Jessica Davies Bouncing

I case you're still waking up, lol.

Via Twitter:



BONUS FLASHBACK: "Rachel Williams: Zoo's Great British Babe Search Winner 2013."

Afghans Vote in Strong Numbers Despite Taliban Threat

At NYT, "AFGHAN TURNOUT IS HIGH AS VOTERS DEFY THE TALIBAN":

KABUL, Afghanistan — Defying a campaign of Taliban violence that unleashed 39 suicide bombers in the two months before Election Day, Afghan voters on Saturday turned out in such numbers to choose a new president and provincial councils that polling hours were extended nationwide, in a triumph of determination over intimidation.

Militants failed to mount a single major attack anywhere in Afghanistan by the time polls closed, and voters lined up despite heavy rain and cold in the capital and elsewhere.

“Whenever there has been a new king or president, it has been accompanied by death and violence,” said Abdul Wakil Amiri, a government official who turned out early to vote at a Kabul mosque. “For the first time, we are experiencing democracy.”

After 12 years with President Hamid Karzai in power, and decades of upheaval, coup and war, Afghans on Saturday were for the first time voting on a relatively open field of candidates.

Election officials said that by midday more than three and a half million voters had turned out — already approaching the total for the 2009 vote. The election commission chairman, Mohammad Yusuf Nuristani, said the total could reach seven million.

But even as they celebrated the outpouring of votes, many acknowledged the long process looming ahead, with the potential for problems all along the way.

International observers, many of whom had fled Afghanistan after a wave of attacks on foreigners during the campaign, cautioned that how those votes were tallied and reported would bear close watching.

It is likely to take at least a week before even incomplete official results are announced, and weeks more to adjudicate Election Day complaints. Some of the candidates were already filing fraud complaints on Saturday.

With eight candidates in the race, the five minor candidates’ shares of the vote made it even more difficult for any one candidate to reach the 50 percent threshold that would allow an outright victory. A runoff vote is unlikely to take place until the end of May at the earliest.

More.

Also, at BCF, "Nothing to do with Islam.... Afghan Police Commander Shouts Allahu Akbar Shoots 2 Reporters Killing 1." And NYT, "Covering Afghan Vote, Until Shot by an Ally."

Dartmouth University Parkhurst Occupation

Well, I'm guess I'm a little late to this party. I'm just finding out about the student occupation of the Dartmouth administration building at the Wall Street Journal, "Oppressed by the Ivy League":

The demonstrators had a 72-point manifesto instructing the college to establish pre-set racial admission quotas and a mandatory ethnic studies curriculum for all students. Their other inspirations are for more "womyn or people of color" faculty; covering sex change operations on the college health plan ("we demand body and gender self-determination"); censoring the library catalog for offensive terms; and installing "gender-neutral bathrooms" in every campus facility, specifically including sports locker rooms.

We rarely sympathize with college administrators but we'll make an exception for Dartmouth President Phil Hanlon, an accomplished mathematician who for some reason took the job last year. The occupiers filmed their confrontation and uploaded the hostage video to the Web, where Mr. Hanlon can be seen agog as his charges berate him for his "micro-aggressions." Those are bias infractions that can't be identified without the right political training.

Mr. Hanlon left after an hour and told the little tyrants that he welcomed a "conversation" about their ultimatums. They responded in a statement that conversations—to be clear, talking—will lead to "further physical and emotional violence enacted against us by the racist, classist, sexist, heterosexist, transphobic, xenophobic, and ableist structures at Dartmouth." They added: "Our bodies are already on the line, in danger, and under attack."

Read the rest, but the bottom line is the president should have had the students arrested for trespassing and and placed under administrative investigation for violation of the college's academic contract with the threat of expulsion. The fact that he didn't gives you some idea of how screwed up we are as a society nowadays (partly explained at the editorial by the power of the U.S. Department of Education's civil rights Torquemadas).



In any case, there's more at Campus Reform, "Dartmouth College protesters stage sit-in at president's office."

Also at Legal Insurrection, "Hostile Takeover Week at College Insurrection," and Power Line, "DARTMOUTH’S CHICKENS COME HOME TO ROOST — IN THE PRESIDENT’S OFFICE."

Alex 'Ping-Pong Balls' Pareene Calls for Expropriating the Expropriators on Heels of McCutcheon v. FEC

This is the longtime leftist ghoul who attacked Michelle Malkin as an "Asian whore."

No surprise, but the idiot went all out with his collectivist machinations following the Court's campaign finance ruling, and he's all butt-hurt people called him out for it. At the regressive hell-hole Salon, "Want to cut the rich’s influence? Take away their money!":

boy there are a lot of people who think "taxing rich people" is indistinguishable from forced collectivization

— alex pareene (@pareene) April 4, 2014

If the super-rich had less money, they would have less money to spend on campaigns and lobbying. And unlike speech, the government is very clearly allowed to take away people’s money. It’s in the Constitution and everything. I know it wasn’t that long ago that it also seemed obvious that the government could regulate political spending, but in this case the relevant constitutional authority is pretty clear and there is no room for a so-called originalist to justify a politically conservative reading of the text. Congress can tax income any way it pleases.

There is one glaring problem with my plan, of course, which is that Congress is already captured by wealthy interests, and is not inclined to tax them. But all I’m saying is that would-be campaign finance reformers ought to give up on their lost cause and shift their energies toward confiscation and redistribution.

And of course, on cue, Erik "Lumberjack" Loomis, at Lapdogs, Ghouls and Murderers, lays out a plan, "Tax 'Em!":

I don’t think this would totally solve the campaign finance issue unless the tax rates were set very high; after all, Sheldon Adelson is a very rich man. But it would help. Also higher taxation on the rich would do a lot more to solve the much more important social problems in this country.

Should we start at 70% taxation on everything, including capital gains and all investments, for all money over $1 million a year, 90% on everything over $10 million? Seems a good place to start. We can always raise it if we want more of their money. Also, massive punishments for using offshore tax havens. Perhaps property confiscation.

This is not parody, astonishingly.

Seriously. Read the comments at the LGM skank-hole. And believe you me, "confiscation" would be just the first blood-flecked sprinkles of terror with these jackboots. Heads mounted on pikes would quickly be the order of the day, not metaphorically either.

Blame America Historian Blames America for Russia's Incursion in #Ukraine

Well, since I've been on the topic of radical academics, get a load of radical historian Stephen Cohen, at the Nation, "Cold War Again: Who’s Responsible?":

The East-West confrontation over Ukraine, which led to Moscow’s annexation of Crimea but long predated it, is potentially the worst international crisis in more than fifty years—and the most fateful. A negotiated resolution is possible, but time may be running out.

A new Cold War divide is already descending in Europe—not in Berlin but on Russia’s borders. Worse may follow. If NATO forces move toward western Ukraine or even to its border with Poland, as is being called for by zealous cold warriors in Washington and Europe, Moscow is likely to send its forces into eastern Ukraine. The result would be a danger of war comparable to the Cuban missile crisis of 1962.

Even if the outcome is the non-military “isolation of Russia,” today’s Western mantra, the consequences will be dire. Moscow will not bow but will turn, politically and economically, to the East, as it has done before, above all to fuller alliance with China. The United States will risk losing an essential partner in vital areas of its own national security, from Iran, Syria and Afghanistan to threats of a new arms race, nuclear proliferation and more terrorism. And—no small matter—prospects for a resumption of Russia’s democratization will be terminated for at least a generation.

Why did this happen, nearly twenty-three years after the end of Soviet Communism, when both Washington and Moscow proclaimed a new era of “friendship and strategic partnership”? The answer given by the Obama administration, and overwhelmingly by the US political-media establishment, is that President Vladimir Putin is solely to blame. The claim is that his “autocratic” rule at home and “neo-Soviet imperialist” policies abroad eviscerated the partnership established in the 1990s by Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin. This fundamental premise underpins the American mainstream narrative of two decades of US-Russian relations, and now the Ukrainian crisis.

But there is an alternative explanation, one that’s more in accord with historical facts. Beginning with the Clinton administration, and supported by every subsequent Republican and Democratic president and Congress, the US-led West has unrelentingly moved its military, political and economic power ever closer to post-Soviet Russia. Spearheaded by NATO’s eastward expansion, already encamped in the three former Soviet Baltic republics on Russia’s border—and now augmented by missile defense installations in neighboring states—this bipartisan, winner-take-all approach has come in various forms.

They include US-funded “democracy promotion” NGOs more deeply involved in Russia’s internal politics than foreign ones are permitted to be in our country; the 1999 bombing of Moscow’s Slav ally Serbia, forcibly detaching its historic province of Kosovo; a US military outpost in former Soviet Georgia (which, along with Ukraine, was one of Putin’s previously declared “red lines”), contributing to a brief proxy war in 2008; and, throughout, one-sided negotiations, called “selective cooperation,” which took concessions from the Kremlin without meaningful White House reciprocity and followed by broken American promises.

All of this has unfolded, sincerely on the part of some of its proponents, in the name of “democracy” and “sovereign choice” for the many smaller countries involved, but the underlying geopolitical agenda has been clear. During the first East-West conflict over Ukraine, occasioned by its 2004 “Orange Revolution,” an influential Republican columnist, Charles Krauthammer, acknowledged, “This is about Russia first, democracy only second.… The West wants to finish the job begun with the fall of the Berlin Wall and continue Europe’s march to the east.… The great prize is Ukraine.” The late Richard Holbrooke, an aspiring Democratic secretary of state, concurred, hoping even then for Ukraine’s “final break with Moscow” and to “accelerate” Kiev’s membership in NATO.

That Russia’s political elite has long held this same menacing view of US intentions makes it no less true—or any less consequential. Formally announcing the annexation of Crimea on March 18, Putin vented (not for the first time) Moscow’s longstanding resentments. Several of his assertions were untrue and alarming, but others were reasonable, or at least understandable, not “delusional.” Referring to Western (primarily American) policy-makers since the 1990s, he complained bitterly that they were “trying to drive us into some kind of corner,” “have lied to us many times” and in Ukraine “have crossed the line,” warning: “Everything has its limits.”

We are left, then, with profoundly conflicting Russian-Western narratives and a political discourse of the uncomprehending, itself often the prelude to war...

Keep reading.

And yeah, well, screw Cohen. The U.S. has interests in keeping Russia out of Europe. Cohen rejects those interests and blames America for the escalation of tensions. He's a Putin defender and propagandist of the first order. (And the Nation's a longtime pro-Soviet outlet of anti-American bilge.) Screw these idiots.

Yosef Lapid's 'The Third Debate' 25 Years After: A Symposium

I'm currently sitting on a political science hiring search for my department, and have thus been very busy this last couple of weeks. It's fascinating how reviewing applications brings back a lot of memories about graduate school and the academic job search when I was first on the market years ago.

In any case, since I'm in such a professional political science mode, here's an interesting symposium at the International Studies Quarterly homepage, "The 'Third Debate' 25 Years Later."

You can click all the articles at the link, although I just finished reading Cynthia Weber's, "The Gentrification of International Theory," which kinda gave me a chuckle at how disgruntled are critical IR scholars at the supposed lack of progress toward a really radical IR paradigm. I actually love reading this stuff, and often bring a lot of it into my classes, if for nothing else but to highlight the fringes of the field and some of the kookier stuff that's out there. For example, Weber has a forthcoming piece that bemoans the absence of a genuine "queer" international relations paradigm, "Why is there no Queer International Theory?" And as you can see, it's probably a pretty good bet that Professor Weber is queer herself, although she's clearly by no means as attractive as Professor Caroline Heldman (while I suspect she's a helluva lot smarter).

In any case, back to the symposium. Yosef Lapid is Regents Professor and Director of the Masters of Arts Program at the University of New Mexico. The symposium is revisiting his 1989 research paper, "The Third Debate: On the Prospects of International Theory in a Post-Positivist Era." (I love how you can access all these old academic articles on the web nowadays. Lots of great pieces have been posted in PDF format, no doubt to the consternation of the original journal publishers who own the copyrights.)

This "third debate" was pretty much on the margins of mainstream scholarship when I was at UCSB for grad school. The department was very mainstream and positivist, so to the extent that we read this literature it was mostly for reasons of breadth rather than as part of an active research program. Indeed, now that I think of it, UCSB's Department of Political Science was pretty tame ideologically. The one guy who was literally radical was Professor Fernando Lopez-Alves, a comparativist and Latin American expert who taught the department's core seminar on Theories of Comparative Politics. He was so radical that he's no longer a faculty member the department, having moved over to the Department of Sociology, a place obviously more in tune with the hardline collectivist, post-colonial ideologies of the ubiquitous Marxist professoriate in the U.S. (Professor Lopez-Alves assigned Perry Anderson's "Lineages of the Absolutist State" back in the day, which I recently pulled off the shelf to reread the first chapter. Heh, a totally Marxist explanation of the class basis of feudalism's transition to the modern monarchic-absolutist state system in Europe --- and a great read!)

Well, that's enough for now. I should get back to my regular piddly ideological blog battles with idiot Internet trolls and wannabe #FullCommunism online collectivists, lol.

'Parents should warn their daughters about pimps and liberal arts colleges...'

From Robert Stacy McCain, "#RapeCulture: Did Anybody Notice This?"

"Parents should warn their daughters about pimps and liberal arts colleges." http://t.co/6pEc31tDr8 cc @AmPowerBlog @instapundit #Occidental

— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) April 4, 2014

BONUS: "Feminist College Girls Gone … Well, OK, Not ‘Wild,’ Exactly. But My Point Is …"

.@AmPowerBlog Almost peed my pants at @rsmccain's post

— Bossy & Proud of It (@lamblock) April 4, 2014

Fort Hood Shooter Was Being Treated for Depression

At NYT, "Fort Hood Gunman Was Being Treated for Depression":

KILLEEN, Tex. — The commanding general of Fort Hood said on Thursday that the soldier who killed three people and wounded 16 others during a shooting the previous day might have argued with at least one other soldier shortly before the attack.

The base commander, Lt. Gen. Mark A. Milley, said investigators also believed that the mental health of the gunman, identified as Specialist Ivan Lopez, had contributed to the rampage. Specialist Lopez had an “unstable psychiatric and psychological condition,” General Milley said at a news conference on Thursday outside Fort Hood.

“There may have been a verbal altercation with another soldier or soldiers,” General Milley said. “We have strong indications of that.” The shooting, the general said, began shortly after that altercation.

Earlier on Thursday, the secretary of the Army, John M. McHugh, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that Specialist Lopez had been examined by a psychiatrist within the last month but had shown no signs that he might commit a violent act. “The plan forward was just to continue to monitor and treat him as deemed appropriate,” Mr. McHugh said.

Mr. McHugh added that doctors had been evaluating Specialist Lopez for post-traumatic stress disorder before the shooting and that he had been prescribed Ambien, a sleep aid, and other medications to treat anxiety and depression.

“It’s not clear how common that is or whether this was something larger,” a senior law enforcement official said, referring to post-traumatic stress disorder.

More.

Plus, at WSJ, "Fort Hood Officials Focus on Shooting Suspect's Mental Health: Accused Shooter Ivan Lopez's Medical History Showed 'Unstable Psychiatric or Psychological Condition'."

Also at USA Today, "One Fort Hood victim was barricading door to packed room."

And the Austin American-Statesman has all kinds of coverage.

'If this is the gay rights movement today – hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else – then count me out...'

Says Andrew Sullivan, "The Hounding of a Heretic":

The guy who had the gall to express his First Amendment rights and favor Prop 8 in California by donating $1,000 has just been scalped by some gay activists. After an OKCupid decision to boycott Mozilla, the recently appointed Brendan Eich just resigned under pressure....

Will he now be forced to walk through the streets in shame? Why not the stocks? The whole episode disgusts me – as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society. If this is the gay rights movement today – hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else – then count me out. If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us.

As much as I dislike Andrew Sullivan, he's been consistently standing up against the left's gaystapo of late.

Walter James Casper III not so much. The stalking hate-troll RT'd this disgusting piece from regressive dirtbag Will Oremus:

Sorry, Brendan Eich: If you're against gay marriage, you're a bad CEO. http://t.co/hj6kGWPcpL

— Will Oremus (@WillOremus) April 3, 2014

Lots more at Memeorandum. And see Allahupundit, especially, "Mozilla CEO “resigns” after uproar over his opposition to gay marriage," and "How did people find out that Mozilla’s CEO donated to support Prop 8?"

None of this is new. See Michelle Malkin, "Anti-Prop. 8 mob watch: L.A. Film Festival director resigns over donations," and "The insane rage of the same-sex marriage mob."

This brings back a lot of memories, since for months after the 2008 election I blogged the homosexual marriage issue every which way you can think of. I'm kinda bored with it at this point. It's not like we didn't see this coming. Leftists feel empowered with their newfound majority approval of homosexuality and they're going to force dissenters to get in line. Indeed, that's the exact language they use. Wilson Cruz told Phil Robertson to "get in line." If you don't, you're going to pay. Leftist fascism is out and proud.

Alleged Leaked Nina Agdal Nude Photo Floating Around

At COED.

And Boston Barstool, "PSA: None of Your Friends F-ked Nina Agdal."

Remember, SI "broke the nude barrier" with the current swimsuit edition, featuring Ms. Agdal.

She's definitely a looker.

PETA's 'Cruelty Caseworkers'

You gotta read this letter.

Wow. This is such an interesting letter. @Peta, can you confirm this is real, and from you? #PETA http://t.co/i4OQYwVJ4O

— Louise Mensch (@LouiseMensch) April 3, 2014

Not ethical. Not humane. Simply more leftist hypocrisy and evil.

Reason-Rupe Poll: Americans Feel More Violated by Government Data Collection Than Private Data Collection

At Reason.

Sarah Palin on Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon: Vladimir Putin 'No Match for a Mama Grizzly...'

You gotta love it, via Theo Spark:

American Physical Society Reviews Its Climate Change Statement

At IBD, "Mythical Climate Change Consensus Hits an Iceberg":

(IBD) Mythical Climate Change Consensus Hits An Iceberg http://t.co/o4ropZhQTu - http://t.co/MsqmAFupBU - pic.twitter.com/6mihzBS6Fg

— Daniel John Sobieski (@gerfingerpoken) April 2, 2014

Junk Science: Climate change "deniers," as global warm-mongers call those who think empirical evidence is more reliable than computer models, may soon count among their number a 50,000-strong body of physicists.

At the risk of being accused of embracing what alarmists call the flat-earth view of climate change, the American Physical Society has appointed a balanced, six-person committee to review its stance on so-called climate change that includes three distinguished skeptics: Judith Curry, John Christy and Richard Lindzen. Their credentials are impressive.

Christy is director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, and was a lead author of the 2001 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Curry is a professor and chairwoman of the School of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

Lindzen, an Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at MIT from 1983 to 2013, is currently a distinguished senior fellow in the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute.

A question the American Physical Society panel will address is one we ask repeatedly: Why wasn't the current global temperature stasis, with no discernible change in the past 15 years, not predicted by any of the climate models used by the IPCC, part of the United Nations?

The APS announcement lists among its questions to be answered: "How long must the stasis persist before there would be a firm declaration of a problem with the models?"

And at the APS, "Climate Change Statement Review." In a nod to the likelihood that nature, not man, calls the shots, another APS audit question asks the panel: "What do you see as the likelihood of solar influences beyond TSI (total solar irradiance)? Is it coincidence that the stasis has occurred during the weakest solar cycle (i.e., sunspot activity) in about a century?"

The other three American Physical Society members, reports Quadrant Online, maintain that climate change is real, disaster is imminent and man is at fault. They are long-time IPCC stalwart Ben Santer (who in 1996 drafted, in suspicious circumstances, the original IPCC mantra about a "discernible" influence of man-made CO2 on climate), IPCC lead author and modeler William Collins, and atmospheric physicist Isaac Held.

The APS, to its credit, is addressing the chasm between computer models that cannot even predict the past and actual observations suggesting that warming is on hold and largely influenced by natural factors.

Computer models are simply not adequate to address the infinite number of variables, natural and man-made, that contribute to climate, often leading to wild-eyed predictions.

More.

And at the APS, "Climate Change Statement Review."

Paranoid Rape-Culture Harpies Running Wild at Occidental College

I've been reporting on Professor Caroline Heldman and the radical feminist takeover at Occidental College for some time now.

But things have gotten even worse over there, "progressively" worse, if you catch my meaning, and increasingly paranoid.

See KC Johnson, at Minding the Campus, "Irrational 'Rape Culture' Activism at Occidental and BuzzFeed."

And going straight to BuzzFeed (and those paranoid harpies), "Inside the Sexual Assault Civil War at Occidental College."

At this point, I would recommend my transfer students steer clear of Occidental. That place is pretty much the Duke University of the West Coast by now. FUBAR, in other words.

Sophie Reade, Stacey Poole, Kym Graham and Joey Fisher for Nuts April 2014

Lovely ladies.

At Egotastic!, "Humpday Huzzah! Sophie Reade, Stacey Poole, Kym Graham and Joey Fisher Topless and Showing Off for Happy Visual Times."

Charles Koch: 'I'm Fighting to Restore a Free Society...'

At WSJ, "Instead of welcoming free debate, collectivists engage in character assassination":

I have devoted most of my life to understanding the principles that enable people to improve their lives. It is those principles—the principles of a free society—that have shaped my life, my family, our company and America itself.

Unfortunately, the fundamental concepts of dignity, respect, equality before the law and personal freedom are under attack by the nation's own government. That's why, if we want to restore a free society and create greater well-being and opportunity for all Americans, we have no choice but to fight for those principles. I have been doing so for more than 50 years, primarily through educational efforts. It was only in the past decade that I realized the need to also engage in the political process.

A truly free society is based on a vision of respect for people and what they value. In a truly free society, any business that disrespects its customers will fail, and deserves to do so. The same should be true of any government that disrespects its citizens. The central belief and fatal conceit of the current administration is that you are incapable of running your own life, but those in power are capable of running it for you. This is the essence of big government and collectivism....

Instead of fostering a system that enables people to help themselves, America is now saddled with a system that destroys value, raises costs, hinders innovation and relegates millions of citizens to a life of poverty, dependency and hopelessness. This is what happens when elected officials believe that people's lives are better run by politicians and regulators than by the people themselves. Those in power fail to see that more government means less liberty, and liberty is the essence of what it means to be American. Love of liberty is the American ideal...

Keep reading.

Interesting timing in light of today's ruling in McCutcheon.

Perhaps Mr. Koch was all ready to go with the op-ed in expectation of the Court's decision. Either way, the leftists are howling. Here's the headline at the (ironically billionaire-backed) Think Progress, "How The Supreme Court Just Legalized Money Laundering By Rich Campaign Donors." And the no-surprise headline from Politico, "Democrats bash SCOTUS ruling."

Right. Democrats are collectivists who oppose free speech, want to control people's lives, and advocate the expansion of government to give more power to leftist bureaucrats and regressive politicos. They're un-American and depraved.

Shooting at Fort Hood

It's still fluid down there.

At the Austin American-Statesman, "McCaul: Four dead, 14 injured in Fort Hood shooting."

And CNN, "Suspected Fort Hood shooter dead; situation ongoing."

And check Memeorandum for developments.

Dear Mr. Colbert – Me So Stupid. You So Funny!

From Michelle Malkin:

Question: Who are the most prominent, public purveyors of Asian stereotypes and ethnic language-mocking in America?
The right answer is liberal Hollywood and Democrats.

The wrong and slanderous answer is conservatives, which is what liberal performance artist/illegal alien amnesty lobbyist Stephen Colbert wants Americans to believe. Last week on his Comedy Central cable show, Colbert resurrected his “satirical” 2005 “Ching Chong Ding Dong” skit, in which he speaks in pidgin English with a grossly exaggerated accent. He used it in a bone-headed attempt to ridicule Republican football team owner Dan Snyder and others who defend the Washington Redskins’ name.

“Oh, I ruv tea. It’s so good for you. You so pretty, American girl,” Colbert in his conservative talk show host persona jibber-jabbers in the 2005 segment. “You come here. You kiss my tea make her sweet. I need no sugar when you around. Come on my rickshaw, I give you a ride to Bangkok.” Forward to 2014: To mock Snyder’s recent creation of a foundation to benefit Native Americans, Colbert replayed the skit and jeered in character that he was “willing to show the Asian community that I care by introducing the Ching Chong Ding Dong Foundation for Sensitivity to Orientals or Whatever.”

A group of diehard liberals, led by a young Korean-American writer, Suey Park, gave Colbert a hard time about his cringe-worthy act, which was accompanied by an awkward laugh track and left the distinct impression that the real Colbert enjoys crude ethnic-language mockery just a little too much.

Park and her liberal Twitter followers tenaciously questioned Colbert’s use of “satire” that ends up stoking the racism it purports to mock and abhor. They obviously picked the incendiary #CancelColbert hashtag to force attention on their complaints. My view is and always has been that the answer to speech you disagree with is more and better speech. For me, #CancelColbert wasn’t about censoring his show. It was about exposing his hypocrisy and don’t-you-understand-satire double standards.

More. And at Twitchy, "Racist ‘joke’ has people calling for Comedy Central to #CancelColbert; Update: Tweet deleted."

I'm sure racist Walter James Casper III has defended Colbert. He's the biggest left-wing hypocrite asshat.

McCutcheon v. FEC: Supreme Court Strikes Down Overall Limits on Campaign Contributions

Wow. Another blow to leftist hypocrite speech muzzlers.

Headline via Puff Ho.

And at WaPo, "Supreme Court strikes down limits on federal campaign donations":

Here's the SCOTUS McCutcheon ruling striking down aggregate campaign donation limits ==> http://t.co/CeahbeetCA

— Michelle Malkin (@michellemalkin) April 2, 2014

Free speech wins again! http://t.co/chgOfgMgku #tcot

— David Bossie (@David_Bossie) April 2, 2014

Looks like Koch-mas came early this year! http://t.co/zB68IT28M8

— Philip Klein (@philipaklein) April 2, 2014

The 5 to 4 decision sparked a sharp dissent from liberal justices, who said the decision reflects a wrong-headed hostility to campaign finance laws that the court’s conservatives showed in Citizens United v. FEC , which allowed corporate spending on elections.

“If Citizens United opened a door,” Justice Stephen G. Breyer said in reading his dissent from the bench, “today’s decision we fear will open a floodgate.”

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote the opinion striking down the aggregate limits of what an individual may spend on candidates and political committees. He noted that the limit on individual contributions to a specific candidate was not affected by the ruling.

“Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects,” Roberts wrote. “If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests and Nazi parades — despite the profound offense such spectacles cause — it surely protects political campaign speech despite popular opposition.”

Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined Roberts. Justice Clarence Thomas provided the crucial fifth vote for overturning the limits, but said the others should have gone further to strike all contribution limits.

Breyer was joined in dissent by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

The aggregate totals that the court struck down in the case — McCutcheon v. FEC --imposed a $48,600 limit on contributions to candidates during a two-year election cycle, plus $74,600 total on giving to political parties and committees.

The base limits on contributions left unchanged by the ruling allow donations to candidates of $2,600 for both primary and general elections.

The decision provides a financial boost to political parties, which have lost their dominance with the rise of super PACs and other independent political groups that can raise unlimited sums.

I love it! What a fabulous victory for money in politics.

And at Twitchy, "‘Koch-mas came early!’ SCOTUS upholds 1st Amendment, crazy Harry Reid hardest hit."