Video Report: Another Black on White Hate Crime

A white female was behind a car occupied by at least three blacks (two females, one male) at a McDonald's drive-thru. When she noticed trash being thrown out of the car in front of her, the white female voiced her disapproval, which prompted an assault, during which she was allegedly called a 'white b*tch.'

The best part? Despite a surveillance camera being pointed directly at the spot where the hate crime took place, police say the attack wasn't caught on tape and they won't release it.



h/t GWP

Is Romney really considering a Pro-choice, tax-raising Governor as his Running Mate?

It's a bit too early to get worked up about this but the mere fact that a pro-choice, tax-hiking Governor is even being remotely considered as Romney's running mate is disturbing. If team Romney does select someone like Nevada's Brian Sandoval, it will communicate a 'have your cake and eat it too' attitude on steroids.

There's a children's story about a dog with a bone who sees his reflection in the water. Thinking it's another dog with another bone, he tries to get it. In attempting to do so, he loses the one in his mouth. Romney very well could be that dog if he were to choose a 'mini-Mitt.' It will mean that he's an ideologue who thinks he can have whatever he wants and conservatives will still vote for him because the anti-Obama sentiment is so strong.

Via Daily Caller:

Along with being relatively new and unvetted, he (Sandoval) is pro-choice; and he has raised taxes twice during his short time as governor. Those are deal breakers, according to several Republican strategists.

“I just don’t see with his rumored pro-choice stance how he fits into the equation,” Republican strategist Chuck Warren told The Daily Caller. “Great governor, superb future, but I think that one policy position makes him untenable for [the Republican] evangelical base.”

“The pluses of Sandoval: he’s in a key state, he’s a governor, and he’s Hispanic, three huge considerations of the Romney team,” added Republican strategist Phillip Stutts. “The downside is he recently had to raise taxes,” something the conservative electorate would not like.

Trey Hardin, another Republican strategist, said Sandoval would be a poor choice for Romney.

Again, reading that, you're left with the impression that Sandoval is an unlikely choice but that he's even being looked at when the base is already disillusioned with Romney only validates the concerns of conservatives. The opening two stanzas of the Caller's piece seem to indicate that a door to this possibility is open, at least to some degree:

Conventional wisdom among Mitt Romney VP-watchers is that the presumptive GOP nominee should pick a running mate who is experienced and rather boring, someone who would neither embarrass him nor outshine him.

Just two years into his first term as Nevada governor, Brian Sandoval doesn’t exactly fit that bill. But a source familiar with the proceedings said not to count Sandoval out.

We're already staring at an election that is far too close for one simple reason: Romney is a liberal Republican who doesn't energize the base. That was McCain's problem and it all changed when he picked Sarah Palin. In fact, he wouldn't go anywhere without her on the campaign trail because he knew that by himself, his crowds would be miniscule. With her, they were enormous.

To be fair, Romney has an advantage McCain didn't have. Obama-mania has dried up but his chances go up, not down, if he were to pick an energizing conservative like Palin.

If Romney doesn't balance the ticket with a strong conservative, his chances of beating Obama will decrease, regardless of how strong the anti-Obama sentiment is.

Period.

Video: Pastor's solution for homosexuality involves electrified fences

Uh, can I be against homosexuality without agreeing with this pastor from North Carolina? This is the kind of reaction Obama was probably hoping for when he came out in support of gay marriage.

Via Charlotte's CBS affiliate:



**UPDATE** For anyone who thinks it ridiculous that Obama would welcome this kind of reaction, consider this excerpt from page 117 of Rules for Radicals, the book penned by his hero, Saul Alinsky:

"An organizer must stir up dissatisfaction and discontent... He must create a mechanism that can drain off the underlying guilt for having accepted the previous situation for so long a time. Out of this mechanism, a new community organization arises....
     "The job then is getting the people to move, to act, to participate; in short, to develop and harness the necessary power to effectively conflict with the prevailing patterns and change them. When those prominent in the status quo turn and label you an 'agitator' they are completely correct, for that is, in one word, your function—to agitate to the point of conflict."

Some will argue that such an excerpt is actually talking about the agitation of forces who share his position but in reality, if conflict is the ultimate goal, does it really matter who you agitate? This may also go a long way in explaining why Obama came out for gay marriage despite it being politically untenable.