I’ve heard a lot of silly blather about how Ahmadinejad has a “right” to speak at Columbia University.

No.

This is the problem with positive “rights” such as right to health care, or food, or housing. It’s not possible to grant such a “right” without violating someone else’s.

If you have a “right” to groceries, then someone else has to pay for them, with taxes. If you have a right to housing, then someone else has to pony up to satisfy it. If you have a “right” to earn a minimum wage, and your labor isn’t worth that much, then the employer must subsidize you by paying more than your value on the market.

Everyone has a right to free speech in general, because in doing so, no one else is prevented from speaking.

But no one has a “right” to speak at Columbia University. There are limited opportunities to do so, and to grant it to one is to deprive another of the opportunity.

To speak at Columbia University is a privilege, and it is not one that should have been granted a murderous propagandistic fascist like Ahmedinejad. While Bollinger is to be commended for his harsh introductory comments, that doesn’t excuse his misjudgment in inviting the man to speak. That he was applauded there was a travesty, and a stain on the judgment of the Columbia students (if they were students) in attendance.

[Update in the afternoon]

And who is one of the idiots who thinks that Ahmadinejad has a “right to speak” at Columbia?

Barack Obama:

What if Moveon.org had been around sixty-five years ago?

Beldar wonders about the Hillary/Berger connection as well.

Do you really want this gang in charge of the country again, let alone national security?

Fred Thompson has been making a lot of good noises about federalism. But there’s one aspect of it on which the campaign has no comment.

Thompson is the only candidate yet to take a public position on the [marijuana] raids. While he

Fred Thompson has been making a lot of good noises about federalism. But there’s one aspect of it on which the campaign has no comment.

Thompson is the only candidate yet to take a public position on the [marijuana] raids. While he

Fred Thompson has been making a lot of good noises about federalism. But there’s one aspect of it on which the campaign has no comment.

Thompson is the only candidate yet to take a public position on the [marijuana] raids. While he

At least in my eyes. Fred Thompson doesn’t go to church regularly, and isn’t afraid to say so.

I’ve nothing against church goers in general, or even church-going politicians, but I’d much rather have one who doesn’t wear his religion on his sleeve. Particularly compared to hypocrites like Bill and Hillary Clinton, who primarily went as a photo op, Bible in hand, usually when trying to tamp down a scandal.

Hillary has Sandy Berger as one of her policy advisers. I’m less disturbed by this than the fact that so many won’t find it disturbing. Will he play a role in another Clinton administration? If so, is this payoff for covering up whatever he covered up for them?

[Update mid morning]

Captain Ed has more information about where Hsu got his money. She hasn’t even been elected yet, and we already have a huge scandal. I feel like I’ve gone back to the nineties in a time machine. Except I think that, this time, the scandals will get a lot more, and better coverage.

Miss the rampant corruption of the Clinton years? Have no fear–it will be back if Hillary! is elected. Look forward to more sleepovers for campaign cash in the Lincoln bedroom.

Before the announcement, new evidence surfaced that the Clinton camp had dismissed allegations about Hsu made by a Southern California businessman. In an e-mail obtained by The Times, a Clinton campaign staffer told a California Democratic Party official in June that the businessman’s concerns were unwarranted.

“I can tell you with 100 certainty that Norman Hsu is NOT involved in a ponzi scheme,” wrote Samantha Wolf, who was a campaign finance director for the Western states.”He is COMPLETELY legit.”

In fact, Hsu was a fugitive wanted on a 15-year-old bench warrant stemming from an early 1990s investment fraud case.

And for all the talk about competence and cronyism of Bush appointees, apparently people forget that Hillary hired a former bar bouncer as head of White House security, though she denied it, instead blaming it on the dead guy (of which there were too many in the Clinton administration).

In interviews, the first lady has denied any involvement with Livingstone’s hire, and Nussbaum testified under oath to House investigators on June 26 that he was not involved. Just who hired Livingstone was not quickly established, although White House officials eventually said late White House attorney Vincent Foster brought him in.

But I guess we’re not supposed to point out things like that. Only “Clinton haters” would do such a thing. Wonder if Hsu almost became another dead guy who could tell no tales? And what was he really running from?

I think that we need a new benchmark for this failed Democrat Congress. They need to get their microphones working, or we should set a timetable to pull the pork out of their districts.