It's funny that some people are so concerned when it comes to liberty with the Arizona law, but see no problem with liberty being violated with the health care law.

Here's the thing I'm sick of with the whole race thing:

Ms. Sherrod obviously believes disagreeing with President Obama is a sure-fire sign of racism, because the only reason a non-black would disagree with Obama is because he is black.

This says Obama's intellect (or in this case, lack thereof in a disturbing array of topics) is not up for judgment, but just his skin color. No matter what he may think, you cannot disagree with him because he's black.

I mean, isn't that a slap in the face to all minorities? To say no matter how hard you work to further yourself intellectually, it doesn't mean jack because the only thing that matters is your skin color.

Or to put another way, how does a mother or father explain this to their child? "When I grow up, I want to be a great scientist!" In response do they say "It doesn't matter what you think dear, you are [insert minority/color here], the only thing that matters is our skin color."?

Is this really where Dr. King wanted us to be?

In Ms. Sharrod's full transcript, she calls anyone who is against Obama a racist.

Here, again, since Mr. Breitbart is against Obama's policies, she calls him a racist. That is her "proof".

Ms. Sharrod, it's not up to Mr. Breitbart to prove he isn't a racist, it's up to you to provide facts and evidence that he is! You do that, then he responds and we get a volley going.

Just like when he shows evidence that you ARE a racist, it's up to you to prove him wrong. Judging by the full text of your speech that, that would be impossible.

いい名前、麦わら様

The title of this article is a little misleading...

Is the Univ. Of Wyo. heightening security to protect themselves against Ayers or to protect him?