I beg to differ.  Circumstantial evidence strongly suggests that Vince Foster killed himself inside the White House.  Naturally, that would have been a major scandal, and the Clintonites spent a feverish night moving the body and rearranging the evidence.  There is nothing inherently paranoid, implausible or nonsensical about that theory.

And Obama's attitude toward Islam is highly ambiguous, to say the least.

So I must stand with Mollie.

That is exactly the point.

Conor, you are engaging in what I call rhetorical "tap dancing" and all your arguments boil down to the same thing — equivocate, equivocate, equivocate.

God save us all from those who equivocate.

And I hate self-styled neutrals.  Pick a side and fight it out, damn it.

The cool, ironic detachment schtick is getting old, Conor.  Even Letterman has become tiresome.

My best guess is that, on Obama's birth certificate, his father's religion is explicitly listed as "Muslim."  "So what?" you say.  Well, in the eyes of the entire Muslim World, that would make Obama a fullblown Muslim (his mother's religion is irrelevant).  And they would expect him to govern as a Muslim.  In particular, howling mobs would take to the streets to demand that Obama denounce Israel.  His position as POTUS would be utterly compromised.

As for the college transcripts, rumor suggests that Obama never rose above the level of a "D" or "F' student, and that you will not find any papers, theses or dissertations because he never wrote any.  It is becoming more and more obvious that, when he was about 18, Obama was tagged as a hot political prospect and simply waved through the system — "wafted ever upward," to use Mark Steyn's brilliant phrase.  In effect, Obama is the ultimate beneficiary of affirmative action.

Is it really?

http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1914016,00.html

But Demaratus has severely aggravated my own doubts about the article's veracity, so I will refrain from further comment until someone confirms that it is not a hoax.  Please, God, let it be true...

The thing screams for comment, but every part of me wants to believe the article is a brilliant hoax, and I hate being suckered.  Nevertheless, here goes:

Part 1

"'It’s entirely conceivable that a dog could learn simple computer functions,' says Dr. Walker Brown, the director of the Center for Canine Cognition, a research facility in Maryland. 'Word processing, e-mailing, even surfing the web: for many dogs, the future is already here.'"

Is the Center for Canine Cognition getting federal funding?

"'We've always let Anna pursue her dreams, but we like to be able to visit wherever they may take her,' counters Anna's mother, who has accompanied her daughter on long trips to Uganda, Bangladesh and the Mississippi Delta."

Taking the scenic route, obviously.  For more details, contact the travel agency "Hell Holes R Us."

You are right, Midge.  I have been squeezing my spice weasel rather vigorously.

Because you ask so politely, in the future, I will endeavor to be more gentle, and squeeze the thing with a lighter touch.

What on Earth...?

That deletion was totally unjustified.

I bring real spice to the Ricochet forum.  If all you want is a diet of cold, stale oatmeal, just ban my account and be done with it.

Stop killing me by inches.

Liberals hate us.  They really, really hate us.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRk054bz44g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUPeGaj30Sw

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/they-hate-our-guts_511739.html

To liberals, conservatives are uncouth imbeciles — sub-humans fit only to be whipped like dogs, herded like sheep, and squeezed like lemons for tax revenue.  And they will never give us a break.

You can believe that, if you believe anything.

Ed.  Comment deleted.

With Democrats and liberals, everything is a double standard and a one-way-street.  They hold themselves to no standards, but loudly insist that Republicans and conservatives must adhere to the highest standards.

It is an utterly cynical tactic, taken straight from Saul Alinsky:

"The fourth rule is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.  You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."

As a political weapon, it is extremely powerful, as we know too well. 

You are thinking of David Kernell:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin_email_hack

His father is Democratic state representative Mike Kernell of Memphis.

I have no real argument with any of that.  My point is that, because of all the special circumstances involved (especially Sally's blood kinship with Martha Skelton), it is inaccurate (and downright misleading) to characterize the relationship between Sally and Jefferson as primarily a "white master / female slave" thing.

I am frankly impressed.  Ms. Rampell's article is the verbal equivalent of executing a triple back flip and landing with your head squarely up your rectum.  And she managed to hoodwink The New York Times out of a paycheck at the same time!  Breathtaking.

Historical sensitivities, my [ed. vulgarity deleted].  Washington died over 200 years ago.  I guess the NAACP never got the memo.  More to the point, not one member of the NAACP can claim to have ever been a slave.  Instead, they are using the misery of their long-dead ancestors as "emotional leverage" over guilty white liberals.  In the final analysis, it is a childish and shameful tactic.

I am deeply flattered, Paules.  Thank you for the kind words.

Diane, my (redacted) post has generated a lot of honest curiosity.  Some of our members would like to read it.  I preserved the text and I am willing to share it via email with anyone who requests it.  But I do not wish to break the rules (*cough*).  What is the Ricochet protocol for sharing ones email address?