At first I thought his complaint might have something to do with the scene that you can only see in the director’s cut where the Abominable Snow Monster took Hermey’s dental school lunch money and gave him an atomic wedgie while Yukon Cornelius laughed until icicles came out his nose, but instead, the apparent problem is with Santa himself.

As it turns out, St. Nick is no saint:

Santa Claus doesn’t just drop off presents for kids — he also encourages the soul-crushing of generation after generation of Christmas-reveling children. Or says one author, at least.

Appearing on Fox News, author and special ed professor George Giuliani asserted that St. Nick’s behavior in the classic stop motion cartoon, “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer” is tantamount to bullying, and sends a wrong message to children watching the family favorite. As such, he’s written a new book, “No More Bullies at the North Pole,” which re-tells the story of the triumphant reindeer.

“Santa has ten policies that are very unfair, and Mrs. Claus sets out to correct those policies, and what you just saw, where Rudolph is being treated very very badly, and that should never happen,” Guiliani said.

Appropriate to the occasion, the person providing the rebuttal is a comedian:

And don’t even get him started on the Easter Bunny.

A revised version of Rudolph will address some of the professor’s environmental concerns:

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

This story comes to us from Somerville, Massachusetts. All I know is that if I lived there I would definitely be home-schooling by now.

From the Boston Herald:

A Somerville principal has opened fire on cherished American holidays, blasting legendary explorer Christopher Columbus for “atrocities” and saying “we need to be careful” about celebrating Thanksgiving in a scathing email to teachers — who are already under orders not to let the kids dress up for Halloween.

“When we were young we might have been able to claim ignorance of the atrocities that Christopher Columbus committed against the indigenous peoples,” wrote Kennedy School Principal Anne Foley. “We can no longer do so. For many of us and our students celebrating this particular person is an insult and a slight to the people he annihilated. On the same lines, we need to be careful around the Thanksgiving Day time as well.”

Mayor Joseph Curtatone said, “She raises a fair point. History is messy.” School Superintendent Tony Pierantozzi said her “intention is to be very, very sensitive to all of the many, many cultures” of Somerville. Foley said she just wanted to “open up a conversation.”

She must be a blast at parties. This sounds like one of those schools where you’re sentenced to a week of re-education in the counselor’s office for violating the “no angry rhetoric” rule after being overheard referring to Hi-C as “punch.”

If the principal didn’t like Christopher Columbus before, wait until she finds out he was responsible for climate change. The school will probably end up making Al Gore’s birthday a paid holiday — if it isn’t already.

Video from Fox 25:

(h/t Ace of Spades)

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

So I was shocked to see that he was prosecuted and found guilty today in a federal court case over two columns he wrote in 2009 about race, entitlements, and politics.

It’s chilling. There’s no other word for it. And I shudder to think how “progressives” here in America would relish the legal bludgeon Australia’s politically correct mob used to punish Bolt’s views.

Via the Australian Herald Sun:

THE assumed right of unfettered freedom of speech was trumped by laws protecting against racial vilification this morning after the Federal Court delivered its decision on the controversial “white Aborigines” case of Pat Eatock v Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt.

Justice Mordy Bromberg found Bolt and the Herald and Weekly Times contravened the Racial Discrimination Act by publishing two articles on racial identity which contained “errors in fact, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language”.

Speaking outside court, Bolt said it was “a terrible day for free speech in this country”.

“It is particularly a restriction on the freedom of all Australians to discusss multiculturalism and how people identify themselves,” Bolt said.

“I argued then and I argue now that we should not insist on the differences between us but focus instead on what unites us as human beings,” Bolt said.

The columnist said he would read and consider the full judgment before commenting further.

Justice Bromberg said it was important to note his judgment did not forbid debate or articles on racial identity issues if done “reasonably and in good faith in the making or publishing of a fair comment”.

“Nothing in the orders I make should suggest that it is unlawful for a publication to deal with racial identification, including by challenging the genuineness of the identification of a group of people,” Justice Bromberg said.

Ms Eatock and a group of eight other Aboriginals took Bolt and the Herald and Weekly Times to court claiming racial vilifiication over two articles in which he criticised fair-skinned Aborigines for what he argued was a choice they made, as people of mixed racial background, to emphasise their indigenous heritage over their white heritage.

Ms Eatock welcomed the judgment, saying it was a statement against discrimination.

She said the court’s decision meant racial identity could be debated, but with respect.

Here’s the full text of the ruling.

There’s at least one free-market think tank and free speech defender in Australia standing up for Bolt.

But don’t look for any “dissent is patriotic” progs to protest the criminalization of politically incorrect speech.

When I commented about the court case on Twitter tonight, a liberal Australian wrote to me:

“So you think it’s right for headlines such as ‘White fellas in the black’ to be used? What if your Asianess was questioned?”

To which I replied:

*People “question my Asianness” every damned day. [See here for tonight's freshest serving.[ So what? Thank God it's not a CRIME here in America.

*Liberal racist filth flung at me constantly. [See the minions of Alec Baldwin.]

My response is MORE/BETTER speech to counter it, not less speech.

***

On a related note: How long before we dissenters from the liberal racial orthodoxy are all sentenced to eat “conscious cupcakes” and repent? Click the link to read about the prog backlash against UC Berkeley conservatives’ mock affirmative action bake sale:

vent organizers received numerous threats on Facebook, and some of the group’s members changed their names and profile pictures. “This event was not organized by a bunch of white guys,” Mr. Lewis said. “We’re not racists.” The group’s 10-member board of directors includes several Asians and a Latino, he said, and more than half the board members are women.

Student leaders worried that the bake sale would make students uncomfortable and aggravate tensions on campus.

“A number of students have come to me very concerned,” said the student body president, Vishalli Loomba, 20, a fourth-year molecular and cell biology major. “Many feel the differential pricing is offensive and that it makes them feel unwelcome.”

Despite the outcry, organizers said the sale would go forward unless they were threatened with physical violence. Mr. Lewis said Republican groups from nearby colleges — including the University of California, Davis; California State University, Sacramento; and Saint Mary’s College of California — had called to say they were sending carloads of supporters to the bake sale.

The race-based prices will be posted on signs, but organizers said they would not enforce them and would instead allow students to pay whatever they wanted.

One group of students decided to protest pastries with more pastries.

As of Monday afternoon, more than 600 people had R.S.V.P.’d on Facebook to attend the “Conscious Cupcakes Giveaway,” scheduled for the same time and place as the Berkeley College Republicans’ bake sale and the student government’s phone bank.

“Join us in celebrating and representing U.C. Berkeley’s diverse community!” read the event announcement. “We recognize we still have a long way to go in bridging the gaps in understanding the complexities of race, gender and sexuality, but we take the first steps by taking our first bite of free Conscious Cupcakes in solidarity!”

One Berkeley student wrote on the event’s page: “conscious cupcakes > discriminatory cupcakes.”

Sigh. It’s good to be back home in the good ol’ USA after two weeks in Europe, but I certainly didn’t miss this kind of Nanny State nuttiness now manifesting itself in Colorado.

Criminey:

Day care centers in Colorado may have to meet new rules that regulate everything from the race of dolls to how much TV kids can watch.

According to documents obtained by 7NEWS, the changes being proposed by the Colorado Department of Human Services include:

*Children over 2 years old shall be served 1 percent, 2 percent or skim milk (unless directed in writing by a child’s health care provider)

*Juice shall be limited to 4 to 6 ounces per day for children over 1 year of age and must be 100 percent juice

*TV and computer time shall be limited to 20 minutes per day unless its a special occasion

*Doll shall represent three races …

The bureaucrats are still in the rule-making stage and promise more adjustments may be made:

McDonough told 7NEWS the Colorado Department of Human Services is months away from the final version of the proposed rules.

“We may adjust the specifics of the rules,” said McDonough.

Next up: Doll marriage diversity rules?

Doll religion diversity rules?

Friendly advice: Stay away from Muslim Mickey and Minnie!

Okay, he didn’t quite put it that way, but that’s how I heard it:

The 48-year-old, red-haired mascot has come under fire from health-care professionals and consumer groups who, in recent days, have asked the fast-food chain to retire Ronald McDonald. But McDonald’s Chief Executive Officer Jim Skinner staunchly defended the clown at the company’s annual meeting on Thursday, saying, “Ronald McDonald is going nowhere.”

Shareholders seemed to agree, voting down a proposal to require the hamburger giant to tally the financial impact of defending its children’s meals. Just 6% of shareholders voted in favor of the resolution.

McDonalds has been sued, they’ve been lobbied to remove toys from Happy Meals because that makes them pedophiles or something, and now this.

Can you imagine sitting around all day not only worrying about what somebody else is eating, but making a concerted effort to tell everybody what to eat and control what restaurants sell and how they sell it?

It just occurred to me that this is the first time I’ve come to the defense of a clown since once admonishing myself for calling Al Gore fat (I loathe ad hominem attacks).

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

A provision in the energy law signed by President Bush in 2007 mandates all light bulbs to be 70 percent more efficient in their use of electricity by the year 2020 (a bill mandating that government be 70 percent more efficient in their use of taxpayer dollars is nowhere in sight).

But don’t worry, if you like lots of light, the 100-watt eco-friendly bulbs will be affordable — provided you’re rich:

Two leading makers of lighting products are showcasing LED bulbs that are bright enough to replace energy-guzzling 100-watt light bulbs set to disappear from stores in January.

Their demonstrations at the LightFair trade show in Philadelphia this week mean that brighter LED bulbs will likely go on sale next year, but after a government ban takes effect.

The new bulbs will also be expensive — about $50 each — so the development may not prevent consumers from hoarding traditional bulbs.

An underground economy for incandescent light bulbs is born.

I’m beyond perplexed by government officials and assorted Gorebots who lose sleep over how much earth-destroying electricity my incandescent bulbs devour and then try to convince me to help save the planet by purchasing a car I have to plug in. They know that electricity is generated from the same source… don’t they?

Coming soon, the sale or importation of old school light bulbs will be illegal, which means that the following conversation may soon take place in a federal prison cell somewhere in the United States:

“What’cha in for?”

“Bank robbery. You?”

“Incandescent light bulb.”

Update: It’s been suggested that Washington might provide a few light bulb law waivers — if the price is right.

(h/t Moonbattery)

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

“Life imitates art” is the order of the decade, and unfortunately the “art” life is imitating is Idiocracy.

Howie Carr’s column in the Boston Herald today sets the stage:

In the old days, when an ambulance arrived at your door, the first thing the EMT would ask would be something like: “Where does it hurt?” or “What are the symptoms?”

But we live in a Politically Correct world now, and so the Mass. Department of Public Health has issued a new directive, “Guidance on the Collection of Race and Ethnicity by Ambulance Services.”

In this document, the first question to the sick person is not: “Do you want to go to the hospital?” The first question is: “Are you Hispanic/Latino/Spanish?”

My curiosity piqued, I found the new EMT directive on the Massachusetts state website. It’s indeed as silly as it sounds.

If you’re in Massachusetts and experience a medical problem and have to call an ambulance, here’s a hypothetical scenario that may someday await you…
**********

You’re at home and start experiencing severe chest pains, shortness of breath and cold sweats. You call an ambulance. You’re somewhat relieved after you hear the siren of the ambulance pulling into your driveway a mere few minutes after you called them.

The EMTs enter your home, approach you, and you’re prepared to tell them what’s wrong with you so you can get to the hospital for more help.

As you’re laying on the couch writhing in major discomfort, one of the EMTs pulls a card from his pocket and asks you an odd question.

“What in the world are you talking about?” You somehow manage to ask through the shooting pain.

Oh no, you shouldn’t have asked that, because you just cost yourself a couple of minutes:

And just to save yourself some time, don’t go out of your way to assure them that you’re a US citizen, because, as they’ll take time to explain, that’s not what this is all about:

Okay, that’s out of the way. Or is it?

If you said “no” after being asked if you’re Hispanic, Latino or Spanish, you really should have said “yes,” because they’re about to find out exactly what you are even as your apparent heart attack has claimed the feeling in your left hand:

Important pointer: Replying “we’re all human beings” could cost you up to another minute of valuable time…

At this point, don’t use the word “why” in any context, even to ask “Why have I been laying here in pain for five minutes and we haven’t once talked about why I called you?” The word “why” could prompt the reading of this card:

Remember… if you’re feeling a bit snarky and have an overwhelming urge to remind the EMT that the “best quality care” would have been to begin discussing your apparent heart attack with him the moment he walked in the door, you will receive the mandatory privacy statement:

Continued belligerence when it comes to answering the questions will result in a reminder that you have a right to remain silent. At this point you may begin to feel as if you’re under arrest for the crime of having a heart attack:

You’re now wishing you’d have called your attorney first.

And by no means before you receive treatment for the reason you called the ambulance in the first place should you ask what “health disparities” are, because doing so could prompt a careful reading of this:

If you ask for data to back up the need to rid the state of “health disparities,” you may be provided with this information:

Perhaps the goal is to lower the life expectancy of everybody across all racial, ethnic and economic boundaries in order to achieve health care parity, much like how progressive economists seek to achieve economic fairness by making everybody dirt poor.

I’d also like to mention that, in our hypothetical heart attack situation, our hypothetical heart attack sufferer was very cooperative and patient with the new system — a fact that was mentioned in his eulogy.

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

“Four permits and seven illegal speech citations ago…”

From the Daily Caller:

On President’s Day — standing where the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his “I Have a Dream Speech” — Phillip Howell, 25, recited Lincoln’s famous address and was quickly stopped by a Park Police officer. He told Howell that he could not give speeches on the steps of the memorial without a permit.

“He called me Abe, and then I turned around and he said, ‘Do you have a permit?’ I said ‘no’ and he said, ‘well you can’t do that here then,’” Howell told The Daily Caller. “Then I said, ‘I’m just giving the Gettysburg Address, come on, it’s President’s Day.’ And he said, ‘I don’t care what you’re giving, You’re not allowed to do that here. I don’t care what speech or what agenda you want to give.’”
[...]
They told the officer they didn’t know it was illegal and would be on their way. The officer refused, detained them at the base of the memorial, and wrote Howell and his friend holding the basket $100 in tickets.

To onlookers who didn’t know better and think rules & regs were the same in 1863 as they are today, maybe they thought it was part of the act and that Abe was actually asked for a permit and ticketed while delivering the Gettysburg Address.

Here’s video of the point where a Park Police officer cut in and asked for a permit for reciting what’s written on the memorial:

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

How did Richard Dreyfuss end up not being involved in this?

Former presidents Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush will serve as honorary chairmen of a new center at the University of Arizona that will focus on civility in political debate, university officials will announce Monday.

The National Institute for Civil Discourse – a nonpartisan center for debate, research, education and policy about civility in public discourse – will open Monday in Tucson. It was created in the aftermath of the Jan. 8 shootings in the city where six people were killed and 13 injured, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.).
[...]
Clinton said in a statement that the new institute “can elevate the tone of dialogue in our country.”

It seems like the more they claim to want to “elevate the tone of dialog” the worse it gets, doesn’t it?

Tom Daschle is also involved in this and will on occasion deliver speeches on civility — the thinking being that you won’t find more civil people than those who are sleeping during a Tom Daschle speech.

Kevin Williamson at NRO sums up the farce of Bill Clinton’s involvement:

What’s so civil about the red-faced, rage-filled Bill Clinton? The guy tried to blame Oklahoma City on Rush Limbaugh. Using both the bully pulpit and his proxies, he constantly implied that his critics were either racists, sexual deviants, corrupt, or all three. His minions brought us such gems of civil discourse as: “Drag a $100 bill through a trailer park, and you never know what you’ll find.” Clinton had the gall to subsequently tout his own “moral fiber” while denouncing his critics as “sleazy,” telling Peter Jennings: “You never had to live in a time when people you knew and cared about were being indicted, carted off to jail, bankrupted, ruined, because they were Democrats and because they would not lie. So, I think we showed a lot of moral fiber to stand up to that.”

Of course, they were lying. Lying — wagging one’s finger and flat-out lying – also is not traditionally considered part of civil discourse.

As Bill might say, “it depends on what your definition of ‘civil’ is…”

How exactly would a debate on civility go, anyway? A prediction:

Debater 1: “You go first…”

Debater 2: “I’d really appreciate it if you started…”

Debater 1: “That would be presumptuous of me, so you begin.”

Debater 2: “By all means, you begin, I insist.”

Debater 1: “You shouldn’t insist, that’s uncivil.”

Debater 2: “Sorry — will you please go first…”

Debater 1: “That’s a better tone, but I’d still like you to go first so I can improve upon your ideas…”

Debater 2: “Now you’re just being condescending.”

Debater 1: “Hey a$@*le, being polite isn’t condescending.”

Debater 2: “You’re not being polite, di*#weed, you’re trampling on my right to defer and using an uncivil tone to do so, just like Hitler!”

Debater 1: “Wanna take this outside, you piece of…”

Moderator: “…Thank you, civility debaters, but we’re out of time this evening.”

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

If one of the main goals of the Department of Education is to educate parents on why they might want to consider the option of private or home schooling, then mission accomplished:

MANSFIELD (CBSDFW.COM) – Some Students at Mansfield ISD schools could soon be learning Arabic as a required language. The school district wants students at select schools to take Arabic language and culture classes as part of a federally funded grant.

The Foreign Language Assistance Program (FLAP) grant was awarded to Mansfield ISD last summer by the U.S. Department of Education.

As part of the five-year $1.3 million grant, Arabic classes would be mandatory at Cross Timbers Intermediate School and Kenneth Davis Elementary School. The program would also be optional for students at T. A. Howard Middle School and Summit High School.

Parents at Cross Timbers say they were caught off-guard by the program, and were surprised the district only told them about it in a meeting Monday night between parents and Mansfield ISD Superintendent Bob Morrison.

The DOE has identified Arabic as a ‘language of the future.’ But parent Joseph Balson was frustrated by the past. “Why are we just now finding out about it?” asked Balson. “It’s them (Mansfield ISD) applying for the grant, getting it approved and them now saying they’ll go back and change it only when they were caught trying to implement this plan without parents knowing about it.”

According to a posting at the school’s website, this is a vital component in being able to compete in the 21st century.

Presumably the students have already mastered English and, of course, Spanish, so they can move on to Arabic:

In 2009 a FLAP grant went to a school in Oklahoma, which used the money for Chinese language education. Now that makes more sense because someday the kids will need to communicate with the people who are repossessing the country because it was borrowed-and-spent into oblivion with things like FLAP grants.

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

Yesterday, Doug Powers pointed you to the Boone County, MO Democrats’ gun-themed flyer that the civility police seem to have missed.

The hits (oops, did I say that?) keep on coming.

I tweeted the D.C. Big Labor thugs’ poster targeting a private developer’s residence over a Wal-Mart project yesterday, via RedState.

More from Townhall.com’s Guy Benson and The Blaze.

Next up: When is it hate speech to compare politicians to Nazis? Only when the accusers are Tea Party activists or Republicans. When it’s Democrats, just move along. Nothing to see or hear:

In an extraordinary outburst on the House floor, Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) invoked the Holocaust to attack Republicans on health care and compared rhetoric on the issue to the work of infamous Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels.

“They say it’s a government takeover of health care, a big lie just like Goebbels,” Cohen said. “You say it enough, you repeat the lie, you repeat the lie, and eventually, people believe it. Like blood libel. That’s the same kind of thing. And Congressman Cohen didn’t stop there.

“The Germans said enough about the Jews and people believed it–believed it and you have the Holocaust. We heard on this floor, government takeover of health care. Politifact said the biggest lie of 2010 was a government takeover of health care because there is no government takeover,” Cohen said.

PolitiFact, of course, is a PolitiFarce — liberal activists masquerading as neutral journalists. As Karl at Hot Air put it so well in response to the group’s declaration that the federal takeover of health care was a “lie:”

“PolitiFact exists largely as an attempt to del[e]gitimize certain political opinions.”

Speaking of such attempts, here’s Democrat Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee practicing her own brand of New Tone — accusing Obamacare repeal proponents of “killing Americans:”

Repealing healthcare reform would result in “killing Americans,” one Democratic lawmaker suggested Tuesday night.

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), in a speech on the House floor about the rhetoric surrounding Republicans’ bill to undo the new reform law, said repeal would result in more deaths in the U.S.

“Frankly, I would just say to you, this is about saving lives. Jobs are very important; we created jobs,” Jackson Lee said. “But even the title of their legislation, H.R. 2, ‘job-killing’ — this is killing Americans if we take this away, if we repeal this bill.”

So we’re fascists and murderers for opposing coercive, costly health care mandates which states, unions, corporations, and insurers have been stampeding to escape in droves?

And the Beltway blowhards think State of the Union musical chairs is going to make things better?

Now you know why I said it on November 3: Take your olive branch and shove it, Democrats.

Refresher:

Take Your Olive Branch and Shove It, Democrats
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2010

On the eve of a historic midterm election upheaval, President Barack Obama tried to walk back his gratuitous slap at Americans who oppose his radical progressive agenda. “I probably should have used the word ‘opponents’ instead of ‘enemies’ to describe political adversaries,” Obama admitted Monday. “Probably”?

Here is an ironclad certainty: It’s too little too late for the antagonist-in-chief to paper over two years of relentless Democratic incivility and hate toward his domestic “enemies.” Voters have spoken: They’ve had enough. Enough of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner’s rhetorical abuse. Enough of his feints at bipartisanship. Whatever the final tally, this week’s turnover in Congress is a GOP mandate for legislative pugilism, not peace. Voters have had enough of big government meddlers “getting things done.” They are sending fresh blood to the nation’s Capitol to get things undone.

Just two short years ago, Obama campaigned as the transcendent unifier. “Young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled, Americans have sent a message to the world that we have never been just a collection of red states and blue states,” he proclaimed. “We have been and always will be the United States of America.”

It’s been an Us vs. Them freefall ever since.

“We don’t mind the Republicans joining us,” Obama taunted a few weeks ago. “They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back.”

“They’re counting on young people staying home and union members staying home and black folks staying home,” the fear-mongering agent of hope and change jeered on the campaign trail last month.

“You would think they’d be saying thank you,” he sneered last April, when millions turned out for the nationwide Tax Day tea party protests.

“I want them just to get out of the way” and “don’t do a lot of talking,” he scoffed in response to prescient critics of the federal trillion-dollar stimulus boondoggle.

In addition to labeling GOP opponents of his open-borders policies “enemies” who needed to be “punished” by Latino voters, Obama accused them — that is, us — of lacking patriotism. “Those aren’t the kinds of folks who represent our core American values,” he told viewers of the Spanish-language network Univision.

Democratic leaders have taken their cue from Team Obama’s persistent politics of polarization.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer called vocal citizens who protested the federal health care takeover bill during the town hall revolts of 2009 “un-American,” too. Remember? “These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views — but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American,” Pelosi and Hoyer blasted in an op-ed piece for USA Today last summer. “Drowning out the facts is how we failed at this task for decades.”

This from the woman who called for a vengeful government investigation of grassroots opponents of the Ground Zero mosque.

Obama’s pal Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida, whom the president hailed as an “outstanding” member of Congress, accused Republicans of wanting elderly people to “die quickly” and of presiding over a “holocaust in America.” Vice President Joe Biden hailed Grayson as a “guy who doesn’t back away from a fight, and doesn’t back down from what he believes in” and told him at a fundraiser: “We owe you one, buddy.” No mention of Grayson’s smear of a female Federal Reserve adviser as a “K Street whore.”

In California, entrenched incumbent jerk Pete Stark derided immigration enforcement activists at a town hall by asking: “Who are you going to kill today?” To an elderly constituent who opposed the health care bill, Stark retorted: “I wouldn’t dignify you by peeing on your leg. It wouldn’t be worth wasting the urine.”

As voters who have been maligned by the ruling majority as stupid, unwashed, racist, selfish and violent headed to the polls Tuesday, Democrats released “talking points” attacking Republican leaders who “are not willing to compromise.” But “no compromise” is exactly the message that un-American Americans delivered to Washington this campaign season:

No more compromising deals behind closed doors.

No more compromising bailouts in times of manufactured crisis.

No more compromising conservative principles for D.C. party elites.

No more compromising the American economy for left-wing special interests.

No more compromising transparency and ethics for bureaucratic self-preservation.

Let us be clear, in case it hasn’t fully sunk into the minds of Obama and the trash-talking Democrats yet: You can take your faux olive branch and shove it.

Thank you.

***

Final thought: Like I always say, if they haven’t called you Nazi yet, you ain’t doing your job.

Photo credit: Zombie, 2004

***

Update: Democrat Rep. Cohen is doubling down and defending his GOP/Nazi smear: “I meant what I said.”

Last year, he compared the Tea Party to the KKK.

Tonight on CNN, he again defended those smears.

Over to you, President Obama…

The anchor who once shouted that he “wished he brought a gun to work” after his Magic Screen malfunctioned (h/t Allahpundit), and who works for the network that made “Crossfire” famous (see Doug Powers for an iconic screenshot), is now interrupting his show for real-time p.c. language self-policing of guests who use the term “crosshairs:”

Idiocracy: The new normal.

Or rather, the old normal — only super-sized now and wrapped in a shiny new mantle of “civility.”

This will no doubt perk up some ears over at FCC headquarters in Washington — I can’t believe this one’s slipped by them (and it has because I heard the song on the radio recently in its “original form” ::gasp::).

From The Spec by way of Reason:

The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council has ruled that Dire Straits’ 1980s hit Money for Nothing is too offensive for Canadian radio.

The ruling, released Wednesday, was in response to a complaint against St. John’s radio station CHOZ-FM. The listener complained that the word faggot – which appears three times in the song is “extremely offensive” to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.

The council is an independent body created by Canadian radio and television broadcasters to review the standards of their content.

The song was released 25 years ago. The CBSC would have taken action sooner but the shipment of Brothers in Arms just recently arrived up there (snow’s been a bear the past decade and a half).

The original version has been banned, but it can be played provided the offending word is edited. I’d suggest that Canadian radio stations who are upset with this decision have a little fun with it and overdub that section of the song with a tribute to political correctness. “That little bureaucrat got his own jet airplane — that little bureaucrat he’s a millionaire.”

Starting at 8 p.m. tonight, K97 in Edmonton will defy the order and play the song unedited for 24 hours in protest:

“We’re not afraid of repercussions. We have never had a complaint in the 25 years we have played the song,” K97 Music Director Todd James told FOX411. “We will play it in its entirety and unedited as we have always done and if someone wants to file a complaint we will take it from there.”

But K97 may be alone.

Most Canadian radio stations that play rock music have been bombarded with phone calls from listeners unhappy about the ban of the quarter-century old Dire Straits hit— still, despite the many complaints, the majority of stations don’t plan to break the rules and broadcast the forbidden tune like the Edmonton station.

For a second there I was thought we might be looking at a full-blown DJ rebellion — a sequel of sorts to the 1978 film “FM” (which the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council is just getting around to seeing) — but probably not.

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

The new liberal mantra: Guns don’t kill people. Adjectives do.

The Washington Post’s business columnist peddles the Left’s hot political speech suppressant of the day:

Republicans these days can’t get through a sentence without tossing in their new favorite adjective, “job-killing.”

There’s “job-killing legislation,” in particular the health-care reform law. And “job-killing regulations,” especially anything coming out of the EPA and the IRS. Big deficits are always “job-killing,” which might come as something of a surprise to all you Keynesians out there, along with the “job-killing spending binge” and even “job-killing stimulus projects.”

President Obama, we are told repeatedly, runs a “job-killing administration” with a “job-killing agenda” carried out by, you guessed it, a “job-killing bureaucracy.”

In the fevered Republican imagination, the entire federal government is a “job-killing machine” or – my personal favorite – a “job-killing beast.”

And if you’re a Republican, it is now a violation of House rules to utter the word “taxes” or “tax increase” on the chamber floor without the “job-killing” prefix. (Okay, I’m exaggerating – but only slightly.)

The Soros monkeys at Think Progress pile on:

Following Saturday’s tragedy in Tucson, Arizona, which led to the death of six people and the serious injury of 20 others, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-ME) echoed the growing call for a more civil political discourse by challenging Republicans to change the name of their health care repeal legislation. “The bill, titled the ‘Repeal the Job Killing Health Care Law Act,’ was set to come up for a vote this week, but in the wake of Gabby’s shooting, it has been postponed at least until next week,” she wrote in a blog post on the Huffington Post :

Don’t get me wrong — I’m not suggesting that the name of that one piece of legislation somehow led to the horror of this weekend — but is it really necessary to put the word “killing” in the title of a major piece of legislation? I don’t think that word is in there by accident — my Republican friends know as well as anyone the power of words to send a message. But in this environment and at this moment in our nation’s history, it’s not the message we should be sending.

The GOP has relied on the phrase “job killing” to frame the repeal effort as an economic endeavor that will help create American jobs and sustain the economy, but conservatives probably didn’t give much thought to the implications of the word “killing,” having relied on the rhetoric of ‘life and death’ so frequently throughout the health care reform debate. In fact, if it wasn’t for Saturday’s shooting, few people would have seriously considered the real meaning of the GOP’s words. In the aftermath of “death panels,” suggestions that the law may “cost you your life“, kill more people, and abort babies, the Republicans have downright numbed us all to their frequent use of death imagery as a tool to ferment political opposition. A quick look through the past 18 months or so reveals a stunning array of messages warning Americans that the Democrats’ signature legislation would lead to death.

I was being sarcastic the other day when I asked if we should ban “in the cross-hairs,” etc.

They’re. Serious.

More inanities:

Using a Photoshop of Obama as the grim reaper is beyond the pale.

Talking about illegal immigration is beyond the pale.

Reading the Constitution is an incitement to violence.

The criminalization of conservatism marches on.

***

Doing the Soros monkeys’ work for them: Gasp! I have used the phrase “KILL THE BILL” and related deathly imagery for years.

Guilty as charged.

In Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life, a woman who had just given birth asked the doctors if her baby was a boy or a girl. One doctor replied disapprovingly, “It’s a bit early to start imposing roles on it, don’t you think?” That movie was made when that sort of response was still fictional enough to be funny. Something similar is happening with the terms “mother” and “father.”

Last night I read that the State Department plans to remove the words “mother” and “father” from U.S. passports and replace those offensive and dated terms with “gender neutral terminology” — in this instance “parent one” and “parent two” (protest from three-plus parent families in 3… 2… 1…).

The news piqued my curiosity, because this year my wife and are planning to travel to a foreign country (California) and will undoubtedly need passports. I’m expecting an argument to erupt over which one of us is “parent one” and which is “parent two.”

I’m looking forward to the in-flight movie, “Parent One Dearest,” but if that gets boring I’ll have my iPod full of State Department-approved classics, such as The Temptations’ “Parent Two was a Rollin’ Stone” and Loggins and Messina’s “Your Parent One Don’t Dance.”

Update: Leo Alberti suggests a new passport cover design based on this news.

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe