(Before the slower ones read and react to this, it’s sarcasm so don’t flip
President Obama seems to have lost his magic touch with the American people. They used to cheer anytime air passed over his vocal chords. Now, they change the channel. Martha’s Vineyard vacationers once purchased shirts boasting “I Vacationed with Obama.” Now, a hopey-changey picture of George W. Bush saying “Miss me yet?” is the top selling shirt at the M.V. Heck, he used to even be able to scold them for their selfish, excessive ways. Now, they get mad anytime he and his wife take more than five summer vacations. It sure isn’t as much fun being Obama as it was just two short years ago.

However, there’s always a place willing to applaud him for being who he is. Somewhere where Michelle Obama won’t get criticized for saying that America is a downright mean country.  A place where even the Obama’s former family minister Jeremiah Wright doesn’t have to have excuses made for him because they too know that America’s chickens have come home…to roost. That magical place is the United Nations – the Disney Land for Despotic, Tyrannical Governments.

Sure, the UN may have a few bad apples that perform genocide on their own country and seem a little preoccupied with ensuring Israel is wiped off of the face of the earth. Yes, it’s a group that puts nations on their Human Rights Council that routinely assassinate political dissidents or at least lock them up for life and torture them. Sure, a few of the Human Rights Council members turn a blind eye to murderous rampages among different factions in their own nations. But, hey, is the US really better than any of them? (No, I really did actually think we were.)

 According to the Obama administration, we aren’t much better than North Korea, Iran, Cuba, or China. The Washington Times reported that the administration filed a report with the farcical UN Human Rights Council claiming that the US “discriminates against the disabled, homosexuals, women, Native Americans, blacks, Hispanics, and those who do not speak English.” It is well known that Iran does have the best handicapped parking spots in the entire world. Unfortunately, you’re usually handicapped because you disagreed with the ruling Imams. The administration also made it a point to describe the horrible conditions Muslims are forced to live in within the United States. I can only imagine the hell Islamic fundamentalists must go through in the US where a man can’t even kill his daughter because she disgraced the family by getting raped. How do they survive in a country where groups show up to aid them in building a mosque just two blocks from where Muslims killed over 3,000 innocent Americans? The U.S. theocracy must be torture on them…well, maybe not exactly like the torture Muslims endure at the hands of brutal regimes like Iran, you know, the real torture, but living in the US still has to at least be really, really annoying.

 The Washington Times did highlight that the administration’s report wasn’t all doom and gloom. It stated, “our expectation thereof is justified by the proven ability of our system of government to deliver the progress our people demand and deserve.” The Times article explained that for every grievance, there was a federal government, Obama-crafted solution such as health care, housing, or nutrition. (Yes, our nation is pointing out a grievance because we have poor nutrition which is leading to high obesity levels. I wonder how that complaint went over to countries facing famines and rampant hunger.)

 As the Times concluded, they disagreed with the administration’s statement on the report that just because the US filed a report, it didn’t mean they were equating the US with real human rights violators. I’m as skeptical as the Times about that claim. President Obama has just given every two-bit dictator thug all the reason they need to reject anything we ask them to do. Now, the despots of the world have something tangible as evidence that the US is the oppressor-in-chief.

Unfortunately, we brought this on ourselves. When we first accepted President Obama’s pitches of woo toward us, we established a standard level of adulation that he needed from us. Since the magic has started dying and his poll numbers are getting ready to hit into the thirties, he has to go somewhere that hasn’t lost that lovin’ feeling. What better way to make new friends at the UN than by ripping on the US? You definitely can’t spell unfaithful without UN.

 (Seriously, all kidding aside, who does President Obama think he is to equate the US with the world’s worst genocidal thugs? The US has never complied with the UN Human Rights Council because it’s a complete farce. Some of the worst offenders sit on the board judging the rest of the world. The United States should never be compared to Iran or any other bloodthirsty regime around the world. This is completely reprehensible and a man of moral character would relieve himself of office. Remember this Human Rights report when you go to vote in November. If you like seeing your own government indicting you as a bigot, then by all means keep voting Democrat and you can expect to receive future versions of this song and dance. However, if you believe that the US is the answer to human rights violations around the world and not the cause, vote Republican to get all of these leftist creeps out of public office.)

In the wake of the gulf oil spill, polls showed that more people approved of George W. Bush’s response to Hurricane Katrina than they did of President Obama’s handling of the oil spill cleanup efforts. That has to hurt for liberals. Obama’s poll numbers have been in a steady downward trend and the oil spill didn’t do anything to help that trend. Obama is currently so unpopular that many Democrat candidates across the nation don’t even want him stopping by to campaign for them.

Now, just a few months before the midterm elections where Democrats have announced that they will put Obama’s record against that of George W. Bush, National Geographic is jumping in with a new special called “Witness: Katrina” scheduled to debut on August 23.

Democrat Congressman Steny Hoyer, the House majority leader, explained that the Democrat campaign strategy this year is to run against George W Bush’s record…again. Democrat Party leadership has also told candidates not to run on a strategy of “bragging about” any of the party’s “achievements” in the last two years and instead campaign against, you guessed it, George W Bush’s record. Of course, you can’t run on legislative victories when you completely disregarded you constituents’ wishes and insulted their intelligence in the process. Besides, running against Bush worked in the previous two elections. Why should the fact that he’s not in office or even in the public’s eye anymore mess up a winning strategy? The only problem now though are the polls showing potential voters have a better view of Bush than President Obama. Something needs to be done. Some wagons need to circle. That’s where National Geographic’s new show comes in to play.

National Geographic Channel always seems to have some interesting timing for many of their shows. Each year before Easter and Christmas, the channel runs documentaries questioning the validity of the New Testament along with shows about the supposed Gospels that were left out of the Bible because they didn’t paint the picture the Church wanted. They also love to run “documentaries” about an illicit, sexual affair with Jesus and Mary Magdalene – complete blasphemy in Christianity. (How many shows do they run during Ramadan questioning the Koran or Islamic traditions?) As I mentioned, these shows show up much more frequently during Lent and Easter, the most sacred parts of the year for Christians.

The channel also loves to run specials about the immanent doom we are all facing from global warming along with scare pieces about what would if the world ran out of oil. Coincidently, these seem to run much more frequently right around the time that liberals are pushing climate change legislation.

If National Geographic didn’t have a tendency to run shows promoting a left-of-center viewpoint that just happen to deal with issues that Congress or voters are in the process of deciding, their new Hurricane Katrina show wouldn’t raise any suspicion. However, both National Geographic magazine and television station have assumed a position of liberal advocacy over recent years. It wouldn’t be out of character for them to “remind” voters who are currently unhappy with President Obama’s reaction to the gulf oil spill about how incompetent George W Bush was. 

National Review Online has posted this video and it’s been widely discussed on radio and Fox News.

Since the original Tea Party rallies, left-wing groups have encouraged their members to show up to Tea Party events posing as a conservative supporter and behave as a rampant racist. Now that Democrats are heading into massive looming defeats in this November’s elections, expect to see and hear more about racist Tea Party and Republican supporters. However, don’t be fooled, there’s a 99.9% chance that every racist caught on film at these events is really a liberal plant.

This is an article about Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill that I wrote for another website last January during the height of the debate over ObamaCare. After hearing Sen. McCaskill’s response to the overwhelming victory of Proposition C in last week’s election, it’s apparent that she remains dedicated to ignoring the will of her constituents and dismissing their concerns as the result of ignorance. Unfortunately, she is not up for reelection in November so we will have to wait until 2012 to toss her out along with President Obama. However, we must factor her behavior into our decisions at the ballot box this coming November as we decide who will join McCaskill in the US Senate to represent Missouri’s interests. Do we want to add another like-minded shill for the White House?

Be sure to check back soon for full coverage of McCaskill’s response to Proposition C. It’s enough to make your blood boil and serves as a stark reminder why 2012 can’t get here soon enough.

(Article first published January 12, 2010.)

Last September, as the health care debate was heating up, Senator Claire McCaskill assured us that any bill she supported would have to “give people choices, bring health care costs down, and not add to the national deficit.” That same month, she sent a letter to Senator Max Baucus about the importance of bending the health care cost curve down and lowing overall health care spending. She explained, “If we don’t do that, we will have failed.” Throughout the year, she also positioned herself as a guardian of Medicare, promising numerous times that no cuts would affect seniors’ access to care whatsoever. On December 14, McCaskill gave another crystal clear statement about what a bill would have to achieve in order to gain her support. Appearing on “FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace”, she explained, “My statement all along is [a health care reform bill] has to slow down the increase of health care costs over time, and that is bending the cost curve, and secondly, that it has to be deficit neutral… And if it’s not saving more money for our government than we’re spending, then not only will I not support it, the president said he won’t support it.” Ten days later, Senator McCaskill joined with every other Senate Democrat to pass the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” (PPACA) in a strictly party-line vote. Somewhere between her appearance with Chris Wallace and her vote in favor of the bill, she must have altered her requirements because, as Richard Foster, the White House’s Chief Actuary for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS,) confirmed in his report released last Friday, the bill Senator McCaskill voted in favor of fails to keep any of the promises she frequently made during most of last year. By tossing aside her values, Senator McCaskill failed in her fiduciary duty to the taxpayers and betrayed the seniors who trusted her assurances about the security of their health care.

Foster’s report shows that the bill passed by the Senate fails to meet McCaskill’s fiscal requirements. It is not deficit neutral. Instead, it will add $280 billion to the national deficit from 2010 to 2019. However, even that figure is hopeful. The Wall Street Journal points out, “Even that estimate exists only on paper, as Mr. Foster has the honesty to admit. Because ‘most of the coverage provisions would be in effect for only six of the 10 years of the budget period, the cost estimates shown in this memorandum do not represent a full 10-year cost for the proposed legislation.’” The Senate’s bill does not meet McCaskill’s other basic requirement of “bending the cost curve.” Rather, it will increase costs. Foster writes, “The national health expenditure share of GDP is projected to be 20.9 percent in 2019, compared to 20.8 percent under current law…Numerous studies have demonstrated that individuals and families with health insurance use more health services than otherwise – similar persons without insurance. Under the health reform legislation, an estimated 34 million currently uninsured people would gain comprehensive coverage …We estimate that the net effect of the utilization increases and price reductions arising from the coverage provisions of the PPACA would increase national health expenditures in 2019 by about 3.4 percent.”

Perhaps, though, the most egregious betrayal of her supposed values is illustrated by her frequent claims that Democrat plans would save Medicare. The senator’s website currently features a column she wrote on November 4 titled, “Strengthening Medicare Through Health Reform.” In this piece, McCaskill laments that “without adequate reforms, Medicare is on track to cut payments to physicians by as much as 21 percent starting next year which may cause some doctors to drop Medicare patients.” McCaskill claims, “By rooting out more than $400 billion in identified waste, fraud, and inefficiencies, we can make sure Medicare remains solvent for years to come, ensure doctors are paid fairly so that seniors can keep their doctors, and not cut benefits for seniors.” She goes on to plainly state, “Ultimately the assertion that reforms to Medicare would result in cuts is simply not true.” Perhaps Senator McCaskill should meet with the Richard Foster. After all, he is the White House’s authority on the Medicare and Medicaid programs. If any aspect of his report can be trusted it would be his analysis of the effects of the legislation on these programs.

Unfortunately for any of the seniors that found comfort in McCaskill’s reassurances, Foster doesn’t reach her conclusions. According to the CMS, nearly half of the cost-savings in the Senate bill that Senator McCaskill voted in favor of come from reduced payment levels for Medicare Part A and Part B. In plain words, the Senate bill relies on cutting payments for Medicare services as its primary source of funding.

McCaskill also makes the claim in her column that the Democrat’s proposed Medicare cuts will ensure that “seniors can enjoy improved benefits and continue seeing the doctors of their choice.” This statement flies directly in contradiction to the Chief Actuary of Medicare’s findings. As Foster says, the proposed payment reductions are “unreasonable” and will cause large problems for Medicare patients. Foster shows that the reduced payment rates mandated by the Senate bill will not keep up with service providers’ costs, “Thus providers for whom Medicare constitutes a substantive portion of their business could find it difficult to remain profitable and, absent legislative intervention, might end their participation in the program (possibly jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries). Simulations by the Office of Actuary suggest that roughly 20 percent of Part A providers would become unprofitable within the 10-year projection period as a result of the productivity adjustments.” Yet, somehow, Senator McCaskill apparently believes that a 20 percent reduction in Medicare service providers will “ensure doctors are paid fairly so that seniors can keep their doctors.”  

The infeasible Medicare cuts are no small issue. If Congress merely decides to ignore them, the bill will explode the deficits. However, if the cuts remain, Medicare and Medicaid patients will find themselves increasingly unable to find service providers only compounding the issue of inadequate access to health care. To quote Senator McCaskill’s September letter to Max Baucus, if any version of the House or Senate bill becomes law, “[They] will have failed.”

Senator McCaskill either cast her vote in support of the Senate health care bill out of ignorance of the bill’s true effects, or with no intention of ever keeping the pledges she made to her constituents. In December, she appeared to have taken a bold stance by joining only two other Democrats who voted against the $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill that increased discretionary spending across the board. After she had supported the failed $787 billion economic “stimulus” package and approved President Obama’s $3.6 trillion budget, her stance against the omnibus bill was encouraging. However, the bill was never really in jeopardy of failing to pass. If it were, would McCaskill still have voted against it? Considering how quickly she threw aside every value she promoted during the health care debate in order to push a disastrous, highly partisan bill over the threshold, Senator McCaskill has a large hill to climb to prove that she actually stands for anything other than toeing the Democrat Party line.

I found this on World Net Daily. I’ll come back to revisit this but it’s just too creepy to leave out. Any wonder why Obama has self-adulation problems?

Is this the “word” Nancy Pelosi claimed we needed to insert into public policy? (Actually, it’s hard to tell exactly what Pelosi was saying in that awkward bumbling exchange where she revealed just how long it has been since she actually paid attention in Mass – once again, I’ll have to return to this to fill in anyone who isn’t familiar with the reference. If you can’t wait, just Google Pelosi’s favorite word or visit Glenn Beck’s site because he’s been hammering her on this.)

Charlie Rangel needs to resign to save his party's credibility.

The Washington Post (not known for being right-of-center) called for Democrat Congressman Charlie Rangel to step down today as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee amid the discovery that Rangel failed to report almost half of his assets. Rangel is currently facing an ethics investigation since it has been discovered that he did not disclose significant portions of his assets including a checking account at the Federal Credit Union worth somewhere between $250,000 and $500,000 and another checking account of similar size at Merrill Lynch. He also did not disclose tens of thousands of dollars of income from dividends and other investments along with money made from the sale of a Harlem townhouse.

Even as Rangel’s dishonesty has been widely reported, Rangel recently announced that he is calling for increased enforcement of tax evaders. The chairman of the committee that oversees writing the nation’s tax code sought to end leniency for errors on tax returns, even when the IRS fully believes they were honest mistakes, made in good faith. Curiously, Rangel didn’t mention whether there would be a specific exception to the harsher enforcement for both himself and Treasury Secretary, Tim “Chronic Tax Cheat” Geithner.

Democrats need to act quickly to remove Rangel from his post if they seek to retain any image of credibility. They cannot impose drastically higher tax rates and penalties for mistakes while allowing their own members to play as fast and loose with the tax code as they wish, especially when the member is the person in charge of writing the tax codes. Rangel has been under investigation for quite awhile now and there is no word from Speaker Nancy Pelosi whether any action will be taken. Voters need to keep Rangel in mind when they head to the polls in November 2010. It would seem that Pelosi’s promise to run “the most ethical Congress in history” has fallen well short of its stated goal.

Opponents of ObamaCare witnessed another brutal attack by one of B. Hussein Obama’s supporters. The Los Angeles Times reported today that a 65-year-old man had his pinky finger bitten off by a member of a group supporting ObamaCare at an event organized by MoveOn.org. (Apparently, George Soros-funded groups don’t qualify as “Astroturf.”)

Last night, at a rally called the “We Can’t Afford to Wait Vigil” organized by the ultra-liberal MoveOn.org, an unidentified man took issue with an elderly counter-demonstrator. A fight ensued at which point the MoveOn.org protestor bit the little finger off of the 65-year-old opponent to ObamaCare.

The injured man was taken to a hospital and the assailant is still at large after fleeing the scene.

Yes, every day it becomes more obvious that we must watch out for the “rightwing domestic terrorists,” as a memo emailed from Obama’s Organizing for America website described opponents to the president’s health care proposals. “Rightwing terrorist” Kenneth Gladney was hospitalized after a brutal beating issued by members of the pro-Obama SEIU labor union outside of a town hall meeting hosted by Democrat Russ Carnahan. Gladney’s offense? According to eyewitnesses, the SEIU members took issue with the fact that Gladney was a black conservative. Now, Obama’s henchmen bit the little finger off of another “rightwing domestic terrorist.” Thank goodness, the Department of Homeland Security issued that report warning about “rightwing extremists.” Those evil rightwingers seem to be bleeding all over everyone after being assaulted by the president’s followers.

As posted earlier, Ed Klein, Newsweek editor and close personal friend of recently-deceased Senator Ted Kennedy, explain that the Chappaquiddick incident was one of Kennedy’s favorite humorous subjects. Most conservative commentators have avoided the Chappaquiddick incident out of respect for the recently deceased and his mourning family. However, there has been no shortage of references about the 1969 fatal car accident coming from sources friendly to Kennedy and his politics. As displayed through the Klein comments, Kennedy’s supporters don’t seem concerned with how tasteless or cold-hearted their comments are about the incident that claimed the life of 29-year-old Mary Jo Kopechne. The worst reference so far has to be the comment from Melissa Lafsky writing for the liberal Huffington Post on Friday.

Talking about the death of Kopechne, Lafsky wrote,

No Ms. Lafsky, we don't think Mary Jo Kopechne would "feel it was worth it."

“We don’t know how much Kennedy was affected by her death, or what she’d have thought about arguably being a catalyst for the most successful Senate career in history. What we don’t know, as always, could fill a Metrodome.

“Still, ignorance doesn’t preclude a right to wonder. So it doesn’t automatically make someone (aka, me) a Limbaugh-loving, aerial-wolf-hunting NRA troll for asking what Mary Jo Kopechne would have had to say about Ted’s death, and what she’d have thought of the life and career that are being (rightfully) heralded.

“Who knows — maybe she’d feel it was worth it.” (emphasis added)

Does Lafsky really think that a young lady left to gasp for her last breaths in an air pocket while trapped inside Kennedy’s submerged Oldsmobile would have considered her death justifiable after reading about Kenney’s accomplishments in the Senate? Is this the level of idolatry that liberals maintain for their elected officials? It is believed that Kopechne was trapped in the car for about five hours before running out of air. While she was pressed against a closed car window, trying to cling to life, the man responsible for her death was walking past many phones and a fire station on his way back to tell his friends what had happened. After all of the men returned to the scene of the crime, they were convinced they couldn’t save her and then went to drop Kennedy off at the ferry landing so he could swim the channel alone and fall asleep in his hotel room. By the time Kennedy fell asleep, Kopechne’s air pocket had probably run out and her 29-year-life ended on the bottom of an inlet under a bridge. Even after he woke the next morning, Kennedy did not call the authorities until after he chatted about yachting with a local man and met with him for breakfast.

No Ms. Lafsky, I don’t think that Mary Jo Kopechne would have sacrificed the rest of her life with the prospects of getting married, having children, and impacting the world in her own way in order for a self-serving politician to secure life-time tenure in the US Senate. How dare anyone even hint that Kopechne would have viewed her own life as that insignificant?

After Kennedy’s death, no one was expecting wall-to-wall coverage about what was probably the darkest chapter of his life. There would be a time to discuss it, but not during his funeral. During the initial shock of his death, his family shouldn’t have to have the incident replayed on a perpetual loop while they are mourning. However, at the same time, Kennedy’s supporters are doing the senator they obviously admire a severe disservice by writing such inflammatory rhetoric.   

There is a difference between honoring a friend and colleague and blatantly bending the truth in an attempt to whitewash history. Lafsky and Ed Klein do their fallen friend a grave disservice by making it necessary for us to truthfully address their hideous claims about the death of Mary Jo Kopechne.

On Thursday night, Democrat representative Diane Watson held a town hall meeting for her district in Los Angeles. While speaking about the harsh criticism President Obama has met since taking office, Watson couldn’t resist pulling out a race card to play. Watson, who happens to be black, told the crowd, “They are spreading fear and they’re trying to see that the first president who looks like me — fails.”

Here are her racially-motivated remarks from Breitbart.com:

During the same meeting, Watson also praised Cuba’s health care system and fondly recalled meeting Fidel Castro. This doesn’t help the Democrats’ insistence that there are no socialist ideas behind their agenda. Breitbart.com also posted these comments today.

We've avoided Chappaquiddick out of respect. However, after Kennedy's close friend says the senator often joked about it, it's time to address the pink elephant in the room.

Morrissey includes a response to Klein’s “fond memories” from Mark Hemingway who shares most people’s shock and outrage over the idea that Kennedy found humor in Kopechne’s death or even thought that Kennedy “always saw the other side of everything and the ridiculous side of things, too.” Hemingway stated, “EXCUSE ME? If that’s true it makes Kennedy kind of a monster. The odd thing is that if you listen to the whole show, the tone of everyone involved is nauseatingly haigographic and reverential. Klein apparently let his guard down a bit; after he lets it slip Kennedy liked to joke about the woman he killed you can actually hear in his voice that he’s trying to backpedal. The show actually cuts to a break as he’s trying to explain himself, and I seriously wonder if it wasn’t the producers trying to do Klein a favor. But I’m sorry, there appears to be little to that could explain this. It goes way beyond “you had to be there.”

For anyone not familiar with the ghastly facts of the events that transpired on the night of Kopechne’s death, here are few of the details that point to Ted Kennedy’s character. On July 18, 1969, Kennedy and five other married men went to a cottage on Chappaquiddick Island and met with six single young women who had previously worked on his brother, Robert Kennedy’s campaign in 1968. In the evening, Kennedy left in his Oldsmobile with 28-year-old Kopechne. In his official statements, Kennedy said that he was taking Kopechne to catch a ferry so she could return to her hotel room. However, the bridge that Kennedy ended up running his car off of was in the opposite direction from the ferry. Instead, they were traveling on a road towards the beach. While recklessly speeding, Kennedy lost control of the car and ran off of a bridge into the inlet known as Poucha Pond below. Kennedy was able to escape from the submerged vehicle, but Kopechne wasn’t so lucky. After swimming to safety, Kennedy returned to the cottage and told the men about what had happened and instructed them not to tell the other ladies about the accident. The men accompanied Kennedy to the crash site but none were able to locate the young lady. At no time up to this point had Kennedy contacted the police and rescue personnel even though he walked past plenty of pay phones, farm houses, and even a fire house on his way back to the cottage. Once Kennedy determined he would not be able to locate Kopechne, he asked the other men to drive him to the ferry, which had already stopped running for the night. From the ferry landing, Kennedy told his friends not to call the authorities or tell the other women about anything. Before swimming across the channel to return to his hotel room, the other men made Kennedy promise to call the authorities as soon as possible. Kennedy agreed, swam across the channel and returned to his hotel room to fall asleep.

The next morning, Kennedy engaged in a conversation about yachting with a local resident and agreed to meet him for breakfast. At about 7:30 AM, two of the men from the cottage found Kennedy and asked him who he called about the accident the night before. Kennedy responded that he had not called anyone yet. Speaking to the authorities, Kennedy explained, “I just couldn’t gain the strength within me, the moral strength, to call Mrs. Kopechne at 2 in the morning, and tell her that her daughter was dead.” He didn’t work up the “moral strength” to call the authorities until about 9:00 AM the morning after.

As the explanation of the incident on PoliticsDaily.com states, not reporting a fatal traffic accident is a felony. However, the police chief on Martha’s Vineyard never felt the need to ask Kennedy why he waited nine hours to call anyone regarding Kopechne’s death. The State of Massachusetts suspended Kenney’s driver’s license for six months after citing his excessive speed for the accident. That was the extent of the now-deceased senator’s punishment.

Up to this point, I haven’t wanted to mention the Chappaquiddick incident out of respect for a recently deceased man and his mourning family. Since the news of his death, several of Kennedy’s supporters have briefly mentioned the events of that night to quickly state the great grief and sorrow Kennedy felt over Kopechne’s death. However, from Klein’s testimony about his close friend, we know hear that Kopechne’s death was a source of humor for Kennedy because he “saw the other side of everything and the ridiculous side of things, too.” The most ridiculous side of that evening was the fact that Senator Kennedy never reported the incident to bring in professionals who might have had a chance at rescuing the young lady trapped at the bottom of the inlet in Kennedy’s Oldsmobile. It’s also ridiculous that Kennedy never faced the consequences of his actions. It’s outrageous to think that the senator joked about that night with his friends.

Kennedy never quite realized his disconnect from average Americans. After Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon, an outraged Kennedy declared, “Is there one system of justice for the average citizen and another for the high and mighty?” Apparently, he never saw the hypocrisy of his words.

Many of Kennedy’s colleagues speak fondly of him. According to many current and former senators, Kennedy had a very personable demeanor and many in Washington found it pleasurable working with him. However, the tributes are getting a little out-of-hand. Out of decency, I have refrained from mentioning Chappaquiddick. However, hearing a close friend of Kennedy’s fondly reminisce about the humor of that tragic evening is enough to break the silence on the subject and shed some light onto, according to Klein, one of Kennedy’s favorite topics of humor. Sorry, Mr. Klein but we “didn’t have to be there” to realize there was nothing funny about that night or Kennedy’s cowardly actions.

Below is the audio HotAir.com posted of Ed Klein’s remarks: