Posts Tagged ‘ethics’

If Rep. Anthony Weiner Doesn’t Resign, It Is Proof Positive That Democrats AS A PARTY Are Slime

June 6, 2011

As we speak, Anthony Weiner is standing at a podium and acknowledging that he is a liar and that all the sexual garbage is true and all of his previous accusations of a criminal hacker are false.

The funny thing is that something similar – not NEARLY as despicable, but in a couple of ways similar – just happened to a Republican.  His name was Chris Lee.  And he resigned.  He resigned so fast it was unreal.  And yet that didn’t stop the Democrats and the media that serves as their propagandists from re-using the infamous photo over and over.

Democrats just won the special election for his district.  They were triumphant and exhilerated.  It was a great victory for them.  They flat-out mocked Republicans.

If they have any integrity as a party, they will take the dose of their own medicine.

Anthony Weiner made Chris Lee look like a saint.  Not only does he have the same barechested photos exposed that Lee had, but there are numerous women who have come forward stating that he has engaged them in sexually explicit dialogue.  One woman was only 21.  Another has some 200 messages or “tweets” from Weiner.  Weiner also used the official line from his office (official resources alert) to have phone sex with a woman for 30 minutes.  And if Weiner hasn’t actually committed physical sexual infidelity, it was only because he is a pathetic little creep, rather than from any lack of repeatedly trying.

But Democrats are above that, in the contemptible sense that they feel they are above the law and above any standard of integrity.

Chris Lee, unlike Anthony Weiner, never came out and angrily denied what was in fact true.  He never made false accusations claiming someone had committed a crime against him.  Unlike Weiner, he was only in fact caught with a SINGLE inappropriate photo.  But like Weiner, Chris Lee is a married man.  He had violated the standards of his party and his ethics.  He did the right thing and resigned.

Nancy Pelosi said she was going to drain the swamp.  She never even came close to doing so.  We’ve seen her Democrat minions keeping bribe money in their freezers and stay in office until voted out by the people rather than kicked out by the Democrats; we’ve seen powerful chairmen of committees engaged in gross fraud staying in office.  Now we’re seeing the sickest thing of all – Weinergate.

Republicans have a superior moral platform.  They are superior human beings.  They hold themselves and one another to a higher ethical standard.

If Rep. Anthony Weiner does NOT resign, the above statement will be accompanied with the grossest form of documented proof.

Anthony Weiner stood up in front of the American people and lied to them.  He proved that he is not worthy of any trust whatsoever.

He needs to resign.  And the Democrat Party has an obligation to do EVERYTHING within its power to ensure that he either resigns or is defeated.  Otherwise, the message is this: the Democrats are the party of cockroaches.  If you want to elect human beings with human values, elect REPUBLICANS.

If the media is in any way, shape or form honest, they will continue to pound Anthony Weiner and the entire Democrat Party with “Weinergate” until Weiner leaves office in disgrace.  Nothing else should matter until this man is gone.  That is how they have treated numerous Republicans scandals.

For the record, the hated and reviled Andrew Breitbart just demonstrated that he is more honest than the entire Democrat Party.  And additionally for the record, just previous to Anthonty Weiner admitting that he was a proven liar and fraud, Breitbart had the decency to point out that he actually had in his possession a photo (apparently of Weiner naked which revealed his face) that he didn’t want to release for the sake of Weiner’s family unless Weiner continued to attack him and force him to do so.

Also for the record, read the Ann Coulter article here demonstrating how the most socialist of socialists have been the worst male chauvenist pigs in history.  And then add “Anthony Weiner” to the list of leftwing pigs.

Advertisements

Claire McCaskill Joins the Ranks Of Hypocrite Democrat Tax Cheats

March 22, 2011

How many reasons are there to vote out Claire McCaskill at the first opportunity in 2012?

You really only need one: she was a weasel who voted for ObamaCare and then basically pretended she hadn’t:

It Begins. State-Run Media Whitewashes McCaskill’s Obamacare Voting Record
Posted by Jim Hoft on Tuesday, February 8, 2011, 8:04 PM

Liberal Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill is in big trouble.

(MLive)

Thank goodness Claire can count on the media to help her out.
The press started spreading the rumor this week that McCaskill is questioning Obamacare even though she not only supported the plan, but also traveled the state promoting it at townhall meetings.
Jake Wagman at The St. Louis Post Dispatch reported:

With 2012 Republican opposition already circling, U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill continues to question a key component of the president’s health care plan.

Politico has McCaskill, who’s already attracted two GOP contenders hoping to unseat her, joining a band of moderate Senate Democrats exploring ways to replace the mandate portion of the health care legislation approved by Congress last year.

McCaskill told Politico writer Manu Raju that they are looking for something “less than a mandate,” such as limited enrollment periods with financial penalties for not signing up. (That’s not a mandate?)

“It may be that the mandate is the only way we can do it,” McCaskill said. “But I think we should explore it.”

Under the plan signed into law last year, individuals could eventually face a fine of up to 2.5 percent of their income for not having insurance.

Of course, they forgot to mention this…
When McCaskill had the opportunity to remove the mandate during Senate negotiations in 2010, she refused. Instead, she voted to keep the mandate in the bill by killing a Republican amendment (H.R. 4872, CQ Vote #101: Motion agreed to 58-40: R 0-40; D 56-0; I 2-0, 3/25/10, McCaskill Voted Yea).

Lloyd Smith, Executive Director of the Missouri Republican Party, said this:

“Claire McCaskill voted to keep the unconstitutional individual mandate in the health care bill, she cast the deciding vote in favor of Obamacare, and then she traveled the state in support of the law. McCaskill had plenty of opportunities to seek alternatives to the individual mandate, but instead, she sided with Barack Obama every chance she got and forced costly, burdensome, and unconstitutional regulations on every single Missourian. McCaskill’s sudden election-cycle repentance is too little, too late.”

When ObamaCare was passed via every imaginable shenanigan, it was unpopular with the American people.  And now, having had a chance to see it, to see the huge cost increases its causing, to see the thousand-plus waivers (Constitution “equal treatment under the law alert) as even LABOR UNIONS try to bail out of it, and to see even BLUE STATES trying to weasel out of it, it is more unpopular than ever.

Claire McCaskill voted for an evil and immoral law.  And that alone is enough to kick her butt right out of office.

But if that wasn’t a good enough reason, here’s another damn fine reason to get her stink out of the United States Senate:

Posted at 03:59 PM ET, 03/21/2011
Claire McCaskill admits to $287,000 in unpaid taxes on private plane
By Rachel Weiner

Missouri Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill admitted Monday that she had failed to pay about $287,000 in back taxes and will sell a private plane that has created considerable controversy as she prepares to run for a second term in 2012.

“I have convinced my husband to sell the damn plane,” McCaskill told reporters on a conference call Monday afternoon. “I will not be setting foot on the plane ever again.”

McCaskill and her husband, Joe Shepard, co-own the eight-seat, two-engine plane with other investors. They bought it in July of 2006 through Sunset Cove Associates, an LLC her husband incorporated in 2002.

The tax revelations are the only the latest problem for McCaskill involving the plane,however.

In the wake of a Politico report that had billed the government for her travel on the aircraft, she quickly reimbursed taxpayers for the trips, hoping to avoid a protracted political problem.

But, it was then revealed that she had billed taxpayers for a purely political trip — deepening her potential exposure on the issue.

On the conference call, McCaskill said that after she discovered the political trip on the plane she conducted an extensive audit of all the times she used it. That search turned up the fact that she had not paid personal property taxes on the aircraft totaling $287,273. (Not all states charge these taxes, and because planes are not registered with the state or the county, she was never billed.) The senator said she understood that Missourians would be confused about how this happened, but insisted it was an honest mistake. “I’m being held accountable, like I should be,” she said. “I made this mistake.”

Republicans, not surprisingly, have had a field day with McCaskill’s plane problems. The Missouri Republican Party has filed an ethics complaint against her while the National Republican Senatorial Committee is demanding she release tax records for the company that leases the plane, along with more information on each of the flights she took.

“This raises very serious questions for Senator McCaskill’s re-election bid because if there are two things voters don’t like, it’s a hypocrite and a tax cheat, and Senator McCaskill just admitted to being both,” said NRSC executive director Rob Jesmer. The NRSC is also circulating a web video that features the incumbent saying: “If my walk doesn’t match my talk, then shame on me and don’t ever vote for me again.”

McCaskill, herself, acknowledged the trouble the plane issue has caused her on today’s call. “It sounded like a good idea, but it’s very expensive and its very complicated,” she said. “I think it does complicate things for the public.”

ANY public official who doesn’t pay their income taxes deserves to be hunted down with dogs and then burned alive.

But when that public official is a Democrat who literally makes a living saying other people “need to pay their fair share,” they should be tarred and feathered before they’re let loose so the Rottweilers can hunt them down.

I couldn’t be more sick and tired of self-righteous hypoctire liberal rat bastard filth Democrats making “honest mistakes” as they fail to pay their taxes.  You know what I’d like to see?  A Democrat make an “honest misktake” and finally for once in their lives making an ACTUAL honest mistake and paying TOO MUCH in the taxes they loudly demand everybody else pay.

Charlie Rangel – who sat on the House Ways and Means Committee and in fact was the CHAIRMAN of that committee that writes our damn tax laws – made an “honest mistake” in assuming that he somehow should be REPEATEDLY exempted from the laws he expected everybody else to follow.

John Kerry – who was the 2004 Democrat candidate for president of the United States – made an “honest mistake” when he decided he should screw his state in taxes he owed on his yacht and instead acted exactly like the corporations that move jobs offshore that people like him constantly demonize.  Because he damn sure moved his yacht offshore to avoid paying his taxes.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is smart enough to run our nations entire financial system, but too damn stupid to avoid making that “honest mistake” that would have meant paying his taxes.

They’re hardly alone.  And they are just two examples of Democrats whose vile party and whose wicked electorates will never hold them accountable for their lies and their frauds.

Hopefully, Claire McCaskill will be different as the people of Missouri say “hell no!” to her kind of weasel politician less than 20 months from now.

Rolling Stone Broke Journalistic Ethics In Publishing McChrystal Remarks

June 27, 2010

It’s ironic.  Barack Obama said that Gen. Stan McChrystal showed “poor judgment” in his comments to Rolling Stone.

I can’t disagree.  But I would hasten to add that he showed even worse judgment in his vote for president.

And now Obama is firing probably the only senior general in the US military who had the terrible judgment to vote for him.

We can breathe easy.  Now that the pro-Obama general is gone, we have Bush’s general running the war to go along with Bush’s Secretary of State running the military.

It appears that we have – in the case of Rolling Stone devouring Gen. McChrystal – yet another case of liberals eating one of their own.

And we have yet another case demonstrating that liberals and legitimate journalism simply do not mix.

That said, let’s see what integrity Rolling Stone threw away in order to have its “gotcha! moment”:

Rolling Stone broke rules over Stanley McChrystal interview
By Toby Harnden World Last updated: June 26th, 2010

So now we know. It is mind-bogglingly inexplicable why this is only emerging now (though I have one theory on that – see below) but it turns out that Rolling Stone did not run all its quotations past McChrystal’s staff as their editor said they did. The general’s staff now say that all the offensive quotations were clearly off the record. So far from this being “terrific journalism” as my colleague Harry Mount put it, the Rolling Stone piece now looks much more like a disgrace to the profession.

I say mind-boggling because if McChrystal’s staff had come out with this in the first few hours of the furore on Tuesday morning then the entire narrative of the week would have changed and the general might very well still be in his job today.

My hunch as to why it didn’t come out earlier? Basically, because McChrystal is an honourable man who thought it would be unseemly to quibble about the details. There could have been a tactical element to that, certainly – perhaps he or his staff calculated that trying to wriggle out of things would not be viewed kindly by Obama and that it could have fuelled a row with Rolling Stone that might have made things worse (if so, how wrong they were).

Politico has a list of the 30 fact-checking questions submitted. The most interesting one is number 30 in which Rolling STone asks whether McChrystal did indeed vote for Obama. The reponse – irony of ironies – was this:

IMPORTANT — PLEASE DO NOT INCLUDE THIS — THIS IS PERSONAL AND PRIVATE INFORMATION AND UNREALTED TO HIS JOB. IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE TO SHARE. MY REASON FOR THIS IS IT WOULD PRESENT AN UNDUE COMMAND INFLLUENCE ON JUNIOR OFFICERS OR SOLDIERS WHO SHOULD MAKE THEIR OWN POLITICAL DECISIONS. THERE ARE VERY STRICT RULES IN THE MILITARY ON SEPARATING CHURCH AND STATE ON THIS SORT OF STUFF – HAVE TO KEEP OUT OF POLITICAL PREFERENCE AND PERSONAL CHOICE.

But, of course, they left it in. It’s difficult to escape the conclusion that Rolling Stone did not care a hoot about the agreed journalistic ground rules or about McChrystal. They were out to get him and get him they did.

This is sadly all history now and nothing can change Obama’s decision. But it would be interesting to know if anyone in the White House even inquired into whether the profane and juvenile quotations about civilian officials were really on the record or if they just took Rolling Stone’s word for it.

If they didn’t, think about what this means: the Obama administration accepts the word of a counter-culture magazine and doesn’t even bother to check with the four-star general commanding 100,000 troops in wartime whose career the magazine is seeking to destroy.

We can endlessly speculate whether the Fool-in-Chief was right in canning his record-setting second general.  We can’t know for sure whether Obama canned McChrystal because he is at heart a vain, arrogant, petty, thin-skinned, vindictive man – as I listed as the reasons in predicting that Obama would fire McChrystal – or rather because there truly was some better reason.

What we DO know is that when one actually reads the Rolling Stone article, there really wasn’t a whole lot of “there” there.  The very worse thing McChrystal’s staff did was to reveal that Obama’s civilian leadership team in Afghanistan were in complete chaos.  It does seem that nothing can be worse in the Obama administration than telling the truth.  But that’s where we are.

Liberals in the mainstream media hailed the firing of Stanley McChrystal as though it were the most brilliant and courageous act of presidential leadership in world history.  It wasn’t.  It was a sad and tragic situation – even if Obama did the right thing.

The best thing that will come from this change is likely this: that General David Petraeus will change General McChrystal’s godawful rules of engagement and actually give the soldiers and Marines under his command the ability to carry the fight to the enemy.

Absence Of Values: Obama Targets American Citizen For Death Without Trial

May 15, 2010

There’s a phrase that Francis Schaeffer used: “feet firmly planted in mid-air.”  It aptly describes the plight of the secular humanist left.  Here’s a quote to familiarize yourself with the concept:

Since present day Humanism vilifies Judeo-Christianity as backward, its goal to assure progress through education necessitates an effort to keep all mention of theism out of the classroom. Here we have the irony of twentieth century Humanism, a belief system recognized by the Supreme Court as a non-theistic religion, foisting upon society the unconstitutional prospect of establishment of a state-sanctioned non-theistic religion which legislates against the expression of a theistic one by arguing separation of church & state. To dwell here in more detail is beyond the scope of this article, but to close, here are some other considerations:

In the earlier spirit of cooperation with the Christian church the ethics or values of the faith were “borrowed” by the humanists. In their secular framework, however, denying the transcendent, they negated the theocentric foundation of those values, (the character of God), while attempting to retain the ethics. So it can be said that the Humanist, then, lives on “borrowed capital”. In describing this stuation, Francis Schaeffer observed that: “…the Humanist has both feet firmly planted in mid-air.” His meaning here is that while the Humanist may have noble ideals, there is no rational foundation for them. An anthropocentric view says that mankind is a “cosmic accident”; he comes from nothing, he goes to nothing, but in between he’s a being of supreme dignity. What the Humanist fails to face is that with no ultimate basis, his ideals, virtues and values are mere preferences, not principles. Judging by this standard of “no ultimate standard”, who is to say whose preferences are to be “dignified”, ultimately?

What happens when “preferences, not principles” encounters a difficulty?  The preferences will go out the window every single time.  Call it a “preference” for “the ends justify the means.”  Who needs moral principles when Obama has political pragmatism?  And bye-bye, any professed principles.

“Feet firmly planted in mid-air,” and the abandonment of principles in favor of a constant stream of moral relativism and ends-justifies-the-means thinking has plagued the amoral Obama administration again and again.  Obama damned Bush over Gitmo; but he’s doing the same thing.  Obama damned Bush over military tribunals.  What is he doing now?  He damned Bush over the surge strategy in Iraq; what in the world would you call the strategy he’s employing now in Afghanistan?  Obama damned Bush over the practice of rendition, but he’s doing it as much as Bush did.  Obama denounced Bush for holding terrorist detainees without trial, but he’s doing the same exact thing.  The list goes on and on.  Obama attacked Bush over his lack of transparency, only to be far less transparent than Bush ever was.  Obama criticized Bush for protecting the wealthy at the expense of the poor, but has since engaged in bailout after bailout of the rich and powerful.  Obama blasted Bush for being partisan, but he has become the most partisan president in American history.  Obama denounced the right for using reconciliation to pass key legislation, and then used it to pass the most significant legislation this country has seen in 60 years.  For all Obama’s lefty rhetoric, he has abandoned virtually every principle he professed.

Quite possibly above everything else, Obama pronounced himself the man who would end the war on terror – if nothing else than by the sheer magnificence of his person – and restore all the principles of liberalism’s views toward constitutional protections to the enemies we would confront on the battlefield.

But when the rubber met the road, the amoral president demonstrated that his moral values amounted to dust in the wind, which would blow away in the face of the next challenge.

From the New York Times:

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration’s decision to authorize the killing by the Central Intelligence Agency of a terrorism suspect who is an American citizen has set off a debate over the legal and political limits of drone missile strikes, a mainstay of the campaign against terrorism.

The notion that the government can, in effect, execute one of its own citizens far from a combat zone, with no judicial process and based on secret intelligence, makes some legal authorities deeply uneasy.

To eavesdrop on the terrorism suspect who was added to the target list, the American-born radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is hiding in Yemen, intelligence agencies would have to get a court warrant. But designating him for death, as C.I.A. officials did early this year with the National Security Council’s approval, required no judicial review.

“Congress has protected Awlaki’s cellphone calls,” said Vicki Divoll, a former C.I.A. lawyer who now teaches at the United States Naval Academy. “But it has not provided any protections for his life. That makes no sense.”

Obama and his supporters have routinely depicted Obama (somewhat falsely) as “a constitutional law professor.”  But stop and think about it: this “constitutional law professor” now has the view that it’s okay to blow away an American citizen without any form of legitimate trial.  He’s dogmatic about protecting the sanctity of the guy’s cellphone calls, but he has no compunction about ordering the guy to be blown to bits without a trial based on secret intelligence.

A pretty remarkable degree of chutzpah from a guy who once demagogued a president over his treatment of foreign terrorists.

Now, one might think that the political left and the liberal mainstream media would be frothing in outrage over all of these abandonments of principle, but the left is as incapable of genuine moral outrage as they are of genuine moral principles.  Which is to say that the media damned Bush over every breach of constitutional ethics from a leftist perspective, but they largely never mention all of Obama’s myriad breaches of the very same ethics.

Whenever the left offered its next political Utopia, the mainstream media of the day sanctified the government takeover as wonderful.  And then failed to speak out as the next regime, and then the next, and then the next, became a living hell on earth (as an example, here’s an article about the “hidden” history of evil in the Soviet Union.  Why is it “hidden”?  Because the left has steadfastly refused to look at the ugly face of socialism/communism).

Standing for nothing, with their feet firmly planted in mid-air, Barack Obama and the leftist radicals he champions have no principles to plant their feet upon.  The result has been one abandonment of principle after another beyond anything I’ve ever seen in my lifetime.

Sarah Palin Continues To Confound Bitter Left

August 31, 2009

Remember the avalanche of political obituaries journalists wrote following Sarah Palin’s decision to step down as governor?

Sarah Palin was 14 for 14 defeating one trumped-up “ethics” violation after another from unhinged leftists who were using the courts as a means to attack her.  But in today’s caricature of justice that liberalism has created, one can win big and lose huge: she was at least $500,000 in debt – and I’ve heard figures close to $1 million – fending off these frivolous lawsuits.  With her own children under vile personal attack, with her family deep in debt through no fault of her own, and with her very ability to govern hamstrung by “Sarah Palin Derangement Syndrome,” she stepped down and left the governance of Alaska to her trusted lieutenant.

And it was revealing how the very same people who unrelentingly dumped on Sarah Palin as some kind of inbred hill-billy chick who wasn’t qualified to manage a 7-11 were outraged by her decision to step down as governor.

In any event, if I had a nickel for every mainstream media entry into the “Sarah Palin is finished” narrative, I’d be so filthy rich it would be unreal.

Sarah Palin redefined the entire debate on ObamaCare with a single Facebook entry submitted while she was on vacation.

Not bad for a political has-been who destroyed her platform and popularity by stepping down.

Now we learn another little factoid about Sarah Palin’s ongoing relevance:

Palin worth $100,000 per hour; over 1,000 invitations so far

August 31, 9:57 AM Fresno Political Buzz Examiner Nicco Capozzi

Many pundits, Alaskans, and simple political observers have pondered why Former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin resigned from office. One answer now seems apparent—money. Since her resignation, Palin has been offered over 1,000 invitations to make paid speeches, appear, and campaign on behalf of politicians and political groups.

She has received offers from numerous speakers’ bureaus (scouts for speechmakers) and has reportedly signed with at least one of them, the Washington Speakers Bureau. Washington Speakers Bureau’s clientele currently consist of Former President George W. Bush and Laura Bush, Bob Woodward, Katie Couric, Colin Powell, Rudy Giulianni, Alan Greenspan, and many others. For a full list of speakers click here.

Nearly all of the over 1,000 invitations include request for speeches. On top of the speeches, over 120 political candidates from all levels of federal and state government have requested Palin to appear on their behalf at various political events. She will also make cameos for charities, Christian organizations, and other related social causes and groups.

So when Palin beckoned to Alaskans that she would better serve them not as their governor but as a private citizen, what she really meant was, she will raise a tremendous amount of money so that she could have a better chance of running for President in 2012.  Or, she could have resigned simply to make money without having any plans to run for higher office.  Of the 1,000 speech invitations, almost all will be bring the former governor $100,000 each.

Palin has not yet confirmed where she will be speaking or campaigning, but responses to the invitations are expected to begin this week. However, one cannot expect Palin to hurry in confirming such invitations as she has her book to finish (reported to be 85% complete), and a giant file of other offers ranging from cable to business ventures that she is still considering. With all the possibilities, it is no wonder Palin left a $100,000 government job as she can now make that in one hour of work—a sum to which soccer moms and plumbers can certainly relate.

Now, of course, that last sentence immediately above is just pure bitter leftist showing through.  Sarah Palin could be the most successful human being who ever lived, and the leftwing wouldn’t allow her so much as one yoctogram of praise or credibility.  Comprehending reality is just not in their nature.

Not only has Sarah Palin not lost her relevance; but she has gained more than she had when she was serving as governor of Alaska.

You know who really SHOULD step down?  Every single “journalist” who discredited himself or herself trying to tear Sarah Palin down.  How much credibility do the people who wrote Sarah Palin’s obituary deserve?

Zero_Obama

Sarah Palin Derangement Syndrome: The Show Must Go On, And On, And On…

July 7, 2009

Sarah Palin is stupid.  She is a self-gratifying narcissist, a terrible mother, a terrible governor, and a frankly demented human being.

And the very same people who are saying all that are simultaneously absolutely outraged that she is stepping down as governor.  Apparently, the left wants stupid, self-gratifying, narcissistic, and demented people to stay in office.  One can only conclude that if all politicians meeting the description that the left and the mainstream media assigned to Sarah Palin were to resign, there would be no more Democrats in office.

The left calls Sarah Palin “erratic,” “unhinged,” etc. etc.  But they can’t stop talking about her – with “talking” being a polite euphemism for some of the most psychotic anger and fear that I have ever heard directed towards anyone in my life.

Not long after Sarah Palin was announced as John McCain’s running mate, the left launched absolutely vile attacks.  The Daily Kos ran a story that maintained that Sarah Palin had faked the pregnancy that resulted in the birth of Trig Palin.  The reason? To cover up for the fact that the baby was actually Bristol Palin’s, by way of an incestuous relationship with Sarah’s husband (and Bristol’s father) Todd Palin.  Being the loathsome cowards and weasels of the left which they so ably exemplify, the Kos purged the article as the facts came out and they were revealed for the liars they truly are.  And so the left introduced Sarah Palin to the world.

Stories ran in the mainstream media calling her a terrible mother who put her political career over the needs of her own children.  One vicious personal attack after another, with no play considered out-of-bounds, and no media referee blowing the whistle to call a foul.

It’s been deleted, of course (again, the leftists being the genuine cowards that they are); but Heather Mallick wrote the following that was published on Canada’s CBC News under the title, “A Mighty Wind blows through Republican convention” from September 5, 2008.  An excerpt:

John Doyle, the cleverest critic in Canada, comes right out and calls Palin an Alaska hillbilly. Damn his eyes, I wish I’d had the wit to come up with it first. It’s safer than “white trash” but I’ll pluck safety out of the nettle danger. Or something.

Doyle’s job includes watching a lot of reality television and he’s well-versed in the backstory. White trash — not trailer trash, that’s something different — is rural, loud, proudly unlettered (like Bush himself), suspicious of the urban, frankly disbelieving of the foreign, and a fan of the American cliché of authenticity. The semiotics are pure Palin: a sturdy body, clothes that are clinging yet boxy and a voice that could peel the plastic seal off your new microwave.

Palin has a toned-down version of the porn actress look favoured by this decade’s woman, the overtreated hair, puffy lips and permanently alarmed expression. Bristol has what is known in Britain as the look of the teen mum, the “pramface.” Husband Todd looks like a roughneck; Track, heading off to Iraq, appears terrified. They claim to be family obsessed while being studiously terrible at parenting. What normal father would want Levi “I’m a fuckin’ redneck” Johnson prodding his daughter?

So much for demonizing Sarah Palin – both as a woman and as a parent – merely for being attractive and growing up relatively poor.  And of course, why not savagely launch into Sarah’s daughter Bristol why you’re at it?

Recently, of course, David Letterman felt free to tee off on Sarah’s 14 year old daughter Willow, suggesting that she was “knocked up” by a baseball player during the 7th inning stretch when Sarah attended a New York Yankee game with her youngest daughter.  Letterman later issued a smarmy, self-serving “apology” for attacking a completely innocent young girl, but he felt no need to apologize for describing Sarah Palin as a “slutty flight attendant.”  That’s just par for the course, after all.  At least given the frankly demonic hostility of the mainstream media toward Sarah Palin.

As for Sarah’s infant son Trig, the left is unhinged with hatred toward him merely for the fact that his mother chose to allow him to live.  Legal Insurrection has some “creative” liberal Photoshop examples of the utterly vile attacks on this innocent little baby boy.

After nearly a year – and eight full months after the November election – the left couldn’t stop their slimy, satanic, beyond-evil hatred for Sarah Palin and her young children.  She was an attractive, well-spoken, self-made, independent woman who stood for family and for traditional values — and she therefore had to be destroyed at all costs.

And she was “erratic” and “unhinged” to want to get away from that daily hate festival?  That is, of course, the opinion of the very sort of people who actively despised and tore down Sarah Palin from the outset.

Take Paul Begala’s “description” of Palin published in the Huffington Post:

Sarah Palin makes Mark Foley, the congressman who sent filthy emails to pages look almost normal. She makes David Vitter, the senator who was hanging out with hookers, look almost boring. She makes Larry Craig, caught hitting on a cop in a men’s room, look almost stable. She makes John Ensign, the senator who was having an affair with a staffer, look almost humdrum (and compared to the rest of the GOP whack-jobs, he is). And she makes Mark Sanford, the governor with the Latin lover, look positively predictable.

One of the most obvious things that Begala does is repeatedly compare Sarah Palin with warped sexual behavior.  Notice that every single comparison he provides is precisely that.  Why does he think Sarah deserves such rabidly sexualized comparisons?  Has she had an affair that he can direct our attention to?  Did she have sexual relations with prostitutes?  Did she try to lure women in a public restroom for lesbian sex?  Did she leave her state without leaving anyone in charge so she could fly to another country to be with her lover-not-her-husband?

Why is it deemed okay to attack this woman in this way?  Even as the people engaging in such attacks claim that she, rather than they, are twisted and sick?  Why are David Letterman, Heather Mallick, and Paul Begala able to continue to operate without being publicly destroyed for their despicable conduct?

The Huffington Post later took this down (again, the whole coward and weasel thing), but it was one of their own writers – Erik Sean Nelson – who wrote the piece:

Palin Will Run in ’12 on More Retardation Platform

In Sarah Palin’s resignation announcement she complained about the treatment of her son Trig who always teaches her life lessons. She said that the “world needs more Trigs, not fewer.” That’s a presidential campaign promise we can all get behind. She will be the first politician to actually try to increase the population of retarded people. To me, it’s kinda like saying the world needs more cancer patients because they teach us such personal lessons.

Her first act as President: To introduce a Pre-K lunch buffet that includes lead paint chips. Sort of a Large HEAD-START Program.

She will then encourage women to hold off on pregnancies until their 40’s just to mix up some chromosomes.

She now is in favor of abortion only in case of diploid birth.

Her policies will increase jobs because Wal-Mart is building new stores each day and someone has to be the greeter.

This will lead to smaller government because fewer Americans will have the cognitive ability to hold a government job.

Look, she says she’s resigning as governor because people are making attacks on her and Trig. If she ever did become president, all Osama bin Laden would have to do to defeat the United States is Photoshop a picture of Trig and she’d surrender the country that night. As she said, “That’s not politics as usual.” It isn’t. Politicians don’t usually quit for so stupid of reasons.

Just one more example of demonic attacks from demonic people.  Huffington Post.  Daily Kos.  Well established liberal media outlets.  The Democratic Party presidential candidates attended a major debate via the Daily Kos, while passing up an invitation from Fox News decrying the latter as unacceptable.  We’re talking about the very core of the leftwing machine.

Why is it okay to attack Sarah Palin this way — not merely as a woman but as a mother?  Why is it okay to attack her daughters and her infant child so hatefully and so horribly?  What kind of ugly people are Democrats to have tolerated this, over and over and over again, for so long?

The left didn’t just attack Sarah Palin with shockingly distorted words and even more shockingly distorted images of her children.  They attacked her in court, with one ginned-up lawsuit and ethics complaint after another.  They declared total war upon her; and there was nothing that could potentially hurt her that they did not pursue.

She successful fended off every single one of these bogus charges, but at great cost to her state and to her family.  It cost the state well over $2 million and it cost Sarah Palin more than $500,000 in legal debts that she and her family will have to pay.

And she’s “unhinged” for wanting to leave office so she can spare her state and her own family these extravagant costs – which came from bogus and frivolous charges that just kept coming one after the other?

Allow me to address some of the mainstream media’s disinformation regarding Sarah Palin’s resignation remarks.

First of all, they have created the narrative that her remarks were “rambling.”

Have you ever heard Barack Obama try to speak without his constant friend and companion, the Teleprompter of the United States of America?  It would be a compliment to say that he rambles; the man is literally speaking in tongues.  Sarah Palin had a few scripted lines, and frequently spoke “off the script” from her heart.  Decent people would welcome such candid and non-telepromptered honesty.  But the left appears to be devoid of decent people.

In their shockingly biased distortion of her resignation comments, the media describe her as having “portrayed herself as a victim.” Excuse me?  “Portrayed herself as a victim“?  Yeah, the way the women that Jack the Ripper butchered portrayed themselves as victims, I suppose.  Anyone but the most pathologically demented fools have to realize that she didn’t “portray herself” as anything; she was repeatedly attacked in the most hateful, vicious, unhinged ways again and again and again.  And it was obvious that they had absolutely no intention of stopping.

The left is saying she “quit” on her state.  And she did.  But lest you forget, Barack Obama – who promised on national television that he would not run for president, but would serve his full Senate term – also quit on his state, and lied to his voters and to the American people before doing so:

SEN. OBAMA: I will serve out my full six-year term. You know, Tim, if you get asked enough, sooner or later you get weary and you start looking for new ways of saying things, but my thinking has not changed.

MR. RUSSERT: But, but—so you will not run for president or vice president in 2008?

SEN. OBAMA: I will not.

And lets throw in Rahm Emanuel, Hillary Clinton, Janet Napolitano, and Kathleen Sabelius – the last two being governors of states – who abandoned their commitment to their states to fulfill their terms.  Did they not have every bit as much of a duty to fulfill their terms as Sarah Palin had?  Why is it that their departure – even when they outright lied as Barack Obama did – not matter, but Sarah Palin’s is some kind of personal betrayal?

The media are howling that Sarah Palin abandoned her state.  But she is leaving it in the hands of an excellent governor who shares her views and her values.  She is saving the state millions of dollars in continuing defense of frankly psychotic leftist legal harassment that has no other purpose than to intimidate and paralyze a sitting governor.  She is freeing her state of the gridlock that has been erected for no other reason than to stifle and thwart any national ambitions she might have to the clear detriment of the state.

And it certainly proves the lie that Sarah Palin is some kind of power-hungry Lady MacBeth.  Or, at least, I’d love to hear the argument that walking away from a governorship to an uncertain future is an evidence of “an insatiable hunger for power.”

It all boils down to this: Sarah Palin made a personal and professional decision that was most likely motivated primarily out of concern for her family and her family’s finances.  Freed from her position as governor, Palin is freed from the constant legal attacks; she is able to write, give speeches, and even host a lucrative television program that will recoup the financial losses incurred by the psychotic leftist troll army.

Will it hurt her future political career? Who knows for certain that she even plans to have one?  Would you, if you knew that you – and your family – would be subjected to the demonic left?  Rather than run for the White House, she may choose instead to play the role of spokeswoman and king-maker, attempting to bolster support for conservative values and conservative candidates.

Bill Kristol has maintained that Sarah Palin’s move – assuming she does intend to run for President in 2012 – is a bold albeit risky move that may yet pay off for her.  And she is young enough that she literally has 25 years to consider such a candidacy.

I hope he’s right, and the critics – who have ALWAYS been critics of Sarah Palin before there was anything to criticize – are wrong.

In the meantime, I will be wondering what would happen if the kind of attacks that were so routinely launched at Sarah Palin and her children were deemed appropriate by the mainstream media to be launched at Michelle Obama and her children.

The Tide Already Turning: Most Americans Trust Republicans Over Democrats On Economy

June 9, 2009

Only four months into the Obama administration and total Democratic rule, and the American people already are beginning to realize what incompetent demagogues Democrats actually are. While we still have a long way to go, that nevertheless has to be some kind of record.

Things are changing quickly.  Soon we’ll be hunting Democrats down with dogs.

Only five days ago a new poll revealed that Obama’s approval numbers had plummeted to an overall rate of zero.  Then, just a couple of days ago, we learned that conservatives had swept out liberals across the European Union as people rejected the weight of irrational spending and harmful social policies.  And now, yesterday, we found out even more good news: that voters now trust Republicans more than Democrats – for the first time in over two years – on the all important issue of the economy.

Democrats are great at using the power of the liberal media to undermine, backstab, demagogue, and demonize conservatives.  They can lie and spin with the best.  But what they can’t do is produce growth with ideas that actually work.

Monday, June 08, 2009

Voters now trust Republicans more than Democrats on six out of 10 key issues, including the top issue of the economy.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 45% now trust the GOP more to handle economic issues, while 39% trust Democrats more.

This is the first time in over two years of polling that the GOP has held the advantage on this issue. The parties were close in May, with the Democrats holding a modest 44% to 43% edge. The latest survey was taken just after General Motors announced it was going into bankruptcy as part of a deal brokered by the Obama administration that gives the government majority ownership of the failing automaker.

Voters not affiliated with either party now trust the GOP more to handle economic issues by a two-to-one margin.

Separate Rasmussen tracking shows that the economy remains the top issue among voters in terms of importance.

Republicans also now hold a six-point lead on the issue of government ethics and corruption, the second most important issue to all voters and the top issue among unaffiliated voters. That shows a large shift from May, when Democrats held an 11-point lead on the issue.

For the eighth straight month, Republicans lead on national security. The GOP now holds a 51% to 36% lead on the issue, up from a seven-point lead in May. They also lead on the war in Iraq 45% to 37%, after leading by just two points in May and trailing the Democrats in April.

Fewer voters see national security as a very important issue this month, but confidence that the United States and its allies are winning the War on Terror is at its highest level since February.

Republicans lead the Democrats on immigration for the third straight month, pulling ahead to a 35% to 29% advantage on the issue.

On taxes, the GOP leads the Democrats for the fifth straight month, 44% to 39%. In May and April, Republicans held six-point leads on the issue.

Democrats continue to hold the lead on the issues of health care, Social Security and education. While Democrats have a 10-point advantage on health care, that’s down from the 18-point lead the party had a month ago.

Democrats lead by six points on Social Security, down from nine points in May. The parties were tied on the issue in April.

On education, Democrats hold a 44% to 37% lead over Republicans.

The parties are tied on the issue of abortion for the second straight month, each earning 41% support from voters.

If I were a Democrat, I’d be really concerned.  Especially given the fact that independents are turning on Democrats by a 2-to-1 margin.  But then again, if I were a Democrat I would have just had a full frontal lobotomy.

How do you get a one-armed liberal out of a tree?  Just wave at him.  [That one ought to come in handy to some of you when your dogs have treed a one-armed liberal].

What this poll should show is that Republicans don’t have to be afraid of Democrat’s ideas; Democrats have to be afraid of Republicans’ ideas.  Just as it was Democrats who flinched like cowards over the issue of Gitmo, it will be Democrats who start to buckle and cave in as things get hotter and hotter for America due to Obama’s failed policies.  And the same problem that plagued “big tent Republicans” will increasingly plague in reverse flip-flopping Democrats: why should you elect a pseudo-conservative when you can have the real thing?

Republicans lead Democrats on the issue of Iraq by an 8-point margin.  Democrats never would have believed that possible only a few months ago.

The survey should also show that Democrats are ultimately going to be wrong on the issue of Hispanics and their blatantly racist “identity politics.”  We don’t have to kowtow to them, and bow down to their illegal immigration agenda; we can and should stand up for true conservative ideas, and for the best interests of the nation that gave birth to those ideas.

We are one continuing bad economy, one economic collapse, one serious international crisis, and most definitely one significant terrorist attack, to turn the America into a country that may not even wait for an election to throw the Democrats who are ruining it out of power.

Conservatives need to stay true to their principles.  They need to trust their core ideas and their essential values.  Part of that trust means believing that Democrats – who are advancing terrible and failed ideas – will themselves fail.  All we need to do is be true to ourselves, and take advantage of every disaster Democrats produce, and the American people will find us once again.

Where’s The Coverage? Sarah Palin Cleared Of ALL Bogus Charges

June 8, 2009

Sarah Palin may have lost an election in November, but she has a perfect batting record knocking politically-motivated attack charges filed against her out of the park.

She’s 14 for 14 now.  At some point, a reasonable person would come to believe that the people going after her are genuinely bad, genuinely disturbed, genuinely vicious, genuinely petty, and genuinely un-American people.

If people who file criminal and ethics charges against an innocent person out of political motivations aren’t Stalinists, then Stalin wasn’t a Stalinist.

Gov. Sarah Palin Quietly Cleared of All Ethics Charges

Monday, June 8, 2009 9:22 AM

By: Amanda Carpenter, The Washington Times

The accusations made news, but with another dismissal of an ethics charge last week against Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the former Republican vice-presidential nominee has quietly been cleared of every ethics complaint filed since the torrent of allegations began in 2008.

Mrs. Palin, who became a target of such complaints after being named Sen. John McCain’s running mate, is 14-for-14 in fighting off the complaints. She’s been cleared of 13 charges by the independent State Personnel Board and of another complaint by the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

After the latest complaint in Alaska was dismissed last week, Mrs. Palin’s team said that having to fend off the pile of accusations was wasting state money.

“This complaint cost the governor personally, and the state of Alaska, thousands of dollars to address,” said Thomas Van Flein, the governor’s attorney. “It is regrettable that the ethics process has been diverted for partisan purposes by some, but it is also commendable that the board remains focused on the law.”

The floodgates opened after Mrs. Palin was tapped by Mr. McCain of Arizona and she was accused of abusing power by firing state Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan.

Four complaints related to this matter were filed to the personnel board. One of them was filed by the governor as a means of self-disclosure. In the end, no violation was found.

Even after the election was over, the stream of complaints continued.

Alaska residents challenged Mrs. Palin’s trips out of state to attend a campaign event for Sen. Saxby Chambliss, Georgia Republican, and to speak at a pro-life breakfast in Indiana, as well as for conducting television interviews in her state office.

The latest complaint to be decided was filed by Anchorage resident Linda Kellen Biegel, who took issue with Mrs. Palin for wearing to a public function a jacket made by a company that sponsored the governor’s husband, Todd, a snow machine racer. Ms. Biegel asked the personnel board to determine whether Mrs. Palin was abusing her position to serve her personal and financial interests.

Mrs. Palin called the complaint “asinine political grandstanding,” and the board’s independent investigator said there was no evidence of wrongdoing.

“My investigation has uncovered no evidence that the governor or her husband received anything of value in exchange for the governor wearing the Team Arctic jacket when she acted as the official starter of the 2009 Iron Dog,” said Thomas Daniel, the investigator. “I also note that most jackets worn by Alaskans have a company name or logo on them.”

What are the odds this is going to be on page A-1 of the New York Times?  What do you think are the odds that Keith Olbermann (or for that matter Brian Williams) is going to run this story and ask why liberals continue to immorally use the courts to attack an honest woman?

An Opponent’s Courtside Guide To Sarah “Barracuda” Palin

September 6, 2008

“Al I ever really needed to know I learned on the basketball court,” Gov. Sarah Palin has said.

“‘I know this sounds hokey,” she told an interviewer in 2006, “but basketball was a life-changing experience for me.’ The problem for today’s feminists is that the life lessons Palin learned from basketball have made her their biggest nightmare.”

A woman who played against her on the basketball courts during their high school days has some unique and fascinating insights into the mindset of the woman that I believe will be our next Vice President.

Jessica Gavora, writing in an article titled, “Game Changer: Will the battle of 2008 turn out to have been won on the playing fields of Alaska?” has this to offer: (more…)

Wow, That Hot Sarah Palin Sure Looks Good In Her… Character

August 31, 2008

Sarah Palin is a real pretty lady.  She’s got that “hot librarian” thing going on, no doubt about it.

But this former Miss. Alaska runner-up looks best of all where it counts the very most: on the inside.

This woman is simply amazing.  I am looking at her with increasing admiration building toward awe.

This is a woman who – shortly after being elected as Governor – fired the Governor’s chef because “her children could fix their own breakfast and sandwiches.”

This is a Governor who put the private jet purchased by the previous Governor with state money on eBay.

This is a Governor who sold the Governor’s limousine and instead drives her Volkswagon Jetta to work.

This woman is better than any giant-killer; she’s the slayer of the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere.”

Last year, this woman “vetoed 13 percent of the state’s proposed budget for capital projects. The cuts, the Anchorage Daily News said, ‘may be the biggest single-year line-item veto total in state history.'”

Now, that is a woman I can look at all day!

Sarah Palin is a pulchritudinous champion of the people against pork, corruption, and pretentious hoity-toity disconnect between leaders and the people they are supposed to serve has a remarkable personal story.  If you read on, you’ll get to see a titillating picture… (more…)