientists. A few weeks earlier, the Pew Research Center reported that "the median wealth of white households is 20 times that of black households."

These representative snapshots remind us that despite Denialist rhetoric, institutional racism and white privilege dominate American society.

This truth is everywhere. You can see it in black unemployment rates, which are twice as high as white unemployment rates — a disparity that persists even when controlling for education levels. You can see it in a 2004 MIT study showing that job-seekers with "white names receive 50 percent more callbacks for interviews" than job seekers with comparable resumes and "African-American-sounding names." And you can see it in a news media that looks like an all-white country club and a U.S. Senate that includes no black legislators.

Denialists imply that this is all negated by Obama's success. But while his rise to the Oval Office certainly was an achievement, Obama was correct when, upon becoming Harvard Law Review's first black president in 1990, he said, "It's crucial that people don't see my election as somehow a symbol of progress in the broader sense, that we don't sort of point to a Barack Obama any more than you point to a Bill Cosby or a Michael Jordan and say 'Well, things are hunky dory.'

Of course, things aren't "hunky dory" for most people in this recession — but they are particularly awful for black Americans. Unfortunately, if you refuse to acknowledge that truth, there's a whole Church of Denialism ready to embrace you.

Mr. Sirota continues in the direction of Mr. Quillen’s column. He knows that the anthropogenic global warming political movement supports the theme that “Republicans are destroying the environment.” He also knows that our anti-Republican culture supports the notion that only Republicans are racists. Through his construct of “The Church of Denialism,” it all comes together:

“We certainly do have a national religion — it's just not Christianity. It's Denialism.”


“Some branches of this religion deny the science documenting humans' role in climate change.”


“As this know-nothing theology expands, none of its denominations claims a bigger membership than the one obsessed with race.”

What observations might be made about the Opinion pages of The Denver Post? Here are three of them:

1. There is a double standard in play. One type of “opinion” tends to analyze current policy issues. The other pays homage to our anti-Republican culture. The Denver Post gives them equal prominence and assigns equal legitimacy to both.

2. The field of science has become politicized. Certain scientific claims are given favored status in our culture while others are denigrated. As Mr. Sirota points out, “…if you refuse to acknowledge that truth, there’s a whole church of Denialism ready to embrace you.” It is fascinating that, even in this politicized environment, our social sciences have no interest in studying the phenomenon.

3. The editors of The Denver Post have a great sense of irony. While they legitimize Mr. Sirota’s characterizations of Republicans having a “know-nothing theology,” they provide an exact parallel with Mr. Sirota’s column being delivered as a homily to the faithful. The editors of “The Church of The Denver Post” make sure the paper maintains its dominant political allegiance.

Keep in mind that these examples are not an "outlier." If you look at the newspaper serving your individual community, you will see similar examples,

The good news is that the widely accepted anti-Republican themes are becoming caricature. Former Vice President Al Gore provides the most recent example.

On Friday, 8/26/2011, Mr. Gore gave an interview in which he explained how to confront “the deniers.” The former Vice President believes that it is Republicans who are against the science of global warming and that Republicans are racists. He exhorts Americans to fight and "win the conversation."

We are watching a prominent individual suffer embarrassment and loss of credibility simply to maintain allegiance to our anti-Republican culture. At some point, it’s just not going to be worth the price.

UPDATE 8/30/2011:
And along came Krugman...

It is becoming apparent that the "Denialism" anti-science narrative is scripted. Mr. Krugman's column appeared the same weekend as those of Mr. Sirota and Mr. Quillen, and the coordinated theme is reminiscent of Journolist activities.

Sadly, it also appears that Republicans accept the characterizations without any sense of indignation. Rich Lowry at National Review Online rises to their defense, but that is not enough. It is not a good thing that people in our culture accept characterizations of themselves as monsters drawn toward "final solution" eugenics and Frankenstein-like syphilitic studies. Republicans need to react to this.

UPDATE 11/8/2011:
Glenn Reynolds brings up some specifics on the eugenics work of Wallace Kuralt in North Carolina.  It might be interesting to Mr. Quillen that North Carolina was run by the Democratic Party at this time in its history.

Return to Top

Return to Bottom

Monday, August 22, 2011


Over the last few months, we have been hearing the term “dysfunctional Congress” used more and more.  The popular understanding is that Congressional actions are ineffective and inappropriate.
Our culture lets us know that Congress is a real problem.  It is gumming up the works when there is a need for progress.  Our President is portrayed as trying to do the right thing, but is hindered in his executive duties when he has to work with the Congress.

Against this backdrop, we have seen calls for invoking the 14th amendment to reconcile the country’s debt ceiling, ignoring the War Powers Resolution with our military actions in Libya, and stopping the deportation of illegal immigrants when they appear to pose no threat to public safety or national security. 

What’s interesting about all this?

It has to do with political power.  George Will, in a column last week, stated that “the first rule regarding political power [is] – ‘use it or lose it.’”  That’s worth thinking about.

Americans traditionally relegate political power to a defined time and place.  We fight our political battles vigorously in the events that lead up to an election, but then reconcile our views and get down to the business of running the country.

That traditional representation of politics is no longer true.

Nowadays, the work of extending and strengthening political power is carried on well after the election is over.  The winning political party uses its incumbency to increase its power and authority, with the administration of the country taking a secondary role.

There is an obvious downside: Political campaigning never stops, and every governmental action has a political angle.

For an example, look at the debate on the size of government.  Republicans like to characterize the Democratic Party as “The Party of Big Government.”  But do Democrats consistently exhibit that characteristic?

A few years back, when Republicans held the executive branch of government, Barack Obama (as a Senator) advocated against raising the debt ceiling.  Now that he is in charge of the executive branch, he advocates for raising the debt ceiling.

What changed?  The issue is not the intrinsic size of government.  It is who controls that government.  When Democrats are in power, they want the government more powerful.  When they are not in control, they tend to favor restrictions on governmental power.

Another example is the illegal alien controversy.  The issue is not the intrinsic rights of our non-citizens to entitlements of health care and education.  It is whether or not an associated political group will promote the power of the Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party supports the “rights” of non-citizens as long as there is an expectation that their sympathetic groups will favor Democrats.  The veiled threat (Chicagoland!) is that if that support is not forthcoming, the concessions will stop.  That same message is present in the exemptions granted for the health care legislation:  Individual concessions will be removed if the support of the Democratic Party is not maintained.

The guiding principle is always the power and authority of the Democratic Party.  The principles associated with the overall size of government, separation of powers between the branches, and favoritism for demographic groups are all relative.  These positions - “principles” - are held only so long as they promote the power and authority of the Democratic Party.

The 2012 election is shaping up to be a defining event.  We have two very dedicated groups of people who have a lot on the line.  Our culture favors the group that is dedicated to increasing the power and authority of the Democratic Party.  Those on the other side, who favor Constitutional principles (The Rule of Law; Separation of Branches of Government; Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness), are portrayed as being “dysfunctional.”

It is actually quite a bit worse than that.  These “dysfunctional Americans” are scorned as “Tea Baggers,” and are characterized as killers, liars, terrorists and racists.

This is NOT a good time to succumb to intimidation. Our Constitution is imploring us to not let the principles of America’s founding fathers be abandoned.  We need to shake off that intimidation and answer the call.

In a perverse sort of way, there is inspiration in the rhetoric of Congresswoman Maxine Waters.  Think what you will of her, the lady has ATTITUDE!

(Republicans could use some of that.)

UPDATE 8/24/2011:
Scott Johnson at Power Line has an analysis of our government's newfound political favoritism toward illegal immigration.  He advances the idea that the new policy will create a spontaneous move for certain non-citizens to "turn themselves in" so they can benefit from the legal proceedings of this new administrative shortcut to citizenship.

It's an intriguing analysis, and points out the complications that lurk when we abandon "The Rule of Law."

UPDATE 9/7/2011:
The Denver Post has an editorial that brings attention to the subjectivity of administrative review in deportation cases.  While there might not be any trends as yet, the early cases indicate classic political favoritism.  Our culture is moving us away from the standard of "equal protection under the law" to one of "selective protection for political groups."

I don't think the Founding Fathers would approve.

Return to Top

Monday, August 15, 2011

The Toilet in the Garage

I’m still thinking about “The Help.”  One of the symbols used by Kathryn Stockett in her book stays with me.  It’s the “Toilet in the Garage” and I see it connected to our current politics.

Fifty years ago, there were two sets of cultural standards in America: one for people with dark skin tone and one for everyone else.  The idea of separate toilets for the two groups was legitimized by our culture, and that symbolism has become a metaphor for the use of a cultural double standard.

There are major differences between then and now.  The pain and suffering of those engaged in the civil rights movement of the 60s was nothing compared to any of the indignities suffered by Republicans today. Even so, there is value in comparing our anti-Republican culture with the circumstances that existed back then.   The “Toilet in the Garage” metaphor is apt.

Perhaps you are aware of the treatment of Sarah Palin in response to her nomination for the Republican Vice Presidency in 2008.  The former governor ended up having to defend herself against 27 ethics complaints and to release over 24,000 pages of e-mail transcripts.

Contrast that with our President, who is able to ignore the customary release of either his college transcripts or medical records.  Is that a double standard?

How about Scott Gessler, the Secretary of State for Colorado?  He was reviewing alleged voting improprieties in one of our Colorado counties and had to sue Melinda Myers, County Clerk of Saguache County, to be able to audit the ballots.

Mr. Gessler, a Republican, had to sue a subordinate Democrat in order to obtain her administrative compliance.  Is that a double standard?

This past weekend, TheDenver Post ran an editorial that was critical of Republicans for their intransigence in not accepting increased taxes to ameliorate federal spending.  The editorial summarized its position: “The question is which is more important – trimming the debt and improving the long-term health of the nation or holding to a no-tax-hikes pledge?”

Republicans, of course, see the situation differently.  They do not believe the current increase in federal spending (from 20% of GDP to 25% of GDP) is good for the country.  They note that the country has never had this level of spending, and that it cannot be sustained by simply “taxing the rich.”

In an attempt at dialogue, Republicans have asked the Obama administration to provide figures on how the “tax the rich” formulation can work.  Unfortunately, there has been no explanation forthcoming.  In exercising its double standard, the administration lectures Republicans that not only does it not have to show them any data, it doesn’t even have to prepare a federal budget!

Like Aibileen in “The Help,” Republicans are facing a difficult struggle.  To their detriment, they seem to accept their plight.

But I’ve got to tell you, having to keep using that “Toilet in the Garage” is becoming an aggravation.
UPDATE 8/18/2011:
Leonard Pitts gets it, almost.  He relates the personal story of his mother working as a domestic in Memphis, and describes that all-too-familiar grievance: "...she was a fully formed human being with a life, and dreams and dreads of her own."

Yes, that's exactly the problem.  Cultures dehumanize groups of people to enhance the power of the dominant cultural group, and it's difficult being on the receiving end of that cultural double standard.  Polish people, Jews, Italians, Christians...the experience of these groups is well-documented.

Now, if Mr. Pitts could just step outside his personal politics for a moment, and note the universality of the phenomenon, he might gain a sense of our anti-Republican culture.  That would be progress!

Return to Top

Return to Bottom

Tuesday, August 9, 2011

The Help

“It’s the template, stupid!”

That is an alternate title for this post about the movie “The Help.”  More about that in a moment…

The movie is scheduled for release this weekend.  It is a motion picture based on the novel by Kathryn Stockett covering racial segregation in Jackson, Mississippi in the 1960s.

The book has been well-received.  Enough time has passed that events which were a source of discomfort to so many people can now be rehashed.  (Note to high schools students writing a book review: Ms. Stockett offers up the classic theme of “man’s inhumanity to man.”  Also, note her use of the words “nauseous” and “alright.”  Is this purposeful?  Discuss...)

The book describes what it is like when a culture divides itself into a “dominant group” and a “deferring group.”  In “The Help,” that division is based upon heritage and skin tone.  It is a familiar representation to us, as we see it referenced as a political tool in America today.  We also see this kind of cultural division centered in certain religious beliefs, particularly in Islamic countries.

Here in the United States, our current cultural division is based upon political beliefs.  The techniques used to maintain that division are the same as those depicted in “The Help.”  Cultural norms are contrived to favor a dominant group and promote its superiority and popularity.  This is “the template” referred to above.

In “The Help,” Aibileen is the main character.  She is a black maid caring for a young family in 1962.  The culture in Mississippi at that time dictates that she use a separate bathroom at her employer’s residence.  The difficulty comes when the toddler in the family is being toilet trained, and the toddler comes to prefer using Aibileen’s toilet in the garage.

The toddler’s mother tells her she must not use that toilet because it is “dirty.”  We see that young Mae Mobley is being taught that Aibileen could be passing disease because of her skin tone.

It might seem silly now, but keep that thought in mind as you watch this two-minute Vimeo presentation by a couple of sixth graders.  The children give their impressions of the recent debate on our debt ceiling.
(Hat-tip to RightKlik posted at Left Coast Rebel.)

Notice how our President is referred to by his official title, but the Speaker of the House is “…this orange, crying, drinking, smoking dude called John Boehner.”  Our children are being taught that Republicans are inferior and should be treated with contempt.

But back to “The Help”:

Later in the book, Aibileen is being lectured by an employer that “colored people and white people are just so … different.”  Aibileen thinks to herself (in the writing style used by Kathryn Stockett), “A course we different!  Everybody know colored people and white people ain’t the same.  But we still just people!”  Aibileen’s lament is that cultures should not place human beings into artificial divisions.

Yet we see that template in use today.  James Taranto, writing at Best of the Web Today, provides a compilation of the vitriol recently piled onto Republicans.  He points out that some of the most common descriptors used as epithets are “terrorist,” “racist,” “uncivil,” and “insane.”  Republicans are not just different, they are characterized as dysfunctional and an existential threat.

This is what our culture accepts and promotes and believes.

Could a novel about our cultural division be written today?  Probably not, but here is a possible scenario:

The story line in “The Help” could actually be built around the circumstance of conservative bloggers engaged in their battles on the public Internet.  If you view the motion picture this weekend, imagine someone like Robert Stacy McCain in place of Aibileen.  How about Chris Smith as Minny?  As Stacy and Smitty risk their reputations taking on the prejudices and stereotypes of our culture, can you envision Andrew Breitbart as an Elaine Stein, working the grand strategies of the publishing and opinion business? How about (get ready for this) Sarah Palin as a Martin Luther King character, spreading an uplifting message about the type of country our Founders hoped to preserve for us?

The idea of conservatives being victims of discrimination may not be ready for prime time, but the cultural parallels are there.  Human beings like to be part of a group that dominates another group, and the techniques used to obtain that status are the same.

While this cultural template may not be obvious when it is in active use and is depicted as what is “right and natural,” it still creates discomfort for individuals in the deferring group.  These are the people who just might make a difference.

Maybe “the awakening” has even happened to you.  Think of it as a “YGBSM” moment.  (I know; just Google it.)

Here are some indicators of an impending conversion:

Concerned about foreign policy?  Upset that our military is being deployed like mercenaries?

Concerned about domestic policy?  Feeling squeezed as the things you own lose their value while the things you need cost more?

Hearing an inner voice beginning to shout, “I’M MAD AS HELL AND I’M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANY MORE!”?

That’s the moment.

That’s when you’re going to want to take back our culture.
UPDATE 8/9/2011:
Linked by Left Coast Rebel!  Thanks, Tim.

UPDATE 8/16/2011:
This post from dramatically shows how American children are being used to influence our culture.  Note that the Vimeo presentation from has been removed from that site, evidently because of "some negative reactions."  Do you think there will be any "negative reactions" to this use of children to push the anti-Republican message?

Return to Top

Return to Bottom