McCain-Flake: Big Government, Freedom-Stealing Progressives

Senator John McCain — a footsoldier in the Reagan Revolution? LOL! Joke of the century! If it was Reagan, it wasn’t President Ronald Reagan, late leader of the party of freedom. McCain’s a purebred freedom-robbing Progressive.

And Senator Jeff Flake — limited-government Libertarian? LOL! A self-described conservative reformer? Get outa town! ROFL!

These two imposters joined with 62 other Progressives in the Senate in an attempt to force businesses and ministries to hire cross dressers and drag queens. They voted for the homosexual dream bill, ENDA, Thursday. It’s the Employment Non-Discrimination Act — which will force employers and churches under threat of huge federal fines to hire people who perceive their gender isn’t the one they were born with. Try to dismiss one of them from your employ and you’ll have the full weight of the U.S. government on your back.

Flake pulled a bait-and-switch. He voted against ENDA on a procedural vote Monday, then turned coat and voted for it Thursday. The radical progressive bill passed the Senate 64-32.

But as we pointed out earlier in the week, House Speaker John Boehner will dropkick this horrible, freedom-stealing bill to the moon where it belongs. It won’t see the light of day in the House.

And as for the false self-portrayals of McCain and his shadow, Flake, they can tell it to the moon as well. They are not part of the solution in Washington. They are poster boys for all the problems in Washington, and our state delegation in the U.S. Senate is a lost cause. Let freedom ring. Let our elected officials fight Obama, Reid, and Pelosi, et al, not agree with them on hideous, radical extreme homeland make-overs.

Flake Votes Right, McCain Wimps Out

We’re glad to see U.S. Senator Jeff Flake correct a past mistake Monday and vote against the radical Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). As a former member of the U.S. House of Representatives, he previously voted for the homosexual activists’ pet legislation.

On the other hand, Senator John McCain wimped out and declined to vote at all. Probably because his wife had signed a petition to him to support it. But not voting against an evil bill is not taking a stand of integrity. We would prefer to see McCain vote against ENDA and help educate people against its exceedingly high potential for persecution of Christians and business owners.

In fact, while the Senate refuses to produce a budget or take steps to strengthen America’s business climiate, it prefers instead to reward radical special interests, including the homosexual lobby, Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and others. The Senate passed ENDA 61-30.

Fortunately, the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, said he will not give it a vote in his chamber.

Thank God.

This bill would force businesses and ministries to hire misfits and sexually confused people who do not support their goals and missions. Refuse to hire them, or to fire them, could result in ruinous lawsuits.

All the revolutionaries who want to radically reshape America favor this bill, which gets repeatedly shot down in Congress. It’s time the radicals — and the Senate — let it go. Americans do not want ENDA; they have shown it clearly again and again. Harry Reid, let’s get on with the nation’s important business and end this Mickey Mouse ENDA malarkey once and for all.

Press Secretary Insists President Didn’t Break Promise

John Semmens: Semi-News — A Satirical Look at Recent News

Folder2 104As the first wave of Americans are discovering that they can’t keep heath insurance plans they like, the impression that President Obama lied to them is seeping into public awareness. Analysts predict that as many as 90 million will ultimately be forced off their current plans.

A desperate Presidential Press Secretary Jay Carney strove to deflect the impression that Obama lied about the impact the Affordable Care Act would have on policyholders. “The President didn’t lie to anyone in any meaningful sense,” Carney insisted. “While it’s true that a few who were satisfied with inferior plans will now be required to select new conforming plans, they need to realize that this is for their own good.”

Carney likened President Obama’s assurances to those that a parent gives a child. “There are times when a father or mother will offer to let a child choose a toy,” Carney said. “However, the parent reserves the right to veto the child’s choice if it would result in the purchase of a defective or dangerous product. All the Affordable Care Act is doing is vetoing the selection of defective and dangerous insurance policies.”

One of the “defects” of the policies that many would like to keep is the failure to provide mandated coverages like maternity benefits. As Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius explained to an incredulous Representative Renee Ellmers (R-NC), “just because a man is single doesn’t mean he can’t father a child, in which case he’ll be glad he has maternity coverage.”

After an off-microphone whispered conversation with a member of her staff, Sebelius revised her statement. “I am told that the example I just gave is incorrect, that the pregnant woman’s insurance would cover maternity costs,” Sebelius admitted. “But, since the Affordable Care Act covers sex-change surgery a person that starts out as a single man could become a woman and then benefit from maternity coverage.”

A second whispered consultation produced yet another revised statement. “My staff tells me it is not possible for a male undergoing a sex-change operation to become a mother,” Sebelius said. “Well, we are going to look into that and see if the Act can be amended to overcome this limitation. The President is committed to making this law work and we will do whatever it takes to make that happen.”

In related news, new research by scientists at the Medical Research Council Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit (MRC CBSU) and the University of Cambridge has shown that some patients declared to be in an irreversible vegetative state are actually more aware of their surroundings than thought. Whether this would change the currently approve protocol of removing life support from such patients “would be a matter for the Independent Payment Advisory Board to make,” said Sebelius. “We don’t have an unlimited amount of money to work with. If keeping these patients alive means we’d have to cut back on the number of abortions we can fund, well, that would be a decision for the Board to make. The needs of the few shouldn’t be allowed to trample the needs of the many.”

Democrats Fear Obamacare Election Disaster

The problems with the Obamacare website, the waves of policy cancellations, and the ensuing “sticker shock” of higher insurance premiums for conforming Affordable Care Act plans has Democrats facing reelection in 2014 in a state of high anxiety.

“I’m seeing a lot of sympathy for the poor schmucks that can’t log onto the website or are getting cancellation notices,” Senator Al Franken (D-Minn) observed. “I don’t see anyone showing much concern about how this will affect us next November. I didn’t muck up the website. I didn’t send out any cancellation notices. But it looks like voters could take out their anger on me. How is that fair?”

Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) was similarly concerned. “We trusted the President and Secretary Sebelius to do this thing right,” Shaheen remembered. “We didn’t poke or pry into the process. We didn’t even read the bill before we passed it. We had total faith they’d handle it. Now that everything is falling apart the President is saying that no one told him it was a mess. That may be well and good for him, but we’re the ones exposed to voter retaliation next year. What’s he going to do about that?”

Investment guru and Obama supporter Warren Buffett advised the President to “blow the whole thing up and start over. With a reported 500 million lines of code behind the website there’s no way to rescue this monster. The President has already used his discretion to exempt employers and unions from complying with the new regulations. He should just exempt everyone else until a completely new system is developed and tested.”

Whether Buffett’s suggestion is feasible is dubious. On the one hand, the exemptions the President has been handing out conflict with the contents of the Affordable Care Act and are clearly illegal. On the other hand, issuing more exemptions will still leave the damage already done by the law unaffected. Since Obama seems determined to impose his vision of health care on largely unwilling consumers, any so-called new system that meets with his approval would inevitably repeat the errors that plague the current fiasco.

Purge of Military Is Commander-in-Chief’s Prerogative, Says Hagel

So far this year President Obama has removed nine “flag officers” from their posts. Three of these firings are linked to last year’s attack on the US Consular facility in Benghazi.

US Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel defended the moves as “the prerogative of the nation’s Commander-in-Chief. The President must have men he can trust to carry out his orders.”

U.S. Army General Carter Ham, who commanded U.S. African Command when the consulate was attacked, lost President Obama’s trust when he contradicted his assertion that no forces were available to rescue Ambassador Stevens. Ham contends that reinforcements could have been sent in time.

Similarly dismissed was Rear Admiral Charles Gaouette, commander of the Mediterranean Carrier Strike Group, for saying that aircraft could’ve been sent to aid those under fire from the terrorists assaulting the facility.

Hagel emphasized that “whether or not these officers’ assessment of the situation was correct is not the point. Their open disagreement with their commanding officer is. President Obama needs to feel secure in the knowledge that the officers under his command have his back. By contradicting the official story on Benghazi these men left the president vulnerable to attack from his enemies in Congress and the media. Disloyalty of this magnitude is a dereliction of duty that we cannot, in good conscience, let slide.”

In related news, James Clapper, the retired lieutenant general now serving as the Obama Administration’s Director of National Intelligence made a bid to join the ranks of purged military men when he challenged President Obama’s plea of ignorance about the National Security Agency’s overseas eavesdropping on phone calls made by various European heads of state.

“In the first place, anyone with any brains has got to know that all governments spy on other governments—friend and foe, alike,” Clapper said. “On top of this, President Obama was explicitly informed of these activities on numerous occasions. The NSA isn’t some rogue entity carrying out nefarious actions on its own. Everything we do is at the direction of the President.”

Administration Warned of Benghazi Attack in Advance

CBS News reports that the Obama Administration was warned before al-Qaeda attacked the Consulate in Benghazi. Al-Qaeda had posted its three top targets in Libya on its website. These targets were the Red Cross, the British, and then the Americans in Benghazi.

By July of 2012 the first two targets had already been hit. In the summer of 2012, Lieutenant Colonel Andy Wood, one of the top American security officials in Libya, warned both Ambassador Stevens and the State Department that Benghazi would be next.

The CBS revelations were dismissed as “Monday morning quarterbacking” by Secretary of State John Kerry. “Look, FDR was also warned that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor before they did,” Kerry pointed out. “But without a complete report on the day, time, and magnitude of the assault he felt there was little he could do to prepare. Yet, do we blame him today? No, he’s the hero of World War II who brought home victory. There’s still time for President Obama to be a hero. It would be premature to focus on who’s to blame for an attack on Benghazi that cost a us lot fewer casualties than Pearl Harbor did in 1941.”

In related news, the State Department rejected Senator Lindsey Graham’s (R-SC) demand that more of its employees be allowed to testify on the Benghazi attack. Department spokesperson Jen Psaki contends that “everyone is too busy to testify. The crucial work of State cannot be deferred while Congress goes on some witch hunt. The needs of the present surely outweigh the desire to revisit the past. I would’ve thought that former Secretary Clinton has already made it quite clear that anything Congress might discover now would make no difference at this late date.”

Actor Advises President to Commit Ted Cruz

Left-wing actor Sean Penn urged President Obama to “use his executive authority to have Senator Cruz committed to a mental hospital. Obviously, the man is not happy. Our Constitution guarantees a person’s right to happiness. I believe that Cruz would truly be happier if he were confined and medicated. I know I would.”

“Since he won’t go of his own free will it falls on the president to take action to protect the Senator’s happiness by compelling him to enter treatment for his own good,” Penn argued. “The highest obligation of a ruler is the happiness of his people. Going outside the boundaries other say confine his powers is the kind of courage we have come to respect from Obama.”

A Satirical Look at Recent News

Please do us a favor. If you use material created by The Arizona Conservative, give us credit, and do not change the context. Thank you.

Law: The Hijacking of America’s Legal System

From its founding, America’s legal system was built upon natural law defined by John Quincy Adams as:

“The laws of nature and nature’s God … of course presupposes the existence of a God, the moral ruler of the universe, and a rule of right and wrong, of just and unjust, binding upon man, preceding all institutions of human society and of governments.”

For America’s first century, Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Law, which reflected God-given natural law, heavily influenced the education of lawyers.

But within a century, academics would begin to undermine this system. Their preference was a legal system based on relativism. Applied to law, it’s called “positivism.”

The five major points of positivism are:

  • There are no God-given standards of law relevant to law
  • Man is the author of law, not God, and law is determined by the highest-ranking human authority in the state;
  • Man and society are evolving. Therefore, law is evolving;
  • Through their decisions, judges guide the evolution of law;
  • To study the law is to review the decisions of judges.

In the 1870s, Harvard Law School Dean Christopher Columbus Langdell applied the concept of evolution to law. He claimed that laws must evolve, and judges should guide the evolution of law and Constitution. He introduced the study method of case law and referring to judges’ decisions rather than the Constitution.

Langdell’s views rendered irrelevant the original intent of the Founding Fathers, history and precedent. The Founders’ views were considered a hindrance to the evolution of society. Through the next few decades, other law schools adopted the Langdell view of law, and law schools abandoned natural law and Blackstone’s commentaries.

Roscoe Pound, who served as dean of the law schools at Harvard and the University of Nebraska, institutionalized positivism. Discarding natural law, he said, “We have to rid ourselves of this sort of legality and to attain a pragmatic, a sociological legal science.” It should be the goal of law, Pound said, to become a sociological force to influence the development of society.

In the 20th century, more and more people who endorsed positivism were placed on the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes also made it his mission to use law to reach “a social end” rather than to rely on natural law.

Going even further, Justice Benjamin Cardozo, appointed in 1932, urged the Supreme Court to engage in blatant judicial activism: to make law from the bench.

Justice Charles Evans Hughes was just as bold, stating: “We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is.”

By the 1940s, positivists reached critical mass and began to produce radical societal change. It wasn’t long – 1947, Everson v. Board of Education – before the Supreme Court fabricated a so-called wall of “separation of church and state” – launching an era of hostility and interference by the state with Christianity that continues to this day. Then in 1958, Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote in the Trop v. Dulles decision:

“The [Constitutional] Amendment must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of an evolving society.”

In his 16 years on the High Court, Warren and other justices struck down numerous, long-standing practices, brazenly doing so without any whiff of precedent. America’s highest court had severed any connection between history, precedent and the intent of the Constitution’s framers.

Today, as in earlier times of positivism, the danger of the courts is the writing of laws which are out step with mainstream sentiment of “we the people.” And there is no accountability of judges and justices to the people. The courts have become the oligarchy Thomas Jefferson warned against. The courts have become what George Washington said would be the “customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”

One of the many egregious examples of judicial activism was the High Court’s 1973 decision, Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion on demand. Even high profile supporters of abortion have criticized the lack of sound reasoning in that decision. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a former attorney with the ACLU – a staunch advocate of abortion – said the “heavy-handed judicial intervention was hard to justify.”

Today, there are still courts and judges which uphold the Constitution and natural law. Those that don’t are susceptible to wild fabrications of new laws and “rights” without precedent or sound justification. As a result, we have a judicial system divided by sharply contrasting worldviews. The die is cast for against court litigants based solely on the approach of the judge(s), which makes for an inconsistent, unbalanced, ineffective judicial system.


Arizona’s First and Oldest Conservative Publication Turns 10!

We made it! Thanks to you loyal supporters! On November 1, 2003, The Arizona Conservative debuted as the first conservative publication in the history of Arizona. There have been many great moments along the way, and today on our 10th birthday we’re highlighting our zenith: the day Rush Limbaugh quoted our Semi-News column by John Semmens. We want to pay tribute to John as well; he’s the longest running columnist we’ve had and he’s dazzled us with his humor and scintillating satire. Many individuals have made contributions through their writing and expertise; we thank you all. Through the years, we have had hundreds of thousands of page visits, with peak visitation on and around election days. Without further adieu, here’s Rush Limbaugh’s transcript quoting The Arizona Conservative. Thank you, Arizona!

From This Day On: “Mrs. Bill Clinton”

March 05, 2007


RUSH: From this day forward, ladies and gentlemen — on this program, at least, and I think in the minds of many other people — the woman formally known as Hillary Rodham Clinton will be now known as Mrs. Bill Clinton. If I slip up — Snerdley, anybody here on the support staff, if I slip up — and call her Hillary Clinton, correct me each and every time until it becomes a habit to refer to her as “Mrs. Bill Clinton,” the wife of the former president. There’s a reason for this. It was Obama’s moment. He was going to go down there to Selma. Hillary Clinton decided she had to show up, too. But she couldn’t deal with a mano-a-womano showdown. She had to bring Bill, “the first black president of the United States.” She could not do this on her own. This is not a feminist comment. I don’t want any of you women getting upset out there. This has nothing to do with feminism or male-female. It is a Clinton Inc. reality.For example, The Arizona Conservative headline: “Hillary Clinton Grabs for Husband’s Coattails.” Senator Hillary — sorry — Senator Mrs. Bill Clinton… See, it’s going to take me a while to get into this but it will happen. “Senator Mrs. [Bill] Clinton sought to boost what some say is a sagging presidential campaign by emphasizing who she is married to.” The correct way to write this for the journalists out there would be, to whom she is married. “Coming off a week of bitter exchanges with Senator Barack Obama, Mrs. [Bill] Clinton pointed out that with her in the White House, America would have the benefit of a president who is advised by a former president. ‘It’s a really unique opportunity for America,’ said Mrs. [Bill] Clinton. ‘Bill would be back in the White House giving the country the benefit of his eight years of previous experience.’”

She’s gotta drag him into it now, folks. Things are not ripe in paradise. “’Who even knows who Obama is married to?’ Hillary asked. ‘You’ve got the least experienced senator and a nobody spouse as his confidante and advisor. Is that pathetic or what?’” This is actually a parody, but I had you going, didn’t I? (Laughing.) It’s in The blog. It’s by a guy named John Semmens, and it’s called Semi-News. (Laughing.) I had you, didn’t I? But that’s why good comedy is good comedy, because it’s gotta have an element of truth in it in order for it to be funny. “Who even knows who Obama is married to? You’ve got the least experienced senator and a nobody spouse as a confidante and advisor. Is that pathetic or what?” She’s probably thinking this. You know, this is the funny thing. She is, from now on, Mrs. Bill Clinton because she did have to drag Bill with her down there to Selma. In fact, there was a blowout — or a potential blowout — with Congressman John Lewis, who was beat up pretty bad during the original Selma march, called Bloody Sunday. He was on the verge of endorsing Obama and got a call from Bill.

Greg Craig — a well-known impeachment lawyer, well-known Clinton backer, the lawyer who secured for Fidel Castro the return rights to Elian Gonzales — has defected from Clinton, Inc. This is big. He has gone over to Camp Obama. But for the hilarious stuff here, let’s just go straight to the audio sound bites. Did any of you happen to see any of the big confab yesterday, the reenactment of the march to Selma with Mrs. Clinton speaking? You didn’t see this? Oh, you are going to appreciate the audio. Mrs. Clinton spoke with a contrived southern twang and accent because she’s down there, and she trying to sound like a black preacherette. (I’m sorry: Mrs. Bill Clinton. You gotta correct me. This is going to become a habit no matter how long it takes. I’m still correcting myself. The staff is lagging.) So let’s just get started. The height of ridiculousness, Mrs. Bill Clinton trying to act religious and talking southern. This is at a church, a portion of her opening remarks.

MRS. BILL CLINTON: This is the day the Lord has made. Let us rejoice and be glad in it. And I want to begin by giving praise to the Almighty for the blessings he has bestowed upon us as a congregation, as a people, and a nation.

RUSH: She then marched right into the threat of climate change. Get this.

MRS. BILL CLINTON: How can we say everything is fine when we have an energy policy whose prices are too high, who make us dependent on foreign governments that do not wish us well, and when we face the real threat of climate change, which is inkering with God’s creation. RUSH: Oh, isn’t that rich. Here is Mrs. Bill Clinton. When was the last time Mrs. Bill Clinton mentioned God anywhere? Here she is in a black church, and she’s talking about “tinkering with God’s creation.” But, you see the hubris and the arrogance here. We can tinker with it and we can screw it up and we are screwing it up and we’re doing all these things that are destroying the planet. Now she starts the screaming and the screeching here, that together — Mrs. Bill Clinton and the audience in the church — will take back the country.

MRS. BILL CLINTON: Dr. King told us, ?Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.? Well, I’m here to tell you, poverty and growing inequality matters. Health care matters. The people of the Gulf Coast and New Orleans matter. Our soldiers matter. Our standing in the world matters. (screeching) Our future matters, and it is up to us to take it back, put it into our hands, start marching toward a better tomorrow.

RUSH: Whoa! The screeching! I don’t know that I’m going to be able to deal with this. It has too many hurtful memories. She’s trying to rev up the African-Americans in the church. Let’s just keep rolling here. Here’s Mrs. Bill Clinton, about the Voting Rights Act.

MRS. BILL CLINTON: The Voting Rights Act gave more Americans from every corner of our nation the chance to live out their dreams. And it is the gift that keeps on giving. Today it is giving Senator Obama the chance to run for president of the United States. (Applause.) And by its logic and spirit, it is giving the same chance to governor Bill Richardson, a Hispanic — and, yes, it is giving me that chance, too.

RUSH: Oh, man, if there were ever any coded lingo. You have to understand that to civil rights audiences, the Voting Rights Act is one of the big, big push-button topics because it is believed today that there are still efforts being made to discount the votes of minorities, suppress the votes and keep them from getting to the polling place. So Mrs. Bill Clinton here is hitting all of the clich?s, and now she fulfills the dream, fulfills the promise by telling them the last two elections were stolen from them.

MRS. BILL CLINTON: In the last two presidential elections we have seen the right to vote tampered with and outright denied to too many of our citizens, especially the poor and people of color. That’s wrong. It is simply unconscionable that today young Americans are putting their lives at risk to protect democracy half a world away when here at home their precious right to vote is under siege!

RUSH: It is not! Maybe a new addition to the name, Mrs. Bill Clinton X. You know, when she’s speaking — (Laughing.) I know she has her supporters and there’s probably nothing you can do about it, but people taking this seriously is a scary thought. Another portion of her remarks, ending up here with religion again. Mrs. Bill Clinton X in her best preacher voice.

MRS. BILL CLINTON: Let us say with one voice the words of James Cleveland’s great freedom hymn: ?I don’t feel no ways tired. I come too far from where I started from. Nobody told me that the road would be easy. I don’t believe he brought me this far to leave me, and we know if we finish this march, what awaits us. St. Paul told us in the letter to the Galatians, ‘Let us not grow weary in doing good, for in due seasons we shall reap, if we do not lose heart.'” The brave men and women of Bloody Sunday did not lose heart. We can do no less. We have a march to finish.

RUSH: This is the height of pandering here. What would you call it, if it’s not pandering? (interruption) Yes, she did. She did. You want to hear it? You don’t believe that she actually put on the black preacher dialect? Play the beginning of this again. This is her best black preacher voice, Mrs. Clinton revving it up.

MRS. BILL CLINTON: Let us say with one voice the words of James Cleveland’s great freedom hymn: ?I don’t feel no ways tired. I come too far from where I started from. Nobody told me that the road would be easy. I don’t believe he brought me this far to leave me.?

RUSH: All right. All right, that’s enough. You believe it? You hear it the second time? Mrs. Bill Clinton impersonating a typical black preacher. Now, it sounds like they let her get away with it. The thing about this, though, is that it’s just so obviously pandering, so obviously fake and phony. She doesn’t bring this off well. She doesn’t do it. You have to wonder, will she do this to every group to whom she goes and speaks? Some blogger or somebody said, ?If she went to speak to a nudist camp to get the nudist vote, would she make her speech in the nude?? God, we hope not.

RUSH: You know, you listen to all this screeching from Mrs. Bill Clinton, and there’s a part of me that reaches out to Bill, that feels a little sorry. Do you realize he’s had to listen to this much more than we have, and probably directed at him personally for years and maybe some lamps have been tossed at him at the same time? It doesn’t excuse anything, but compassion is compassion. We have plenty of compassion here at the EIB Network. The Los Angeles Times today has a story: ?Obama, Clinton Reach Out to Black Voters.? Obama says in this story his grandfather was an African house boy to British empire families. ?Much of Obama’s speech dealt with doubts raised by the Rev. Al Sharpton and others that the candidate’s unusual background was alien to black Americans descended from slaves. The British in Africa, he said, called his grandfather ?a houseboy. They wouldn’t call him by his last name. Sound familiar??? Yes! That-a-way, Obama! Get those I’m-black-enough credentials out there and make sure that everybody understands it. Now, this is what I mean also, ladies and gentlemen, why from now on on this program she will be Mrs. Bill Clinton. A board member of the Voting Rights Museum by the name of Thomas Muhammad said, ?Why do you think Bill Clinton came down here? That’s because Obama is doing so well with these crowds that Mrs. [Bill] Clinton had to bring him. She had to bring her A-game.? Now, this is somebody at the Voting Rights Museum, Thomas Muhammad. The guy is a board member. Mrs. Bill Clinton’s A-game is bringing her husband along? If her husband is not with her, would you call it Mrs. Bill Clinton’s B-game? When she’s by herself she’s got a B-game. The A-game is only when her husband comes along. ?Obama has his own obstacles to overcome with black voters. Some said they didn’t know much about him. Others in the Selma crowd said they were trying to heed King’s advice and make a decision on character, not skin color ? especially given their fondness for the Clintons.? So now all of a sudden they’re going to apply what Dr. King said in his famous “I Have a Dream,? speech. Interesting timing on the selective application of that theory, is it not, for some in Selma? The Independent, the UK Independent, ?Mrs. [Bill] Clinton Looks on as Obama Gets the Larger Congregation. The congregation at the First Baptist Church in Selma, Alabama, was in full voice yesterday morning when the smiling face of Senator Hillary Clinton peered from a door behind the pulpit and saw she was already a little late. ?Have a little talk with Jesus,? the hymn began. ?Tell him about your troubles.?? ?If sheer numbers matter, the news from Selma was discouraging for Mrs. Clinton. To win her party’s presidential nomination for 2008, she will need as many black votes as possible. It is why she was here yesterday and also why at the last moment her camp announced that she would be joined by her husband Bill Clinton,? so that she could bring her A-game, ?because Bill remains beloved by many blacks. ? But no one could have stood between the two churches shortly before worship at 11 o’clock yesterday and not noticed the imbalance between the crowds. Mr. Carter and his boys stood in a line of maybe 500, crossing their fingers for a seat in the Brown Chapel. Massive cuts of pork sizzled on barbeque grills by the roadside. The throng for Hillary up the street was meagre by comparison,? ladies and gentlemen. Not looking good out there. Here’s John Lewis last night on ABC News.

LEWIS: When I celebrated my 60th birthday in Atlanta, President Clinton came down and spoke. When I celebrated my 65th birthday in Atlanta, Senator Obama came down. They’re friends. They’re like brothers — and Mrs. Clinton is an extension of her husband.

RUSH: Oooooh! That’s not a compliment, ladies and gentlemen. John Lewis there is saying that Mrs. Bill Clinton is an extension of her husband.

RUSH: Still chuckling here, folks. Not chuckling, we’re laughing. The shamelessness of Mrs. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama speaking to black church audiences in Selma, Alabama, yesterday. By the way, if you’re new to the program or if you have not joined us yet, today is your first time with us today, an executive program decision been made here. From this day forward, the woman formally known as Hillary Rodham Clinton will now be known on this program as Mrs. Bill Clinton, wife of the former president. She obviously cannot run this presidential campaign on her own. In fact, the LA Times referred to Mrs. Clinton, Mrs. Bill Clinton, as taking her A-game to Selma by taking her husband. She has to go down there and compete for the black vote with Barack Obama and needed her husband alongside in order to do it. This is not a feminist comment. This had nothing to do with women. Don’t misunderstand this. It’s simply the fact that Mrs. Bill Clinton cannot do this on her own. (interruption) What, it could change? Well, she might go back, but she’s going to be Mrs. Bill Clinton on this program.