Congress

Steve Scalise Says He Did Not Google David Duke's Group Because Google Did Not Exist in 2002

|

Office of Steve Scalise

Is it plausible that incoming House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) did not know he was addressing a white supremacist group in May 2002, when he spoke at a convention of the European American Unity and Rights Organization (EURO)? Some Louisiana political figures, including EURO's founder, former Klansman and gubernatorial candidate David Duke, think so. Others say it seems quite unlikely that Scalise was not familiar with the organization, given all the attention that Duke's activism had attracted within the state. Maybe it's true that Scalise, at the time a state legislator with a small staff, felt he did not have the resources to vet all of the groups that invited him to speak. But at least one of the excuses he offered in a recent interview with the New Orleans Times-Picayune is clearly bogus (emphasis added): 

Q: What types of safeguards do you have in place now [to make sure you don't speak to a group like this again]? 

A: There is a lot more vetting that goes into setting my appointments. I have a scheduler. I didn't have a scheduler back then. I was without the advantages of a tool like Google. It's nice to have those. Those tools weren't available back then.

Really? In 2002 even the lowliest, most harried politicians had "a tool like Google." In fact, they had Google, which at the time would have generated several pages of results for Duke's group. The first page includes a list of David Duke quotes, a March 2002 Cleveland Scene article about the "white power" movement, and a February 2002 essay by Duke identifying him as president of EURO. While Scalise may not have bothered to Google EURO before accepting the group's invitation, that's not because it was impossible or would not have provided useful information. 

Addendum: Although Scalise has apologized for speaking at the EURO event, calling it a regrettable error, Slate reported last night that a Duke associate who helped arrange the accommodations for the conference says Scalise did not actually address the group but instead spoke to a local civic association in the same space before the conference started. "Scalise may have just ineptly admitted to speaking at a white supremacist event that eyewitnesses say he never attended," writes Slate's Betsy Woodruff.

NEXT: Does the University of Virginia owe its fraternities an apology?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. And before Google there was Alta Vista, and Yahoo, and Ask Jeeves, and so on.

    Still in fairness it is possible that he was just not technically savy enough to really understand search engines and the value/necessity of using them a dozen years ago.

    Hell a dozen years ago a technically illiterate politician was not exactly news.

    1. In 2002 weren’t half the people still using dial-up?

      1. Way more than half.

        easy access to Broadband internet didn’t really become a thing until around 2005ish

        I know because I was working for AOL from 2003 – 2006 and we all thought they had a plan for the broadband migration every one could see coming.

        Turns out they didn’t (or they thought they did but Time Warner Cable had other ideas)

        1. I was 12 or 13 in 1999 or 2000 when my family first got DSL service (at a then-blazing 128kbps, which was quickly upgraded to 256), but my dad was pretty tech-savvy for the time. Ironically, I think the Comcast service I was getting in 2005 was about the same speed I’m getting now. City vs rural.

        2. I said “half” to play it safe. In 2002 I had just bought a Fujitsu laptop (Transmeta Crusoe processor!) with integral wireless, went to Roanoke VA on a job and the only public wireless broadband connection was at the airport. It just went up and the city was touting their forward-thinking futuristic progress.

      2. Here is the data…

        http://www.pewresearch.org/fac…..-adoption/

        Looks like in 2002 only around 50 – 55% of Americans were even online and of those less than a third had broadband access.

        The idea that he simply did not know about google at all in 2002 is not at all strange or unusual.

        The biggest criticism you can make of him on this is the fact that he wasn’t immediately suspect of the group just based on their ties to Duke whose beliefs and associations with white supremicists were very well known in the 1990’s

        1. Did he even know the group was tied to Duke?

          1. Scalise definitely knew it was tied to Duke’s campaign manager. The guy was his neighbor and constituent, and active professionally in other LA GOP political campaigns. Duke won that Parish in the ’91 governor’s race against Edwin Edwards.

        2. Um, except that:

          Scalise graduated from Archbishop Rummel High School in Metairie in Jefferson Parish and earned a Bachelor of Science degree from Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge, with a major in computer programming and a minor in political science.

          (from his Wikipedia bio)

          1. I know computer programmers who are still not that web-savvy. Computer programming predates the internet by several decades and if you don’t keep up on a technology you fall behind quickly.

            1. That’s some impressive stretching, sg.

              1. I know of at least one example. I’m not saying its common, just that it is possible. And for someone who went into politics I would say it is even plausible.

            2. And it’s LSU, so there’s that.

              1. That is a good point, JEP.

            3. Wow, what re you PR guy for the Ku Klux Klan? Y, I guess its POSSIBLE, I mean ya, the poor guy was probably in a walking coma that whole year…ya that’s the ticket, or maybe he just can’t read!!! Or maybe he is from an alternate dimension where David Duke is not a racist idiot. Talk about lame ass excuses…

    2. In particular, it takes a lot of time to integrate new tools like search engines into your operations. It’s not enough that one guy knows what Google is. The person organizing speaking engagements needs to be familiar with it.

      And they have to see a reason to use it. The only reason you’re going to do something like that is if you’re concerned that people are going to comb through your record of speaking engagements looking for cheap political points. If not, why would you bother?

  2. Here you go, Shrike.

    This is the fake scandal you’ve been looking for.

  3. So, uh, what’s bad about this group? I never seem to hear that.

    1. White supremacy and all that jazz.

      1. What does that mean in this context? They want white boots on the necks of black people?

        1. Affirmative. David Duke, the founder of Stormfront, most certainly wants white boots on black necks.

          1. It’s my understanding that he advocates ‘white separatism’, basically giving blacks their own country. He claims this is to promote peaceful coexistence but I’m not sure how his policy preferences could be implemented without massive injustice and state violence.

    2. I don’t know, I can’t find anything. Don’t know if they still exist.

    3. They are grievance mongers for the white supremacists, white nationalists and people who call themselves “race realists”.

      Essentially, they publish books, connect thinkers with followers, and promote networking between like minded individuals.

      Their views are odious, they really would like to return to Jim Crow, but they are so neutered politically that they are reduced to things like publishing books defending holocaust denial and trying to raise money for people jailed in countries like Austria for the same.

      Right now they are ostracized and are trying to end their exile from polite society, by trying to be meek and affable and talking about European culture; but in the end one cannot help but notice that they think a person’s views about culture are the product of their ethnicity, and that it’s all really a way of cloaking racist ideas as non-racist ones.

      1. OK, so SPLC bullshit. Got it.

        1. No, the SPLC bullshit is when they send out the fundraisers about the IMMINENT DANGER posed by cranks like these.

          Calling Duke’s people racists is perfectly fair. The word “racist” was made precisely for people like him and his associates.

          1. Yeah, if you read the stormfront post promoting Scalise’s candidacy for the US congress, they didn’t say “he’s one of us”. Rather they said “he might give us some of what we want and is electable”.

            1. I somehow deleted the second paragraph onwards as I hit post:

              The stormfront guys are so marginalized right now that they are putting all their hopes on allies of convenience and on people who haven’t been too outspoken about their beliefs.

              They are less of a threat to take over than we libertarian types.

              At this point the SPLC and the Duke’s outfit are raising money from people who haven’t realized the battle is over.

              1. Thanks, t. Please do use HTML tags for long blocks of quoted text, though.

              2. Even this sadly circumscribed bit of libertarian chest thumping is vainglorious. There is no and I repeat no chance that a libertarian government will come to power in a highly diverse society. There’s maybe a one percent chance in a completely homogenous society that has suffered from decades upon decades of economic stagnation. On the other hand given the proper level of racial tension and chaos Stormfront types can absolutely come to power. And this isn’t like hypothetical either the guy they admire believe it or not ruled a large industrial nation some years ago.

      2. I don’t think it’s fair to equate positivity towards European culture as encrypted racism. I happen to believe that European culture has offered humanity so much value that it would take too long to list the products of it’s existence.

        A Chinese person expounding on the virtues of Chinese history and culture are his prerogative, certainly there’s bias at play, but it doesn’t mean his points are necessarily wrong or that anyone has a right to get their panties in a bunch and accuse him of being a sub-human racist. No one would bat an eye at an Asian man speaking favorably of his own culture and yet a European doing the same thing would generate limitless accusations about that person’s character. I find that viewpoint offensively racist as well as threatening.

  4. I can respect “I’ll speak to any who will listen” as a matter of principle. “I didn’t know” is just incompetence.

    1. He may have known in 2002.

  5. Google existed, Al Gore invented it in ’98

  6. I guess that’s why O hung out with Jeremiah Wright.

    1. Yeah, but Obama listened to Wright, or at least pretended to listen. And, since he did so for something like two decades, presumably he liked what he heard, either because he actually agreed with it, or because it had the desired political effect.

      I don’t see why merely speaking to a group could be anything other than bad optics. Even then it would be even laudable to speak to such a group if the message were to put aside racial animosity. If a pol goes to a Klan affiliate and professes his desire for the South to rise again, that’s another thing, but that doesn’t appear to be the case here.

      This is a real story only if there’s verifiable information about what the pol actually said. As it stands, it’s just race-baiting propaganda.

      1. “This is a real story only if there’s verifiable information about what the pol actually said.”

        This was going to be my point as well.

        re: this

        “Q: What types of safeguards do you have in place now [to make sure you don’t speak to a group like this again]? “

        I missed the part where ‘talking to people’ at all was wrong.

        And there doesn’t seem to be any accusation that the guy himself was a member of said organization, and stated that his political agenda included ‘race cleansing’ or something.

        No one even seems to be trying to attribute any ‘unpopular belief’ to him at all. Just daring to associate with people of WrongThink. Once.

        As i said the other night = apparently this is the worst thing ever, whereas Obama’s membership in the Church of the Screaming Communist Black Revolutionary is to be celebrated as part of the Rich Tapestry of American life.

        1. “As i said the other night = apparently this is the worst thing ever, whereas Obama’s membership in the Church of the Screaming Communist Black Revolutionary is to be celebrated as part of the Rich Tapestry of American life.”

          Let’s not forget Obama’s association with Al Sharpton as well.

          And Obam’s association with terrorist Bill Ayers.

        2. Oh my god you are fucking pitiful! Now this is Obama’s fault too??? You know you make it hard for those of us who have actual substantive disagreements with Obama and the Liberals when you throw out this paranoid mental illness inspired bullshit.

      2. Its not just that Obama listened to Wright.

        He was a financial supporter of Wright. You don’t get to sit in those pews unless you are writing checks.

        And its not at all unusual for “independent” churches like Wright’s to have a pretty hard requirement that you tithe or close to it.

        I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the Obamas have written checks to Wright well into the six figures, all added up over the years.

      3. Good point Cato.

        We should encourage pols to talk (some sense in)to groups like this. To protect themselves the pols could tape the whole thing and make the video freely available.

        1. Actually, taping your appearances is a good idea for politicians.

          1. Unless you like to call people stupid names like Mukaka, or whatever it was.

    2. That’s different. Black racism is socially acceptable and in many cases admirable.

  7. I didn’t have the internet in 2002. He probably did, but I think the author is probably missing the cultural shift. While google, the internet, and even home computers existed at that time they weren’t nearly as common and a new fangled think that younger people used for games and what-not. Using the internet as an endless tap of information (did Wikipedia exist?) wasn’t as obvious. I just don’t find if incredible he never thought about searching the internet for them.

    1. Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger launched Wikipedia on January 15, 2001.

      Citation: Wikipedia

      1. I was going to look that up but I didn’t have a tool like google when I was writing it.

    2. Yeah exactly. I started using it in high school (early 2000s), but I only found out about it from one of my teachers. It wasn’t popular until probably 2004 or 2005 and even then not nearly as popular as it is now.

    3. Um, see above. He majored in computer programming.

  8. In fact, they had Google, which at the time would have generated several pages of results for Duke’s group.

    Those aren’t the results that would’ve been generated at the time. Particularly, Occupy Santa Fe’s facebook post linking to HuffPo

  9. Jeebus on a pogo stick. What a big load of nothing this whole kerfuffle is.

    1. Kind of like your brain…

  10. Yawwwwwwnnnnnnnnn

  11. “Scalise may have just ineptly admitted to speaking at a white supremacist event that eyewitnesses say he never attended”

    We don’t call them the stupid party for nothing.

  12. Personally, no, I don’t believe a state legislator, who, I understand, was in the Louisiana State Legislature at the same time with David Duke, didn’t know that the group he was speaking to was connected to David Duke. I would assume that David Duke was actually at the event in question! Why wouldn’t he be there? That’s what these things are for: people to network and get to know each other. David Duke threw himself a networking opportunity, but he didn’t show up to go from table to table to shake hands with everybody? Hell, I would have assumed that David Duke was probably the MC.

    With all that being said, the important question isn’t whether he knew it was a racist organization or whether he knew it was connected to David Duke. The important question is whether the GOP keeping this guy in a leadership position will cost them with swing voters in upcoming elections. I don’t know if keeping him around will hurt them significantly, but I know that kicking him out of the leadership won’t hurt them with swing voters at all–and so from a purely strategic election perspective, I think that’s what they should do.

    It’s a risk/reward analysis. This is an opportunity to demonstrate their sensitivity to minorities–and urban swing voters who value that sort of thing.

    It’s also an opportunity to show people who care about these kinds of things that they don’t give a shit about minorities or their concerns.

    1. Duke wasn’t there. He was over in Russia, I think. Most of the people there were Scalise’s constituents or at least voters in the US congressional district he was likely to run for in the future. The conference was in Metairie and the organizer was a neighbor of Scalise.

      1. The conference was in Metairie and the organizer was a neighbor of Scalise.

        If that’s the case, then Scalise’s confusion is more plausible.

      2. I hope the point is getting across that it isn’t about whether he knew or whether he didn’t. The important question is whether keeping him in the leadership hurts the GOP with urban swing voters.

        If, as the addendum to this post suggests, he didn’t even speak at the event in question, then that changes things. But it only changes insofar as it makes his keeping a leadership position less likely to hurt the GOP with urban swing voters.

        1. Urban swing voters? That’s a level of unintentional irony that would make John Stewart or a bad indie band jealous. Forget urban swing voters, is this going to hurt the Republicans with “six and counting abortions” swing voters. We could ask Elizabeth Nolan Brown.

      3. How do you know all of this?

    2. Maybe so, but tbh I don’t care over-much about what actions GOP leadership should take to benefit itself. At the meta level, the hue and cry raised over various powerless and irrelevant factions to tar the larger group is a method used by the left to solidify its own ranks and maintain its power over the civil service and academia without being 1) called on this or fact or 2) called on the fact that it exercises this power deplorably. It is worth pushing back against this tactic, if only because it is harmful to any libertarian efforts to reclaim government and pare back bureaucracy.

      1. Well if it turns out that this is another fake scandal, and he never even spoke at the event in question, then turnabout should be fair play. At some point, the accumulation of phony scandals has got to make the left look really sorry.

        In general, however, the GOP has painted itself into a corner on questions of tolerance–at a time in history when being intolerant is about the least popular thing you can be. If they have to work harder to make themselves seem intolerant, then that’s what they have to do.

        1. At some point, the accumulation of phony scandals has got to make the left look really sorry.

          The history of applied leftism for the past ~100 years has been a near-continuous stream of fake scandals and collapsed leftist social and economic projects, culminating with the collapse of the USSR and the moral collapse of communism and socialism.

          Yet, the left still retains significant control over academia, media, and civil service.

          Passively waiting for all the smart people to realize that leftism is bankrupt is a great way to make sure that the 1% of the population that is libertarian will… be libertarian. It sure as hell is not going to fix the disconnect that the other 99% has, by which inertia and desire to move up in social ranking keeps leftism right where it is at. It won’t challenge the left by drawing out the intelligent from among them. It won’t allow those with some sense respite from being ostracized for holding “intolerant” views about economics or society.

          1. I’m with you on the fake scandal of capitalism, etc.

            How many bogus rape stories have we seen blow up in recent months?

            1. Quite a few.

              I haven’t seen funding to women’s studies departments go down any, or the power leftist feminists have in society diminish particularly. I have seen plenty of formerly high-status people lose their jobs or become socially ostracized for making relatively innocuous (or in some cases, factually true) statements, even within my own social circles. The only way this will end is if people push against these mechanisms forcefully — not as a natural result of interacting with leftists. While your advice is good for GOP leadership in the short term, I don’t see how rolling over and playing dead when the media narrative calls for it benefits libertarians in any way.

            2. One

    3. Well-said, Ken.

      But actual membership in a bona fide racist organization didn’t hurt Sen. Byrd’s career, or lose him the support of his party.

  13. You know, it’s not generally the scandalous act that ruins a politician. It’s the stupid excuses or coverups following the act that ruins a politician. Rep. Scalise is proudly following in that tradition.

    Just admit you didn’t do proper research on the group, tout the fact that a black Democratic House member from LA has called this a manufactured political scandal, and move the hell on.

    1. Let’s say I went into politics, and I am shaking every hand, speaking to every group that I can, and I find myself invited to a conference thrown by David Duke, and there I am confronted by a group of people who don’t want to let the perfect (return to Jim Crow) to be the enemy of the good (ending affirmative action).

      The decision would be what to do?
      1) I could walk away.
      2) I could give my speech and try to get their support.
      3) I could give a speech trying to persuade them to see things my way.
      4) I could troll the fuck out of them.

      Fluffy argued yesterday that the logical thing to do is (2). I agree, but what choice I made would depend on my emotional state that day.

      Regardless of which choice I made, I would not be a racist. Moreover, it would make a *great* war story if I did attend, particularly if I trolled them. It certainly wouldn’t be shameful.

      My guess is that the good congressman is ashamed of what he actually *said*, and his denials are intended to divert people from looking too closely at that question.

      1. Hell, I even had David Duke challenge me to answer some of his questions, and I view that interaction as one of my proudest moments.

        However, Mr. Duke, you are right in claiming that your views are far more closely aligned with those of the founding fathers than mine. Some, like Benjamin Franklin, were even more hardcore than you, with his opposition to permitting “ruddy-complexioned” Germans from immigrating to the U.S. This is not to their or your credit. Where the principles of the Declaration of Independence were betrayed, the motivation was generally a racist one. In past generations, white Americans were quite willing to betray or give up the freedoms hard-won by their ancestors rather than extend them to black people, Chinese people, Mexicans or Filipinos.

        After the damage wrought to American society by your intellectual forebears, the thorough manner in which they undermined the principles of liberty in this country, I can’t get worked up about Mexicans coming here. Even if they were socialists, they are hardly worse than the native socialists, mercantilists and segregationists who betrayed the principles that our ancestors fought the American Revolution for.

        1. Stop disrespecting the Proud White Race with your SPLC bullshit.

          1. I was kind of sad that, having challenged us to answer his questions, David Duke never acknowledged them let alone debated us.

            I was in a foul mood at the time and spoiling for a fight.

            1. If they were capable of reflecting on their beliefs they wouldn’t be able to hold them. They’ve committed to the skid.

      2. Regardless of which choice I made, I would not be a racist.

        Based upon your comment, I infer that you are white and not a progressive. Therefore, you are a racist. QED.

    2. it’s not generally the scandalous act that ruins a politician. It’s the stupid excuses or coverups following the act that ruins a politician.

      See: Michael Grimm

  14. I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it.

    Unless, of course, you say anything (I don’t care what) to somebody I don’t like. Then I’ll wreck your career.

  15. Malcolm X met with the Klan.

    1. Malcolm X was also not a US Congresscritter.

      1. Malcom X also wasn’t racist against black people.

        1. As long as you hate white people, you’re not racist.

  16. David Duke? Yeah, I remember him. He created Duke University so a bunch of privileged white boys would have a place to brutally gang-rape helpless black girls.

    1. I think he was also CEO of Duke Power where they used biased “aptitude tests” to keep blacks out of leadership positions…

      1. Aptitude tests are racist when the results don’t put whitey at the bottom.

  17. FAKE SCANDULZ!!!*

    *Actually, this one really is a fake scandal.

  18. So now it seems that this guy may have spoken at an event run by a racist group, or he may (according to the organizer) have spoken instead – along with a Red Cross representative and a sheriff’s representative – at a neighborhood assn meeting just preceding the meeting of the racist group.

    And there’s no evidence he said anything racist at the meeting.

    I think we’re still at the point where the people making the accusation have to prove it. While we’re waiting for that, it’s not on the guy to *disprove* such a suspect allegation.

    He may not have spoken there, but simply doesn’t have records of everywhere he spoke in 2002. So when a reporter asks about it, he panics and assumes he *must* have spoken to such a group because he was after all speaking to so many.

    1. So, in short, the sort of thing we would never even have heard of if not for the letter “R” after his name.

    2. Agreed. And what is amazing is that this guy could possibly lose his job (though I wouldn’t necessarily shed any tears), while a certain senator from Massachusetts kills some woman and still gets remembered as the “Liberal Lion” of the Senate.

    3. The stormfront post promoting his candidacy is what troubles me. But they don’t say “he’s one of us”, they say he is electable and will give us some of what we want.

      That’s also why they supported Ron Paul. So it’s hardly damning.

      1. Doesn’t trouble me because candidates have no control over what a third party says about them.

    4. What’s important is he completely fumbled his response when being accused. I think you have it about right.

    5. I just like that he thinks “Google didn’t exist in 2002” is a legitimate explanation, as if there was no way to know things before Google made the internet easily searchable.

      MSNBC jumped all over Ron Paul in an interview for talking to some groups with pretty edgy (racist) politics. Paul’s response was “Why would I only talk to people who already agree with what I’m saying? You can’t help expose them to new ideas if you aren’t willing to talk to them. Which is why I’m talking to you right now.”

  19. Scalise may have just ineptly admitted to speaking at a white supremacist event that eyewitnesses say he never attended,

    That’s just funny right there.

  20. As a middle aged man in a non technical job he probably knew of the internet in 2002 as “the thing with the email”

    1. Those of us who were more “tech-savvy” in 2002 knew of the Internet as “the thing with all the free porn.”

      1. I think I had minute caps at that point…

      2. And if you were on dialup, it was “the thing with free porn that rastered slooooowly down the screen like a striptease.”

    2. Computer programming major. Sorry.

      1. As has been pointed out to you already, computer programming != computer literacy.

        Scalise is 49 and so probably graduated college around 1987. As an undergraduate in the mid-1980s, he probably would have heard the word “Internet” but would otherwise not have known much about it. Unless you can show evidence that he interned at DEC or DARPA, saying he would know all about the Internet from a 1987 computer science degree is laughable.

        Furthermore, the World Wide Web, the interface through which most people use the Internet, was not developed until 1989.

        1. To further illustrate the point, when Scalise entered college, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, the founders of Google, would be in 5th grade, and this computer would be state-of-the-art.

        2. I was a 1991 university graduate who used to hang out with the programming students at one of the top schools for Comp-sci. They were still learning Fortran and playing MUDs. The Internet revolution didn’t happen until well after this guy left college and it took the regular computer industry about 3-4 years to notice it.

  21. I mean who hasn’t accidentally ended up the headline speaker at a klan rally? Everytime it happesn, you tell yourself, “well, I’m not falling for that again!” But then before you know it, there you are, behind a podium looking over a sea of white hoods.

    1. Yeah, totally sounds like he was the Gasoline Boy at the Cross Burning =

      “Knight said on Tuesday that it’s “totally incorrect” to say Scalise spoke at that convention.

      “He spoke early in the day to a contingent of people, prior to the conference kicking off,” Knight said. “He was not there as a guest speaker at the conference.”

      Knight headed the Jefferson Heights Civic Association, which was largely comprised of elderly people who lived in his and Scalise’s neighborhood.

      Knight said he set up a morning event for his own civic association in the hotel space before the EURO conference started. Though that event was in the conference’s hospitality room, it wasn’t at all related to the EURO event, he said.

      Knight invited then?state Rep. Scalise as well as a representative from the Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office and a person from the American Red Cross to speak to the civic association at the hotel. … The representative from the sheriff’s department spoke to attendees about a neighborhood watch program, and the person from the Red Cross discussed CPR techniques. Scalise also spoke.

      “I wanted to reach out to him and give him an audience so he could talk to people from his district about legislation he was proposing,” Knight said.”

    2. I mean who hasn’t accidentally ended up the headline speaker at a klan rally?

      Maybe he was just following the example of that eminence grise, Robert Byrd?

      It doesn’t matter who you speak to.

      What matters is what you tell them.

      No?

  22. “Scalise may have just ineptly admitted to speaking at a white supremacist event that eyewitnesses say he never attended”

    “Goes to ‘frame of mind’, Your Honor.”

  23. my best friend’s step-sister makes $76 hourly on the internet . She has been fired from work for five months but last month her check was $15869 just working on the internet for a few hours.
    have a peek at this web-site…………….. http://www.netjob70.com

  24. GILMORE|12.31.14 @ 1:46PM| is backed up by Hotair here….

    http://hotair.com/archives/201…..after-all/

    Two different groups using the same room on the same day at different times –
    one AM, the other PM. Scalise was at the morning event, EURO was the afternoon event.
    Both events were booked by the same guy: Kenny Knight, Scalise’s neighbor.

    1. “Both events were booked by the same guy: Kenny Knight, Scalise’s neighbor.”

      Ohhhhhhhhhhhh, his neighbor vouches for him. This proves it’s all false, a man’s friend and neighbor would never lie for him. Worth noting that this friend and neighbor, Kenny Knight (Kenny K. Knight, I’d wager,) arranged both the racist and non-racist event. All very clear.

  25. This will finally open the door for the media finally noticing that Obama addressed the racist groups like “La Raza” (THe RACE in English) or the NAACP, aka National Association for the Advancement of Colored People ( and no other)
    not to mention his 20 years of supporting a racist like Reverend Wright, not to mention the 80 visits of the phony “Reverend” Al Sharpton and his racist and homophobic rants.

  26. Google offered me 5-million to drop my claims against the FCC. Google Inc alleges to have spent nearly half a million to trick 3 American porn addicts to rule US communications privacy laws (18 U.S.C. ?2511) do not apply to the mighty GOOG.

    1) I accused the 73-year-old judge (now senior status) of showing the signs of early-onset senility. Yes; on the record, -forever-. (YES; Idiotic. Sorry.) Fatal to American justice.
    2) America allowing U.S. judges to rule for life. No honorable country still allows these type Kings or Queen Ginsburgs to rule past 70.
    3) America intentionally misspelled the compounding of “copy” and “RITE in 1790 with Sir William Blackstone’s prior 1766 compounding of “copy” and “right from England. This was done with the Copy[rite] Act of 1790 or near-verbatim American copy of the 1710 Statute of England. This ritual or RITE was copied by a book publisher and lawyer to prevent Noah Webster’s school text competitors from reprinting imported textbooks. This is how America got those ridiculous “U”s out of “colour”, “honour”, “favour” and how Webster’s Dictionary became the reference book it is today.

    The era of guilt-free searching for naked breasts is about to abruptly END for anonymous searches without a log-in.
    http://www.curtisneeley.com/12-26-2014_Notice.html

    1. Yawn

  27. Slate’s Betsy Woodruff…at least someone did their homework. With the exception of CBS and NBC every other media outlet has pulled the story. Gee big surprise.

  28. Ya, you know for all of you who are contorting yourselves like pretzels trying to defend this idiot. The simple and most obvious explanation is usually the most accurate one. By all reasonable measures he knew who he was talking too (I mean for fuck sake! Of course he knew who the fuck he was talking too!!) and he was aware of their agenda and supported it. Which is his right. Why not just admit it? Guys like David Duke get a lot of crap for their views, however at least they are honest about. If you have to hide your views they probably aren’t with having in the first place. It reminds me of the patriarchical kind of racism displayed on the left, and the opportunistic “racism machine” run by people like Al Sharpton. Cynical mendacious crap.

    1. The simple and most obvious explanation is usually the most accurate one.

      True. But doesn’t point in the direction you seem to think it does, if you actually bothered to read any of the article and addendum.

  29. Any group with a name like that is a white supremist group; any Republican from LA who claims to not have known that is a liar. That’s just reality.

    The question is, what are the Rs going to do to clean up this mess? Because it’s a serious one.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.