I've referred to this before. It's Keith Olbermann completely misrepresenting a tea-party event, and then he drags on Janeane Garafalo. She cranks up at 3:15 and someone called it "hard-wired ignorance," which is as good as I can do. A friend made a graphic of her, spiting herself with her inattention to her looks, and entitled it, "I am miserable and hate myself and it's your fault." Just so.

Their conceit is of course that anyone who disagrees with Barack, Lord Obama, is a racist, because the very act of disagreeing with him is racist. No difference of opinion is possible; his very skin color insures the validity of his views.

Is that not racist itself? If someone cannot be wrong because of skin color it means that no achievement is possible for him. I will bet you that this same logic doesn't apply to Clarence Thomas. If you asked one of these people about the infallibility of say Walter Williams, based entirely on his skin color, you'd be treated to a farrago of deflection, which they probably in their own minds, believe. I heard one black liberal tell Juan Williams, no conservative, "to get back on the porch." Unbelievable.

But the numbers prove that disagreeing with His O'liness is not racist.

Notice how at the first of the year his strongly approve numbers were many times higher than strongly disapprove. On July 4 they met and since that time Obama's been running a deficit.

Either it's a lie that disagreeing with Obama is racist or since the first of the year he's changed color.

I'll let you in on a secret: it's a scurrilous lie.