Hypocrite Sarah Palin-Denouncing Democrats Used ‘Targets’ On Their Maps

This is just too classic an example of the most blatant kind of Democrat hypocrisy and mainstream media propaganda.

From Vocal Minority:

Liberal Hypocrisy: Guess Who Used “Target” Imagery on Their Maps?

In addition slandering the Tea Party on a daily basis, the Democrat-media complex has had another target in their sights: Sarah Palin.

About a week ago, the leftocracy, was all atwitter due to Sarah Palin having this map on her Facebook page:


The icons placed on strategic Congressional districts throughout the U.S. were interpreted as cross hairs or gun sights. Devonia Smith at the Examiner says they’re neither; they’re surveyor’s symbols:Surveryorsymbol

So what exactly sent libs into a tizzy? Well, take out your fully functioning brain for a minute, and replace it with a liberal brain. Now do the calculation:Cross hairs = Guns = Violence
= Sarah Palin is threatening violence against Democrats!

Google “Sarah Palin” and “cross hairs” and you will see libs from politicians to the network shows to the mainstream editorial pages castigate Sarah Palin’s “despicable” ad. I even got into an argument with more than one liberal Facebook friend over the inoffensive (to most sentient human beings) ad. One of them even insisted Palin should be arrested. Amused, I responded: Arrested for what? Because of liberal politicians you support, we can’t even profile at the airport or engage in “warrantless wiretapping” or engage in any other preventative measure to capture radical Islamic terrorists. We need to wait until they’ve actually blown up an airplane or building before we do anything. But this liberal Palin-hater wants her immediately arrested for allegedly “inciting violence” by using crosshairs on strategic Congressional districts on a U.S. map. (Again, the liberal brain.)

The targets, obviously (to most sentient human beings), were symbolic. Hell, I’ve put politicians’ faces inside gun sights on my own blog as symbolic political targets. (Alas, neither Paul Krugman, Howard Kurtz, Anthony Weiner, nor Chris Matthews have discovered my blog!)

When Palin’s ad came out, the leftocracy went on and on about how she “crossed the line!” By the way, isn’t it funny how the right is always “crossing the line”? But for some reason calling Bush a Nazi and a war criminal; denouncing our troops as stupid, uneducated, hick dupes and cold-blooded murderers; calling the Iraq War “lost” while our troops were in harm’s way; publishing a full-page NYT ad reading “General Betray-Us;” the NYT adorning its front pages with classified information that hampered our war effort; and giving an endless forum for anti-American opportunists like Cindy Sheehan were never considered “crossing the line”? ‘M just sayin’.

Anyway, the British-health-(s)care-loving Paul Krugman wrote:

All of this goes far beyond politics as usual … you’ll search in vain for anything comparably menacing, anything that even hinted at an appeal to violence, from members of Congress, let alone senior party officials … to find anything like what we’re seeing now you have to go back to the last time a Democrat was president.

John at Verum Serum gladly accepted that challenge:

Really, Paul? I’ll search in vain?


The map appears on this page of the Democratic Leadership Committee website (dated 2004 during the Bush years). I guess we could argue over whether the DLC counts as “senior party officials” but they’re certainly as much a part of the party as Palin who, after all, currently holds no elected office. …

But wait, there’s more!

When Palin’s map became an issue, Rep. Chris Van Hollen, leader of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), rushed on MSNBC to denounce it, telling Chris Matthews:

I really think that that is crossing a line…In this particular environment I think it’s really dangerous to try and make your point in that particular way because there are people who are taking that kind of thing seriously.

Really, Chris? So what do you think about this map?


Each one of those red targets represents a “Targeted Republican.”You’ll never guess where I found this map. That’s right, it’s on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) website. They launched the site and the map on February 23rd of this year, making it just over a month old. And yet Van Hollen was quoted by Politico just today denouncing Republicans for “pouring more and more gasoline on the flames.” Right back at you, pal. …

You have to be kidding me! The leader of the DCCC is condemning Sarah Palin for “crossing the line” with this supposed violent imagery when his own committee did the same thing only a month ago!?The knee-jerk “OMG, Sarah Palin scares me!” mentality of the leftocracy is so old and tired. But with regard to this latest outrage there’s only one way to describe them:


Democrats and liberal journalists are as dishonest as the sun is hot.

Liberals also fainted in panic over the “hate” Sarah Palin expressed when she said “Don’t Retreat, Instead – RELOAD!

And we all know how Democrats denounced Obama for his “FIRED UP, READY TO GO!!!” remarks, as we all recognized he was very clearly inciting his followers to violent acts of arson.

Oh, wait.  I’m sorry.  That was me assuming that Democrats and the mainstream media had enough brains or enough fairness to treat both sides the same way.  When they don’t have any of either.

Update, January 9, 2011: Given that this article is receiving more attention due to the shooting of  Rep. Gabrielle Gifford (among 18 other victims), I ought to throw a bone to a more current article on that subject: “Gabrielle Giffords Shooting: Don’t Blame Sarah Palin, Blame Jerod Loughner (Who If Anything Is A Leftist)”

For those who continue to want to blame Sarah Palin for using surveyor symbols to identify vulnerable Democrat-held districts, or for her “rhetoric,” I leave you with this:

The website Daily Kos has also deleted a diary about Rep. Gabrielle Giffords entitled “My Congresswoman Voted Against Pelosi, Now She’s Dead To Me,” but so far has not deleted a post by founder Markos Moulitsas that lists Giffords’ district among those on their “target list,” and noted that “Not all of these people will get or even deserve primaries, but this vote certainly puts a bulls eye on their district.” (emphasis ours).

Given the clear and abundant record of Democrats and liberals doing not merely the same as Sarah Palin, but in fact worse, what is your beef with Sarah, again???

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

18 Responses to “Hypocrite Sarah Palin-Denouncing Democrats Used ‘Targets’ On Their Maps”

  1. Laura Daniels Says:

    If you knew what you were talking about, that is anything at all about Sarah Palin…oh wait…never mind, you wouldn’t be able to understand.

  2. Michael Eden Says:

    Laura Daniels, just what kind of a dumbass are you???

    I know quite well what I’m talking about: I cite FACTS to prove it?

    Are you smart enough to respond to any of the facts that I present? No. Rather, you have the intellect of a two year old, babbling some incoherent drive-by insult.

    People like you frankly make me sick. You don’t care about facts or truth. All you care about is your vile ideology. And if someone doesn’t agree with what you already “think” – no matter how good the arguments are – he is just wrong. Because facts and arguments have no place in your idiotic rhetoric.

  3. haha Says:

    Your analysis is spot on and I completely agree with you. Just because unbalanced people misinterpret Palins gun rhetoric doesn’t mean she’s to blame. Just because there are crazy people out there shouldnt mean Palin shouldn’t exercise her right to free speech since this is still America. Palin didn’t kill these people and neither did guns. The lunatic they have in custody probably would have taken even more lives if he didn’t have access to a gun because he probably would have used a bomb instead. Maybe if a few of her democRATic supports had a firearm on them this tragedy wouldn’t have happened in the first place. God bless America.

  4. Michael Eden Says:

    As I point out in my article, Sarah Palin did NOT use “target symbols” in her map, but SURVEYOR symbols.

    As I also point out, some of the very contemptible Democrats who accused Sarah Palin of hate and violence back when this story first came out THEMSELVES used “target symbols” to “target” what they thought were vulnerable REPUBLICAN seats.

    When it comes to guns, what is sad is that both sides are equally responsible for nutjobs having guns. I would love to see both parties come together and 1) officially and with the full force of LAW recognize that we have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and that that right be recognized now and forevermore; 2) recognize that we must keep guns out of the possession of both criminals and crazy people, and make it tougher to purchase a gun by requiring better background checks.

    Because neither side will give an inch, BOTH SIDES are equally to blame. Republicans know that ANYTHING they do to make it tougher to own guns will only be used against them and against gun ownership. And until Democrats recognize that law-abiding citizens get to own guns, it literally becomes DEMOCRATS who prevent any sane laws from being passed.

    The move to blame Sarah Palin or anyone whose name isn’t Jared Loughner (or this possible other suspect) is vile and evil.

  5. Stanley Feldman Says:

    I can’t place blame in this case, but I have always been disturbed by Sharron Angle’s use of the term, “2nd Amendment Remedies.” What did she mean?

  6. Michael Eden Says:


    Here are Sharron Angle’s words:

    “You know, our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. And in fact, Thomas Jefferson said it’s good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years.”

    “I hope that’s not where we’re going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying, ‘my goodness what can we do to turn this country around?’ I’ll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out.”

    The first thing I would ask you is, “Is there anything factually untrue about her statement? Did the founding fathers put the 2nd Amendment in for a bad reason? Did founding father Thomas Jefferson NOT say what Angle points out he said?”

    And I would point out the answer is no, no, and no. Everything she said is factually quite correct.

    The second thing I’d say is that the election in November, in which Democrats were handed the worst defeat in over 70 years, is rather indicative that the American people OVERWHELMINGLY believed that Democrats WAAAAAAAAAYYYY overreached. And when you look at some of what they did, such as “mandate” (or force) every single American to purchase a product whether they wanted to or not was an act of tyranny. And it was done on the back of a lie: Obama said that health care would not raise taxes; but later admitted that the mandates were in fact a tax. They are in fact a $6.25 TRILLION tax over ten years.

    Now, understand that Angle was entirely correct in her analysis of the 2nd Amendment: the founding fathers in their writings clearly described that they intended it to be a guarantee against federal government tyranny. If the government became tyrannous, and took away the people’s God given rights, then the people would have as much right to overthrow a despotic American government as the founding fathers were to overthrow a despotic English government.

    Now let me ask you another question: given the fact that the Republicans are in EXTREMELY good position to make huge gains in the Senate in 2 years, and to take the presidency, how would you personally feel if Republicans used their power to “mandate” things? Suppose the Republican Party – funded by gun special interests much the way Democrats were funded by union and big med special interests – “mandated” that every American purchase $4,000 plus in guns and ammo to make American homes safer? Whether they wanted to or not. Because Republicans could cite studies that states with ready access to guns are clearly safer and have lower crime rates than states that restrict guns. And then Republicans could use the same “interstate commerce” bullpucky to impose their agenda.

    Or how about this: the Republican Party used studies that prove that religious people live longer and have fewer health crises and “mandated” that every single American attend church every week?
    Don’t want to? Look up the word “mandate.” You either go to church so you can cut down the cost of health care or you go directly to jail.

    That’s basically what the Democrats did. They took a set of disputed claims and then forced every single American to bow down before the government and buy something that they may well not believe in or want.

    And Sharron Angle rightly said, “If Democrats don’t knock this crap off, or get themselves voted out, more and more people are going to pursue the exact same alternative that our founding fathers pursued and “vote” these bastards out with guns.

    We have something remarkable in America: we have free and peaceful elections. Most countries don’t. And violent revolution is their only recourse. As Angle recognized in her remark.

    Having said all of that, Sharron Angle also walked back her remark. She said, “I admit it was a little strong to say,” she said. “That’s why I changed my rhetoric to ‘defeat Harry Reid.’ ”

    And furthermore, she lost the election. She is not in office. And it isn’t fair to make her a representative “bellwether” for Republicans who ARE in office.

    That’s my response, anyway.

  7. roger smith Says:

    Both sides need to tone it down. This attitude that the problems we have in this country are caused by the folks from the other side of the spectrum and its my way or the highway, ITS GOT TO STOP. We want to blame very one less for OUR problems, the libs, the right wingers, the press, the government and the list goes on.
    Its time to tone down the vitriolic political rhetoric, its time for a little give and take.

  8. Michael Eden Says:


    Have to ask: how’s the air up there on that pedestal you put yourself on? I bet it’s thin up there.

    I never had an interest in politics or in blogging until the 2008 presidential campaign, as I just plain had enough leftist vicious attacks after 8 years of Bush derangement syndrome.

    Maybe you’re too exalted (or too apathetic?) to choose a side, but there are two radically different visions for the country going on far beneath you, Roger.

    If the enemy keeps firebombing your cities, pretty soon you either decide to firebomb their cities, or you should just surrender. That’s where we’re at.

    I’m not going to put down my guns when I know that the second I do the Democrats are going to shoot me and all the conservative women and children.

    One of the posts I wrote long ago was titled, “Do Unto Obama As Liberals Did Unto Bush.” I would appreciate it if you read that before responding to me. The fact of the matter is that Democrats ratcheted up the vicious attack machine beyond anything that it had ever been before, and now conservatives are learning how to fight back using the liberals’ very own tactics.

    I also have a feeling you’re blaming the “vitriolic political rhetoric” on the shooting of Rep. Giffords. Why do you do that? What evidence do you have that the whackjob that did this shooting was influenced by political rhetoric, rather than by deranged brain cells or howling demons???

    Oh, I forgot: you’re so far above the rest of us petty gnats bickering on the earth below that you have that mother-ship-eye-view.

  9. Anonymous Says:

    True peace and freedom or even enlightenment, will never be reached with the likes of this blogger and rednecks like Sarah Palin. Her hillbilly rhetoric has brought this upon herself.

  10. Michael Eden Says:

    I know, Anonymous. True peace and freedom will never be achieved until every Republican, every Christian and every Jew are in camps being worked to death. Then the people’s socialism will be allowed to finally prevail. Heil Hitler!

    Loughner – the murderer who unleashed so much damage – was not a Sarah Palin “Facebook friend.” He did not subscribe to Michelle Bachmann’s blog. He was not a Republican.

    Here’s a little something for you that I intend to append to this article:

    The website Daily Kos has also deleted a diary about Rep. Gabrielle Giffords entitled “My Congresswoman Voted Against Pelosi, Now She’s Dead To Me,” but so far has not deleted a post by founder Markos Moulitsas that lists Giffords’ district among those on their “target list,” and noted that “Not all of these people will get or even deserve primaries, but this vote certainly puts a bulls eye on their district.” (emphasis ours).

    Remarkable that Democrats demonize Sarah Palin when the founder of the Daily Kos – a liberal organization so powerful that it hosted a Democrat primary presidential debate in 2008 – said that shooting victim Rep. Giffords “is dead to me.” Remarkable that not only have Democrats used “target symbols” (whereas Sarah Palin used surveyors symbols), but liberals have “targeted” Gabrielle Giffords and said “she’s dead.”

    And remarkable that people like YOU don’t care about that. Because you are so full of hate and ideological garbage that you don’t mind demonizing “the other” for doing exactly what YOUR side does as a matter of course.

    What a hypocrite people like you are.

  11. Jenni D. Says:

    I stumbled across your blog because I was furious that people were blaming Sarah Palin for the acts of a mad man. I am SO tired of the liberal demonization of conservatives. Probably even more tired of media and news full of lies and inaccuracy. When I read that you started your blog because of the over-the-top hatred for Bush I cheered. I am so tired of the idiotic sheep mentality of liberals. I was a Republican art major during most of Bush’s presidency, I seriously wanted to punch my ear drums out some days so I wouldn’t have to hear the political rants of fellow classmates or professors and how much they hated Bush. To argue with them was like banging my head against a wall, except eventually the wall might break. Now I am going to have to become a regular reader and introduce many of my friends and family to your writing. Thanks for expressing your viewpoint and pointing out the liberal hypocrisy.

  12. Michael Eden Says:


    I like the cut of your jib, to use a nautical phrase.

    I really enjoyed your wording here:

    I seriously wanted to punch my ear drums out some days so I wouldn’t have to hear the political rants of fellow classmates or professors and how much they hated Bush. To argue with them was like banging my head against a wall, except eventually the wall might break.

    “Except eventually the wall might break.”

    That’s so true. But I would put it another way, also: the problem is that Democrats are broken people, and we’re trying to somehow put them together correctly (i.e, “right”). The problem is that it often happens that when something is broken, it just can’t be repaired. It never works right.

    That’s why I don’t write to try to convince Democrats and liberals of the error of their ways. The wall might eventually break, but their warped ideology won’t. And that is because their ideology is totally independent of facts or the Truth. It’s based on a giant web of lies that can’t be penetrated by rationality.

    There’s something called “moral intelligence.” A person can be an intellectual genius with multiple PhDs, but be a moral idiot. It is why the saying that “some ideas are so foolish that only an intellectual could believe them, for no ordinary man could be such a fool” is so true.

    The fact of the matter is that people often literally will themselves to be stupid. And they do so by believing in a perverted view of the world, and viewing reality through a set of theories (e.g., Marxism) that prevent them from even possibly understanding the world as it actually is. Such that the result is that even otherwise brilliant people end up being idiots.

    So I write for people like you. I write to arm people who aren’t trapped in bogus theories with the facts. I write to preserve a record of the incredibly stupid things the Democrats have done and continue to do.

    Btw, you write and express yourself quite well, Jenni D. You might think of starting your own blog, and becoming yet another intelligent voice crying in the vast wilderness of idiocy.

  13. Sancia Says:

    Hmmm, Hitler was NOT a ‘Socialist’. MUCH like the Republicans of today, he was a “FASCIST”. Use of wiretapping and profiling, EXcellent examples of Fascism and policies of Hitler.

    You turn on a person who actually agreed with one of your ‘talking points’, sounds a lot like Hitler to me.

    This denial of Republicans of what their policies represent never ceases to amuse me, which is why I don’t try to convince them of the wrongness of their ideas by their OWN logic. I just sit back and laugh.

    Also, an interesting read. You will, perhaps, finally learn the defintions of ‘not equivalent’, ‘socialism’ and ‘fascism’ (although, I’m not holding my breath’):

  14. Michael Eden Says:


    I don’t mind your warped denunciation. Because you are a pathologically ignorant creature.

    Hitler was first and foremost a Nazi, you little cretin. Let’s see what that entails:

    NAZI: Acronym for the “National Socialist German Workers Party” or Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (N.S.A.D.P). Hitler joined this party on September 12 1919 and became its leader in 1921. The party was banned in 1923, but was re-established in February 1925 and took control of Germany in 1933. After Germany’s defeat in World War 2, the Nazi Party was declared illegal by the Allied powers.”
    source: http://www.holocaust.com.au/glossary.htm

    Now all the articles from “shakespearessister” in the universe won’t change that fundamental reality.

    And because you are a truly mindless ideologue, you demonize Republicans, who are limited government conservatives.

    Tell me, Sancia: in precisely what sense was Adolf Hitler for “limited government”? What specific sphere of life did Hitler say, “I should have no authority to control this?”

    And further, just what was it that Adolf Hitler trying to “conserve” as a “conservative”?

    Please don’t bother to post back unless you have an answer to those questions. Because you are a complete waste of time.

    You demonize the Republican Party merely because your hollow skull is full of demons. It is the DEMOCRATS who are socialist; it is the DEMOCRATS who constantly advertise themselves as the “workers party.” And if there were a “National Socialist American Workers Party” today, it would be filled completely and entirely by the left.

    From this point I shall merely copy and paste a previous response to a previous idiot:

    Since you point out Nazism was fascist, let’s look at some history as to WHICH side of the American political divide recognized literally ITSELF as fascist in America.

    Fascism sought to eliminate class differences and to destroy/replace capitalism and laissez-faire economics.

    H.G. Wells, a great admirer of FDR and an extremely close personal friend of his, was also a great liberal progressive of his day. He summed it up this way in a major speech at Oxford to the YOUNG LIBERALS organization under the banner of “Liberal Fascism”: “I am asking for a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis.” He said, “And do not let me leave you in the slightest doubt as to the scope and ambition of what I am putting before you” and then said:

    These new organizations are not merely organizations for the spread of defined opinions…the days of that sort of amateurism are over – they are organizations to replace the dilatory indecisiveness of democracy. The world is sick of parliamentary politics…The Fascist Party, to the best of its ability, is Italy now. The Communist Party, to the best of its ability, is Russia. Obviously the Fasicsts of Liberalism must carry out a parallel ambition on still a vaster scale…They must begin as a disciplined sect, but must end as the sustaining organization of a reconstituted mankind.”

    H.G. Wells pronounced FDR “the most effective transmitting instrument possible for the coming of the new world order.” And of course, we easily see that the new world order Wells wanted was a fascist one. In 1941, George Orwell concluded, “Much of what Wells has imagined and worked for is physically there in Nazi Germany.”

    You aren’t informing me of anything, and you CERTAINLY aren’t correcting me for any mistake I made, by saying that Nazism was a form of fascism. The problem you have is that fascism is such an inextricable part of the progressive movement that characterized Democrats between Woodrow Wilson and FDR. A quintessential element of fascism is mobilization, what is described as “the moral equivalent of war.” It is about an expert-driven unity, where our leaders mobilize society to solve whatever “crisis” they decide to focus upon. FDR in his inaugural address promised to seek the power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe… I assume unhesitatingly the leadership of this great army dedicated to a disciplined attack upon our common problems.” And he militarized society to deal with the emergency. And both Hitler and Mussolini BOTH had their own forms of the New Deal, and both pursued the same basic ends the same basic way.

    Mussolini and Hitler felt they were doing things along similar lines to FDR. Indeed they celebrated the New Deal as a kindred effort to their own. The German press was lavish in praise for FDR. In 1934 the Volkischer Beobachter (the national newspaper under Adolf Hitler) described Roosevelt as a “warmhearted leader of the people with a profound understanding of social needs.” The paper said that FDR, through his New Deal, had eliminated “the uninhibited frenzy of market speculation” by adopting “National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies.”

    Mussolini reviewed FDR’s book Looking Forward saying in effect, “This guy’s one of us!” He wrote: “The appeal to the decisiveness and masculing sobriety of the nation’s youth, with which Roosevelt here calls his readers to battle, is reminiscent of the ways and means by which Fascism awakened the Italian people.” Mussolini further wrote that FDR understood that the economy could not be “left to its own devices” and went on to say, “Without question, the mood accompanying this sea change resembles that of Fascism.” And the Nazi newspaper paper Volkischer Beobachter wrote that “many passages in his [FDR’s] book Looking Forward could have been written by a National Socialist. In any case, one can assume that he feels considerable affinity with the National Socialist Philosophy.” For a source see Schivelbusch’s “Three New Deals,” pp. 23, 24, 19.

    Mussolini, in a famous interview with Emil Ludwig, reiterated his view that “America has a dictator” in FDR. In an essay, Mussolini marveled at how the forces of “spiritual renewal” were destroying the outdated notion that principles such as democracy were “immortal principles.” He wrote, “America is itself abandoning them. Roosevelt is moving, acting, giving orders independently of the decisions or wishes of the Senate or Congress. There are no longer intermediaries between him and the nation. There is no longer a parliament but an ‘etat majeur.’”

    What the Nazis pursued was a form of anticapitalist anti-conservative communitarianism encapsulated in the concept of Volksgemeinschaft, or “people’s community.”

    From the Nazi Party Platform:

    – The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all Consequently we demand:

    – Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.

    – In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

    – We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).

    – We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.

    – We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.

    – We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.

    – We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.

    – We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, Schieber and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.

    – We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.

    – The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [Staatsbuergerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.

    – The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.

    – We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army.

    – We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press. In order to enable the provision of a German press, we demand, that: a. All writers and employees of the newspapers appearing in the German language be members of the race: b. Non-German newspapers be required to have the express permission of the State to be published. They may not be printed in the German language: c. Non-Germans are forbidden by law any financial interest in German publications, or any influence on them, and as punishment for violations the closing of such a publication as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-German concerned. Publications which are counter to the general good are to be forbidden. We demand legal prosecution of artistic and literary forms which exert a destructive influence on our national life, and the closure of organizations opposing the above made demands.

    Ah, yes, the Nazis had their Fairness Doctrine before your liberals had theirs.

    Now, you read the Nazi Party Platform, and given what American liberals want and what American conservatism opposes, it is so obvious which party is “fascist” that it isn’t even silly. Then you ADD to that the fact that fascism and American progressivism (which is liberalism) were so similar that the great fascists of the age couldn’t tell the damn difference.

    I’ve got more on a similar lunatic idiot liberal myth here.

    So you can take your “research” back to whatever toilet bowl you drink out of and spit it back in.

    The saddest thing of all about people like you, Sancia, is that the more you learn the more ignorant you become, because you are committed to a worldview that is entirely false and depraved, and everything you proceed to learn is false and depraved. And when your head is so filled with crap that it is unreal, you profess yourself to be wise, while all the while you are a fool (Romans 1:22).

  15. Jenni D. Says:

    Thanks for your kind response. I have thought about writing a blog. It’s funny how much I hated writing papers in college and now I just can’t seem to stop.

    I very much agree with you on the futility trying to teach a liberal anything or even convince them the sky is blue. But keep writing and as you say, people like me will read and enjoy your words and your irrefutable proof of the Democrat’s dishonesty, disinformation, and apparent disillusionment with American society.

  16. Michael Eden Says:


    I don’t write to reason with liberals. I write to provide conservatives with facts (and the links to those facts) and arguments that will help them in discussions.

    The people I’m trying to “reach” are independents and conservative Democrats.

    Politics emerge from worldview. If you have a fundamentally anti-Judeo-Christian worldview, you will continue to view reality in a warped way. You will continue to view the world through your Marxist (or whatever) theories. It’s like putting on blinders and never taking them off. Which is to say that it is rather pointless to change a liberal’s politics until that liberal’s entire worldview is corrected.

    And my other vision was to leave behind a record of what the Democrats have said and done when they had total power.

    Having a blog (and sites like wordpress and blogger are free) is kind of like having your own little fiefdom. You get to determine what you will cover, how you will cover it, which sources you will rely upon, who your target audience is, etc. In many ways, you are in effect just like a newspaper or magazine. “What am I going to tell the world today?” You also get to choose how to respond to (or not even allow) comments.

    You have an obvious gift for writing, and you also have a strong point of view (which is all the better because it’s the right one to have). Why not sign up for a blog account and give it a try?

    There are SO many liberals swarming over the web. I think this is for 2 reasons: 1) liberals believe all they have is government (whereas I have my Christian faith, my family, my work, etc.), and therefore they have to fight to the last typo for their ideology because it is all they have; and 2) because liberals are far more likely to be dysfunctional and therefore far more likely to live on the internet in their own little isolated worlds.

    More conservatives simply need to finally get fed up enough to get involved in the political process. That’s why things have gone so wrong: liberals would always come unglued if X didn’t happen or Y wasn’t done, whereas conservatives just kind of stayed out of it (“I just don’t have time to get involved”). And the squeaky (more accurately, the constantly screaming and whining) wheel just keep getting the grease.

    I got into blogging when I realized that a truly evil man (you don’t spend 23 years in a hateful church like Jeremiah Wright’s for nothing) was on the verge of becoming president. I wanted to do … something to fight back.

    I get a sense of satisfaction knowing I did my best. I tried. I put my voice out there. I’m always evaluating what else I can be doing to make a difference, but so far blogging has continued to be part of how I’m trying to do my part.

    Oh, and the other thing about blogging? No one’s going to grade you, or flunk you if you don’t meet a due date or a deadline.

  17. Dave K. Says:

    Agreed.. the liberals amaze me at how they are completely unable to see any other side than their own. I am happy to talk, discuss, even debate issue with anyone willing to listen, but the dems are just blind with love for Obama and this administration. They can see no wrong, and the liberal media (lead by MSNBC, possibly the most untrust-worthy media outlet on the planet) nolonger reports news,just attempts to make reps ook bad and most of the time, prefers to report on what FOX news is saying instead of delivering actual news. I was completely appalled at how the liberal media handled this entire situation. I infuriated me, my family,and my friends. the highschool-level pep rally in place of the memorial service really made my blood boil.
    readers of this blog would likely also enjoy this one I found:

  18. Michael Eden Says:

    Any blog whose first article is entitled “Obama is a Hypocrite” can’t be bad…

    What it amounts to is that the secular humanist left has a worldview that is completely disconnected from God and therefore from reality. If you don’t have a God’s-eye view of reality, you are blind, deaf and stupid.

    Instead, what they have are secular humanist theories of the world, such as Marxism and fascism. And they look at the world through their failed and depraved theories, rather than through the “God’s-eye” view.

    And then, as St. Paul put it, “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:22).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: