Matthews was only off the mark on the number of people that work for the U.S. government by about 4.4 million (as of 2010).

The actually number of federal workers, according to the Office of Personnel Management, is 4,443,000. And Obama increased the number 1,000 times the number reported by Matthews, with 13,000 added to federal payrolls since he became president.

Matthews made his ridiculous assertion during the 5 p.m. EST airing of Hardball yesterday as he attacked Mitt Romney over criticism the GOP candidate was giving Obama for growing the size of the federal government as jobs in the private sector shrank.

Someone must of put a bug in Matthews ear after the show, because the segment was changed in the 7 p.m. airing with no mention of the misinformation that Matthews spewed in the earlier show.

Here is a video that juxtaposes both airings of the segment:

As you can see, initially reporting  the wrong stats didn’t cause Matthews to skip a beat as he went into a a short diatribe against those who complain about government expansion under Obama. 

“I know it’s always great rhetoric to say the government is ballooning, exploding with people. The government is getting bigger and bigger to this leviathan. And it’s not,” Matthews told John Heilemann of New York Magazine.

Of course it is, Chris, you dolt.

Romney was right.

To further illustrate the point, here is a map with information by the Labor Department that illustrates how federal employment has skyrocketed under Obama from 2008 to the present as private-sector employment has plummeted.

Economist Joseph A. Schumpeter once said, “The first thing a man will do for his ideals is lie,” but how preposterous do the lies have to be before the person telling them realizes that they are so absurd that no person with an once of common sense would ever believe them?

Obviously, that bar is pretty low for leftists like Matthews.

He might be excused when you consider that it’s possible that he has listened to his own rhetoric for so long that he actually believes that the federal government only employs 4,443 people.

Buchanan hasn’t been seen on MSNBC since October, citing health issues as the reason for his absence. It looks like he will be gone from MSNBC for good, because the network has apparently buckled under pressure from leftist activist group Color of Change, which has been circulating a petition to have Buchanan fired. MSNBC President Phil Griffin said that some things Buchanan wrote in his new book, “Suicide of a Super Power” are questionable and exclude him from MSNBC’s pristine broadcasting.

“I don’t think the ideas that [Buchanan] put forth [in the book] are appropriate for the national dialogue, much less on MSNBC,” Griffin said, although it’s not clear exactly which ideas he is talking about. My guess would be any ideas Buchanan has aren’t appropriate for MSNBC.

Some of the things that Color of Change alleges against Buchanan is defense of Adolph Hitler, saying that both sides were right in the Civil War and implying that white people are smarter than black people.

I don’t know everything that Buchanan has written about Hitler and I haven’t read any of his new book and only read parts of his other books that deal with the build up to World War II.

The things that I have read from him about the subject have argued whether Hitler initially started out wanting to take over the world or if he was trying to create an alliance with Poland like ones Germany had with Italy and Spain before things went awry. I don’t ever remember reading anything that Buchanan ever wrote that touted Hitler as a great guy.

Similarly, arguments that I have seen from Buchanan on the Civil War have centered on whether it was a necessary war. Historians and armchair historians, like Buchanan, love to muse on whether slavery could have been ended without the death toll–600,000 plus–and economic devastation of the Civil War and will continue to do so until the end of time.

I have never heard or read anything from Buchanan about whites being smarter than blacks, but given his propensity to wander into jungles of politically incorrect thought I wouldn’t be too surprised to discover something from him that might be construed as such.

A statement from Color of Change blasts Buchanan for feeding fires of racism:

“He takes every opportunity to stoke the racial anxiety and fear that exists among some white people. In short, Buchanan wants to pit white people against people of color,” the organizers said. “He believes in it, he thinks it’s good political strategy, and in his new book he encourages the GOP to become ‘the white party.’”

Color of Change has led other campaigns against conservatives pundits, like one Andrew Brietbart to get him banned from the front page of The Huffington Post and to get Glenn Beck off of Fox News.

MSNBC, of course, knows exactly who its audience is and it looks like Buchanan is outta there.

Meanwhile, Harris-Perry is gearing up for her new show and Rev. Al Sharpton continues on the network with “PoliticsNation”.

Let’s examine the hypocrisy of MSNBC for giving Buchanan, a contributor, the boot while allowing Sharpton to continue to run his big mouth on his own show.

Both Buchanan and Sharpton are controversial figures, but Buchanan hasn’t built his career on stirring up racial tension like Sharpton has. As far as I can tell, no one has ever died as a result of the things Buchanan has said.

Sharpton can’t honestly make that claim.

He led a protest back in 1995 against a Jewish man whom he called a “white interloper” that owned a Harlem store called Freddie’s Fashion Mart and the protest led to the murder of several store customers by a black demonstrator.

Ironically, a black Pentecostal Church owned the retail property that Freddie’s Fashion Mart subleased to a black-owned record shop and the church asked for the record shop to be evicted from the property. During the demonstrations, a protester entered Freddie’s Fashion Mart with a gun and flammable liquid and shot several customers before setting the store on fire.

That was just the most egregious of the fallout from the racial troubles that Sharpton has exacerbated as he has carved a career by using race to enrich himself.

Other highlights include the Tawana Brawley case–in which a black teenager falsely accused white men of abducting and raping her– and the Duke Lacrosse case, which was also built on false accusation of white-on-black rape.

And let’s not forget how Sharpton helped perpetuate lies in the Jena Six rallies here in Louisiana in a case that really wasn’t about race until race-baiters like he turned it into one.

Similarly, I predict that race will be found in every issue on Harris-Perry’s new show. After all, that has been the modus operandi as her time spent as an MSNBC pundit on other shows where she believes that all issues supported by conservatives are done so for clandestine racist reasons.  Her show will undoubtedly further MSNBC’s march toward irrelevance:

Harris-Perry, no relation to Rick Perry in any way whatsoever, has been featured in the past on MSNBC as a guest host on shows like Al Sharpton’s “Politics Nation” and “The Rachel Maddow Show.”

She has also been frequently called upon anytime the network needs an unbiased opinion on why conservatives are all a bunch of racist pigs.

If you are not particularly familiar with her, you should read this post by Hayride proprietor Scott McKay in which he explains who she is and her early forays on the national stage, in which she stoked fires of racism concerning the federal government’s Hurricane Katrina response and the Duke Lacrosse case.

More recently, Harris-Perry, a former Obama campaign worker, has railed against the GOP “conspiracy” to disenfranchise black voters by states enacting photo ID laws.

I always enjoy the logic in the MSNBC hosts’ arguments, in which they always seem to point out that a miniscule percentage of the population ever commits vote fraud and these laws aren’t needed. Using that rationale, I have decided to remove the front door from my house. Really, what percentage of people actually break into homes?

This is the kind of analysis that we need more of on MSNBC. After all, Al Sharpton can’t be expected to alone carry the message of inherent racism percolating through every pore of our society.

I know that rest of  the MSNBC hosts do their best to point it out, but, c’mon, they are all white. What do they know about racism? White people can’t be expected to understand racism. I know that I can’t even begin to comprehend it, especially since I have never had to privilege of sitting through one of Harris-Perry’s classes at Tulane.

The professor has even been critical of people like Rep. Maxine Waters for not standing in “black solidarity” with President Barack Obama when the congresswoman pointed out that the president’s policies haven’t really done anything to help the plight of black people in this country. Apparently, it’s more important to support a leftist president who is black than to speak the truth.

It all seems really complicated, but I’m trying to get a handle on it. I always try to better myself, with the understanding that, as a white man, I can only get so good.

Through careful study, I have put together a primer to help other white folks gain at least rudimentary knowledge of how racism works.

It’s a little visual aid called, “Spot the Racists”. Play along fellow whiteys. It will be fun and informative.

It gets kind of harder as we go along, but that’s the point. Here we go:

Okay, this one should be a given. If you guessed that former Knights of the Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke is a racist, you are correct.

Besides parading around LSU in a white hood as a young man, Duke is a former Republican Louisiana State Representative and has run as a Republican for president, Congress and governor.

It’s pretty much all the same thing. Definite racist.

If you thought that Stokley Carmichael, an early leader of the Black Panther Party, should be put in the racist category, you have a lot of learning ahead of you.

The first clues should that Carmichael is black and was never a Republican, exempting him right off the start from being a racist.

While not all blacks are racists, all whites are—that’s a given.

Even whites who sympathize with black progressives like Carmichael are racist, as he once explained.

“Whites who come into the black community with ideas of change seem to want to absolve the power structure of its responsibility for what it is doing, and say that change can only come through black unity, which is the worst kind of paternalism,” he said. “If we are to proceed toward true liberation, we must cut ourselves off from white people….. [otherwise] we will find ourselves entwined in the tentacles of the white power complex that controls this country.”

If you are still having trouble with all of this, read Carmichael’s word over again before proceeding:

Here we have a group of children and, by now, this should be getting a little easier for you.

You should be able to identify right away that the three kids on the left are racists. The black girl is most probably not, unless she grows up to be a Republican.

It’s a critical point to understand that black Republicans are all repugnant self-loathing people harboring deep psychological problems.

The other kid in the picture appears to be Asian, but I’m not really sure.

I’m, white and all non-white people look alike to me. I can’t help myself, It’s really not my fault. I remember hearing that Asians don’t like black people either, but I can’t be sure. The kid IS sitting on the far right, so that might be telling. I might have to get a black friend of mine to further explain this to me.

I do have black friends, which doesn’t mean I’m not a racists. It just means that I’m better at hiding it than some other white people are.

I decided to give you another easy one.

These people are all white—racist—-and Republican presidential candidates conspiring to take Obama’s job because he is black. It doesn’t get worse than this, unless…

This, as we have already learned, is a loathsome human being and a racist.

Herman Cain is a black Republican– bad enough–but he also had the audacity to run for president against Obama. It’s a good thing that he was put back in his place.

Warning: If you look too long at this picture you might be in danger of turning completely evil through transcendental osmosis.

And If you don’t know that answer to this last one, there is NO hope for you, white-bread:

Glenn Beck will end his popular and often controversial daily program on the Fox News Channel later this year, Fox News and Beck’s production company said Wednesday.

Beck will “transition” away from Fox, with no specific end date for his 5 p.m. program, the news channel and Mercury Radio Arts, Beck’s company, said in a joint statement.

“Glenn Beck” has been one of the most popular programs on a cable news network since its debut on Fox News in early 2009, though his ratings have begun to tail off somewhat this year. But the host has come under criticism for his attacks on Democratic figures like President Obama and his predictions of apocalyptic doom. Among Beck’s targets has been liberal billionaire philanthropist George Soros, whom Beck linked to Nazi atrocities in Soros’s native Hungary during World War II. Beck’s comments about Soros last fall drew denunciations from Jewish groups.

Read more: Glenn Beck to leave Fox News program

It’s a great country, sure. But we need to work on our standards.

We had a rule in the Nixon operation…that before any public event was put on his [the president's] schedule, you had to know what the headline out of that event was going to be, what the picture was going to be, and what the lead paragraph would be.”

In terms of Gergen’s analysis of the function of the Press Secretary, it is clear that Robert Gibbs has failed at his job.  If Gibbs actually was aware of how his spin doctoring would be interpreted, it is likely he was being paid off by the GOP.

Obviously, the White House intends for the Press Secretary to convey the image of the President in a benevolent light.  Obviously, Robert Gibbs has failed in this regard.  If Obama was smart, he would fire the man who has crafted a notoriously antagonistic relationship with the White House press corps in favor of a more acquiescent media manager.

After all, Obama seems to be attempting to follow the path of Clinton in his political career.  Clinton was put in a situation almost identical to Obama’s dilemma.  He was faced with staggering midterm losses, and in light of his inability to connect with the American people, he attempted to alter his persona as conveyed through the media.  He succeeded by first firing Dee Dee Myers, a press secretary with an adversarial media relationship comparable to Gibbs’s.  Michael McCurry was appointed as Clinton’s Press Secretary for the second term.  In the midst of controversy swirling about Clinton’s personal transgressions, McCurry succeeded in convincingly spinning the media portrayal of the situation.  Presidential public opinion during this time remained even, and in fact, toward the end of the controversy, Clinton’s approval ratings actually increased.  A Press Secretary is judged based on his ability to control the public approval of the America people by manipulating the media system.  In this regard, the accomplishments of McCurry cannot be overstated.  He took a seemingly impossible situation and created a positive out of it.

Robert Gibbs is far cry from the prowess of Michael McCurry.  Consider the fact that Gibbs was forced to call a meeting with the press in order to ease concerns over the relationship between the press and the White House.  This move was relatively unorthodox at the time, and quite frankly, it reeked of desperation.  It began with this tense situation on April 19th of this year:

Tension will always run high between the White House (which wants to keep a tight lid on public information pertaining to its operations) and the Washington press corps(which always wants to pry that lid loose). But the back-and-forthing between White House reporters and President Obama’s press secretary, Robert Gibbs, has been especially heated. Recently it spilled into the larger media world, and itself sparked another a testy moment in the White House brefing room.

“This is the most transparent administration in the history of our country,” Gibbs told White House reporters Monday after being questioned by reporters about the tenor of criticism within their own ranks.

The Obama team came to Washington promising transparency, but White House reporters say privately that the administration is not living up to that pledge. At times, they say, it plays favorites with writers it deems more sympathetic to the administration.

It may seem reasonable that the White House would treat sympathetic news sources with a degree of favoritism, however, it is not quite that simple.  In theory, this tactic seems viable, but in practice, the action is quite damaging to an administration.  The White House press corps are kept in a series of apartments directly next door to the Office of the Press Secretary and within earshot of the Oval Office.  This degree of intimacy has its perks and its problems.  The press corps knows if certain news sources are given favorable access, and they do not approve.  So while Gibbs’s tactic may have secured favorable coverage in one or two outlets, it backfired horribly across the entire spectrum of the media.

Now, I would not care nearly as much about Gibbs’s future if not for his most recent outburst of idiocy.  It is one thing to reflect the administration poorly in the eyes of the American people, but it is an entirely different story to reflect America poorly in the eyes of the world:

Press Secretary Robert Gibbs is  known for sparring with White House reporters, making for what often seems an antagonistic mood in the press briefing room.

But during President Obama’s trip to India, Gibbs assumed the role of press advocate and threatened to pull Obama out of bilateral talks with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh because three U.S. reporters were blocked from covering the meeting.

“At one point, Gibbs literally had his foot lodged in the closing front door, asking if the Indian security officials pushing hard to shut it were going to break his foot,” Wilson continued. “More angry words ensued, and after Gibbs convinced them, through high volume and repetition, that he was serious” about pulling Obama, the press secretary had the security retinue’s full attention.

What kind of message does that send to the rest of the world? I can accept Gibbs botching his duties to the Administration, but when he botches his responsibilities to the people…..

I think it’s time for Gibbs to go.

Click on the bad-ass image to donate!

Namely, he’s going to make a personal plea to Sarah Palin. Because Palin can get rid of Beck.

And O’Donnell, simp that he is, actually thinks it would be a good idea for Palin to denounce Beck.

High comedy.

We used to poop our britches about George Soros. But now we’re thinking Soros isn’t half as brilliant as we originally thought. He’s crafty and he knows how to buy politicians to leverage policy for personal profit, yeah. And he can do lots of damage, sure.

But as a true James Bond villain, we’re giving him a little too much credit. Seriously – if Soros had his lid screwed on tight, do you really think he’d have David Brock in charge of anything but feeding marmots at a petting zoo?

Get some decent people if you want to destroy America. We’re made of a little stronger wood than this.

Click on the bad-ass image to donate!

Does that mean his past is not newsworthy?  Doubtful. I can hardly imagine it being less newsworthy than the foolishness reported by the media on Christine O’Donnell.

Coons has taken great pains to prevent his past from entering the mainstream light.  As you will soon see, he has good reason to do so.

What follows is the story of the real Chris Coons.  It begins with his suspect legal issues, and it ends with the more important story of his lies during the current Senate campaign.  It has been a long time coming.

Political Vengeance Lawsuits

Coons has been accussed three times of political retaliation by former employees.  The employees in question are Trinidad Navarro (2005), Joseph Freeberry (2005), and Dennis Parkstone (2007).  All three of these men were supporters of Sherry Freeberry, Coons’ Democratic adversary in the 2004 primary election for New Castle County Executive.  He boasts a winning record in these lawsuits: 2-1.  But let’s analyze exactly how each case plays out.

Joseph Freeberry 2005

Freeberry is the brother of Coons’ opponent in the Democratic primary, and as such, it is not a surprise that he supported her in that election.  Here is a summary of the claim and court verdict:

Freeberry, Sherry’s brother, accused Coons of violating his civil rights after firing him as the general manager of the county’s Department of Special Services. Freeberry was appointed to the post in 1997 after serving 13 years as the county’s superintendent of parks. State law was changed in 1997 to provide the general manager slot with merit system protection. Coons began lobbying to change the law in 2003  and got Dover to do so in 2005 making the post one filled at the pleasure of the executive director.

At which point he gave Freeberry the option to retire, resign or be fired. Freeberry chose firing and sued. The federal courts ruled in favor of Coons.

Throughout these suits, you will notice a consistent theme of Coons’ abuse of power.  You will notice his desire to expand the power of his office, and his appalling opposition to First Amendment rights.  This case is Exhibit A.  These trends will continue. 

Trinidad Navarro 2005

Navarro served as a high ranking official in Coons’ department.  However, he felt he was treated unfairly by Coons, alleging that Coons was preventing his promotion to sergeant due to his support of Freeberry.

In 2007, the county settled with Navarro agreeing to pay him $100,000 plus $40,000 for legal fees and provide him with a $60,000 annuity fund to give him a sergeant’s retirement benefits.

Apparently, the guy had a case.  Otherwise, there is no way the county would agree to a settlement of such proportions.  Chalk up a loss for Coons.

Dennis E. Parkstone 2007

The courts ruled in favor of Coons in the case of Dennis Parkstone.  However, this verdict is far from black and white.  The facts seem to suggest that the courts may have got this one wrong.

Parkstone was alleged to have used his computer to send inappropriate emails and view pornography.  However, during the course of the investigation, it became apparent that on the days these events occurred, Parkstone was not in the office.  Apparently, it is also a violation to improperly secure one’s computer.  Hence, the suit was dismissed.  However, it seems suspect that every violation in this case occurred when the employee was absent.  Did Parkstone actually forget to secure his computer?  Or is it possible that someone with the ability to bypass the security system did so for some ulterior motive?

There is another interesting twist to this case.  Another employee committed the same crime levied against Parkstone.  That employee was a Coons supporter in 2004.  However, this employee was not fired or suspended.  Parkstone filed his lawsuit after he discovered that this employee would not face punishment.  As has been reported, the case was dismissed and Parkstone fired.  Immediately following the lawsuit, the Coons supporter received a 5 day suspension. And, well, that was the end of it.

Another Lawsuit: Thomas S. Neuburger vs. Chris Coons (2008)

Coons’ legal battles continue to this day.  A 2008 suit brought against Coons by Thomas Neuburger alleges that Coons violated Neuburger’s First Amendment rights.  Sound familiar?

Thomas Neuburger had been an outspoken opponent of Coons’ work as New Castle County Executive, filing several suits against county policies.  Coons doesn’t like people to speak their minds.  So, it should be no surprise that he took immediate action against Neuburger in an effort to discredit the man.

Coons released private medical information about Neuburger that portrays Neuburger’s judgement in a suspicious light.  I won’t post this information, because I’m actually not a corrupt politician.  Unfortunately, that information is readily available if you want to find it. Chris Coons took great pains to make sure of that.  The lawsuit filed against Coons alleges that he improperly violated Neuburger’s right to privacy by making confidential medical documents public.

It is not immediately clear if this lawsuit is ongoing.  However, it is known that Coons is attempting to use his official immunity as a civil servant to declare himself exempt from judgement.  Disgusting.

Claims of Harassment

Coons’ unethical efforts to destroy the First Amendment continue with the story of left-wing political activist Alan Muller.

Alan Muller, Delaware resident and environmental activist, has been an outspoken opponent of Chris Coons since his election.  As such,  Muller has made multiple appearences at city-council meetings to oppose Coons’ work in office.  As we have seen, Coons has a low tolerance for individuals who feel the need to exercise their First Amendment rights, especially when these individuals use their rights in opposition to his policy-making.

New Castle authorities began to charge Muller with building code violations.  One problem: there were 10 charges, and each charge was exactly the same.  Court filings by the New Castle Executive Office specifiy each allegation against Muller.  However, in all 10 cases, the allegations are exactly the same:

Charge: Every Permit Shall Expire or become Invalid Unless Work is Commenced and Completed per Timetable

To Wit: Alan J Muller…did allow repair work to the roof of his premises without first obtaining a building permit.  To Wit: the defendant did replace more than 25% of the sheathing as well structural members; requiring a building permit.

I mean really, Coons?  Weak accusation to begin with.  But to charge a man for the same crime 10 times????  Granted, apparently it is legal under county ordinances to enforce regulatory codes daily as individual cases.  However, I doubt there is one house in New Castle County that meets every regulatory requirement.  Why then would this man be singled out?   You can find the court document here.

Muller commented on the situation:

We never know when more charges will arrive in the mail. We never know when warrants will be issued for my arrest. I have a criminal “rap sheet” pages and pages long. This is the reward for being an activist in Delaware in these times.

It would be naive to assume Coons is not responsible for these outrageous charges.  We know about his dogged determination to silence anyone in opposition to his policy.  Furthermore, it is very unlikely such legal activities would be taken without his knowledge and seal of approval.  As Muller says:

“This sort of thing doesn’t happen without direction from the top. Coons, a wealthy person running for re-election, has made ‘code enforcement’ part of his campaign. He, more than the County Council, controls what the County legal office does.”

It is also interesting that since Coons’ campaign for Senate began no further charges have been delivered to Alan Muller.The whole issue has been swept under the rug.  Coons seems to be quite adept at achieving this level of secrecy. 

It is important to note the time frame of his legal issues.  Coons was elected to the office of New Castle County Executive in 2005.  As you can see, the lawsuits begin the very year of his election and extend throughout his term in office.  So, this story is not a case of a man warped by the trappings of power, rather, it portrays a man who entered office with suspect psychological tendencies already in place.

Policy Lies

Chris Coons has repeatedly lied about his record in his current campaign for Joe Biden’s old Senate seat.  He runs as a fiscal conservative, but that statement could not be further from the truth.  His campaign advertisements make claims that are hardly representative of his stated political philosophy.

Here is a statement from Chris Coons made in 2009 during his tenure as New Castle County Executive:

“‘We’re 18 Months From Being Out Of Money — Unable To Operate, Not To Use The “B” Word,’ Coons Said, In A Reference To Bankruptcy. ‘That’s where we are, and it’s at a time when many families are struggling, and they’re looking to government to help them.’” (Jeff Montgomery, “Sobering Challenges Reflected In Speeches,” The [Wilmington, DE] News Journal, 1/22/09)

That is certainly an interesting way to tout one’s abilities as a fiscal conservative.  Furthermore, his advertisements in Delaware claim that he “balanced the budget,” and he made the County “fundamentally sound.”  Well, the facts don’t really support that statement.  Those words serve as quite a contrast to “unable to operate” and “out of money”…..

Oh and that AAA bond rating he touts so highly? He’s correct when he says the County Executive has to re-earn the bond rating every year, but does that mean he is fiscally responsible?  Here is the reason the bond ratings company approved the AAA rating:

They only did so because Coons increased taxes by 25% in 2009 which made the County more stable. Between 2004 and 2009 (when Coons has been in charge) the County lost more than 30% of it’s reserves. Despite his claims to have balanced the budget, New Castle County carries a debt burden of $1,639 per man, woman and child in the county.

Interesting.  Here are some more facts for you.  They seem to be at a premium these days:

1. New Castle spending has increased by 10% since Coons took office as Executive.
2. The budget of the County has grown by 33%.
3. The cause of the budget increase has been 3 property tax increases: by 5% in 2006, 17.5% in 2007, and 25% in 2009.

Furthermore, Coons voted for every single budget operations bill proposed by his predecessor.  This same predecessor is the man that Coons claims to have ousted to saved the County.  He had the chance to be a fiscal conservative in 2009 when he faced a huge financial shortfall.  Instead of cutting the already voluminous budget of New Castle County, he decided to raise property taxes by 25%…..after raising it by 5% in 2006….and 17.5% in 2007……

End of Story

These are the facts.  Some may view them as more egregious than others.  However, I see a man whose words and actions represent a corrupt, machine politician.  I see a man who is quite capable of manipulating the legal system to his benefit, and he is willing to do so even at the expense of the sanctity of the First Amendment.  Furthermore, the man is a blatant liar who is running on a platform completely unrepresentative of his past policies.

In this regard, it is supremely ironic that Coons charged Christine O’Donnell with having a “fundamental misunderstanding” of the constitution.  Really? From what I can tell, Chris Coons doesn’t even know the constitution exists.  That might explain his inability to name the five freedoms enumerated in the First Amendment.  That ignorance is without question the biggest flub of the entire campaign season, and Delaware is poised to vote this ignorance, cronyism, and corruption into the United States Senate.

However, I find it very difficult to believe that Delawareans are aware of the real Chris Coons.

Most of the blame can be laid at the feet of the mainstream media.  They have made this campaign a race based on everything but substantive policy. Instead of reporting on the discriminatory public record of Chris Coons within the last 5 years, they have reported unabashedly on Christine O’Donnell’s personal issues 15 years after the fact. Is that really more important?

Honestly, it doesn’t matter at all what I think.  It matters what the Delaware voters think.  And they need to know all the facts, even the ones the mainstream media feels are “not newsworthy.”  This is the story of the real Chris Coons.  I only wish Delawareans could hear it.

Click on the bad-ass image to donate!

The ad included the words, “Christian roommate wanted,” along with the woman’s contact information. Had the ad not included the word “Christian,” Haynes said, it would not have been illegal.

Haynes is the Executive Director of Michigan’s Fair Housing Center.  Her explanation of the allegation is as follows:

It’s a violation to make, print or publish a discriminatory statement,” Executive Director Nancy Haynes told Fox News. “There are no exemptions to that.”

If you read it and you were not Christian, would you not feel welcome to rent there?” Haynes asked.

Um. Ok.  First of all if I wasn’t a Christian, I wouldn’t have even seen the ad because I wouldn’t have been in a Christian church….where the ad was posted…

This allegation is outrageous.  People have preferences about who they want to live with.  Is that not reasonable?    If someone is uncomfortable living with a person of another faith, I would think it best to voice that discomfort.  For one thing, if she didn’t express that in the ad, she almost certainly would have said so at any meeting with a potential roommate.

Her attorney voices a similar argument:

“Clearly this woman has a right to pick and choose who she wants to live with,” he said. “Christians shouldn’t live in fear of being punished by the government for being Christians. It is completely absurd to try to penalize a single Christian woman for privately seeking a Christian roommate at church — an obviously legal and constitutionally protected activity.”

People don’t seem to realize that Constitutional freedoms no longer exist. Political correctness has taken the place of the First Amendment.   If you say anything protected by the First Amendment , consider your days numbered.  If you want to tell the truth, a la Juan Williams, or if you want to express your opinions, you will be punished.   Its not politically correct to tell the truth, and obviously its wrong to be politically incorrect, right?

Juan Williams knows the price of telling the truth.  This woman knows the price of exercising her individual freedoms.  Unfortunately, too many others will come to know that price as well.

The problem is not that this law exists.  The fact of the matter is that it is necessary.  Some people are racist, and people of all faiths, skin colors, and handicaps need to be entitled to the same freedoms.  The problem is the way it was enforced.

The Fair Housing Act prevents people from publishing an advertisement stating their preference of religion, race or handicap with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling.

The rule makes sense to prevent discrimination.  I’m not opposed to it on principle.   But come on.  It should not apply to individuals who are looking for someone to split their rent.  I could understand it applying to landlords or people selling property.  But when you’re looking for someone to live with you should be able to pick the person based on any criteria.   Would a Muslim really want to live with a Christian woman who is uncomfortable with someone of another faith?  I would doubt that.  So why does it matter?

It doesn’t mean you’re a racist.  There are logistical, personal, and basic quality of life issues that lead a person to post an advertisement of this sort.  Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, right?  Obviously, this woman would be happier living with a Christian roommate.  Obviously, she is not in entitled to her pursuit of happiness.  But, its ok, she’s entitled to be politically correct…..

So, because this woman expressed a preference for who her roommate should be, she is about to pay the piper.  Her punishment:

Depending on the outcome of the case the woman could face several hundreds of dollars in fines and “fair housing training so it doesn’t happen again.”

She should be outraged at the very thought of a “several hundred dollar fine,” and every resident in the state of Michigan should be outraged by “fair housing training” unless they like throwing their tax money into a garbage disposal.  What a waste of tax payer money…..seems like there’s quite a bit of that happening these days….

Juan Williams said it best:

Political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis where you don’t address reality.

Oh…. did he got fired for saying that?

The price of the truth….very costly indeed.

Click on the bad-ass image to donate!

WASHINGTON, DC: On October 21, 2010, the Center for Security Policy sent urgent alert notices to Juan Williams, news analyst for Fox News and recently fired news analyst for National Public Radio (NPR); Vivian Schiller, President and CEO, NPR; Roger Ailes, President, Fox News Channel; Bill O’Reilly, Fox News Channel; and the Inspector General of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), regarding a possible violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), warning that they may have been the target of an influence operation by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) which resulted in the firing of Williams.

 
On October 18 on the Fox News program “The O’Reilly Factor,” Williams stated “I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.” Two days later on October 20, CAIR issued a press release calling on NPR to take action against Williams. CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad called Williams’ comments “irresponsible and inflammatory” and complained that “media commentators who launch rhetorical attacks on Islam and Muslims normally do not suffer the professional consequences.”  CAIR’s Awad called on NPR to “address” Williams’ statements.  NPR publicly announced the termination of Williams’ contract the following day, October 21.
 
Center for Security Policy President Frank J. Gaffney Jr. said, “CAIR’s position that journalists like Williams should normally ‘suffer the professional consequences’ apparently created a hostile climate which may have led to Williams’ firing.  Since CAIR’s beginnings in 1994, they have conducted targeted influence operations in the U.S. attempting to censor any criticism of Islam, jihad, and Islamic Shariah law.  Their targets have included dozens of reporters, elected officials and ordinary citizens, but they have never registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.”
 
The Center’s CAIR Observatory project tracks CAIR’s apparent violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).  The FARA states that organizations paid by a foreign principal to engage in activities to “influence any agency or official of the Government of the United States or any section of the public within the United States” must register as a foreign agent and report such activity to the Department of Justice.  CAIR has never registered.

CAIR received $325,000 from the Saudi Arabia-based Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) to demand opposition to speech that they consider “Islamophobic.”  The OIC’s “Ten Year Plan” calls on the U.S. government and other nations to enact laws “including deterrent punishments” to counter this so-called “Islamophobic” speech.  The U.S. government funds NPR, which fired Williams, through Corporation for Public Broadcasting grants.

According to Gaffney, “The foreign payment of $325,000 to CAIR, and the OIC ‘Ten Year Plan’ guidance to CAIR to demand ‘deterrent punishments’ – or as CAIR’s Nihad Awad put it, ‘professional consequences’ -  appear to have directed CAIR’s influence operation targeting NPR, which may have led to NPR firing Williams.”
 
The CAIR Observatory project documents CAIR’s receipt of $6.6 million in contributions and $54.5 million in pledges from foreign principals in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Iran, over 40 cases of meetings and coordination with those principals, and nearly 100 influence operations against government agencies, military and law enforcement, elected officials, candidates, media outlets and private corporations.
 
Alert notices were sent to Juan Williams, Vivian Schiller, Roger Ailes, Bill O’Reilly, and the CPB Inspector General on October 21st, and formal notifications will be sent on October 22nd.  Copies of this correspondence will be provided to the Department of Justice’s Counterespionage Section in the National Security Division, which is responsible for enforcing FARA and prosecuting violations of that act.
 

 
Click the video above to watch a special report on CAIR and the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).

THE CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY  is a non-profit, non-partisan national security organization that specializes in identifying policies, actions, and resource needs that are vital to American security and then ensures that such issues are the subject of both focused, principled examination and effective action by recognized policy experts, appropriate officials, opinion leaders, and the general public.

Click on the bad-ass image to donate!