Law Professors, Politics, R. Ted Cruz, Ridiculousness, Texas

Ted Cruz Doubles Down On Idiotic, Incorrect Statement About Harvard Law

I keep telling people, if I just did my thing of making controversial statements that draw attention to myself, but called myself a “Republican” who happened to be black, I’d be a sitting Congressman right now instead of a blogger.

Well, maybe I’d need to buttress my “controversy” with being factually incorrect and an unwillingness to admit that I’m wrong. But I’m close to being enough of a train wreck to be a Republican candidate of color. Let me just… sorry… get this water right here… ahhhh.

Like me, current GOP crazypants darling Ted Cruz went to Harvard Law School. He apparently learned the same lesson there that I did: never let facts get in the way of a good story. In a 2010 speech, Cruz said that when he was at HLS there were more Communists on the faculty than Republicans.

Now, that is clearly an outlandish and incorrect comment, said for effect to an audience that doesn’t know any better. But, in classic modern GOP fashion, when confronted with this ridiculous piece of rhetoric, Cruz stood by the statement.

Because for reasons passing understanding, it’s not enough to say that the faculty at Harvard Law School is overwhelmingly liberal (true), now they have to be Communist (not true) in order to gin up the requisite amount of hatred for Northeastern elites that Cruz (a Canadian who went to Princeton and then Harvard Law School) wants his constituents to feel….

For those who don’t hang on the every word of Ted Cruz, here’s what he said in a 2010 speech at a luncheon for Americans for Prosperity (the Koch brothers’ organization), as reported in the New Yorker:

Cruz greeted the audience jovially, but soon launched an impassioned attack on President Obama, whom he described as “the most radical” President “ever to occupy the Oval Office.” (I was covering the conference and kept the notes.)

He then went on to assert that Obama, who attended Harvard Law School four years ahead of him, “would have made a perfect president of Harvard Law School.” The reason, said Cruz, was that, “There were fewer declared Republicans in the faculty when we were there than Communists! There was one Republican. But there were twelve who would say they were Marxists who believed in the Communists overthrowing the United States government.”

In their own way, these two paragraphs sum up everything that is wrong with the modern Republican party (if you want to see everything that is wrong with the modern Democratic party, see Harry Reid: 2013 Filibuster Reform).

Cruz could have made the empirically true statement that the HLS faculty was overwhelmingly liberal in terms of party affiliation or legal philosophy. And he could have said the less true but politically expected point that Barack Obama would be the perfect kind of liberal to lead them.

But for some reason, the facts that supported Cruz’s point weren’t enough for him, so he had to go and make stuff up.

For the record, there were not a bunch of professors on the HLS faculty who wanted Communists to overthrow the U.S. government. Not when Cruz was there in the mid-90s, not when I was there in early 2000s. It’s just untrue. Even REPUBLICAN HLS LAW PROFESSOR Charles Fried says that Cruz is wrong:

“I can right offhand count four “out” Republicans (including myself) and I don’t know how many closeted Republicans when Ted, who was my student and the editor on the Harvard Law Review who helped me with my Supreme Court foreword, was a student here.”

Fried went on to say that unlike Cruz, or McCarthy, who infamously kept tallies of alleged subversives, he had never tried to count Communists. “I have not taken a poll, but I would be surprised if there were any members of the faculty who ‘believed in the Communists overthrowing the U.S. government,’” he said.

Liberals that vastly outnumber conservatives? Sure. People who want to overthrow the government? Please stop saying stupid lies.

Now, a reasonable person would probably back off of crazy falsehoods said in a red meat speech while running for office once they are sitting United States Senators. But acknowledging facts is not how Republicans get elected in the current environment. So Cruz’s spokesperson backed up the statements in the Blaze (gavel bang: ABA Journal)

Cruz spokeswoman Catherine Frazier told the Blaze she found it curious that the New Yorker would dig up the old speech. “Regardless, Senator Cruz’s substantive point was absolutely correct,” she said. “In the mid-1990s, the Harvard Law School faculty included numerous self-described proponents of ‘critical legal studies’—a school of thought explicitly derived from Marxism—and they far outnumbered Republicans.”

Now these people are playing around with the word “substantive.”

The substance of Cruz’s statement — that there are a bunch of Communists at HLS committed to the overthrow of the U.S. Government — is factually incorrect. I think we can all see that. This entirely separate point, that there are or were people on the HLS faculty who believed in critical legal studies, is probably true — though there’s no accounting for whether those people outnumbered the Republicans on the faculty. I mean, it’s not like Cruz was keeping any kind of list, I hope, so he’s making statements where he likely has no facts, whatsoever, that support him.

What I don’t understand is why Cruz is making this up. Honestly, could somebody more versed in Republican political thought explain to me the virtue of lying in this way? The only people dumb enough to believe it are going to vote for you anyway. I understand when Republicans lie because telling the truth is politically painful. I get calling Obama a big spender when in fact spending has flatlined under his administration. I understand lying when the truth doesn’t help you.

But here, the truth is that the faculty at HLS is generally left-leaning. NOBODY WOULD DISPUTE THAT. Why couldn’t he say, “Obama would make a perfect president dean of Harvard Law School. There were fewer declared Republicans there than LIBERALS.” Why isn’t that enough? Are the kind of soft-headed yokels Cruz appeals to really sitting there saying, “I don’t much mind elitist liberals on the Harvard faculty, but communists who want to overthrow the government need to be stopped”?

Let me put it this way: I don’t have to say “Ted Cruz is a fascist who hates the free thinking at one of America’s greatest universities.” It’s really enough to say, “Ted Cruz is a Republican from Texas.”

Is Senator Ted Cruz Our New McCarthy? [The New Yorker]
Ted Cruz Responds to ‘New McCarthy’ New Yorker Article: ‘Curious’ They Would ‘Dredge Up a 3-Year-Old Speech & Call it News’ [The Blaze]
Senator sticks to his accusation: Communists outnumbered Republicans at Harvard Law School [ABA Journal]

61 comments
(hidden for your protection)

comments sponsored by

Show all comments

61 Responses to “Ted Cruz Doubles Down On Idiotic, Incorrect Statement About Harvard Law”

  1. emt22 says:

    if you understand the (purported) rhetorical nuance for his base, i don’t see why you need to debunk the obvious

  2. Belly Mystal says:

    Elie…Cuz..cant you post an article about a more interesting topic? You know what I mean: RACEISM against MC Hammer in Northern California.

    You need to discuss why that white cop pulled the Hammer over (we know it’s because he was DWB…nevermind the expired registration etc.).
    Why is the man always keeping a washed-up rapper down?? WHY?

    Get on it!

  3. BlackstoneMN says:

    Cruz is proof positive that the GOP’s lunatic fringe isn’t solely comprised of barely literate, mouth breathing, god fearin’ inbreds.

  4. Spike says:

    I thought the Republicans were the ones intent on overthrowing the US government, and the Communists were the ones running the US government.

  5. The_Haterade says:

    PEEK-A-BOO!!!

    *Ted Cruz giggles uproariously*

    Seriously, is that his official picture?

    • (Indîcàting) says:

      Oh, I thought that was Brian Tannebaum. (Similar hairline, chubby face, etc.) I don’t want to date myself here, but it’s also vaguely reminiscent of Peek-a-boo Asian Lady from Gibson Dunn’s new website a few years back.

    • disqus_YUXUFJbvBG says:

      Does this US flag make my butt look big?

  6. Uh says:

    Law schools, colleges, and high schools across the country are teeming with communists, socialists, and anti-America types. This is news?

  7. Numbers says:

    I am eagerly waiting for the right wingers to assert that Cruz only got into Harvard due to affirmative action.

  8. LiberalLogic says:

    You guys are racist if you think Cruz is wrong. Why do you have to be so racist? Why do you hate Latinos? You are all cave-dwelling mouth-breathing subhumans.

  9. Puest says:

    “What I don’t understand is why Cruz is making this up. Honestly, could
    somebody more versed in Republican political thought explain to me the
    virtue of lying in this way? The only people dumb enough to believe it
    are going to vote for you anyway.”

    Probably the same reason Obama and the Dems lie about how all of their policies (Obamacare, tax the rich, et al) will undoubtedly help everyone. Also, Obama’s spending has “flatlined” at the highest level in U.S. history. Just because the annual increases are low, doesn’t mean our debt and deficit have not been completely devastated. Stick to making fun of idiotic statements/situations, Elie, and try not to make so many yourself.

    • Numbers says:

      Puest – When Obama took over in 2009, the federal budget deficit was $1.4 trillion. Now it’s down to $900 billion. In other words, I don’t think “devastated” means what you think it does.

      • Puest says:

        Holy what-the-flying-fuck is your point? Bush’s deficit in 2008/9 was more than triple what it had been running at in his previous years because of his decision to move forward with the bailout. THAT is why it was at $1.4 Trillion. Obama has kept the deficit at ABOUT an average of $1 trillion each year in office. I guess I should have phrased my comment better for the simpletons. Deficits can fluctuate and may not be reflective of a systemic problem; the overall debt is the real problem. Google U.S. national debt, and STFU. This is not an argument you have idiotically interjected yourself into.

        • Numbers says:

          Unable or unwilling to defend the veracity of the Cruz comment, you nonetheless “interjected yourself” to completely change the subject. Now, unable to defend your own statement about the budget deficit, you shift the focus to the accumulated national debt (which you oddly suggest is a separate problem from that of the deficit). I can’t wait to find out what’s next.

          By the way, TARP only accounted for about 40% of the 2009 budget deficit. Taking that out leaves about $840 billion. One can’t blame TARP alone for the high baseline from which Obama started.

          • Puest says:

            I don’t even know where to start…CHECK YOU READING COMPREHENSION, maybe?

            First of all, at no point was I ever defending what Cruz said (though it’s comical this all just comes up in 2013). I was simply addressing one of the many idiotic aspects of Elie’s many idiotic blogs: Politician’s pander to their followers/base. That is why blatant lies are told and retold to the moronic masses.

            Second, the deficit and the debt are two different things that can, yes, reflect two completely different issues. Deficits can fluctuate quite a bit due to various factors (i.e. bailout spending due to a economic crisis, war, two wars at the same time, etc.). When the deficit is consistently at $1 trillion for 4 years straight, then yes, the deficit and debt become basically the same problem. I was simply pointing out that they cannot always be lumped together. Nothing I said was odd, you are odd.

            Third, I don’t need to defend shit. Saying Obama has fiscally dick-tapped the United States with a rusty band-saw is simply stating a fact, there is no defending anything. Whether the large 2008-9 deficit increase was all from TARP or 10% from TARP makes no difference as to my being 100% correct. Bush’s deficits were all comparatively low until his last year in office, and Obama has done nothing substantial to change current spending levels. Not sure what your issue/agenda is, you have nothing to gain here. You simply disingenuously compare the most recent deficit under Obama with one annual Bush deficit and try to say what? Obama is fiscally conservative? That he is balancing the budget?? haha, GTFO. Way to use numbers, BRAH! Support Obama all you want, but you might want to consider just voting instead of speaking from now on.

          • Numbers says:

            Enlightened One – Please explain to this simpleton how the deficit and debt can reflect two “completely different” issues.

          • Puest says:

            Ur still here??

            OK:

            – Sovereign debt reflects a long-term systemic failure to balance your mother fucking budget, and the total sum owed by a country.

            – Deficit, is a monthly or annual assessment of how much money is spent in excess of what is brought in. This means it is merely an indicator/forecaster of the problem above, OR it can reflect a more short-term/circumstantial problem that can be addressed through other means (like what i already fucking described above). In sweet Obama’s case, it too reflects a widespread systemic failure to balance our mother fucking budget.

            Go away now, TIA.

          • Brocaine_Brandy says:

            TL;DR version: Top line is an issue in one, not the other.

            Numbers, you sound like you’d get on smashingly with another commenter named Sniffles, you two should get together some time and play in traffic.

          • Puest says:

            I would take Sniffs over this turd any day.

          • Puest says:

            Also, after some thought. I hope you die in a chemical fire.

          • Numbers says:

            Bottom line: Steadily falling deficits under Obama, as opposed to increased deficits under the last three GOP presidents. But keep on living in whichever world you occupy.

          • Puest says:

            Wow man…At no point have I even approached the party politics angle. I was, AGAIN, simply pointing out yours and Elie’s complete numbskullery. I don’t think “steadily falling” means what you think it means. Way to totally redeem yourself though after your first poorly thought out snarky comment. Now get on with that whole dying in a fire thing.

      • disqus_zaw8YFQCoH says:

        It is now down to less that $600 Billion. Not great, but what was promised, in another year.

  10. MathAdder says:

    Crits = Marxists = Communists
    Duh.

  11. Brocaine_Brandy says:

    This kind of shit is exactly why I went to Princeton Law instead of HLS.

  12. disqus_0njdvX4xjH says:

    “I am very smart and competent b/c I went to HLS… oh and HLS is a liberal nightmare I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy.”

    • Brocaine_Brandy says:

      Put another way: Elie Mystal went to HLS, HLS is a place with a log of Elie Mystal’s

    • Guest says:

      “I am very smart and competent b/c I went to HLS… oh and HLS is a liberal nightmare I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy.”

      Cruz isn’t saying they were stupid. He’s saying they were a bunch of biased radical leftists and included some Marxists.

      The two aren’t mutually exclusive.

  13. TrueTexan888 says:

    My problem with Ted Cruz is that unlike some other right wing (and left wing) whack jobs, he is entirely too smart to believe the tripe he throws his base. Make no mistake, Cruz is a smart smart man, and he was a great lawyer. He’s not a Ricky Perry or Maxine Waters who says inflammatory things w/o knowing better. I can excuse an idiot saying idiotic things. That’s what idiots do. Ted knows better, or at least he should. This is an example of a really smart man pandering to the most extreme elements of the GOP base for political gain by stating outright lies. Those are the actions of a man completely devoid of character. He’s a dangerous dude.

  14. be a lot cooler if you did says:

    Cruz is a special kind of crazy. I haven’t voted Democrat since the Clinton administration, but I will once Cruz is up for re-election.

  15. Clearly, the communists (Harvard Training Facility) have groomed Cruz as a sleeper agent hoping that he would be elected to higher office. Denouncing communists is just part of his cover. I hope someone in Gvmnt looks into this grave danger to our precious bodily fluids . . .

    • disqus_zaw8YFQCoH says:

      –Establishment Republicans have jokingly suggested that Senator Ted Cruz is a Democratic plant, inserted into the GOP to harm the Party.

      –The truth is far worse. Senator Cruz (born in Canada) is actually the agent of a cunning, covert, Canadian conspiracy to harm America and help the Country of his birth, at our expense–as revenge for our 1813 invasion of Canada.

      –AS EVIDENCE:

      1. Cruz uses the foreign word “squish” to describe his GOP brethren. This is British/ Canadian political slang.

      2. Cruz denies Global Warming–a clear benefit to Canada and a disaster for us. Global Warming reduces our maple sugar output, aiding the Canadian Maple Syrup Cartel.

      3. Cruz supported the government shutdown & debt limit default, to ruin the US economy and to let sounder Canadian Banks take us over. (Did you know that “TD Bank” stands for “Toronto DOMINION Bank”? The process has begun.)

      4. Cruz opposes greater fuel efficiency/higher mileage regulations for automobiles. This will make us slaves to the Alberta oil sheiks. His opposition to ObomneyCare will continue the trend toward making cars in that low-tax haven–Ontario.

      5. Cruz supported the Sequester, to weaken our military so much that it cannot stop the Canadian hordes from invading us, over our un-defended northern Border.

      –After the Canadian takeover, we will all have to bow to the Queen, learn French, go to 13th Grade, wear Speedos to the beach, have most of our guns taken away, listen to Rachel Maddow, add 20 yards to our football fields, treat each other civilly, and end all our questions with an “eh?”. (There is no end to Canadian depravity.)

      –Fox would normally report this, but Fox is owned by another immigrant from a COMMONWEALTH Country.

      –I am waiting for Glenn Beck to spread this warning, and for Dinesh D’Souza to make a movie about it.

      –I report. You decide.

  16. Robert Palmer says:

    Have the HLS toilets ever recovered from Ellie’s presence there?

  17. Ballstonian says:

    Things must be pretty quiet on the race relations front when the only “news” Elie can work himself up into a frothy lather about is hyperbole from an old speech. “Critical legal studies” was based on Marxist ideas about the law being a tool of subjugating the masses. It was called “deconstuctionist” because it wanted to radically reshape the legal system. It was popular for a time a number of elite schools, Harvard in particular. “Communists trying to overthrow the United States” is an exaggerated version of the true statement that Harvard was full of radical leftist professors who viewed the American legal system they were supposed to be teaching as something that ought to be discarded as fundamentally wrong-headed. Big deal.

    (Wasn’t it under the deanship of Elena Kagan that the school reined in the “Crits” and started hiring more normal and balanced faculty members?)

    • Astraea_Muse says:

      If you can’t tell the difference between people who acknowledge that the law is used to keep the poor people down and “Marxists who believed in the Communists overthrowing the United States government” you are a moron. Cruz is not a moron, he knows this is bullshit, he just knows that it sells to idiots like you.

      • guest says:

        If you think “the law is used to keep poor down” is either (a) true, or (b) the extent of what the critical legal studies movement believed, then you are obviously too young and foolish have any idea what real Communism (i.e., not ultra capitalist China being ruled by a nominally “Communist” party) was actually about.

      • Puest says:

        I assume you woman.

  18. (Indîcàting) says:

    Let’s at least give some credit to the fact that Cruz probably knows a communist when he sees one — after all, his father faught for Fidel Castro in the Cuban revolution.

  19. Anon 2008 says:

    As Dean, Kagan dropped the requirement for a course in constitutional law, and you are criticizing Cruz true statements about Harvard law?

  20. Bruno Ponzi says:

    Commies don’t go to PRIVATE elitist East Coast schools. That’s what we have Boalt Hall for!

  21. lotte678 says:

    “Wasn’t he my lawn boy once,” said Mitt Romney.

  22. Big4Veteran says:

    In Republican politics, weakness is the greatest sin. Liberals are weak.

    It’s better to be crazy than weak. Admitting you’re wrong is a sign of weakness. This is why Republicans never, ever admit that they’re wrong. If Cruz admits that his statements were wrong or offers an apology, it will be the end of his political ascendancy in the Republican party.

    • Guest says:

      “This is why Republicans never, ever admit that they’re wrong.”

      1. The bulk of Republicans who supported the Iraq War now say it was a mistake.

      2. A number of them who supported TARP now regard it as a mistake.

      Now, your turn.

      Name a couple policies that Democrats supported within the past 20 years that they now admit was wrong. Not strategies, tactics, or messaging…policies.

      At best, I can come up with Iraq. However, that doesn’t count, because none of the Democrats who supported it have it in them to say “I was wrong.” Instead, they just spout bullshit like “Bush lied!”

      The other I could come up with would be gay rights. However, that has been played so cynically by Dems, I really have trouble listing that as an example. No political junkies think Obama ever actually believed any of the things he said about that over the last few years.

      Anyway, try it. I dare you. Name a couple substantive policies your side has been wrong about. Better yet, name a couple substantive policies they generally admit they were wrong about.

      • Big4Veteran says:

        Well, you asked me to name a couple policies that Democrats changed their position on and admitted they were wrong, and then you proceeded to name a couple policies for me. So I guess my work is done on that topic. I will say, however, that your statement that no Democrats have said they were wrong to vote for the Iraq war is complete bullshit. John Kerry (presidential nominee in 2004) said he was wrong. Hillary Clinton (presidential candidate in 2008) said she was wrong. Those are a couple of pretty high profile Dems admitting they were wrong.

        As for your examples of Republicans admitting they were wrong, that is bullshit too. The bulk of Republicans now say the Iraq war was a mistake? Name ONE Republican who says that. Republicans either blame the CIA for bad intelligence (i.e. based on what I knew at the time, voting for the Iraq war was the right decision) or they say the Iraq war was the right thing to do but executed poorly (i.e. Bush and Rumsfeld fucked up the occupation). Some to this day think the Iraq war was the correct and moral thing to do (e.g. Romney, McCain). And some even still think that Saddam was a terrorist and had WMDs (e.g. Palin, Hannity).

        As for TARP, many Republicans voted for it and many voted against it. The ones who voted against it upheld the Republican mantra of always putting party over country. The ones who voted for it held their nose as they were doing so, but believed it was necessary to avert a global economic collapse. Those Republicans who voted for it don’t say it was a mistake, they just don’t talk about it at all.

        • Guest says:

          “John Kerry (presidential nominee in 2004) said he was wrong. Hillary Clinton (presidential candidate in 2008) said she was wrong.”

          No, they did exactly what I said they did. They said they were lied to by the Bush administration…even though Hillary was on the Senate Intelligence Committee and saw everything he did. Since you aren’t arguing in good faith, I didn’t bother reading the rest of your comment.

          • Big4Veteran says:

            No, you are mistaken. They said they were wrong to vote for the war. They said that vote was a mistake and they regret it. They are on the record with these statements.

            And by the way, Bush (and members of his administration) did lie in the lead up to that war. I thought that was settled fact by this point, but I guess not.

            You are not arguing in good faith. But I agree it is pointless to continue this discussion. It doesn’t accomplish anything. So I will stop now.

  23. [...] Sitemap How Does Lack Of Experience Make One Better At Their Job Than Others With Experience Ted Johnson Doubles Upon Idiotic Wrong Statement About Harvard Legislation College February 27, 2013 · [...]

  24. timmaguire says:

    fake but accurate. i notice certain quarters are trying to fire up the outrage machine, but his point is basically right, non-controversial, and well known. you’re not going to get an apology out of him; neither will you get many people worked up about it.

  25. Guest says:

    “Even REPUBLICAN HLS LAW PROFESSOR Charles Fried says that Cruz is wrong:”

    Charles Fried, a guy who:

    1. Supported Obama over McCain in ’08,

    2. Supported Elizabeth Warren over Scott Brown in 2012, and

    3. Wrote an article entitled “Obama is too Good for Us” towards the end of Obama’s first term

    …disagrees with Ted Cruz on the politics of the HLS faculty.

    I’m stunned, Elie. I’m stunned to think I, as a right-winger, put more faith in Ted Cruz’s assessment than this rock-ribbed bastion of conservatism that is Charles Fried.

    Let me guess the substance of your next article: “Even REPUBLICAN HLS LAW ALUM David Frum says that Cruz is wrong:”

  26. Lumen Veritatis says:

    RACEIST!

  27. The Commintern has reinvented (re-badged) itself as the progressives.

    Are there more communists at Harvard? Maybe, I don’t know. But I can damn sure tell you that these people who are all a-gaga over collectivist redistribution using the police power of the state and insist on using the word wealth as a harmless sounding substitute for property are – – well they are communists. They just don’t like the connotations of the word.

  28. Get rid of the wanting to overthrow the government and I would say the quote could be true but then my definition of a socialist/communist is different the Ellie’s. Thinking health care is a human right the government should give everyone makes you a communist in my book.

    Still Ellie…how badly did you do at Harvard to be black..in the world of affirmative action..and to have graduated from Harvard and have to Blog for a living…?

  29. Catherine says:

    Did you ever hear about the flyer put in 1L’s boxes in 1992 announcing the formation of a group called the Enterprise for the Legal Intelligensia of Tomorrow, which trashed students from state schools? Never figured out who did it.

    HLS ’95, UIC ’92

  30. disqus_zaw8YFQCoH says:

    –Establishment Republicans have jokingly suggested that Senator Ted Cruz is a Democratic plant, inserted into the GOP to harm the Party.

    –The truth is far worse. Senator Cruz (born in Canada) is actually the agent of a cunning, covert, Canadian conspiracy to harm America and help the Country of his birth, at our expense–as revenge for our 1813 invasion of Canada.

    –AS EVIDENCE:

    1. Cruz uses the foreign word “squish” to describe his GOP brethren. This is British/ Canadian political slang.

    2. Cruz denies Global Warming–a clear benefit to Canada and a disaster for us. Global Warming reduces our maple sugar output, aiding the Canadian Maple Syrup Cartel.

    3. Cruz supported the government shutdown & debt limit default, to ruin the US economy and to let sounder Canadian Banks take us over. (Did you know that “TD Bank” stands for “Toronto DOMINION Bank”? The process has begun.)

    4. Cruz opposes greater fuel efficiency/higher mileage regulations for automobiles. This will make us slaves to the Alberta oil sheiks. His opposition to ObomneyCare will continue the trend toward making cars in that low-tax haven–Ontario.

    5. Cruz supported the Sequester, to weaken our military so much that it cannot stop the Canadian hordes from invading us, over our un-defended northern Border.

    –After the Canadian takeover, we will all have to bow to the Queen, learn French, go to 13th Grade, wear Speedos to the beach, have most of our guns taken away, listen to Rachel Maddow, add 20 yards to our football fields, treat each other civilly, and end all our questions with an “eh?”. (There is no end to Canadian depravity.)

    –Fox would normally report this, but Fox is owned by another immigrant from a COMMONWEALTH Country.

    –I am waiting for Glenn Beck to spread this warning, and for Dinesh D’Souza to make a movie about it.

    –I report. You decide.

Leave a Reply

Our Sites

  • Above the Law
  • How Appealing
  • ATL Redline
  • Breaking Defense
  • Breaking Energy
  • Breaking Gov
  • Dealbreaker
  • Fashonista
  •