Friday pontification

Anyone else find it interesting that a week after "health care reform" passed, we witnessed a Fed raid on a "right-wing/Christian" militia plus a four high-profile editorials (Rich, Krugman, et al) denouncing Tea Partiers as a group of neanderthal, racist, homophobes?

Doesn't this just reek of a well-orchestrated hit job by Dear Leader and (H)is Acolytes in the Legacy Media? It doesn't really pass the smell taste...instead it seems to be an effort to turn the criticism from that of the aforementioned Liberal Intellectuals to that of the "messenger (the messenger being Dear Leader's critics)."

It seems too well-timed to me: a raid on a right-wing militia coupled with liberal editorials.

A hearty thanks to the Mainstream Media!

On behalf of millions of easily assuaged Americans, I wanted to issue a public thank you to the Mainstream Media.

Oh you thought I was serious...

I am not, dear reader (not to be confused with what we'll seen refer to President-Elect Barry Obama as: Dear LEADER); nevertheless, I am not serious.

Frankly, I'm pissed.

I navigated over to this website, courtesy of renowned conservative author and mind, Michelle Malkin's site. I wasn't necessarily stunned at the intent of the website, but rather the message, notably the following:

Zogby Poll

512 Obama Voters 11/13/08-11/15/08 MOE +/- 4.4 points

97.1% High School Graduate or higher, 55% College Graduates

Results to 12 simple Multiple Choice Questions

57.4% could NOT correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing)

81.8% could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing)

82.6% could NOT correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing)

88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing)

56.1% could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).

And yet.....

Only 13.7% failed to identify Sarah Palin as the person on which their party spent $150,000 in clothes

Only 6.2% failed to identify Palin as the one with a pregnant teenage daughter

And 86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her "house," even though that was Tina Fey who said that!!

Only 2.4% got at least 11 correct.

Only .5% got all of them correct. (And we "gave" one answer that was technically not Palin, but actually Tina Fey)

My God people, what does this say about 1.) our mainstream media; 2.) over 50% of the voting populace?

Regarding the former, what more can be said that hasn't been about the mainstream media? It's not just that they're nauseatingly liberal, it's that they're corrupt as well. Furthermore, it's this gross negligence on their behalf to actually report the news that has further maddened those of us who read alternative news stories (i.e not JUST content disseminated from the MSM). For example, most Americans probably do not realize that Christians in California (notably WHITE Christians) are being harassed and assaulted by homosexual militants. Why, because these aforementioned militants have perceived Prop 8, banning gay marriage outright, to have been passed by white Christians.

Yet it doesn't occur to the supposed enlightened liberal homosexuals that the 70% of blacks and Hispanics who voted for Barack Obama also voted to ban gay marriage.

But where is the Mainstream Media?

No where to be found, naturally. They're off reporting on some elderly woman who spoke out against homosexuality.

Further blatant MSM bias: LA Times suppresses Obama's Khalidi bash tape

Andrew McCarthy, courtesy of the National Review, provides analysis of yet another blatant attempt from the corrupt, liberal mainstream media to deliberately suppress negative press for "Dear Leader."

In case you haven't noticed, "Dear Leader" is term that is synonymous with "The Chosen One," "The One," "The Messiah," "The Obamessiah," etc. The aforementioned glowing nicknames are those bestowed on Democratic presidential candidate, Barry Soetoro/Dunham, Obama.

But one can't be surprised that the mainstream media has refused to publish a potentially damaging story to said Dear Leader. Whether it's Obama and Infanticide, his support for domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, his marination in Jeremiah Wright's hate, his welfare redistribution, his Gods and Guns remark, the embarrassing institution known as the Mainstream Media, would rather focus on, as McCarthy states in his article, Sarah Palin's wardrobe, Joe the Plumber's money problems, or an absolutely isolated case of some idiot stealing an Obama sign from someone's front lawn.

It's almost laughable how "in-the-bag" the MSM is in for Obama. But yet it's not funny, because the very future of our country is as stack. Couple the possibility of elected the most liberal Democrat in presidential history with the notion of a filibuster proof Democratic majority in Congress, and the Marxist possibilities exist.

I stated this morning that with the way so many Americans have greedily lapped up his charismatic, quixotic message, Obama is more geared to be a cult leader or dictator.

I digress; the latest MSM "non-story" comes courtesy of the Los Angeles Times: "Why is the Los Angeles Times sitting on a videotape of the 2003 farewell bash in Chicago at which Barack Obama lavished praise on the guest of honor, Rashid Khalidi — former mouthpiece for master terrorist Yasser Arafat?"

Again, if this was someone on the Right lavishing praise for Eric Rudolph, would the corrupt leftist MSM even bat an eye at running story on every front page, and opening segment of the nightly news?

Not bloody likely.

With Obama, it should be no surprise he cavorts with terrorists; he's right at time associating with people like Khalidi and Ayers.

Here's the complete story:

The L.A. Times Suppresses Obama’s Khalidi Bash Tape
Obama, Ayers, and PLO supporters toast Edward Said’s successor, but the press doesn’t think it’s quite as newsworthy as Sarah Palin’s wardrobe.

By Andrew C. McCarthy

Let’s try a thought experiment. Say John McCain attended a party at which known racists and terror mongers were in attendance. Say testimonials were given, including a glowing one by McCain for the benefit of the guest of honor ... who happened to be a top apologist for terrorists. Say McCain not only gave a speech but stood by, in tacit approval and solidarity, while other racists and terror mongers gave speeches that reeked of hatred for an American ally and rationalizations of terror attacks.

Now let’s say the Los Angeles Times obtained a videotape of the party.

Question: Is there any chance — any chance — the Times would not release the tape and publish front-page story after story about the gory details, with the usual accompanying chorus of sanctimony from the oped commentariat? Is there any chance, if the Times was the least bit reluctant about publishing (remember, we’re pretending here), that the rest of the mainstream media (y’know, the guys who drove Trent Lott out of his leadership position over a birthday-party toast) would not be screaming for the release of the tape?

Do we really have to ask?

So now, let’s leave thought experiments and return to reality: Why is the Los Angeles Times sitting on a videotape of the 2003 farewell bash in Chicago at which Barack Obama lavished praise on the guest of honor, Rashid Khalidi — former mouthpiece for master terrorist Yasser Arafat?

At the time Khalidi, a PLO adviser turned University of Chicago professor, was headed east to Columbia. There he would take over the University’s Middle East-studies program (which he has since maintained as a bubbling cauldron of anti-Semitism) and assume the professorship endowed in honor of Edward Sayyid, another notorious terror apologist.

The party featured encomiums by many of Khalidi’s allies, colleagues, and friends, including Barack Obama, then an Illinois state senator, and Bill Ayers, the terrorist turned education professor. It was sponsored by the Arab American Action Network (AAAN), which had been founded by Khalidi and his wife, Mona, formerly a top English translator for Arafat’s press agency.

Is there just a teeny-weenie chance that this was an evening of Israel-bashing Obama would find very difficult to explain? Could it be that the Times, a pillar of the Obamedia, is covering for its guy?

Gateway Pundit reports that the Times has the videotape but is suppressing it.

Back in April, the Times published a gentle story about the fete. Reporter Peter Wallsten avoided, for example, any mention of the inconvenient fact that the revelers included Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, Ayers’s wife and fellow Weatherman terrorist. These self-professed revolutionary Leftists are friendly with both Obama and Khalidi — indeed, researcher Stanley Kurtz has noted that Ayers and Khalidi were “best friends.” (And — small world! — it turns out that the Obamas are extremely close to the Khalidis, who have reportedly babysat the Obama children.)

Nor did the Times report the party was thrown by AAAN. Wallsten does tell us that the AAAN received grants from the Leftist Woods Fund when Obama was on its board — but, besides understating the amount (it was $75,000, not $40,000), the Times mentions neither that Ayers was also on the Woods board at the time nor that AAAN is rabidly anti-Israel. (Though the organization regards Israel as illegitimate and has sought to justify Palestinian terrorism, Wallsten describes the AAAN as “a social service group.”)

Perhaps even more inconveniently, the Times also let slip that it had obtained a videotape of the party.

Wallsten’s story is worth excerpting at length (italics are mine):

It was a celebration of Palestinian culture — a night of music, dancing and a dash of politics. Local Arab Americans were bidding farewell to Rashid Khalidi, an internationally known scholar, critic of Israel and advocate for Palestinian rights, who was leaving town for a job in New York.

A special tribute came from Khalidi's friend and frequent dinner companion, the young state Sen. Barack Obama. Speaking to the crowd, Obama reminisced about meals prepared by Khalidi's wife, Mona, and conversations that had challenged his thinking.

His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. . . . It's for that reason that I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation — a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table," but around "this entire world."...

[T]he warm embrace Obama gave to Khalidi, and words like those at the professor's going-away party, have left some Palestinian American leaders believing that Obama is more receptive to their viewpoint than he is willing to say.

Their belief is not drawn from Obama's speeches or campaign literature, but from comments that some say Obama made in private and from his association with the Palestinian American community in his hometown of Chicago, including his presence at events where anger at Israeli and U.S. Middle East policy was freely expressed.

At Khalidi's 2003 farewell party, for example, a young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel. If Palestinians cannot secure their own land, she said, "then you will never see a day of peace."

One speaker likened "Zionist settlers on the West Bank" to Osama bin Laden, saying both had been "blinded by ideology."

Obama adopted a different tone in his comments and called for finding common ground. But his presence at such events, as he worked to build a political base in Chicago, has led some Palestinian leaders to believe that he might deal differently with the Middle East than … his opponents for the White House....

At Khalidi's going-away party in 2003, the scholar lavished praise on Obama, telling the mostly Palestinian American crowd that the state senator deserved their help in winning a U.S. Senate seat. "You will not have a better senator under any circumstances," Khalidi said.

The event was videotaped, and a copy of the tape was obtained by The Times.

Though Khalidi has seen little of Sen. Obama in recent years, Michelle Obama attended a party several months ago celebrating the marriage of the Khalidis' daughter.

In interviews with The Times, Khalidi declined to discuss specifics of private talks over the years with Obama. He did not begrudge his friend for being out of touch, or for focusing more these days on his support for Israel — a stance that Khalidi calls a requirement to win a national election in the U.S., just as wooing Chicago's large Arab American community was important for winning local elections.

So why is the Times sitting on the videotape of the Khalidi festivities? Given Obama's (preposterous) claims that he didn’t know Ayers that well and was unfamiliar with Ayers’s views, why didn't the Times report that Ayers and Dohrn were at the bash? Was it not worth mentioning the remarkable coincidence that both Obama and Ayers — the “education reform” allies who barely know each other … except to the extent they together doled out tens of millions of dollars to Leftist agitators, attacked the criminal justice system, and raved about each others books — just happen to be intimate friends of the same anti-American Israel-basher? (Despite having watched the videotape, Wallsten told Gateway Pundit he “did not know” whether Ayers was there.)

Why won’t the Times tell us what was said in the various Khalidi testimonials? On that score, Ayers and Dohrn have always had characteristically noxious views on the Israeli/Palestinian dispute. And, true to form, they have always been quite open about them. There is no reason to believe those views have ever changed. Here, for example, is what they had to say in Prairie Fire, the Weather Underground’s 1974 Communist manifesto (emphasis in original):

Palestinian independence is opposed with reactionary schemes by Jordan, completely opposed with military terror by Israel, and manipulated by the U.S. The U.S.-sponsored notion of stability and status-quo in the Mideast is an attempt to preserve U.S. imperialist control of oil, using zionist power as the cat's paw. The Mideast has become a world focus of struggles over oil resources and control of strategic sea and air routes. Yet the Palestinian struggle is at the heart of other conflicts in the Mideast. Only the Palestinians can determine the solution which reflects the aspirations of the Palestinian people. No "settlements" in the Mideast which exclude the Palestinians will resolve the conflict. Palestinian liberation will not be suppressed.

The U.S. people have been seriously deceived about the Palestinians and Israel. This calls for a campaign to educate and focus attention on the true situation: teach-ins, debates, and open clear support for Palestinian liberation; reading about the Palestinian movement—The Disinherited by Fawaz Turki, Enemy of the Sun; opposing U.S. aid to Israel. Our silence or acceptance of pro-zionist policy is a form of complicity with U.S.-backed aggression and terror, and a betrayal of internationalism.

SELF-DETERMINATION FOR THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE!

U.S. OUT OF THE MIDEAST!

END AID TO ISRAEL!

Barack Obama wouldn’t possibly let something like that pass without a spirited defense of the Israel he tells us he so staunchly supports … would he? I guess to answer that question, we’d have to know what was on the tape.

But who has time for such trifles? After all, isn’t Diana Vreeland about to critique Sarah Palin’s sartorial splendor?

— National Review’s Andrew C. McCarthy chairs the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies’s Center for Law & Counterterrorism and is the author of Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad (Encounter Books 2008).

Liberal Lies: the Bush Tax Cuts

It's a daily occurrence to open up the newspapers, turn on the news, watch a campaign ad and hear some bonehead Democrat uttering inane references to "big oil" and "disastrous Bush tax cuts." Subsequently, said bonehead Democrat impugns either Republican colleague or opponent in a political office with the above mentioned issues.

The Democrats have excelled at propagating lies and turning them against the Republicans. Whether it's the subprime housing market (Republican Wall Street vs. Democrats/liberals forcing banks to make bank loans) or high gas prices (billions of dollars in oil company profits vs. Economics 101: SUPPLY and DEMAND and high taxes against the oil companies), the Democrats have issued inane fabrication after fabrication.

What's further maddening is that Republicans have rarely uttered a rebuttal, or attempted to truly educate the public on these hot buttons. Moreover, the corrupt liberal mainstream media has not fact-checked any of these Democrat-issued lies; instead they've enabled the mistruths through the various mediums.

Yesterday, I discussed the lies of "big oil," primarily, propagated by idiots like Stuart Smalley, er, Al Franken against incumbent Minnesota Senator, Republican Norm Coleman. In a recent TV campaign ad, Franken smugly reminds the viewing public that Coleman took campaign contributions from "big oil" lobbyists. Nevermind that his colleagues, such as Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, and "The One" Barry Soetoro/Dunham/Obama took hundreds of thousands of dollars from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to avert their eyes to the then-portending housing crisis, or that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has enjoyed hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from various alternative energy providers (saving the planet, my ass).

The point here, people, is that mistruths and outright lies are being uttered ad nauseum by the Left. Today, I want to focus on the "disastrous Bush Tax Cuts." We've heard "The One," Obama, in his hope and change rhetoric, gain support by lying about the "disastrous Bush Tax Cuts." Personally in Minnesota, I've seen/heard a handful of ads from Smalley, er, Franken, indicting Coleman for supporting the "disastrous Bush Tax Cuts."

Furthermore, we're seen/heard the same Democrats proclaim that these tax cuts have benefited the rich while handicapping the poor. Note the following from columnist David Limbaugh:

(I)t is an objective fact that Bush gave greater percentage cuts to lower-income earners than to the wealthy.

How can these class-warfare demagogues sleep at night saying the rich don't pay their fair share when 2006 official figures show the top 1 percent of income earners pay 40 percent of the income taxes; the top 5 percent pay 60 percent; the top 10 percent pay 71 percent; the top 25 percent, 86 percent; and the top 50 percent, 97 percent? Just how much would the wealthy have to pay for it to be fair?

The more the wealthy pay the more actual dollars they will retain when there are marginal rate cuts, even when the rates of lower-income earners are cut more.

Let's be candid here people; the economy isn't in the shape it's in because of the "disastrous Bush Tax Cuts." True, the Bush Administration increased spending significantly, borrowing money from overseas investors; the dollar is weak, and we're engaged in two wars. The problem is NOT the tax cuts, instead it's the spending. Note the following from John Hawkins:

Liberals regularly claim that revenue from tax cuts must be "made up" somehow, which ignores the fact that government revenue usually goes up after tax cuts.

That was certainly the case after the Bush, Kennedy, and Reagan tax cuts, which makes perfect sense if you understand the Laffer Curve.

There are lots of intelligent arguments that you can make about taxes. You can argue that tax raises may also increase revenue, that tax cuts may reduce the size of the future increase in revenue the government will receive, or that we could eventually cut taxes so dramatically that they would no longer yield revenue increases, but clearly the last few major tax cuts we've had have produced increases in federal revenue, not decreases.

We've also heard "The One" Obama promise to cut taxes for 95% of American people; nevermind that 30-40% of Americans do NOT pay taxes. What that means is that he's going to be giving refund checks to people who do not pay taxes. How's he going to do that? By taxing the rich, and "spreading the wealth."

That's called socialism.

You don't do that in a sinking economy unless you want the economy to sink even further. Theoretically, you CUT taxes, especially capital gains taxes and those on businesses. I'm sorry you have to hear this, liberal boneheads, but the upper class invest; they're entreprenurial opportunities end up increasing jobs and OPPORTUNITIES for Americans. You raise taxes on the rich, they cut back on investment and job creation.

Moreover, per the Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush tax cuts, the economy actually grows and accumulates more revenue.

In his latest column, Charles Wheeler explains why cutting taxes absolutely, positively, cannot lead to more revenue flowing into the treasury as a result of the economy being stimulated:

"Economist Arthur Laffer made a very interesting supposition: If tax rates are high enough, then cutting taxes might actually generate more revenue for the government, or at least pay for themselves. (In one of life's great coincidences, he first sketched a graph of this idea on Dick Cheney's cocktail napkin.) If the government cuts taxes, then Uncle Sam gets a smaller cut of all economic activity -- but reducing taxes also generates new economic activity. Laffer reasoned that, under some circumstances, a tax cut would stimulate so much new economic activity that the government would end up with more in its coffers -- by taking a smaller slice of a much larger pie.

...Think about a simple numerical example: Assume you've got a $10 trillion economy and an average tax rate of 30 percent. So the government takes $3 trillion.

Let's cut the average tax rate to 25 percent and, for the sake of example, assume that it generates $1 trillion in new economic growth (a Herculean assumption, by the way). So now, what does Uncle Sam get? One quarter of $11 trillion is only $2.75 trillion. The economy grows, government revenues shrink.

That's basically what happened with the large Reagan and George W. Bush tax cuts, both of which were followed by large budget deficits. Yes, spending has a lot to do with that, but the bottom line is unequivocal: In both cases, government revenue was lower than it would have been without the tax cuts.

Read the following; this article sums up the BENEFITS of lowering taxes; isn't it amazing how STUPID liberals actually are?

There is a distinct pattern throughout American history: When tax rates are reduced, the economy’s growth rate improves and living standards increase. Good tax policy has a number of interesting side effects. For instance, history tells us that tax revenues grow and “rich” taxpayers pay more tax when marginal tax rates are slashed. This means lower income citizens bear a lower share of the tax burden – a consequence that should lead class-warfare politicians to support lower tax rates.

Conversely, periods of higher tax rates are associated with sub par economic performance and stagnant tax revenues. In other words, when politicians attempt to “soak the rich,” the rest of us take a bath. Examining the three major United States episodes of tax rate reductions can prove useful lessons.

1) Lower tax rates do not mean less tax revenue.

The tax cuts of the 1920s
Tax rates were slashed dramatically during the 1920s, dropping from over 70 percent to less than 25 percent. What happened? Personal income tax revenues increased substantially during the 1920s, despite the reduction in rates. Revenues rose from $719 million in 1921 to $1164 million in 1928, an increase of more than 61 percent.

According to then-Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon:

The history of taxation shows that taxes which are inherently excessive are not paid. The high rates inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw his capital from productive business and invest it in tax-exempt securities or to find other lawful methods of avoiding the realization of taxable income. The result is that the sources of taxation are drying up; wealth is failing to carry its share of the tax burden; and capital is being diverted into channels which yield neither revenue to the Government nor profit to the people.

The Kennedy tax cuts
President Hoover dramatically increased tax rates in the 1930s and President Roosevelt compounded the damage by pushing marginal tax rates to more than 90 percent. Recognizing that high tax rates were hindering the economy, President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. What happened? Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation).

According to President John F. Kennedy:

Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.

The Reagan tax cuts
Thanks to “bracket creep,” the inflation of the 1970s pushed millions of taxpayers into higher tax brackets even though their inflation-adjusted incomes were not rising. To help offset this tax increase and also to improve incentives to work, save, and invest, President Reagan proposed sweeping tax rate reductions during the 1980s. What happened? Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s, and the results are even more impressive when looking at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation).

According to then-U.S. Representative Jack Kemp (R-NY), one of the chief architects of the Reagan tax cuts:

At some point, additional taxes so discourage the activity being taxed, such as working or investing, that they yield less revenue rather than more. There are, after all, two rates that yield the same amount of revenue: high tax rates on low production, or low rates on high production.

2) The rich pay more when incentives to hide income are reduced.

The tax cuts of the 1920s
The share of the tax burden paid by the rich rose dramatically as tax rates were reduced. The share of the tax burden borne by the rich (those making $50,000 and up in those days) climbed from 44.2 percent in 1921 to 78.4 percent in 1928.

The Kennedy tax cuts
Just as happened in the 1920s, the share of the income tax burden borne by the rich increased following the tax cuts. Tax collections from those making over $50,000 per year climbed by 57 percent between 1963 and 1966, while tax collections from those earning below $50,000 rose 11 percent. As a result, the rich saw their portion of the income tax burden climb from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent.

The Reagan tax cuts
The share of income taxes paid by the top 10 percent of earners jumped significantly, climbing from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. The top 1 percent saw their share of the income tax bill climb even more dramatically, from 17.6 percent in 1981 to 27.5 percent in 1988.

Harmful Spending & Complexity
Lower tax rates are important, but they are not the only critical issue. Both the level of government spending and where that money goes are very important. And even when looking only at tax policy, tax rates are just one piece of the puzzle. If certain types of income are subject to multiple layers of tax, as occurs in the current system, that problem cannot be solved by low rates. Similarly, a tax system with needless levels of complexity will impose heavy costs on the productive sector of the economy.

BDS to PDS: Why?

I've recently heard a verbal barrage from two of my female liberal co-workers on why Sarah Palin is a horrible human being.

Is it PMS that's fueling their PDS?

For the past eight years, we Conservatives have endured a constant litany of attacks, most of which are unfounded, against President George W. Bush. Comically, this almost knee-jerk vitriol from the Left became known as BDS, or Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Now we on the Right are hearing and reading the same type of inane attacks being levied against another Republican.

But WHY do they hate her, and others like her?

1. She's a Christian
2. She's noted as being a moose hunter
3. She's a former mayor of a small town
4. She's pro-life and staunch anti-abortionist

The litany of reasons exists; the primary cause of such venom essentially stems from her differences to "powerful" feminist women in this country. Couple that with her faith in the Christian faith and her stance on abortion, and it's easy to see why liberals are so incensed.

Ultimately though, their verbal toxin is a result of Palin's refusing to adhere to a liberal orthodoxy. These Liberal Moonbats believe that Palin is hellbent on destroying equal rights and sexual freedom; they also are undoubtedly positive that the Alaskan governnor is waging war against sexual education, non-Christians, and minorities.

As Michelle Malkin states, these are "(T)he morbid ghouls who would rather you abort your unborn children than bring them into the world and increase the planet’s carbon footprint."

Left-wing definition of “proper pre-natal care:” A bloody trip to Planned Parenthood.
Now the lies: she's tried to ban books, she's worked tireless to enforce abstinence-only sexual education in Alaskan schools while "slashing" teen pregnancy funding, she labored to have her ex-brother-in-law, an Alaskan law enforcement official, to be relieved of his duties.

Does it surprise you that the Left are a gaggle of lying wind bags?

Unfortunately, the state of this country is such that Christianity is either on par with Radical Islam, or in fact, worse. After all, we've bombed abortion clinics!!! (note: sarcasm)

This person has endured lie after lie, not to mention Leftist idiots hacking into her personal email account, posting of fake photos of a bikini-clad Palin as well as those of her children, she engaged in an affair, she's banned books, etc.

With that said, encouraging news exists.

First, websites refuting Palin lies are popping up. Second, a Rasmussen poll recently concluded that by a 10-1 margin, the American public believe the Mainstream Media is intentionally trying to distort our perception of Palin.

"51% of voters think reporters are trying to hurt Sarah Palin with their news coverage, 24% say those stories make them more likely to vote for John McCain in November, just 5% think reporters are trying to help her with their coverage."

As conservatives AND as Christians, we're naturally used to this type of abuse, and that's really what it is. We're become targets in the crosshairs of the liberals everywhere, whether it's our refusal to blindly accept global warming, our support for our troops, our "bigotry" against alternative lifestyles, or our blind devotion to Jesus Christ. That is why we're under attack.

The Leftist idiots equate Christianity with misogyny, racism, and homophobia.

Liberal Star-Tribune states that no verbal gaffes occurred in last night's VP debate; I beg to differ

According to the liberal Minneapolis Star Tribune, last night's debate between vice presidential candidates Sarah Palin and Joe Biden was polite, pointed, and contained no verbal gaffes.

Really?

According to Townhall's Amanda Carpenter, who cites Republican candidate John's McCain's bloggist, Biden lied FOURTEEN times.

Note the following:

On the foreign policy front, Biden challenged Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin when she said Barack Obama’s pledge to meet with any foreign leaders, including Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, without precondition “goes beyond naivete and goes beyond poor judgment.”

Biden lectured Palin, “That's just simply not true about Barack Obama. He did not say he'd sit down with Ahmadinejad.” During the YouTube Democratic primary debate last July Obama was asked if he would meet the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea without “precondition” during his first year in office.

“I would,” he replied.

Biden appeared to attack Obama for making that very statement in August 2007. While Biden was challenging Obama for the Democratic nomination for president Biden said he would not support such a pledge. “Would I make a blanket commitment to meet unconditionally with the leaders of each of those countries within the first year I was elected president?” he said in an appearance at the National Press Club. “Absolutely positively no."

Five of the lies Biden told were related to tax and energy votes. During the debate Biden adamantly claimed McCain voted the same way as Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama did on a vote to raise taxes on those making $42,000 a year. The legislative record shows McCain was not present in the Senate for either of those votes and is recorded as “not voting.”

The RNC also takes issue with Biden’s assessment Palin supports a “windfall profits tax” and Biden’s claim McCain voted against alternative energy 23 times. The independent Factcheck.org has previously stated when Obama and other Democrats made similar charges about the 23 votes “they’re overstating the case.”

The other lies detailed by Goldfarb were related to Biden’s characterization of McCain’s healthcare plan, stances on bank deregulation and the $700 billion financial bailout that recently passed the Senate.

Yet, we're not going to hear that from the Mainstream Media, are we?

Why would we? From a corrupt group that has refused to report on any of Obama's shortcomings, whether its his associations with Jeremiah Wright or Bill Ayers, or his gangland-like tactics in Missouri, Virginia and Chicago to usurp our First Amendment rights, or his daily verbal gaffes on the economy, terrorism, and foreign reports, we're saturated with endless glowing reports of their "Chosen One" at every turn.

Liberal Lies: Barry Obama and his "change" rhetoric

Anyone else getting sick of the lies spewed forth from Democratic presidential candidate Barry Soetoro/Dunham/Obama?

He and his Democratic cronies in Congress are planning change, make no mistake...but their idea of change is to continue to radically alter the landscape of this country in the following facets: religion, thought, speech, energy, business, and ultimately...our way of life.

They're planning change; they're planning to unite. But their idea of "change" and "unification" isn't for all Americans. Rather, they're planning to change American so the fringe groups on the Left: the environmentalists, the open border crowd, and the anti-war goons are granted a ideal, romantic, socialist utopia.

Barry Obama: robbin' the hood.

I was exercising and while I was watching TV, I saw a bit of Obama's speech from Coors' capital, Golden, Colorado. Naturally, the rhetoric was merely a recital of the lines his predecessors have used (Jimmy Carter, John Kerry, Michael Dukakis, Marx, Lenin, etc.). To paraphrase, it's time to rob the rich and give to the poor.

Furthermore, what's ironic is that for a party supposedly represents the people, the Democrats have officially become the enemy of the state. Rather that support drilling EVERYWHERE, developing Coal to Liquid technology, oil shale, etc., the g-damn Democrats are pushing their bullshit Global Warming lies to serve dual purposes.

First, thanks to boneheads like Al Gore, the United Nations, and other anti-American economy forces, Americans have been inundated and subsequently indoctrinated with the climate change message. In other words, due to amount of gasoline we're using, we're creating more greenhouse gases, raising the temperature globally, and thus melting icebergs and killing polar bears.

Yawn.

Did you know that the icebergs have returned to their "pre-global warming" levels? Did you also know that many scientists/climatologists/meteorologists believe that we may be in for mini ice-age by 2030? Did you also know that there have been periods BEFORE humankind, where carbon dioxide, reputedly a "greenhouse gas" was at levels three/four times higher than what we're experiencing now? Did you know that carbon dioxide is actually an essential life-force, used by plants for photosynthesis? Unfortunately, once again thanks to the liberals and their lust for ethanol and other biofuels, we're destroying whole forests, again useful for photosynthesize, to plant corn and sugar cane.

Second, the Democrats are essentially looking to lock away our coastal regions (within 50 miles of our coasts) from drilling, thus forcing us to embrace the joke that is alternative energy (pray for wind). When a goddamn liberal touts wind and solar energy, ask them for cost-feasibility studies. Prepare for glassy-eyed stares, because they do NOT exist.

We're on the precipice, people. Watch your civil liberties vanish; prepare yourself for jail time if you wish to speak against homosexuality (see HR 1592, currently making its way through the U.S. Senate). We need a Republican president to VETO that bill. Brace yourself for thought control and increased regulation (see: big brother). Develop thick skin, because you will be accused of short-sightedness, bigotry, xenophobia, homophobia, if you refuse to embrace homosexuality.

Close your eyes and imagine the catcalls of racist if you decry the religion of peace, Islam. Prepare yourself to be indoctrinated that Islamic fundamentalists have every right to kill innocent Jews and Crusaders because "we started it. (see: blame America first crowd)"

Try hearing a message that contradicts that of the Left. It will disappear if they re-enact the Fairness Doctrine. In other words, we'll be essentially forced to listen to Air America, Al Franken-type liberal radio pundits, in addition to the endless, corrupt, leftist vitriol propagated on CBS, ABC, and NBC.

This is "change" as defined by one Barry Obama. He's got EVERYONE hoodwinked.

Just wait and see.

Mainstream Media is "at it again:" Sarah Palin supposedly stumbles in interview

They'll do anything, won't they?

You know to whom I refer: the Mainstream Media; let me rephrase that: the liberal, corrupt Mainstream Media.

According to the Minneapolis Star and Sickle, er Star-Tribune, "Sarah Palin defends qualifications, struggles with foreign policy questions."

Really? Because I don't see it.

The Star-Tribune adds the following:

"In her first televised interview since being named to the GOP ticket, Sarah Palin says she's ready to be president if called upon. However, she sidestepped questions on whether she had the national security credentials needed to be commander in chief."

Here's what we have, fellow readers: a vain attempt by the LIBERAL, CORRUPT, Mainstream Media to somehow make us forget the endless verbal gaffes committed by their chosen one, Democratic presidential candidate Barry Soetoro/Dunham/Obama and focus on purported verbal missteps committed by Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin.

Nice try.

"In the interview broadcast Thursday, Palin sought to defend her qualifications to assume one of the most powerful jobs in the world. But she struggled with foreign policy, unable to describe President Bush's doctrine of pre-emptive strikes against threatening nations and acknowledging she's never met a foreign head of state.

Pressed about what insights into recent Russian actions she gained by living in Alaska, Palin told Charles Gibson of ABC News, 'They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.'"

Can you just sense the glee in which the author penned this story? Can you see liberals looking down their collective noses at this mother of five, who served as mayor of a small town? I sure can.

I would be far more worried about Palin's inexperience if she was running for PRESIDENT, which she is not. Instead, that would fall on Messiah Obama. Remember, he's the one who stated that he would meet unequivocally with any head of state without preconditions; furthermore, he said he would strike INSIDE Pakistan to destroy Al Qaeda, even though the Mainstream Media skewered President Bush this past week for doing so.

The liberals and their benefactors in the media love to distort and filter the news. But make no mistake, it's not Palin who's running for president. Attempting to compare her alleged foreign policy misgivings to that of Golden Boy Obama is futile at best, ridiculous at worst. I'm wondering if the liberals, for all the bravado as to how superior in intellect they are to those of who cling to God and guns, need a lesson in potty training: #1 does NOT equal #2.

Bush OK's Pakistan Raid: the Liberal, Corrupt MSM is at it again

Courtesy of the obscenely liberal MSNBC, I came across this story. Upon digesting the gravity of the situation, it's pretty fitting that the corrupt, liberal Mainstream Media fired this particular salvo on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

Of course, no doubt should remain as to which side the liberals are on.

"WASHINGTON - President Bush secretly approved orders in July allowing U.S. special forces to carry out ground assaults inside Pakistan without approval from the Pakistan government, the New York Times reported Thursday."

Follow up the lead paragraph with the following statement:

"The disclosure is certain to further anger Pakistan's military, whose Army chief said Wednesday that Pakistan would not allow foreign troops to conduct operations on its soil, after a cross-border incursion last week by U.S. commandos."

It's almost as if the corrupt, liberal, mainstream media has telegraphed its motives, doesn't it? In its combined effort to destroy President George W. Bush, his administration, and his legacy, the aforementioned corrupt, liberal, mainstream media has taken sides, officially, with the "enemies of the state," notably radical Islamic fundamentalism.

We've seen this before, haven't we? Hmmm...let's travel back in time a few years. To ensure that American citizens and interests abroad can sleep safely at night, the Bush administration authorized a clandestine warrantless wiretapping program, whereby government officials could eavesdrop and intercept international phone calls, either originating here in the United States or overseas.

Naturally, the idiots on the Left, through the obscenely liberal New York Times caught wind of this story. They broke it, thus alerting our enemies, many of whom who wish to murder and maim us, to said program.

Now they're at it again. The mainstream media, in a clear act of sedition, have stoked the fires of Muslim hate in Pakistan, once again, perpetuating the notion that American imperialism is at work.

Of course, keep in mind that the liberals' messiah, Democratic presidential candidate Barry Soetoro/Dunham/Obama stated months ago that he would authorize military incursions INSIDE Pakistan.

Finally, lest we forget, the Democrats, in their clamoring about losing their civil liberties, are quick to inspect our garbage (see ultra-liberal San Francisco city government), re-enact the Fairness Doctrine (thank you liberal Congress/Senate), and pass HR 1592 (Bible as Hate speech law). It is the LEFT that wishes to curb your civil liberties. That's called eavesdropping, domestic spying, and curbing freedom of speech and thought.

We ALSO call that "Big Brother."

The media: overlooking Obama and scrutinizing Palin

It's almost ironic.

The mainstream media, that corrupt, liberal institution, unbiased, nonpartisan in theory, has, to no one's surprise overlooked Democratic presidential candidate Barry Hussein Obama's shortcomings, but yet are concentrating their full attention on the dismantling of Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin.

In other words, this will be a character assassination along the lines of the following:

Her 17 year old daughter is pregnant.
Her infant son has Down syndrome and was purportedly her DAUGHTER's baby (can you say, debunked?)
She tried to get her former brother-in-law, an Alaskan state trooper, fired (yet the media won't report that said ex-brother-in-law Tasered his 10 year old step son.).

Palin is, according to author Ann Coulter, "Palin was chosen because she's pro-life, pro-gun, pro-drilling and pro-tax cuts. She's fought both Republicans and Democrats on public corruption and does not have hair plugs like some other vice presidential candidate I could mention. In other words, she's a 'Republican.'"

Thank God. It's time the silent majority take this country and stop the proverbial "taking it in the shorts." It's time to say NO to the shoving of progressive values in our face, and acceptance of said values for fear of being branded a bigot or xenophobe. It's time to tell our beloved elected officials that we want to tap into our country's abundance of natural resources: drill for oil, use our coal, build a sh*tload of nuclear power plants (the France have actually done something right), build a g-damn wall on the Mexican border.

You know what I'm talking about.

Back to the subject at hand. How laughable is it that the corrupt Mainstream Media pounced on the pregnancy of Palin's daughter? Yet, for the past year, it took the National Enquirer, of all media institutions, to break the John Edwards-Rielle Hunter "love child" story. Furthermore, they summarily dismissed the Jesse Jackson affair; how long did the media run that story? A day? Two?

Now, the Liberal Media, of all institutions, is probing into the Bristol Palin pregnancy. This is an establishment, in addition to covering up the indiscretions of its heroes on the Left, who have facilitated the shoving of progressive values and loose morals on our society.

Mistakes happen, and guess what? Palin's daughter is KEEPING her baby and getting married to the father. At least she's not taking the Obama route, courtesy of LifeNews.com:

"When it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include -- which should include abstinence education and teaching the children -- teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual," he said.

"But it should also include -- it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I've got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old," he added.

"I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby," Obama said."

Media aglow with Hilary's speech

I think I just threw up in my mouth.

While I knew the Mainstream Media is corrupt and reprehensibly liberal, they never cease to amaze me at the lengths they'll travel to fellate our Democratic civil servants.

Have you seen this article, courtesy of US News and World Report? It consists of a MSM coverage roundup of Hillary Clinton's speech last night at the Democratic National Convention. Note the following:

Hillary Clinton last night addressed the Democratic delegates gathered in Denver, and urged them to back her former rival Barack Obama. The speech, and Clinton's delivery of it, are receiving extremely positive reviews in today's newspapers. On its front page, the Los Angeles Times reports Clinton accepted "defeat with grace and generosity," and "moved to close the divide among fellow Democrats on Tuesday night by offering a forceful and unequivocal endorsement of her fierce rival." The New York Times reports Clinton "deferred her own dreams on Tuesday night and delivered an emphatic plea at the Democratic National Convention to unite behind her rival, Senator Barack Obama, no matter what ill will lingers." The New York senator "betrayed none of the anger and disappointment that she still feels and that, friends say, has especially haunted her husband." The Washington Times refers to a "rousing speech" that laid "rest to a bitter primary battle that left many of her supporters -- especially women -- seething months later." The AP reports "the speech was as much of an attack "on Sen. John McCain "as it was an embrace of Obama." The Washington Post reports Clinton said, "You haven't worked so hard over the last 18 months, or endured the last eight years, to suffer through more failed leadership. No way. No how. No McCain. Barack Obama is my candidate. And he must be our president."

The Rocky Mountain News says Clinton "did her best to put the hard feelings to rest." While the Denver Post headlines its story "Clinton: The Team Player," and notes that "Michael Barone, a conservative commentator, was nearly as lavish in his praise: 'If you read through the text, it's unimpeachable -- I guess I shouldn't use that term. It makes a logical case for people supporting Obama for the reasons they supported Hillary Clinton, in a rather artful way.'"

On ABC World News, which aired prior to the speech, ABC's chief Washington correspondent George Stephanopoulos contended that Sen. Clinton "genuinely believes that if John McCain wins it will be bad for the country. She knows that. She wants Barack Obama to win, whatever disappointment she feels. Whatever anger she feels about Barack Obama. And that's real, too."

Has anyone else excused themselves to vomit?

Yellowcake Uranium found in Iraq: Vindication, but no thanks to the MSM

It's really quite sad how biased our media has become. I was browsing the web yesterday, looking for topics upon to pontificate, when I came across an op-ed piece written by Christopher Merola on Townhall.com. This column, entitled "Have Your Yellowcake and Eat it too," discusses a recent Associated Press report about how the our military recently shipped approximately 550 tons of yellowcake, FOUND IN IRAQ, back to the United States for safe keeping.

Yet, we've heard virtually nothing in the mainstream media, which, in case you've been living in a cave for the past 20 years, is OVERWHELMINGLY liberal. In fact, reading liberal media, the consensus is either that the Bush Administration PLANTED this uranium in Iraq or his father's administration (H.W.) clandestinely allowed Saddam to keep 550 tons of yellowcake uranium so his son (Dubya) could have impetus to invade Iraq 12/13 years later.

It's almost laughable, but it isn't. For three, four, five years we've been told that George Bush lied to us, that he waged war against Iraq illegally. We were told that Saddam NEVER possessed WMD; in fact, neo-cons and their Republican benefactors recklessly cost us blood and treasure for oil, to retaliate against a regime and a man that attempted to assassinate H.W. Bush, or merely for the fun of it.

We've been told that Former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who was sent on a fact-finding mission to Niger with the hope of investigating claims that Iraqi agents attempted to purchase yellowcake uranium (to aid in the nuclear process), found no evidence of any transactions or even attempts to purchase said yellowcake uranium, despite intelligence to the contrary not just from the CIA but from British and Russian intelligence.

What you won't hear from the supposedly impartial mainstream media is that in fact the Butler Report from the British Parliamentary found CREDIBLE intelligence that Iraq attempted to purchase 500 tons of yellowcase from Niger in 1999. According to Gregg Jackson's "Conservative Lies to Liberal Comebacks," the Butler Report stated that in order to disparage the Bush Administration and the war effort, someone forged documents and openly distributed them, saying that Saddam had tried to purchase yellowcake uranium. They SO badly forged the documents, they had to make the yellowcake claim to be a lie. MOST, including the mainstream media, elitist liberals, and the rest of the sheeple on the Left, believed it.

We've also been told that in response to Wilson's "claims," Vice President Dick Cheney revealed to columnist Robert Novak, that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was a COVERT CIA agent. Furthermore, we've been told that Wilson was sent at the behest of Cheney. Finally, we've been implored to believe that Plame was an active CIA agent. But despite what the mainstream media would have you believe, the FOLLOWING is actually true: first, the revelation that Plame had worked for the CIA came from Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage, who vehemently opposed the Iraq War; second, the request for Wilson to investigate the yellowcake claim came at the behest of Plame herself; finally, Plame had not worked "undercover" (considered a covert agent) for over six years...in fact, she was assigned to a desk job.

I write this because I was having a conversation with my fiance about another lie perpetuated by liberals and their enablers in the media: global warming. She had expressed a desire to know what the TRUTH is about rising gas prices, carbon dioxide, melting icebergs, etc. She subsequently stated that it would be nice if one could navigate to a website that actually stated the facts.

Ironically, this conversation occurred after reading the recent report about the recent shipment of Saddam's yellowcake uranium. It's time for us in the conservative blogosphere to spread the message: we refuse to tolerate the lies and vitriol spread from the left.