Left Far Behind

Former President Barack Obama pal and Alabama Congressman Artur Davis walked off the Democrats’ plantation last week; following Newark Mayor Cory Booker onto whatever list comes right before Obama’s personal kill list. If the polls are even marginally accurate, today’s Wisconsin Gubernatorial recall election—a concept the Democratic Party officially opposed in California in 2003—is set to be a political Waterloo for Obama and his accomplices.

The European economic picture wobbled like an old television with a broken vertical hold knob and the Continent’s leaders ignored the politically vestigial Obama while attempting to fix it; although that might have been in response to Obama’s confusion over which side constituted the good guys during World War II. And then, the week ended with news that Obama’s socialist tinkering has left the employment picture even uglier than previously thought.

Channeling his port-canted colleague Paul Krugman, New York Times pseudo-conservative David Brooks attempted to comfort Obama following his brutal week: “…you have to feel sorry for him. This is in large degree not his fault. Things are happening way beyond his control.”

I might be inclined to loan Obama a shoulder to cry on were it not for the fact that the dire circumstances in which he’s currently foundering are entirely his own creation. For further proof consider that Brooks–who is to true conservatives what a veggie burger is to the porterhouse at Smith & Wollensky’s™–is merely mouthing the same “don’t blame Obama” platitude the Democrats invented to explain away Obama’s unrivaled ineptitude.

A cursory examination of that liberal line reveals more than the left probably wishes the rest of us could glimpse. By suggesting that the economic, diplomatic and social plights which currently bedevil the Nation are somehow beyond the reach of Presidential influence, the Democrats and their enablers in the corporate media—nearly all of whom blamed President George W. Bush for everything including bad weather—are essentially acknowledging something about which we at Personal Liberty Digest™ have been warning you for quite some time: Obama is as far out of his depth as an MSNBC host on Jeopardy™.

What’s worse—for Obama, at least—the Democrats know it. While Obama skated around Wisconsin in an effort to avoid further damaging recall challenger Tom Barrett’s fading chances, former President Bill Clinton, the dough-faced lothario to whom current Secretary of State and former bitter Obama rival Hillary Clinton is “married,” kicked the President squarely in the shorts. During an interview, Clinton praised presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney for his business acumen and involvement with the unfairly demonized Bain Capital.

“…(Romney has) been governor and had a sterling business career (that) crosses the qualification threshold. I don’t think that we ought to get into the position where we say this is bad work. This is good work.”

Clinton did qualify his remarks; but the ship was out of the harbor. According to Clinton, Romney is no Blackbeard and Bain is no Queen Anne’s Revenge. Far be it for me to suggest that Clinton might think this November is a foregone conclusion; but the most popular Democrat in America just kicked out the peg leg on which the most important Democrat in America has been limping. If the king rat set foot on the plank; can the rest of the horde be far behind?

 -Ben Crystal

Self-Tied In Knots

Although June is almost upon us and the nominating conventions are still nearly a season away, President Barack Obama’s campaign seems as organized as a hippie music festival about an hour after the bad acid begins circulating. Look at the rhetoric spewing forth from the campaign and note that panic appears to be growing with each tremulous step toward November. Witness, for example, the campaign’s deployment of attacks against Mitt Romney based on his involvement with the private equity group Bain Capital.

According to Obama’s minions and mouthpieces, Romney deserves nothing but scorn for making a part of his pile of money through the often-successful strategies of Bain. Beyond the basic stupidity of suggesting someone suffer for not failing at business, consider the fact that Obama has privately solicited — and kept — donations from the same publicly vilified Bain. At least Romney actually worked for the cash he collected with Bain. Obama has essentially knifed it in the back and charged it for the blade.

Most of Obama’s ventures into the private sector have involved not the finely honed fingers of Adam Smith’s “invisible hand,” but the clumsy fist of Marxist malingering. Desperate to appease the global warming cultists on the far left of the political dial, Obama handed a king’s ransom to so-called “green” companies like Solyndra. Despite a willing lack of serious corporate media examination, Obama’s cronies turned a $500 million taxpayer investment into an industrial epitaph reminiscent of one of those Soviet-era projects (I’m thinking of Trabant).

According to Obama, Romney is a corporatist villain. His efforts to identify and foster growth in strong businesses on behalf of his colleagues and investors at Bain and the many workers at the companies capitalized by Bain were his acts of evil. Meanwhile, Obama’s ham-handed flush of a half-billion dollars in other people’s money on behalf of a tiny handful of millionaire and billionaire cronies in the pursuit of harebrained schemes is the height of economic nobility. According to Obama’s accomplices, we’re supposed to believe it is right and reasonable to take money from the former and hand it to the latter. We’re further supposed to believe that taking money from the former and spending it on yourself is all the more just.

It’s no wonder, then, that the dimwits who serve Obama get a bit tangled in his rhetorical web from time to time. On Tuesday, Obama mouthpiece Jay Carney found himself tied in the Gordian knot of precisely this sort of liberal logic. Asked by an unusually intrepid and insightful reporter (by White House Press Corps standards) to delineate the difference between Romney’s involvement with Bain and Obama’s involvement with Solyndra, Carney proffered:

Look…there, there, there is the…the…difference in that, your overall view of what…huh, your responsibilities are as president and what your view of the economic future is.

And the president believes as he’s made clear that a president’s responsibility is not just to, ah, those who win but those who, for example in a company where ah, there have been layoffs or a company that has gone bankrupt, that we have to ah make sure that those folks have the means to find other employment, that they have the ability to train for other kinds of work and that’s part of the overall responsibility a president has.

I’ll say one thing for Obama and his underlings: Their excuses might be thinner than a crackhead following a 3-pound rock bender, but they are certainly entertaining. If Carney weren’t such a smug, simpering buffoon, I might be sympathetic to his plight. His tortured enunciations — like those above — are a by-product of the Sisyphean task of putting political lyrics to Obama’s discordant economic tunes. Tough break, Jay. You signed up for the gig; now you have to play it.

I’ll reserve my sympathies for those of us who have to foot the bill for Obama’s economic misadventures. After all, we coughed up all that money, and all we got was the incomprehensible transcript.

–Ben Crystal

Searching For Cincinnatus

Now that Congressman Ron Paul has announced that he will no longer be pursuing victories in the remaining Republican primaries, I am left to ponder the increasing likelihood that I’m going to have to get used to saying “President Romney.” Granted, Paul’s decision to focus on delegates at this summer’s convention might work; but given the GOP’s nefarious behavior toward Paul so far, pigs would have to fly. Heck, if Paul pulls off a win in Tampa, Fla., Roseanne Barr might take wing (something we’d all like to see, regardless of the Convention’s outcome).

Nonetheless, we replaced a President with the hormone-dominated behavior of an oversexed teenage boy and a penchant for blowing up stuff in Eastern Europe with a President with the diction of a teenage boy and a penchant for blowing up stuff in the Mideast. Then we replaced him with a President with the physique of a preteen girl and a penchant for blowing up stuff in Afghanistan (and the Mideast, Africa, Arizona and — given the predilections of President Barack Obama’s friends in Al Sharpton’s hate group and the New Black Panther Party — Sanford, Fla.). With Obama’s Administration wheezing like Michael Moore trying to touch his toes (perhaps he should start with his knees; baby steps, big fella), it looks increasingly likely that we’re going to replace Obama with Mitt Romney. For his part, Romney has given no notice that he isn’t going to dive into the Pentagon’s toy bin with any less enthusiasm than his predecessors.

The time has come to consider the reality that the American electorate will replace Obama with the “lesser of two evils.” In doing so, I can’t help but consider the absolute dearth of true statesmen among those who covet political power. President Harry Truman once said “a statesman is a politician who has been dead for 10 or 15 years.” Even a cursory glance at the archetypal 21st Century American politician proves him right. But why can’t we find our modern-day incarnation of Cincinnatus? Where is the man (sorry, ladies, person) who will not only assume power only if it is thrust upon him but will cast it aside the moment his term has ended? Is there no one among us who will restore dignity, honor and greatness to his office and our Nation?

In the interest of historical accuracy, I must inform you that Cincinnatus was not quite the hero you think he is. He was born without wealth, albeit with an important-sounding last name — much like one of those junior varsity Kennedys who appear on the cover of People only when they kill someone (as opposed to all the varsity Kennedys who get the cover of People even when they don’t kill someone). Cincinnatus wasn’t particularly fond of his fellow poor folk, believing they didn’t warrant treatment equal to those of patrician birth. In a sense, Cincinnatus was former West Virginia Senator and Democratic icon Robert Byrd if Byrd had had a conscience — except that Cincinnatus never deliberately cut eyeholes in his toga and wore it on his head.

As I write this, Memorial Day weekend is upon us. It’s a time for the Nation to reflect upon the sacrifices made by so many of our countrymen and countrywomen in what President Abraham Lincoln so perfectly described as “the last full measure of devotion.” Some people will use that reflection to gain a better sense of the divine gift those fallen heroes bestowed upon us as citizens of this great land: the ineffable greatness of freedom, new lyrics to country songs (“’cause freedom ain’t free, ya’ll!”), the benefits of gas vs. charcoal or — in the opinion of some at MSNBC (aka the Democrat Channel) — nothing in particular.

Perhaps the heir to President George Washington himself — as close to filling the Cincinnatus bill as any American ever was — is hiding somewhere among the men and women in uniform. Although I must note that serving in the military is hardly a prerequisite to serving in office. There are certainly no shortage of examples of those who were magnificent soldiers and horrendous politicians. Consider President Andrew Jackson: hell on the redcoats as general; hell on the redskins as President. There certainly have been — and are — more than a few military heroes who would return respect and honor to the White House; but why would they lower themselves to such undignified circumstances?

To be honest, I’ve often wondered about the sort of man who aspires to occupy the highest elected offices, specifically the Oval Office. After all, pursuit of the Presidency carries with it spectacular risk of one’s finances, reputation and peace of mind. And if the aspirant is a Republican, his detractors will attack even his children. A man willing to endure such potential personal disasters for four to eight years of earning the undying enmity of nearly half the population of the planet must be either supremely confident or supremely disturbed.

And perhaps that’s the lesson. There is no Cincinnatus. Even Cincinnatus wasn’t really Cincinnatus. Transposed to modern American circumstances, only the most horrendous among us would actually want to stay in Washington for more than a few hours if we really didn’t have to. True, there are a few stalwarts of decency who brave the bilge of the Nation’s Capitol out of a strong sense of duty and/or a weak sense of direction. Subsequently, Americans are left picking through the detritus of our democracy to find representatives who don’t make us physically ill. We practice pond-scum politics. We determine which of the candidates we can endure without crippling nausea, and then we hand them the keys to the national wheels.

Despite serious misgivings from a sizable number of conservatives, the Republican Party is about to name Romney its standard-bearer for 2012. Hell, despite the Obama Administration displaying all the Presidential acumen of the villain from a “Scooby-Doo” cartoon, a substantial number of Americans are still willing to keep him in Washington.

Allow me, therefore, to posit a theory: America can’t find her Cincinnatus. And America shouldn’t. If this Nation ever discovers a leader who truly embodies such virtue, we would never allow him to leave office and would be undone upon his death. Our mythical Cincinnatus would say: “That’s the point.” On the other hand, perhaps we deliberately avoid finding such a worthy leader because we know we don’t deserve him. It likely doesn’t matter. Should such a noble soul exist, he would want nothing to do with the whole wretched affair.

–Ben Crystal

What Would A Real Conservative Do?

Those of you who frequent Personal Liberty Digest™ already know that I have never really been sold on the idea of Mitt Romney as President of the United States. In fact, some of my more old guard Republican friends have expressed some significant displeasure with my tendency to refer to him as the “Republi-Ken Doll.” I happen to think that’s spectacularly witty; they think it’s — well — less so.

My issue with Romney is not about his come-and-go conservatism. I have learned to accept that very few of the Republicans who make it to the top of the heap in the GOP are likely to deliver to me the sort of inspiration that President Barack Obama evidently offers people like Chris Matthews. Of course, for me to feel that inspired about a candidate, Uma Thurman would have to run for President; and that is a different column entirely.

Romney isn’t a bad guy; he’s just not my guy. Judging by some of the remarks I see here at Personal Liberty Digest™, the same can be — and often is — said by many of you. I view Romney in much the same way I viewed 2008 GOP nominee Senator John McCain. Like the “maverick,” Romney strikes me as a placeholder. He’s someone who can believably fill the role of nominee without:

  • Scaring the pants off the Republican establishment in the manner of Representative Ron Paul.
  • Scaring the pants off white liberals in the manner of Herman Cain.
  • Scaring the pants off small children in the manner of former Speaker Newt Gingrich.

I suppose Romney is conservative enough to be the Republican standard-bearer. But he is not so conservative that the current incarnation of the Republican Party might feel the need to explain itself to the corporate media (that are as likely to call it down the middle as Rachel Maddow is to win the next Miss Universe pageant).

If you accept my premise that Romney is little more than a slightly updated version of McCain, then you have to wonder how his recent performance makes Obama feel. Obama, who cleaned McCain’s clock four years ago, is struggling not only to keep pace with Romney but with his own hype.

Beyond the usual menu of scandals and failures that have defined Obama’s occupation of the Oval Office, his recent travails are beginning to make Romney look like a rock star by comparison. In the past two weeks, Obama has found himself fighting off challenges by a convicted felon in West Virginia (Keith Judd, who is actually serving time in a federal prison in Texas), a no-name Democrat in Arkansas (he does have a name; I just don’t care enough to bother remembering it) and an actual nobody in Kentucky (Obama 58, “Uncommitted” 42).

While Obama has failed to get a grasp on his own duties, his campaign flunkies apparently can’t get a grasp on much else. Their attacks on Romney have varied as wildly — and lasted about as long — as a Lady Gaga costume. Depending on the date, they have described Romney as a soulless corporate raider who delights in making a pile of money while crushing poor working folk, a shallow political marionette whose ideology changes with the tide (a description which isn’t necessarily far off — and also befits their own beloved leader) and/or a scheming partisan cretin who would gladly step on the electorate’s neck for his own gratification (ironically, a dead-on description of their own beloved leader).

I have identified myself as a Republican for most of my life. Romney hardly embodies my concept of the Republican archetype. I’m willing to admit that may have more to do with my personal evolution than the GOP’s coming coronation of Romney. But if Romney — who is outpolling Obama with increasing regularity — can drop the electoral hammer on Obama, consider what a real Republican — a real conservative — could do.

–Ben Crystal

Did We Mention Obama Eats Dogs?

Meet the Stooges: Larry, Curly and Barack. Bill Clinton meets another member of the Blue Dress Brigade. Larry Flynt: the latest soldier in the Democrats’ war on women. And the Huffington Post declares jihad on sense. All this — plus — Obama eats dogs. Presented in 1080 hi-def, FOR FREE! It’s The Great Eight, from the Personal Liberty Digest™!

Hail The YouTube Generation!

What a marvel YouTube is. Where else can you watch:

  • Antoine Dodson reminding us all to “run and tell ‘dat, homeboy!” (the seminal moment brought to us by Auto-Tune®, in my humble opinion)?
  • President Ronald Reagan exhorting Mikhail Gorbachev to “tear down this wall”?
  • Video of Pink Floyd concerts (my preferred work-and-ignore-the-dog soundtrack)?

As is the case with the latter example, not everything available on Youtube is noteworthy in a good way. For every episode of the Personal Liberty Digest’s™ “The Great Eight” (shameless, I know), there are shrieking lunatics like President Barack Obama’s “former” pastor Jeremiah Wright. And, once in a while, a moment that might otherwise be lost gains exposure thanks to our friends at YouTube.

Let’s also offer our gratitude to Hunter Rogers. Rogers is a regular kid living a regular life — at least, he was. Then, he ran into an intellectual roadblock: a teachers’ union thug posing as an educator. Last week, he rescued one of those “teachable moments.” In a nearly 10-minute exchange recorded by Rogers, a liberal named Tanya Dixon-Neely turned what might have been an opportunity to explore the intricacies of the National political discourse into a babbling Obama supporter’s insane tirade. While Dixon-Neely’s bizarre descent into deranged Obama-fandom in a classroom is disturbing enough, the fact that she is Rogers’ social studies teacher makes it worse.

During the course of what presumably should have been instruction on something that has at least a moderate basis in reality, Dixon-Neely slightly overreacted to Rogers’ effort to draw a parallel between the ridiculous fable of Mitt Romney allegedly bullying someone five decades ago to the equally ridiculous — but far more substantiated (Obama admits it in his rather premature memoir Dreams from My Father) — tale of Obama bullying a girl when he was knee-high to a community activist.

At one point, Dixon-Neely shouts: “As a teacher, I’m not supposed to allow you to disrespect the President of the United States…” She then bolsters her fallacious argument with further flimflam: “Do you realize that people were arrested for saying things about (President George W.) Bush?” The fact that no such arrests were made is as lost on Dixon-Neely as the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which appears to have been crowded out of the curriculum by the major talking points from the North Carolina Association of Educators, an adjunct of the largest union in the country: the National Education Association.

The real coup de grâce arrives during this back-and-forth:

Dixon-Neely: “…didn’t I tell you that we would not be degrading, talking about degrading things…”

Rogers: “Well if you’re going to trash Romney…”

Dixon-Neely: “No, because there’s no comparison. He’s running for President, Obama is the President.”

I suppose we can allow Dixon-Neely a pass for her civic faux pas; she’s only a teachers’ union flunky. Given liberal predilections toward hysteria, perhaps we should give her a pass on the rest of the nonsense that erupted from her piehole.

But we can certainly worry about our Nation’s future in the hands of such accomplished academics as Dixon-Neely and her union accomplices. According to Rogers, he recorded Dixon-Neely’s outburst after repeated politically charged bullying. Like many of the subjects of videos on YouTube, Dixon-Neely — just another unhinged liberal who goes ballistic at any criticism of her beloved icon — is fairly unremarkable. But she’s emblematic of a much larger cancer growing within the cradles of academe. Unable to wash away the bitter taste of Obama’s colossal incompetence, liberals are trying to change the recipe before it’s baked.

But there is good news. Like virtually every other assault the Democratic Party has launched, their efforts to murder knowledge in its cradle is failing. As the recording proves, Rogers is probably better qualified to teach social studies at North Rowan High School than Dixon-Neely. Given the fact that Dixon-Neely’s outburst earned her only a paid suspension, Rogers is probably better qualified to teach than pretty much everyone at the Rowan-Salisbury School System. Best of all, YouTube has shone the light of truth into the dark recesses of liberalism’s twisted core.

In the immortal words of Antoine Dodson: “Run and tell ‘dat, homeboy!”

–Ben Crystal

The Road To Ruin

The list of things the Federal government does well is fairly short. It comprises items like the 3rd Infantry Division; the United States Penitentiary Administrative Maximum Facility in Florence, Colo.; the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System (except that part near New York City that has been under construction since Ike was still alive) and… er… the dime is a nice coin.

The list of things the government does poorly is — obviously — much, much longer and includes essentially everything else. It’s probably worth noting that some things the government does well — like arming Mexican narcoterrorists and lying about it to Congress or teaching fourth-graders proper condom application — don’t really deserve a place in the “good” category. Actually, given the fact that the Nation’s teen pregnancy rate is skyrocketing like Bill Clinton’s blood pressure in a plus-size strip club, the government doesn’t deserve credit for condom application in either direction.

Also earning a place on the latter list: automobile manufacturing. Last week, an analysis by economist John Lott that appeared in the National Review (and went unremarked upon by the corporate media) revealed that Barack Obama’s 2009 bailout of the auto industry is likely one of the greatest boondoggles of the modern age. In order to allow his union cronies to take control of the beached whale that was General Motors Co., Obama handed the largest of Detroit’s “Big Three” $100 billion in taxpayer money. According to figures released last week, GM is now worth about one-third of that figure.

The plan, of course, was to infuse with our cash the same company that brought you such revolutionary designs as the remarkably pedestrian Epsilon platform, which currently keeps nearly 20 (!) GM cars on the road. And who could blame Obama for the gift? Where would we be without the magnificent Chevy Malibu and the spectacular Saturn Outlook (RIP)? (Answer: stranded at the airport since the rental counters are flush out of cars.) In Obama-speak, spending $100 billion in taxpayer money to purchase a life jacket for a company that has collapsed under the weight of union contracts is called rescuing “the heart of American manufacturing.” It is worth mentioning that those contracts drove GM’s manufacturing costs-per-hour to nearly $30 higher than Toyota Motor Corp.’s, and its products are still underdesigned.

Even more amazing is the manner in which GM has spent our money. For $100 billion, we got the Corvette, a couple of the Cadillac models, the literally smoking-hot Chevy Volt and a plurality of the fleet cars in North America.

Despite the Brobdingnagian blunder that is the company we now affectionately call “Government Motors,” Obama actually crows about the bailout as a success on his campaign website and in a new television ad campaign, claiming he “Refused to Let the Auto Industry Vanish.” His claims are cheered by the usual liberal suspects who either make vague claims about the reinvigoration of the moribund GM, refer to the successes of the “Big Three” without mentioning Ford Motor Co.’s refusal to accept a bailout (we’re looking at you, Chris “Double Jeopardy” Matthews) or flat out lie. Most of Obama’s claims fall squarely in that third category. His new ads tout “millions” of jobs saved. That’s a hell of a trick considering the total number of jobs in the American automotive industry — including bailout-denying Ford and Toyota — is about 700,000. What’s worse — and wisely unmentioned in Obama’s ads — is the fact that as of now, General Motors (from Volts to bolts) is worth about $34 billion.

In 2005, GM began showing cracks in its foundation, losing more than $10 billion. The unwieldy union deals (virtually untouched by the Obama bailout) were forcing the company toward bankruptcy. The losses mounted until December 2008, when the company admitted it was almost out of cash. Obama swept in, fired then-CEO Rick Wagoner and upped the taxpayer ante to a cool $100 billion, which now is not only beyond possible to repay but beyond the total value of GM by a factor of three.

In one of Obama’s auto industry ads, he mentions: “What happened in Detroit can happen in all sorts of communities…” Despite Obama’s infamous insincerity, he really means it. Judging by his economic “successes” like GM, if he’s re-elected he can do it, too.

–Ben Crystal

The Rotten Fruit Of Our Labor

Should you ever enjoy a visit to — or suffer the fate of being required to visit — the U.S. Department of Labor, you’ll have the opportunity to gaze upon an image of the Labor Secretary during a march.

That is supposed to be an image that will deliver unto you a sense of pride, inspiration and belief that Americans can and do lead the world in — er — making stuff. Granted, President Barack Obama’s economic performance has left record numbers of Americans — er — not making stuff; but the picture is supposed to make up for little details like the hundreds of thousands of people who gave up even trying to find steady work last month alone.

However, perusal of the photo in question reveals an image that could inspire only someone who cheers little details like — well — the hundreds of thousands of people who gave up on even trying to find steady work last month alone. The centerpiece is none other than Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis. The Secretary, Obama-endorsed race pimp Al Sharpton, the increasingly irrelevant Jesse Jackson and a coterie of union thugs from the Service Employees International Union and the AFL-CIO are marching together, arms linked. As if the idea of a Cabinet-level official playing protester with two of the bigger remoras ever to attach themselves to the soft underbelly of American society isn’t nauseating enough, their mouths are agape in indignation about Alabama’s immigration law. If that’s not offensive enough, that image is part of a poster Solis has ordered tacked up in the elevators in the Labor Department building in Washington.

Isn’t a Cabinet Secretary sharing even a ZIP code with bottom-feeders like Sharpton and Jackson — not to mention Big Labor mouth breathers — a BIT inappropriate? For that matter, shouldn’t the Secretary of Labor spend more time addressing the issues her boss has created for Americans instead of joining up with Obama’s racist storm troopers in an effort to worsen the situation on behalf of non-Americans? For that matter, isn’t forcing anyone to look at a picture of government officials cavorting with such filth fairly cruel?

Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) seems to think so. On Tuesday, he began calling for investigations into Solis’s misdeeds. But let’s pull the proverbial hand brake here. Obama and his minions have become so smug and self-involved that they didn’t notice it leaned a bit toward the unseemly.

Of course, Solis’s participation in a march against border security is inappropriate. But inappropriate behavior and Obama-era Democrats go together like Occupy Wall Street protesters and body odor (or murder, rape, theft, child abuse or even litter). The President has presided over record-setting national debt, a twofold increase in the price of gasoline, a massive depression in American clout around the globe and a job market that even President Jimmy Carter couldn’t have managed on his most “malaise”-filled day. Obama has demonstrated an unwavering opposition to Constitutional dictates; and his racist, arrogant and far-too-frequent abrogations of executive restraint have divided the Nation as bitterly as the Hatfields and the McCoys or Michael Moore and Weight Watchers.

And of course Solis sees nothing inappropriate about festooning the halls of one of the Federal government’s least worthwhile departments with even less worthwhile posters proclaiming an even less worthwhile message. God forbid she spends a little less time marching through the streets of Selma, Ala., in support of criminals and a little more time in her office shepherding the citizenry through her boss’s wanton destruction of the economy. And heaven knows, should any of the Labor Department staffers not share Solis’ sanctimony (not to mention her rather inflated self-image), then staring at an image of Solis with Sharpton and Jackson at a march to grant amnesty to illegal aliens would definitely qualify as a “hostile work environment.”

And of course, under the direction of people capable of such shocking arrogance and disdain for the rule of law and common decency, the entire country is rapidly turning into a hostile work environment.

–Ben Crystal