Why is Fahrenheit 9/11 considered a film, with all of the protections of the First Amendment, but Hillary: The Movie is considered a political advertisement, with all of the restrictions imposed by McCain-Feingold? A panel of federal judges seems poised to rule that the anti-Hillary Clinton motion picture violates the nation's campaign finance laws. McCain-Feingold, the illegal "legal" assault on the First Amendment used to impede this film, was not only supported by all of the major Democratic candidates, but by Republicans Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, and, of course, John McCain. As Jonah Goldberg puts it in his new book Liberal Fascism, "Free speech, too, is under relentless assault where it matters most--around elections--and it is being sanctified where it matters least, around strippers' poles and on terrorist Web sites."

Here 's a kick: the incompetent, useless and incidental Governor of Massachusetts is attempting to keep one of his looney campaign promises and give in-state tuition to illegal aliens. Not to mention the fact that children of legal U.S. residents who live out of state and work in Mass. and who are actually paying taxes here do not have the same rights. To make this more fun, he is trying to (in much the same way he told the state legislature to disreagard the law when legislative action was required to determine Gay marriage) go around the legislature completely.

Can you say "Banana Republic"?

For starters, I'd say the title they chose isn't helping their case.