Posts Tagged ‘state’

Just In Case You Want To Know Why Progressive Liberalism Is In Bed With Islamic Fascism. Because Basically, They’re One And The Same

May 15, 2014

It’s really an amazing thing to see: the love affair between Islamic fascist jihadism and the progressive left.

I long ago documented Barack Obama’s LONG association with radical Islam.

You start throwing out radical names of dangerous people that Obama has been associated with and a pattern emerges:  the aforementioned Davis, Jeremiah Wright (see also here and here and here), Khalid al-Mansour (more here), Rashid Khalidi, Tony Rezko, Bill Ayers.  And you realize that Obama has been steeped in a profoundly Marxist worldview.  Obama isn’t stupid; he knows that the American people don’t want that ideology.  But no one can conceal his worldview completely.  Critical observers saw it clearly.

Khalid al-Monsour and Rashid Khalidi are bad, bad news if you AREN’T a radical Muslim who is very, very comfortable with terrorism in the name of your ideology.

And the left’s intimate love-affair with radical extremist (violent as hell) Islam run deep, deep, DEEP.  Just recently the uberleftist Brandeis University “disinvited” a female Muslim who has refused to shut her mouth about the viciousness of Islam toward women.  And the soon-to-open 9/11 Museum is taking a lot of flack because it has words such as “Islamic extremism” and “jihadism.”

This brave Muslim woman wanted to tell the truth about what is going on in the lives of these poor, oppressed women who are forced to undergo genital mutilation, endure rapes without having the right to report crimes against them, not be able to drive, not able to even leave the house without an escort, wear a giant tent called a hijab that covers everything but their veiled eyes and the tips of their feet, etc.

And how DARE she do that!  It’s an OUTRAGE!  And liberal Democrats are FURIOUS.  Furious enough to attack her for the cardinal sin of being “intolerant.”

Hint: it sure aint Republicans getting behind these Muslim whitewashers of truth and reason.

So there’s a good question for discussion: why the hell would liberals (well, PROGRESSIVE liberals given the fact that these cockroaches have nothing to do with ACTUAL liberalism) would be such ardent supporters of the people who quite possibly despise them even more than I do.

The answer is actually very simple.

The most fundamental reason is the fact that progressive “liberalism” is based on racism and the fabrication of various racial minority groups into a voting bloc.  Basically, if you recognize and affirm what a truly inferior and pathetic human being you are, and therefore see yourself as a victim of everybody and everything you disagree with, you too can be a “liberal.”

And radical Muslims – yes, terrorists like Osama bin Laden – very much and in the exact same “liberal” tradition view themselves as “victims” of the same “capitalism” and “Christendom” that progressive liberals so ardently despise.

Given that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend,” and given that jihadist Islamic fascists hate most of the same things that progressive liberals hate, they are bedfellows.  Even though these Muslim fanatics would love nothing more than to slit the throats of every progressive liberal on the planet when they’re through using them as useful idiots and ideological human shields.

It boils down to this: if you’re a black Muslim in America today, which party and which president do you vote for?

I’ll leave it to Nation of Islam founder Lois Farrakhan to put that one to bed for me:

“You are the instruments that God is gonna use to bring about universal change, and that is why Barack has captured the youth. And he has involved young people in a political process that they didn’t care anything about. That’s a sign. When the Messiah speaks, the youth will hear, and the Messiah is absolutely speaking.”

Oh, yes, when Obama campaign chief David Axelrod called Obama “black Jesus” and when liberal Newsweek editor Evan Thomas said Obama is “sort of God” and when liberal idiot Spike Lee said you can divide history into BB before Barack and AB After Barack; when Obama literally has such a God-complex that he made the whole nation and the flag which symbolizes that nation about himself, when senior Obama White House advisors literally go to churches to preach Obama; and most definitely when liberals are selling “artwork” that pictures Obama’s face and phrases such as “prophecy fulfilled,” they are mouthing Louis Farrakhan.

But you’ve got to ask, why do liberals love Islamic radicals so much?  Why are the two ideologies bedfellows?

Because they’ve got an awful (and I emphasize these people are truly “awful”) lot in common besides the fact that Muslims tend to be racial minorities and therefore are held sacrosanct by the Democrat Party no matter how utterly wicked and violent and rabid they are.  Not that being wicked, violent or rabid in any way, shape or form is a barrier to being a Democrat, mind you.

Other than the racial minority thing, which is frankly enough to solidify the connection between liberal Democrats and the radical jihadist fascist left all by its lonesome, Islamic fascist have three other things that progressive liberals hold dear:

The second thing that binds Islamic fascists and liberalism together is a love of fascism and the exaltation of the State as God.  That is a cornerstone of both fanatic Islam and fanatic progressive liberalism alike.

Muslims refer to the concept of Khilafah.  Basically, think of the world as one Muslim Caliphate.  And you have the dream of Muslims.

Liberals want the same damn thing: they want one-world government.  They want a mega-socialist all-powerful totalitarian State.

Now, progressive liberals might argue that Muslims want to rule in the name of God and liberals want a godlike all-powerful State that has absolute authority over human lives entirely apart from God.  But in point of fact, the two become the same thing.

In North Korea, dictator Kim Il-Sung, then Kim Jong Il and now Kim Jong-Un are worshiped as GOD in their atheist state.

In the atheist state of the People’s Republic of China, Chairman Mao was likewise worshiped as GOD.

Leftists cannot help themselves.  In order to BE a leftist, you have to have the insanely arrogant belief that YOU should be the one to pull or push up or down all the levers and YOU should be the one who pushes or doesn’t push all of the buttons of state.  Liberals don’t believe that individuals ought to have the freedom to govern their own lives and their own affairs; rather, they feel that THEY ought to have the power to FORCE individuals to comply with what THEY want.  Or else face the power of their State.

The most rabid Muslims really aren’t very different.

Put another way, both the Ayatollah AND Barack Obama love to dictate government by use of “executive orders.”  See here and here for just two of myriad examples of our Thug-in-Chief’s abuse of power, of the separation of powers and of the Constitution.

The third thing both the progressive liberal left and radical Islamic jihadist fascism have in common is an utter contempt for and hostility to Christianity.

Piss Christ was the result of a liberal “artist” being paid government dollars from a VERY liberal National Endowment for the Arts program created by DEMOCRATS.

I wonder how Democrats would have voted for “Piss Mohammed.”  I think all reasonable people know what these cowardly liberal cockroaches would have done.

Progressive liberal Democrats are doing everything they possibly can to advance an anti-Christian agenda to overthrow Judeo-Christianity as the moral framework for society.  Because they think they’ve got a far better framework.

The fourth thing that progressive liberal Democrats and their jihadist Islamic fascists both have in common is a rabid intolerance of free speech.  You need to understand why both come to the same exact perspective from opposite ends of the spectrum: for Muslims, the suppression of free speech and individual freedom and liberty is all about the fact that in Islam the individual is nothing and the Islamic State is EVERYTHING.  And thus you have the right to shut up in Islam if you disagree with Sharia or the Khilafah Caliphate State.  In progressive liberalism, the suppression of free speech and individual liberty is based on the opposite of Christianity: in Christianity, you are created in the image of God and you have God-given rights, including the right of free speech and individual freedom and liberty.  Under progressive liberalism, you are nothing but DNA (i.e. chemicals) conditioned by your environment; you have no free will; you are merely a herd animal.  And liberals view themselves as your masters who reserve for themselves the right to make all of your herd decisions for you.  And so under progressive liberalism, you have the right to shut up if you disagree with political correctness or the Socialist Welfare State.

What the left has done is as fascinating as it is dishonest and hypocritical.  Think of 1978 and the ACLU-backed ruling that Nazis had the right to march through a town (Skokie, Illinois) that was heavily populated by Jewish death camp survivors.

This was, of course, racism at its worst and its ugliest, given the history of 6 million Jews murdered like insects during the Nazi Holocaust.

But, under the guise of liberalism, free speech was so sacred, so sacrosanct, that even the very ugliest speech needed to be protected at all possible costs.

Now, fast forward a few decades to Donald Sterling, a man whom the left wants to strip a one-billion-PLUS dollar franchise from against his will because he said a bunch of ugly racist garbage over what he thought was a private phone line.

Let me explain what happened: liberals took advantage of free speech to get their feet and their ideology in the door and then they slammed that door shut.  They don’t need it any more.  You have the right to shut up.  Or lose your property (like Donald Sterling) or your career (like the Mozilla CEO who committed the unpardonable sin of believing he had the freedom to donate to a political cause liberals don’t support).

Don’t tell me that the precedent of going after a racist like Sterling won’t soon be exploited to go after Christians like me who believe God rather than Obama when it comes to homosexual marriage.

Think of the bastions of liberal progressivism otherwise known as “universities.”  Think of what recently came out of a liberal progressive student who basically has the same job that Obama had when HE was a liberal fanatic at Harvard:

Sandra Korn, a senior who writes a column for the Harvard Crimson newspaper, thinks radical leftism is the only permissible political philosophy, and the First Amendment only hinders colleges from brainwashing students with her viewpoint.

Stop and think (liberals being incapable of either being that as fascists they love to rush to exploit the emergency of “crisis”): liberals love the idea of destroying a Donald Sterling because, racist (LIBERAL) roach that he is, they know that they can exploit the legitimate moral revulsion against racism to “progressively” demonize OTHER areas – such as opposition to homosexuality or opposition to big government, or support for voter IDs, etc., etc. ad nauseum – to their heart’s content.

Progressive liberals, if anything, are even MORE rabidly intolerant against free speech than the most fanatic Islamic fascists.

So you see, on numerous fronts, to be a radical terrorist Muslim jihadist fascist is to be a radical totalitarian liberal progressive fascist.  The two have the same basic worldview and it is therefore no surprise at all that one protects the other.

If you get in the way of the machinery of either one, they will crush you.

 

 

 

Advertisements

Most Liberal State New York Is THE LEAST FREE IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY (Now Let’s Talk About Texas…)

June 15, 2011

This is what Democrats want for the entire country:

Slaves of New York
State is dead last in liberties
By CARL CAMPANILE
Posted: 1:16 AM, June 14, 2011

Unshackle New York!

New York’s notoriously high taxes and public spending, combined with restrictive “nanny” policies, make it the “least free” state in the country, a new study has found.

The Empire State ranked 50th in George Mason University’s biannual “Freedom in the States” rankings.

“New York has by far the highest taxes in the country,” the study reads, citing steep levies on property, income and corporations compared to other states.

The high taxes, in turn, fuel massive spending, according to the analysis by George Mason’s Mercatus Center, a libertarian think tank.

“Spending on public welfare, hospitals, electric power, transit, employee retirement . . . are well above national norms,” concludes the report, which covers the 2007-through-2009 period.

Ranking worst in the categories of economic freedom and fiscal policy, New York also landed near the bottom for the categories of personal freedom (48th) and regulatory policy (40th).

The study cites New York’s restrictive gun-control and anti-smoking laws and sky-high cigarette taxes and the Big Apple’s ban on trans fats.

The researchers also slam New York’s “excessive” home-schooling regulations and its strictest-in-the-nation health-insurance rules.

The authors rap New York for curbing the rights of individual property owners. “Eminent domain abuse,” the report says, “is rampant and unchecked.”

On the plus side, the report praises New York for relaxing its marijuana laws.

Co-author Jason Sorens said New York has the opportunity to improve its freedom rating, thanks to actions taken this year by Gov. Cuomo and the state Legislature.

“Cuomo insisted on balancing the budget through spending cuts rather than tax increases. It will help New York’s rating down the road,” said Sorens, a political-science professor at the University of Buffalo.

Sorens also said New York could move out of the cellar with across-the-board tax cuts and additional trims in spending and by reining in home-school regulations.

And he said New York will score significant points if Albany passes a law to legalize gay marriage, which he considers an advancement of personal freedoms.

“The most liberal state in the country can surely find the political will to legalize same-sex partnerships of some kind,” he said.

But for now, Sorens said, New York is a “nanny state” and “the least free state”

Joining New York near the bottom of the list are Massachusetts, Hawaii, California, and New Jersey.

The top five “freedom” states are New Hampshire, whose motto is fittingly “Live Free or Die,” South Carolina, Indiana, Idaho and Missouri.

It is no wonder that young people dream of fleeing New York the way young people used to dream of fleeing the communist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics:

New Yorkers under 30 plan to flee city, says new poll; cite high taxes, few jobs as reasons
BY KENNETH LOVETT
DAILY NEWS ALBANY BUREAU CHIEF
Friday, May 13, 2011

ALBANY – Escape from New York is not just a movie – it’s also a state of mind.

A new Marist College poll shows that 36% of New Yorkers under the age of 30 are planning to leave New York within the next five years – and more than a quarter of all adults are planning to bolt the Empire State.

The New York City suburbs, with their high property values and taxes, are leading the exodus, the poll found.

Of those preparing to leave, 62% cite economic reasons like cost of living, taxes – and a lack of jobs.

“A lot of people are questioning the affordability of the state,” said Lee Miringoff, director of the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion.

An additional 38% cite climate, quality of life, overcrowding, a desire to be closer to family, retirement or schools.

The latest census showed New York’s overall population actually increased, though parts of upstate shed population and jobs.

A full 53% think the worst is yet to come for the state’s economy, while 44% say things should start improving.

And why is this exodus going on?

Because liberals run New York, and liberals are fascists.  And most people can’t WAIT to get away from this cancer on freedom and democracy:

For more than 15 years, New York state has led the country in domestic outmigration: For every American who comes here, roughly two depart for other states. This outmigration slowed briefly following the onset of the Great Recession. But a recent Marist poll suggests that the rate is likely to increase: 36 percent of New Yorkers under 30 plan to leave over the next five years. Why are all these people fleeing?

For one thing, according to a recent survey in Chief Executive, our state has the second-worst business climate in the country. (Only California ranks lower.) People go where the jobs are, so when a state repels businesses, it repels residents, too.

Indeed, the poll also found that 62 percent of New Yorkers planning to leave cited economic factors — including cost of living (30 percent), taxes (19 percent) and the job environment (10 percent) — as the main reason.

Upstate, a big part of the problem is extraordinarily high property taxes. New York has the country’s 15 highest-taxed counties, including Nassau and Westchester, which rank Nos. 1 and 2.

Most of the property tax goes toward paying the state’s Medicaid bill — which is unlikely to diminish, since the state’s most powerful lobby, the alliance of the hospital workers’ union and hospital management, has gone unchallenged by our new governor, Andrew Cuomo.

Of course, people shouldn’t be allowed to leave.  People who try to leave should be shot.  New York bureaucrats should follow other the examples of other commissars and build walls with barbed wire and machine gun nests to keep the proletariet in their proper places.

And, of course, if you make the ENTIRE NATION  like New York – which is exactly what Barry Hussein is trying to do – there will be no place left to flee to.

Meanwhile, conservative Texas is gaining enormously in population, and nearly forty percent of every single job created in the country the last two years was created in the state of Texas.

So just keep telling us about “failed Republican policies” while touting all your successes, you demonic liberal liars.

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.

Peggy West: Democrats Continue Psychologically Unhinged And Brain-Dead Stupid Denunciations Of Arizona Law

July 1, 2010

Peggy West is your typical Democrat.  That is to say, she is at once incredibly ignorant and incredibly demagogic.

She doesn’t have to have a valid reason to oppose the Arizona law.  After all, she is a liberal: what part does she possibly have with “reason”?

Here’s the story via NBC affiliate TMJ4 in Milwaukee:

MILWAUKEE – The Milwaukee County Board spent part of the day debating a measure that would call for the county to boycott doing business with companies in Arizona.

Communities around the nation have passed similar measures in response to a law in Arizona that makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally.

There was an odd moment during the debate when Supervisor Peggy West stood up and seemed to be confused about her geography.  “If this was Texas, which is a state that is directly on the border with Mexico, and they were calling for a measure like this saying that they had a major issue with undocumented people flooding their borders, I would have to look twice at this.  But this is a state that is a ways removed from the border,” West said during debate.

And here’s the video:

Make no mistake: this is no dumber than any other reason liberals have given to attack the Arizona law.  The only difference is that this particular reason can be refuted with a globe or a map that would likely be found in any kindergarten classroom, whereas many of the other stupid reasons require the ability to read adult-level materials, such as the Arizona law itself.

Reading the ten page law was too much intellectual effort for Obama Attorney General Eric Holder.  So he just demonized the law from a brain-dead ignorant dumbass level.

Frankly, I have more intellectual respect for Peggy West.  I mean, maybe she’s smart enough to realize that she’s too stupid to be the president or the attorney general, unlike Barack Obama and Eric Holder.  And that would make her smarter than both of them.

I recently posted the following under a different title.  But it seems like a good thing to post again, just so we can see Democrats at work:

Watch the video of a pro-illegal immigration proponent literally threatening a racist murder spree against white people:

It doesn’t matter if virtually all the actual violent acts and threats of violent acts are coming from the left.  It’s all the tea party’s fault.

It also doesn’t matter that Article. IV., Section. 4 of the Constitution states, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union, a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion.”

It doesn’t matter that the Demagogue-in-Chief has cynically refused to do his constitutionally-mandated duty protecting Arizona in favor of holding border security hostage to his Marxist political agenda.

It doesn’t matter that Phoenix, Arizona is the world’s second worst cities for kidnappings in the entire world behind only Mexico City.

It doesn’t matter that Mexican drug gangs have literally taken over Arizona hilltops, where they are maintaining continuous observation posts that a helpless Arizona police force can’t do anything about:

Mexican Gangs Maintain Permanent Lookout Bases in Hills of Arizona
By Adam Housley
Published June 22, 2010

Mexican drug cartels have set up shop on American soil, maintaining lookout bases in strategic locations in the hills of southern Arizona from which their scouts can monitor every move made by law enforcement officials, federal agents tell Fox News.

The scouts are supplied by drivers who bring them food, water, batteries for radios — all the items they need to stay in the wilderness for a long time.

Click here for more on this story from Adam Housley.

“To say that this area is out of control is an understatement,” said an agent who patrols the area and asked not to be named. “We (federal border agents), as well as the Pima County Sheriff Office and the Bureau of Land Management, can attest to that.”

It doesn’t matter that even the federal government is warning that large swaths of Arizona are now off-limits because Mexican drug gangs have overrun it.

It doesn’t matter that Arizona is so overrun with criminal illegals that the federal government is putting up more and more warning signs telling American citizens that they are not safe to enter their own country.

From Great Satan, Inc.:

It doesn’t matter that criminal Mexican gangs are literally threatening Arizona police officers with assassination:

Arizona Cops Threatened by Mexican Drug Cartel
Ominous Threat From Mexican Dealers Is the First Directed at U.S. Law Enforcement

By RAY SANCHEZ
June 24, 2010

A Mexican drug cartel has threatened police officers in Arizona who confiscated a marijuana shipment, prompting the small town department to warn its officers to remain armed and have radios with them at all times, and keep their body armor handy.

Police and experts believe the warning against the Nogales, Ariz., cops marks the first time that powerful Mexican drug cartels, used to bribing and bullying police south of the border, have targeted U.S. officers.

It doesn’t matter if Arizona police officers are already being gunned down by AK-47-wielding drug gangs.

It doesn’t matter that an outgunned Arizona police force are literally begging for help.

It doesn’t matter that out-of-control mobs of illegal immigrants and Hispanic supporters of illegal immigration have even attacked the police.

It doesn’t matter that the Arizona law is completely constitutional, or that the Arizona law actually merely gives the state the power to enforce existing federal law, or that Arizona actually watered the law down to deal with the avalanche of lies being told by the left:

The simple fact of the matter is that the federal law is FAR “harsher” or “more racist” than the Arizona law (see also here for a more detailed analysis).  The Supreme Court has ruled unanimously (that means even Ruth Bader Ginsburg voted for it!) in the 2005 Mueller v. Mena case that the federal authorities have the right to demand citizenship status at any time for any reason without the need to demonstrate reasonable suspicion [Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93 (2005) (“the officers did not need reasonable suspicion to ask Mena for her . . . immigration status.”)].  The Arizona law is actually FAR more restrictive than the current federal law that the Obama White House WILL NOT ENFORCE.  And the Arizona law is completely constitutional for that reason.  The left has demonized, demagogued, and most certainly flat-out lied about the Arizona law.

[See here for more].

It doesn’t matter that the leftist whackjobs – including the leftist whackjobs in the Obama administration who are going to attack Arizona – have not even bothered to read the law that they’re demonizing.  Obama is suing Arizona for a law that is no different from the federal law, while ignoring all the “sanctuary cities” that have been in total violation of the federal law.

It doesn’t matter that illegal immigration is costing the American taxpayers billions of dollars every single year that are overwhelming our economy:

“Costs on average for every illegal alien headed household about $19,600 more if they consume the city services than they pay in taxes, so the rest of the taxpayers have to part costs. Schools become overcrowded, English as second language programs push out other programs.”

It doesn’t matter that the same illegal immigrants who are a burden to our country are in fact a burden to their own damn country.  And that if they’re a burden to their own country, how in the hell are they not a burden to ours?

It doesn’t matter that the very Mexicans who are demonizing our tolerant immigration laws don’t seem to care about how harsh the Mexican government is about dealing with THEIR illegal immigrants.

It doesn’t matter that the violence in Mexico that is clearly coming here is so out-of-control in Mexico itself that the man expected to win election as the next governor in the Mexican state of Tamaulipas was just gunned down and murdered.

None of that matters to the despicable left.

The Democrat Party demands that nothing be done at all to stop illegal immigration because they believe they can use the issue to demagogue their way to winning the Hispanic vote.  The Democrat Party demands that Arizona not be allowed to do anything whatsoever to protect themselves.

It doesn’t matter that the Democrat Party and the mainstream media that writes their propaganda are officially hypocritical, demagogic, and yes, frankly both evil and treasonous as well.

We are becoming an out-of-control society on the verge of collapse, and we need to purge ourselves of Democrats as much as we need to purge illegal immigrants.

Arizona Law Working Beautifully – And It Hasn’t Even Taken Effect Yet

May 4, 2010

CBS does it’s ideologically liberal best in the story below to paint the exodus of illegal immigrants from Arizona as an epic tragedy, but most Arizonans are doing a Snoopy dance over the departures:

May 3, 2010
Immigrant Families Leave Arizona, Fearing Law
At Least 100,000 Illegal Immigrants Flee the State Fearing Legislation; Some Citizens Angered by Financial Impact

By Kelly Cobiella

(CBS) On a dusty block in Phoenix, 15 years of the Quintana family’s possessions are for sale.

Manuela Quintana said that they decided to leave when the Arizona governor signed the new immigration law.

For years, their family thrived with jobs in restaurants and construction, reports CBS News correspondent Kelly Cobiella. Their 10 children were born here and are U.S. citizens. Both she and her husband are undocumented, and currently unemployed.

She said that her biggest fear is being put in jail and having her children taken away from her. Just the thought of moving scares their 12-year-old daughter Graciela.

“I think it’s going to be my worst day,” Graciela said.

Two years ago, this park was filled with families every weekend. Arizona was home to more than half a million illegal immigrants. Since then, at least 100,000 have left.

Kyle Kester is the Quintana’s landlord – he’s lost seven tenants in the past week.

“I would say on this block alone we have 20 vacancies at least,” Kester said. “It’s not just illegal immigrants who are affected by this. I was born in the U.S. and it’s hurting me now.”

Graciela’s best friend fled to California with her family Saturday. She didn’t get to say good-bye.

Manuela knows she broke the law when she came here 15 years ago. But she doesn’t see herself as a criminal.

“A criminal is someone who kills,” she said in Spanish. “I just want to work.”

The family packed up before dawn today and headed north to Colorado. Manuela says she’s lost hope in this state. She thinks she’ll find it again in another.

I didn’t realize that rapists who don’t kill their victims aren’t criminals.  I didn’t realize that thieves and molesters and swindlers aren’t criminals.

But if that’s what it takes to claim that sneaking into America and utterly disrespecting our laws and our boundaries isn’t breaking the law, well, I’m not surprised.

Kyle Kester – a man who didn’t mind if he rented to illegals  as long as they paid him – says he’s being hurt by the law now.  Well, cry me a river.

Let’s just say Kester represents a very selfish few:

From Rasmussen:

The Arizona legislature has now passed the toughest measure against illegal immigration in the country, authorizing local police to stop and check the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being in the country illegally.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds that 70% of likely voters in Arizona approve of the legislation, while just 23% oppose it.

I don’t doubt for a minute that other people, such as employers who pay their employees in cash (at a drastically cute rate to take advantage of their status) are going to be “hurt” by the law, too.

According to a study done by the Heritage Foundation, the average illegal immigrant receives $19,000 a year more in benefits than he or she pays in taxes.  And that adds up to more than $90 billion drained out of the economy every year.

Illegal immigrants are a huge tax drain on Americans.

So I’m thinking as a bunch of illegal immigrants come cruising to California to collect benefits because no one will hassle them here, our near bankrupt state will just keep getting nearer and near to going bankrupt.

Scott Brown Files Lawsuits Against Two Coakley Criminal Tactics

January 17, 2010

Is it okay for a political candidate to use state resources to promote their election?  No?  Is it okay to transparently lie about a candidate with provably untrue demagogic propaganda?  No?

Well, then Martha Coakley deserves to be behind bars more than she deserves to be a United States Senator.  And the fact that too many of the United States Senators we now HAVE deserve to be behind bars is because too many people tend to overlook blatant garbage like this:

From the Gateway Pundit:

This email was sent out earlier from the Scott Brown Campaign:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CONTACT: Felix Browne
January 16, 2010

MEDIA ADVISORY FOR TODAY

Dan Winslow, counsel for the Scott Brown for U.S. Senate campaign, will hold a media availability to announce the filing of a criminal complaint against the Massachusetts Democratic Party regarding a recent mailing paid for and sent by the Massachusetts Democratic Party. Winslow will make a statement and take reporters’ questions at MassGOP Headquarters in Boston TODAY at 4:00 PM.

Massachusetts GOP Headquarters
85 Merrimac Street, 4th Floor
Boston.

Scott Brown filed this complaint against the SEIU in December.
FOX News Boston reported:

BOSTON – Republican Senate hopeful Scott Brown has filed a complaint with the State Ethics Commission after a report that a union backing rival Martha Coakley used state resources to urge workers to volunteer for Coakley’s campaign.

The report by FOX25 said the Service Employees International Union used state computers and e-mail addresses to direct state employees to volunteer for Coakley, the Democratic state attorney general.

UPDATE: Today’s complaint was in response to this horrible Democrat Party mailer:

— Brown filed a complaint against the democratic party for this outrageous attack.
The Washington Post reported:

Republican Scott Brown charged Saturday that a Democratic mailing against his U.S. Senate campaign violates a Massachusetts law prohibiting false statements against a political candidate.

The cover of a four-page mailer sent by the Massachusetts Democratic Party says, “1,736 women were raped in Massachusetts in 2008. Scott Brown wants hospitals to turn them all away.”

Brown is a state senator, and in 2005 he filed an amendment that would have allowed workers at religious hospitals or with firmly held religious beliefs to avoid giving emergency contraception to rape victims. The amendment failed, and Brown voted in favor of a bill allowing the contraception. He also voted to override a veto issued by his fellow Republican, then-Gov. Mitt Romney.

UPDATE: Even some hardcore liberals are upset with the Coakley rape ad.

UPDATE: The penalty is $1,000 or up to 6 months in jail.

A section of the Massachusetts General Laws prohibits false statements against political candidates that are designed or tend “to aid or to injure or defeat such candidate,” with a penalty of to $1,000 fine and up to six months in prison.

Brown campaign legal counsel Daniel Winslow said, “People can shade things and spin things, but it has to have some kernel of truth.”

Brown is locked in a dead heat with Democrat Martha Coakley, the state’s attorney general, in the race to succeed the late Sen. Edward Kennedy. Independent Joseph L. Kennedy, who is not related to the famed Kennedy family, is also on Tuesday’s ballot.

Winslow called on the Democratic Party and the Coakley campaign to disavow the mailer’s claim. The Brown campaign plans to wait until Tuesday, the next business day, before seeking a legal remedy, he said.

UPDATE: Here’s the video from the press conference this afternoon.

We’ve seen plenty of Democrat cheating through labor unions.  That happens all the time, and while despicable, is not beyond the pale.  But that ad Martha Coakley ran IS beyond the pale.  Way, WAY beyond.

It’s not enough to say that Martha Coakley is dishonest after seeing that ad stating that Scott Brown wanted every single woman who was raped in Massachusetts in 2008 to be “turned away.”  It is rabidly dishonest.  And for that matter, it is ideological kook nutjob dishonest.

It is the dishonesty of a pathologically immoral and mentally unstable person who will stop at absolutely nothing to win.

I’ve written an article on Martha Coakley’s bizarre and frankly dangerous dismissal of the Civil Rights Act in her dismissal of Catholics’ and other Christians’ civil rights.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act reads:

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 USC 2000e, makes it unlawful for an employer to hire or discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his/her compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment, because of an individual’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin. This covers hiring, firing, promotions and all workplace conduct.

Martha Coakley had this exchange with a radio talk show host:

Ken Pittman: Right, if you are a Catholic, and believe what the Pope teaches that any form of birth control is a sin. ah you don’t want to do that.

Martha Coakley: No we have a separation of church and state Ken, lets be clear.

Ken Pittman: In the emergency room you still have your religious freedom.

Martha Coakley: (……uh, eh…um..) The law says that people are allowed to have that. You can have religious freedom but you probably shouldn’t work in the emergency room.

It has long been realized that many Americans oppose abortion on moral grounds.  But that in no way matters to Martha Coakley, who in hard-core totalitarian-liberal ideology demands that all Americans offer dead babies as sacrifice to the bloody gods of abortion.

This goes beyond the legality or illegality of abortion.  This goes to Martha Coakley wanting to force people to do something they morally oppose, or else forfeit their careers which required years of costly training.

Thomas Jefferson said:

“To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” –Thomas Jefferson

If it is “sinful and tyrannical” just to compel someone to subsidize ideas which he disbelieves and abhors with taxes, how much more sinful and tyrannical is it to compel a person to actively perform those “ideas” or lose his or her very livelihood?

It is evil of Martha Coakley to have such fundamentally intolerant views (and that’s not me speaking; that’s Thomas Jefferson); but Coakley then goes way beyond that extreme viewpoint.  She proceeds to accuse anyone who harbors pro-life views as being a kind of monster who would “turn away” rape victims.

Pro-life people do not care about the life of an innocent unborn child; they merely hate rape victims.  And so their careers should be destroyed.

If medical professionals who oppose abortion are so few and therefore protecting their civil rights so irrelevant, then why not merely have one of the OTHER medical professionals who support abortion administer the drugs?

No, Coakley says.  You must ALL offer sacrifice to the gods of abortion or be destroyed.  There can be no exceptions.  Everyone must directly take part in abortion or suffer the consequences.  We can tolerate NO demonstration of individual morality, lest people start to question and the entire religion collapse.

And it is within this dangerous, intolerant, civil-rights-abandoning, hateful view that Martha Coakley proceeds to viciously and hatefully lie about Scott Brown’s record.

Scott Brown did not vote to “turn away” 1,736 rape victims from Massachusetts hospitals.  He did not vote to turn away a single rape victim from a single hospital.  All he did was offer a measure to allow those who personally opposed abortion on moral grounds not to be forced to administer abortion.

To go even further, Brown went ahead and voted for the bill in question after his measure was defeated.

And to go even further yet, Brown even voted to override a veto from Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.

Now, I oppose Brown’s voting for the bill without the measure on abortion, and I oppose Brown’s voting to override his governor’s veto.  But that just goes even farther to prove that Martha Coakley is a vicious and hateful liar who fundamentally believes in crushing the rights of anyone who opposes her.

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.

Sarah Palin No Pork Queen

September 4, 2008

Sarah Palin is a former beauty queen.  But she most certainly is NOT a pork queen.

Pork, of course, refers to earmark subsides doled out to states on the federal government dole.  Often, it is given out to Senators and Representatives on the basis of their seniority or clout.

There are a spat of articles out there talking about all the pork that Sarah Palin received, and even applied for.  And, as is often the case with hit pieces, the media tells the truth, but only part of it – the parts that contribute to an agenda without the benefit of the parts that would undermine that agenda.

Alaska receives more earmarks per capita than any other state.  But that is no surprise, when a few relevant details become known.  Because of its special nature, Alaska will likely ALWAYS receive more earmarks per capita than any other state.

An Associated Press article – with a highly suggestive and frankly biased title – begins by saying the following: (more…)