In The Mailbox, 03.25.14

Posted on Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho


OVER THE TRANSOM
Proof Positive: Luck of the Irish and Vladimir Then And Now
Blackmailers Don’t Shoot: American Hustle: Overdue Movie Review
Doug Powers: Maybe Flight 370 Hasn’t Been Found Because Of…Global Warming
Twitchy: Dupes Fall For Daily Currant’s Sarah Palin Satire


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: Marine Le Pen’s Earthquake Rocks France
American Thinker: Don’t Kid Yourself About Ukraine
Blackfive: The Damn Few Visit The VA
Conservatives4Palin: Palin, Limbaugh, Drudge, Breitbart, Townhall Embarrass Old Media
Don Surber: Daily Scoreboard, March 24
Jammie Wearing Fools: Boston Globe Avoids Party ID Of Lobbyist Ex-Congressman As He Cashes In
Joe For America: Illinois Democrat Has Computers Seized In Child Porn Investigation
JustOneMinute: Forward To A Safer World
Pat Dollard: Rumsfeld Says “A Trained Ape” Could Have Accomplished Critical Task Obama Couldn’t In Iraq, Afghanistan
Protein Wisdom: The Rule Of Law Is Dead, And Yet Persecution By Law Is Alive, Well And Thriving In The Tyranny Of The New Normal
Shot In The Dark: One Way Of Fighting The Left…
Stump: Obamacare Watch – Playing With Timing
The Jawa Report: Prayers For Howie
The Lonely Conservative: Illegal Immigrant Mad He Has To Work And Pay For College Without DREAM Act
This Ain’t Hell: Dear Jodi Rives Meier – How Do You Like These Apples?
Megan McArdle: Dude, Where’s My Uber?


Repealing ObamaCare Is Scary To Gutless Progressives Fearing Reform

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

What is different about Republican calls for repeal today — as opposed to calls for repeal from 2010 to the end of 2013 — is that Obamacare is now in place. It exists. Exchanges are running — many of them badly, but running. subsidies are being paid. Insurance companies have changed the way they do business. Medicaid has been expanded. Special taxes are being collected.

Even though the system is new, millions of Americans have gone to a lot of trouble to adjust to it, and it would be disruptive to them to just stop cold. Halt subsidies? Undo Medicaid expansion? Just as last fall, when millions of Americans received coverage cancellation notices, millions more would face new burdens under the repeal of Obamacare.

Oh, so the camel’s nose is under the tent, the first dope hit was free, and the bint was asking for it?

These problems can melt away with the courage of honesty. Stand there and tell the truth that ObamaCare has been false at every stage of its misbegotten existence, from the prosecutorial lynching of Ted Stevens on. Just list the play-by-play of the shenanigans that occurred. Reiterate the economic damage. Build the case that ObamaCare is the Battle of the Progressive Bulge, and here is where we turn back the (inter)National Socialists.
Via Marshall Locke, we have Arthur Brooks:

I hear Brooks’s point: you have to care about people, both in an immediate sense, and in the long term sense. People, particularly the unreflective, live in the present tense. Pondering life in greater depth is something you do as you grow. However, Progressivism is your eternal bureaucratic diaper. Just vote for more Huggies.

The challenge for the conservatives is to goad the GOP into a national poddy training program, so that future generations can return to wearing big boy pants.

More specifically, the GOP needs to do this by

  • budgeting
  • driving toward a balanced budget
  • cutting the Progressive cord, and letting the states own their own safety net programs, as lean or as lavish as they care to pay for

The real requirement, though, is the leadership. The rejection of Progressive homo beaurocratus as an ideal. We could be deep in the hurt locker here.

Will Judge Grimm Accept ‘Futile’ Complaint by Brett Kimberlin?

Posted on Comments

Nearly two weeks have passed since I’ve updated readers on the proceedings in Brett Kimberlin’s federal RICO suit:

U.S. District Judge Paul W. Grimm has been thrown onto the horns of a legal dilemma by the extraordinary procedural misconduct of pro se plaintiff Brett Kimberlin. As the attorney for Michelle Malkin and Twitchy has pointed out, this is unprecedented:

Mr. Kimberlin’s conduct has taken this Court into uncharted waters. Twitchy’s research has not found a single case, Federal or State, involving a party’s forgery of a court summons — much less, the subsequent sending of it through the U.S. Mail with the intent to deceive. This is a serious matter, and obviously one that calls for a severe sanction. . . . [D]ismissal with prejudice and a significant award of fees against Mr. Kimberlin is warranted. . . .
[T]he questions raised to date regarding Mr. Kimberlin’s “summons” to Twitchy and other certifications to the court, against the backdrop of his many crimen falsi convictions, make this lack of authentication central. Neither the defendants nor this Court can have any confidence that anything Mr. Kimberlin attaches to his filings, is what it purports to be.

You can read the rest of that to remind yourself where matters stood as of March 12, and you may also wish to revisit “the absurdity of the crackpot paranoia evident in Kimberlin’s Second Amended Complaint.” Michael F. Smith, attorney for Malkin and Twitchy, has now filed an opposition to Kimberlin’s motion to amend his complaint:

The First Amended Complaint (FAC) is 50 pages long, with 213 paragraphs. . . . After various defendants filed motions to dismiss it, Mr. Kimberlin indicated his intent to seek leave to amend. . . . This Court on February 21, 2014 allowed him to do so, though it acknowledged the “serious chance” of prejudice to defendants from repeated amendment, told Mr. Kimberlin this would be his last chance to amend, and specifically warned him to comply with Local Rule 103.6. . . .
On March 7, 2014, Mr. Kimberlin filed his motion for leave, attaching . . . copies of his proposed Second Amended Complaint (SAC). . . . Though the SAC removes some matter from the FAC, on balance it is a far more lengthy and convoluted document than the FAC — it contains 82 pages and 284 paragraphs, names three new defendants (in addition to Twitchy), and adds entire theories, factual allegations, and causes of action not present in the FAC.

What Smith points out here is something I’ve noted about Kimberlin’s habitual legal tactic — “Allege! Allege! Allege!” He seems to have the idea that, if he just piles up enough allegations, this will overcome all motions to dismiss, because the judge will figure that where there is so much smoke of allegations, somehow there must be a tortious fire. And this was exactly what happened in the Maryland case (Kimberlin v. Walker, et al.) at the Jan. 13 hearing: Our attorneys argued the legal deficiencies of Kimberlin’s complaint and the judge said (in so many words) “there’s enough alleged here” that she wouldn’t dismiss it on technical grounds.

That tactic doesn’t work so easily in federal court, however, and Judge Grimm’s irritation with this case has been obvious. Nevertheless, when Judge Grimm gave Kimberlin a chance to fix the obvious and fatal errors in his complaint, what did Kimberlin do? “Allege! Allege! Allege!” — three new defendants, more than 70 new paragraphs, 32 extra pages.

Smith remarks briefly on the craziness of the “Team Themis” stuff in Kimberlin’s Second Amended Complaint (SAC) before proceeding to demonstrate that the SAC would be “futile”:

Rule 8(a)(2) requires a complaint to contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, while Rule 8(d) requires each allegation to be “simple, concise and direct.” The rule’s purpose is to avoid complaints that are “so verbose that the Court cannot identify with clarity the claims of the pleader and adjudicate them understandingly on the merits.” . . . Whether filed by a lawyer or a layperson, “[u]nnecessary prolixity in a pleading places an unjustified burden on the court and the party who must respond to it because they are forced to select the relevant material from a mass of verbiage.” . . .
Because Mr. Kimberlin’s proposed SAC will be subject to dismissal under those standards, leave to amend should be denied for futility. Pro-se complaints similar to this one have been dismissed for failing to comply with Rule 8. . . .
Prolixity in a proposed amendment also justifies denial of leave to amend even where the complaint asserts a RICO claim, with its more detailed pleading requirements. . . .
There is no point in this Court accepting the SAC for filing, because it will be subject to immediate dismissal upon motion for failure to comply with Rule 8.

That passage is studded with citations of federal court precedents, which I’ve omitted (“. . .”) to cut to the heart of the matter. And then Smith really lays down the smack on Kimberlin:

The SAC does not simply tweak a passage of the FAC here or there; instead it adds 32 densely worded pages, making the complaint an 82-page tome raising allegations even more incredible than those of the current pleading. Further, the SAC is deliberately vague, eschewing virtually all specifics regarding the allegedly defamatory comments in favor of frequently repeating the fuzzy charge that defendants fostered “false narratives” about Mr. Kimberlin. Of course, an allegation that a specific comment is defamatory can be defended against far more easily than can charges of having advanced a “false narrative.”
Permitting the SAC to be filed also will impose costs on all defendants, and this Court. . . .
Certainly, a District Court must grant some latitude to a pro-se defendant, and this Court has diligently done so. But every time Mr. Kimberlin ignores the rules and the Court’s directives, every time he certifies to this Court that he has done something when he has not, every time he seeks to expand his “conspiracy” theory further, a real and significant cost is imposed on the 20+ individuals and entities he has named as defendants. And this is not lost on Mr. Kimberlin; to the contrary it appears to be motivating his conduct. He is abusing the litigation process, and it should stop.

As to Kimberlin’s abuse of the litigation process, it’s helpful to remember his October 2010 e-mail to Patterico:

“I have filed over a hundred lawsuits and another
one will be no sweat for me. On the other hand,
it will cost you a lot of time and money . . .”

Certainly by now Judge Grimm has seen that e-mail quoted in more than one of the motions to dismiss Kimberlin’s suit, and must recognize the truth of Smith’s point: Kimberlin’s RICO lawsuit never had any chance of success, yet serves his own declared purpose of imposing “a real and significant cost” on defendants, who must pay their lawyers even to point out that Kimberlin’s motion to amend his complaint is “futile,” for the most obvious of reasons. Indeed, “it should stop.”




 

Rule 5 Monday

Posted on Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

The original plan was to crank this out yesterday (on time) but the opportunity presented itself to get my desktop box back in action, and by the time I got home from Frederick it was far too late to do what needed doing. So here we are. As usual, this post contains links to pix that may not be safe for work (although assuredly not pornographic) and reader discretion is advised when making with the clicky-clicky.

First Street Journal leads off with his own brand of Rule 5, this week with the military women of Romania. Also, blondes! Also also, American women! Randy’s Roundtable checks in with Terri Garrn (and Natalia Paris), Goodstuff’s mega metablog is hosted by Lauren Cohan’s cleavage, then by Scarlett Johansson; and Fishersville Mike is looking forward to three more years of Penny now that Big Bang Theory‘s been renewed. Ninety Miles from Tyranny has Morning Mistress (Not Quite Camel Toe), Hot Pick of the Late Night, and Girls With Guns; and this week, more of the same.  Animal Magnetism adds Rule 5 Friday (this week’s version) and Saturday Gingermageddon (ditto). Blackmailers Don’t Shoot has Rule 5 Thursday with Zuleika Silver and You Know I Read It In A Magazine, and Laughing Conservative offers Candice Swanepoel for your consideration. We also heard from IMNSHO and Mocho’s Blog.

EBL explores the mystery of oil pulling, and adds Sarah Palin, First Kiss, Belle Knox, St. Patrick’s Day, Obama Putin And Blondie, Leryn Franco, Vivaldi’s “Spring”, Mad Men, Maura Fussell, DaVinci’s Demons, and Anne Baxter. You were spared Dianne Feinstein.

Soylent Refuge’s torrent of snooch began with Your Sunday Coffee Creamer (Second helping), more whining about the lack of football, after which Monday Motivationer Nicky Whelan, Overnighty, Tuesday Titillation window dressing, She’s Running Hot, Humpday Hawtness Adele, Ah Naiad, Falconsword Fursday Liz, Evening Awesome Eva, Occasional Corsets, T-GIF Friday, Your Evening Auburn Awesome Kimberly, Weekender, and Bath Night Overnighty Jenny. The second wave featured Sunday Sideboob, Nice Necklace, And Sure It’s Soylent St. Patty’s Day, Irish Evening Awesome, Overnighty Getting Medieval, Humpday Classic Karen, Overnighty Hayden, Vernal Vixens Equinox Knockers, Evening Awesome Carlie, Perhaps Corsets, Overnighty Chez Chaise, Weekender Nikky Case, and Bath Night Aria.

A View From The Beach featured Stacy Keibler, Heather Shoots More $#!*, An Excellent Choice, Ukraine Has Talent?, I’d Pay to Watch That, “No Where to Run”, Toronto Cheerleaders?, Tales of the Hood, Cheerleaders Put Germs in Space, Sad, If True; also, Not Your Typical Two-Armed Economist – Yamila Diaz, Arlington Woman Gives Local Authorities a St. Patrick’s Day Thrill, Drone Practice, Time for a Car Wash, “Sinner’s Prayer”, Happy St. Patrick’s Day, SI Rookie of the Year – Sara Sampaio.

Proof Positive’s Friday Night Babes included Leilani Dowding, and Joanna Nosuchinsky, Sex in Advertising was Made In Bangladesh (also, Guess); his vintage babes were Cynthia Lynn and Maggie Smith. Dustbury celebrated Zooeypalooza 21 and also offered Phyllis Diller (no really!) and Fleur Pellerin. At The Camp of the Saints, it was Tibby Muldoon and the Rule 5 News.

The DaleyGator’s DaleyBabes were Deborah Ayorinde, Julia Louis Dreyfus, Silvan Krispin, Nicole Beharie, Jessica Marie , Juna Oshima, Laura Vandervoort, Yayoi Uehara, Daniele Watts, Yukiho Murase, Rachel Burr, Miyou Suzumura, Miku Ohashi, Allira Cohrs, Lee Purcell, Bella Gonzalez, Djuan Trent, Bernadette Peters, Mami Sakamoto, Rio Ogawa, Emi Itou,  Ana De La Regeura, Harukah Ito, Daniela Tamayo, Vivian Gumaraes, Lorena Orozco, Katarina Pudar, and Women in Black.

Thanks to everyone for their linkagery! Submissions for next weekend’s Rule 5 roundup are due to the Rule 5 Wombat mailbox by midnight Saturday, March 29.

Visit Amazon’s Intimate Apparel Shop

“Backin’ The U.S.S.R”, As The Beatles Did Not Quite Sing

Posted on Comments

by Smitty and Chris Cassone

 

Oh, flew in from Hawaii beach on Air Force One
Donors weren’t bad last night
Desperate news the Ukraine has come undone
Man, there’ll be a dreadful fight
I’m backin’ the U.S.S.R.
You don’t know how punky you are boy
Backin’ the U.S.S.R.

Scheming away so long I hardly know my face
With Vlad I’m feeling right at home
Dreaming of tomorrow and still more disgrace
Good thing I lack all backbone
I’m backin’ the U.S.S.R.
You don’t know how skunky you are boy
Blamin’ the U.S.
Blamin’ the U.S.
Backin’ the U.S.S.R.

Well the Crimean girls really got knocked out
When the West left them behind
And Moscow girls make me sing and shout
Ossetia’s always on my m-m-m-m-mind

Aw come on!
Ho yeah!
Ho yeah!
Ho ho yeah!
Yeah yeah!

Yeah I’m backin’ the U.S.S.R.
You don’t know how funky you are boyth
Backin’ the U.S.S.R.

Well the Crimean girls really got knocked out
When the West left them behind
And Moscow girls make me sing and shout
Ossetia’s always on my m-m-m-m-mind

Oh, show me around you Sochi buildings way down south
Take me to your daddy’s dacha
Let me hear the Ukrain’s panicked, dying shout
My policy is full of caca
I’m backin’ the U.S.S.R.
Hey you don’t know how lucky you are boys
I’m backin’ the U.S.S.R.

Oh let me tell you, honey
Hey, I’m back!
I’m back in the U.S.S.R.
Yes, I’m free!
Yeah, back in the U.S.S.R.

Ha ha

Don’t hesitate to support Chris Cassone. If we buy enough of Cassone’s stuff, we can guilt him into recording this. That’s my theory, anyway:

#LindsayOnOWN @LindsayLohan: When You Are Your Own Biggest Problem

Posted on Comments

Lots of people are enduring the car-crash fascination with the Lindsay Lohan rehab documentary series on the Oprah Winfrey Network. For some reason, my 11-year-old daughter Reagan has become a fan of the show, so that I end up watching it, too, despite the fact that I hate — absolutely hate — reality TV shows, except for programs like C*O*P*S or The First 48 where the “reality” isn’t a bunch of phony made-for-TV personal drama. In this respect, Lindsay is a strange hybrid.

On the one hand, the director is trying to make a legitimate documentary about the process by which a notorious celebrity trainwreck recovers from her latest toxic meltdown. On the other hand, there’s endless personal drama generated by the narcissistic nutjob at the center of it all.

So it was nice to watch Episode 3 where, after Lindsay had hamstrung production by refusing to allow the camera crew its scheduled access, Oprah showed up in person to chew her out:

“When you change a schedule, you know what happens. You’re a professional woman. . . . And it’s not just for you. You’ve got a whole team of people who are relying on you right now for this particular experience, for creating this documentary.”

Regular readers know I’m a huge fan of Christopher Lasch’s 1979 book, The Culture of Narcissism, which foreshadowed the entitlement mentality typical of the Millennial generation (see, for example, “Narcissism vs. Objectivity,” Feb. 15). A key trait of narcissists is their tendency toward blame-shifting, avoiding responsibility by blaming scapegoats for their problems. You see this over and over watching Lindsay. She has long since demonstrated that she is incapable of managing her own life. Yet when her remarkably patient personal assistant and others around her try to provide guidance, she erupts in tantrums, accusing these well-meaning people of being the source of her unhappiness, as though she hadn’t looked in the mirror recently.

Narcissism involves a concern with superficial image instead of fundamental reality, an obsession with seeming instead of being, and it is never pleasant to watch someone deal with the problems that invariably result. Only a sadist could enjoy seeing Lindsay Lohan spin wildly out of control, and these “starlet meltdown” tabloid dramas are mainly interesting to me as morality tales, e.g.: “And then the promiscuous celebrity coke addict lived unhappily ever after.”

But why bring up Charlie Sheen, eh?

Lindsay Lohan has been blessed with beauty, wealth and fame. It’s no fun to watch her throwing away happiness with both hands. And yet this is the car-crash-by-the-highway that Lindsay presents. Viewers are just rubber-neckers gawking at the carnage.

It’s wrong to say that Lindsay Lohan ever had a drug and alcohol problem. No, Lindsay Lohan had a Lindsay Lohan problem.

Even if she’s sober now, she hasn’t solved that problem yet.

 

The @AmandaMarcotte Birth Control ObamaCare Fear-Mongering Crusade

Posted on Comments

Donald Douglas points out that everyone’s favorite baby-killing enthusiast has found a new focus for her feminist lunatic rage, namely a pending Supreme Court case about the ObamaCare mandate that insurers must provide free contraceptive coverage.

Before addressing Amanda Marcotte’s irrational claims directly, let me ask: Does anyone else remember the Iraq War military draft conspiracy theories spread by the Left during the Bush administration?

One of the dirty little secrets of the Bush-era antiwar movement was how the Left cynically exploited the vast ignorance of American youth to foment antiwar sentiment on college campuses: The 9/11 “Truthers” were the most gaudy example of this, but there was also the claim that the Iraq invasion was a “War for Oil” conspiracy to enrich Halliburton and fatten U.S. oil company profits, and arguably the antiwar Left’s most blatant lie was that neocons in the Bush administration were secretly plotting to reinstitute the military draft. It wasn’t just crackpots at the Daily Kos promoting this, either. Howard Dean said it in a 2004 speech at Brown University: “I think that George Bush is certainly going to have a draft if he goes into a second term, and any young person who doesn’t want to go to Iraq might think twice about voting for him.”

This kind of irresponsible fear-mongering builds on the mythmaking success of the academic Left and the liberal media. Nobody under age 50 remembers that it was a Republican, Richard Nixon, who ended the military draft on the advice of free-market economist Milton Friedman, nor have the young ever been told how Democrats branded Ronald Reagan a warmonger who would lead us to nuclear Armageddon, when in point of fact, it was Reagan who successfully negotiated the elimination of nuclear weapons and ultimately ended the Cold War.

Because young people are not taught about the long and sordid history of Democrat dishonesty, each new liberal lie is enthusiastically embraced by college kids who think it is always the “smart” thing to believe the worst about Republicans.

Thus we return to Amanda Marcotte, who sees the Hobby Lobby case as the first step toward a theocratic “breeder” dystopia:

Well, I have a theory and it’s that this case is about more than just getting the contraception mandate overturned or giving your boss rights to force you to abide by his religious dogma by manipulating your compensation package, though those are also important agenda items for the right. This case is also about manipulating the media, specifically to warm the mainstream media up to the idea that contraception is “controversial” . . . The idea is to get the mainstream media sources to say, “One side says birth control is abortion” over and over and over and over again, until the idea “birth control=abortion” is considered a normal one in American culture. And since abortion is controversial, then, they hope, they can make contraception controversial, too. Once contraception is “controversial” like abortion is, then it’s a hop, skip and a jump away to convincing Republicans it’s politically safe now to start passing laws restricting access to it.

This is one of those ideas that are so crazy only a feminist could possibly believe it. Not even the most devout Catholic or fervent evangelical “Dominionist” can really envision a scenario whereby laws “restricting access” to contraception would be enacted by Republicans or anyone else, even in the most conservative states. Like the deliberately false fearmongering about a return to the military draft 10 years ago, Marcotte and others on the Left are now trying to confuse women, to make them believe that if they vote Republican, the Pill and condoms will soon be outlawed. Witness how Amanda Marcotte begins her discussion of the pending Supreme Court case:

Arguments start this week for Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius, the Supreme Court case that will determine the fate of the contraception mandate put forth by the Department of Health and Human Services after the Affordable Care Act was passed into law. The contraception mandate is part of a larger mandate by the ACA to classify dozens of medical services, like wellness checks and vaccinations, as “preventive” care, which would then require insurance plans to cover them without a copay. The idea is that this will both make health insurance work better for enrollees and save money overall by encouraging prevention. Contraception was included after the Institute of Medicine recommended it for its well-known effects of preventing unwanted pregnancy, and thereby preventing unplanned child-bearing and abortion.

What this case is actually about (no matter what Amanda Marcotte or anyone else tries to tell you) is the attempt by Democrats to dictate the type of health insurance employers must provide. Everyone who isn’t on the payroll of the White House or the DNC agrees by now that ObamaCare is an unworkable scheme, a policy catastrophe that proves the truth of every criticism of central government planning ever made by Mises, Hayek, Friedman and Sowell.

Marcotte refuses to admit that ObamaCare is actually anti-choice, in the economic sense, as the various mandates limit the options of workers and employers in terms of the health insurance options available to them. ObamaCare requires employers to provide comprehensive coverage of contraception with no copay, that is to say, health insurance must cover 100% of the cost of contraceptives.

Well, why?

Marcotte and other Democrats endeavor to frame the argument in the euphemistic language of “women’s health,” but as always, it’s about the money, specifically about using the force of federal law to fund Planned Parenthood and to expand the influence of the radical population-control movement. It’s not about “health” (some forms of contraception involve serious health risks), and it’s not about “choice” (Hobby Lobby isn’t trying to prohibit contraception), it’s about control.

Amanda Marcotte wants Democrats in control of the federal government, and she wants the government in charge of everything.

Her ridiculous fear-mongering, which presents the Hobby Lobby case as the first stealthy step down a slippery slope to theocracy, is in fact the exact opposite of truth: Amanda Marcotte is an outspoken proponent of taxpayer-funded abortion, and one might more accurately see ObamaCare as moving in the direction of making “free” abortion a matter of compulsory federal law.

“Sex is about reproduction. This is the natural function of sex, biologically speaking, and it’s odd how the same liberal fanatics who enjoy endlessly lecturing us about Darwinism and global warming — ‘The science is settled!’ — are so unscientific about sex.”
— Robert Stacy McCain, Oct. 23, 2013

Neither facts nor logic support Amanda Marcotte’s claims, which are actually rooted in emotional abnormality on her part, representing her bizarre pathological fear and hatred of babies: “I don’t want a baby. . . . Nothing will make me want a baby. . . . This is why, if my birth control fails, I am totally having an abortion.”

 

 

Malaysian Prime Minister Gives Press Conference in Perfect English

Posted on Comments

Yes, I know the big headline is about the lost flight — “It is therefore with deep sadness and regret that I must inform you that, according to this new data, flight MH370 ended in the southern Indian Ocean” — but watching it live on TV, what struck me is that Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak delivered his press conference in such wonderfully fluent English. Razak spoke rather slowly, but quite clearly, and with only the slightest hint of an accent.

This was a triumph of the global Anglosphere. Anyone who speaks English worldwide — in Australia, New Zealand, the United States, Canada, Great Britain, South Africa or wherever — could have understood every word by the Prime Minister of Malaysia, as much as if it had been the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom speaking.

Could someone please explain, then, why it is considered xenophobic bigotry for us to expect immigrants to learn English? All over the world, English is recognized as the language of commerce and prosperity. Welcome to America. Now speak English.