Quote Of The Day

"I really don’t care who she supports. But here you have a woman who has the title of Lady and is the mistress of her country estate in England where she lives with her very wealthy husband Sir Evelyn Robert Adrian de Rothschild who is a member of England’s banking dynasty calling Obama an elitist? Give me a damn break!!!!! I’m surprised she didn’t call Obama uppity. Pot meet kettle indeed." - Talking Stuff, black moderate blog, on Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild. Mrs. de Rothschild is a top fundraiser for Sen. Hillary Clinton and Democrat who now supports Sen. John McCain's presidential bid

To See Or Not To See?

"Lakeview Terrace", which opens today, ought to be a no-brainer for me to see. It's a thriller. The movie stars Samuel L. Jackson, who is one of my favorite actors. My Hollywood girl-crush is even in it. However, the movie addresses one of my least favorite topics: interracial marriage. Samuel L. Jackson plays a conservative cop who doesn't like the lifestyle of the liberal, interracial couple living next door and apparently goes berserk on 'em.



The movie's themes apparently include race, class, neighborhood gentrification, ideology, and abuse of power.

Quote Of The Day

"Thank you Democrats and the media for reminding me why I'm a libertarian Democrat. First, on the topic of the 'Wall Street meltdown' I am completely and totally heartless and callous. I don't blame this on George W. Bush and the Republicans. I don't blame this on Bill Clinton and the 1990s. It's the entire system at fault and to lay the blame at any one individual is absurd and just political opportunism. I understand that I have a cancerous disdain for people who bought into the idea that housing values will always go up, and I'm similarly distrustful of the often parroted line that the stock market will always go up--a claim that isn't necessarily true over several decades (because we're all dead in the long run) for both the United States and most other countries. Investment is a risk, not a guarantee. The insanity with which both Democrats and Republicans have pursued subsidizing homeownership in this country is a serious problem still threatening this country. Viewing a home as an investment, and not just as a place to live, is a drag on the mobility of labor in our economy. Our system of homeownership subsidies do little to make the difference between someone being able to afford to buy a home versus renting, they mainly prop up affluent Americans who would be able to afford a home anyway. So I'm not going to start demanding that the political system 'Do Something!' because the financial markets are still suffering from the burst of a speculative bubble. The system sucks, it needs to be changed, but that depends on serious radical reform that gets to the root problems of our financial system. Obama and McCain aren't talking about that. And on the topic of systemic failures, let's talk about the spike in gasoline prices following Hurricane Ike. I am similarly completely and totally unsympathetic to those who cry 'Price Gouging!' during this recent turn of events. A fragile network of pipelines and refineries was pushed too far by Hurricane Ike and the system of supply broke down. Overly worried consumers rushed to the gas pumps to fill up with gas. Limited supply, a spike in demand, and we get shortages and jumps in prices. That is what is supposed to happen. So thank you to the Democratic Party and the media for reminding me why I'm a libertarian Democrat." — Freedom Democrats, a blog for libertarian Democrats

John McWhorter on Underestimating Obama

The moderate-liberal Democratic commentator isn't with other Barack Obama supporters who worry that the liberal presidential candidate will lose: "Once again, Mr. Obama is being underestimated even by people who worship him. Think about it. Polls are nice, but quite a bit of election history is about their often fitful relationship to what actually happens. What we do know is that most people are not political junkies and only decide their vote at the last minute. This is far from the last minute. Plus, vice presidential candidates do not determine elections. Even when they have been charismatic and/or interesting, it is impossible to imagine that they determined the presidential candidate's victory — think about Lyndon Johnson and John Kennedy. And the taller candidate usually wins. John Kerry was an exception, but we will all agree that Mr. Obama has assorted plusses over him. And crucially, we have debates coming. Cassandras about Mr. Obama talk as if all we had left until November was cable channel dust-ups over nonsense."

He continues his commentary: "Again and again Barack Obama confounds the expectations of people speaking from what they regard as informed wisdom. Iowa. New Hampshire, where whites did not vote for Hillary Clinton after claiming to be for him. Getting past the Reverend Wright imbroglio and winning the nomination. But here we are, once again supposing that this is a man who cannot cope, cannot really cut the mustard. The Obambi myth never dies — even among his fans. Barack Obama's supporters seem to see him less as a living, breathing human being than as some kind of eminence, an embodiment of what they want and their fantasies. But eminence and fantasies are wispy, delicate things. Is that why people are always so ready to write Mr. Obama off the minute things are less than perfect? Is it that people, black and white, deep down see blackness as weakness on some level? Sorry, but we have to at least consider it. Or is it that he is thin and has a kid-like smile? I do think this plays a part. There is an extent to which he comes off as somewhat neonate because of accidents of his physiognomy."

Biden Urges Wealthy To Be Patriotic, Pay More Taxes

Alan Stewart Carl, a moderate blogger, writes: "This morning on Good Morning America, Joe Biden said that it’s time for wealthy Americans 'to be patriotic' and pay higher taxes. I was unaware that giving money to the government was a patriotic act. Maybe instead of dreading April 15th, I should hold a barbeque and set off fireworks. Of course, under the proposed Barack Obama and Biden tax plan, my family would be one of the large majority of American families receiving a tax cut. Which means what Biden is really saying is: it’s the patriotic duty of my rich neighbors to transfer some of their wealth to me. I always thought it was rather un-American of them to be driving a Lexus while I have merely a Toyota. I have a lot of problems with the way Biden is framing the issue. If Obama/Biden want to argue that the fundamental health of our economy is dependent on raising taxes and that the least harmful place to obtain those taxes is from the wealthy, then I’d sit back and let them argue their point. But framing taxes as a matter of patriotism is divisive. The statement implies that successful Americans are not very American while the rest of us are more patriotic just by virtue of being less affluent. Patriotism has nothing to do with income just like it has nothing to do with party affiliation, race, religion, national origin or any number of other ways you can divide up Americans. When it comes to tax policy, the only thing that matters is economic impact. The rest is just demagoguery."

My response: What a Marxist statement by Sen. Biden. All of this talk about "sacrifice" to the state would make the late Chairman Mao or Joseph Stalin very proud. It is not the duty of rich people to be coerced to relinquish their wealth to fund my endeavors. It is my duty to be productive and try to create my own wealth.

KEN BLACKWELL OP-ED: Stop Rewarding Bad Behavior!

Asserts the conservative Republican commentator, on the Wall Street financial meltdown: "Some on the left criticize this as the failure of the free market. They will demand increased government control of the economy, but they are wrong. Markets have both potential and risk. Business leaders get paid to exercise their judgment of the markets in order to maximize a company’s profits. Boards of directors exercise their judgment to elect corporate officers who will best achieve this goal. But that is not what is happening in some corporations. A corporation should not pay one dollar more than necessary to keep corporate officers from quitting. Instead some are paying one dollar less than the amount that would send shareholders into an all-out revolt. Such corporations are operating to enrich their top employees at the expense of shareholders. That is backward - corporations exist to enrich shareholders. This week's financial meltdown offers examples of this. The top officer at Lehman Brothers was Dick Fuld. His personal compensation over the past several years was nearly half a billion dollars before taxes. He was raking in these astounding paychecks while the company entrusted to him was at serious risk because of reckless investment decisions. Perhaps someone could do such an amazing job that they are worth such pay, but the fact that his company is now bankrupt creates doubt that his compensation was merited by his performance."

Mr. Blackwell continues his commentary: "The prospect of government intervention should be terrifying to corporate leaders. For too long many of them viewed it as a safety net. First, as many have suggested, if the feds become involved the corporate executives responsible for the failed company should only receive a government salary. But more is needed. So if federal regulators become involved, all supplemental, deferred, and other non-salary compensation should be immediately canceled. Beyond that, federal regulators should also have the option of terminating officers, forcing the corporate board to find new leadership. After all, if someone is running a company so poorly that it goes under, why should one get paid enormous sums for one's incompetence? If a company goes under, those responsible should not be rewarded. And after the recent federal bailouts, some corporate officers are likely considering seeking the same bailout."

Married Black Men Earn More For Their Families

William Weston, a sociology professor and moderate Democrat, writes: "Claudia Sitgraves has produced an interesting research summary on 'The Benefits of Marriage for African American Men' for the Institute for American Values. She reports that married black men work more than single black men, and make more, too -- 14 - 18% more in earnings. This is not so surprising - married men usually work more, and harder, and thus earn more than single men in all groups. The surprising finding came from a longitudinal study (by the late Steve Nock) the followed black men through various stages of the life cycle. He found that the married men started earning more than most single men, as expected. He also found that those single men who nonetheless started earning at high levels were less likely to marry than their lower-earning single counterparts. The conventional wisdom is that higher-earning single men are better marriage prospects. It may be the case the higher-earning single black men are so sought after that they can reap the benefits of marriage without marrying. This finding is a little disheartening for marriage proponents. It is worth following up."

Steal My Sunshine

Devone Tucker asks: is Sarah Palin the best-qualified vice presidential nominee for the GOP this year? The black conservative Republican blogger says no and yes: "Conservative writers George Will, Charles Krauthammer, David Brooks and David Frum aren’t necessarily wrong to wonder whether the Alaska Governor is the best person for the job. While it’s obvious that these pundits preferred other potential nominees, their questions about Gov. Palin’s preparedness to lead in the event of John McCain’s incapacitation are somewhat valid, even if those questions come from biased mouths. Palin was not my first pick: in fact, I believed that the McCain campaign would not select her due to fears that the press would attack her for trying to become Vice President while parenting a child with Down’s syndrome. Names such as Mitt Romney and Duncan Hunter were at the top of my personal VP list. While I was initially disappointed that Palin was selected, I came to accept her as McCain’s choice—and took pleasure in the left’s near-total meltdown over the pick."

He continues his commentary: "It’s a little odd that Will, Krauthammer, Brooks and Frum are still struggling to various degrees with Palin. Surely, they will all vote for John McCain over the staunchly liberal Barack Obama. So, when it comes to McCain’s second-in-command, what’s all the fuss about? If one reads between the lines of Brooks’ and Frum’s arguments about Palin, one clearly gets the sense that both men are uncomfortable with her because big-name 'populist' conservatives are in love with her. The king of conservative populism, talk-radio superstar (and harsh, occasionally unfair Brooks-Frum critic) Rush Limbaugh, is absolutely enthralled by Palin, all but declaring her the second coming of Ronald Reagan and spending countless minutes singing her praises. Despite Limbaugh’s extensive criticism of America’s obsession with celebrity culture, he himself has become obsessed with this new political celebrity. Limbaugh’s populist-conservative colleague, Laura Ingraham, has also developed a 'girl-crush' on Palin."

And more: "As for Will and Krauthammer, their criticisms of Palin appear to be based on a (legitimate?) fear that she will flop if she does succeed McCain as President. Will and Krauthammer seem to fundamentally distrust Palin; they apparently regard her selection as a political stunt, the choice of an unserious politician for a serious role. As is the case with Brooks and Frum, the general wisdom of Will and Krauthammer is hard to question. Perhaps, however, they’re being a bit too pessimistic here. First, while Palin may not be 'highly qualified' from a strict philosophical perspective, she’s certainly well-qualified from a strict political perspective. Her selection has galvanized independent women and social conservatives, two important constituencies McCain needs to win in November. She has already supplanted Obama as the political icon of the moment, and probably the year. She has given new life and purpose to a party that was withering and dithering during President Bush’s second term. Second, while there is a chance that a future President Palin could turn out to be a hack, she could also turn out to be a hero. Will and Krauthammer are seemingly afraid that Palin will ultimately become another limited-vision Republican President like Bush 41 and Bush 43—but what if their fears are unfounded? What if Palin does in fact have the intelligence and ability to lead as Reagan led? It is wrong for conservatives to believe in hope?"

Democracy Website:

I got information about Votimus while I was at the Republican National Convention. Scott Gluck, the creator of Votimus, writes: "I wanted a website where anyone could quickly get information about federal, state and local elections taking place anywhere around the country. The best way to do this, I thought, would be through an easy-to-use interactive map of the United States with a simple toolbar next to the map controlling the level of government. With a few clicks, a person would be able to find an election, research the candidates running, see what the relevant issues were and read the most current news for any election in the country. And not only would people be able to learn about elections, they’d actually be able to participate in them – make a campaign contribution, sign up to volunteer, indicate which candidate they supported, tell their friends, etc. In other words, they’d be able to get involved. On top of that, the site would attract and be supported by a great politically-oriented community of people. People would be able to share with others (if they wanted to) the elections they were following, the candidates they were supporting, the issues they cared about and the organizations they were involved with. Or, if they wanted, the site would be a place where they could meet new people."

Quote Of The Day

"Today is Citizenship Day, which commemorates the events of Sept. 17, 1787, when 39 delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia signed the United States Constitution. In the wake of a California appellate court ruling earlier this week, we the people of the United States have another reason to celebrate. The court ruled that California is violating federal law, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, by offering a benefit to illegal immigrants that is not available to U.S. citizens. While California has a $17 billion budget deficit, taxpayers are subsidizing the college education of tens of thousands of illegal immigrants who pay in-state tuition. Meanwhile, out-of-state citizens pay the higher nonresident tuition at California’s public universities and colleges. In a unanimous opinion, Justice Rick Sims wrote: Finally, state law is preempted to the extent that it actually conflicts with federal law. Thus, the Court has found preemption where it is impossible for a private party to comply with both state and federal requirements…or where state law 'stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.' In plain English, what part of illegal don’t UC regents understand?" — Faye Anderson, liberal blogger, on citizenship, education, and rule of law

BOOKER RISING COMMENTARY: No Welfare For Wall Street

I read that in exchange for 80% control of the company, the Federal Reserve is providing AIG with an $85 billion bridge loan. Am I living in Venezuela? Zimbabwe? The Soviet Union circa the 1980s? My country - historically one of the world's most libertarian countries - is nationalizing one of the world's biggest insurance companies, a la Karl Marx? Oh, hell naw! This news definitely got my fiscally libertarian hairs on my neck to rise.

The AIG situation is another example that while Big Government mostly comes from the political Left, it also comes - and is growing - on the political Right. It also demonstrates how political pull for more welfare and not merit through making good business decisions rule the day. You know, I've got medical bills from my surgery earlier this year. Perhaps the feds should bail me out too. However, I have virtually no political pull. Meanwhile, AIG is getting the $85 billion bailout loan because of political pull.

Given that Big Government helped create this mess in the first place - through manipulation of both the overall money supply and the housing market, instead of staying out of the affairs of laissez-faire capitalism - the rescue of AIG is problematic in both the short-term and long-term. In the short-term, this Big Government manipulation of the market only delays the market correcting itself. On its own, the market would swiftly (albeit perhaps brutally) bottom out, correct itself as investors examine alternative investments, and then begin a credit and investment rise once worth was proven. Mid-size corporations or other large corporations in other realms that may have otherwise emerged to fill in the gap now face a higher barrier of entry because of the federal bailout loan to AIG. In the long-term, this bailout only encourages more irresponsible business decisions. CEOs and corporate boards will wager that any mediocrity will still be rewarded through federal guarantees (whether outright or implicit), and government - i.e., money coerced out of us taxpayers - will come to the rescue if they cry for a bailout. In a society where liberty is of high value, relationships with others entail non-coercion and earned benefits. However, the AIG rescue is one of unearned benefit and coercion at taxpayers' expense.

Critics of my position would probably argue that I'm being far too harsh. AIG employs a lot of people, and its bankruptcy would have further roiled world markets. , like any other failing business would do. These critics are not examining that this bailout loan preventing emerging firms who are making the right decisions from hiring more people. Also, the world market has been long overdue for correction. Had the feds hadn't done the $30 billion bailout of Bear Stearns back in the spring - and let me not forget the recent $200 billion+ bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, in a nationalized takeover - perhaps the market would have already corrected itself and we wouldn't see the current mess that we've seen over the past week in the first place. In addition, inefficient businesses should go out of business because they are not meeting market demand.

I agree with Sen. Barack Obama (D-Illinois) and Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona) that political pull and inefficiency, not merit and efficiency, determines too many dealings with the federal government. However, my solution is a lot more change-oriented than either of them propose. The best way to put lobbyists out of federal business (or at least drastically reduce their influence) is to get the federal government back to its constitutional powers and responsibilities. The federal government budget should be gutted to 1/4 of its current size. Everything else returns to the realms where it belongs: either to the states or to the people.

You and I are not responsible for AIG's improprieties which led to their predicament, and our hard-earned dollars shouldn't bail them out for their bad decisions. AIG et al should go down on their own.

How Bad Is Bad For Poor Black Families?

Asks William Weston, a sociology professor and moderate Democrat: "A survey by the poverty program firm Maximus in New Orleans studied food stamp families, both the women receiving food stamps for their children and the men who fathered the kids. This was a study of poor families, but since 80% were black (at a time, pre-Katrina, when the city was 67% black), this is mostly a study of poor black families. Indeed, this is a good picture of some of the worst-off black families in the whole country -- poor, unmarried parents, who were poor even in a poor city in a poor state. Ronald Mincy and Hillard Pouncy, two veteran black family researchers, analyzed the data hoping to find a 'magic moment' when policy makers could promote marriage. What they discovered, though, was that most of the relationships were over even before the child was born. 70% of the women already had a child before the focal child of the study, and half of the fathers of child #1 were not the same as the father of child #2. Not surprisingly, the more children a man had by different women, the less he was likely to invest in any of them. Somewhat surprisingly, men with part-time jobs were less likely than men with full-time jobs to have their children stay with them even sometimes; it is likely, though, that the part-timers are living with other women, possibly with other children, and don't want his other kids in the house."

He continues: "The main reason that the couples gave for not marrying was that they didn't have enough money -- though most of the women, and nearly all of the men, were working (sometimes under the table). Probing further into why the parents didn't marry, 2/3rds of the women and (somewhat surprisingly) 2/3rds of the men said they didn't think the other parent would be faithful. Without marriage, half the men had drifted into a sometime involvement with their child, and another quarter had disappeared altogether. Even the 'involved fathers' thought 'supporting their children' meant giving money and gifts sometimes, on an irregular and informal schedule. This study of the poor of pre-Katrina New Orleans is just one case study. It does, though, give us some baseline numbers of how bad the family situation is of the worst-off black families in America."

COMMENTARY: Single Payer: Why?

Asks the moderate-conservative Republican blogger: "What is fundamentally different about health care that makes it difficult to insure? I mean, nobody suggests that we have a single payer automobile insurance system or single payer home insurance. I think that's a relatively easy question. I think it's because single payer is an attempt to standardize pricing or otherwise force all the parties involved to work from the same set of assumptions. One of the things I would like to see is a more transparent pricing mechanism and some standards, but I would rather see those standards evolve in the market. Part of the problem is that I'm not sure that insuruers or providers have any incentive to standardize."

He adds: "I also understand that there are factors that make doctors more or less likely to practice in a state and that this plays into the quality of health care available. Is it possible to have a Single Payer system without government monopoly control of the entire process, or are they tantamount to the same thing? Have all Single Payer proponents despaired of a private solution?"

McCain Needs Real Economic Plan

Asserts Alan Stewart Carl, a moderate blogger: "I’m getting the sense that John McCain wasn’t really joking when he said he doesn’t know much about the economy. In the last few days, as bad financial news has piled up, McCain has seemed more than just unfocused, he’s seemed clueless."

He continues his commentary: "McCain is completely lacking a narrative. Barack Obama, on the other hand, is cruising along on the usual liberal canards of blaming the conservatives and punishing the rich. That may not be a real solution but it is a solid narrative that plays well in an election. I can’t help but think, had McCain chosen someone like Mitt Romney as his running mate, he’d have someone out on the trail delivering a coherent economic message. For all the enthusiasm Sarah Palin has brought to the party, her deficiencies are already becoming apparent. She’s helped McCain close the excitement gap but she’s does done nothing to shore up his policy weaknesses. McCain needs to get his economic ideas in order before the debates. Without a clear conservative narrative, McCain will let Obama win with a simplistic liberal one."

Walter E. Williams on Stubborn Ignorance

The libertarian economics professor writes: "Many politicians and pundits claim that the credit crunch and high mortgage foreclosure rate is an example of market failure and want government to step in to bail out creditors and borrowers at the expense of taxpayers who prudently managed their affairs. These financial problems are not market failures but government failure. The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 is a federal law that intimidated lenders into offering credit throughout their entire market and discouraged them from restricting their credit services to low-risk markets, a practice sometimes called redlining. The Federal Reserve Bank, keeping interest rates artificially low, gave buyers and builders incentive to buy and build, thereby producing the housing bubble. Lenders were willing to make creative interest-only loans, often high-risk 'no doc' and 'liar loans,' in order to allow people to buy more housing than they could afford. Of course, with the expectation that housing prices will continue to rise, it was no problem for lenders and borrowers but housing prices began to fall, leaving some people with negative home equity and banks in trouble."

Professor Williams adds: "The credit crunch and foreclosure problems are failures of government policy. In fact, what we see now is a market correction to foolhardy government policy. Congress' move to bailout lenders and borrowers who made poor decisions will simply create incentives for people to make unwise decisions in the future."

My AIG Nationalization $0.06

John Kay, a moderate-liberal Democratic blogger discusses the federal government's decision to bail out AIG with an $85 billion loan in exchange for 80% control of the firm: "This looks half-thought-out to me. For one thing, the AIG shareholders that were one of the parties being worried about got knifed, at $0.20 on the dollar when the deal's done. IMHO the Fed shoulda found a way to string things out to give more time to make a deal (and they have tons of ways of doing that). Was AIG REALLY utterly necessary for our economy? It's a $14B revenue/$10B value, which is huge, but by no means a pillar of our economy. I think that the Fed didn't have time to figure this out, either, another. Does anybody know if they provide some vital service? I notice they aren't, for example, one of the currently-vital big bond insurance providers."

JAMES SHIKWATI OP-ED: Africans: Please, Talk!

The director of the Inter Region Economic Network (Kenya) and libertarian writes: "Unless Africans proactively engage in documentation and writing on issues that affect them, the continent will continue to engage the global community from a point of inferiority. One cannot engage the global community effectively in the absence of knowledge of self and others (e.g. Western societies.) The West at the moment purports to be the only repository of knowledge on Africa. A casual observation of modern day Africa depicts a perpetuation of the same where International NGOs (INGOs), foreign missions/libraries/museums and media houses hold authoritative documentation on African issues. African people too must develop 'vested interest' in global affairs. Such interest can only develop on the basis of Africans seeking to develop, own and churn out knowledge. Equipped with knowledge, the much needed self confidence to confront Africa's challenges will be achieved. If Africans do not keep records, how will they engage in an audit process on their progress? Without records, the African voice will remain but a murmur in the global world! Ban the Chicotte and chiboko and promote a culture of record keeping!"

Latvian Economy May Stagnate In '09

Latvia is Country Of The Week, so Booker Rising is highlighting the Baltic country. Latvia's once high-flying economy may already be in recession and could stagnate through 2009 unless the global financial picture improves, an Economy Ministry official said today. Oleg Baranov, the country's structural policy department director, said the ministry expects growth of between zero and 2 percent for 2009, with a risk that GDP could contract in the early part of next year following negative growth in the latter part of 2008.

Latvian GDP has shrunk rapidly over the past year since a credit-fueled consumer boom ran out of steam. From expansion of 11 percent in the second quarter of 2007, GDP inched up just 0.1 percent in the second quarter of 2008.

MICHELLE MALKIN COMMENTARY: The Book Banners Hollywood Ignores

The conservative Republican commentator writes: "Have you ever heard Hollywood liberals talk about suspected Islamic jihadists the way they talk about suspected Republican 'book-banners'? The September 11 terrorist attacks didn't turn celebrity leftists into hawks. But the minute they started reading false rumors about Sarah Palin restricting unfettered access to 'Daddy's Roommate' and 'Heather Has Two Mommies' in her hometown library, Tinseltown's docile doves became militant warmongers....[Matt] Damon, [Eve] Ensler and the anti-censorship crusaders are the unthinking ones who can't tolerate independence, ambiguity and difference. The rumormongers continue to spread a bogus banned book list attributed to [Alaska Governor Sarah] Palin that includes books not even published at the time she served as mayor. No city records corroborate Internet reports that she tried to keep anti-homosexual books, as gay lobbying organizations have claimed, or any other books off government-funded library shelves available to children. And even if she did inquire about the process, so what? Regulating age-appropriate content is only alarming to the same kind of civil liberties extremists who oppose reasonable filtering of sexually explicit material in public spaces Who is scarier: hockey moms who want to put tax-subsidized books about lesbian couples out of reach of kindergarteners or Hollyweird ideologues who want to ensure that homeless people can surf porn websites in your neighborhood library?"

Ms. Malkin continues her commentary: "If book banning is such a life-and-death issue to these celebrity foot soldiers for free speech, where were they four years ago when John Kerry and his rabid minions were pressuring Regnery Publishing to withdraw 'Unfit for Command' from bookstores? Where were they when members of the Borders Books Employee Union were openly advocating sabotaging book sales?....Where were they when left-wing hitman David Brock of Media Matters for America sent a demand letter to Wal-Mart, Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble urging them to pull 'Unfit for Command' from their shelves? Where were they two years ago when two Democrat lawmakers, New Jersey Assemblywomen Joan Quigley and Linda Stender, called on merchants to ban the sale of Ann Coulter's book, 'Godless,' because of her remarks about anti-Bush 9/11 widows....Where were they in 2005, when a University of North Carolina law professor, Eric Muller, called on his blog readers to get one of my books banned from a national parks bookstore? Where were they when J. Millard Burr and Robert O. Collins's 'Alms for Jihad' was banned in Britain; Robert Spencer's 'The Truth about Muhammad' was banned in Pakistan; and 'The Jewel of Madina' was banned, well, everywhere?"